An illusory surplus

So, the Auckland Regional Council made a surplus last year, and the right, including the anti-rates brigade and Auckland Mayor John Banks, are calling on them to blow it on a rates cut or funding Auckland's rugby world cup stadium. Except that when you delve into the figures, the surplus is illusory - it's an artefact of cashflow, of the ARC receiving some money earlier than expected (a $20 million payment from the government), while not spending as much as expected due to projects being delayed. To put it another way, it's as if they'd been paid early while several bills had been delayed in the post. The money is all effectively budgetted and spent, but Banks et al think they should blow it on a new TV, just to celebrate the fact that they have money in the bank.

No sane person would manage their personal finances this way. But according to the right, this is how we should run New Zealand's biggest city. Cthulhu help us if they ever get back into power.

Not much news today

Even Russell has been reduced to blogging about cats.

Screw this, I'm going into town in search of some source material.

The problem with primaries

The US election started last week with the Iowa caucuses, and tomorrow (actually late this afternoon, in the case of one small hamlet) we'll see the second round, in New Hampshire. And in the intervening time, the problem with the US system of staggered primaries has become apparent. Barrack Obama led the Democratic caucus, garnering 37.6% of the vote. And in the wake of that victory, the ground has sharply shifted in other states as voters have flocked to back the winner and the media narrative has become one of "Clinton in trouble". Obama is now leading in New Hampshire (previously he had trailed Clinton by around 10 points), and in South Carolina (which is the next official primary; while Michigan will be holding its primary next week, the Democrats are refusing to seat their delegates as they have violated South Carolina's sacred right to be third. Or something). And given the way US primary elections work, if Obama takes those three early primaries, his candidacy will then become "inevitable" (at least in the eyes of the media). Clinton can probably hang on to contest Super Duper Tuesday in February, but she will be in serious trouble, and there's a high chance people won't turn out to vote for her because she is "losing".

No matter what you think of the virtues of the particular candidates (and really, I don't give much of a damn between them; the important thing is that neither is Bush, or a committed clone), this is simply crazy. It is highly likely that, due simply to timing, democrats in a few tiny states will effectively determine their party's candidate - despite holding between them only 2.5% of the 4367 delegates attending the convention. Whichever way you look at it, that simply isn't democratic.

Climate change: more denial in the Herald

And it's all FAQ stuff from Brian Leyland. "The world was warmer during the Middle Ages" (wrong), sunspots and cosmic rays (wrong and wrong), we can't trust the projections (wrong), the world has not warmed since 1998 (wrong), and even though it's not happening, it'll be good for us anyway (wrong. Really, really wrong). And then he has the cheek to claim the government has been "badly advised". Hardly. They listen to scientists who base their opinions on the evidence, not flat earthers funded by the oil industry. As for the Herald, I doubt they'd let the flat earth society or holocaust deniers push their delusion as fact under the cover of a news story; why do they allow it for climate change deniers?

But the real target of Leyland's ire is the government's National Energy Strategy, Powering Our Future. This sets out a loose plan to shift our energy supply in a more sustainable direction, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also to ensure sustainability in future in the face of declining fossil fuel supplies. A key part of the strategy is a strong push for renewable electricity generation, in the form of wind and eventually wave power, and a phasing out of dirty fossil fuel generation (though some of this is inevitable as plants age and gas supplies dry up). To Leyland - a power engineer by trade - this is anathema; the primary aim of an energy strategy should be to ensure that we have a "reliable and economic" (meaning "cheap") supply of electricity, and bugger the environmental externalities (which aren't just limited to climate change. What industrial users save on the price of coal generation, the rest of us pay for in pollution and lung cancer). But the market has already judged the reliability and economic case for renewables, and the results speak for themselves: the amount of wind generation has doubled in the last year, and we now have 2,000 MW of new generation in the process of being consented. This is well in excess of forecast demand growth, and well in excess of even the government's 2030 projections (I have no idea where Leyland gets his 6000 MW figure from - presumably, his arse). And that's without any subsidies, based solely on the consenting risks and an appreciation of the real cost of wind vs thermal generation (something Leyland likes to ignore). As for expense, the cumulative cost to the economy of this transition to 90% renewable generation is $300 million over 25 years - which is pretty much chicken feed.

