A guest post by Stephen Russell:

Wrong again! To the huge embarrassment of pollsters in the US, once again the polls underestimated support for Donald Trump.

Although, in this case, that did not result in a surprise outcome, the magnitude of the error was actually much greater than in 2016. Back then, national polls proved off by 1-1.5% (and state polls by more). In 2020, the magnitude of error was about 4%, with state polls just as bad.

Some of the errors were real whoppers: the Florida poll average was off by about 6%, Iowa and Wisconsin by 7%, and polls in Maine’s 2^nd district an extraordinary 11%. Only Colorado and Georgia saw the polling average get within about 1% of the result. Only Nebraska 2^nd district polls saw a significant error the other way.

Individual polls produced even larger errors: A late October ABC News Poll gave Wisconsin to Biden by a gobsmacking 17%. On November 3 he won the state by 0.63%.

But – to be fair – some polls did a lot better. Pollsters such as Trafalgar Group and Susquehanna insisted all along that the election would be close (at least in the key states – as it was). Iowa pollster J Ann Selzer (who famously picked Obama’s Iowa caucus win in 2008) produced a late October surprise with a poll that showed Trump ahead by 7% in Iowa (when other polls said it was neck-and-neck). He won by 8.2%.

So what went wrong? It should be noted that there could be multiple sources of error – some in opposite directions, which both compounded and cancelled in different places. A poll that was right might have been luck. Or the reverse.

One theory is that most of the pollsters were lying. They were part of a vast Left-wing conspiracy to depress Republican turnout by convincing people that Joe Biden had the election in a bag. Or possibly to provide cover for the Democrats’ vote-fraud operation. In which case comparing polls to results is pointless since both are false. 

For those who seek other explanations, there are some other possibilities. The usual suspects are a late shift in support, undecided voters breaking more for one candidate, and failure by pollsters to reach some key group.

One example of the latter that certainly occurred was related to Latino voters. They are notoriously hard to poll, and pollsters treated them as a single bloc. They knew that Trump was doing a bit better here than in 2016, but failed to pick that it was mainly with particular subgroups (Venezuelan and Cuban Latinos). Hence the big error in Florida where those groups were concentrated.    

Selzer has suggested that postal voting created an asymmetric turnout surge. Four weeks before polling day Democrats were fired up to vote (by mail) – and this showed up in more people telling pollsters they definitely would vote (sometimes because they already had). But some marginal Republicans were still saying “maybe” (and thus being undercounted) until the final week, when Republican “get out the vote” efforts peaked. This explains why two earlier Selzer polls had more “normal” results than the October surprise one. She also suggests mail voting meant surprisingly short queues on polling day – which prompted more people to vote.

However, while this makes sense, there is no empirical evidence available to support it, or quantify the magnitude of the effect.

The two theories that have gained most currency since the vote are the Covid-19 twist and the hidden (but not shy) Trumper theories. 

Put simply the Covid-19 theory says that Democrats, concerned for their own and for public health in the pandemic, stayed home and answered the phone when the pollster called. Republicans did not. There is empirical data to back this. There was an upsurge in response rates following lockdowns. There was an upsurge in response by registered Democrats, and in the share of respondents who evidenced high social integration. In any event, this source of error was (hopefully) a one-off.

A third theory is that pollsters simply failed to reach a significant group of voters: not so much shy Trumpers as low-engagement ones. These people did not lie or prevaricate to pollsters. They simply never answered the phone, or just declined to participate in the poll. 

Pollsters have long known about these people. But they never before worried about them because they did not vote, or if they did, voted much the same as other people. The polls’ failure to capture their intentions made no difference.

But these people just love Trump, because Trump is the quintessential anti-politician. He denounces and smashes at every part of the dysfunctional and elitist “system” they despise. (Of course, smashing your car because it does not go may not be a helpful response, but it is emotionally very satisfying.)

This accounts for the fact that polls for the 2018 mid-term elections were accurate. And Democrats did much better that year – winning House elections by a popular vote margin of 8.6% (as opposed to about 3% in 2020). The low-engagement voters simply did not turn out – and probably wont again without Trump on the ballot.

