Mid term elections haiku

Tea Party flower
Soon to wilt in summer heat.
O's a cactus.

Or, in a slightly longer form:

The mid term election results are probably meaningless. In fact, they might work out to Obama's advantage.

With the Congress in the hands of the Republicans, Obama has an excuse for not pressing ahead with his agenda. He's already accomplished more than most presidents have in terms of domestic reforms. If the economy worsens, he no longer has to bear the responsibility for it - he can protest - quite rightly - that congress is styming his attempts to respond to the crisis. It's not exactly idea, but it'll probably set the stage for a more productive second term.

Further, the Tea Party's advance will probably count against it. It's not likely that the majority of sane Republicans, and the entrenched good Ole Boys who represent them on the Hill, want the Tea Party freak show to colonise their party. So the emphasis will shift from Republicans versus Democrats to moderate Republicans versus insane Tea Party loons. Obama will probably enjoy a bit of a respite, while the right wastes its time and energy ripping bloody great chunks out of itself.

(Obviously, this won't happen immediately. there will be lots of talk about unity - always amusing in a party that advocates individualism - and the shared agendum that unites them. But anyone can say nice things. Remember "Change we can believe in"? "Read my lips"? "Bring it on"? They'll be at each others throats in six months or so.)

Ideally for Obama, of course, the Tea Party wins the civil war, and he has to face a Tea Party candidate in two years time. That should ensure him a second term. This is probably not going to happen, however, as in two years time the Tea Party will be a spent force - the 'new broom' schtick will have worn out, and the disconnect between their grassy rhetoric and their sold out actions will have become clear. A centrist canidate - imagine a younger, less brutalised and more energised John McCain (without the Sarah Palin add on) - might present more of a problem. But if things are starting to look a bit better economically in a couple of years time, and once people realsie that the Iraq nightmare is (officially) over, then Obama should be comfortably re-elected on a 'Let's finish the job' ticket.

Maybe.

Those deck chairs will look far better over there ...

Bristish chancellor George Osbourn is waxing lyrical about the recovery of the British economy (1).

The cause of his delight is that the latest GDP figures are better than the forecast for the quarter. He's studiously ignoring that even the improved figures are are markedly down on the previous quarter. So we're doing better than expected, but worse than we were. You can take what you want from want. Obviously, I interpret it as meaning Osbourn is insane and we're all doomed.

Osbourn's a bit like a passenger on the Titanic, who, clinging to the stern as it rises into the cold night sky just before its final plunge, delightedly declares that the ship is unsinking itself.

1 - "UK economy grows a faster-than-expected 0.8%," unattributed article. Published by the BBC, 26th of October, 2010. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11624742)

The stupid is spreading

The coalition government in Britain recently outlined plans to reduce the role of social housing. This included ending tenancies for life, instituting a means test qualification and raising rents to match the market. I said, this was stupid. Unfortunately, it looks like the stupid is spreading to New Zealand (1).

Means testing is a disincentive for people bettering themselves. If moving off the benefit, or taking a new job is going to mean you have to move from cheap, secure accomodation to the expensive, insecure private sector, it is a very compelling reason not to do it.

It also changes the role of state housing. Social housing was intended to accomodate people from all social backgrounds - hence, the idea of a means test was anathema to the philosophy underpinning it. Obviously, people with wealth didn't need it - but if they had become weathly since being allocated a state owned house, they weren't forced out.

Reserving it only for the poorest and most needy would - inevitably - mean it would become the preserve of the poorest and the most needy. The 'social tapestry' envisaged in the classic model, where a a wealthy family might live next door to someone poor, will be replaced by ghettos, where poverty is the sole thing uniting the occupants. Being given a state house will not be a starting point for a new life, but a signal that you've reached the very bottom.

This has broader implications as well. Areas where there are state houses will become stigmatised, because of the prejudices that will accrue to the tenants. This, of course, already happens, but reserving state houses for the most desperate will accelerate and intensify the process.

Saying that state housing should be provided based upon need sounds good, but it misses the real cause of the problem - lack of supply. If there is a such a desperate shortage of state housing that people need to be moved out of them to make way for those with greater need, then the more sensible solution would be to build more.

Interestingly, this might also have the effect of lessening the upward pressure on private sector prices, meaning that more people would be able to move out of the public sector - if they wanted to.

Its a policy dressed up in the rhetoric of concern that conceals a rather stupid, and ultimately ideological, intent.

1 - "'State house for life' axed in review plan," by Derek Cheng. Published in the New Zealand herald, 25th of October, 2010.
(http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10682899)

Take your hobbit and ...

Why is it that - assuming the Warners claim that the impasse over the filming of The Hobbit is a result of unruly unions - they want more inducements to commit to New Zealand (1)? Come off it. We know you're greedy. Please don't treat us like we're stupid.

And will the national government really use this as an excuse for further assaults on employee rights? As if they hadn't already done enough!

Meanwhile, artist Tao Wells is lambasted in the media for suggesting that work is over-rated and soul destroying. Am I the only one who thinks this is odd? A major Hollywood studio is holding the New Zealand film industry to ransom, assisted by the mysteriously quiescent director-executive producer of the film, and the governments response is to roll over, offer the studio financial 'incentives,' and sacrifice our employment rights. Maybe I'm missing something here, but that isn't how your meant to deal with bullies. They'll just ask for more.

It's time New Zealand stopped clinging to the coat tails of a fad for a fantasy world dreamed up by an effete English academic, and grew up. The fascination the film industry holds is largely down to the failure of successive governments to halt the decline of real industry in New Zealand. Instead of actually encouraging real economic growth, we've resorted to begging foreigners to use us as a playground and a back lot for film making.

