In the NZ Gazette today:

Under section 134(1) of the Electoral Act 1993, I, Gerard Anthony Brownlee, Speaker of the House of Representatives, give notice that the seat of Darleen Tana has become vacant by reason of her ceasing to be a parliamentary member of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, the parliamentary leaders of that party having delivered to me in accordance with section 55A(3)(b) of the Act a written notice that complies with section 55C of the Act.

She will not be missed.

A reader observes:

The ship lies in 30m of water just off the reef and not far from where the sea floor plunges 300m+ one nautical mile offshore from Upolo’s north coast near the cross-island highway and opposite the five star Sinalei Reef Resort. The coastline there is incredibly beautiful and pristine.

IMHO the ship is not salvageable. Instead the focus has to be on removing the 950 tonnes of diesel on board and mitigating any environmental impact. That in itself will be a hazardous undertaking working so close to the reef.

There has been a lot of commentary from armchair admirals with much to say based on very little knowledge with a fair bit of misoginism thrown in for good measure. Particular (disparaging) comment has been made about the Captain’s sexuality. By all accounts she is an extremely capable ex RN officer who managed to evacuate the ship in dark, in a heightened sea state, without loss of life. Both the Minister and the Chief of Navy have commended her for that. Having said that it is fair to point out that under the previous Chief of Navy there was a push to give female officers seagoing command experience … last year four out of our seven operational ships were commanded by females. Early this year one of those (Captain HMNZS Canterbury) was relieved of command after her superiors reportedly lost confidence in her. Perhaps its time to pause and reflect.

Manawanui was a state of the art ship albeit in a 20 YO hull. It had been extensively refurbished and had just come out of a period of maintenance. The reports (if correct) that it suffered a catastrophic loss of power are concerning. The Navy are in the processing of establishing a high level Court of Inquiry into the sinking. I, for one, have confidence in the process. I have no doubt they will leave no stone unturned in establishing what actually happened and what (and who) was responsible with any repercussions to follow.

For now the government has a duty of care to throw everything at mitigating the effect of the disaster no matter the cost. Our ‘special relationship’ (so called) with Samoa is at risk. Samoans recall the tragedy of the SS Tahuna when, in 1918, the NZL Military Administration allowed the ship to dock in Apia with passengers sick with the Spanish Flu (the ‘black death’) …. the resulting epidemic saw 22% of the population wiped out; nor ‘Black Saturday’ (28 December 1928) where NZL Military policemen machine-gunned a peaceful demonstration by the Mau seeking self government causing 11 deaths; nor Muldoon’s dawn raids of 1976-79; nor the measles epidemic of 2019 imported from NZL. Our special relationship is fragile indeed … we cannot allow this tragedy to de-rail it.

Updated … I’m told from a reliable source that the ship left Devonport with the back up generator non operational. Manawanui had two main engines run off one switch board. When the switch board failed (caught fire) both main engines were knocked out and with the back up generator u/s it was all over rover. If that is correct then heads will surely roll.

The Herald reports:

A second bid by former Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman to avoid a conviction for last year’s nearly $9000 shoplifting spree has failed. …

In a judgment released this morning, High Court Justice Geoffrey Venning said “the consequences of conviction cannot be said to be ‘out of all proportion’ to the gravity of offending in this case” — meaning there was no error in the district court decision.

The judgement is below, for those interested. The Judge goes through a process where he assesses the severity of the offending, then the severity of the consequence of conviction, and then whether the consequence isn’t just greater than the offending, but out of all proportion to it.

He said that offending can be categorised as low, moderate or serious and that on the bare facts, Ghahraman’s offending was in the serious category, albeit on the lower end of serious. Then taking into account her circumstances, the offending ends up in the moderate category, again at the lower end.

Then the Judge found that the consequences of a conviction, as opposed to consequences of the offending would fall in the low band, but at the higher end of low.

So you have the offending at the lower end of moderate and the consequences of a conviction at the higher end of low. Hence the consequences of a conviction do not outweigh the offending, let alone be out of all proportion to it. Basically the Judge is saying it isn’t even close.

Personally I think the convictions shouldn’t bar Ghahraman from practising law again at some stage in the future. It’s a matter of how long a break there should be between conviction and being able to practice again.