It may also explain the pattern in the state poll errors. In 2016, the biggest errors were in the rust-belt states where low-education voters switched from Obama to Trump. In 2020 the biggest errors were in the reddest of the swing states, and perhaps the most rural ones. Pollsters such as Monmouth’s Patrick Murray have said that polling in high-income high-education suburban areas was quite accurate, but missed a lot of Trump voters in rural areas.    

If this is correct, it presages difficulty for Republicans, again, in the 2022 mid-terms, but more accurate polling along with it. And maybe a return of the same errors in 2024, if Trump is again on the ballot. The big problem is that it is so very difficult for pollsters to do anything about this.   But if there is one useful lesson to come out of this, it is surely that we place too much faith in polls. They can still tell us useful things. After all, in most cases a 4% polling error doesn’t really matter much. In close US election races however, we need to be

Stuff reports:

Police will no longer pursue drivers who are speeding, acting suspiciously or fleeing for no apparent reason in a major shake up of controversial chase procedures.

An internal police email leaked to Stuff advises staff not to pursue fleeing drivers unless the threat posed “outweighs the risk of harm by the pursuit”.

The revised policy, which has not been publicly announced, was emailed on December 10, stating the need to “change a culture that is decades old”.

Between 2009 and 2018, 67 people died during police pursuits.

So around one every six weeks or so.

Around 3,000 people in total died on the rods over those nine years so around 2% were connected to police pursuits.

Frontline police say chasing suspected drunk drivers, car thieves and suspicious vehicles will now be a thing of the past because the suspected crime does not justify the risk.

It will be interesting to see the effect of this new policy as it becomes widely known. It might results in fewer lives lost in crashes connected to police pursuits but it might also lead to more people dying due to drink driving.

If you’re a drunk driver you now know you can not get caught be merely slamming the accelerator at a checkpoint.

The email said a pursuit would only be justified when the threat posed by those in the vehicle prior to signalling the driver to stop and the need to immediately apprehend the driver and/or passengers “outweighs the risk of harm by the pursuit”.

So unless the vehicle is known to carry say armed offenders, then they won’t be pursued.

I hope this new policy will lead to fewer people dying on the roads. But it may result in more dying, as drivers become more reckless knowing the Police are toothless to pursue them.

A guest post by Stephen Russell:

On January 5, Georgians will vote in a pair of run-off elections that will decide which party controls the US Senate for the next two years. 

Polls (for what they are worth) are mixed. Data for Progress has Warnock (D) ahead but Ossoff (D) not. Trafalgar has Ossoff ahead and Warnock not. RMG has both ahead. Remington and Fox have both behind. Polls in Georgia were among the least-wrong on November 3, but still underestimated Republican support. Biden led Trump by 1.2 points in the 538 average and he won by 0.25 points.

So here are some factors to consider in trying to guess the outcome. Some are encouraging for Republicans, some encouraging for Democrats.

History is against the Democrats: in the last 30 years there have been eight statewide run-off elections in Georgia, and Democrats have won just one. That was a 1998 election to a seat on the Public Service Commission – and the Democrat who won subsequently defected to the Republicans.

The history of run-offs shows a consistent pattern of much lower turnout. Democrats’ (often spectacular) failure in run-offs has stemmed from not being able to sustain turnout as well as Republicans. Turnout will almost certainly be the dominant factor again. 

In both 2020 races the aggregate Republican vote was higher – by 1.0% in the special Senate election and 1.8% in the regular Senate election. This gives Republicans a cushion to win even if their turnout declines more than Democrats’. 

The biggest third party vote in both elections was Libertarian. If those voters go back to the polls they are more likely to back Republicans.

Even though Georgia voted narrowly for Biden, it remains a Republican-leaning state. Biden’s margin in Georgia was 4.2% less than his popular vote margin nationwide.

A double runoff is unprecedented, not just in Georgia, but anywhere in the US.  This is likely to help sustain turnout.

This is a hugely consequential election: control of the Senate. Money and national attention are huge – likely boosting turnout.

The contrasting character of the Democrat candidates may be a slight help for them, as each candidate will reach different people – who will likely vote for both if they vote at all.

