Business Confidence – Evening Report

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: The Political mood of the business elite

Bryce Edwards — Fri, 23 Sep 2022 03:54:56 +0000

Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards.

Political Roundup: The Political mood of the business elite

Political scientist, Dr Bryce Edwards.

The New Zealand Herald has released the results of its annual “Mood of the Boardroom” survey today. Should we care what businesses think of politics, the economy and society? There’s a good argument that we should be more concerned with the “Mood of the Foodbank” or “Mood of the workers”.

Nonetheless, it’s always interesting to see what the Establishment thinks, and what issues businesses are likely to pressure government decision-makers on in future. Readers can also take into account the obvious business bias when interpreting what the results mean.

The business love affair with the PM and Government is over

The business community has generally been very happy with Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government. In the first few years, and particularly during the Covid pandemic, business were extremely positive about the administration and especially the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

For example, back in 2020 the Mood of Business survey rated Ardern’s performance as nearly 4/5. And business generally rated Labour’s management of the economy and various crises very highly.

This year their judgement of Ardern and Labour has plummeted. Ardern’s own rating out of 5 has dropped to only 2.3. So, there’s been something of a decline: 3 in 2018, 2.9 in 2019, 3.91 in 2020, 3.03 in 2021, and now 2.3.

Ardern is ranked as only the 12th best performer in Cabinet. Grant Robertson is doing better – with the second highest score of 2.98/5. But that is well down from the 4.18/5 he got from business in 2020.

Business leaders regard Climate Change minister and Green co-leader James Shaw as the Government’s strongest performer, obviously on the basis of his climate change initiatives. He even gets kind words from one oil and gas CEO who describes him as a “rationalist”. Various CEOs point to the fact that he has lost the support of his own party, and is in fact “in the wrong party”.

What are business marking the Government well on?

Business isn’t entirely critical of the Labour Government, and the survey results do show that business leaders give them credit in some areas. For example, according to Fran O’Sullivan, “The PM’s scorecard shows CEOs accorded her a top rating of 3.56/5 for how she leveraged her personal brand for NZ business’s advantage internationally.” And she is also applauded by business for her handling of national security and international relations.

In terms of the Government as a whole, there are a number of things they are doing well according to business. Here’s the list of areas that business rated them highly on:

•           Supporting Māori and Pasifika aspirations. 3.49/5
•           Maintaining strong international relationships 3.32/5
•           Progress on international trade agreements 3.16/5
•           Maintaining an independent foreign policy 3.01/5
•           Addressing climate change challenges 2.71/5

What is business marking the Government down on?

Interestingly, business leaders have some of the same concerns about Ardern’s Government as those on the political left – especially the failure to deliver on their promises.

For example Don Braid of Mainfreight, who has in the past been quite supportive of the Government, says: “There is a lack of direction and sure-footed policy to combat the failings around health, education, housing and crime. Stop the political posturing and interference. Focus on the core fundamentals and then get out of the way.”

When asked about Ardern’s delivery of “transformative change”, business execs rated her only 1.7/5. According to the Herald, a typical comment from business was: “Lots of talk on policy but little actual impact”.

Some of the areas that business rated the Government most poorly on are also areas that Labour supporters might also feel disappointed about. Here are some of Labour’s worst marks from business:

•           Addressing the housing shortage 1.81/5
•           Improving children’s wellbeing 1.80/5
•           Addressing transport constraints 1.80/5
•           Immigration 1.36/5

But the management of the economy was also an area of strong concern. For example, when asked if they have confidence in Grant Robertson’s management of the economy, 38 per cent said yes, and 46 per cent said no.

Here are some other areas of poor performance on the economy according to business:
•           Maintaining fiscal responsibility 2.14/5;
•           Addressing the infrastructure deficit 1.88/5
•           Execution and delivery of policies 1.63/5
•           Transforming the economy 1.56/5
•           Policy planning and consultation with business 1.57/5

What does business think of the opposition parties?

In recent Mood of the Boardroom surveys, CEOs have been quite scathing about the performance of the National Party, its leaders and its finance spokespeople. For example, the Herald points out today that in the past, “Judith Collins came in for a pasting”.

CEOs are warming towards National leader Christopher Luxon (who they gave a rating of 3.24/5), but they seem particularly enamoured with National’s finance spokesperson Nicola Willis. For example, “73 per cent of respondents agreed Willis has presented herself as a credible future Minister of Finance”. Some business leaders also talked about Willis as a future leader and prime minister.

On the topic of the Government’s co-governance agenda, CEOs seem quite split. They were asked if co-governance is either “right for the times” or “anti-democratic”, with 37 per cent opting for the former, and 41 per cent for the latter.

Finally, here are the CEO scores for Government ministers:

1. James Shaw (Climate change) 3.27/5
2. Grant Robertson (Finance) 2.98/5
3. Chris Hipkins (Education) 2.95/5
4. Damien O’Connor (Trade) 2.92/5
5. Kiri Allan (Justice) 2.83/5
6. Ayesha Verrall (Covid-19 response) 2.49/5
7. Stuart Nash (Tourism) 2.43/5
8. Megan Woods Energy 2.42
9. Peeni Henare (Defence) 2/39/5
10. Andrew Little (Health) 2.37/5
11. Jan Tinetti (Internal Affairs) 2.34/5
12. Jacinda Ardern (PM, National Security & Intelligence) 2.30/5
13. Kieran McAnulty (Emergency Management) 2.25/5
14. Michael Wood (Immigration) 2.19/5
15. Carmel Sepuloni (Social Dev & Employment) 2.13/5
16. Aupito Sio (Pacific Peoples) 2.12/5
17. Meka Whaitiri (Customs) 2.03/5
18. David Parker (Environment) 2.00/5
19. Priyanca Radhaskrishnan (Ethnic communities) 2.00/5
20. David Clark (Commerce & Consumer Affairs) 1.96/5
21. Marama Davidson (Prevention family violence) 1.94/5
22. Nanaia Mahuta (Foreign Affairs) 1.93/5
23. Willie Jackson (Broadcasting) 1.89/5
24. Phil Twyford (Disarmament) 1.78/5
25. Kelvin Davis (Maori Crown relations) 1.66/5
26. Poto Williams Conservation 1.62/5

