The One News Colmar Brunton poll found:

• Cannabis Vote Yes 35% (-5%)
• Cannabis Vote No 53% (+4%)
• Euthanasia Vote Yes 64%
• Euthanasia Vote No 25%

So one referendum looks highly likely to pass and one very likely to fail.

AAP has done what is arguably the worst fact check of recent times. They seem unable to distinguish between what is a fact and an opinion.

National MP Simeon Brown said on TV:

“When we were in government we increased renewable energy from 65.4 percent to 81.9 percent. In the last three years this government has increased it by another 0.5 percent.”

AAP has labeled this as “Misleading”.

They check the data and find:

Mr Brown appears to be using calendar-year figures from the report (table 2).

The previous National government was elected on November 8, 2008, and figures for that year show 65.4 percent of the country’s electricity came from renewable sources at the time.

The party left government on September 23, 2017. That year, 81.9 percent of the country’s electricity came from renewables – matching the figures Mr Brown quoted.

So Simeon had the data 100% accurate – even to the decimal point.

The Labour-led government formed on October 19, 2017. The MBIE data shows in 2019 the share of electricity that came from renewable sources was 82.4 percent, an increase of 0.5 percentage points since 2017.

Again Simeon had the data absolutely correct.

Quarterly figures are also available and more closely align with the terms of the two governments (table 1).

Figures for the year to September 2008 show 64.0 percent of the country’s electricity came from renewable sources prior to National taking power, but that proportion increased to 83.5 percent for the year to September 2017.

The most recent figures, for the year to June 2020, show renewable sources made up 82.2 percent of all electricity generation, a decrease of 1.3 percentage points on the year before Labour formed government.

It’s even worse for Labour if you use quarterly data.

So why did AAP claim the statement was misleading?

Experts warned against crediting National with changes in the renewable energy makeup during its last period of government.

University of Auckland senior economics lecturer Stephen Poletti has written multiple papers on New Zealand’s electricity market. He told AAP FactCheck geothermal electricity generation increased under the National government and gas power plants were retired for financial reasons.

“This was nothing to do with any policies to have more renewable electricity,” Dr Poletti said.

They are saying the statement was misleading because of the opinion of an academic that the change between 2008 and 2017 was nothing to do with the Government of the time.

WTF!!!!

Does AAP not know what a fact is and what an opinion is.

You can’t call yourself a fact checker and claim a factual statement is wrong based on the opinion of someone.

If AAP is suggesting that a Government can’t claim credit (or be blamed) for changes that occur when they are in Government, then that is being pedantic to a point of insanity.

If employment rose by 80,000 during this Government’s term and Grant Robertson said “we created 80,000 jobs” would AAP claim this is false or misleading because an economist has an opinion the jobs created were not due to Government policies?

I mean personally I do think the impact of Government policies is overstated on a lot of data such as jobs, but that is totally different to claiming a politician is lying or being misleading when they claim credit for good data under their Government.

AAP FactCheck found that Mr Brown’s statement was misleading. While he quoted correct figures showing renewable electricity generation increased from 65.4 percent to 81.9 percent under the previous National government, and by only 0.5 percent under the Labour-led administration, experts say these changes have largely been independent of government policy.

AAP FactCheck should retire in disgrace. You don’t label a statement that was entirely factually true because of the opinions of a couple of people that the positive outcome was not due to Government policy. That is an opinion, not a fact.

A good fact checker would note that it is open to debate whether the change was due to government policy or due to external factors (or both), but would not find the overall statement misleading. AAP have made the “misleading” label risible by applying it to contested opinion, not facts.

In breaking news Donald and Melania Trump have tested positive for Covid-19.

UPDATE: Kids now asleep so have time to elaborate more.

Some have noted that there are a lot of people wishing ill well on Trump. I’m not one of them. I want him to recover and lose.

But it is fair to note the difference between a political leader being struck with something which he has no control over and something he had lots of control over.

If Trump was say hit by lightening in a freak accident, then anyone who celebrates that is ghoulish.

But Covid-19 infectiousness is not a freak accident. Good public health measures can massively reduce its spread. And just a few weeks ago he was mocking Joe Biden for wearing a mask so much.

