Labour and Socialism - lurch left.

I don't vote Labour or left wing. Never have. Doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion on what might make me vote for them though, or ideas that might appeal to a broader range of people that may bring them back to power.

Alone. Not in some cockamamie coalition of "we're all left wing therefore a vote for anyone one of us works" way, that ends in tears of disappointment and compromise.

Good socialism, don't get distracted by dolphins, or oil drilling, they fall in to place when you have the minds of the people .

Don't get me wrong they are important but they'll fall into place when people have security, and a future to look forward to.

Idea one:

• Promise to build state houses, say in blocks of 20 - 50. Make the local councils free up the land that they are banking or planning to sell off for profit.


• Approach local or national business and ask them to be on board a community project, this will swing the right-wing business for profit business in behind an altruistic effort - good for them, good for the economy, good for the people.


• Build sensible housing, of course terrace or row housing,  because modern and spacious can be achieved with modern methods.


• Appoint a community guardian or caretaker.


• Make them small communities, perhaps include growing plots for vegetables etc.


• Make sure that the busses stop at the end of the street, and do so regularly. .


• Make sure that community services people visit regularly.


• Make sure you deal with people who want to to buck the system and not join in.


• Make the tenancy reviewable and renewable by review, up or down, you might have to move house. In a mixed occupancy community this shouldn't be a problem.


• Part of the rental payable could be placed in non-fee bearing but interest bearing accounts in trust as statutory saving to get people out of state and into own home ownerships


• Run this policy in conjunction with and parallel to kiwi-build.

Idea two: KiwiSaver from birth. And now I'm winging it on the financials, of course, but it's an idea.

• From birth the government contributes $1 per week into a fee-free kiwi-saver account.


• The $1 increases to $2 in year 2, $3 in year three and so on.


• For year 16 this is a contribution of 832, and in a non-interest bearing account would therefore be $7,072.  Not being a financial wiz I have no ice how this would work under a compound or interest bearing account. I would image than it would be more then $7,072.


• The contribution amount could be adjusted as required to make sense in a changing economic environment. If the kiwisaver contribution amount changes then the contribution amount to kid-kiwisaver should change. Pointless ending up in 16 years with enough money to buy a cup of coffee.


• Funds would be available for either education fees, or home-ownership.


• Start this for all children regardless of age and at the level of contribution appropriate.  People might complain they're disadvantaged, but that's the wrong view, they're being advantaged by the policy, and sure significant numbers might not achieve any benefit in the first decade. It's long term thinking


• Roll KidKiwiSaver into KiwiSaver if you start work and don't take the money for education, it's shouldn't be considers a grant or money available at 17 or 18 to get your party on, the money is only invisible in education, housing, or continued investment in Kiwisaver

I own my own house, I don't have children that would benefit under the KidKiwiSaver idea. My thoughts then are that if you can get people thinking about people, and all people thinking about the growth of the economy then this must be good for the proposing government in the short and long-term. The injection of money into the economy has to be good too. I'll agree that this will not solve any house pricing issues as that of course is a sliding bar, supply and demand, but Kiwi-Build addresses affordable housing, right? They're just ideas, not very good ideas possibly, but ideas that I'd be happy to support and vote for.

Supporting Local - the one where it costs us more

We're encouraged to support Kiwi made, and to be proud of our Kiwiness. But this week, and added to a story of last year, it seems that we might just be paying through the nose for some of that faith.

Both the examples below, Air New Zealand, and Adidas New Zealand are both under some scrutiny for their pricing models.

I'm probably being a curmudgeon on this, and this is just the natural order of things, by and large no corporate does anything for altruistic purpose. Why give your money away for no reward.

Air NZ claim that "of course your tickets that buy in NZ on NZ's Airline cost more" because "They spend millions on advertising" and that of course has "Downstream" benefits. So basically we pay more to support our local Air Line so they can spend more on adverts, oh and of course they support Rugby - They are a 'global partner' of the All Blacks.

Adidas claimed that "of course the replica jersey costs more in NZ" because "we spend millions in sponsorship of rugby in New Zealand" Which is just like saying compulsory donation from you, benefit to us!

I'd not be surprised if, for example, Fisher and Paykel run a similar model for Netball sponsorship, it's not altruism that'd make them sponsor a sport.

