Labour has been good at doing announcements on climate change, but bad at making decisions that will actually reduce emissions. They have set a target of net zero emissions by 2050, but their own official Government forecasts are for net emissions to keep climbing.

The blue line is net emissions for the last four years of National. The red line us the official forecast for net emissions since 2017 from the Ministry for the Environment. These were prepared for the Fourth Biennial Report.

The black line is what they would need to have done pro-rata to be on track for net zero by 2020.

Instead of reducing net emissions, they are planning to increase then from 55,000 kT to over 70,000 kT in six years.

The PM declared climate change her generation’s nuclear free issue. Well if this Government was in power in 1984, it would have probably accidentally built a nuclear weapon by now.

This week’s ONCB poll:

Labour Party – 47% (down 1%)
National Party – 33% (up 2%)
ACT – 8% (up 1%)
Green Party – 7% (up 1%)
New Zealand First – 1% (down 1%)
New Conservative – 1% (down 1%)
The Opportunities Party – 1% 
Māori Party – 1%
Advance New Zealand – 1% 

Labour is on 47% and National/ACT on 41%. If the Greens didn’t make it, then the race would be getting competitive. They Greens normally underperform to their polls, but 7% should be safe for them.

Key things to look for in next week’s poll will be where the Greens are and if the gap between Labour and National/ACT narrows further.

Best news of course is NZ First on 1%.

In the NRR poll they were in 6th place. It is possible on this poll they are in 9th place!

The media have been running a series of articles claiming errors in National’s fiscal plan, based on information from Grant Robertson or former Labour staff.

While there was one error, which I will detail, the narrative on this is almost farcical because of the time frames the forecasts cover.

The PREFU and National’s plan deal with forecasts out to 2035 or so – which is a period of 15 years.

Over those 15 years there will be around $2 trillion of government spending and around $1.8 trillion of government revenue.

The actual outcome in 15 years will be tens of billions different to what we are forecasting today. Even Treasury with its dozen of Budget staff often is out by $1 or $2 billion in a forecast for just the following year, let alone 15 years times.

What the competing forecasts are about is competing paths.

Labour’s path (which it doesn’t want to talk about) is 15 years of deficits, and $200 billion+ extra debt and a tax hike.

National’s path is getting back into surplus quicker, having debt peak at far less and a temporary tax cut. How it achieves this is pretty simple. They do two things:

• Scrap some of the current low quality Labour programmes such as free tertiary fees
• Increase future spending at a slightly lower rate than Labour

The 2nd bullet point is the key. It is what Bill English managed to do after the GFC. You spend up large for a couple of years to cushion the recession but then you clamp down on future spending increases by reprioritisation and fiscal discipline.

The 15 year plans (and even the three year plans) are not a cast in stone projection. Take for example Labour’s 2017 plan – they ended up spending masses more money than they claimed they would, because the economy had enough growth to cover it.

So arguing about $80 million here or even $4 billion in the context of a time period which has $2 trillion of spending is just silly, to put it mildly.

Now sure if National has made a mistake in their plan, this should be reported. But it’s a mistake which represents 0.2% of total revenue or spending over the 15 years.

So what are the areas of dispute.

Super Fund contributions

National’s fiscal plan was calculated and written primarily after the May Budget. Two days before the plan was released the Government released the PREFU and National over around 36 hours had to comb through the PREFU and look for what had changed since BEFU.

They missed that the rate of contributions to the NZ Super Fund had dropped. The three professional economists employed by NZIER to check the plan also missed this. It’s sort of understandable as Labour have spent years claiming having reduced contributions is evil. But there is a formula used to calculate contributions and this was applied to PREFU (Labour could have chosen to over-ride it but didn’t).

So what is the impact of this error. That National’s projected debt in 2034 would be 36% of GDP instead of 35%, as opposed to over 50% for Labour.

But again remember that debt figure is due to the difference between tax income and spending over 15 years which will be about $2 trillion.

NZ Upgrade Programme

Grant Robertson is claiming National has double counted NZ Upgrade Programme funding for our infrastructure programme.

National and NZIER dispute this. They rolled it into capital allowances but kept the label for consistency from an earlier plan.

Tax on Super Fund contributions

Grant Robertson is claiming National should have accounted for the lower tax revenue on the super fund contributions being suspended.