Trump is now favoured to win by four of the six prediction sites. It remains a remarkably close race with none of the seven swing states having a lead of more than 2%. As the average polling error in US presidential elections is 4%, it will come down to who does better than their polls. As Trump has done so in both 2016 and 2020, the smart money would be on him at this stage.

All six sites have Trump ahead in Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina giving him 262 election votes. He needs 270 to win. In Pennsylvania he leads in three, his behind in two and tied with one. Again the decision of Harris not to pick Josh Shapiro may be critical. A win there gives him 281.

If he wins Nevada (ahead in two, tied in one, behind in three) that gives him 268 EVs and Harris 270.

Three days ago the average had Harris 276 and Trump 262. Now it is Trump 281 and Harris 257.

News.com.au reports:

Senator Thorpe screamed out “f**k the colony” and “you are not my King” just moments after the monarch had delivered his address praising Australia.

She also yelled out a demand for “treaty” and said “you stole our land” and “you are not our King”.

“Give us our land back that you f**king stole from us,” she screamed. 

“Our bones, our skulls, our babies, our people.

You expect this sort of stuff from a moronic 13 year old protester, not an elected Senator. Its disgraceful behaviour.

Later, in the Great Hall, Senator Thorpe also turned her back as the Australian anthem was played.

In a statement released on Monday, Senator Thorpe said the British Crown and King Charles should be prosecuted for “genocide”.

It’s an interesting concept that you should hold people criminally liable for what their ancestors did 200 years ago. By this logic, any descendants of Te Rauparaha should be charged with genocide, theft, murder, rape and torture?

Senator Thorpe was elected as a Green Party Senator, and their deputy leader. She turned out to be even too insane for them, and is now an independent. She celebrated a fire in Old Parliament House and goes up to men outside strip clubs and informs them they stole her land, Yes, seriously.

The Herald reported:

Minister Andrew Bayly has apologised after a complaint he allegedly swore at, mocked and ridiculed a man during a ministerial visit to a business.

The complainant says it left him feeling “degraded, embarrassed and deeply disrespected”. …

Bayly said: “I obviously got this completely wrong, and I have unreservedly apologised to the person concerned.

“It was unintentional, I meant the comments in a light-hearted manner, but I accept that they caused offence. I take responsibility for the situation, and I am sorry.

The complainant said:

When Andrew Bayly was introduced to me, one of the first things he asked was why I was still at work. His tone was dismissive, and he proceeded to say, “Take a bottle of wine and go home, go on, go home…take some wine and f*** off.”

His behaviour and the way he spoke to me suggested that he had been drinking prior to arriving, which made the situation even more uncomfortable. Certainly not the demeanour one would expect from a representative of the New Zealand Government.

As he stepped closer, invading my personal space until we were shoulder to shoulder, Andrew again questioned why I was still working, noting that no one else was on the warehouse floor. What followed next was both shocking and humiliating. He called me a “loser” repeatedly, saying the reason I was still at work was because I am a “loser.”

He turned to the group of people with him at the time, including my boss, the Minister’s assistant, marketing staff, and employees, and formed an ‘L’ with his fingers on his forehead.

It seems clear to me reading this, that Bayly was trying to be funny, and was ribbing the staff member for being the only one still at work. I’ve heard from a number of people that they have seen Bayly try similar humour on other occasions. You often see this misjudged humour with people who have low EQ or are even slightly on the spectrum.

Now this doesn’t make what he did, acceptable. That sort of joshing humour should only be done with people you know, who are friends. In my weekly board gaming group, we often chant “loser” and hold up Ls to each other when someone loses. But that is between good friends, who know it is done with no ill intent. Trying to do that with a stranger is a very bad idea, as they could well interpret it in the way this complainant did.

And doing so a Minister of the Crown, is even more ill-advised. The fault does lie with Bayly, not with the complainant.

However Bayly did twice apologise to the complainant, once he was aware he had offended him. And despite receiving two apologies, the complainant decided to send a complaint letter to the leaders of Labour, TPM and the Greens, as well as the PM. Now he is entitled to do what he wants, but it does raise the question of exactly what he wants to achieve, having already had two apologies.

