Hmmmmn

Overly restrictive?

A reader writes in:

I thought you might be interested in this one… an NZ secondary school was looking at Hairspray for their theater production.  Turns out, to licence this play you have to agree that cast members in the show must accurately reflect the character descriptions as written in the script.  

Apparently Maori and Pacifika kids won’t do… they were told that the relevant characters must  be African American.  

See for yourself:  https://www.mtishows.com.au/hairspray  

Who next?  Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice performed only by Italians and a Jew?  Or should it only be Venetians?

Crazy.

It’s an interesting issue. My thoughts are:

  • The creators of the production of course have the rights to set conditions for use
  • I can absolutely understand not allowing blackface
  • I can also understand requiring productions in the US requiring actual African-Americans to play African-American parts
  • It does seem over the top to have the same requirement for productions in other countries like New Zealand
  • Such a restriction actually means fewer people get to see its core message against racism

Guest Post: Light Rail to Auckland airport – dodging a bullet!

This was submitted before the election. Am publishing now as Labour says the light rail is back on.

A guest post by Lynne Mitchell:

The current halt of the projected Auckland airport rail link project is cause for tax payer celebration. Rail links to airports have proven a risky for ballooning project costs, years of building disruption and lack of early profitability.

For Auckland, the billions to have been spent on an airport rail link would be better utilised  improving journeys for Auckland area commuters.  By volume of total commuter traveling around cities, airports are not huge destinations.  Aside from tourists, airport workers and business passengers, most Aucklanders would only travel to the airport 3 or 4 times a year.   

Airport rail travel must be convenient and cost competitive or travellers will use alternative transport options.  Buses have advantages of a wider passenger coverage area and ride-sharing services such as Uber are growing. Sydney Airport now has dedicated ride share zones at domestic terminals costing $4 entry. Oakland and San Francisco International airports attribute declines in public transport rider numbers to the growth of ride-sharing companies.

Existing airport rail link projects provide useful insights. In Toronto, the Pearson Airport UP Express light rail link opened in 2015 with the Canadian $456 million cost  possible using some existing rail track and diesel engines. Despite Toronto’s population of 2.8 million, (compared to Auckland’s 1.5 million), the rail link struggled to attract passengers and initially the Provincial Government subsidy was Can.$52.26 each passenger ride! By slashing fares passenger numbers tripled and currently the Government subsidy is Can.$11 per ride. Between April 2016 and March 2017, the UP Express airport rail service cost the Province $68 million to operate. Critics of the Toronto airport rail link say that it is used mainly by tourists and business passengers and has diverted funds away from needed city transport projects.

Sydney airport’s rail link initially failed to meet passenger targets, despite efforts such as cancelling the Airport Express bus service, creating taxi surcharges and more expensive airport parking. In 2000 it went into receivership and after purchase in a receiver’s sale, Government assistance was used to boost passenger numbers by subsidising fares.

The Brisbane Airtrain also failed in early days to meet passenger targets but now returns a small profit. The privately owned Airtrain has monopoly access to provide public transport to Brisbane’s domestic and international terminals until 2036. In 2017, Sydney’s Airport Link and Brisbane Airtrain  carried approximately 17 per cent of the 50 million passengers that passed through both  airports.

The Melbourne airport rail link is set for completion in 2031 with a cost range of 8 to 13 billion. This despite a 2013 study by Public Transport Victoria finding that the prohibitive costs of a Melbourne airport rail link outweighed the benefits. Critics of the service have questioned the cost of moving mainly tourists from the existing 24-hour express Skybus on to rail.

The proposed Edinburgh Airport Rail Link (EARL) project was cancelled on cost grounds following a change of Government.  However in 2007, it was agreed to retain the project as a light rail line between the airport and Edinburgh city centre and the Edinburgh Trams service was launched in May 2014 as a single light rail route from central Edinburgh to the airport.  The trams were originally designed to run for 15 miles from Edinburgh Airport to Leith by 2011 at a cost of £375m but a truncated 9 mile service, stopping in the city centre, opened in 2014 at a cost of £776m with the final bill expected to be bill to about £1bn.  The service has the capacity to carry 21 million people a year but in 2015 the Edinburgh Tram (light rail) carried 5.3 million passengers, running at an average of 25 per cent capacity. It currently costs more and takes longer than the existing airport bus services

A public inquiry has been set up to investigate the huge problems dogging the Edinburgh airport light rail project, which as well as massively over budget, was completed five years later than planned, and caused major disruption for residents and visitors through years of works.