And he has spent months talking down the pandemic and refusing to do even basic stuff (such as promoting a clear public health message), which is partly why the US has over 200,000 deaths. In fact just six hours ago he said:

So while no-one should celebrate anyone getting sick, there is a certain amount of karma when someone who spent months sneering at public health measures such as mask wearing, then gets the very virus he downplayed as a risk.

An analogy would be if a person who is a campaigner against wearing seat belts in cars, then got injured in an accident because he or she wasn’t wearing a seat belt.

Anyway I hope Trump recovers. He may not even be particularly sick from it. But it is worth looking at scenarios, if he does get seriously ill.

If Trump did become seriously ill and was unable to perform his duties, he could under the 25th amendment having Mike Pence become Acting President.

Some have speculated about what would happen if Pence also had Covid-19. Well again just being in isolation doesn’t mean you can’t be Acting President. In the very unlikely event that both Trump and Pence were so sick they couldn’t perform the duties of President, then under the Presidential Succession Act Nancy Pelosi would become the Acting President, so long as she resigned her seat in the House and her Speakership.

If for some reason Pelosi did not want to resign as Speaker, then the President pro tem of the Senate would be the Acting President. That is Senator Chuck Grassley. He is 87 years old.

These scenarios are unlikely.

Another scenario people have asked about is what happens if Trump did die from Covid-19. This is somewhat ghoulish but as the fatality rate for people his age is 8.6%, it is not miniscule. His odds would be lower as he would have the best healthcare treatment possible available to him.

Mike Pence would obviously become the President. But voting has already started in some states, so it would be complicated. The RNC could appoint him as the new candidate under emergency powers. But in some states voting has started, so Trump’s name would remain on the ballot.

But thanks to the Electoral College, it wouldn’t matter that much. In states won by Pence, the electors to the Electoral College would vote for him, even if it was Trump’s name on the ballot paper. So Pence would be elected President if they won a majority in the electoral college.

What would not be clear is who would be Vice-President. If Pence nominated someone before the election, then again the GOP electoral college delegates would vote for that person. Or he could ask the electoral college not to elect anyone, and he would nominate a VP once he is sworn in, who would have to be confirmed by both the House and Senate.

But technically the Senate could elect a Vice-President directly, if there is no majority on the Electoral College for a VP, so most likely is Pence would nominate someone.

Again hopefully Trump doesn’t get seriously ill from it, and the election continues as normal. Of interest will be whether there is any change in the polls from this.

I suspect there are many others like this. Chris is an awesome local MP, and that view is shared across the political spectrum in Hutt South.

The Daily Mail reports:

The Proud Boys were celebrating online Wednesday after Donald Trump told them to ‘stand back and stand by’ during the first presidential debate – while president was attacked by members of his own party for refusing to condemn white supremacy before delivering his message to the far-right group.

Members of the group posted about the shout out, telling the president: ‘We’re ready.’ Their account on the social media app Telegram posted: ‘Standing down and standing by sir.’

Proud Boys is a far-right organization that admits only men as members and promotes and engages in political violence. The group believes white men and western culture are under siege and one of its co-founders recorded a video titled ’10 things I hate about the Jews.’

Sounds a lovely group. Their initiation process is even better:

1. Recite a a loyalty oath, on the order of “I’m a proud Western chauvinist, I refuse to apologize for creating the modern world”
2. Get punched until the person recites pop culture trivia, such as the names of five breakfast cereals
3. Get a tattoo and agree to not masturbate
4. Get into a major fight “for the cause.”

It seems No 3 has been modified to allow it, but not more than once a month!

On 25 August 2017, Radio NZ reported:

A Labour government would start building a new hospital in the centre of Dunedin in its first term, the party says. …

“The hospital at present is dangerous and unsafe for staff and patients. Most of the existing buildings would not survive a severe earthquake.

“Things are so bad that at the moment operations have to be delayed because of the leaks when it rains. Dunedin Hospital is no longer fit for purpose,” she said.

So Jacinda promised work would start on building a new hospital in Labour’s 1st term. This was deemed urgent as the hospital is dangerous and unsafe, according to Jacinda.