This has been viewed 10 million times. Konstantin Kisin did not use to have a view on the conflict, as he had never focused on it. But now he has come off the fence.

Lloyd Burr reports:

As a public service broadcaster, it has the funds and resources to cover stories that commercially-driven media can’t always do. Investigations. Council meetings. Court proceedings. Ultra-local stories. Niche stories. Stories that are in the public interest but don’t necessarily need to be justified based on revenue.

Some of its work here is a public good – especially local democracy reporting and local court reporting.

Recently though, a number of media commentators have noticed RNZ expanding into the news mediascape that’s already well-served by commercial news sites. Former NZ Herald boss Tim Murphy and former 3 News boss Mark Jennings have talked about it. So has former NZ Herald editor Gavin Ellis. The Spinoff’s Duncan Greive has spoken about it too.

The crux of it is that RNZ’s news website, which has seen an injection of funding, is chasing audience with stories that aren’t very RNZ-y and it’s coming at the expense of Stuffand NZ Herald.

A good point.

It begs the question: What is the rationale of a taxpayer-funded, non-commercial product eating into the traditional space of commercial news media? Why isn’t it spending its money on core ‘public-interest’ journalism?

The Government should focus Radio NZ more on non-commercial public good journalism. It could, for example, commission a monthly poll (no not from Curia) recognising that no private media outlet can afford to regularly poll anymore. This is actually against my personal financial interest, but would be a public good.

The Herald reported:

A tourist trying to have “a nice holiday in Nelson” was pulled off her bike, kicked and beaten by a naked man running through a campground.

The impact split her helmet and left her with lingering anxieties from the trauma of what started as a nice summer day by the beach.

The aggressor was Ricky James Mullen, a man described as having a nihilistic outlook, and now so used to prison, he functioned better inside it than out.

So why was he let out?

Ten years ago it was reported:

A Timaru man whose children saw him try to kill their mother’s new partner has been jailed for more than seven years.

Ricky James Mullen, 30, was sentenced in the High Court in Timaru today by Justice Graeme Pankhurst on charges of attempted murder, male assaults female and breaching a protection order.

He was jailed for seven years and four months.

This would have got him a strike as it occurred in 2013. Sadly Labour and Greens abolished the three strikes law, so his latest offending means he will get out in a few years, and offend again.

Sir Apirana Ngata is on our $50 note. He was a lawyer and then was the MP for Eastern Maori for almost 40 years. He was Minister of Native Affairs for six years.He made huge contributions to Maori land reform, language and culture.

He also wrote a booklet in 1922 on the Treaty of Waitangi, which NZPCR has usefully published online. Well worth a read to compare to what some today claim the Treaty means.

Some extracts:

There was without doubt Maori chieftainship, but it was limited in its scope to its sub-tribe, and even to only a family group. The Maori did not have authority or a government which could make
laws to govern the whole of the Maori Race.

So he says there was no Government in New Zealand prior to the Treaty.

The main purport was the transferring of the authority of the Maori chiefs for making laws for their respective tribes and sub tribes under the Treaty of Waitangi to the Queen of England
for ever.

He says Article 1 clearly transfers law making authority from the chiefs to the Crown.

What is this authority, this sovereignty that is referred to in the second article? It is quite clear, the right of a Maori to his land, to his property, to his individual right to such possessions whereby he could declare, “This is my land, there are the boundaries, descended from my ancestor so and so, or conquered by him, or as the first occupier, or so and so gave it to him, or it had been
occupied by his descendents down to me. These properties are mine, this canoe, that taiaha
(combination spear and club), that greenstone patu (club), that kumera (sweet potato) pit, that cultivation. These things are mine and do not belong to anyone else”.

He says the second article is about property rights.

This article states that the Maori and Pakeha are equal before the Law, that is, they are to share the rights and privileges of British subjects.

And the third article is about equality.

Stuff reports:

Through her lawyer Annabel Cresswell, Ghahraman appealed the convictions at the Auckland High Court on Monday.

