Nandor has confirmed that he'll be back in parliament. While it's really tragic how this has occurred, I think it's great to have him back.
A lot of people in and around the Green Party seem to disagree however, to judge from these comments on frogblog.
(As I commented on the blog) I think these people are very misguided.
To me the challenge for the Greens is to build support amongst their natural constituency - young people. Youth is very badly represented in NZ politics - I don't know if it's Māori or old-English concepts of elders being betters, but we have an extremely grey parliament. Even in the Green Party, all but Nandor and Metiria are over 50.
The Greens lost votes at the last election - next time, 6% of the voting population will be first time voters (today's 15-18 year olds). The challenge for the Green Party, IMHO, is to engage with those people. Getting even 20% of their vote would give the Greens a 1% increase overall - and I can't see this is hard - if you polled a bunch of teenagers their opinions would, I suggest, engage very closely with the Green Party's policies.
Nandor needs to be part of this - and yes, it *is* important that to many young people that they don't risk a criminal record merely through choosing to ingest certain substances.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Broadcasting finances
Jordan commented on public broadcasting a few days ago, suggesting that it would be a good idea to make TVNZ a wholly state funded public service broadcaster.
Broadly I'd agree with this idea, but I thought it would be interesting to look at the figures. The table1 shows a (rough) comparison between public service broadcasting spend in NZ, Australia and the UK.
As you can see we spend less than Australia and a lot less, even after PPP adjustment, than the UK. In some ways we get better value for money - the BBC makes a lot of purely commercial programmes that simply compete with advertising and subscription funded broadcasters for ratings.
A difference between Aus and UK is that the latter, as most of you know, has a license fee - e.g. a compulsory subscription for BBC content. Australia funds the ABC out of general taxation.
What would it cost to have an advert-free, public service TV1 (and a fully commercial TV2)? Let's assume the $470mln revenues of TVNZ split $270mln to TV1 and $200mln to TV2. We'd be looking at $270mln to fund TV1 as it stands. However, given they would no longer need to chase ad revenue, they could cut their costs quite substantially - we could maybe have a watchable quality broadcaster for $120mln.
It would also be reasonable to assume that the pot of ad spending in NZ is constant - which would mean that if TV1 stopped taking ads, all the other broadcasters (including TV2) would be able to hike their rates - resulting in a revenue windfall.
So one option for additional TV funding would be a tax on ad revenue - if this raised $80mln, then taking $30mln out of NZ On Air would, with the TVNZ Charter money, neatly cover the costs of an ad-free TV1.
Now those on the right will no doubt argue that this would be a horrible confiscation of private funding - personally, I'd see it as a very reasonable amount to preserve our unique culture.
Broadly I'd agree with this idea, but I thought it would be interesting to look at the figures. The table1 shows a (rough) comparison between public service broadcasting spend in NZ, Australia and the UK.
As you can see we spend less than Australia and a lot less, even after PPP adjustment, than the UK. In some ways we get better value for money - the BBC makes a lot of purely commercial programmes that simply compete with advertising and subscription funded broadcasters for ratings.
A difference between Aus and UK is that the latter, as most of you know, has a license fee - e.g. a compulsory subscription for BBC content. Australia funds the ABC out of general taxation.
What would it cost to have an advert-free, public service TV1 (and a fully commercial TV2)? Let's assume the $470mln revenues of TVNZ split $270mln to TV1 and $200mln to TV2. We'd be looking at $270mln to fund TV1 as it stands. However, given they would no longer need to chase ad revenue, they could cut their costs quite substantially - we could maybe have a watchable quality broadcaster for $120mln.
It would also be reasonable to assume that the pot of ad spending in NZ is constant - which would mean that if TV1 stopped taking ads, all the other broadcasters (including TV2) would be able to hike their rates - resulting in a revenue windfall.
So one option for additional TV funding would be a tax on ad revenue - if this raised $80mln, then taking $30mln out of NZ On Air would, with the TVNZ Charter money, neatly cover the costs of an ad-free TV1.
Now those on the right will no doubt argue that this would be a horrible confiscation of private funding - personally, I'd see it as a very reasonable amount to preserve our unique culture.
1. Recent spending on public service broadcasting (NZ$)
Total Per capita Adj for PPP2
New Zealand
TVNZ Charter 133
NZ on air 97
Total 110 28 28
Australia
ABC 890 44 39
UK
BBC 7350 123 55
2. PPP adjustment based on the Penn World Table
3. The TVNZ charter amount is a notional figure from the annual report. In physical terms, I think this represents profit foregone by the New Zealand people that would otherwise have been made if TVNZ worked on a purely commercial basis.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Monday, October 31, 2005
Couldn't run a whelk stall..
The Pack and Pedal chain of bike and camping shops has gone into liquidation owing millions of dollars.
It was owned by Barry Coleman, the publisher of the National Business Review and someone who is always very keen to put forward his views on how New Zealand should be run.
I mean, really! Many bike shops are run by hippies and they keep running succesfully for years and years - sell bikes, fix bikes, collect money - it's hardly rocket science!
Maybe Mr Coleman's next venture will be a mobile edible mollusc retail outlet...
It was owned by Barry Coleman, the publisher of the National Business Review and someone who is always very keen to put forward his views on how New Zealand should be run.
I mean, really! Many bike shops are run by hippies and they keep running succesfully for years and years - sell bikes, fix bikes, collect money - it's hardly rocket science!
Maybe Mr Coleman's next venture will be a mobile edible mollusc retail outlet...
Thursday, October 20, 2005
It wasn't me guv!
The following defences are apparently being considered by Saddam Hussein's legal team:
1. Mistaken identity. "I'm not Saddam Hussein, I'm his cuzzie, Dave Hussein".
2. The policeman wasn't wearing his hat.
3. Becoming a Christian. "Show me where in the bible it says you aren't allowed to murder entire villages?"
4. Self-defence - he might get a redneck jury after all.
5. "It was the 'P', your honour.
1. Mistaken identity. "I'm not Saddam Hussein, I'm his cuzzie, Dave Hussein".
2. The policeman wasn't wearing his hat.
3. Becoming a Christian. "Show me where in the bible it says you aren't allowed to murder entire villages?"
4. Self-defence - he might get a redneck jury after all.
5. "It was the 'P', your honour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