According to The Scotsman, 2017, “Passengers are complaining the airport tram continues to be slower than the bus, and some Edinburgh residents are so furious with the inconvenience it caused they refuse to get on it”. A new scheme in Scotland to build a multi-million-pound link to Glasgow Airport has hit the buffers after experts warned it would do more economic harm than good.

Globally, a well-connected airport rail link is expected to achieve up to 20% of passenger share where the population are already well used to using public transport.  In the United States just 6 of the 50 busiest airports are served by transit options that can save time in typical traffic and many airport rail links do not exceed 7%  of  traffic share

Successful airport rail links share some clear attributes.

  • The airport rail link is part of an integrated city transport system with good connectivity to other transport services
  • The airport rail link does not terminate at the airport and serves passengers and commuters going on to destinations via the airport stop.  
  • The airport rail link connects passengers easily from dispersed suburban locations as well as from the central city.
  • Total travel passenger time is efficient in terms of number of stops and the train timetable
  • The rail link serves both air travellers and airport employees with operating times suitable for their needs.
  • Ease of access for pedestrians at the airport and rail stations i.e. no steps, stairs or long walk distances
  • Comfortable seats and room for luggage.
  • Easier beginnings. The Heathrow Express was created after a less expensive airport rail service had first been established via the London Underground
  • Attractive ride cost. With the average cab fare from Brisbane city to the airport at $47 and the Airtrain fare at $15 a seat, 58 per cent of travellers in groups choose to go by other means than Airtrain.
  • The success of an airport rail link is related to the city having a sufficiently large population base.
  • High public transport usage is indicative for a successful  airport rail link service with high car ownership a detrimental factor.

Expensive city transport projects need to be well future proofed. A new book, “The Driverless Car Revolution” makes the bold statement, “ Driverless cars are coming and they will change our lives. Pre-screened ridesharing options with driverless cars, door to door will be a new reality Most people will not choose to own these electric vehicles and traffic congestion will plummet”. Airport rail links around the world have been described as being built mainly for nakedly political reasons, was this any different ?

Why is the NZ Medical Council endorsing a US activist group?

The latest NZ Medical Journal has this article from Chair of the NZ Medical Council:

I tē whā a Te Mahuru, kua tukua te whakaputanga hauora oritetanga ō tēnei hautaka rongonui. I tēnei wiki, kua tae mai te wiki ō Te Reo, nōrerira kua tae hoki he aheinga anō ki te whakanui i tēnei kaupapapa whakahirahira.

Health equity is the new black—and Black Lives Matter.

Renowned civil rights leader, Rev. Dr Martin Luther King Jr said: “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane”.

Health equity matters: it is the right thing to do and the rights thing to do. It is of significance that all main political parties during election campaigning have indicated the importance of health equity as a necessary measure of success of our health system. Along with the recent Heather Simpson Health & Disability System Review,1 there now appears to be a societal consensus that equitable healthcare is a must.

Given we Kiwis like to think of ourselves as fair-minded, and equity is—at its heart – about fairness, this is perhaps not surprising. Although this is an encouraging place to find ourselves, saying something is important and then actually achieving it are quite different end-points. We must all do what we can within our personal and professional spheres of influence to ensure equity becomes reality.

Late last year the Medical Council of New Zealand (Council), in partnership with Te Ohu Rata O Aotearoa (Te ORA), released its Statement on Cultural Safety and He Ara Hauora Māori: A Pathway to Māori Health Equity.

These statements set Council’s expectations of doctors and healthcare organisations in the delivery of culturally safe practice. In Aotearoa New Zealand, cultural safety is key to achieving equitable health outcomes for Māori—a right under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The move away from only the ‘cultural competence’ of the doctor, towards achieving ‘cultural safety’ for patients is deliberate and indicates a shift in thinking away from acquiring knowledge about the ‘other’, towards a focus on how patients receive their care.

Research shows that simply learning about another’s culture does not result in positive change or improved health outcomes.

Doctors (and other health professionals, and indeed the health system at large) have moral and professional obligations to strive for health equity in our practice. In order to do so, we need to understand the contributing factors to health inequity and our role in it.