The contrasting character of Democrat supporters may be a problem: the Democrat coalition is more diverse than the Republicans’ and thus harder to marshal.

In the special Senate race, the bitter fight between Loeffler and Collins may limit Republican unity behind Loeffler.  Warnock also needs to unify Democrats – but may have an easier time doing so because he easily defeated his Democrat rivals, it was obvious that he would do so early on, and he did not need to attack those rivals.

Moderate Democrats – especially those who lost House and Senate races – argue that Republican scare tactics over alleged Democrat radicalism were highly effective and the main reason for their party’s disappointing performance. Republicans are continuing with this tactic. However, it is now limited by their own success: The best the Democrats can do is get 50 seats in the Senate – which means every single one of those 50 Senators (including several in very red states like Joe Manchin in West Virginia) will have a veto. Against any threat, Warner and Ossoff can each say “I won’t vote for that” and that kills it.

Both Ossoff and Warnock are relative liberals – not so radical as Republicans paint them, but not the kind of Joe Manchin-style conservative Democrats who might have more crossover appeal in a reddish state. Loeffler has run adverts describing herself as more conservative than Attila the Hun and joking about killing liberals. Unable to tack effectively to the centre, she is seeking to portray Warnock as an extreme progressive. Warnock has a good ad rejecting this.  

Georgia’s voters will know exactly what will happen if Republicans retain control of the Senate: nothing – two years, and likely four, of gridlock, paralysis, frustration and Government shutdowns. No problems will be solved and most will get worse. They know this because that is exactly what happened to Obama after 2010. 

The poorer-than-they-expected performance by Democrats was partly because Trump motivated a whole lot of low-engagement voters to vote. These people despise elites and love Trump because he is an anti-politician.  They also don’t respond to pollsters questions and are a big part of why the polls were wrong. These people have little love for regular Republican politicians, and without Trump himself on the ballot they are less likely to vote.

A key part of the Democrat vote was people who were normally Republican but wanted to eject Trump from the White House. Many of these split their ticket – but  many did not and may now “go home” to Republicans their primary goal has been accomplished. On the other hand, the fact that Trump is not going quietly may help sustain that support.   

Democrats may benefit from a Biden honeymoon effect, though polarisation would restrict its scale, and evidence for any such effect is limited so far.

The widespread belief in massive Democrat fraud may depress Republican turnout. Why vote when the outcome is pre-ordained? And some MAGA activists are even calling for a boycott because Loeffler and Perdue are not Trumpy enough (!).

Stuff reports:

Both the president and secretary general have resigned from NZ First.

The resignations of president Kristin Campbell-Smith​ and secretary general Liz Witehira​ were confirmed by party member Darroch Ball on Sunday.

Ball said he would be taking over as interim president, likely until the party’s annual general meeting next year.

I wonder if they still have the 500 members necessary to stay registered?

2021 is on the horizon and I’ll be celebrating its arrival with the sale of my business.  

Two weeks ago, I announced to my customers that I was selling the dance school I’ve owned for the past six years. The school has already shut down for the year, so for all intents and purposes, I have no more responsibilities. But settlement isn’t until the last day of December, so I’m counting down the days to when I officially become a former small businesswoman. 

During six years in business, I’ve learnt a lot. Would I do it again? I’m not so sure. But I now have an appreciation of small business ownership that I think you really have to have lived to understand. 

I bought the school when I was twenty two. My first passion was ballet, but I realised in my late teens that a career in it wasn’t an option for me with my injury-prone body. I taught classes part time while I was at university instead, earning a good wage. It was the perfect job for me while I studied my second passion, politics. 

It’s a long story as to how I came to buy a dance school, but it is fair to say it was not part of the life plan when it happened. 

The first year was awful.  

I was young, for starters. I came in knowing how to teach but actually running a business? I had no clue.  

I also ‘inherited’ some difficult staff who made it clear that they saw me as a naïve, little girl. Attempts to make my mark were not taken seriously. In fact, they were laughed at and outright rejected.  