Basically, Leyland is yesterday's man, pushing yesterday's dirty technology, unable to understand that the world has moved on, that we now have cleaner (and in many cases cheaper) alternatives, and that it is no longer socially acceptable to environmentally subsidise heavy energy users by ignoring the true costs of thermal generation. In short, this advocate for the fossil fuel industry is a fossil himself.

Time to clean up local body politics

The passage of the Electoral Finance Act has cleaned up parliamentary politics, ensuring that the rich can not buy elections or use anonymous or laundered donations to exercise undue influence in secret. But Parliamentary isn't the only place our democracy is under threat from the pernicious influence of money - many of the same tricks were used in the recent local body elections as well. For example, Palmerston North mayor Jono Naylor's $39,000 campaign to purchase the mayoralty (and "purchase" is the right word - he spent three times as much as his nearest rival, and more than double the amount spent by all other candidates combined) was funded almost entirely by a secret trust, the backers of which remain entirely anonymous (meaning that if they later demand a corrupt payback, the public will be none the wiser). Wellington mayor Kerry Prendergast and Hamilton mayor Bob Simcock used a similar stunt, receiving $49,000 and $35,000 of anonymous and laundered funds respectively.

Given the capacity for corruption in local body politics - one planning decision by the council can make a property developer a fortune - this should alarm us all. It has certainly alarmed the government, and according to the Manawatu Standard ("Govt seeks review of secret gifts" - offline), they are planning a review of the law:

"It is very important that the public has confidence in the transparency of the local electoral process. [said Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta]

"In light of this, the Labour-led Government is committed to working with the Local Government Commission, which is reviewing aspects of the Local Electoral Act and the Local Government Act."

Hopefully this will result in an EFA-style transparency regime to bust the trusts and outlaw anonymous donations on the local level as well as the national one. Otherwise, we are simply inviting corruption in local government.

The most interesting result

Iowa has had its caususes, and they've thrown up the most interesting result possible for the Democrats. With 1758 of 1780 precincts reporting, Barack Obama has a commanding lead, while John Edwards has a wafer thin 0.4% lead over Hillary Clinton. Clinton in third! Which means the nomination is still wide-open. However, this also demonstrates one of the flaws of the staggered primary process as well, in that this sort of close third place in an early primary (one which contributes very few delgates, to boot) would simply sink most candidates, as donors fled to back the "winning" campaign. Clinton will survive, because she has sufficient money to push on to Super Duper Tuesday in February. But if the positions had been reversed, and it was Edwards coming in third, he'd be pretty much out immediately.

The other interesting news is the turnout - 220,000 democrats caucused, compared with 115,000 republicans. As TPM noted, "that is a very big vote in itself".

Primaries

Over at public Address, Graeme Edgeler has a comprehensive guide to the US's complicated primary system.

While I approve of the a party's member's electing its leadership, the way the US parties do it seems rather archaic, and consciously designed to lend a few podunk states vastly disproportionate influence over the nominee (in that candidates who might play well in large states can be effectively vetoed by the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina). OTOH, staggered primaries does lower the cost of participation - it is far cheaper to contest Iowa and New Hampshire (and hope that the donations will flow after a good showing) than it would be to contest a national primary. But still - there has to be a better way than this...

Nandor rumours

Chris Trotter devotes his column today to the rumours (erronously attributed to DPF; actually first seen on Whoar) that green MP Nandor Tanczos will resign from Parliament before the election to make way for co-leader Russel Norman. I have no idea whether the rumours are true - strangely, no-one seems to have actually bothered to ask the Greens about it before rushing into print - but I'd be extremely sorry to see Nandor go. He's been a hard-working and effective MP, a solid voice for the environment, justice, and human rights, and a calm and reasoned advocate of the causes he espouses. Plus, I have to admit to a certain childish glee at the outrage he generates among intolerant traditionalists who think that Parliament should only be a place for dead white males with sticks up their arses, and should not be sullied by dreadlocked hippies. But at the end of the day what Nandor does with his life is his business, and eight years in the Parliamentary zoo is more than we have any right to ask of him. If he wants to call it a day and stand down, it would be a generous move, but the decision is ultimately his to make.

Carnival of the liberals

The 54th carnival of the liberals is up at Neural Gourmet.