The New Zealand Medical Council has just released an independent report on the state of cultural safety and health equity relating to doctors practicing in Aotearoa New Zealand and patients receiving care. The Report places Māori patients’ experiences front and centre; however, many of the challenges and solutions are applicable to other communities and populations who experience inequitable healthcare.

Findings from the Report show there is a strong need to acknowledge the systemic racism and privilege that prevails in the health sector. Doctors must reflect on their own cultural views and biases as a first step, then work to influence and support the places they work in and those they interact with, to improve how patients receive their care. Examples of racist beliefs and practices that proliferate in the health system were discussed in the last NZMJ editorial,7 and show there is considerable work to be done.

Significant structural barriers are also shown to impact patient care and cultural safety. These include short appointment times and a focus on only the immediate presenting needs, which limits the ability to build relationships and partner with patients and whānau.

Many patients and whānau feel disempowered, that their knowledge is underestimated, and that they are not involved in decision-making. This can lead to whānau feeling distanced from both the doctor and healthcare team, and from their own health. One of the intended outcomes of the Ministry of Health’s Whakamaua: Maori Health Action Plan 2020-2025 8 is that iwi, hapū, whānau and Māori communities can exercise their authority to improve their health and wellbeing. This is an important focus for collective action.

The Health and Disability System Review found that “Improving equity and wellbeing for Māori requires immediate improvements in the way the system delivers for Māori, a growth in the range and distribution of kaupapa Māori services, enhancements to rangatiratanga and mana motuhake”, and our findings support this. We need a diverse, culturally safe health workforce which reflects the communities we serve. This begins through selection into medical school, and continues through the training continuum to vocational specialisation.

Māori doctors often experience additional cultural demands on top of their day-to-day work. There is little evidence that such cultural activities and training of others is acknowledged and recognised in job descriptions or as a key element of professional development. Council is working with our partners to better support the Māori health and disability workforce and increase Māori leadership and participation in governance and decision making. Where representation is low, it requires being bold and courageous when highlighting issues for Māori.

There is overwhelming evidence of inequities in health outcomes for Māori—you need look no further than the previous issue of NZMJ or the Wai 2575 Māori Health Trends Report.

COVID-19 also presents a concern for the likely disproportionate impact on Māori.

Council encourages all doctors, employers, training and professional organisations to consider the findings in the cultural safety Report, draw on the data, and use this as a basis for achieving long-term, positive change for the benefit of all patients and whānau.

While the Report offers an insight into current practice, it is only the first step on a long journey. It sets a baseline for ourselves and our stakeholders to use when developing programmes, strategies and policies that support us to drive change.

We are already seeing excellent work from the Medical Schools in selecting for medical workforce diversity, and the next generation of physicians in training will be “equity natives”. The specialist medical colleges, here and in Australia have Indigenous health and health equity embedded in their training and recertification programmes. Cultural safety training is increasingly (but far from universally) available, as is education on Te Tiriti within workplaces such as district health boards.

In exerting ourselves to success, we are reminded of the words of Tā Mason Durie, Māori doctor and academic,who writes “The potential within the Māori population has never been greater … the potential to face the future with both the freshness of youth and the wisdom of age”. We should also be encouraged by the well-known whakatauki or tauparapara of Tā James Henare “Kua tāwhiti kē to haerenga mai, kia kore e haere tonu. He nui rawa o mahi, kia kore e mahi tonu”.

A group of doctors have sent in this response which the NZMJ has refused to publish:

Dr Curtis Walker calls for better health access equity (Editorial, NZMJ Vol 133 No 1522: 25 September 2020), but in our view he oversteps the mark by aligning himself with Black Lives Matter (his capitalisation).

We agree with the concept that black lives (in fact all lives) matter, but the organisation Black Lives Matter (BLM) is something the medical profession must avoid any association with.

BLM is a radical neo Marxist organisation, as they clearly state themselves.  They make calls to “Disrupt the Western-Prescribed Nuclear Family.”  They wish to “Dismantle Cisgender Privilege” and “Defund the Police”.

Where do these quotes come from?  From the BLM statement “What We Believe.”  Interestingly, that statement has now been taken down from the internet.

The other issue we have with Dr Curtis’s call is this.  Equity of access is not, and will never be, a guarantee of equality of outcome.  To assume so, as Dr Curtis appears to do, is intellectually dishonest.

