Stuff reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will declare a climate change emergency in Parliament today, promising a carbon-neutral Government by 2025.

A carbon-neutral Government by 2025. Three years ago they promised a far more modest carbon-neutral Government vehicle fleet by 2025. After three years they are at 0.9% acheieved.

So having managed 0.9% in three years just on government vehicle emissions, they expect people to believe they will totally eliminate or offset all government emissions within five years.

I guess you can fool some of the people all of the time.

If you multiply a candidate’s vote share with the turnout, then you get what share of the overall adult population voted for a candidate. This can tell us a lot about how widespread their appeal was, and their ability to motivate people to vote for them.

Trump may have lost to Biden but he got a greater share of the population voting for him than any other candidate since 1972. Even more than Reagan in his landslide of 1984.

Here’s the share of the overall adult population candidates have got since 1968.

1. Biden 20: 34.2%
2. Nixon 72 33.5%
3. Trump 20: 31.6%
4. Reagan 84: 31.3%
5. Obama 08: 30.8%
6. Bush 04: 28.7%
7. Obama 12: 28.1%
8. Kerry 04: 27.4%
9. Clinton 16: 26.8%
10. Bush 88: 26.8%
11. Carter 76: 26.8%
12. Reagan 80: 26.7%
13. McCain 08: 26.6%
14. Nixon 68: 26.4%
15. Humphrey 68: 26.0%
16. Romney 12: 25.9%
17. Ford 76: 25.7%
18. Trump 16: 25.7%
19. Gore 00: 24.8%
20. Bush 00: 24.5%
21. Clinton 96: 24.1%
22. Clinton 92: 23.7%
23. Dukakis 88: 22.9%
24. Mondale 84: 21.6%
25. Carter 80: 21.6%
26. McGovern 72: 20.7%
27. Bush 92: 20.6%
28. Dole 96: 19.9%

So in 2016 only 25.7% of adult Americans voted for Donald Trump and in 2020 it rose to 31.6%. Again that is astonishing.

Of course in 2016 Clinton got 26.8% of Americans voting for her and Biden in 2020 got a modern record of 34.2%.

It will be fascinating to see in 2024 if voting turnout stays so high. I imagine that will depend on who is standing!

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern paid personal tribute to former Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Winston Peters tonight at a function at Parliament, saying he had been by her side during tough times.

No surprise she would be appreciative of the man who made her Prime Minister in 2017.

She also said she respected Peters for his policy of preventing political appointments in diplomatic posts – with the exception of former Labour deputy leader Dame Annette King who is High Commissioner to Australia.

Hopefully this means he won’t be taking one up himself, as that would be the height of hypocrisy.

The Herald reports:

On June 19 Matthew Hunt was meant to have dinner with his mother Diane after work.

But he never made it.

Several hours after he put on his beloved blue uniform, Constable Matthew Hunt was dead – gunned down in an Auckland street while attending a routine traffic stop.

Tomorrow his mother will present a petition to Parliament in his name and honour, calling for changes to the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Parole Act 2002 that would see anyone convicted of murdering a police officer receive a mandatory life sentence and have their parole eligibility automatically declined. …

Diane Hunt launched a petition on July 30 – the day her son would have turned 29.

“I want no parole for the killers of police officers in New Zealand – a murder sentence here can mean about 10 years in jail and I don’t believe that’s an appropriate sentence for the murder of a public servant doing their job,” she said.

“First responders have this on their shoulders every day they go to work, they all need to get home. …

In Victoria, Australia the law was changed in 2016 to ban parole for police murderers.

In New South Wales cop killers are sentenced to imprisonment for “the term of the person’s natural life”.

Diane Hunt wants the New Zealand Government to do the same.

I was unaware that Victoria and NSW have done this. It would be interesting to ascertain if there have been any killings of police officers since they changed the law.

Jacinda Ardern is moving a motion today in the House declaring climate change an emergency. It is more of the usual empty gesture to show one cares about an issue, as a substitute for actually doing something that would reduce emissions (which requires actual policy decisions with painful tradeoffs that might be unpopular).

