Joyce’s latest list

Written By: - Date published: 9:01 am, August 22nd, 2012 - 39 comments
Categories: spin, Steven Joyce - Tags:

You have to remember sometimes that Steven Joyce’s introduction to politics was as a campaign strategist. That explains why he is still obsessed with style over substance. He’s released the second of six glossy publications from his new Mobie super-ministry. Like the previous one – like the decision to form the super-ministry – there’s no meat behind it: the point is merely to appear busy.

 I’m not going to go into a detailed critique of the Building Innovation paper because that would be like going into a detailed critique of the latest Top 40 pop-pap. But let’s look at a few facts:

Joyce lists 56 action points in his plan for boosting innovation. But not a one of them is actual new policy.

9 of them are listed as “complete” – they’re stuff the Government isn’t even doing anymore!

14 of them are listed as “new” but each and every one of these is about “exploring” or “investigating” doing something. So, there’s no new actua’ policy. There’s just signalling intent to look at possible policies. Remember how your mum used to say ‘if you don’t have anything to say, don’t say anything?’

After four years, we expect a bit more than a glossy report which could be summed up as “we know there’s a problem, we’ll look into it, promise”.

And what is one of the things that Joyce’s Mobie will explore? The tax treatment of R&D. Who canceled R&D tax credits? Who campaigned against the re-introduction of R&D tax credits in 2011? Joyce and his gang. So, the summary’s actually worse than I said before it’s more like “we know there’s a problem, we’ve just realised that we made it worse, we’ll look into it, promise”.

The report manages to set another of Joyce’s famous ‘goals’ – 1% of GDP spent on private R&D. There’s no timeline for achieving this, no policy either. As the New Zealand Institute once famously said of this government’s ’50 by 50′ greenhouse emissions reduction target: a goal is not a strategy.

Joyce’s reputation as the most over-rated minister just got stronger.

39 comments on “Joyce’s latest list ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. marsman 1
    22 August 2012 at 9:30 am

    People like Tracey Watkins call Joyce ‘a safe pair of hands’ but all sneaky Steven’s hands seem to do is twiddle their thumbs and hand large chunks of cash to his chums. He’s a menace to NZ.

  2. ad 2
    22 August 2012 at 9:32 am

    Bring back the Growth and Innovation Framework, I say. A plan for the economy that makes all Departments put budget bids in under a common evaluative framework.

    And bring back the Fast Forward Fund, while we’re at it.

    And while I’m preaching, could University commercial arms like Uniservices please make more of their inventor-professors into milionaires. They deserve the motivation and the reward.

  3. Dr Terry 3
    22 August 2012 at 10:12 am

    Arguably when Joyce and his kind have nothing to say, it is better to say it out loud so that increasing numbers of people with average intelligence can immediately realise how stupid and futile it all is.

    • bbfloyd 3.1
      22 August 2012 at 12:34 pm

      If that was true, then why havn’t those same “average” intellects seen through johnny sparkles, paula bannett, kate wilkinson, john banks, gerry brownlee, jonathan coleman, hekia parata, bill english, and whoever else within this “claytons” government who has uttered meaningless, irrelevant drivel in order for the “news media” to be able to continue the work of glorifying everything tory…?

  4. Tracey 4
    22 August 2012 at 10:13 am

    For a party that told us in 2008 that it would be a DO government and not a TALK government, they certainly use alot of words

    • Jim Nald 4.1
      22 August 2012 at 10:56 am

      Oh we may well had misheard and proof-readers mis-edited.

      This is the DOH government!

      Fyi:
      In 2001, the word “Doh” was added to the Oxford English Dictionary with the definition given:

      Expressing frustration at the realisation that things have turned out badly or not as planned, or that one has just said or done something foolish.

  5. tc 5
    22 August 2012 at 10:16 am

    SJ takes his methods from the corporate world, say it loud, say it often, wrap it up in spin with a glossy sexy presentation and bully anyone who challenges it as ‘not a team player’

    Much like the jabberwocky episode of ‘Better off ted’.

