Thomas Lumley at Stats Chat blogs on a National Facebook ad:

He points out:

To start with, the red bar is wider than the blue bar, which is a well-known graphical exaggeration technique. But that’s not the real problem. The real problem is the heights.

On my laptop screen, I measured the red bar as 61% higher than the blue bar. But $2.23/L is only 16% higher than $1.91/L: that’s nearly a four-fold exaggeration of the difference

The dark red ‘Tax’ section of the red bar is 92% higher than the dark blue ‘Tax’ section of the blue bar, but $1.12 is only 29% higher than $0.87: more than a three-fold exaggeration.

Such graphical exaggerations shouldn’t be used. They are misleading. There is a good enough story to tell on fuel prices and fuel tax without exaggerating it.

But wait, there’s more!  The blue bar is averaged over nine years of National government; the red bar is from last week.  That means the difference between the blue and red bars is partly inflation.

Also you shouldn’t compare an average over nine years with a point in time. The proper comparison would be the point in time when National left office with the point in time today – at least for the tax component. Arguably the price component could be averaged.

Overall poor judgement from National in authorising the advertisement. They shouldn’t have done it.

France 24 reports:

More than 140,000 people died from measles worldwide in 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) and US authorities said Thursday, the result of global vaccination rates that have stagnated for almost a decade.

Poorer countries were hardest hit, with the vast majority of measles cases and deaths in sub-Saharan Africa.

Wealthier countries however have also been battling their own outbreaks, with four European nations losing their “eliminated” status in 2018.

New Zealand sadly will lose eliminated status also with 2,149 confirmed cases.

Think if governments devoted as much energy on vaccinations as they do on climate change. Climate change is important but isn’t killing 240,000 people a year.

Stuff reports:

He was prepared to kill a man in exchange for five pounds of cannabis, but there was one condition.

The target must be a Pākehā.

Now imagine this reversed. Think if a Pakeha man said that he was prepared to kill someone for reward, but only if the target is Maori.

There would be weeks of stories about this. It would be judged a symptom of something bigger. There’d be demands for hate speech laws etc. Editorials would demand something be done.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has accused his former party president Lester Gray of having “mental health problems” – a claim strongly denied by Gray, who has previously raised questions about the party’s finances.

The accusation emerged after National’s electoral law spokesman Nick Smith told Parliament that Labour MPs on the justice select committee refused a request for Gray and former treasurer Colin Forster to appear before it in a private session during their inquiry into the 2017 election.

Peters then suggested outside the House that Gray had mental health issues and it would not have been appropriate for him to give evidence to a select committee.

Smith said it was “appalling the lengths to which the Deputy Prime Minister is going to silence anybody that raises questions”.

The Government claims to care about people with mental health issues, yet will any Minister say anything about their Deputy PM who states that someone with mental health issues should not be allowed to give evidence to a select committee.

The Daily Mail reports:

Labour‘s bible, the New Statesman magazine, has refused to endorse Jeremy Corbyn at the general election as it branded him ‘unfit to be prime minister’. 

The left-wing publication has been required reading for the Labour Party for decades but today it published an election editorial in which it declined to support Mr Corbyn’s bid for power. 

It said the Labour leader’s ‘reluctance to apologise’ for his handling of the party’s anti-Semitism crisis and his approach to Brexit meant he should not be put into Number 10.

The magazine’s devastating leader column represents a massive blow to Mr Corbyn’s hopes of reinvigorating Labour’s ailing election campaign with December 12 now just eight days away.

To have the leading magazine of the left call the Labour leader unfit to be PM is unheard of. The exact quote is:

But the essential judgement that must be made is on Mr Corbyn himself. His reluctance to apologise for the anti-Semitism in Labour and to take a stance on Brexit, the biggest issue facing the country, make him unfit to be prime minister.

Ouch.

Stuff reports:

Victoria University of Wellington is blatantly ignoring everyone when it comes to its name, a Wellington City Councillor says. 

The university’s rebrand kicked in recently with a new logo, shield and crest. The university’s website URL had also changed from “victoria” to “wgtn”. 

Guidelines on what to call the university have also started, with staff in the first instance being told the school would be referred to as Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington or its legal name Victoria University of Wellington.