Here’s Labour’s record to date:

• Promised 100% renewable electricity by 2030. In fact renewable share has dropped from 83.4% in Sep 2017 to 82.2% in Jun 2020.
• Promised to complete light rail (hence reducing traffic emissions to Mt Roskill by 2021. Nothing has occurred except the Auditor-General slamming the process.
• Promised the entire Government fleet would be electric or emissions free by 2025. As at Sep 2020, had managed just 0.9%
• Promised to fund one billion trees, to reduce net emissions. After three years have funded just 3.7% of the one billion trees.
• Promised to reduce net emissions to zero by 2050. However they are projecting an increase in net emissions from 55,000 to 70,000 kt from 2017 to 2023.

So rather than actually implement any of their promises that would reduce emissions, they are now passing a motion declaring it is an emergency.

They may even announce some new policy today, but as we know they are very good at announcing things and very bad at implementing them.

The turnout in the 2020 presidential election is around 157 million, compared to around 137 million in 2016. Turnout went from 56% to over 67%.

Donald Trump had 11 million more people vote for him in 2020 than in 2016. That is quite an extraordinary achievement. But Biden had 14 million more people vote for him than voted for Clinton in 2016.

If Trump had got his 2020 vote in 2016, he would have won 342 to 196. He would have picked up Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire and New Mexico.

Conversely if Trump had not grown his vote by 11 million, then Biden would have beaten him by 394 to 144. Biden would have also won Florida, North Carolina, Texas and Utah.

So it is a real lesson about the power of turnout. There were not a lot of swinging or undecided voters. It came down a lot to turnout.

Interesting vote splitting stats just published. The summary below is for people who party voted for a party, what they did with their candidate vote.

• ACT – 65% voted Nat cands, 21% ACT cands
• Greens – 57% voted Labour cands, 29% Green cands
• Labour – 78% voted Labour cands, 8% National cands
• National – 88% voted National cands, 4% ACT cands
• New Conservatives – 64% New Cons cands, 25% Nat cands
• NZ First – 37% Lab cands, 22% Nat cands, 18% NZF cands
• TOP – 35% Lab cands, 21% TOP cands 18% Nat cands,

National voters did the least vote splitting.

Newshub reports:

A man has been shot twice by police in Northland after a police dog was left with a gunshot wound to the head, according to a report.

The small township of Tangowahine, between Whangarei and Dargaville, is in the process of being shut down as police swarm the area to offer assistance to the officers, the NZ Herald reports.

It’s understood the police dog is being rushed to a vet clinic in Dargaville to receive treatment.

Hopefully the police dog survives.

Turnout in 2017 was 79% and in 2020 hit 82.2% – the highest since 1999. Turnout has been:

• 2002: 77.0%
• 2005: 80.9%
• 2008: 79.5%
• 2011: 74.2%
• 2014: 77.9%
• 2017: 79.8%
• 2020: 82.2%

Pretty good to have had it increase the last three elections.

A lot of variation by electorate. The top 5 are:

1. Wgtn Central 89.4%
2. Selwyn 89.4%
3. Banks Peninsula 89.1%
4. Waitaki 88.2%
5. Ohariu 87.7%

The bottom ones are:

• Tamaki Makaurau 65.1%
• Ikaroa-Rawhiti 67.1%
• Panmure-Otahuhu 67.6%

So gear some electorates have almost 90% turnout but a lot still below 75% also.

Radio NZ reports:

The Child Poverty Action Group’s stocktake of progress on the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s (WEAG) 42 key recommendations has found none of them have been fully implemented.

It’s good to see the Government making just as much progress on child poverty as they are on housing, light rail and climate change!

The Herald reports:

A Rotorua-based helicopter company that rescued survivors off Whakaari/White Island when emergency services were instructed not to respond has confirmed it is one of the parties that has been charged by WorkSafe.

First reports were that this may have been over their rescue efforts but now it seems it may be for something else. Still looks pretty awful to be prosecuting a company that risked themselves to save lives. I hope details are released soon so we can see.

I’ve done a table listing the 92 various portfolios and the spokespersons for them from Labour, National, Greens and ACT.

Hopefully useful for people who want to know who to approach on an issue.

TVNZ reports:

Jacinda Ardern says public bears some responsibility for housing crisis after failed taxation attempts.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is putting some onus on the public for the housing crisis, saying the Government had tried taxation to ease the soaring market three times without public support.

This is hilarious. The PM is saying the public are to blame for high house prices because they didn’t support a Capital Gains Tax.