This is what you call a second order effect and no party even takes these into effect when doing opposition plans. We know this because Grant Robertson himself didn’t do this in 2017 when his plan was to increase contributions to the NZ Super Fund.

Labour desperately don’t want people talking about their fiscal plan, because 15 years of deficits is more n economic death wish than a plan.

AP reports:

President Donald Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Saturday, capping a dramatic reshaping of the federal judiciary that will resonate for a generation and that he hopes will provide a needed boost to his reelection effort.

Barrett, a former clerk to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, said she was “truly humbled” by the nomination and quickly aligned herself with Scalia’s conservative approach to the law, saying his “judicial philosophy is mine, too.”

Barrett, 48, was joined in the Rose Garden by her husband and seven children. If confirmed by the Senate, she would fill the seat vacated by liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It would be the sharpest ideological swing since Clarence Thomas replaced Justice Thurgood Marshall nearly three decades ago.

On current life expectancy Barrett would serve 35 years on the Supreme Court, if confirmed.

Some facts about Barrett:

• Has six younger siblings
• Grew up in New Orleans
• Graduated 1st in her law school class at Notre Dame
• Clerked for Justice Scalia
• Like Scalia, she is an originalist – meaning she interprets the constitution based on what would have been the original meaning of the text when it was ratified
• Was Professor of Law at Notre Dame and three times received Distinguished Professor of the Year awards
• Appointed to 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017
• Her 7th circuit appointment attracted letters of support from all 49 faculty colleagues
• Has seven children herself, including one with Down Syndrome

My posts this week on Patreon are:

• The race for Manurewa
• The race for Takanini
• Exclusive: Who is voting for and against in the cannabis referendum?
• The race for Panmure-Ōtāhuhu
• The race for Botany
• The race for Maungakiekie
• The race for Pakuranga
• The race for New Lynn
• The race for Te Atatū
• Could court packing threat win it for Trump?
• Who would be an MP on the ONCB poll?

Subscriptions range from US$4 to US$8 a month plus GST.

The NY Times reports:

The Times obtained Donald Trump’s tax information extending over more than two decades, revealing struggling properties, vast write-offs, an audit battle and hundreds of millions in debt coming due.

Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.

He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.

Assuming he has not lied on his tax returns, this suggests what many have long suspected – he is not that wealthy.

In 2018, for example, Mr. Trump announced in his disclosure that he had made at least $434.9 million. The tax records deliver a very different portrait of his bottom line: $47.4 million in losses.

So which ones should we believe?

And within the next four years, more than $300 million in loans — obligations for which he is personally responsible — will come due.

If Trump loses the election, it could be a race to see what happens first – bankruptcy or jail!

Jacinda Ardern told the Guardian that her Government would eliminate homelessness.

Now the definition of who is homeless can vary, but one of the better measures of those with the most pressing need is the social housing register run by the Ministry of Social Development, specifically those on the Priority A waitlist. These are defined as:

People who are considered at risk and includes households with a severe and persistent housing need that must be addressed immediately. The household is unable to access and/or sustain suitable, adequate and affordable alternative housing.

So those with an urgent severe and persistent housing need. This definition means it is relatively objective, and isn’t likely to be influenced merely by more people applying for social housing. To be Priority A you need to be at risk.

So what has happened under Labour. The Priority A waiting list when National left office was 4,054. In three years did they manage to eliminate it? Or even half it? 20% reduction? 10%?

This is also one of their biggest fails. Not only have they failed to progress towards their goal, they’ve gone backwards. In under three years the’ve seen those in the most critical housing need increase 350%.

Imagine what it will be given another three years? 30,000? 40,000?

The results of the Newshub Reid Research poll:

• Labour 50.1% (-10.8%)
• National 29.6% (+4.5%)
• Greens 6.5% (+0.8%)
• ACT 6.3% (+3.0%)
• New Conservatives 2.1% (+1.2%)
• NZ First 1.9% (-0.1%)
• Maori Party 1.5% (+1.1%)
• TOP 0.9% (+0.5%)

Again an exceptionally good result for Labour, but some comfort in the trend for the centre-right. National and ACT are up 7.5%.

NZ First is now in 6th place.

Newshub reports:

Tenants around the country are looking at rent increases of up to 30 percent as a freeze comes to an end, says a renters advocacy group.

