OnPoint: Brownlee: Now 93.5% fact-free!
58 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
but I just couldn't take seriously this crisis of conscience from someone who bolted from the newsroom
Craig you are reading too much into the story. The PR man was laughing at the system. The issue is a free market that allows Murdoch et al to print rubbish or their version of it. Hence the importance of Keith Ng piece and other independent reporting.
-
Perhaps that's just the free market I love coming back to bite me in the arse, but I don't have to like it. :)
well, there's something in that.
are TVNZ7 aiming to become something like BBC news? i think the BBC is funded by the UK government. as is NZ national radio -
The Standard uses it at every opportunity now, and there's clearly a conscious effort to do so. No Right Turn and others have used it recently too.
It's a meme. Once you've been exposed, it's hard not to recognise the behaviour its referring to when you see it. I use it because it's catchy, and perfectly sums up what I think is wrong with Key: the man is hollow (there's another one!), incapable of adopting a firm policy position, and squirms whenever pressed on basic details like "what did you say last week?"
As for Brownlee, sadly "hysterical blustering fool" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
-
Was there allmost a 'chuck you down the stairs moment' in Brownlees comments?
"..With all due respect – we can terminate this interview if you want – but you've got to sharpen up a bit here.."
It was a cute moment, really. I was thinking 'right - I have authoritative, definitive evidence sitting right in front of me, and you're trying to convince me that I'm wrong. Who do you think you are? Winston Peters?'
-
Keith -- if you refrained from retorting with "no, buddy, you're the one who needs to sharpen up and not talk crap when you get caught out", you're a better man than me (a fairly insubstantial feat, truth be told).
-
Subsequently someone tried to, in a but-I-didn't-say-it-was-about-anyone-specific way, read out the dictionary definition of 'slippery'. Which was ruled to still be an implication, and out of order,
Cue complaints about the dictionary being ruled out of order.
The salary of these people should be much more closely tied to the minimum wage.
Or maybe just docked for every minute they waste in the house.
-
It's a meme. Once you've been exposed, it's hard not to recognise the behaviour its referring to when you see it.
Of course. We all do it. My point was more that it doesn't look so much like actual Ninth Floor spin as the spin doctors knowing a good thing when they see it.
-
...by framing it as an ad hominem, we lose sight of what we actually want from our Opposition. While this might not be an especially popular view, I actually appreciated that Key didn't start shooting his mouth off as soon as the AIA story broke. Ideally, you'd prefer him to have an informed opinion on the issue, but at least he didn't cop out with the reactionary tactics we've come to expect from Brownlee et al. And yet he was briefly pilloried for it.
Yeah - same with the flip-flopping charges. I'd much rather see people change their positions to suit the facts, rather than change the facts to suit their positions. The former being, you know, *rational*.
Not having a definitive position early on was a PR failure, but we can blame the press gallery for equating PR failures with an actual failure in leadership.
Perhaps that's the sad thing. As much as the spin-doctors see politics as an exercise in PR, so do many gallery journalists. ("Helen Clark has done the wrong thing here in not stamping out the issue before the story broke", etc.). That's my fundamental gripe, really.
-
Craig you are reading too much into the story. The PR man was laughing at the system.
Meh... I have the uncomfortable sense that who he's actually laughing at is the rest of us. Sorry, am I the only person who was even slightly disquieted when two of the most experienced and media-savvy hacks in Parliament weren't in the Press Gallery but spinning for Helen Clark and Don Brash. That's not just 'the free market', but a nasty and manipulative culture of public - and intensely political - spin that's being paid for with public money.
-
Keith -- if you refrained from retorting with "no, buddy, you're the one who needs to sharpen up and not talk crap when you get caught out", you're a better man than me.
Hardly. I knew that quote was going to be pure comedy gold when I printed it alongside the actual figures, and I was high on the fumes of my future self-satisfaction.
-
It begs the question: Is debating actual facts completely pointless when, according to our learned spin-doctors, it's all about the frequency of keywords?
Each fact represents a new and useful opportunity to reinforce the meme. Each factoid a dangerous trap that may associate the meme with untruthfulness.
-
Yo Keith,
Two things:You were right to call Brownlee on his exaggeration of the risk of blackout. Perhaps he couldn't have been expected to resist the temptation of jumping on the media bandwagon about the "crisis", given some of the more excitable rags.
Nonetheless, there was a shortage of supply. Whirinaki wasn't running at full tilt - fair cop - but Whirinaki was only ever intended to run rarely ("one in sixty year" conditions are those most usually quoted). It's contracted by the electricity commission to kick in when the spot price of electricity reaches $200/MWhr. The reason? It's an inefficient and expensive generator. (Prices normally hover around $60-80/MWhr). Over this summer prices were reaching $500/MWhr.
So, there was no threat of a blackout, really: but that's different from there not being a shortage. Our market is very good at managing demand thorugh - you guessed it - big price spikes to reflect scarcity. Everyone who could afford to buy power at those prices (that includes residential customers on fixed rates) was supplied; hence, no blackout. Again, that's different from making sure that everyone who wanted any amount of electricity at normal prices was supplied.