No freedom of speech in Saudi Arabia

Fouad al-Farhan runs one of Saudi Arabia's most popular blogs, blogging in support of "freedom, dignity, justice, equality, public participation and the other lost Islamic values". On December 10, he was arrested by the Saudi authorities, and has been detained for the last three weeks without charge. His crime? Criticising Saudi Arabia's pervasive corruption and highlighting the plight of political prisoners. For his efforts, it seems he will now be joining them.

This is the first time a blogger has been jailed in Saudi Arabia, but it is unlikely to be the last. But the Saudi regime regularly jails other writers and activists. Last February, 10 academics were detained as "supporters of terrorism" for advocating democratic reform, while in July two of the country's most prominent reformers were similarly detained. As the web becomes a more powerful forum for advocating change, the Saudi regime will no doubt try and extend its oppression there as well.

If you'd like to protest against this, you can email the Saudi Ambassador to New Zealand (who sadly resides in Australia) here.

Election funding: shifting rhetoric and thwarted plans

As an aside, its interesting to note how the rhetoric from the right against the Electoral Finance Bill has shifted. Six months ago, we were being told that there was no need to regulate third parties, as the existing requirement that advertisers state their identities would ensure that such campaigns were subject to public scrutiny. Now, we're being told that that requirement is a gross imposition, which chills free speech, particularly if it is applied online.

This is simply another example of the bad faith which has motivated the right during this debate. But its also quite revealing of the hopes they had held for this year's election. Under the old law, the web would have been effectively unregulated. It would thus have been possible for the same wealthy individuals and secretive lobby groups who tried to undermine our democracy last election to again spend millions of dollars trying to buy political power for their chosen representatives - except that this time there would have been even less chance of their being found out at an inconvenient moment. Fortunately, the Electoral Finance Act has thwarted that plan - the web is now regulated, just like any other medium. But you can understand why they're so pissed...

Election funding: trolling for prosecution

So some dumbarse has set up a website inviting prosecution under the Electoral Finance Act. This has caused the usual reaction amongst the mouth-breathers in the sewer, but lost in all the outraged squealing is the fact that the site doesn't actually violate the law, or at least not the part of the law they think it does.

The site is unquestionably an "election advertisement" under s5 (1) (i), in that it attempts to persuade people not to vote for a particular party and does not fall under any of the exemptions. But the blunt fact is that as an amateur website, it is highly unlikely to meet the $12,000 spending threshold required for registration. Contrary to all the fear, uncertainty and doubt and all the outraged foaming at the mouth from the right, the law doesn't actually affect ordinary voters wanting to speak their mind. It does affect those who want to spend big money in an effort to influence an election - and so it bloody well should.

Where the site does violate the law is in not carrying a statement setting out the name and address of its promoter (s53 (1) (a) EFA). But that would have been true under the old law as well. Section 221A (1) of the Electoral Act required advertisements relating to an election to carry such a statement, not just within the regulated period as at present, but at all stages of the electoral cycle. This provision exists for very good reason: to ensure that we will know why is trying to buy our democracy, and to prevent (or at least uncover, for the shameless) exactly the sort of secretive, anonymous hate campaign the Brethren waged in 2005.

But I forget: the right thinks that that style of politics is perfectly acceptable.

Correction: OK, so disclosure might not have been required under the old law - that only regulated physical advertisements. But I hardly think its any great imposition for the law to keep pace with technology. Political discussion and advertising have moved online - witness the host of sites the parties set up last election to push their messages. The law should follow. Unlike DPF, I do not think that the web should be a lawless zone, where rich individuals and secretive cults are free to spend unlimited amounts of dirty money in an effort to undermine our democracy and buy a particular electoral outcome. An advertisement is an advertisement, and it should be regulated identically whether it is published on paper on online.

The US election starts today

The US Presidential election starts today, with the Iowa caucuses. Unlike other primaries, which involve a ballot box and a traditional election between a party's candidates, Democrats in Iowa use a somewhat archaic process of people meeting in schools, churches, and public libraries, and choosing their preferred candidate by shuffling to different corners of the room. There's some aspect of preferential voting, as nonviable candidates are eliminated, leaving their supporters free to shuffle to a different group, but the process wouldn't look out of place in the eighteenth century (which is symbolic of the entire US electoral process really).

Currently the three top Democrat candidates - Clinton, Obama, and Edwards - are in a three-way tie for victory. But whichever of them wins is likely to have a far greater chance of going on to gain their party's nomination. Which is rather odd, when you think about it. Turnout tends to be less than 10%, so less than 10% of eligible voters in a state which includes about 1% of the population of the US get to have an enormous influence on who gets to even contest the US presidency, purely as an artefact of timing. Some might even call that... undemocratic.