Cresswell told Justice Geoffrey Venning the convictions may impact Ghahraman’s June 2024 job application at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

People cannot work for the ICC if they have been convicted of serious criminal offending, Cresswell said, however it was was unclear if Ghahraman’s offending was serious enough for this to be a barrier.

This is a very weak argument. Ghahraman is merely an applicant for a job. She is not stated token be in the running for it, or short-listed yet alone preferred. And even if she was, the conviction is unlikely to be regarded as serious offending.

Auckland’s Crown Solicitor Alysha McClintock, acting on behalf of the police, argued any impacts on Ghahraman’s future employment and mental health were consequences of the offending itself, not the convictions.

McClintock said it was unclear whether the offending would impact Ghahraman’s application to work for the ICC, and that Cresswell had failed to provide evidence regarding the status of the application or whether it was still being pursued.

Can only agree.

The PSC reported that the ethnicity of the public service is:

• Maori 16.7%
• Asian 15.9%
• Pacific 11.0%
• MELAA 2.3%
• European (by calculation) 54.1%

How does this compare the the share of the adult population in the 2023 census?

1. Pacific 11.0% vs 6.6% = 1.7
2. MELAA 2.3% vs 1.6% = 1.4
3. Maori 16.7% vs 13.2% = 1.3
4. Asian 15.9% vs 15.5% = 1.0
5. European 54.1% vs 62.9% = 0.9

So we have a greater share of Pacific, MELAA and Maori public servants than in the overall adult population. The Asian share is pretty spot on, ands we have fewer European public servants than the share of the adult population.

A guest post by a reader:

This opinion is expressed without intimate knowledge of Cabinet rules or the rules around conflicts pertaining to electoral donations if such exist.  It is a “pub-test” analysis which goes looking for and finds what the average bloke might consider hypocrisy and bias.

The Opposition (by which I mean the Media) and the parliamentary parties not in government (Labour and the Greens) have been agitated much about conflicts of interest they perceive in the current Government.  Many stirring words have been written about:

1. Hon Nicola McKee and her links to the gun lobby.

2. Hon Casey Costello and her links to tobacco (with Chris Bishop an honourable mention).

3. Hon Shane Jones and apparent links to mining.

4. The possibility that donors and/or associates of Ministers will be advantaged by the fast-track process and will (or have already) reciprocate(d) appropriately.

The logic goes something like this: Person X used to be involved in business, advocacy or NGO activity around Function Y (perhaps by way of donation), and now Person X is a Minister, perhaps even appointed to oversee that very Function Y, and therefore is conflicted, incapable of acting for the greater good, and indeed their efforts should be dismissed as inherently attempts to favour parties outside Parliament.

The trouble with this is that in Parliament we have three parties not in government whose purposes in part at least are to advance the interests of Unions, Greens and Maori respectively.

So if it is unacceptable today for Person X who was once involved in Function Y, to oversee Function Y while in Government then on the same logic so too was it unacceptable for Ministers in the previous government to oversee functions with which they had prior connections.  Tinetti the school principal, Little and Wood the Unionists, and Ginny Andersen the Police policy wonk immediately spring to mind.  So too one of the most virulent groups of ideologues around at present is the public health physicians and one of their number Dr Ayesha Verrall is a past Minister of Health and remains Labour spokesperson on the subject.  

But the Media has never pursued the angle of inherent conflict and ostensible corruption (i.e working for the benefit of external parties) arising from it with these individuals.  

So clearly it’s not the fact of having a past which is related to present Ministerial responsibilities which is actually the problem for them.  Or to put it another way it’s not the process issue which is challenging.  It’s actually the underlying area of interest which the Media perceives to be abhorrent and which in their mind must, without a shadow of a doubt, unquestionably, always, result in people acting corruptly for external parties.  Their concern is thus ideological.

In summary, for them  a Minister with a Green or Union background can act with the interests of all his or her countrymen in mind, but a Minister with a firearms interest never can.  Indeed they might even go so far as to laud the former by calling them “conviction” politicians.