First of all the impact of CGT on house prices would be minimal. The problem is largely constraints on supply. Labour actually had some good policies in 2017 on dealing with this – abolishing the Auckland rural urban boundary and infrastructure bonds for new subdivisions etc. But they failed to progress them.

But trying to blame the public for the decision by Ardern to rule out a CGT for all time is very weak. Ardern made that call unprompted. She could have simply said there would be no CGT during the current term of Parliament as there was no majority for it. But she ruled it out forever (so long as she is PM).

Her argument that the public rejected it, not her, is not well borne out by the facts. A 2017 ONCB poll found 58% supported a CGT and 34% opposed. In 2019 it was 46% support and 41% opposed.

Also of course leadership means doing things you believe in, even if the polls don’t support you. Key did partial asset sales even though the public were overwhelmingly against them.

A few weeks old now but worth noting that Todd Scott successfully appealed the High Court finding that NBR and Scott defamed Steven Joyce.

Basically the Court found that the statements in the column were not defamatory, as a reasonable person would take them as hyperbole rather than literal accusations of improper behaviour.

Joyce was not seeking damages, just a retraction or apology. The Court of Appeal decision though means that Scott is no longer liable for Joyce’s costs, but in fact Joyce will be liable for much of Scott’s costs.

I still think the best course of action would have been for Scott to retract the column, once the columnist (Hooton) had done the same. But give him credit – he decided not to, and eventually won.

Virginia Fallon reports in Stuff about a typical case that Oranga Tamariki staff deal with.

It’s such a sad story, and one I suspect is all too common.

News.com.au reports:

Iran said one of its most prominent nuclear scientists was assassinated Friday in an attack outside Tehran, blaming arch foe Israel and warning of “severe revenge”.

The assassination threatens to escalate tensions between Iran and the US and its close ally Israel, with some warning of the risk of a major conflict in the Middle East.

Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, 59, was “seriously wounded” when assailants targeted his car before being engaged in a gunfight with his bodyguards, the defence ministry said.

It added that Fakhrizadeh, who headed the ministry’s research and innovation organisation, was later “martyred” after medics failed to revive him.

I’m not sure Israel is responsible.

Sure ii Fakhrizadeh had been killed by poisoning, a hit and run or similar I’d think Israel.

But how would Israel get half a dozen agents into Iran fully armed, carry out the attack, and escape without trace?

I mean Mossad is good at what they do, but are they that good?

Worth reading the judgment by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. All three judges were appointed by Republicans, and the author was appointed by Trump. Some extracts:

• Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.
• The Campaign’s claims have no merit. The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. And it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters
• Here, the Campaign’s request fails as both inequitable and futile.
• “Upon information and belief” is a lawyerly way of saying that the Campaign does not know that something is a fact but just suspects it or has heard it.
• The Campaign would have us set aside 1.5 million ballots without even alleging fraud.
• There is no allegation of fraud (let alone proof) to justify harming those millions of voters as well as other candidates.
• Democracy depends on counting all lawful votes promptly and finally, not setting them aside without weighty proof.
• Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections.

I hope they appeal the decision to SCOTUS just to see Trump’s fury when they vote the appeal down 9-0. In fact they will probably just decline to hear it.

I think the latest count is 35 losses and two minor wins in court. Incredible.

UPDATE: May now be 36-1 as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has over-ruled a lower court on suspending certification. It was 7-0 and dismissed with prejudice.

The Herald reports:

Another referendum on cannabis is being proposed – this time to decriminalise, but not legalise, the drug.

A public notice in today’s Herald gives notice that a citizen-initiated referendum has been proposed asking: “Should New Zealand decriminalise the possession of cannabis for personal use?”

The proposal, lodged by Wellington Central Young Greens activist Mathew Bouma, is open for comments on the proposed wording until February 1.

House of Representatives Clerk David Wilson and Bouma must then agree on a final wording, and the issue will go to a referendum if Bouma can collect valid signatures from at least one-tenth of the country’s 3.55 million electors – 355,000 people – within 12 months.

The initiative comes just six weeks after a narrow majority of 50.7 per cent of New Zealanders voted against legalising cannabis.

Actually it was 51.2%

But regardless another would be a giant waste of money. If you wanted a referendum on decriminalisation, then that is what you should have asked for last time.

Bouma, 20, said he believed many people voted against legalising the drug because it would have created a commercial market for big businesses, but that did not mean voters wanted cannabis users to be fined or jailed.