Further reading on the Herald’s Mood of the Boardroom

Other items of interest and importance today

GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT
Peter Dunne (Newsroom): Labour must make a bold, unpredictable move to win next election
Jo Moir (Newsroom): The 2020 election taught National what not to do
Stephen Minto (Daily Blog): Dumb and Dumber. Who’s who? Labour or the Green’s centrists?
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Nearly a third of public servants earning more than $100,000
Josie Pagani (Stuff): What voters want is fairness and government action
Luke Kirkness (Herald): Sam Uffindell cleared but true test starts next year (paywalled)
Kate Hawkesby (Newstalk): Grant Robertson scored an own goal complaining that he needs more security
Tess McClure (Guardian): New Zealand hopes to banish jargon with plain language law

MONARCHY
Matthew Hooton (Herald): If NZ became a republic I’d back Jacinda Ardern for President (paywalled)
John Minto (Herald): Our chance to become a republic has passed (paywalled)
Jono Williams (Stuff): How will a change in monarch affect Māori-Crown relations?
Brent Edwards (NBR): The irony of next Monday’s public holiday (paywalled)
Mana Wikaire-Lewis (Māori TV): London columnist weighs in on New Zealand republic talk
Tom Peters (World socialist website): The endless tributes to the Queen are being used to divert attention from worsening social inequality

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS
Todd Niall (Stuff): Auckland elections: Voting off to slow start in uncertain race
Jem Traylen (BusinessDesk): Candidate comparison websites are a vital election tool, but can they be trusted? (paywalled)
Bernard Orsman and Simon Wilson (Herald): Rating every Auckland councillor (paywalled)
Bernard Orsman (Herald): Auckland mayoralty: Mood for change? Latest poll confirms Wayne Brown’s support nearly doubling
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Things turn awkward at edgy mayoral debate
Hanna McCallum (Stuff): Wellington mayoral candidates commit to almost all proposals related to housing and climate justice
Emile Donovan & Sharon Brettkelly (RNZ): Local elections: Three mayoral contests you should know about
Jim Tucker (Stuff): Time to rethink our local body election candidates meetings

NANAIA MAHUTA INQUIRY
John MacDonald (Herald): Don’t make Mahuta the spending spree scapegoat
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Chris Hipkins apologises to Bill English for dragging family into debate
David Farrar: PSC launches Mahuta probe
RNZ: National welcomes review into process for awarding government contracts
Kerre Woodham (Newstalk ZB): Outrage factor over Mahuta’s family contracts is pretty minimal

EDUCATION
Michael Neilson (Herald): Decile system to go as new Equity Index for school funding revealed with increases for 90 per cent, while some miss out
Leighton Heikell (Newshub): Schools welcome increase in funding under NZ’s new equity index system
Amy Williams (RNZ): Education Ministry rejected MIQ air purifiers during Omicron surge

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
RNZ: Expelling Russian ambassador ‘least meaningful’ diplomatic option – Ardern
Ford Hart (Stuff): War in the Taiwan Strait would be ‘disastrous’ for NZ
Bridie Witton (Stuff): Jacinda Ardern discusses Ukraine and Pacific issues with head of the UN
Herald: Jacinda Ardern surprises at Pacific Islands Forum launch where leaders warn emitters: ‘Save us and you save yourselves’
Craig McCulloch (RNZ): Jacinda Ardern meets UN Secretary-General António Guterres

MEDIA
Daniel Dunkley (BusinessDesk): TVNZ’s ‘attitude needs to change’, says broadcasting minister (paywalled)
Daniel Dunkley (BusinessDesk): Widespread concerns over new public media entity
Maria Slade (NBR): All the King’s men and women: Taking silk in a new era (paywalled)

Other
Benedict Collins (1News): ‘Reprehensible’ – Sepuloni slammed over contentious sanction
Jo Cribb (Newsroom): ‘Get real’: Donors must demand transparency about the impact of charities
Martin Gregory (International socialists): Countering the Far Right in Aotearoa Today
Ruwani Perera (Newsroom): Calls for Māori ACC entity after man loses both arms in ‘horrific’ work accident, leaving him severely burnt
Chris Lynch: Chch woman’s potentially fatal skin condition “I thought I was going to die”
Ankur Sabharwal (Stuff): When is a migrant chef not a chef?

Keith Rankin Chart Analysis – National Income: the Pie Chart

Keith Rankin — Mon, 11 May 2020 22:51:19 +0000

Analysis by Keith Rankin.

National Income with Work-Life Balance. Chart by Keith Rankin.

Income in an Economy

The chart above shows how income is distributed in an economy. It shows three major sectors: Government, Business and Households. Households are the principal sector; governments and businesses serve households, and are accountable to households. The chart is a pie chart, representing the economic pie. (For now, ignore the outer ring of the pie; the pie is the part divided into sectors.)

In this stylised example of a closed economy (ie no foreign sector), government receives a portion of national income (which is practically the same as gross domestic product). Part of the government income share goes to infrastructure, part goes to collective services like healthcare and education, and part goes on alms and other welfare payments. If the government sector – which includes local governments – saves part of its income, then it runs a surplus. (Repaying debt is a form of saving.)

The business sector both retains income and distributes income to households. The part that it retains – in blue – can be either invested on capital goods and services (eg buildings, machinery, staff training) or saved. If the sector as a whole saves part of its retained income, then the business sector runs a surplus. (Otherwise it runs a deficit, which is simply a negative surplus.)

The same applies to the household sector, represented here by six families: Waititi, Cooper, Patel, Duff, Tan and ‘destitute’. If the household sector saves more than it spends, then it runs a surplus.

By definition, the sum of the sectors’ surpluses adds to zero. So, if any sector is running a surplus then at least one other sector must be running a deficit.

The incomes shown represent entitlements to shares of the goods and services that contribute to the pie. For example, if the Cooper family run a business that makes barrels, then the business sector (or any other sector) may use part of their entitlement by purchasing those barrels. The profits from this cooperage business represent both income to the Cooper business and income to the Cooper household, enabling the Coopers to buy other stuff.