I have struck this kind of nonsense before.  In the eighties local government was restructured.  Regional councils were established to provide regulatory/environmental oversight of many things including district and city councils.  I always wondered who was watching the watchers, and why it was not considered possible that regional councils could go feral in advancing environmental objectives while district and city councils were perceived highly likely to go feral in favour of development.  There never was an answer…

To the extent there is an answer today, it is this.  In the minds of the Media, and many others in our country there is an ideological bias against commerce,  and also against those activities which reflect an emphasis on individual freedoms (smoking, shooting etc) in favour of warm and pleasant Leftish values such as wealth redistribution, safety and sustainability.  This extends to bias supportive of all activity where such values lurk and against activity where they don’t.  It embraces implicit views of moral turpitude on the part of non-believers.

Now I am not in a position to comment authoritatively on either Costello’s or McKee’s motivations and whether they are seeking to advance narrow sectional interests at the expense of the rest of us.  But I do ask that when you see the Media Opposition and antagonistic parliamentarians frothing about corrupt Ministerial links to external parties, you ask yourself why it was that members of the last government were not assessed by the same standards and whether in any future government, say, a Green Minister will be treated as untrustworthy because of a strong history of advocacy in that sphere.  And when you hear some special-interest group (we see you public health physicians) telling us to join the dots between a Minister’s stance and the views of external parties, just laugh cynically and have another chocolate.

Labour in particular is arguably a stalking horse for the Union movement.  This is reflected in the membership of the Parliamentary Party and in the legislation it passes which always extends the power of Unions and ensures other folks’ money is passed to them.  The Unions in turn support the Labour Party with parallel campaigns to ensure the “right” election result.  

If the same pub logic is applied to this relationship as to current Ministers then no Unionist would ever be involved in developing employment legislation, and no discrete project with collateral advantages to Unions would be decided with Unionists involved.  Does this seem likely to any of us…?

News.com.au reports:

Richard Marles’ chief of staff says she is “being bullied out” of her dream job after reporting misbehaviour directly to the Deputy Prime Minister.

In a press conference on Thursday morning, Jo Tarnawsky said she “loved” her job working for Mr Marles, whom she had known for “more than 10 years”.

But she said everything changed in May when she raised concerns of bullying with her boss privately.

“During the flight home from an official trip to Ukraine in late April, I raised concerns privately with the Deputy Prime Minister about some bullying behaviour within the office,” she told reporters.

Ms Tarnawsky said she had “been plagued with nightmares, flashbacks, symptoms of depression and anxiety, insomnia, panic attacks and suicidal thoughts”.

“I had none of these symptoms before May 2024,” the top staffer said. 

“The way I have been treated has been cowardly, cruel and completely unnecessary.”

It is unusual to have a chief of staff resign in this way. Things must be really bad for her to have done so.

Didn’t know much about Richard Marles, but found out he is the former Assistant Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which will explain a lot. Union bosses are often the worst employers!

Chris Bishop announced:

Sport & Recreation Minister Chris Bishop has asked Sport NZ to review and update its Guiding Principles for the Inclusion of Transgender People in Community Sport.

“The Guiding Principles, published in 2022, were intended to be a helpful guide for sporting bodies grappling with a tricky issue. They are intended to be voluntary, not mandatory. 

“Earlier this year I undertook to keep a watching brief over this genuinely difficult issue. As part of that watching brief I have met with a range of individuals and groups, and have sought advice from Sport NZ. 

“The National-New Zealand First Coalition Agreement commits the Government to ensuring publicly funded sporting bodies support fair competition that is not compromised by rules relating to gender.

“It is important that transgender people feel able to participate in community sport – but there are obviously difficult issues for sporting bodies to grapple with around fairness and safety as a result of that participation.

“I have come to the view that the Guiding Principles do not reflect legitimate community expectations that sport at a community level should not just be focused on diversity, inclusion and equity – but also prioritise fairness and safety. 

This is such a challenging area. You can prioritise inclusiveness or fairness – but not both.

I blogged last year:

I would divide sports into three levels – school age, adult and elite.

At school age sports I would prioritise inclusiveness over fairness. I think it would be incredibly damaging to a trans student to not be allowed to participate in sports in line with their gender identity. The mental health risks at this age are huge. …

At the other end of the spectrum, at elite or professional level, I think you have to prioritise fairness. Elite athletes can spend thousands of hours training to be the best in the world at an event, and it isn’t fair if they have to compete against someone they literally have no chance of beating. 