Only a member of Young Greens could think legalisation failed because people were anti big business!

The HB Regional Council is debating whether or not to have a Maori Ward. To help them with the decision making, the chair of the local Iwi sent them this e-mail:

Last week Mere and I watched DJango where Django was a freed ” field nigger” as they put it and his wife Bromhilda was a still a “ house nigger”who he tries to free.   I won’t spoil the end … but here is a prayer for the powerful and almighty who think we are sub-humans.

WE PRAY FOR THOSE WHO THINK WE ARE ALL BORN EQUAL UNDER GOD’S EYES BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS UNDER MAN’S EYES

WE PRAY FOR THOSE REGIONAL COUNCILLORS WHO THINK MAORI, TANGATA WHENUA ARE SUB-HUMAN AND DON’T DESERVE A VOTE EQUALLY AT THE TABLE AS THEY ARE ,  WE PRAY FOR THEM

WE PRAY FOR THOSE COUNCILLORS OF FARMING BACKGROUNDS ON STOLEN LANDS WHO DO NOT THINK MAORI COUNT IN DETERMINING THE FUTURE OF THIS REGION AND SHOULD STICK TO SHEARING AND FENCING

WE PRAY FOR THOSE COUNCILLORS FROM AN ORCHARDIST BACKGROUND WHO THINK THE MAORI COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL ARE THE” HOUSE NIGGERS” AND THE SEASONAL WORKERS FROM THE ISLANDS ARE THEIR “FIELD NIGGERS”, WE PRAY FOR THEM

WE PRAY FOR THOSE COUNCILLORS WHOS ANCESTORS WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN THE TREATY OF WAITANGI SIGNING AND HAVE A LEGACY OF BREACHING THE TREATY UP TO THIS DAY STILL WHO THINK THAT MAORI DON’T DESERVE A VOTE AT THE COUNCIL TABLE,  WE PRAY FOR THEM

WE PRAY FOR THOSE COUNCILLORS WHO SUNK BACK INTO THE COMFORTABLE CUSHION OF COLONISATION AND DID NOT VOTE FOR MAORI AT ALL

WE PRAY FOR THOSE MAORI COUNCILLORS WHO ARE STILL SUBJECT TO THE  RULE BRITTANIA CONSTITUENTS AND VOTED ACCORDINGLY

WE DON’T NEED TO PRAY FOR THOSE COUNCILLORS  THAT SUPPORTED MAORI BEING EQUAL UNDER THE TREATY AND AS FELLOW HUMANS

WE PRAY THAT THE POWERFUL AND THE MIGHTY ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE ASPIRATIONS OF MAORI IN THE FUTURE POLITICALLY ECONOMICALLY SOCIALLY AND CUTURALLY.

WE PRAY THAT THEY DISAPPEAR INTO THEIR OWN CLOUD OF POWER AND MIGHT.   BY DJANGO!!!!!  AMEN

So voting against race based seats is akin to slavery it seems!

The Royal Society granted $300,000 recently to Dr Lindsay Robertson for the topic:

Can a leopard change its spots? Exploring Big Tobacco as a proponent of smokefree goals.

Dr Robertson tweeted:

You don’t have to be Einstein to work out that the findings will of course be that the industry should have no say at all on how they are regulated.

But what makes this case interesting is what happened in 2018. Dr Robertson tweeted:

Visited the IQOS store in Seoul today. It was conveyed as a high-end fashion item. Tobacco unmentioned. No age restrictions. I told sales-person I was a non-smoker. She was still happy to sell to me, despite the two signs claiming IQOS is only for smokers. pic.twitter.com/AUPlksvbNW— Lindsay Robertson (@dr_lindsaybells) November 25, 2018

And then a Vice-President of PMI responded:

Now one might be inclined to believe the public health academic over the evil tobacco company except PMI referred to CCTV footage which they claims disproves the claims of Dr Robertson.

PMI can’t release it without her agreement. I would have thought she would be happy to have proof of her claims released. But instead her Twitter account went private, and has been so ever since.

Baring in mind this history, you do have to wonder the appropriateness of awarding $300,000 to someone who has been accused of lying about the very industry her research grant is about.

The easiest way to resolve it would be for permission to be granted for the CCTV footage to be released to see who was telling the truth.