Surpluses and Deficits

If most households save part of their incomes, then the household sector most likely runs a surplus. (In most countries the household sector runs a surplus most of the time.) We generally expect the business sector to run a deficit about equal to the household surplus. That leaves the government sector with a balanced budget. However, if the business sector does not run a large enough deficit, then the government sector must run a deficit too. If, under these circumstances the government sector resists running a deficit, then not all the goods and services in the pie will be purchased, and the whole economy will shrink next year. (Imagine a missing slice from next year’s pie; that slice is called unemployment, or, strictly, ‘involuntary unemployment’.)

In this chart, debt is easily understood. Most likely the Waititi family does not wish to spend its full income entitlement; and maybe this year the Duff family wants to spend more than its income entitlement. So the Waititis can – directly or indirectly – transfer some of their present entitlement to the Duffs. The usual arrangement will be that the Duffs agree to transfer – directly or indirectly – a slightly greater amount from a future year’s pie to the Waititis.

The Waititis run a surplus this year, and the Duffs run a deficit. The Waititis contract to run a deficit in the future, so that the Duffs can run a surplus in the future. That is what a debt contract is; a commitment on the part of a creditor who runs a present surplus to run a future deficit, a commitment to be repaid. (The Waititis can defer this future obligation if sufficient new debtors can be found, in the future.)

Economic Growth

If next year’s income pie is bigger than this year’s pie (ie it contains more goods and services), we call that economic growth.

Inflation

The market may put a dollar value on this year’s income pie. If we produce essentially the same pie next year, but the market places a higher dollar value on next year’s version, then the economy has experienced inflation.

Relaxation

The ‘relaxation’ ring around the pie represents the extent that our economy is not ‘maxed out’; it’s the reserve capacity of the economy. It represents the ‘life’ part of a society’s work-life balance. (Economists call this ‘voluntary unemployment’; many do not realise that voluntary unemployment is a vital part of our wellbeing.) Our economic happiness is measured by the enjoyment that we get from consuming the goods and services that we buy, plus the opportunity to chill out and enjoy what we have.

We could increase our living standards by increasing the size of the relaxation outer ring, while keeping the economic pie the same size. Or, we could increase the size of the pie while keeping the size of the outer ring unchanged. While both possibilities reflect an increase in both living standards (aka economic happiness) and the productive capacity of the economy, only the second of these options would be measured as economic growth. Thus many economists have a growth bias in favour of that second option.

There are other options that represent increased economic happiness. The ‘relaxation’ option that needs to be mentioned here is to have a smaller income pie, and a bigger outer ring. This is the option that, coming out of the Covid19 pandemic, makes most sense. We will want to spend less – to buy fewer goods and services – while retaining a highly productive market-based economy. The solution to the Covid19 economic crisis is a structural readjustment to our work-life balance, maintaining economic capacity while spending and working less.

The Pie Chart representation has a Weakness

The sixth household – ‘destitute’ – does not appear on the pie chart, but does appear in the chart’s legend; the ‘legend’ is the table of labels to the right of the chart.

‘Destitute’ is statistically invisible, unless made visible by including it in the table. ‘Destitute’ has no income, no work-life balance. In this situation, the destitute household has little choice but to try to run a deficit, but will struggle to find a creditor. Failing that, destitute can only survive by alms, known by economists as income transfers.

Alms are good, but economic rights are better. Surely ‘destitute’ has some economic rights; rights that grant it at least some income from the pie? Yes, but only if society is grown-up enough to acknowledge and properly confer such rights. Otherwise ‘destitute’ remains visible only to those who will see.

Op-Ed: Going full circle for growth and the planet – LI Yong and Hongjoo Hahm

Selwyn Manning — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:28:03 +0000

Going full circle for growth and the planet

LI Yong, UNIDO Director General and Mr. Hongjoo Hahm, Officer-in-Charge, ESCAP

The business case for making our economy more sustainable is clear. Globally, transitioning to a circular economy – where materials are reused, re-manufactured or recycled-could significantly reduce carbon emissions and deliver over US$1 trillion in material cost savings by 2025. The benefits for Asia and the Pacific would be huge. But to make this happen, the region needs to reconcile its need for economic growth with its ambition for sustainable business.

[caption id="attachment_17960" align="alignright" width="150"] LI Yong, UNIDO Director General.[/caption] [caption id="attachment_17961" align="alignleft" width="150"] Hongjoo Hahm, Officer-in-Charge, ESCAP.[/caption]

Today, the way we consume is wasteful. We extract resources, use them to produce goods and services, often wastefully, and then sell them and discard them. However, resources can only stretch so far. By 2050, the global population will reach 10 billion. In the next decade, 2.5 billion new middle-class consumers will enter the fray. If we are to meet their demands and protect the planet, we must disconnect prosperity and well-being from inefficient resource use and extraction. And create a circular economy, making the shift to extending product lifetimes, reusing and recycling in order to turn waste into wealth.

These imperatives underpin the 5th Green Industry Conference held in Bangkok this week, hosted by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in partnership with the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and the Royal Thai government. High-level policymakers, captains of industry and scientists gathered to discuss solutions on how to engineer waste and pollution out of our economy, keep products and materials in use for longer and regenerate the natural system in which we live.

The goal is to embed sustainability into industries which we depend on for our jobs, prosperity and well-being. Action in Asia and the Pacific could make a major difference. Sixty percent of the world’s fastmoving consumer goods are manufactured in the region. Five Asia-Pacific countries account for over half of the plastic in the world’s oceans. The region’s material footprint per unit of Gross Domestic Product is twice the world average and the amount of solid waste generated by Asian cities is expected to double by 2025.

If companies could build circular supply chains to reduce material use and increase the rate of reuse, repair, remanufacture and recycling – powered by renewable energy – the value of materials could be maximized. This would cushion businesses, manufacturing industries in particular, from the volatility of commodity prices by decoupling production from finite supplies of primary resources. This is increasingly important as many elements vital for industrial production could become scarce in the coming decades.

With these goals in mind, the United Nations is working with governments and businesses to support innovation and upgrade production technologies to use less materials, energy and water. UNIDO is engaged across industrial sectors, from food production to textiles, from automotive to construction. Over the past twenty-five years, its network of Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production Centres has helped thousands of businesses to “green” their processes and their products. The Global Cleantech initiative has supported entrepreneurs to produce greener building materials. Industrial renewable energy use is being accelerated by the Global Network of Sustainable Energy Centres. New business models such as chemical leasing help reduce chemical emissions. And the creation of eco-industrial parks has contributed to the sustainable development of our towns and cities.