    • Tracey 5.1
      22 August 2012 at 10:19 am

      The man made his money in commercial radio, doesn’t that say it all about any substance?

      • bbfloyd 5.1.1
        22 August 2012 at 12:41 pm

        Who needs substance when you have a huge propaganda apparatus operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, to ensure that there is a full protective blanket thrown around any, and all incompetent ministers, and mp’s from the sponsors pet legislature?

        It’s called “the news media”… A misnomer if there ever was one….

        • North 5.1.1.1
          22 August 2012 at 8:55 pm

          Don’t recall who said it but this sums it all up – “The News…….rich people telling middle class people to blame poor people.”

  6. Tiger Mountain 6
    22 August 2012 at 10:57 am

    Motormouth Joyce presents like he eats prozac as if it were tic tacs. All blue skies and bullshit.

    “That’s the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn’t mean anything.”
    ― Noam Chomsky

    • Tracey 6.1
      22 August 2012 at 1:21 pm

      Jaques Ellul also has some interesting things to say about western propaganda notwithstanding it was written in the 60’s.

      There is great stuff on policy formation too, along the lines of decide what you want to do, frame a question that everyone will love your answer to, and then seemingly after consultation you have the answer.

  7. AmaKiwi 7
    22 August 2012 at 11:16 am

    Excellent quote.

    Does Chomsky say how we can unmask this kind of deception?

    • mike 7.1
      22 August 2012 at 4:04 pm

      Education and awareness about propaganda. Read up on Edward Bernays, (good stuff on youtube.) His 1928 book ‘Propaganda’ was Goebbels’s bible. He realized that people make decisions based on emotions, not facts. He advised corporations how to sell stuff that people didn’t need, and US governments on how to sell people policy and wars for decades. He was reportedly an elitist who believed that the general population were idiots who needed to managed and kept under control with propaganda.

      After WWII he saw that the Germans had made propaganda a word with strong negative connotations, so he come up with a new name for it: public relations.

      • mike 7.1.1
        22 August 2012 at 4:06 pm

        Just to be clear those are my words not anything I know of Chomksy saying.

        • Tim G 7.1.1.1
          22 August 2012 at 7:28 pm

          “Your words” are a pretty lazy para-phrasing of Adam Curtis’ Century of the Self, but meh.

          • mike 7.1.1.1.1
            22 August 2012 at 9:08 pm

            I’m so sorry my blog post fails to live up to your editorial standard Tim. Do you have a point, or just meh?

            Also I said “my words”, (which is what they are), only because I was replying to the question “Does Chomsky say how we can unmask this kind of deception?” and I wanted to make it clear that my answer does not refer to anything that Chomsky has said. That’s all.

            • Tim G 7.1.1.1.1.1
              23 August 2012 at 12:25 am

              Well, it would be nice to get a plug for the Century of the Self in if you’re going to plagiarisereference it. It is freely available on youtube and is pretty much essential viewing.

              A reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prTarrgvkjo

              • mike …
                23 August 2012 at 2:11 am

                Why I’m bothering I’m really not sure, but I’ll explain myself once more. When I said “those are my words not anything I know of Chomksy saying” I meant quite literally that the words that I had typed in the previous comment were not something that I had got from Chomsky. Nothing more nor less than that. I was only worried that some pedant would come along and say “Hey, Noam Chomsky never said that!” But instead I ended up with a different I’ve-seen-century-of-the-self-too-so-I’m gonna-show-off-and-trol-this-guy-at-the-same-time kind of pedant. If you interpreted my comments as meaning that I was claiming some sort of intellectual ownership of anything I typed, then let me assure you as plainly as I can: you were mistaken.