I realised this almost immediately but it took almost a year of stress before the situation was resolved. Things were exacerbated by a couple of bad hires on my part. One experience was so bad that I almost walked away from the business completely.  

Then there were the overdue payments and bad debts. I was too nice, to be honest, which made it easy for customers to take advantage of me. Cashflow is a never-ending source of stress for small businesses. 

A number of other things occurred that I’d rather not get into. 

Towards the end of the first year, I knew that things were not sustainable. I completely rebranded – including changing the name of the school – which meant that I could start from scratch. It was a big gamble. 

But five years later, I could not be more proud of the business I am passing on. 

Here’s what I’ve learnt. 

1. Reward competence with autonomy 
Only with a strong team will you build a strong brand. And when you know you’ve hired the best person, get out of their way. Autonomy is a strong motivator; if you want the best performance from your team, they have to know you trust them. When they know that, you’ll watch them flourish. 

2.  Build a culture and protect it  
Culture is everything. I am a broken record when it comes to values, but if they aren’t a part of who you are – and instilled in your daily life – then your business will never be a place others want to be. Culture starts from the top, and works its way down through your team to your customers.  

It’s okay to demand those values from your customers too, especially if their behaviour impacts others (like it does at a dance school when you’ve got crazy dance mums). It was no great loss to me if I lost a student who was detrimental to the culture I had created, even if it meant a drop in sales.  It’s highly likely that many others would have just left instead.  

3. Realise you can’t please everyone 
You need to be the boss and learn to say no. For some – like me – it’s hard offending people or telling them something they might not like to hear. As a new business owner, your instinct might be to bend over backwards for customers. But at the end of the day, it’s your business and your reputation on the line. Don’t risk that for anyone. 

4. Have a system to guarantee good communication 
Communication with your customers is crucial. If you’re an anxious person like me who has a hard time with emails and phone calls, delegate this job to someone else. 

5. Stay on top of debtors 
Don’t be afraid to use debt collectors. If you’re owed money, and having a hard time retrieving it, an email from Baycorp usually does the trick. If you’re afraid of losing them as a customer, ask yourself if you really want people who devalue you and your services as customers anyway. 

6. Cash is king 
Have enough cash for a rainy day – especially when you’re first starting up. Always assume there’s another Covid-19 lockdown around the corner! 

7. Compartmentalise 
Understand that you will never just work 40 hours a week. Your business is your life. But if you can, separate your home life from your work space. Don’t answer emails at home if you don’t have to, and don’t give out your personal mobile number unless it’s an emergency. 

Wherever possible, create a separation; it will benefit your mental health. 

8. Surround yourself with supporters 
Build a support network, because you can’t do everything on your own. For me, this wasn’t just my wonderful staff, but a small number of incredibly loyal parents who created a sort of cocoon around me during challenging times. And if you’re lucky enough to have these people surrounding you, make sure you look after them too. It’s a two-way street. 

9. Remember to be grateful 
Appreciate your staff and loyal customers. They are your business.  

10. Know when it’s time to move on 
Some people may be satisfied owning the same business for the whole of their working lives. For others, an opportunity to hand it on just may be too good to refuse. Knowing when the time is right requires a both reflection and maturity. 

So, what now for me? I’m just going to enjoy summer without the stress of reopening, and having a nine-to-five job for the first time in my life. 

Monique Poirier has a Masters degree in Political Studies, and is a small business owner and former Parliamentary staffer. She is the Campaigns Manager for the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance.

Stuff reports:

It’s going to take months to kick elite hackers widely believed to be Russian out of the US government networks they have been quietly rifling through since as far back as March in Washington’s worst cyberespionage failure on record.

Experts say there simply are not enough skilled threat-hunting teams to duly identify all the government and private-sector systems that may have been hacked. FireEye, the cybersecurity company that discovered the intrusion into US agencies and was among the victims, has already tallied dozens of casualties. It’s racing to identify more.

I’ve been listening to podcasts on this. The size of the hack is unprecedented. Up to 18,000 companies infected.

What the SVR did was firstly hack SolarWinds who produce the Orion software. They then spent months putting a back door into Orion. Then SolarWinds did an update and all their clients had a back door which allowed the SVR to take over computers on their network.