But “subsequently and depending upon the context, we can use suitable abbreviations such as Wellington University, Wellington’s University or Wellington”.

Te Herenga Waka – University of Wellington, Te Herenga Waka – Wellington or just Te Herenga Waka were also appropriate names. 

Wellington City Councillor Nicola Young said the university was not making a “name change by stealth” – instead, it was blatantly ignoring everybody.

“It’s a disgrace. Why is it continuing to waste money? It’s a real distraction from what the university should be doing which is educating our brightest. 

“Instead they’re mucking around with this PR exercise which is irritating everybody.” 

Fellow Councillor Fleur Fitzsimons said “the university seems arrogantly obsessed with changing the name and it is inappropriate to ask staff to call the university something other than its legal name.

“If they keep attempting to impose a name, I think it actually runs the risk of the university’s international reputation being eroded.” 

The university council and senior management seem obsessed. I’ve never known the leadership of an institution to spend so much time and money to try and undermine their own name and brand. It’s almost suicidal in nature.

I suspect the majority of the staff will ignore the stupid guidelines and refer to the University as Vic or VUW.

Newshub reports:

Unfulfilled promises made by Kris Faafoi to longtime mate Jason Kerrison have put not only their friendship on the line but the Broadcasting Minister’s job too. 

Text messages obtained by Newshub show Faafoi appears to have breached cabinet rules by offering to help Kerrison with his family’s declined immigration case.

An offer to “speed things up” was among reassurances made by the former Associate Immigration Minister to Kerrison who spoke to Newshub in October about his step-father’s partnership visa application being declined. 

Messages Faafoi sent to the singer of Kiwi band Opshop ask for details of the case before he says he has a plan and promises to talk to the right people. 

In one communication on Facebook, Kerrison sent a direct message to Faafoi drawing his attention to a post with Newshub’s article. 

Faafoi replied: “Hey bro – I will make a call on Monday. I know it is genuine as I know you travelled for the wedding a few years back. I will talk to the people that can speed things up.”  

On the face of it, this looks like very poor judgement by Faafoi.

If a Minister is approached about an immigration issue, they shouldn’t promise to speed things up.

Anything they do should be on the record. They could write a letter in their capacity as an MP stating they know the people involved and in their opinion it is genuine.

But instead we got this:

Facebook messages between Faafoi and Kerrison show them discussing the immigration case but he denies offering to do an immigration favour for a friend. 

But Faafoi asked Kerrsison to “Yes – can you please send me surname and immagration nz file number” – which Kerrison did before the conversation moved to texts.  

Faafoi and Kerrison also discussed the case in a facebook phone call.

When Kerrison thanks him, Faafoi replies “Whanau whanau brother”.  

In November the conversation moves to text. 

Faafoi assures Kerrison “Im on it bri… o (BRO)”

But then things go cold. 

Kerrison asks “Hi bro how’re we doing”… “Where are we at” and repeats back to Faafoi “Whanau whanau mate”. 

It’s after that on November 15 that Faafoi assures Kerrison “Bro, its moving. I can’t put anything in writing”.

To the contrary, it should all be in writing. There is nothing wrong with an MP advocating for a constituent, so long as they do it officially, not through back doors.

The Cabinet Manual – the Ministerial rule book – is clear, “a conflict may arise if people close to a Minister, such as .. whānau, or close associates, might derive, or be perceived as deriving .. personal, financial, or other benefit from a decision or action by the Minister or the government. 

It also says “it may not be appropriate for Ministers to participate in decision-making on

matters affecting family members, whānau, or close associates, for example, by:(a) attempting to intercede on their behalf on some official matter.” 

This is the other aspect. MPs, and especially Ministers, should be cautious about advocating for people they have a personal friendship with.

If I ever needed the assistance of an MP in some interaction with the Government, I would go to my local Labour MP, because there is no way their advocacy for me could be seen as improper. But if I went to a National MP, it could look like favours for a mate.

So overall really bad judgement by Kris Faafoi in this case. He either should have declined to be involved, or should have done it on the record – not through secret backroom maneuvers.

Also he wasn’t just any Minister, but the Associate Immigration Minister. In this situation he really should have recused himself entirely.