The model where the price is slightly higher, the profits slightly higher, and as a result the company can show a generous largess in supporting a sports team, which should generate more sales which generates more profits, you see where this is going.

With the advent of the interwebtubes it becomes more obvious, and both the examples below are as a result of being able to by online, in real time, for the same goods, or service, and get a different experience. I'm sure they didn't think it through really. Afterall your marketing spend is a local issue, but with a global reach. People shouldn't be disloyal and shop elsewhere but at home, should they?

I don't object to sponsorships, profits, profit margins, sales, or globalisation, but I do object to being treated as a bit of a dumbass by the talking head PR people about these things. They'd sell a lot fewer jerseys though if it came with a tag that said "for every jersey you buy we will recover the cost of sponsorship for your team by $10.00. Never happen. Nor would Air NZ get away with a advertising Surcharge on their tickets of 5% to aid their global marketing initiatives.

#justsaying

Kiwis pay top dollar on Air NZ

Air New Zealand has been left scrambling to explain why Kiwis are charged hundreds - even thousands - of dollars more than British passengers for the same flights.

A customer based in Britain who books online a return economy-class flight from London to Auckland will pay much less than a New Zealand-based traveller who books the same journey in reverse on Air New Zealand's website at the same time.

The price disparity can vary wildly, but a standard round-trip between Auckland and Heathrow via Los Angeles will set a New Zealand-based passenger back $500 more for an economy seat, $1500 more for a SkyCouch upgrade, $2100 more for a premium economy seat and $3000 in business class.

Air New Zealand public affairs manager Tracy Smeaton explained Air New Zealand spent $100 million on promoting the country to foreign tourists - an investment that benefited New Zealanders downstream

Adidas All Black Jersey (Augsut 2011)

Adidas has refused to cut the price of All Blacks jerseys despite a threat from the country's largest retailer to pull the tops from shelves.

An All Blacks replica jersey, manufactured by adidas, is available for $220 in New Zealand retail stores, but listed for sale at $US79.99 ($NZ92.68) on the website worldrugbyshop.com.

Mr Huggett said rugby fans knew they were supporting New Zealand rugby when they bought a replica All Blacks jersey.

Adidas New Zealand manager David Huggett said "We invest millions of dollars in Kiwi rugby from grassroots through to the All Blacks, including a major investment in the state-of-the-art All Black jersey."

People being able to buy jerseys for a cheaper price online was no different to being able to buy cosmetics or other consumer products more cheaply from offshore retailers, he said.

Related articles

• Kiwis pay top dollar on Air NZ (nzherald.co.nz)


• AIG wants logo on All Black jersey, says journalist (radionz.co.nz)

Commercial Ventures and the Public purse - #5 - Canterbury University Seeks Bailout As Intake Falls

Canterbury University is pleading for at least another $150 million from the Government as it faces losing almost 20,000 students and $346m in revenue in the next eight years. Based on a report they've prepared along with Deloitte which  forecasts a cumulative drop in fulltime equivalent students of 19,400 from this year to 2019 and a reduction in revenue over that time of $346m

A 65-page document detailing the business case for support asks the Government for $130m in operating support, $25m for capital costs and a  yet-to-be-determined sum for building remediation not covered by insurance, but the amount could be between $20m and $70m.

The February earthquake caused it to lose hundreds of domestic and international students -  About 15,500 fulltime equivalent students are enrolled at the university.

It already has 1200 fewer domestic students and 420 international students  than 2010. Of those about 800 were first-year students and 80 per cent of them would have continued to a second year of study. More than 25 per cent of the first-year student intake either discontinued or  did not complete their enrolment this year.

Here's the thing - the university is therefore  asking for $1,000 per student to prevent it's decline in standards, 1,600 less students is extrapolated over 8 years to be 20,000 students. Somehow. As a concession the university will shed around 300 jobs over 3 years from the 3,000 staff it currently has, that's 3-4% a year over 3 years.

Each Student, using the figures provided, generate income to the University of $18,200 each, per student, and they have staff to student ratio of 1-5

"In exchange for the government money, the university was proposing to make  savings of $134m, double its borrowings to $100m, and reduce its capital  expenditure by $20m to $45m annually from next year to 2019. The savings would include a 3 to 4 per cent reduction in staff numbers for each of the next three years. The university has about 3000 staff."

The university has a good reputation and it has a strong balance sheet with about $90m in the bank. It's not up against any wall and it's not sinking into oblivion.