The site for the new hospital is the old Cadbury factory site. Their policy was clear:

Labour will commit to beginning construction of the new Dunedin Hospital within our first term

So how is the new hospital going?

That photo was taken this week. Either it is a hospital that looks like a chocolate factory, or they haven’t even cleared the site yet.

It’s actually worse than that. They have not even managed to agree a business case for the hospital. The Minister of Health was a Dunedin MP, and in three years he couldn’t even get a business case for the hospital together.

Labour now says they will decide on a business case by the end of 2021. So they take four years to even put a business case together. Imagine how long actual construction would take!

Once again they were good at the promises but Ministers have shown they are incompetent at delivery. Rather than have construction start in three years they couldn’t even put together a business case for the funding.

They now claim the hospital will be finished in 2028. Based on progress to date, they may not have even started it by then!

This is the latest version of the ad. Thanks to the designer, who has been located and revised it. We’re going to fact check the data over the weekend, and I’m hoping we can start advertising it on Monday.

There are two easy ways to donate to have this ad seen by as many people as possible.

Internet Banking

Kiwiblog
BNZ 02 0536 0025353 001

I suggest you put something like “PK ad” in one of the reference fields.

Credit Card

All money received will go on paid advertising to get it seen far and wide. The best value for money appears to be Facebook. If enough is donated, could look at other mediums also.

The potential views may be huge. If we get $20,000 donated, then according to this site we would get:

• 1.87 million impressions
• 14,000 clicks through

The good thing with this is we are not selling anything. The ad is the product. If people click through, that’s a bonus. But what we want is for them to see the advert and hopefully realise how incompetent the delivery of promises has been.

I’ll do regular updates on how much has been donated and where it has been spent.

This may be the first time a blog has led to a paid election advertisement!

From Five Thirty Eight:

• Biden: 60% good performance, 39% poor performance: +21% net good
• Trump: 33% good performance, 66% poor performance: -33% net good

So two thirds of Americans who watched the debate through Trump performed poorly.

Now in one sense this may not matter, as in 2016 most thought he performed poorly also but he still won.

But in 2020 he has a much larger gap in the polls (7.6%) so he needed a good result to change things. Biden just needed to not stuff up.

At present Biden is forecast to win 332 electoral votes to 206 for Trump. A poll just out in South Carolina has him just 1% ahead and in 2016 he won that state by 14%.

The Herald reports:

A strong majority of Aucklanders support a combined road and rail tunnel for a new harbour crossing, according to a NZ Herald-Kantar Vote 2020 poll.

In the poll, there is overwhelming support nationwide for a new tunnel to augment the Auckland Harbour Bridge with 58 per cent of voters calling for a combined road and rail tunnel and 12 per cent wanting a light rail only tunnel.

Yet Labour won’t commit to a second crossing that incudes vehicles. National has promised construction would begin in 2028. Labour is saying they may do a 2nd crossing at some stage in the 2030s, but it might eb for light rail only.

Not even Simon Collins is claiming Jacinda Ardern won the 2nd debate. All the pundits are either saying it was Collins or a tie. The calls to date are:

• Mihi Forbes, Newshub panel – tie
• Trish Sherson, Newshub panel – Collins
• Josie Pagani, Newshub panel – Collins
• Luke Malpass, Stuff – tie
• Audrey Young, NZ Herald – Collins
• Simon Wilson, NZ Herald – tie
• Claire Trevett, NZ Herald – Collins
• Fran O’Sullivan, NZ Herald – tie

A much better debate the the travesty in the United States!

Jacinda Ardern campaigned on child poverty reduction. She said it was the reason she was in politics. She appointed herself Minister for Child Poverty Reduction. So how has she gone?

Well there are many ways you can measure child poverty, but most of the measures are about income distribution or inequality. They are not that useful. For example if every family in NZ had a 25% increase in their income, those measures would not show fewer people in poverty. Also if every family in NZ had a 50% drop in income, they would not show more people in poverty.

The most useful measure in my opinion is material deprivation because it measures actual need, such as can a family afford a second pair of shoes for a kid. So how many fewer children are in poverty or material deprivation today than in 2017?

