It’s completely intuitive to me that warmer homes are better for people. I know from experience with an asthmatic son. Though what really sets him off is getting a cold or sometimes Wellington’s cool strong northerly.

The surprising thing to me is that, despite the trumpeting of proof, the evidence doesn’t necessarily back that up. My suspicion is warmth is an aggravating factor not necessarily the prime driver of some illness, so we need to be slightly cautious in deciding solutions and who should pay particularly when the savings (like hospitalisation) don’t appear to be occurring.

Oh and the c/b analysis of 1.73 came from a separate but related paper by Ralph Chapman here http://www.otago.ac.nz/wsmhs/academic/dph/research/housing/publications/Insulation%20benefits%2031oct042.doc

Apologies for the product placement here, but I’ve already done up one house with
this product and I’m really impressed. Totally eliminates the need to reline walls and works much better than I expected.

A later editorial acknowledges the shortcomings, but the results are clear enough. It is important to note that only 30% of those who saw improvements were given the full insulation package, and that even the full insulation package offered was far less than comprehensive. The actual effect seen in raised temperatures was not substantial – approx 0.6 degrees higher mean temperatures to 14.2 degrees. This is still well below the WHO recommended minimum of 18 degrees. To take an uninsulated NZ home up to European standards would take substantially more than the $2000 spent. This is why we need a policy intervention that enables more than simply minor roof insulation but instead proper whole house renovations where necessary.

As you mention though, the benefits were quantifiable, and statistically significant in some areas – particularly respiratory symptoms and days off work and school . Not all areas of wellbeing saw such and improvement however, and the data on GP visits was unclear. Nevertheless, the BMJ and others think that the benefits of such an intervention is well justified.

Over 12 months there were substantial (of the order of 50%) improvements in self-rated health, wheezing and reduced time off work and school in the intervention group, with fewer visits to GP and hospital. Visible mould was reduced by 50%. Again it is impossible to fully blind this study, but it was single blind and the size of the study and the size of improvements for a mix of hard and soft outcomes give it great weight.

Similar results were found in another NZ study that looked at an intervention to provide heating, and effects on asthma. The effect was quite substantial (BMJ, subscription, PDF) in terms of days off school, sickness, and asthma. We’re a sick nation, needlessly.

I’ve also just re-read the study and can’t find a figure that corresponds to 1.73. The article says “tangible health and energy benefits outweighed the costs by a factor approaching 2″. It might be there, I just couldn’t see it.

And of course, that is just the tangible benefits. Warm, cosy people are happier, and more likely to care for others, new research suggests. More reason for the left to support an insulation policy Less likely to want to go to Queensland either…

I know that’s what the publicity said but when you look at the study the benefit was actually 1.73, which to me is quite a bit lower than 2. He uses a long and low discount rate – 30 years and 5% when Treasury says 6% and 20 years, while on the other side Chapman says he has not included some benefits which could improve the equation. Seems to me there may be a lot of scope for argument about the c/b conclusions.

the health benefits looked ok on the surface but even the researchers said the change in hospital admissions was not statistically significant (which is one of the major benefits being claimed for insulation by the NZBCSD).

Many of the other benefits were self reported reductions in days off and well being, which may have been artefacts of the study (something noted as having happened in other studies apparantly) ie people thinking they are warmer and drier even though the temperature changes were not that great IMO.

One example was people said they had less mould yet the mould spore counts did not actually change, and GPs reported no significant change in visits despite a massive self reported change (which to me casts doubts on the other self reported improvements).

SO if admissions don’t go down, the medical cost savings argument becomes a bit tenuous making the investment in insulation less attractive from a national benefit.

Highly publicised 2007 University of Otago research show that there are substantial health benefits. It also quantified the benefit, and found close to $2 benefit for every dollar invested.

The Otago press release is worth reading.

Why should the Govt even consider stepping in to get people out of Thailand? Is there some danger in having your holiday extended? Did we race to get people out of the US after 9/11 or the UK after the tube bombings? There are other international airports operating in Thailand. This is nanny statism gone mad. Travel insurance should cover getting them out or their airline/travel agent.

On topic, I found this interesting comment re home heating from a story a few months ago:

“Christchurch Hospital respiratory physician Michael Epton said there was growing scientific evidence that people’s houses affected their respiratory conditions.

“What was not clear was whether targeted intervention, such as insulating homes, cut hospital admissions for respiratory conditions. This work needed to be done, Epton said. ”

SO if admissions don’t go down, the medical cost savings argument becomes a bit tenuous making the investment in insulation less attractive from a national benefit.

Did you ever see Helen Clark less than confident and decisive on any such issue?

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, here. The state should be concerned about the poorest families living in sub-standard housing, and require those landlords to bring those properties up to scratch. I don’t think you need to spend a billion dollars to do it. Just a five-year phase-in period with severe penalties if they don’t comply.

Indeed. It’s a policy intervention that needed to happen yesterday. The Fifth Labour Government may eventually have gathered the courage to do it, but it was down the list of priorities unfortunately.