In Asia and the Pacific, the UN is intensifying its efforts to reducing and banning single use plastics. The Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy is implementing programmes to reduce plastics consumption, marine litter and electronics waste, and encourage sustainable procurement practices. UNESCAP is identifying opportunities in Asian cities to return plastic resources into the production cycle by linking waste pickers in the informal economy with local authorities to recover plastic waste and reduce pollution.

The 5t h Green Industry Conference is an opportunity to give scale to these efforts. The gap between our ambition for sustainability and many business practices is significant. So it’s essential for best practice to be shared, common approaches coordinated, and success stories replicated. We need to learn from each other’s businesses to innovate, sharpen our rules and increase consumer awareness. Let’s step up our efforts to build a circular economy in Asia and the Pacific.

World Economic Forum, Towards the Circula r Economy. Available from http:// www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ENV_TowardsCircularEconomy_Report _2014 . pdf

Mr. LI Yong is Director General of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)

Mr. Hongjoo Hahm is Officer-in-Charge of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

]]>

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Labour-led Government is suffering from “first-term-itis”

Bryce Edwards — Fri, 31 Aug 2018 05:21:02 +0000

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Labour-led Government is suffering from “first-term-itis”

[caption id="attachment_13635" align="alignright" width="150"] Dr Bryce Edwards.[/caption] Any new government is going to have some teething problems in its first year. And this is especially likely when there are a lot of new ministers – and, indeed, a prime minister – without experience in government. Jacinda Ardern’s government is currently facing a number of difficulties which can easily be put down to “first-term-itis”. [caption id="attachment_15332" align="aligncenter" width="800"] Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters and the Governor General of New Zealand Dame Patsy Reddy – image taken at the swearing in of the new Labour-led Government, October 26, 2017.[/caption] The important thing is how Ardern as prime minister deals with the curveballs being thrown at her. They are a test of her leadership, and of the coherence and stability of her government. Some commentators allege the wheels are already falling off the government. Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking looks today at the government’s problems and comments: “Labour can’t run a summer camp, they can’t control ministers, they’ve got a former leader barking advice and the economy is in trouble. It’s time to step up and get their act together” – see: Labour’s a shambles and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern haunted by weakness. He says that the Government looks “ill-disciplined, sloppy, incoherent, and led by a woman who doesn’t want to be tough.” Hosking believes that Ardern is not displaying the type of strong leadership shown by her predecessor, Helen Clark, and needs to rise to the occasion: “She has to harden up and start actually being a proper leader. The honeymoon is over. All that charm, smiles, and gushing that so transfixed the media into the opening months of ‘gooey could do no wrong’ headlines are gone. Charm takes you only so far, the rest is discipline, focus, and a backbone.” In contrast, another Newstalk ZB talkback host, Heather du Plessis Allen, has been arguing the opposite case on radio this morning, saying the Prime Minister has handled the current Meka Whaitiri crisis decisively and properly, and that the public is likely to credit her for this. What’s more, she thinks that “Labour’s turned a corner” and has generally taken back control of the political agenda since Ardern has returned from maternity leave. They’ve been releasing plenty of strong new initiatives and policies, dealt well with the business confidence problems, and now “the party looks like it knows what it’s doing in government”. I’ve been on TVNZ’s Breakfast this morning to say that Ardern has had mixed success with challenges she has faced recently and, in terms of the Meka Whaitiri controversy, will be under pressure to take a strong approach – see 1News’ Jacinda Ardern to be tested over Meka Whaitiri incident after ‘soft’ Clare Curran punishment, political commentator Bryce Edwards says. In this interview, I say “I can’t remember two ministers being lost like this within one week before in New Zealand politics. For the government and for Jacinda Ardern it becomes a test for how well Jacinda Ardern handles this”. But it’s not all negative for Ardern, though: “A prime minster just can’t have control of her ministers in this way, so I think people might even have a bit of sympathy for Ardern having to deal with all these difficulties”. Former Labour Party president Mike Williams also refers to the problems of “first-term-itis” in explaining some of the Government’s recent problems – see Newstalk ZB’s Investigation into Meka Whaitiri believed to involve ‘shoving’. This reports that Williams “says one of the issues is the lack of training for ministers”. Williams is quoted saying: “I think it’s probably lack of supports, ministerial services don’t seem to think it’s their job to give these new ministers basic instructions on staffing”. The Meka Whaitiri controversy is covered well by RNZ’s Craig McCulloch, who reports: “Sources have told RNZ the inquiry is into an accusation that the former minister pushed the woman, who had recently started as press secretary, after a heated argument on Wednesday. Police would not say whether they had received a complaint or if they were investigating. Sources have told RNZ Ms Whaitiri was difficult to work with and point to a high staff turnover in her office. The press secretary role had been vacant for months” – see: Labour MP accused of ‘manhandling’ press secretary. He also quotes Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters: “Allegations are not fact. They’re allegations. Let’s see whether they’re meritorious or not.” And, of course, the Leader of the Opposition Simon Bridges claims that this incident adds up to the fact that the Government is “coming apart at the seams”. A news report on Stuff provides further details, worth quoting at length: “Stuff has been told relations in Whaitiri’s office are toxic and she is understood to have been through an entire rotation of staff in the short time she has been in the job. People who are close to the situation told Stuff on Thursday Whaitiri can be unpleasant and difficult to deal with, but it’s understood Ardern’s actions relate to a specific incident involving a single staff member. The investigation follows allegations of shouting during which it is understood there was physical contact. Stuff has been told the nature of the allegation is that the staff member was pushed out the door. Police are not involved. There have been a growing number of questions asked about the number of her staff going through Whaitiri’s office. Stuff has been told of bullying behaviour and incidents of staff leaving without notice” – see: PM stands Minister Meka Whaitiri aside over staffing issue. Analysing all of this, the Herald’s Audrey Young says that the Government’s reputation is being “brought into disrepute” at the moment, and this has “now been compounded by the Whaitiri investigation” – see: Meka Whaitiri had high turnover of staff, was difficult to work for. Young suggests that Whaitiri does not face a “bright future” given that, the latest investigation aside, she is “considered difficult to work for” and has other staffing difficulties. But she also points out that “Being difficult to work with has never been grounds for dismissal from Cabinet – otherwise people like Murray McCully would never have survived.” A blog post on the Government-aligned website, The Standard, makes the case that the Labour-led Government is handling ministerial problems better than previous administrations: “when the allegation was made, Meka Whaitiri went immediately to the PM, explained the situation and offered to stand down. That offer was accepted and the matter was made public. The significance of this sequence is that the Ardern led Government has higher standards than the Key led Government. Key dealt with a series of scandals behind closed doors” – see: Facing Meka. This blog post also makes the case for Ardern carrying out an early reshuffle: “Most Ministers seem to be doing an excellent job, quietly getting on with their work. However, re-assessing the team and making early changes, if needed, sets the Government on course for re-election. The simple fact is that the role of Minister is difficult, stressful and demanding. Better to move on those that aren’t coping sooner rather than later.” Finally, the Labour Summer Camp Report was released this week, prompting more questions about party leadership. This caused former leader Helen Clark to come out and say that heads would have rolled if the scandal had occurred under her watch – see Alice Guy’s Former Prime Minister Helen Clark addresses summer camp scandal, Donald Trump and gender diversity.]]>