Well there was a big reduction in child poverty, but it was under National. The number of children in material deprivation dropped from 195,800 in 2013 to 139,600 in 2017. That’s 56,200 fewer kids in poverty.

Under Labour, the number has grown to 151,700 or 12,100 more kids in poverty.

Thanks to all those who took part in the poll yesterday on whether this graphic should be turned into an advertisement and promoted online.

There were almost 900 votes and 86% keen to see it as an advertisement.

We also had the following pledges:

• 16 x $1,000 =$16,000
• 106 x $100 = $10,600
• 149 x $25 = $3,725
• 282 x $10 = $2,820
• Total = $33,145

If we get even half of that, then we can get the advertisement seen by around 200,000 people which would be great.

I’ll work on getting it modified so it is suitable to be an advertisement, and then do a formal call for donations.

I’m on a plane shortly, so will miss much of the debate. Use this thread to discuss how the debate is going, and how you think Biden and Trump went. Hopefully some people will even judge it on the actual debate, not their prior like or dislike of the candidates!

NewstalkZB reports:

Gus van Soest was just 40 when he decided to end his life, as his body succumbed to an incurable disease. As Kiwis consider how to vote on the euthanasia referendum, his sister reveals the rollercoaster of emotions a family faces when a loved one decides to die. Carolyne Meng-Yee reports.

Despite months of meticulous planning, Gus van Soest was late for his own death.

By this final stage, his body was so ravaged by motor neurone disease that he needed caregivers to dress him for his living wake.

Doctors and donors were waiting at the nearby hospital to receive Gus’ organs. Helicopters were on standby ready to deliver them. Timing was everything.

At the age of 40, Garmst (Gus) van Soest had decided it was time to end his life, on his own terms, in his native Netherlands.

For the past five years he had suffered the debilitating and cruel consequences of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease – a rare and incurable neurological disease that aggressively attacks nerve cells.

The condition is inevitably deadly – about 50 per cent of patients survive for less than three years after diagnosis.

The disease robbed Gus of his ability to control his arms and his tongue – over time he lost the ability to talk, walk, eat, write and drive. He depended on 24-hour care as a breathing machine kept him alive.

For the last two years of his life, Gus could only communicate with his eyes.

He used a device on his iPad with two cameras that tracked his eye movements so he could “write” messages. He wanted to use the last method of communication to tell his loved ones he was ready to die.

A terrible terrible ordeal.

By 3.30pm, Gus was ready. A hospital room was transformed into a lounge with Iris’ favourite flowers and Gus’ favourite incense burning. His last wish was that everyone meditated to empty their minds for what was to come.

Reneke, Iris and five friends held onto Gus while he was given medication by two doctors, and a series of injections that quickly made him unconscious.

“It took us by surprise. He had one more look at us standing around him and he was gone. His last look was a bit ‘panicky’. It was like he was thinking ‘Oh shit’.

“He would have felt unconscious but I don’t know if you are really ready to give in or give up.”

It took Gus 15 minutes to die but it felt like an eternity.

“He was never a quitter.”

Gradually Gus stopped breathing and turned pale. His skin went yellow and his lips turned blue.

“Right up until the medication I kept thinking to myself, ‘I want to be here, I want to do this for him, I want him to die surrounded by love and warmth but I just didn’t want to be there’.”

Isn’t an ending like this (while still very sad) vastly preferable to the alternative if he lived in a country where there was no choice?

Worth reading the entire article. Very moving

Someone (I do not know who) turned my blog post into a neat little Labour promise tracker graphic. It is very well done and in my view quite powerful.

In fact I like it so much, I wonder if readers think it is worthwhile turning it into an advertisement and paying to have it promoted on Facebook etc. It costs around 10 c a view on Facebook so even $1,000 would get it seen by 10,000 people.

I don’t think the promise tracker will have an impact on the election result per se. No single advertisement will. But I do feel strongly that Labour’s incompetence in delivery has not been covered enough in the media, and that more people should know exactly how appalling their record is. They shouldn’t get a free pass because Covid-19 has distracted us.