The Herald reports:

Sen. Kamala Harris ended her bid for the White House unable to rally significant support from the voting blocs her campaign and many political watchers thought would play a major role in sending her to the Oval Office: black voters and women.

The California Democrat’s campaign was loaded with historical symbolism from its earliest moment. The first black woman elected to the U.S. Senate from California announced her pursuit of the Oval Office on the birthday of civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. And she regularly paid homage to late congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, D-N.Y., the first black woman to seek a major party’s presidential nomination, during her campaign, reports The Washington Post.

But the biracial lawmaker with an unfamiliar name who some believed was best situated to carry on the Obama legacy was never able to persuade large swaths of those who backed the former president to support her.

Despite having viral, breakout moments during the Senate’s investigation of Russia’s interference into the 2016 presidential election, Harris remained largely unknown to many Americans before launching her campaign – including some among the demographic group some believed would propel her into the upper tier of the campaign.

Her campaign was a reminder that being well-known in Washington and political circles is not the same thing as having national recognition.

The last Senator before Obama to be elected President was JFK in 1960 – 59 years ago.

The current prediction market rates for the Democratic nomination are:

1. Biden 28%
2. Buttigieg 21%
3. Warren 18%
4. Sanders 17%
5. Bloomberg 11%

Nick Smith moved an amendment to the bill around foreign donations that was:

In section 207(2), definition of party donation, replace “or to any person or body of persons on behalf of the party who are involved in the administration of the affairs of the party,” with “to any person or body of persons on behalf of the party who are involved in the administration of the affairs of the party, or to any incorporated or unincorporated foundation or trust that is associated with or supports the party,”.

This amendment would have meant that donations to a foundation associated with a political party such as the NZ First Foundation would be treated as a donation to the party and require the same transparency.

The amendment was voted down 56 to 63 with Labour and Greens voting to protect Winston’s pet foundation from transparency.

They voted to continue to allow foreigners to donate unlimited amounts of money to the NZ First Foundation.

This tells you a lot about what their values really are.

If anything shows that this law change has been nothing more than a PR stunt, its these stats. The average level of foreign donations per year has been around $3,000 across all parties.

Labour and Greens put Parliament into urgency and forced through a law change with no consultation, on the basis of $3,000 a year of donations.

It is once again the Government going for spin over substance.

Stuff reports:

A former NZ First president and treasurer have written to a Parliamentary select committee saying they wish to talk about the party’s foundation.

Former president Lester Gray and former treasurer Colin Forster wrote to the justice select committee in late November requesting the opportunity to submit in a closed session to the committee’s ongoing inquiry into the 2017 election.

In the letter, released by committee member and National MP Nick Smith, the pair said they wanted to “shed some light on the inappropriate internal workings of the party that seemingly aren’t monitored or controlled by electoral law.”

The pair say they want to submit over “serious revelations over the failure to disclose major donations, the significant expenditure on unauthorised campaign activities and in the appropriate running of a separate foundation without the proper oversite [sic] of elected party officials.”

This is ground breaking stuff. The two most senior former officials of a political party allege that the party doesn’t have control of its own finances.

The Justice Select Committee has eight members on it – four from Labour and four from National. If the NZ First former officials are not allowed to testify it will be because Labour has voted to stop them. That will signify that Labour is desperate to protect NZ First at all costs.

Stuff reports:

The US House Judiciary Committee is moving swiftly to weigh findings by fellow lawmakers that US President Donald Trump misused the power of his office for personal political gain and then obstructed Congress’ investigation as possible grounds for impeachment.

Responsible for drafting articles of impeachment, the Judiciary Committee prepared Wednesday morning for its first hearing since the release of a 300-page report by Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee that found “serious misconduct” by the president.

The report did not render a judgment on whether Trump’s actions stemming from a July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president rose to the constitutional level of “high crimes and misdemeanours” warranting impeachment. That is for the full House to decide.

They should and they will.

The inquiry found that Trump “solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection,” Schiff wrote in the report’s preface. In doing so, the president “sought to undermine the integrity of the US presidential election process, and endangered US national security,” the report said. When Congress began investigating, it added, Trump obstructed the investigation like no other president in history.

The bottom line is the President is not above the law.

Very happy to announce the birth of Samuel Farrar. He was 10 pounds six ounces (4.7 kgs) and mum and Samuel both doing well. Sleep deprivation has become the new norm though.