I think each sports bodies should make their own rules. In archery it might not matter if a biological male competes with biological women, but in swimming it does. Decisions should follow the science.

At adult non-elite level, I tend to favour inclusiveness over fairness, so long as it is safe. So in contact sports you may not allow a trans-woman to compete with biological women, but in table tennis you might. Leave it to each sport again.

The current guidelines are here. They may be officially voluntary. but I hear sporting codes fear funding loss if they don’t abide by them. They do seem rather unbalanced as they don’t at all deal with issues of physical safety etc.

On Sunday I blogged on how the Solicitor-General’s new guidelines for prosecutions instructed prosecutors to consider the race of defendants and victims before deciding whether to lay charges.

I broke the story, that had not been covered elsewhere at all, after a defence lawyer alerted me to it. It is somewhat sad that they asked to keep their name confidential as they feared speaking out against the guidelines could see them lose their practising certificate. That is the culture of intolerance and fear that lawyers now face.

Anyway from my blog post on Kiwiblog, it got noticed by lobby groups such as the Sensible Sentencing Trust and Hobson’s Choice. The Platform picked it up, as did Newstalk ZB. Then on Tuesday ACT criticised the guidelines and other media platforms started to report on it.

On Thursday the Attorney-General said she didn’t agree with the wording of them, and today on Friday the Solictor-General said the guidelines are being withdrawn and rewritten.

This shows the impact one can have. If that defence lawyer had never approached me, these guidelines might well have come into force on 1 January. In just five days we got a major reversal from the Solicitor-General.

Nate Silver has a good way of explaining why he will vote for Kamala Harris. Before he looks at anything else, he asks is there anything that is disqualifying about a candidate. His answer is Trump’s support of January 6 disqualifies him, and there is nothing Harris has done that is disqualifying, so he will vote for Harris.

This is basically my approach too. Now let’s be clear what I mean by disqualifying. I don’t mean I don’t like them. I don’t mean I don’t like their policies. It doesn’t mean I don’t like their rhetoric. It is a very low bar to cross. In New Zealand, Australia, Canada, UK and US I can’t think of any other major party leader who would not pass the disqualification bar. And there are many of them who I think had terrible policies and did a pretty terrible job.

I understand why many people support Trump (unlike those who are so lacking in cognitive ability that they can’t understand why people may not support Trump, and call anyone who disagrees with them as Trump Derangement Syndrome people). In fact I blogged 10 good things about Trump in 2020. They were:

1. He will sometimes defy the conventional wisdom
2. Judicial Appointments
3. He tries really hard to keep his promises
4. His instincts are anti-interventionist
5. He is more available to the media than any other modern President
6. He delivered large tax cuts
7. He is reasonably open about his motives
8. He is sceptical of regulations
9. Middle East peace deals
10. He is a cultural warrior against the woke cancel culture

If you are talking policies alone, of course I would prefer Trump’s policies (not all of them – terrible on trade and security) to Harris’. But I only get to policies if a candidate passes the low bar such as actually supporting democracy and the rule of law.

I also blogged the 10 worst things about him.

1. He suffers from narcissistic personality order
2. Record deficits and debt
3. Trump is a pathological liar
4. Trump is a protectionist
5. Trump is incompetent
6. Trump doesn’t read
7. His own appointees know he is a bad President
8. Trump is cruel
9. Trump is vindictive
10. Trump is a danger to the rule of law

Now not all of the above are disqualifying. Every US President is somewhat protectionist and most have run up huge deficits its and debt.

I want to focus on the four things that I believe are disqualifying. Any one of them would be.

1 Trump does not believe in democracy

Trump has made very clear by actions and words he does not believe in democracy. He tried to subvert the clear results of the last election through threats and violence. His heroes are all autocrats, not democrats.

For those who don’t agree with me, I pose this challenge. Is there any scenario in which Harris is certified by the states (after legal challenges have been heard) as having won a majority of electoral college votes, that Trump concedes the election? We all know he won’t, no matter the actual results. He is incapable of doing so. The only election outcome he can accept is one in which he wins.