I do accept that taking on a large number of landlords, even with the support of a large part of the electorate, is something that no government would take on lightly, and could be difficult. For that reason I’m not averse to a sweetner such as low interest loans to accompany regulation. We shouldn’t be paying the full price in subsidies however.

It might also be rolled out from the deep South upwards – Southland, Otago and West Coast in the first few years, then Canterbury, Marlborough, Nelson etc. It would also be good to see these loans tied to the property, so that someone selling does not lose the value of improvements – this is part of the ‘California model’ that seems worth adopting.

(and as an aside, it seems that California is racing ahead of many places including NZ in many areas of policy. We’re not the ‘world leaders’ that Helen Clark constantly claimed.)

Balancing the expectations of the MP and Act, plus the internal policy divisions inside of the Nats is going to be hard

Yes people still do read Engels but don’t necessary draw the conclusions that SP does about more state intervention.

However, right now, old Fred would probably support state housing for obvious reasons. They are a small step towards socialism.

Red Logix refers to one aspect of it. Leasehold was a huge movement in the 19th century but it collapsed in the face of the great second Land Grab from Maori during the Liberal adminstration of the 1890s. Of course from that point on capital gains taxes were a big no no. In fact the reverse, for example high country land that has remained leasehold is now being converted to freehold.

But housing is something that can be tackled right now. State housing keeps land out of private ownership and takes a step towards socialism. It also forces all those landlords who get tax breaks and need more tax incentives to upgrade substandard housing out of business. Good riddance. Except of course Heatley is the Minister and not Engels. To Engels Question Heatley answer is: cap!

RedLogix:

I don’t agree that investors didnt contribute towards the housing boom of recent years. That’s because I include all those proverbial ‘mums and dads’ who dabbled in second or third houses, or went into doups to augument their low wages. Or who simply traded up several times. But add to this already overheated market the subprime loans that started to blossom over the last few years (Aussie banks leading the way).

Jum:

I agree with you Nats are shaping up for a blitzkreig under the pretext of the financial crisis with 3 years for a new round of shock and horror.

Back to Engels SP:

The answer is not to pin ones hopes on state housing (as this is a reform incapable of meeting workers housing needs) but rather advocate workers occupations and expropriations of vacant public and private housing.

“As it is not our task to create utopian systems for the arrangement of the future society, it would be more than idle to go into the question here. But one thing is certain: there are already in existence sufficient buildings for dwellings in the big towns to remedy immediately any real “housing shortage,” given rational utilization of them. This can naturally only take place by the expropriation of the present owners and by quartering in their houses the homeless or those workers excessively overcrowded in their former houses. Immediately the proletariat has conquered political power such a measure dictated in the public interests will be just as easy to carry out as other expropriations and billetings are by the existing state.”

I think Helen Clark’s reputation as a master of MMP took some pretty heavy body-blows this year. She pu tup with far too much from Winston for the sake of holding together a government. If there is ever an example of wet spaghetti, then that was it.

Helen Clark put together a stable government from 1999-2002. During this time the Alliance collapsed, but Clark’s government’s authority remained strong. I think that was a good example of sound political management from Clark.

In 2002 she had the opportunity to build an agreement with the Greens, and refused. In 2005 she turned down the chance to work constructively with the Maori Party. I think in retrospect her policy of building the minimum agreement necessary went against her.

Key has built on Clark’s habit of more flexible coalition arrangements, open to a range from full coalition on everything and cabinet positions (the position from 1996-1999), coalition with agreement to disagree on some things, and full cabinet (99-02), confidence and supply with ministers outside cabinet, confidence and supply with no ministers, and agreements to abstain. It’s hard to see where else arrangements might evolve, but Key’s advantage–and Clark can take a lot of credit for developing these things–is that support options aren’t limited.

Where Key’s fresh approach is not to go for minimum cooperation, but to go for maximum support. Key isn’t happy with 62 votes out of 122, as Clark was. That’s why he’s gone wider. Time will tell if it will lead to a less fractious parliament, but I think your predictions of brittleness are about as credible as the cold water you poured on political opinion polling before the election.

However look at NZF with National between 1996 and 1999 and the contortions that the Nats did to stay the course. Sure the Alliance fractured between 1999 and 2002, but that simply resulted in an early election.

So far it looks like the Nats operate like spagetti, limp and extremely flexible when wet. However I think that their coalitions will fracture like dry spagetti when they get a bit of a load on them. Certainly how they operated with NZF in the 90’s

Ah, so that explains all those successful coalition arrangements between the MP and Labour, and why National refuses to work with them – thanks for clearing that up!

No-one reads Engels anymore. another of those failed policies of the past

Tim

Why doesn;t the Govt contract standards with landlords? Guarantee a certain level of rent in return for specified standard of housing. That way the landlord has the certainty to invest and the stock of housing gradually improves, particularly at the bottom end.