                As far as I can see, your lip-worbling criticism boils down to the fact that I neglected to add the words “According to Century of the Self…” Again, I’m sorry that my blog post didn’t conform to your academic standards. Boohoo for you. This isn’t an academic essay, it’s a blog. People post facts, opinions and theories that they have read or seen elsewhere all the time. And they don’t always use footnotes. And they don’t have to.

      • fnjckg 7.1.2
        22 August 2012 at 4:38 pm

        YeP!

  8. starlight 8
    22 August 2012 at 11:35 am

    He is an arrogant,ignorant,controlling individual,having power is his absolute
    desire,on tv3 this morning though,he lost it a bit when he said with regards to
    his business company,i guess that would be media works,that he had to
    step back and let others run it,i thought he has no longer got an interest
    in media works,the same company that was bailed out by the tax payer.
    Interesting.

    • TightyRighty 8.1
      22 August 2012 at 11:54 am

      At first I thought was a lame attempt at poetry. Now i see there is just a fundamental problem with your education.

      • Craig Glen Eden 8.1.1
        22 August 2012 at 12:05 pm

        TightyRighty’s only contribution, sneering at someone else’s grammar. Cunliffe addressed this stuff yesterday in the House yesterday, he’s back all right check it out .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sbMqhoLkZA

      • fatty 8.1.2
        22 August 2012 at 12:10 pm

        Some people use devices that are not great for typing…everyone else here can read that post. There’s only one person with a fundamental problem.
        You’d do anything to divert the conversation away from the fact that Joyce ripped off the system

      • mike e 8.1.3
        22 August 2012 at 8:08 pm

        Tighty almighty I thought that with your education you would be able to shed light on successful economic policies and countries or states they are working in.
        I suppose ignorance is bliss.

  9. captain hook 9
    22 August 2012 at 12:42 pm

    red rod Oram in last weeks SST.
    at the governments beano for science and innovation, science and innovation were only mentioned 4 times while ‘brand’ and the ‘story’ 25 times.
    They only seem to be good at flapping their gums and talking about inconsequentials.

  10. Tracey 10
    22 August 2012 at 1:22 pm

    Yes, who can argue with increasing R & D as long as they forget the NATS cut it as one of their very first initiatives, just ahead of degrading employment rights.

  11. Tracey 11
    22 August 2012 at 1:26 pm

    Jaques Ellul suggests amongst many other things that the educated are the most suceptible to propaganda because of their voraciousness for information and eagerness to disseminate it.

    “To the extent that propaganda is based on current news, it cannot permit time for thought or reflection. A man caught up in the news must remain on the surface of the event; be is carried along in the current, and can at no time take a respite to judge and appreciate; he can never stop to reflect. There is never any awareness — of himself, of his condition, of his society — for the man who lives by current events.

    Such a man never stops to investigate any one point, any more than he will tie together a series of news events. We already have mentioned man’s inability to consider several facts or events simultaneously and to make a synthesis of them in order to face or to oppose them. One thought drives away another; old facts are chased by new ones. Under these conditions there can be no thought. And, in fact, modern man does not think about current problems; he feels them. He reacts, but be does not understand them any more than he takes responsibility for them. He is even less capable of spotting any inconsistency between successive facts; man’s capacity to forget is unlimited. This is one of the most important and useful points for the propagandist, who can always be sure that a particular propaganda theme, statement, or event will be forgotten within a few weeks. Moreover, there is a spontaneous defensive reaction in the individual against an excess of information and — to the extent that he clings (unconsciously) to the unity of his own person — against inconsistencies. The best defense here is to forget the preceding event. In so doing, man denies his own continuity; to the same extent that he lives on the surface of events and makes today’s events his life by obliterating yesterday’s news, he refuses to see the contradictions in his own life and condemns himself to a life of successive moments, discontinuous and fragmented.