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Is Labour yielding too much to business?

Bryce Edwards — Thu, 30 Aug 2018 04:03:53 +0000

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Is Labour yielding too much to business?

[caption id="attachment_13635" align="alignright" width="150"] Dr Bryce Edwards.[/caption] It might traditionally be the “workers party”, but at the moment Labour is making a serious play of inviting business into the tent, in order to stop their traditional foe lobbing bombs from the outside. That’s the upshot of this week’s major charm offensive from Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to the business community. Her speech to business leaders in Auckland on Tuesday came with the announcement of a new Business Advisory Council, which is supposed to allow business interests more influence at the highest levels of Government. [caption id="attachment_15386" align="aligncenter" width="1600"] New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, at the APEC leaders’ summit, November 2017 (Image courtesy of APEC.org).[/caption] Obviously, the Labour-led Government is attempting to mollify business with this announcement, along with other concessions spelt out in Ardern’s speech. The objective is to turn around the so-called plummeting business confidence surveys that Labour is embarrassed by. But isn’t this going too far? Does it mean Labour has capitulated to vested interests? Certainly, some are worried that the Government is placing the demands of business interests too high in the policy-making process. Herald business journalist Fran O’Sullivan points out just how influential the new business group will be: “Ardern says the council’s role will be to build closer relationships between Government and business, provide high-level free and frank advice to the Prime Minister on key economic issues, and to create a vehicle to harness expertise from the private sector to inform the development of the Government’s economic policies” – see: Anointing Christopher Luxon a smart move by Jacinda Ardern. Ardern herself has said “I want to work closely with, and be advised by, senior business leaders who take a helicopter view of our economy”, and she has invited business leaders to “join us in taking the lead on some of the important areas of reform the Government is undertaking”. Writing in the NBR, Brent Edwards reports how the head of Business New Zealand, Kirk Hope, is impressed with the new initiative, saying “the new body is important because it gives business a direct line to the prime minister” – see: Prime Minister urged to slow the pace of employment law changes. Hope is quoted saying, “As another conduit to government and as a formal mechanism for engagement with the prime minister over policy I think … it’s probably a smart idea and a really critical channel for business.” But Edwards notes that “Business New Zealand is already represented on five government-initiated working groups, including reviewing the tax system, the future of work and pay equity.” Business journalist Rob Stock points out that, in general, business interests are already incredibly dominant in the policy making process, and it is therefore absurd to give them even more power: “I can think of many interest groups who lack a political voice. Business is not one of them. Business has money. It is well organised. Its opinion on anything is easily gauged. It has a powerful voice. It has its business membership groups – a bewildering number of them” – see: The Business Advisory Council is a waste of time; or is it a belated masterstroke? After listing a large number of powerful business interest groups, Stock then explains their current political power: “Each has a staff of experts, policy officers, lobbyists, and communications people. On literally no topic is it possible for the government not to know what business thinks and wants.” And, says Stock, these groups have a big impact on legislation: “I hear the voice of business echoing in all government discussion papers. It works like this. A minister announces a review. A few policy options are flagged. Business lobbyists go about their work. When the discussion paper comes out, much of the watering down has already happened… And then comes the whole consultation, and law-making process.” The same article also includes the analysis of Stuff’s new national business editor Rebecca Stevenson, who is much more enthusiastic about integrating business more into government’s decision-making. She says: “This announcement is a smart one in my view. It makes business feel included, which has been sorely lacking”. Stevenson lists various ways in which the current Government has apparently sidelined business interests, including when “the prime minister failed to turn up for the Deloitte Top 200 awards in November” and when “business failed to gain even one single mention” in the Budget (“That had to sting”). Therefore, for her, the new advisory council is “the least the Government could do for business. Literally.” Like Stock, The Spinoff’s Toby Manhire also sees the absurdity of the Government attempting to give business even more power: “There is of course something fairly hilarious about the creation of an advisory group for big business. If you’re searching for underrepresented voices who go unheard in the corridors of power, who lack the resource and networks to put their case in policy making, big business is probably not going top of the list. But that just underscores the symbolism in all of this” – see: Jacinda Ardern takes on the elephants and albatrosses in the business zoo. Nonetheless, Manhire believes Ardern’s charm offensive has probably worked. He says that her main message to business is “We promise you we are listening”, and he thinks “she’s probably done enough to shake something of that albatross” of low business confidence from around Labour’s neck. Business journalist Jason Walls has also reacted with surprise, saying there are already ample opportunities for business interests to have input into the workings of this government. He questions whether another is needed: “what about the Treasury? What about the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)? The Reserve Bank? BusinessNZ? Surely they should be doing this type of work already. On top of that, we have a Minister of Finance who has not one, not two but three Associate Ministers as well as a Minister of Revenue and Small Business. And already this year, the Government has already established two other business-led groups to help advise the Government – the Tripartite Future Work Forum and the Small Business Council” – see: Jacinda Ardern’s latest pitch to woo business won’t work – here’s why. Does business even deserve to have more influence? That’s the question asked by University of Auckland professor of economics Tim Hazledine, who hopes “that the talking at the Council’s meetings is not all in one direction” – see: Business Advisory Council could prick ‘lack of confidence’ bubble. He thinks that the Prime Minister should be using the new council to tell business to get its act together. Hazledine agrees that New Zealand has a business confidence problem, but of a different sort: “there is indeed a substantive ‘business confidence’ issue in New Zealand: it is about our, the people’s, lack of confidence in them – specifically, in the big business corporate sector. Overall, the corporate sector in New Zealand has been a conspicuous poor performer over the past thirty years.” Possibly the most interesting and challenging criticism of the Government’s new business working group comes from former Reserve Bank economist Michael Reddell, who has two big problems with the new approach – see his blog post, A country is not a company. First, “such councils can be a path towards cronyism. On the one hand, attracting sycophants who like to be able to tell their mates they have the ear of the Prime Minister. And on the other, more concerningly, enabling selected business heads to bend the ear of ministers and put pressure on them to make decisions favourable to the specific economic interests of those involved and their employers.” Second, he challenges the very notion that businesspeople have expertise in running economies: “what do chief executives of businesses know about overall economic management, and the challenges of New Zealand’s longstanding productivity underperformance?”. Reddell argues that “Expertise on economic management, and the particular confounding challenges the New Zealand economy faces, just aren’t the sort of thing that tends to be fostered in the course of a corporate career.” There were other aspects of the Prime Minister’s speech to business that the audience should have been appreciative of, according to the New Zealand Herald – see its editorial: Two small words from PM should lift business confidence. In particular, they should be thankful to the PM for saying “We won’t” on the issue of relaxing the conservative fiscal policies contained in their Budget Responsibility Rules. And the editorial points out that Ardern reiterated that planned industrial relations reform will not “fundamentally disrupt the employment relations landscape” established by the National Government. According to Stuff political editor Tracy Watkins, such statements about industrial relations reform show that this government is now shifting away from a more radical and transformative approach, and towards a moderate and incrementalist approach – in the same way that Helen Clark and John Key pragmatically ran their governments – see: Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s plan to bring the boardroom into the Beehive. Could it be that this Government has rolled over too easily in the face of business grumpiness? Pattrick Smellie writes today that “The degree of political attention paid to the decline in business confidence… is overblown”, and the “Government has let itself be spooked, which may say something about its internal confidence about the cohesion of the economic plan it says it’s pursuing” – see: Magnifying the elephant in the boardroom. Finally, the capitulation of the Government to business might actually be the opposite of how it looks. Mike Hosking argues that Labour is simply co-opting business leaders in order to blunt their opposition, because “what you are achieving is getting buy-in from them. They are signing up for the plan. They are on board with the government because they are in the pay if not debt of the government… once you’re on a government board you work for the government” – see: Jacinda Ardern’s Business Advisory Council is political genius.]]>