As Chair of the New Zealand Medical Council, Dr Walker holds one of the most important roles in our profession.  We question whether the majority of New Zealand Doctors would support the aims of BLM were they aware of them.  We therefore call on Dr Walker to dissociate himself from BLM.  Further, we question why the New Zealand Medical Association would wish to associate the New Zealand Medical Association with BLM, as it does by having such an editorial in its journal.

It is important to distinguish between the statement “black lives matter” and the activist group “Black Lives Matter”.

General Debate 22 October 2020

More kids dependent on benefits

Lindsay Mitchell has been filing OIA requests and has found that the number of children living in households dependent on benefits has increased from around 190,000 to 217,000 in Labour’s 1st term.

This matters because we have a tonne of data that negative outcomes later in life are correlated to being in a household where welfare, not work, is the only source of income.

A media bias data site

From the author of a new media bias data site:

I am a self-employed Computer Scientist with a PhD in Computer Science from the University of Auckland and have been working in the field of robotics, machine learning and data science for the last several years.

I thought you might be interested in a project that I’ve been working on for the past four months; a service that automatically measures political bias in the New Zealand media, using a machine learning model that evaluates the sentiment of sentences (from news articles) which mention MPs and political parties.

The website is available here: mediabias.co.nz

Whilst the results are preliminary, as far as I’m aware, it is the largest automated analysis of political bias in the New Zealand media to date. The analysis currently covers ~380,000 sentences from ~65,000 political news articles that were published over the past year in 15 media sources and popular New Zealand political blogs (including Kiwiblog). I have included political blogs in the analysis to get a rough idea if the system is working. Although not perfect, the current results do appear to show that the New Zealand media are heavily skewed to the left in terms of political sentiment. There are limitations with the analysis (these are described in more detail on the website), the main one being that the analysis was performed on articles published when the Labour Party was in power, the results may change somewhat if performed on articles published when the National Party was in power.

If you go to the website, you can click on individual media sources in the table to view more details, including a chart with a breakdown of how biased the media source is to each political party and a time-series chart of the sentiment for each party plotted over the course of a year. The results look best if you view it on a desktop or laptop as I haven’t had enough time to optimise it for mobiles yet.

The site describes the methodology:

Ingest news articles: collect articles from New Zealand media sources.

Filter news articles: automatically select articles that discuss New Zealand politics.

Entity & Sentiment Analysis: extract references to members of parliament (MPs) and political parties from article text and analyse the sentiment of each sentence.

Party Bias Calculation: party bias is measured by taking the mean bias error (MBE) between the given party and all other parties, for a particular media source.

Media Bias Calculation: for a particular media source, the mean of the absolute MBE score for each party is taken.

Coverage Calculation: the sum of all times that an MP of a particular party or the party itself are mentioned in articles published by a particular media source.

Political Leaning Calculation: MBE between all left-wing parties and all right-wing parties.

The site finds Politik to be the least biased site and excluding blogs, Newshub and Scoop to be the most.

Guest Post: The House of Representatives.

A guest post by former MP Owen Jennings:

Some 264 years ago on the 3rd of November Edmund Burke addressed the good people in his electorate.  He had this to say on the matter of representation.

“Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”.

In short, you are Parliament’s man not a prisoner of your voters.

For Burke, one of the greatest thinkers and contributors to the ideal of democracy, the House of Representatives was not meant to be “representative” of the community, replete with an exact mix of every shade of differing backgrounds, race, religion, philosophy and opinion but a gathering of the best the community can afford in ability and wisdom who then act in the best interests of the whole country.

The debate in New Zealand over recent years has focused on something different.  We have political parties stretching credibility by struggling to bring together a mirror image of the diversity of the voting public. We have focused on Parliament being a place where the variety of cultures and colours in the community is reflected in the members elected.

It is easy to argue the value of that and it fits the notions of fairness and equality that pervade our current thinking.  But it is a pendulum that has swung too far.  We are now sacrificing merit and ability in our parliamentarians for the pursuit of representativeness of every gradation of thinking that we believe may be offended if not overtly present in the ranks of the party and Parliament.

Burke went on… “parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament”.

How many of our elected MP’s will commit to such a reasoned position?   They most certainly would be quick to claim such view as their own but when you have been knowingly selected by your party because of your particular distinctiveness isn’t the reality that you will make sure that particular interest group will receive your attention at the expense, even, of the good of the nation.  We have certainly seen indications of that in recent parliaments.