There are downsides to turning it into an ad. They are:

• People could complain about the ad to the ASA, and I’d have to spend hours of time rebutting them and defending it
• It would need an authorisation statement and would have to remove the Labour logo
• I’d become more of a participant than a commentator (which I prefer)
• I’d have to write up detailed paragraphs on each graph linking to the promise Labour made, and the data the result is based on, and I’m pretty busy (to put it mildly) already with running around 10 polls a week and parenting a three year old and ten month old.

But on the other hand, it would be nice to have more people see Labour’s incompetence.

So vote in the non binding poll below, to help me decide. Your vote is also not binding on you. Saying you’d donate $100 to promote it doesn’t result in any commitment. We don’t track individual votes. The vote is simply to give me some idea of how many people might support it, and how many people we could reach with it.

Labour in 2017 vowed to cut net migration by 20,000 to 30,000 a year.

Now personally this was a policy I opposed. I think it is a good thing to have migration. But Labour was blaming foreigners for house prices and taking jobs etc so they vowed to cut it by 20,000 to 30,000 a year.

How did they go?

Well in September 2017 as National left office net migration was 55,440. So for Labour to have kept its promise you’d expect net migration to drop to between 25,000 and 35,000 a year.

As at March 2020 (before Covid-19 travel restrictions) annual net migration had risen to 88,450. Rather than cut it by 30,000 they increased it by over 30,000.

Example No 6 of their incompetence or inability to actually achieve anything they promise.

Stuff reports:

The Serious Fraud Office has laid charges against two people over the NZ First Foundation donations scandal, but Winston Peters says his party has been “exonerated”.

Only Winston could claim having charges laid is an exoneration. As usual, he is talking nonsense.

The two people were charged with “obtaining by deception” on September 23 in the electoral funding case, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) said in a statement on Tuesday.

The maximum penalty for this is seven years imprisonment.

The SFO would not name those charged, but said neither were Cabinet ministers, sitting MPs, candidates or staff member in the upcoming election, or current members of the NZ First party.

I would be willing to bet that both those charged have been members of NZ First for say at least 25 years or so, and only resigned their memberships a few days ago.

NZ First leader Peters attacked the SFO when responding to the charges, saying it had “exonerated the NZ First party of any electoral law breaches”.

“It’s a relief after months of this cloud hanging over the party that we have been fully cleared,” he said.

LOL. Fully cleared.

The electoral law breaches were relatively minor compared to the fraud charges laid. Having more serious charges laid is not exoneration.

Peters said he had taken the SFO to court over the statement it intended to make public about the charges it laid.

So Winston tried to deny the public the right to know charges had been laid.

Why would Winston have gone to court, if it is all an exoneration!

“The timing of its decision to lay charges against the foundation constitutes a James Comey-level error of judgment,” Peter said, referring to the decision by then US FBI-director James Comey to reopen an investigation into Hilary Clinton’s emails shortly before the 2016 US presidential election.

James Comey decided not to charge Hillary Clinton. Here the Serious Fraud Office (which has a near 100% conviction rate) has decided to lay charges.

An SFO spokesman said NZ First brought proceedings against the office to stop it issuing a media release, on September 23.

The court ruled in favour of the SFO, the spokesman said, and released a statement on Tuesday when the timeframe for appealing the decision lapsed.

Again why did Winston try to prevent the SFO from informing the public charges had been laid?

Peters said he had now instructed lawyers to take the SFO to court and seek a declaration it had abused its statutory powers, he said.

Presumably the same lawyers who already lost to the SFO?

Peters has said the SFO would not find any wrongdoing, and NZ First was acting as other political parties do.

And again Peters was wrong. The SFO did find wrongdoing and has laid charges.

He routinely distanced himself from the foundation, saying he had “ensured it was legal but beyond that was not involved.

Yes Winston had nothing to do with it, except:

• His closest friend and confidant was a trustee
• Bills sent to Winston’s office were paid by the Foundation
• One of his MPs collected money for the Foundation

“The foundation is an entirely separate entity from the NZ First party, but that distinction will be lost on some and sadly ignored on purpose by others,” Peters said on Tuesday.

The Electoral Commissions’ view is that it was not separate. Even if it is separate that is different to independent. It was created by the Party which appointed the trustees. Someone in the party ordered money collected for the party to be paid into the Foundation and also ordered party expenses to be paid from the Foundation.