They have had months to gather information and also insert further malware and backdoors. Many experts say those infected may have to throw out their network and rebuild them from scratch.

Infected organisations include many federal agencies. Experts have said this is the most audacious and successful hack in history, and arguably the most successful foreign intelligence gathering job of all time.

Stuff reports:

he report was commissioned back in August after reports of multiple failures in the Covid-19 response. An early version was delivered to the Government on September 30, with a final version delivered on November 27.

National’s Covid-19 spokesperson Chris Bishop criticised the lack of transparency exemplified by holding onto the report for so long.

Releasing the report soon after Ministers received it would have allowed some time for Parliamentary scrutiny. Instead, the Government decided to bury its release on the last working day of the political year – no time for scrutiny in Parliament or anywhere else.

They kept it back for 21 days.

It’s not hard to see why. The report is damning – and particularly damning of the Ministry of Health, the heroes of the Covid-19 response.

Of the 28 recommendations made across two reports, 25 were for the Ministry – the criticism is wide-ranging and accusations of what amounts to a power grab by the Ministry of Health, which didn’t properly share information with other ministries or even ministers and failed to cooperate properly with the rest of Government.

The report found that the there was “inappropriate accountability” for different parts of the strategy and that “numerous written reports” from the Ministry on progress it was making at the border “did not always reflect concrete action on the ground”.

The report said the Ministry’s approach to the implementation of policy “was often seen as being at odds with the overall collective interest”.

Testing rates – something we know is crucial to the keeping Covid out – were kept low because the Ministry was lax in actually paying the people doing the testing.

Unsurprisingly this led to “increased dissatisfaction with the system and at times made for reluctance to increase testing rates, consequently reducing access”.

Will there be any accountability for this? Of course not.

This can’t have been helped by the fact that the big cross-government group (All of Government group or AoG) set up to manage the pandemic didn’t actually include the Ministry of Health. The Ministry decided on its own not to participate.

Once the country went back into level 1, that problem deepened. The AoG “effectively became a ‘Rest of Government Unit’ being everything other than Health”.

That’s shocking. How could Ministers allow that?

The reviewers acknowledge that such chaos would be forgivable in the first weeks of the pandemic, but “it should not be continuing eight months into an issue as we are currently facing”.

It’s still going on?

BBC reports:

The publisher of a book about cancel culture by Julie Burchill has cancelled it after the writer was accused of Islamophobia on Twitter.

The book, Welcome to the Woke Trials, had been due to be published by Little, Brown in April.

But Burchill got embroiled with a row with fellow writer Ash Sarkar.

Little, Brown said her comments were “not defensible from a moral or intellectual standpoint” and “crossed a line with regard to race and religion”.

Beyond ironic that a book on cancel culture was itself canceled.

A friend suggested a genius move for Donald Trump for his last days in office.

He should announce a full and unconditional pardon for Hunter Biden.

Think of the chaos that would create.

A guest post by Alwyn Poole:

The in-School Education Fixes are so easy …

… but as a nation we clearly prefer the PROBLEM … above solutions.

This week Richard Prebble wrote:

“We are stuffed if we do not fix this. In the 2019 international maths and science test 81 per cent of New Zealand year 9 pupils got a simple math question wrong. 73 per cent of Singaporean students answered correctly.

There are already commentators saying “no need to panic”, we have just slipped a few places. In 1970 when New Zealand first participated in an international education comparison, for reading, we came top. If you slip 2 to 3 places every three years then in 50 years you are where we are, 40th position. We have gone from top to being bottom in reading and maths in the English-speaking world.

Being innumerate is a personal tragedy. For the country these results are a disaster.”

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/richard-prebble-education-standards-in-freefall-whats-going-on-in-nz-schools/ELE4LBDP7G5GATWIOZY6BFQHUE/

Over the last three guest posts I have done on Kiwiblog I outlined the meta-problems in the NZ system and looked at how high performing people become good at what they do in sport and the arts.
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/12/guest_post_how_we_are_life_handicapping_kiwi_kids_from_all_backgrounds.html

As Mr Prebble (and some of the Kiwiblog comments) point out – teachers, coaches, mentors have a HUGE part to play – and without guidance even 10,000 hours can be misdirected and wasted.