Apparently it was a French lawyer, Joseph de Maistre, who first coined the phrase, “Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite” – “you get the parliament you deserve”.  Maybe if we were more focused on a Burke style of representativeness and democracy our ‘just desserts’ would be a much improved administration.

New Bob Jones book

Is there racial bias with Police charging decisions?

Radio NZ reported in July:

On 2 April, then-police commissioner Mike Bush told the Pandemic Response Select Committee that while historically police had not used discretion fairly across all communities, this had changed.

“We’ve moved a very long way and we now have data to say that we now are in a place where we apply that discretion evenly across communities.”

According to information supplied to RNZ under the Official Information Act, that statement was based on data collected from police’s strategy to reduce Māori offending, Te Huringa o te Tai, which showed the number of pre-charge warnings for first-time adult offenders was the same for Māori and non-Māori, at 73 percent.

The discovery of “an analytical error” has however corrected the number of pre-charge warnings given to Māori as just 53 percent, compared to 59 percent for non-Māori.

Police Deputy Commissioner Wally Haumaha acknowledged there was bias in the police – but said he was confident it was changing.

This got me interested as a long time analyst of crime statistics. The first thing I know is that overall rates often mean little as they treat all crimes the same – a homicide and a drink driving.

Likewise the difference in pre-charge warnings might be related to the nature of the crimes, rather than racial bias.

This is not to say racial bias might not be a component. It is quite possible there is some. But the overall topline data is not a good evidence base on which to decide. So I asked the Police to break down the pre-charge warnings by offence type and ethnicity. Their OIA response is here.

MāoriNon-MāoriDifference
Acts intended to injure32%49%17%
Abduction/Harassment17%23%6%
Theft33%29%-4%
Drugs44%43%-1%
Weapons54%47%-7%
Property5%15%10%
Public order89%90%1%
Offences against justice57%53%-4%
Overall54%57%3%

The biggest difference is in violent offences where 32% of Maori get a warning and 49% of non-Maori. That does suggest racial bias, unless the makeup of offences within that category is very different for each ethnicity. You don’t caution someone for GBH but you might for a pub fight. If I have time I’d be keen to break down that category more.

Fewer Maori get warnings for harassment offences and property offence.

But in some categories it goes the other way. Non-Maori are less likely to get a warning for theft offences, for weapon offences and for offences against justice.

Worth noting that the overall difference in warning rates of 3% in no way can explain the huge gap between Maori and non-Maori offending. If the Police are slightly less likely to give a first time offender a warning if they are Maori, this won’t explain why overall offending is around 400% higher.

But nevertheless any racial disparity in who gets a warning is of concern. Even this data is somewhat inconclusive. Why are non-Maori less likely to get a warning for theft offences and Maori less likely to get a warning for violent offences?

To really answer that you’d want to get access to say a 10 year dataset and examine it down to the individual offence level.

My thanks to the Police for the OIA response.

General Debate 21 October 2020

A brutal killing in Paris

The National Post reports:

The teenager who beheaded a teacher outside the school in a Paris suburb where he taught had approached pupils in the street and asked them to point out his victim, anti-terrorism prosecutor Jean-Francois Ricard said on Saturday.

Police shot dead the 18-year-old attacker, who was born in Russia, minutes after he murdered 47-year-old history teacher Samuel Paty in broad daylight in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine on Friday. …

Earlier this month Paty had shown his pupils cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad in a class on freedom of expression, angering a number of Muslim parents. Muslims believe that any depiction of the Prophet is blasphemous.

In response, France was preparing Sunday to expel 231 foreigners on a government watch list for suspected extremist religious beliefs, Europe 1 radio reported. France’s Interior ministry, responsible for expelling foreigners, was not available to comment.

An 18 year old doesn’t get radicalised by themselves. It happens because of other people they meet in person, or online.

People are entitled to have their religious beliefs. But they are not entitled to force them onto other people, and murder them because they are offended.

There is no room in secular countries for those who think their religious beliefs entitle them to murder those who don’t share them.

A strategic challenge for National in a post Covid world

On Patreon I’ve done a fairly lengthy post on what I see as a strategic challenge for National – how it positions itself in a post-Covid world. One extract:

It is very possible that for the next decade or so New Zealanders will feel much more positive about a big state than they have in the past.

