This post is a bit overdue. Reading all the comments on Trev’s Red Alert Feedback Wanted post has made me feel a tad overwhelmed by the importance of this “being an MP” project. And a bit cross with myself for not posting more. Really appreciate all the feedback though, it’s fantastic and we just want to make this blog better and better and more interesting for you the readers.
Back to this post. Just wanted to point out an irony from last week’s House antics. When asked what evidence he had to support his previous statement that the Job Summit would create thousands of jobs, John Key said in Question Time on 1 July:
…One of the initiatives proposed at the Job Summit was to accelerate environmental initiatives for employment and productivity improvements. We have done that through the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation programme, and I am advised that this will supply about 2.000 jobs over the next 4 years.
How ironic! At the regional job summit in Dunedin in March, it was me who placed the brochures on each seat promoting Labour’s Healthy Homes Healthy Kiwis campaign which reflected our policy going into the election, a commitment to spend one billion dollars over 15 years on a programme to make NZ homes better insulated, much healthier and more energy efficient.
If you remember, at the time, Paula Bennett was livid that I had “politicised” the regional jobs summit and dismissed the idea. Labour’s position was that it was a good idea and would create jobs. It seems John Key agrees. So I guess if we keep putting up the good ideas, maybe National will take them up!
“So I guess if we keep putting up the good ideas, maybe National will take them up!”
No doubt, since they have none of their own.
Every good idea the Nats have come up with so far this term has been a Green Party (or Labour Party, in this case) policy.
If you hadn’t fought against it for so damn long, it would have been properly implemented by now.
There’s irony.
Jarbury says:
“Every good idea the Nats have come up with so far this term has been a Green Party (or Labour Party, in this case) policy.”
Could one go on to say that every silly idea has come from either the ACT party or the Maori Party?
National, the party of opportunism, is wafer-thin on ideas and direction. Unless you call bestowing privileges on the rich an idea or a direction. Zoo Neeland is correct as well!
You’re right Clare et al – they picked up the popular and obvious (”this one is so well researched and simple to do, we should just do it – no good reason not to”)good ideas, (with the glaring exception of Kiwisaver) – now they’re there they have to do something positive and they’re not sure what or how.
Trouble is they take the good ideas, mangle the resource out of them because ‘there is no alternative in these economic times’,Bill English and his new commandments: Thou shalt find a volunteer, Thou shalt not encourage growth and development in the depression, Thy user shall pay……….
By the time they’ve finished with the good idea – it resembles a really bad idea that defeats itself before it can take effecty, it can’t work for people anymore – causing (George D) the fight against it that takes so long to put it in place.
Doesn’t stop them using the same name, bluffing their way into the media with (we’re not really scrapping the good stuff – really we’re not) and then taking the credit for thinking of it in the first place.
See, it won’t work in its present form – people can’t afford it anymore it won’t be the resounding success it was designed to be in the first place because they mangled the resourcing out of it. When it falls over they’ll say “Course, that wasn’t our fault the research was wrong” then they’ll admit that it wasn’t theirs!
“If you hadn’t fought against it for so damn long..”
Irony better appreciated,no doubt, if we knew what ‘it’ was, George D. And as for ‘fought’…?
As a Green sympathiser I thought Labour in Government was tardy and NZ’s eco-reputation was tarnished by its pragmatism and unwavering commitment to catching up with Oecd Jones’s rate of economic growth. But I had more confidence in them than I have in National’s position which sees insulation as an employment solution firstly and as an cost-saving solution to energy supply issues secondly.
The “it” is insulation and energy efficiency.
The Labour Party fought the Greens over the insulation scheme in 2008 and only agreed to support it in return for the Greens supporting their dismal and very late ETS, after ignoring Green calls for funding of insulation in most of the previous 9 years. They’ve taken it on board now of course, and I congratulate them for it.
I also recognise that New Zealand is stupid enough that a good proportion of the population were incensed at the thought of having to change a lightbulb, and that doing anything involves political risk. Even plainly obvious things like helping people have insulation.
I recall Paula Bennett’s pathetic interview with RNZ at the time, Clare. Something about Labour desperately trying to be relevant – she said it a good dozen times.
I suppose her idea of being relevant is sticking to the lines she was fed, but it is now amusing to see Key using the same line. Now he is the one trying to stay relevant as people realise how ineffectual their new Governemnt is.
I was not happy when that nice Mr Key dumped the Labour/Green $1 billion plan to promote better insulation as I thought it was a good idea all round. It was ,of course, a shame that Labour did not actually have the dollars organised to pay for it. That’s Labour for you though.
So, was this a Labour idea or a Green one that Labour is now taking credit for?
What I am waiting for is an idea from the Opposition (one would do) on how best the government can get the country through our current recession. Bearing in mind that when National became government we were already in the 4th quarter of this recession and it appeared to have been largely ignored until then.
Thanks for the comments.
Firstly, the $1 billion plan for insulation and heating was a Labour policy, supported by and advocated for by the Greens, and credit to them for that.
Secondly, the $1 billion was not unfunded, as National and its apologists keep claiming. David Parker, as Minister of Energy, late last year under Labour introduced a bill into Parlimaent, which became law, including a requirement that $1 billion be spent in this area between 2008 and 2024.
Thirdly, I care about cold damp houses becoming warm dry homes because it’s one of the major problems beseting my electorate. It’s estimated that 40,000 homes in Dunedin need better insulation and heating and at least half of those are in my electorate. I applaud the government for taking up this issue, though I have some serious issues with their scheme as I believe that many of the people who need it most will either not apply, or end up down the waiting list.
I also think that the end cost will be too much for many people, as the subsidy will still leave most with several thousand to pay themselves for the insulation and the heating.
But let’s see if the government follows through, evaluates how well it’s working, and commits to further funding. I’ll be watching closely.
johnbt, Labour does not have to come up with any alternative at this time. As has been pointed out the only good things this lot have done is implemented Labour policy.
National have only been in for 8 months and they are out of ideas already, thats their problem not Labours. If you want some good ideas vote Labour next election.
When in opposition National came up with nothing all they did was snipe (Nanny state , hip hop groups waisting money, Tax cuts) so its interesting that Key goes overseas and takes a hiphop group aye. If they really believed tax cuts are the answer to economy growth why not continue to deliver them.
Clare
While I don’t disagree with the insulation plan, it could have been done far more effectively.
1) Offer a 1/3rd refund to those who pay for the insulation and install it themselves. This could have been offered through the EECA directly. Send in your receipts, receive a refund.
2) extend the insulation subsidy to other areas. E.G. some homes are already fitted with roof, floor, wall insulation but still persist with single glazed windows. If the subsidy could be applied to double glazed, or triple glazed windows (as 30% of heat loss is through windows) it would make the scheme *that* much better, whilst allowing for work for the glaziers, anyone think about them at all?
3) The existing scheme is poorly planned. We took up the offer in February… and we’re still waiting to have the poor job done by the contractors rectified before we even think about paying the final portion of the bill.
Like I said, good scheme but requires far more extension to really start making a difference. Having floors and ceiling installed with insulation only makes a difference of about 15 – 20%. The walls and windows make up a larger block at 40 – 60% difference in heat retention.
I thought it was extraordinary – in terms of national party policy home insulation went from scrapheap (oct 08 nick smith) to centrepiece (May 09 Budget) in 7 months. I reckon the opposition/media could/should have made more of that one.
Josh, that 7 months is nothing. It took the Labour Party 4 months to go from opposing it to making it a centrepiece of their election campaign.
I have to say how happy I am, actually. A year ago this was something languishing on the sidelines. And now it has support from across the house.