The Government put a stop to rent increases from the start of the COVID-19 lockdown in March until Friday – meaning landlords can now increase rental prices for the first time since the initial lockdown.

On Parliament’s lawn today, a small group from Renters United chanted “rent freeze, please don’t go” and asked politicians to commit to supporting fairer rents and solutions to housing supply.

Renters United’s Ashok Jacob – who is facing a rent increase himself – said some tenants were now facing rises of $100 per week.

“People all over the country are saying that their rent is increasing by 20 or 30 percent as soon as the freeze is over – almost as if to make up the rent they could have increased [by] over the break.

I’m amazed anyone is surprised by this. If you legislate a price freeze, then of course prices shoot up when the price freeze ends.

We tried this with Muldoon in 1982. And after the freeze was lifted, inflation hit 17%.

The way you sustainably lower rents is increasing the supply of housing, which means allowing cities to build both out and up.

The Guardian reports:

Andrew Neil has quit the BBC to launch a new right-leaning opinionated rolling news channel which aims to start broadcasting early next year as a rival to the public broadcaster and Sky.

GB News, which has drawn comparisons with Fox News, promises to serve the “vast number of British people who feel underserved and unheard” by existing television news channels, explicitly pitching itself into the middle of the culture war.

Neil said: “We’ve seen a huge gap in the market for a new form of television news … GB News is the most exciting thing to happen in British television news for more than 20 years. We will champion robust, balanced debate and a range of perspectives on the issues that affect everyone in the UK, not just those living in the London area.”

It is no secret that the vast majority of broadcasters lean left, and centre right people often feel alienated from them as they often have a culture of left and woke viewpoints.

In response to this you have Fox News in the US, GB News in the UK and Sky News in Australia.

One day I hope we will have the same in New Zealand. There is definitely a market for it.

TVNZ has released results from the latest ONCB poll on voting intentions for the two referendums.

Cannabis Legalisation

• Support 35% (-5% from June)
• Oppose 53% (+4%)

End of Life Choice

• 64% support (-1% from Feb)
• 25% oppose (nc)

Will be interesting to see how things change during the final four weeks.

Stuff reports:

Chinese President Xi Jinping says his country will aim to stop adding to the global warming problem by 2060.

Xi’s announcement during a speech on Tuesday (local time) to the UN General Assembly is a significant step for the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Calling for a “green revolution”, Xi said the coronavirus pandemic had shown the need to preserve the environment.

“Humankind can no longer afford to ignore the repeated warnings of nature,” he said.

Citing the Paris Agreement that he and former US President Barack Obama helped forge in 2015, Xi said his country would raise its emissions reduction targets with “vigorous policies and measures”.

“We aim to have CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060,” he said.

This is a welcome move, but there are two big caveats.

The first is that China is still saying they will have emissions increase for the next ten years.

The more important issue though is how can you trust the Chinese Government to fairly report emissions?

Without an independent public service, the stats produced by the Government lack rigor.

An academic article published this week finds:

We find that freedom of discussion in particular is substantially associated with less terrorism and argue that freedom lowers the risk of terror due to two types of mechanisms: (1) more freedom of expression makes it easier for the police and intelligence agencies to effectively gather information on potential terrorists and targets, and (2) freedom of expression works as an outlet for displeased citizens through which they can openly express their discontent instead of resorting to terror.

You don’t trade off freedom for security. In fact it isn’t a trade off. Less freedom makes you less secure.

I’ve compiled this table showing the average of the polls 40 days before a US presidential election (from 538) and the actual result in terms of popular vote.

In 2012 and 2016 the popular vote didn’t shift that much in the last 40 days.

In 2008 Obama went from a narrow lead to a large lead.

In 2000 and 2004 Bush’s lead shrank in the last 40 days.

Clinton in both elections had a huge lead 40 days out, but halved by the election.

What is interesting in 2020 is how little movement there is. The smallest the gap has been since May is 6.1% and the largest is 9.6%.

But if anything can give Trump a second term, the Democrats promising to stack the Supreme Court by adding on additional Justices could do it.

A compelling post by Todd Muller on the panic attacks he suffered while National Party leader. Great to see him being so open about what happened, as it will help many others who have mental health challenges to know they are not alone.