Why is it a big Deal when Chinese companies try to buy New Zealand farms, but not when American film studios dictate our employment law and demand bribes to honour us with their presence?

Tell them to take their hobbit and shove it.

1 - "Subsidies focus of Hobbit talks," by Martin Kay. Published by Stuff. 27th of October, 2010. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/4275149/Subsidies-focus-of-Hobbit-talks)

Show us your balls, Sir Peter

If Peter Jackson wants to make The Hobbit in New Zealand, then it will be made in New Zealand; if he doesn't then it won't. I think that's pretty much the bottom line, and all attempts to blame unions or claim it down to Warner Brothers is just public relations.

Jackson clearly wants to make the film. I don't believe that he is not in a position to make it where he wants. Jackson, after all, is the man who persuaded New Line Cinema - with the help of a tax bribe from the then National government (1) - to let him make the Lord Of The Rings trilogy in New Zealand. If he really wanted to, he could do the same again. he's one of the few directors out there who can make whatever demands he wants - and given that his previous insistence on making The Lord of the Rings in New Zealand paid off so handsomely, you'd think he'd be in a very strong position.

Possibly Warners have told him that New Zealand is not going to happen, because they think they can get a better tax deal elsewhere. If so, as a director, Jackson should be fighting to make the film his way, where he wants it, just like he did before. If Warners are uncooperative, Jackson should walk away.

That sounds drastic, but the box office arithmetic is on his side, and that's what matters. The Hobbit, without New Zealand is a pallid creature, an imposter. The Hobbit without New Zealand or Peter Jackson will start to look like a very doubtful proposition, especially given the problems the production has already had. I can't imagine Warner really looking at that prospect with much enthusiasm. How many millions for a film a lot of people will write off as a sham?

In the end, I think that Jackson doesn't want to make the film here, for mercurial reasons of his own. Whatever drove him to insist on making the Lord Of the Rings in New Zealand - and become a national icon - seems to have dissipated. Perhaps he's now so internationally established, New Zealand is just a small place where he used to make films, and if decides to favour them with another one, and they aren't grateful, the Hell with them. If they can make Ents and Orcs with CGI, then they can probably re-create New Zealand as well.

As a final thought, I've noticed a line of defence being used quite frequently, which is that Jackson always treats his crews well. I'm sure he does. But decent working conditions and respectful treatment aren't something to be dispensed at the whim of the director - its by agreements between professionals trying to realise a common goal. We don't live in a fantasy realm ruled by a magnanimous High King who decides to treat the peasants nicely - we just like making films about them. Perhaps that's another thing that Jackson has let slip.

As I said, if Jackson really wanted to make The Hobbit here, he'd make it happen, or he'd walk away. His quiescence suggests that he's already made up his mind to move it off shore. If he wanted to fight to keep it here, he'd have shown a lot more balls than he has. it might sound unkind, but perhaps Jackson has reneged - the Wingnut splatter merchant has become part of the Hollywood establishment.

1 - "Behind the making of The Lord of the Rings," by John Braddock. Published by the World Socialist Website, 21 March 2002. (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/mar2002/lor2-m21.shtml)

The house reeks of death and dripping blood

Dearie me, I toddle off to bed, warmed by a couple of shots of Glenfiddich and I awake to find George Osbourne has destroyed the British recovery, welfare state public sector and economy (1). The absurdity being that he said he was going to do it, rather in the manner of a child announcing he's going to leave home ("I'm at the door now! I'm walking out the door!") and everyone just sat around and let him get on with it, and no-one stopped to think, "Wait a minute, this is madness." Some even seemed to get quiet tumescent at the prospect of austerity - though always by proxy. We always love austerity when the bite is on someone else, but I think we'll soon find that Osbourne's Austerity-litz very much has him in the role of the Russian Tsar, not as Napoleon.

Only a few sane voices warned that this would be a Very Bad Thing. but like Cassandra, though they saw clearly, they were doomed to be ignored.

This is a monumental fuck up. At this stage, jobs are more important than balancing the budget. That can be done later. It's all based on the monumental lie that the government had to act now, to reassure the markets. Utter bullshit, as bond prices had not wavered. It was a phantom danger, played upon to justify what was a once in a century opportunity to decimate (actually, at almost 20%, doubly decimate) the public service - and blame Labour.

1 - "Spending review axe falls on the poor," by Patrick Wintour and Larry Elliot. Published in The Gaurdian, 20th of October, 2010. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/20/spending-cuts-george-osborne-axe)

Tories trash social housing

Seems the Tories have decided to effectively dispose of social housing, once and for all, justifying this attack on the state in the name of austerity:

The social housing budget in England is to be cut by more than 50% in the Spending Review, the BBC understands.

Council housing "for life" will also be phased out, with the needs of new council tenants assessed over time.

Despite the cuts, ministers are likely to set a target of building 150,000 affordable homes, changing the way councils charge rent to finance them.

Tenants will be charged nearer the going market rate, to release cash for the building programme. (1)

I can see this having some very unpleasant consequences way down stream. Especially since it sends out the message that social housing is only for the scum at the bottom, so if you're in it, yo umust be scum. Moving people out of social housing if their situation improves is going to create social housing ghettos, with absolutely no cohesion, where only the dross live, instead of the vaguely aspirational communities that social housing was intended to create.

And we're supposed to believe charging nearer to the market rate is going to fund a meaningful building program? Fuck, I don't mind the bastards lying to use, but it's insulting they think we'll believe such obvious lies.

1 - "Social housing budget 'to be cut in half'," unattributed article. Published by the BBC, 19th of October, 2010. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570923)