So - change the name from ABC university to ABC corporation - and you'll see why this isn't really something that I would be in favour of. The user pays education system that we're all familiar with appears to not want to cut it's cloth to suit, but wants to have a Rolls Royce facility. I can't imagine a scenario where a corporation with the same staffing ratio's would be able to go cap in had to the Govt and ask for a bail-out. (Of course I ignore finance and insurance companies, of course!)

Am I in favour of reducing the scope of the offering to suit the amount of revenue, you bet I am. Should the taxpayer fund what is essentially a corporation into maintaining what is an impossible scenario - even they recognise some truths " The university had started many initiatives to attract students, including  increasing recreational areas on site. It was also spending millions of dollars
on additional scholarships. Vice-Chancellor Rod Carr was visiting several countries to get the message  across to potential international students that the university was fully open
and safe after the earthquakes "

So spend a few more millions, after all in for 346million in for the lot! I'm confident the world will not end for the University, I'm sure that student X overseas does not want to come to a city of rubble to live, in over-priced short availability accommodation, unless of course they're on a scholarship, but that's not generating income is it, that's filling seats to tick a box to maintain existing funding for the public purse.

Do I think that there are too many staff? what do you think, in a normal corporation I would imagine that a ratio of 1-10 managers to staff is more normal, it's possibly even more.

I'm therefore a little perplexed by the timing, the amount they are asking for, the reasons given, and the blind way in which it ignores some truths about their plight and situation.

via Canterbury University Seeks Bailout As Intake Falls... | Stuff.co.nz.

A Commercial venture and the public purse. #4 Bridge sentries cost $80,000

Sentries guarding the Auckland Harbour Bridge on match days of the Rugby World Cup have cost taxpayers more than $80,000.

On watch on the bridge. Photo / Jason Dorday

They are there to foil any attempts at pranks, protests or even terrorism.

Transport Authority spokesman Tommy Parker described the bridge as an iconic structure and said the security was a precautionary measure to ensure no one tried to gain access.

Six security guards have complemented the closed-circuit television on the motorway network and have cost $81,000 for more than 300 hours on duty.

So that's $45 per hour per person for 300 hours to sit and do nothing "just in case". and it's cost the taxpayer $81,000 for the privilege.

This is just a vile use of mitigate and safety planning in a grand  cover-your-arse gesture for some jobsworth in an office. We didn't have this when we had the America's cup in town for instance, and that really was a global event.

And it's already illegal to climb the bridge without authorisation, no corporate in their right mind is going to buy into a guerilla marketing act unless they really do want two reactions (1) legal and (2) loss of market - who's going to think that Corporate X changing the flag for theirs is nothing but a cheap publicity stunt, and the fallout would be horrible for them, and expensive.

The farce that is our bending over and taking one for the #IRB and the #RWC will unfold over the next months, when some of the out-of-pocket expenses that we the country have had to find, without recompense and without any fear of breaking even become apparent. We all know we're in the hole for millions, but it's a lot more millions than they said it would be - wasn't it something like $32millions, give or take.

There is no way that there have been millions of tourista dollars into the economy, most of the attendance is local people using local money that they now won't spend on local things for local people, we've given it all the to the IRB in our wisdom.

At least we're left with not the white elephant Eden Park stadium that will be partially dismantled and under used for the next couple of decades.

via Bridge sentries cost $80,000 - National - NZ Herald News.

A commercial venture and the public purse

There are a couple of quotes that I'd like to call out in this

"the theatre had "not met our audience targets in a very tough economic climate and within the context of a reduced funding situation"

and

"The decision to can the shows comes two weeks after Creative New Zealand increased the Downstage's annual funding by $25,000, to $298,000 "

Which seem to be a contradiction, no?

The tough economic climate has forced Downstage Theatre to suddenly scrap the rest of its planned shows for the year, after the October 1 final performance of Te Radars Eating the Dog, which opened last night. The shows to be postponed or cancelled include Kiwi play The Intricate Art of Actually Caring – which was to run during the Rugby World Cup – and the large-scale Kiwi musical Raising the Titanics. Downstage chief executive and director Hilary Beaton, in an email sent to members of Wellingtons arts community on Tuesday, said the theatre had "not met our audience targets in a very tough economic climate and within the context of a reduced funding situation".

via Downstage Theatre Cancels Shows In Wellington | Stuff.co.nz.