Big thanks to the teams from Wellington Hospital and Wellington Obstetrics for their care.

If blogging is lighter over the next few weeks, you’ll know and understand why.

Radio NZ report:

New information released to RNZ reveals that Shane Jones’ office was sent documents about a forestry company’s bid for $15 million from the Provincial Growth Fund multiple times and many months before he declared a conflict of interest because of links between the company and the New Zealand First Party.

As Guyon Espiner explains, it has now emerged that Mr Jones only declared a conflict of interest over the NZ Future Forest Products bid on the day RNZ lodged an Official Information Act request asking for details of his involvement.

In any Government of good standing, this would be a sackable offence.

The company’s directors were his party’s legal advisor, his son, and later the leader’s partner. The ultimate beneficiaries are hidden foreign investors.

Jones should have declared an interest the first time he was informed of the bid. You declare a conflict at the start of the process, not the end. And it seems he never even intended to declare a conflict – it was only media inquiries that led to it.

UPDATE: Hilariously Jones is claiming it was pure coincidence that he declared the conflict of interest on the same day that Radio NZ lodged an OIA about it.

The death toll from measles in Samoa has now hit 60, which is a massive number for the largest of countries, let alone a small one. So devastating for the families involved.

A very very sad and deadly reminder of why high vaccination rates are so important. It can be literally life and death.

The death toll of 60 out of 200,000 is equivalent to almost 1,500 people dying in New Zealand, which would be our largest loss of life outside a war,

Like everyone I hope the epidemic is curtailed with no further or mininal loss of life.

The Herald reports:

St John is throwing its support behind the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill, under New Zealand First MP Darroch Ball, which would see six months’ jail for anyone intentionally hurting a first responder.

The member’s bill is expected to complete its first reading in the House today and pass with cross-party support.

But Labour and the Greens may not support it beyond select committee, seeing as a mandatory minimum sentence would remove judicial discretion in the same way that the three strikes law does – which Labour and the Greens wanted to scrap, but couldn’t without NZ First’s votes.

I hope the bill does pass all the way. Certainty of consequence is one of the better ways to reduce such assaults.

Stuff reports:

Disproportionate rates of bullying, poor classroom environments and truancy could be reasons student achievements are in a “worrying” decline.

A global education report showed an overall decline in New Zealand’s level of reading, mathematics and science since 2009 – equating a loss of about 3/4 of a year’s worth of a student’s schooling against 2009 results.

Ministry of Education Evidence, Data and Knowledge deputy secretary Dr Craig Jones said the results were cause for concern.

Data pointed to key issues in New Zealand’s education system including an alarming rise in bullying, gaps between high and low achievers, drastically deteriorating attitudes toward reading, a rise in truancy, poor learning environments and a negative attitude toward school.

They are indeed cause for concern. I’m not convinced it is just about bullying and truancy even though they are factors. I think the curriculum needs to focus more on reading, maths and science.

The Government has released details of the draft Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill.

At the election there will be an indicative referendum on whether or not people support the bill. After the election, the bill mayor may not be considered by Parliament and may be amended also.

So what are the main details of the proposed regime:

• A minimum purchase and used age of 20;
• Ban on all marketing and advertising of cannabis products;
• Requires harm minimisation messaging in the retailing of cannabis;
• Prohibits consumption in public places and limits use to private homes and specifically licence premises;
• Limits sale of cannabis to specifically licenced physical stores (not online or remote sales);
• Strict controls and regulations on the potency of cannabis;
• Establishes a state licencing regime that all stages of the growing and supply chain are licenced and controlled by the Government, and will limit the amount of cannabis that is allowed to be grown.
• A purchase limit of 14 grams per person per day
• A limit of four plants per household
• Up to four years imprisonment for selling to someone aged under 20

To me it looks a pretty robust regime that should be an improvement on the status quo.

Radio NZ reports:

Community and Voluntary Sector Minister Poto Williams hasn’t read a damning report into the Hepatitis Foundation’s extravagant spending and wasn’t aware her department was refusing interviews.

Some might say this shows the Minister isn’t on top of her game but I am sure it is just the pressure of work.

I mean in the six months she has been a Minister she’s put out a total of three press releases.