The two people charged of course have the legal presumption of innocence unless guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. That will be resolved at trial.

The issue here is that NZ First had established a Foundation that collected and spent money on behalf of NZ First but whose activities were hidden from the Party President who resigned over the issue.

UPDATE: The Court Ruling is here. Key aspects:

• Winston wanted the SFO decision hidden until after a government had been formed after the election
• The Judge said “I do not consider NZ First’s case for judicial review is particularly strong”
• The Judge concluded “I consider there is a significant public interest in the New Zealand voting public being informed during an election campaign about criminal charges of serious fraud against people or organisations related to political parties“
• NZ First applied for an inunction 33 minutes after receiving a copy of the press release

Also of interest is that one of the defendants managed to get a District Court Judge to grant an interim suppression order, but the High Court overturned that. Also NZ First tried to appeal to the Court of Appeal, but leave was only granted for them to do so if done by today. NZ First presumably realised they’d lose in the Court of Appeal and only gain a few extra days.

. They really were desperate to keep us all in the dark.

Maori Television report:

The first Māori Television Curia Research poll was released tonight and revealed Labour with a huge lead at 51% as most preferred party. The closest was the Māori Party at 10%, with all others trailing in single digits. Voters also identified the Māori Party as the most preferred coalition partner with Labour – before the Greens and New Zealand First. …

Labour’s Adrian Rurawhe leads in the preferred candidates at 38%, followed by the Māori Party’s Debbie Ngarewa-Packer at 20%. Other candidates were 1% or less. But the poll also revealed 30% of voters in Te Tai Hauāuru had still not chosen their favourite candidate just three weeks out from the general election.

The challenge for the Maori Party is much the same as for all the other parties challenging Labour. Covid-19 has dominated so much that other issues are not getting much consideration.

Reuters reports:

Democrats in of the House of Representatives will introduce a bill next week to limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years from current lifetime appointments, in a bid to reduce partisan warring over vacancies and preserve the court’s legitimacy.

The new bill, seen by Reuters, would allow every president to nominate two justices per four-year term and comes amid heightened political tensions as Republican President Donald Trump prepares to announce his third pick for the Supreme Court after the death on Sept. 18 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with just 40 days to go until the Nov. 3 election.

“It would save the country a lot of agony and help lower the temperature over fights for the court that go to the fault lines of cultural issues and is one of the primary things tearing at our social fabric,” said California U.S. Representative Ro Khanna, who plans to introduce the legislation on Tuesday, along with Representatives Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts and Don Beyer of Virginia.

Partly due to rising life expectancies, justices serve increasingly long tenures, on average now more than 25 years.

Term limits for high court justices have for years had support from a number of legal scholars on both the right and the left. Several polls in recent years have also shown large majorities of the American public support term limits.

An 18 year term for future appointments (ie past ACB) is sensible for a number of reasons.

• You don’t want Justices carrying on until they are in their 80s or even 90s, waiting for their party to be in power so they can retire. In NZ the retirement age is 70.
• It makes the power balance (over time) on the Supreme Court proportional to which party wins the presidency the most as you get two appointments every four year term. This is much preferable than a lottery that is dependent on when someone dies.
• It would remove any incentive to court pack and increase the number of Justices

If this law had been in place in the past there would currently be a 5-4 majority to Republican appointees. You would have the following:

• Bush appointee – 2003
• Bush appointee – 2005
• Bush appointee – 2007
• Obama appointee – 2009
• Obama appointee – 2011
• Obama appointee – 2013
• Obama appointee – 2015
• Trump appointee – 2017
• Trump appointee – 2019

Of course any change can’t be retrospective and shouldn’t be. But it would be a good change for the future.

The Herald reports:

Labour is promising to keep Southland’s Tiwai Point smelter on life support for another three to five years while the Government works to transition the region’s economy.

If re-elected, the party would work to reduce the amount of money the smelter pays for electricity – the major reason why Rio Tinto said it was closing the plant.

This is farcical – Government Ministers personally negotiating how much a company will pay for electricity.

We have an Electricity Authority whose job under the law is to regulate what transmission costs should be.