Stuff reports:

Tukituki MP Lawrence Yule is defending billboard and newspaper ads claiming he has secured funding for millions of dollars worth of infrastructure projects for Hawke’s Bay.

The Advertising Standards Authority has received two complaints relating to billboards dotted around Hastings that feature a picture of Yule alongside the words: “$500 million new build of Hawke’s Bay Hospital commencing 2025”.

The Authority was also investigating a complaint about a full-page newspaper ad in which Yule said he had “achieved a record $800 million commitment to infrastructure projects in the region.”

A real own goal by the (presumably Labour activist) person who complained. The complaints have been dismissed of course, but the complaint has led to the billboards getting publicity in most media outlets.

I think the reason Labour is so sensitive on this issue is that the Labour candidate is actually on the DHB Board, yet hasn’t managed to get Labour to commit to a new hospital, while Lawrence Yule has managed to get National to commit to one.

Newshub reports:

ACT leader David Seymour fears for freedom of expression after Jacinda Ardern confirmed plans to beef up hate speech laws if Labour is re-elected to power. …

Ardern confirmed on Thursday that Labour is keen to progress with beefing up hate speech laws if it wins another term in Government. 

“We do have within our legislation in New Zealand provision that deal with hate speech, discrimination around people’s identities, but religion hasn’t been included in that. My view is that does need to change,” she said. 

“I just think in a modern New Zealand everyone would agree that no one should be discriminated against for their religion and so it makes sense that we add this to the other suite of things we say is just not OK to discriminate people over.”

The Prime Minister is either ignorant of the existing Human Rights Act, or is trying to mislead people.

It is already illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of “religious belief”. S21(1) of the Human Rights Act 2001 states:

For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are … religious belief

So the PM is misleading people by saying all she wants to do is ban discrimination on the basis of religion. That is already the law.

What Labour wants to do is expand S131(1) which states:

Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $7,000 who, with intent to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons

Now this is the section Labour wants to expand. This is not about discrimination, but about speech that may “ridicule”.

The current law imposes a criminal penalty for speech which targets people on their colour, race or national origins. What they all have in common is that people have no say over them. You can’t choose your skin colour, your race or where you were born.

But your religion is a choice, just as your political opinion is. Both religious belief and political opinion are prohibited areas for discrimination, but that is very different to saying people should face jail time for speech that ridicules them.

I often ridicule the Church of Scientology and Destiny Church. Under Labour’s law change, I could be jailed for doing so.

If someone sets up a religion that proposes the death penalty for homosexuality, then I should be free to attack that religion vigorously.

At the end of the day a religious belief is not vastly different to a political belief. In fact in many countries religious beliefs are strongly intertwined with political opinions. So would Labour also criminalise speech that denigrates a political party?

The fact the Prime Minister has totally misrepresented what her party plans to do should concern people. The Human Rights Act already bans discrimination on religious belief.

Labour promised that it would have the entire Government fleet of 15,000 vehicles emissions free by 2025, so within eight years of taking office.

Their failure in this area is probably the high water mark for incompetence. Certain promises were always going to be difficult to achieve because you don’t control all the variables. But this is a simple promise to implement – you simply instruct agencies to start purchasing electric vehicles unless they would be unsuitable, and provide the extra funding for this.

After three years they have managed 108 electric vehicles, or 0.6% of the fleet. It is staggering that despite the Greens being in Government also, no one actually thought to implement, fund or monitor this promise. It shows how hollow their commitment is.

Stuff has a story about how terrible it is 83 year old Alf Vincent has not been given parole. It quotes at length his lawyer and provides almost no detail on why he has preventive detention except for a references to charges of indecent assault.

You need to google to find a previous story which notes:

He was charged with indecently assaulting 13 boys aged between 8 and 15 between 1963 and 1968, when he was 25, though he is believed to have sexually abused more than 100 boys. 

And the previous story noted:

He hasn’t become less sexualised in his old age. In fact his lawyer, Michael Starling, said he had become less discriminatory. 

“According to psychologist reports, despite his elderly age, he has a strong and persistent pattern of highly sexualised behaviour,” panel convener and former High Court judge Marion Frater said at his 2015 hearing.

This is all revent stuff that should have been in this latest story, rather than just reporting what his new layer says verbatim.