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: What’s driving down business confidence?

Bryce Edwards — Tue, 03 Jul 2018 04:37:41 +0000

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: What’s driving down business confidence? [caption id="attachment_13635" align="alignright" width="150"] Dr Bryce Edwards.[/caption] Business interests aren’t very happy at the moment. We know this from numerous “business confidence” surveys, media interviews with CEOs, and increasingly restive business groups. Of course, as discussed in yesterday’s Political Roundup column, much of this might be put down to “business bias” against a Labour government – quite simply, businesses are struggling with the pledge the government made when it came to power, that “capitalism must regain its human face”. There is more to it than this, though. At the moment, there seem to be three main concerns for business: 1) A belief that this coalition government arrangement is unstable and unpredictable, 2) The oil and gas exploration decision, and 3) Proposed employment law reforms. These are all explored below. 1) An unstable and unpredictable coalition government arrangement On Friday, veteran political journalist John Armstrong penned a hard-hitting TVNZ column that implores the new government to reflect on how its relationship with business is developing. Armstrong warns that despite the potential for this dynamic to lead to the government’s early demise, “Labour instead gives every impression that it cannot be bothered” with the problem – see: Ardern’s baby leave gives her time to give serious thought to Labour’s ‘cannot be bothered’ attitude to business sector. Armstrong worries that Cabinet ministers are in an arrogant phase, believing they are “infallible”, and that “Ardern’s troops have become battle-hardened” with a strong belief in the need to “remain staunch rather than being seen to be caving in to employers hell-bent on blocking reform.” They don’t seem to realise, that “the Government’s honeymoon is long over.” Although Armstrong puts some of the government’s relationship “disconnect” with business down to ideology (“Under the leadership of first Andrew Little and then Ardern, Labour has also undergone a marked shift to the left”), his most important point is that business doesn’t think the government’s reform agenda is clear and consistent enough, and “Business hates inconsistency. It hates uncertainty”. Rightwing commentator Matthew Hooton also published a column on Friday that explained that falling business confidence is “driven by huge policy uncertainty”, which is further undermined by “questions about Government’s decision-making processes” – see: Business uncertainty to get worse. The problem isn’t so much the Labour Party, according to Hooton, but the struggling New Zealand First and Green parties, whose fight for survival will necessitate asserting themselves with some bolder policy initiatives as time goes on: “As the election emerges on the horizon, the pressure on NZ First and the Greens to make ever-more outlandish demands will only increase and Labour’s ability to say no will decline. Even the most peculiar policy proposal or sudden carve-out for your competitor will become possible. No one can really anticipate what will happen. But only the most brave or reckless businesspeople will see the next two years as a good time to take a risk.” The latest editorial in the Listener also says business has little problem with “fiscally conservative” Grant Robertson, and is instead more worried about his colleagues who have made a habit of taking “potshots” at business: “Robertson’s mission is to convince business it does not face wild policy lurches or instability. Yet fellow ministers have repeatedly undermined Robertson’s message. So far this is more a matter of careless and self-aggrandising rhetoric and poor communications than of actual business-hindering policy. But an understandable sense of enmity has ensued” – see: NZ’s falling business confidence reflects the true price of ministers’ potshots. The Listener singles out Employment Minister Iain Lees-Galloway and “ad hominem attacks on Air New Zealand and Fonterra” from Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones. 2) The oil and gas exploration decision The surprise decision of the Government to essentially ban further oil and gas exploration apparently still has many in the private sector reeling. This isn’t simply because they disagree with the actual decision, but because the decision-making process has scared them. Concern has actually increased as more information has come to light. Last month official documents were released that indicate the decision was made quickly, without proper Cabinet involvement, no industry consultation, and minimal advice from government department officials. Matthew Hooton has been the biggest critic of the process in the media, suggesting that businesses are rightfully fearful that their own sectors could be vulnerable to similar interventions by the government. He wrote about this in detail last month in his column, Crisis-filled month triggered Ardern’s oil & gas move. To Hooton, the decision involved very poor process, and was not actually driven by environmental considerations, but essentially by pragmatic and strategic considerations: “Could there be a more cavalier and shameful way for a Government to behave when making decisions affecting 8481 jobs, billions of dollars of exports and which it had been advised would most likely increase greenhouse emissions and thus worsen climate change? The reason for the urgency is suggested by its context. After Labour’s mishandling of the sexual assault allegations at its summer camp, Winston Peters’ inexplicable stance on the Russian chemical weapons attack in the UK, Phil Twyford’s comical