$100 a barrel

The price of oil has now broken through the US$100 / barrel figure

As I mentioned a couple of months ago (when it looked like oil would break the barrier, but didn't), this doesn't mean the end of the world or an economic recession. The rise in oil prices has been more gradual than during the oil shocks of the 70's, and the increase proportionately less. During George Bush's reign, we've got used to high oil prices, so we'll cope. And on the plus side, high oil prices will help push the market towards alternatives and more efficient use, something which can only be a Good Thing.

One country at a time...

Uzbekistan has abolished the death penalty. I'm not sure how much its worth, given that this is a regime which has been known to boil people alive in oil, but the fact that courts will no longer be handing out death sentences is at least a nominal improvement.

"Free and fair presidential elections"

That's the motto of the Electoral Commission of Kenya. Unfortunately, in their most recent election, it seems they have failed to live up to it. Rather than being free and fair, Kenya's presidential election was fixed by the ruling party. Here's what the EU observation mission had to say:

The General Elections in the Republic of Kenya have fallen short of key international and regional standards for democratic elections. They were marred by a lack of transparency in the processing and tallying of presidential results, which raises concerns about the accuracy of the final result.

"Concerns" being diplomatic-speak for the following:

EU observers reported tallying results from the Kieni and Molo constituencies which contained a significantly lower number of votes for one of the candidates [President Mwai Kibaki] than the ones announced at ECK headquarters

The fix was so blatant that it was immediately challenged, resulting in a suspension in the announcement of results, then a media blackout, then rioting as outraged Kenyans took to the streets in anger. Now over 100 people are dead, and the toll looks set to rise despite the opposition's calls for calm. The opposition is now looking at using people power tactics, as seen in Ukraine, Georgia, and the Philippines, but they rely on the government having a sense of shame. Unfortunately, Kenya's government and security services don't, so I doubt they'll be successful.

The EU observation mission's preliminary report is here [PDF].

Shorter New Zealand Herald

Governments should hand out gongs to their political donors (just ignore what we said yesterday). We need a group of public spirited wealthy men to support political parties, to ensure they pursue sound, sensible and responsible policies, and so they don't have to seek the support of ordinary voters instead.

I had thought such aristocratic attitudes had been strangled at birth in New Zealand. Sadly, it seems they're alive and well in the Herald's editorial team. Still, its nice to know the contempt they hold us in, and the real reason they oppose the Electoral Finance Act.

And is it just me, or does the phrase "sound, sensible, responsible" government immediately conjure the image of fat men smoking cigars in a back room somewhere, and the phrase "what's good for big business is good for New Zealand"?

Broken glass

When Tim Selwyn famously chucked an axe through Helen Clark's electorate office window, my first reaction was that he was a dickhead. The same applies to last night's brick throwers. Really, can't they think of a better way of making their point than smashing stuff? And how would they feel if their windows were smashed because of their political views?

Fortunately, it seems the police have a good idea who did it, and said dickheads will no doubt be facing a criminal damage charge in the near future.

Farewell to sedition

Also in force today is the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Act, which repealed the archaic offence of sedition. So, we are now free to excite disaffection against the government, bring the monarchy into contempt, and advocate civil disobediance against government policy - all things which are at the core of democratic society.

While ostensibly aimed at quelling political violence, the law was always used in practice to suppress those who advocated unpopular (in the eyes of the government) political causes: Irish and Samoan independence, a better deal for workers, peace, and Maori rights. And I am glad to be rid of it.

Election funding: in force

The Electoral Finance Act came into force today, ensuring the fairness and transparency of our electoral process. No longer will the rich be able to leverage their wealth into disproportionate political power; instead, they'll have one vote, just like the rest of us. And if they want to try buying influence with large donations, they'll have to do so openly, rather than lurking in the shadows.

Given the horror with which the right reacted to this, you really have to wonder whether they're still stuck in the feudal era rather than the democratic one.

Correction: Bugger. Our resident legal eagle has pointed out that it is only the spending limits which come into force today, with the beginning of the regulated period, while the actuallaw has been in force for a few weeks. Oh well, from the screaming on the right, you'd hardly know.