I'm sceptical of tax-payer funded art where clearly there is incompetence and something very much amiss in a situation where you can have a group that consistently fails.

The changes came after earlier financial problems. In 2007 Downstage had to ask  Creative NZ for an emergency advance of $117,000 to cover wages and pay
creditors. It also used to receive more funding, including $500,000 in 2008.

At the risk of being seen as a total nay-sayer I'd like to point out that possibly " Te Radars Eating the Dog" might have been profitable, but to have an ambitious program that includes what I'm guessing as experimental plays - including the  Kiwi play The Intricate Art of Actually Caring – which was to run during the  Rugby World Cup – and the large-scale Kiwi musical Raising the Titanics.

To actually fail to deliver on a play, during the RWC, in a city with a captive audience, how forgivable is that ?  And why would you want to put all your eggs into a large-scale musical?

The Vision they have  -  would not be possible without financial assistance from our committed corporate, philanthropic and government supporters. - but I do think that calling themselves "a company that gets behind its artists and community by presenting the works of distinctive voices that speak for a nation and are heard around the world." might be stretching the point.

I don't doubt that stating a performance is time-consuming, costly and fraught with difficulty, however there are many forms of play and performance that are not expensive and can be profitable. If you've set yourself a high-bar of standard that you have failed to achieve for years in a row then why do you continue to flog a dead horse.?

Funding and Self-Sustaining organizations

This is the 9th Annual Fashion week in Auckland. But the organizers were saying this year was hard since they found it difficult to come up with funding to stage the event.

Excuse me? If this is such a stunning event of significance shouldn't it be self-funding from receipts and charges?

If it's not then what's the point of having a commercial event?

This is the same week that some jobsworth has decided that sports clubs can't receive donations from charitable trusts (pub poker machines) because in essence they are not charitable organizations. Poker Machines prop up the racing "industry" another unsustainable past-time.

Sports clubs though? What do they do with the money. For as long as I've been having my child play sports it's been fees for this, fees for kits, fees for travel, fees to go tournament, club fees, you name it it goes on. And they are not minority sports.

By and large they use council owned facilities, and have dubious facilities at best, assembled in the roaring 70's mostly.

Sure you need sponsorships, you'd be a nut-bar if you thought 6,000 gate tickets pays for 25 professional rugby players and as many back-room staff.

But it's always struck me as ironic that something that is clearly commercial often calls for government cash to support it, if it really was that important then wouldn't it fund itself. I'd be willing to bet Cirque Du Soleil, WWE, U2, Simon and Garfunkel et al. all made a commercial killing. Why would they come otherwise.

Then on the other hand NZRFU have already chalked up negative $30 million for the right to host the world cup. And we'll end up with a white elephant in the middle of a urban centre- still it'll be nice for the 6000 faithfull every other week to watch from the Gods their professional athletes. Won't it.

Funding and Self-Sustaining organizations

This is the 9th Annual Fashion week in Auckland. But the organizers were saying this year was hard since they found it difficult to come up with funding to stage the event.

Excuse me? If this is such a stunning event of significance shouldn't it be self-funding from receipts and charges?

If it's not then what's the point of having a commercial event?

This is the same week that some jobsworth has decided that sports clubs can't receive donations from charitable trusts (pub poker machines) because in essence they are not charitable organizations. Poker Machines prop up the racing "industry" another unsustainable past-time.

Sports clubs though? What do they do with the money. For as long as I've been having my child play sports it's been fees for this, fees for kits, fees for travel, fees to go tournament, club fees, you name it it goes on. And they are not minority sports.

By and large they use council owned facilities, and have dubious facilities at best, assembled in the roaring 70's mostly.

Sure you need sponsorships, you'd be a nut-bar if you thought 6,000 gate tickets pays for 25 professional rugby players and as many back-room staff.

But it's always struck me as ironic that something that is clearly commercial often calls for government cash to support it, if it really was that important then wouldn't it fund itself. I'd be willing to bet Cirque Du Soleil, WWE, U2, Simon and Garfunkel et al. all made a commercial killing. Why would they come otherwise.

Then on the other hand NZRFU have already chalked up negative $30 million for the right to host the world cup. And we'll end up with a white elephant in the middle of a urban centre- still it'll be nice for the 6000 faithfull every other week to watch from the Gods their professional athletes. Won't it.