Pt Chevalier KiwiBuild announcement, and the scandal involving Clare Curran and RNZ, Ardern was desperate for something — anything — to reassure her core supporters.” These points were also made strongly by Fran O’Sullivan, who argued the decision was rushed in order to aid the PM’s diplomatic trip to Europe: “Ardern put her debut as a global climate change warrior ahead of making credible plans to transition New Zealand away from a reliance on fossil fuels towards clean energy. There’s no other way to interpret the documents and emails that have been released this week” – see: Ardern’s Orwellian move to ban exploration. Although pro-business commentators might be expected to criticise the process, some on the political left were also unimpressed. The No Right Turn blogger said: “Like many, I welcomed this decision – we need to decarbonise, and slowly shutting down the oil industry is a necessary step to that. But the process they followed to do it all seems a bit Mickey Mouse” – see: Government by press conference. The blogger condemned the PM’s decision not to involve Cabinet and government departments in such a controversial decision, pointing to the Cabinet Manual’s rules about this. He concluded: “fundamentally, this is not how decisions are supposed to be made in our system of government. And it raises the question of exactly why the government chose to sidestep Cabinet in this manner. And if it was to avoid their obligations under the Public Records Act and Official Information Act, then that is looking very dubious indeed.” Many journalists have since reported that business leaders have been concerned about this episode of governance. But Hamish Rutherford has reported that Finance Minister Grant Robertson claims that few businesspeople raise the oil and gas decision with him: “On Tuesday he played down the degree to which the abrupt decision to end offering offshore oil permits has dented investment confidence, saying it was hardly ever raised with him. If that really was the case, that seems likely to be a sign that business has not yet become comfortable being candid with the finance minister” – see: To inspire confidence, Grant Robertson must do more than repeat the message. 3) Employment law reforms currently proposed In all likelihood, the main problem that the business sector has with the new leftwing government is the perennial “class struggle” issue of wanting to retain its advantages over employees. With the Labour-led government carrying out all sorts of industrial relations reform, business is simply unhappy to have profitability under threat. The chief executive of Wellington Chamber of Commerce, John Milford is fairly upfront about this, saying in a recent newspaper column on business confidence surveys, that “The problem for the Government is that confidence is not going to improve as long as they insist on pushing ahead with their proposed changes to industrial legislation” – see: Minister, concerns from business aren’t junk. Milford makes it clear that employers regard the reforms as a backwards step: “What’s proposed is old thinking that’s threatening to take us back to the industrial strife of the 1970s.” And he outlines what they don’t like: “the Employment Relations Amendment Bill as it’s drafted that will further reduce flexibility and harm the growth prospects of businesses. They are provisions that allow union reps to enter a workplace without permission, force businesses to settle collective agreements even if they don’t or can’t agree, and force them to join a multi-employer collective agreement (MECA).” So, some degree of union power is being restored by this government, and understandably this isn’t welcomed by those who might be negatively impacted. This has also been discussed by John Roughan: “The Government is on a mission to raise incomes at the lower levels and rightly so. It proposes to do so not just with steeper annual increases in the statutory minimum wage but by strengthening trade unions. This is probably what is keeping business confidence low, and rightly so” – see: Striking state servants will be chilling business confidence. This is also dealt with in Liam Dann’s column, Business heads for winter of discontent. Here’s the main point: “Feedback from groups like the Employers and Manufacturer Association (EMA) and Business NZ suggests that despite a broad acceptance that the new Government is not radical, there is genuine concern about the impact of new labour laws. This is less about rises to the minimum wage and more related to issues like the repeal of the 90-day trial period for businesses with more than 20 staff and changes to collective bargaining rules which will give unions more clout in some workplaces.” Fran O’Sullivan reports that business groups have launched a campaign against the reforms: “employer groups confirmed they are launching an advertising campaign which will include billboards, newspaper and digital advertising. The ‘Please Fix the Bill’ campaign is funded by BusinessNZ’s member groups” – see: Business returns to fighting the same old fight. Finally, not all businesses are complaining about the Government. Today, Graham Adams writes about one big business that is very happy, and he quotes their latest annual report: “As a business, we are pleased with the youthfulness and energy of New Zealand’s new government. Given the problems they face, we are impressed with the speed at which they are coming to grips, and we wish them well” – see: Mainfreight: A dissenting business voice on the government .]]>

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Should politicians care about “business confidence”?

Bryce Edwards — Mon, 02 Jul 2018 23:25:07 +0000

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Should politicians care about “business confidence”?