So National needs to spend the next few months not just reviewing the last three years, but thinking about the next ten years.  How does National position itself in a post-Covid era?

This is not an argument for National to embrace increasing the tax take from 30% to 40% of GDP, or the like. It is an argument that National has to think about how to make its principles relevant to people post Covid-19.

There are obvious areas to target such as government waste, as the less the Government wastes on failed projects, the more it could spent in areas like public health. But you don’t win an election purely be exposing waste.

You need to be able to advocate an alternative vision of Government – a smarter Government, a more agile Government, a tech friendly Government etc.

Basically National should not assume that once the we have a vaccine for the virus, everything returns to normal. The world and the country in 2023 and 2026 will be very different from 2017.

Meet your new Deputy PM?

The Herald reports:

Labour deputy leader Kelvin Davis’ rhyming speech last night did not go down well, with Kiwis online describing it as “despicable”, “ungracious” and “disgusting”.

Speaking at the Labour election headquarters, minutes before Jacinda Ardern took the stage, Davis recited a confusing, nursery-rhyme type speech, hailing “whaea Jacinda” and slamming defeated National leader Judith Collins.

Whereas politicians usually try to stay gracious, in victory and in defeat, Davis – who will likely take up the role of deputy Prime Minister, chose to go down a slightly different route, by ridiculing his opponent.

It was a nasty ugly display from NZ’s Next Deputy PM.

The vast majority of people are very good on election night. The Nelson Labour HQ sang “For he’s a jolly good fellow” to Nick Smith when he turned up to concede, and Nick stayed for a few drinks.

We have a great tradition in NZ that losing candidates go to the HQs of the winning candidate, concede in person and congratulate them. And the winning candidate normally praises the losing candidate. It’s a great piece of civility that we should retain.

What you don’t do is mock and ridicule those who lose on prime time TV on election night. But that’s what Labour Deputy Leader decided to do.

Watson jailed

The Herald reports:

A United Kingdom court has sentenced New Zealand businessman Eric Watson to a four-month jail term.

TVNZ reports a High Court judge in London found Watson in contempt of court for withholding information about his assets from philanthropist Sir Owen Glenn.

It is rare for someone to be jailed in relation to what was a civil matter, but read on for why:

In an October 2 decision, Lord Justice Christopher Nugee said it was “demonstrated how blatantly Mr Watson lied to the Court of Appeal” about the state of his assets.

Watson’s formal witness statement to the Court of Appeal displayed his “willingness to tell outright lies if he thinks they will remain undetected”.

“It is one of the clearest examples of why I regard him as a witness whose evidence is almost worthless.”

I can’t recall a Judge damning someone to that extent before as a liar. This explains I think why a jail term has been imposed. Watson seems to think his wealth gives him immunity from consequences.

16 days to go

The bad news for Trump is he is at 12% in the 538 model. The good news is he was at 13% on the same date in 2016. However the election is five days earlier in 2020 so less time to change things. 538 project:

  • 93% chance Biden gets over 50% of popular vote
  • 37% chance Biden wins by a double digit figure
  • 4% chance Trump wins popular vote
  • 8% chance Trump loses popular vote but wins electoral college

On the average of the polls Biden has a 10.7% lead.

In terms of states Trump needs to win his odds are:

  • Georgia 49%
  • North Carolina 32%
  • Arizona 31%
  • Florida 28%
  • Pennsylvania 13%

Also Trump needs to not lose:

  • Ohio (51% Trump prob to win)
  • Iowa 58%
  • Texas 69%

The Democrats are now at 74% probability to win the Senate with a likely 52 seats.

General Debate 20 October 2020

How did the 11 parties that didn’t gain MPs go?

11 parties failed to gain MPs in Parliament at all. How did they go?