You suggest there was no shortage, because Whirinaki was only generating because the hydro dams were conserving water. True. But think about what that means: the consequences downstream of releasing that water (for even two and a half times its normal price) would have been severe enough in terms of blackouts and defaulting on contracts that even a 250% mark up wasn't worth it to the generator.
So, Brownlee had a point, it just wasn't the one either of you thought he was trying to make.
Finally, the press gallery and its Media 101 judgments of our politicians. I sometime feel like they're all just auditioning for post-election jobs as spin doctors. Kudos, Keith, kudos.
-
even a 250% mark up wasn't worth it to the generator
...but is it enough to make construction of new power plants economic? i suppose you'd need a PhD in economics to work that one out
-
Cheers, Ben!
First, this was not the system in its normal state. It was in a stressed state.
Huntley was running far below capacity because the river temperature was too high, and therefore it couldn't be used for cooling (this was the biggest factor). New Plymouth (was it NP? The place with the asbestos, anyway) was retired ahead of schedule last year. Pole 1 was down. This is the maintenance season, when many plants were taken offline for maintenance ahead of winter. Lakes were low, and hyrdos were being conserved for winter.
Spot prices were high. But they should be - because the system is in a stressed state. Moreover, they were high for 6% of the time.
If we accept that there will be random fluctuations in the quantity supplied, and that the price mechanism should be used to manage that, then occasional high prices (e.g. During peak periods while the system is in a generally stressed state) is simply a part of that.
If the price level is "too high" - that spot prices are too high for too long - then that will encourage more investment in generation capacity. The market hath spoketh.
-
...not a persuasive or endearing form of argument
Well, now they're haltingly reading out transcripts of John Key interviews with all them um/ah/er conversational noises left in.
It's the kind of thing that puts you off voting.
-
If we accept that there will be random fluctuations in the quantity supplied, and that the price mechanism should be used to manage that
I think one of the problems is that our major electricity users don't accept that. They want a market, but only if its a one-way bet. hence the cries of "crisis" when the market operates as expected in times of high demand.
-
Ben/keith
Whirinaki switching on is purely price driven. $200 at the Whirinaki node for 4 hours or the cost of fuel, whichever is higher. The exception being a signifcant emergency shortfall in generation.
It is not designed to only run 1 in 60. That is the security standard for the system as a whole. It is expected to run more often in 'dry years' because that is what it is there for - not much use having reserves if you don;t use them.
You have to remember the system works on marginal prices ie the point at which supply meets demand sets the price for everyone. It may be that hydro were offering large amounts of energy at $80 but wanted to conserve only 5% of output but were willing to let that 5% go at $250 and that bid happened to be the one that set the market price. Major hydro has not stopped generating during this time.
-
I/s
Generally I'd agree but it has been interesting how quiet they have been this year compared to 2005.
-
I/s
Generally I'd agree but it has been interesting how quiet they have been this year compared to 2005.
-
Was there any extent to which the "stressed state" was artificially exaggerated? e.g. did those plants all need to be down for maintenance simultaneously, or could maintenance have been staggered more?
-
I/S: totally. But it afflicts residential consumers and reporters the same way. The dailies' coverage of electricity issues seems to veer unevenly between "blackout threat looms!" and "why do power companies keep raising prices?"
-
I/O: but were willing to let that 5% go at $250 and that bid happened to be the one that set the market price. Major hydro has not stopped generating during this time.
Yep, absolutely. But then the question's just reset as to why the opportunity cost on that margin is more than, say, $240 or $245 - and that reflects future demand and prices. The point that Whirinkai comes on line at $200 reflects a watermark for what could be considered "high" spot prices.
-
Well, now they're haltingly reading out transcripts of John Key interviews with all them um/ah/er conversational noises left in.
I'm gleefully guilty of that. From an article I wrote in 2006:
“It points to imperfections in earlier planning. Mmm.” Energy Minister David Parker nods approvingly at his own summation of the Auckland blackout on 12 June.
It was a beautiful "mmm".
-
The dailies' coverage of electricity issues seems to veer unevenly between "blackout threat looms!" and "why do power companies keep raising prices?"
Similar, but not identical to the media's treatment of the property market. Someone's going to have a brain bleed if a photogenically pathetic family doesn't (literally) get thrown into the gutter soon.
I'm gleefully guilty of that.
As long as they don't find an occasion to trot out a knee-snappingly funny Wansy Pong impersonation. That's a personal highlight of Parliamentary wit.
-
Linger
It was stressed but not blackout stressed, more around the potential to have to call up reserves so meaning there would be no further margin for error.
Summer is a low load so the preferred maintenance time. Contact signalled its maintencne of stratford a year or so ago and yes they do 'coordinate' in a non anticompetitive way.
What was unplanned was the permanent closure of New Plymouth, which mainly runs in winter so forced greater hydro conservation earlier, and the inexplicable closure of half the HVDC link with only 24 hours notice, removing some system flexibility.
Also demand has been high this year, it is thought due to irrigation due to there being no rain water ! A sort of negative feedback loop.
BenAgreed. I think the range of uncertainties at the moment is driving the future price of water. Maybe there is also an opportunity to "make hay while the sun shines".
Post your response…
This topic is closed.