[caption id="attachment_13635" align="alignleft" width="150"] Dr Bryce Edwards.[/caption] The business community’s confidence in the economy – and therefore the Government – seems to have hit a new low recently. There have been dozens of articles published in the last couple of weeks highlighting business concerns. So how seriously should politicians take the constant surveys about business confidence? A looming “Winter of discontent”? According to the reports of political and business journalists there are genuine fears of an impending “Winter of discontent”, in which the business community signals its strong hostility to what the Labour-led government is doing, and thereby attempts to change its direction. Comparisons are being made with the last time a Labour-led government came into power, in 2000, when business apparently went into opposition mode, fighting strongly against planned employment changes. This is best covered by Richard Harman in his column, Another winter of discontent? Harman reports “BusinessNZ is warning of a drop in business confidence – raising questions about whether like the Clark Government, the Ardern Government faces a first-year winter of discontent from business.” And he suggests that the new Government might be about to revive the type of business-friendly charm offensive that Helen Clark and Michael Cullen used back in 2000, in order to woo back the support of CEOs. For a reminder of exactly what happened, it’s worth reading Branko Marcetic’s Does Jacinda Ardern face a Helen Clark style winter of discontent? According to Marcetic, although there are some parallels with 2000, the 2018 situation is not so severe: “If we’re currently reliving the events of 2000, this iteration has been far milder – perhaps more a ‘cold snap of discontent’ than a full-blown winter. Nothing so far matches the ferocity of the business revolt faced by Clark, nor the unceasing march of negative news coverage and even international condemnation from right-wing commentators her government faced. New Zealand businesses have surprisingly acquiesced to certain policies that were condemned 18 years ago, such as a higher minimum wage.” A business-friendly government? Marcetic suggests the Labour-led government has been surprisingly accommodating to business, and its leftwing reforms have been relatively mild. This is also one of the main points made by Matthew Hooton, who wrote on Friday about how little business leaders have to fear from the new Minister of Finance: “Pity Finance Minister Grant Robertson. The former student leader, junior diplomat and political staffer has done almost everything right to avoid repeating the Winter of Discontent that rocked Helen Clark’s first term. He has assiduously networked with industry groups and tries hard to bond with businesspeople despite the enormous gulf between his outlook and theirs. His fiscal rules were designed to avoid allegations of profligacy to the extent of upsetting the Labour left” – see: Business uncertainty to get worse. Hooton says Robertson has tried hard to pacify business, in part through very orthodox economic management, and suggests teachers and nurses wanting pay rises have greater reason to complain about the Minister of Finance than business. What’s more, he points out that the sharemarket is at a record high, changes to the Reserve Bank have been only “cosmetic”, free-trade agreements continue to be progressed, and even the feared cuts to immigration haven’t materialised. In fact, the Finance Minister has already been assiduously cultivating business interests, according to Tracy Watkins: “Robertson has been living on the road since the Budget, cultivating and wooing business audiences and carrying on where he and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern left off with their pre-Budget charm offensive on a sceptical business sector” – see: Less is more: Why Labour is happy to slow the pace of change. Watkins suggests he’s doing well – “Robertson is an entertaining and engaging speaker” and his speeches are “about reassuring business…that the focus on the fundamentals hasn’t changed.” She also points out that business should be relatively happy with the main way that the new government is carrying out change – with reviews and committees: “there’s no harm in slowing down the pace of change by putting big decisions out to consultation and expert review. It shows Labour is willing to be flexible and pragmatic. And it lets everyone take a breath. Sometimes in politics, less really is more.” Hamish Rutherford has also been reporting on Robertson’s business charm offensive, saying that although the politician has great soundbites and is “polished” and “extremely on-message”, he also seems uncertain about how to turn around the perception problem of businesses – see: To inspire confidence, Grant Robertson must do more than repeat the message. Business bias against Labour? Should the numerous surveys about business confidence be taken that seriously? The accuracy of business perception as a useful gauge of the state of the economy has been questioned. The economic consulting business BERL has found a distinct lack of correlation between business confidence and the performance of the economy: “between 2000 and 2008, when Labour last led the government, business was pessimistic for 82 months, yet the economy grew on average 3.2% a year and the government recorded nine years of budget surpluses. In contrast from 2009 to 2017, when National led the government, business was optimistic for 87 months but the economy grew on average just 1.98% a year as the country felt the effects of the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes” – see Brent Edwards’s NBR article, Don’t read too much into business confidence surveys, economist says (paywalled). BERL’s chief economist, Ganesh Nana is quoted saying that business confidence surveys “really reflect changes in government rather than changes in the economy.” This is also the point CTU president Richard Wagstaff makes when he says such surveys are about partisan politics: “Business confidence is just a one-sided opinion poll of a handful of very wealthy people” – see: The views of business matter, but they are not a magic guide to the economy. Wagstaff suggests that in a democracy, such views should not carry more weight than those of ordinary voters: “Of course the views of business leaders do matter – exactly as much as the views of everyone else.” For more on why it’s anti-democratic to pay so much attention to the “political tantrums” of business leaders, see Bryan Gould’s Business confidence – or confidence trick? He suggests that current CEOs simply have “their own axe to grind” over the National government losing power, because these employers are “pretty much in favour of profits and capital gains, and they don’t like trade unions or workers’ rights or higher wages very much.” Here’s Gould’s main point: “Business sentiment, in other words, is not based on anything concrete but is rather a reflection of the disappointment felt by business leaders at having to deal with a Labour-led government – a matter of political prejudice rather than economic fact. It is almost as if, having lost the election, they want a second crack at it, to see whether they can unsettle the elected government and push it off its stride, through the simple mechanism of proclaiming that they don’t like it and would have preferred to carry on with the easy ride offered by the previous government.” Can business concerns be ignored? Even if they are unfounded and inaccurate, the problem for the government is business concerns can’t simply be ignored. And that’s one of the main themes of the reporting on “business confidence” – the idea that regardless of the justice of business perceptions, perception can become reality if businesses stop investing, stop employing more people and essentially “go on strike”. As BERL’s Ganesh Nana puts it, “The concern is it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because businesses talk themselves into a bit of gloom and they see, or they hear, that other businesses are in a similar gloom so they put off decisions and that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, which can turn the economy into a spiral.” For this reason, the latest Listener editorial declares “these business voices nevertheless need to be taken seriously – urgently. If they find reason to hold back on investment and expansion, their pessimism will hurt us all” – see: NZ’s falling business confidence reflects the true price of ministers’ potshots. Finally, Chris Trotter explains that business confidence surveys are very real indeed, as they are “a sharp reminder about who it is that really runs the country”. Not only are the surveys a “winking warning-light on the capitalists’ dashboard”, they are the forerunner to an “investment strike”, which is the way that business interests ultimately assert their control over government policy – see: The Strike that Labour fears most.]]>