“And it turns out this study shows that there’s another important variable that Gladwell doesn’t focus on: how good a student’s teacher is.

Practice is important, and it’s surprising how much it takes to master something complicated. But Ericsson’s research suggests that someone could practice for thousands of hours and still not be a master performer. They could be outplayed by someone who practiced less but had a teacher who showed them just what to focus on at a key moment in their practice regimen.”
https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-05-05-researcher-behind-10-000-hour-rule-says-good-teaching-matters-not-just-practice#:~:text=You’ve%20probably%20heard%20of,as%20good%20as%20Bill%20Gates

The very good thing about excellence in Academics is that – unlike sports and the Arts – it is a lot further from a zero-sum game. All students can excel. In NZ we are desperate for great teachers and those that actually do the job the children need. All subjects need to be taught with skill passion and primary teachers should not avoid teaching Math (as Prebble suggests many do) simply because they struggle with it themselves.

While in a very mixed-quality NZ teaching environment what can students do to learn well and master content? This is the advice we give (and we can show that it is working).

How to get 100% in Year 11 – 13 Assessments … and beyond

The two key things are – understanding and locking concepts/information into long-term memory. How to do that is below.

1. Be well organized for every school day. Sleep well. Eat breakfast. Have all books and equipment you need for school. Dress well. Start the day with a great attitude. Hug your parent(s) on the way out the door.

2. Look forward to classes. Be positive towards all subjects and all teachers – even when others are complaining. When others are negative – that is a great opportunity. Be the counter-culture. Love the teacher that everyone else thinks is horrible and useless.

3. Pay MASSIVE attention in every class. Make good notes. When you don’t understand – ask questions. This could be during or after class. Understanding in class is so important. FOCUS is everything!

4. Take all of your subject books home each night and;

– with pencil in hand – review the lesson for the day in each subject. For Math – practice the hardest problems until the lights go on and you go – “uh ha!”

– each night – for one of your subjects – write summary/study notes for the past week.

– then do your set homework.

If you do this process every-day then what you are learning will be in your long term memory and when you get towards exams/assessments you will know things very well already. You will be able to do practice exams/assessments and perfect things. You may not think you are a genius but genius is about effort! You can do it. When exams come up create a great study time-table and stick to it. DO NOT waste study leave.

5. Always aim for excellence/100%! If you aim for the stars and land on the moon it is a great achievement. As you leave at Year 10 there is no career that you cannot work towards. Aim to master every concept in every subject – from Math and English to all of your options.

Newshub reports:

Newshub can reveal the number of jobs created from the Government’s $1.1 billion of funding for nature-based employment from Budget 2020 is almost 800 so far. 

Data from the Ministry for the Environment shows that as of December 7, the total number of jobs created was 796

That’s an average cost per job of $1,391,910.

The NY Post reports:

San Francisco may remove Abraham Lincoln’s name from a high school, because a district committee says the 16th president — who abolished slavery — did not demonstrate that “black lives mattered to him.”

Lincoln is one of dozens of historical figures who the city school district’s renaming committee argued led lives so rife with racism, oppression or abuse that their names should not grace its buildings, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

“The discussion for Lincoln centered around his treatment of First Nation peoples, because that was offered first,” Jeremiah Jeffries, chairman of the renaming committee and a first-grade teacher, told the paper. “Once he met criteria in that way, we did not belabor the point.”

He continued: “The history of Lincoln and Native Americans is complicated, not nearly as well known as that of the Civil War and slavery,” according to the paper.

“Lincoln, like the presidents before him and most after, did not show through policy or rhetoric that black lives ever mattered to them outside of human capital and as casualties of wealth building,” Jeffries said.

They really are crackers.

Stuff reports:

The Government has struck a deal with the Māori King, Tūheitia, over the disputed land at Ihumātao, buying the property from Fletcher Building for $29.9 million and holding it in a trust.

The money comes from the Government’s Land for Housing Programme as there has been a commitment that there will be housing on the site.