If you disagree with me, why not put your money where your mouth it? How about a NZ$1,000 bet where you pay me if Harris is sworn in as President and Trump has refused to concede the election, and I pay you if Harris is sworn in and Trump does concede the election after legal challenges have been exhausted, once the Electoral College has voted?

I’ll even go better than 1:1 odds. Even 1:1 odds are ridiculously favourable for a normal person. The chance of Luxon not conceding the next NZ election if the CL parties get a majority of seats is basically 0%. Same for whomever the Labour Leader is. Same for Harris in the US, Albanese in Australia, Trudeau in Canada. If someone offered me a bet where I pay $20,000 if Luxon doesn’t concede and I get $1,000 if Luxon does concede, I’d take that.

So 1:1 odds implies a 50% chance Trump as loser would concede. I’d even go 5:1 which means I think there is a greater than 90% chance Trump won’t concede. If you are not willing to make that bet, then you basically agree with me that Trump will never concede, regardless of actual results.

2) Trump does not believe in the rule of law

Trump has said numerous time he does not believe the Attorney-General should make decisions based on the law and the facts. He has said he wants an AG who will follow his instructions and prosecute people he asks them to prosecute. He has sacked AGs because they put the law ahead of his wishes.

The rule of law and democracy stand at the heart of good government. Any candidate who doesn’t believe in either, let alone works against them is disqualified in my opinion. No amount of tax cuts can make up for that.

It is not a counter to Trump saying he will prosecute his enemies to point to the fact Trump has been prosecuted while Biden was in office. While you can have legitimate concerns about the politicisation of the US justice system, that is not the same as having a President who says he will sack law enforcement officials who don’t do his bidding. I also point out the Justice Department has prosecuted Biden’s son, a Democratic Senator and the Democratic Mayor of NY.

3) Trump is psychologically dangerous

Trump’s mixture of dementing, narcissism, vindictiveness and lack of self control is a toxic mixture. It makes him super easy to manipulate – just praise him and agree with him. He sacks people who put truth over his narcissism.

4) Trump is a pathological liar

All humans, and especially politicians, lie to some degree. But Trump is incapable of distinguishing reality and fantasy. Anything that doesn’t fit into his self-belief, he lies about.

Here’s a recent example

He doesn’t just lie about things which are contestable. but over things like his inauguration crowd size. A President who puts his feelings over the facts, is not someone I can trust in office. Trump doesn’t understand the difference between reality and fantasy.

If Trump believed in democracy, the rule of law, lived in reality and wasn’t narcissistic – then I would not view him as disqualified and would prefer him to Harris, or any Democrat. But he is incredibly flawed. Dismissing his actions against democracy as a few mean tweets is a recipe for disaster.

Finally I have noted a few Trump supporters dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as captured by the MSM. I find this incredibly arrogant. Basically you are saying that only you have the intellect to not be captured. I subscribe to almost a dozen RW commentators (most who are voting for Trump). I listen to Ben Shapiro every day. I read numerous RW US blogs. I also am friends with and talk to people actually involved in Republican politics at federal and state level. But sure, delude yourself that you with your Facebook group are the sole arbiter of truth, and I just get all my news from CNN.

The media and the left have reported on the reductions in public service numbers as some form of brutal year zero policy which would have you think the Government has turned the clock back decades.

The reality is that we have 421 more (FTE) public servants than a year ago. Yes the reduction in the first six months of 2024, is less than the increase inn the last six months of 2023 under Labour.

Basically they went up 4% in the last six months of Labour and dropped 3.3% in the first six months of National. Where were all the stories about why public sector agencies were massively increasing their staff numbers during the caretaker period before an election?

The age differences in this poll are very alarming. Only 59% of under 30s think Hitler was evil.

A number of forecasts have changed some of their state leads.

RCP now has Trump winning all seven states.

270 to win has Trump now leading in Pennsylvania but dropping behind in Wisconsin.

Nate Silver now has Trump marginally ahead in his projection to win as Harris’ leads are so small in her key states.

All six forecasts have Trump ahead in Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina. That gives him 262 votes. He only needs 8 more to win – Michigan, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. Wisconsin looks most likely at this stage.