  1. NZ First 2.7%. Prognosis: On life support
  2. New Conservative 1.5%. Prognosis: They’ll be back so long as there is evil to smite
  3. TOP 1.4%. Prognosis: As healthy as a cat in the living room of their former leader
  4. Advance NZ 0.9%. Prognosis: World famous due to dismemberment by Tova. Advance NZ will probably go away but expect Billy TK and NZ Public Party to continue and thrive
  5. ALCP 0.3%. Prognosis: On the assumption the referendum is lost, they’ll carry on.
  6. ONE Party 0.12%. Prognosis: There isn’t room for two Christian parties.
  7. NZ Outdoors Party 0.11%. Prognosis: Will be subsumed by NZ Public Party
  8. TEA Party 0.08%. Prognosis: They should join ACT.
  9. Sustainable NZ 0.06%. Prognosis: Hugely embarrassing for a party with such promise. May try again if Greens fail to deliver on issues such as Kermadecs despite no NZ First in Government
  10. Social Credit 0.06%. Prognosis: They will never go away. I mean never. They should retire though as the Reserve Bank seems to be implementing their manifesto.
  11. Heartland NZ 0.04% Prognosis: Not many votes in opposing healthier waterways

Who would be Ministers in a sole Labour Ministry?

Back on 3 September I wrote on my Patreon whom might make up a sole Labour Ministry. The full list of 26 Ministers and six others is behind the paywall, but here’s some extracts:

2. Kelvin Davis, Deputy PM, Education
11. Stuart Nash, SOEs, Small Business, Corrections
17 Michael Wood, Community Sector, Internal Affairs, Environment, Statistics, Youth
18. Deborah Russell, Revenue, Tertiary Education
19. Kiri Allan, Justice, Courts

And my pick for the Whips:

  • Chief Whip: Kieran McAnulty
  • Junior Whip: Jo Luxton
  • No 3 Whip: Camilla Belich

A polling forecast as a Star Wars film opening

Tova vs JLR

This interview of Jami-Lee Ross by Tova O’Brien has been viewed almost six million times. It is quite brutal.

What some MPs should perhaps reflect upon is that almost beyond doubt Jami-Lee was one of those leaking stories to Tova for some time. He was a source. Tova would never reveal this, but it seems pretty obvious.

There is a lesson here for MPs. You may think leaking stories to a journalist helps build a relationship and will get you a friend in the gallery. But it doesn’t. The journalist is doing their job, in cultivating you. You are useful to them. They are doing their job.

And as you see in the above interview, it doesn’t mean you get the kids glove treatment. If anything, you arguably get treated harsher.

So the lesson here, is don’t leak to journalists. If you think doing so means you will get favourable treatment in future, you are wrong.

General Debate 19 October 2020

Who may come in or out on specials

Party Demographics

LabourNationalACTGreensTotal
Female55%31%40%70%48%
Male45%69%60%30%52%
20s2%3%10%10%3%
30s22%17%20%20%21%
40s38%37%40%40%38%
50s31%29%30%30%30%
60s8%11%0%0%8%
70s0%3%0%0%1%
European52%91%70%50%64%
Maori23%6%30%30%20%
Pasifika17%0%0%10%10%
Asian6%3%0%10%5%

This shows the rough demographics of every party in Parliament.

Gender

Overall almost evenly balanced. Labour and Greens have males under-represented and National and ACT have females under-represented.

Age

Greens and ACT have young caucuses, with no one over 60. National and Labour quite similar but Labour slightly younger.

Ethnicity

ACT has the highest proportion of Maori MPs (excluding Maori Party).

One is six Labour MPs is Pasifika.

National’s caucus is heavily European.

Factors in National’s loss

I’ll blog more on this over the next few weeks, but here’s an initial take on what I think were factors in National’s loss. I’m dividing them up into two categories – those National did and did not have control over.

Factors beyond National’s control

  • Covid-19
  • The Government’s response to Covid-19
  • Jacinda Ardern
  • Jacinda’s 1 pm press conferences
  • The media
  • The huge infection rates and death rates in other countries
  • The fact that no Government has failed to win a 2nd term since 1975

Factors National has some control over

  • Having seven different Leaders and Deputy Leaders in one term
  • Jami-Lee Ross
  • Three years of leaks to Newshub
  • Hamish Walker
  • Andrew Falloon
  • A fiscal hole
  • SFO charging donors to National
  • Messy selections (Auckland Central)
  • Mistakes such as Goldsmith’s ethnicity, misfiring walkabouts

This is not a definitive list. It is to make the point that you can’t blame the result all on Covid-19, but also you can’t ignore the fact there were significant factors outside National’s control.

The key is to be realistic about what were the factors you did have control over, and how to minimise a recurrence in future. Also to look at the factors you don’t control and consider how you mitigate against them.