There already was commitment by Fletchers for housing – 480 houses, including some for the local Iwi.

National’s finance spokesman Michael Woodhouse said taxpayers were paying for the Government bungling a land dispute.

“Taxpayers aren’t a bank to be called upon to clean up the Government’s poor decisions, particularly when it is meddling in private property rights,” Woodhouse said.

“The Prime Minister should never have involved herself in the Ihumātao dispute and taxpayers shouldn’t bailing her out now.”

“The ramifications of this Crown deal go much further than the lost opportunity of building houses immediately. It will call all full and final treaty settlements into question and set a dangerous precedent for other land occupations, like the one at Wellington’s Shelly Bay.”

“More than 20,000 Kiwi families are on the waiting list for a home this Christmas. The Government should not be spending $30 million on stopping 480 much-needed houses from being built right now.”

We spent $30 million to prevent 480 houses being built.

ACT leader David Seymour said Ardern was interfering with private property rights.

“If you own land and someone squats on it, the prime minister won’t defend your property rights, she’ll use taxpayers’ money to buy the land off you,” Seymour said earlier this week.

“The prime minister’s job is to uphold the law, and none more so than private property rights. Instead she has thumbed her nose at the very legal framework that was designed with Māori and has worked so effectively to right past wrongs.”

Expect many more occupations of privately owned land, now that people know the Government will step in and reward them for the occupation.

Stuff reports:

A decade of steep rates hikes and paying for water within five years are both on the cards under plans set out by New Plymouth mayor Neil Holdom.

His proposals would see New Plymouth’s total rates take go up 12 per cent next year and an average of 6.1 per cent every year for the following nine years.

Does the Council think households have had a 12% increase in income?

As we are heading to 300,000 people on the dole, they think families can afford a 12% rates increase.

If they go ahead, they should all be voted out.

Stuff reports:

Minister of Finance Grant Robertson has announced that economist Ganesh Nana will be the next chair of the Productivity Commission.

Cabinet has approved the appointment of Nana who is currently the Research Director of Wellington economic consultancy BERL. He will take up the new job on January 31, 2021.

Berl is effectively the Labour Party’s economic consultancy. This is not the appointment of someone who will independently crique government policies to ensure they are increasing productivity.

Nana, an economist, is widely considered to be close to the Labour Party. His firm, BERL, costed Labour’s economic policies in the 2017 election, but not for the most recent campaign. He is the second recent appointment with close ties to the Labour movement after former New Zealand Council of Trade Unions’ policy director and economist Bill Rosenberg became a commissioner in September of this year.

Dr Nana is well outside the mainstream. Here’s his take on capitalism:

Such a pity as the Productivity Commission has produced excellent work in the past on how to solve the housing crisis etc.

Stuff reports:

The man who sued Speaker Trevor Mallard over a “rape” comment has an ongoing employment case against Parliamentary Service, it has been revealed.

Having had the Speaker settle a defamation case for wrongly calling him a rapist will only help his employment case. So overall costs to the taxpayer could end up well over $400,000 – maybe even higher.

Mallard said he almost immediately regretted describing the series of sexual assault complaints in a review of parliamentary culture as “rape” – but he did not apologise for the matter sooner as it soon became an employment issue and then a legal case.

It seems to be an immediate apology the next day would have been better than an 18 month process costing taxpayers $330,000.

Barry Soper writes:

Truth is more likely that he withdrew his rape claim now because if he did it last year chances are he wouldn’t have survived a no-confidence vote in his Speakership. New Zealand First wouldn’t have supported him.

Next year he’ll survive a vote with Labour’s majority and with mother of kindness, well-being and transparency Jacinda Ardern saying he simply made a mistake and he’s the man for the job. The man he maligned is out of a job and if now suffering ill health.

No kindness for the poor former staffer whose life has been pretty much destroyed.

The Herald editorial says Mallard should go:

The entire saga also injures the so-called MeToo movement, a rallying of support for genuine victims of sexual abuse and sexual harassment where people publicise allegations of sex crimes committed by powerful and/or prominent men. Any false rape claim undermines the real hurt and pursuit of justice in genuine cases. One from such high office, only more so.