    This situation makes the “current-events man” a ready target for propaganda. Indeed, such a man is highly sensitive to the influence of present-day currents; lacking landmarks, he follows all currents. He is unstable because he runs after what happened today; he relates to the event, and therefore cannot resist any impulse coming from that event. Because he is immersed in current affairs, this man has a psychological weakness that puts him at the mercy of the propagandist. No confrontation ever occurs between the event and the truth; no relationship ever exists between the event and the person. Real information never concerns such a person. What could be more striking, more distressing, more decisive than the splitting of the atom, apart from the bomb itself? And yet this great development is kept in the background, behind the fleeting and spectacular result of some catastrophe or sports event because that is the superficial news the average man wants. Propaganda addresses itself to that man; like him, it can relate only to the most superficial aspect of a spectacular event, which alone can interest man and lead him to make a certain decision or adopt a certain attitude.

    But here we must make an important qualification. The news event may be a real fact, existing objectively, or it may be only an item of information, the dissemination of a supposed fact. What makes it news is its dissemination, not its objective reality.”

    When you read this kind of treatise (?) you see how pivotal the media are, and how vital it is that they don’t become corporatised. However, equallly you see WHY certain men would want control over the media. And they currently have it. I believe the ODT is one of the few “independant” papers left in NZ?

  12. BillODrees 12
    22 August 2012 at 3:11 pm

    Cunliffe getting praise on Whaleoil!  And a full video of his excellent speech in Parliament last night also!    Jesus, Mary and Joseph! What next? 

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/08/cunliffe-has-eyes-on-prize/

    Was Trevor behind this also!!  (a joke) 
     

  13. xtasy 13
    23 August 2012 at 12:57 am

    NO to Joyce’s super fart policy!

    Want economic development?

    Cut tax for low income earners, which I believe the government did to a fair degree;
    increase tax on high incomes, this has not happened, put it at 38 pc over 65 k and 45 over 70 k, thanks, for the investment in NZ’s future;
    capital gains tax on all capital gains except personal, private home up to a limit of value;
    tax holidays for new investments from new investors that invest in value added industries or similar;
    tightening up of real estate purchasing, rural or urban, solely for likely speculative, calculated “investmetn”;
    incentive policies for graduates to stay and work in NZ;
    invitations to individual smart tech and knowledge based investments, also to long term committed investors that put their money where their mouths are (e.g. if you want Mexican conditons, go there, bugger off, if you want to live here and help develop us, maybe fast track migration);
    dual trade agreement favouring NZ rather than sell out FTAs, which sell out NZ and lower working conditions;
    more science, research, educational incentives and more, and above all, an open, democratic, responsible and critical societal environment, not punishing unduly independent media telling the truth and holding this society accountable.

    sounds a bit Swiss? Aye, where are we from then?

  14. xtasy 14
    23 August 2012 at 1:13 am

    So tonight I have just learned that Russia has been admitted to the “club” of the WTO!?

    I know that Putin (put in the NAZI mentality) wanted it, did all to have the wording come “rigth” to meet the other “partner’s” requirements, but are we not being treated like crap and shit yet again here? What bloody “FTA” is this now that also Grosser wants to sign with Russia, which gladly has NOT been signed yet?

    What about the band “Pussy Riot”, be this silly trivial or what, but what about FREEDOM OF SPEECH? What about free expression, rule of law, democracy, and the rest of it?

    I see the west kneeling down, having the mainstream crap media only make the odd token gesture, but say NOTHING of substance. What about Grosser, Key, the government, the opposition, the rest of this ignorant, dumbed down, media shat on society? Does anybody think? I see and hear NONE!

    Where is the NZ Herald “Tart” that dared to argue with me last night about mirepresented welfare figures? Where is Simon Collins for once, has he also been bought off and silenced?

    NZ is DEAD as a supposed “free” society, which is just a total farce. Mathew Hoot ON and OFF proved it once again tonight on this forum. Good on him to at least to show up. I see and hear nobody else.

    Good Night.

  15. tracey 15
    23 August 2012 at 5:21 am

    Right on cue, ACC report due today so the PM ignites highly emotional euthanasia debate. Coincidence? Nothing he does is unplanned.