Mallard’s situation will be an ongoing distraction and impediment to the second term of Government for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. For a Government needing sharp focus on recovery from a pandemic and a stated desire for transformation, continuing in this role must surely be untenable.

And HDPA writes:

But what makes this worse, if that’s even possible, is that Mallard did not admit there was more money due when he was asked about it.

In my opinion, he misled the public with his answer.

He was asked by Chris Bishop if there was “any further money to be paid”, and Mallard answered “there is no further money to be paid”.

But then, just over a minute later, the chief executive of Parliamentary Services, Rafael Gonzalez-Montero, admits “there is still a claim against the Parliamentary Service”.

Michael Woodhouse asks: “Is the committee now hearing that $330,000 is not necessarily the end of the matter in terms of cost to the taxpayer?”

Gonzalez-Montero answers, “Yes.”

She concludes:

We can now add to his list of transgressions: attempting to mislead the public.

He will continue to be problem for Labour, because now that the opposition and taxpayers know there is more of our money to be spent, we will be asking about it next year.

So, as much as he’s tried to kill off this story before Christmas, it now almost certainly will drag into the next year unless he does the dignified thing and leaves the job.

I would be amazed if Mallard loses the confidence of Ardern over this. They have an incredibly strong personal relationship, and I can’t imagine a scenario in which she withdraws support.

Eric Crampton writes:

Canada’s carbon tax is set to rise from its current CAD$30 per tonne (NZD$33) to $170 per tonne by 2030.

A credible price on carbon is the strongest commitment a country can make in reducing carbon emissions. 

If you set the price of carbon correctly, then you almost don’t need any other policies. Governments like to announce lots of stuff that often does nothing or even makes thing worse. The price of carbon in the ETS is more powerful than anything else.

But few in New Zealand would believe it possible to more than quintuple prices in our Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) without political costs high enough to break the system.

Big increases in petrol, in electricity etc are not popular.

Because of how Canada’s federal system works, the federal government simply imposing a tax on some provinces, but not others, would not work out very well.

The federal government solved the problem in a rather ingenious way. It takes all of the carbon tax revenue raised from a province, puts it into a pot, and then gives it back to people in that province.

Provinces that produce more carbon emissions will pay more in carbon taxes. Households in those provinces then get a higher rebate payment back from the federal government. In Ontario, the first adult in a household receives an annual payment of $224. The second adult receives $112, and each child receives $56. The amount of the payment varies from province to province and will increase as the carbon tax rises.

This is a brilliant idea. Don’t use the ETS to make money for the Government. Use it to soften the increased costs for households.

And it also makes higher carbon prices politically possible. Most households will wind up receiving more back in carbon rebates than they will pay in carbon taxes. By 2030, the average family of four in Alberta will be receiving a carbon rebate amounting to about $3200 per year.

It will reward you for moving to lower carbon usage.

Every year, the government sells emissions credits into the ETS. So far, there has been no serious discussion about what should be done with the revenues collected at those ETS auctions. Why not create a carbon dividend?

Every quarter, the government could tally up all the revenue it raised by selling credits into the emissions trading scheme. It could take the raised funds, divide them up, and send each of us a carbon dividend payment.

I suspect Labour could never bring themselves to actually giving money back to all households, but there is an opportunity for National here to adopt a policy that would be good for the environment and good for households.

The Government has released the Briefings to Incoming Ministers or BIMs. Key takeaways are:

• MBIE says no more grants to tourism businesses (agree)
• Treasury says house prices will continue to rise (no surprise Sherlock)
• Treasury says Govt’s books not sustainable due to rocketing public service costs (borrow and hope)
• DPMC says child poverty rates will increase (Who’s the Minister?)
• Ministry of Transport says govt policies will not significantly reduce transport emissions
• 91% of state houses do not meet the Government’s own compulsory healthy home standards
• DIA says we need to spend more money on Premier House
• MBIE wants the borders to open to allow in highly skilled migrants
• MSD expects 280,000 on the dole by Jan 2022
• MSD says some of those on the public housing waitlist will never receive a public house