CNBC reports:

Former Vice President Joe Biden formally joined the crowded Democratic presidential contest on Thursday, betting that his working-class appeal and ties to Barack Obama’s presidency will help him overcome questions about his place in today’s increasingly liberal Democratic Party.

“Everything that has made America America is at stake. That’s why today I’m announcing my candidacy for president of the United States,” Biden said in a three-and-a-half-minute video posted Thursday morning.

This brings the field to 19, which is huge.

I hope they select someone sane and electable. I won’t agree with many of their policies, but it would be good to have a US President who is not pathologically disturbed.

A President Biden wouldn’t bother me at all.

Sanders and Warren would be terrible, policy wise.

But will Biden survive the very energised far left base who see him as a relic and far too moderate? I suspect not, sadly.

Labour MP Louisa Wall states that due to the power of the media, they need to be recognised as part of a political system and have a duty of care imposed on them.

This duty of care can of course only be imposed by legislation, so effectively a Labour MP is calling for the Government or Parliament to legislate to regulate the media.

A number of journalists are fairly alarmed by this.

In a thread on Facebook Wall cites her unsuccessful judicial review of her complaint to the Human Rights Review Tribunal about an Al Nisbet cartoon. Having lost in court, she is saying she wants a law change so that such cartoons can be stopped in future.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Today we remember the 28.645 New Zealanders who died overseas serving their country.

We also remember the millions of others who have died in conflicts. Since 1990 the most lethal conflicts have been:

1. 1939 – 1945 WWII – 60 million killed
2. 1914 – 1918 WWI – 17 million killed
3. 1927 – 1949 Chinese Civil War – 8 million killed
4. 1917 – 1921 Russian Civil War – 6.7 million killed
5. 1998 – 2003 Second Congo War – 3.6 million killed
6. 1979 – 2000 Afghanistan War – 2.6 million killed

If we go further back the most lethal conflict as a proportion of population would be the Three Kingdoms War between 220 and 280 AD. This reduced the population from around 56 million to 16 million so over two thirds killed.

The Herald reports:

The UK has followed Germany in defying the US push to ban telecommunications giant Huawei – which the White House has accused of espionage and sanctions-busting – according to a media report.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has given the go-ahead to the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei to help build the UK’s new 5G network, despite warnings of the potential threat to national security, the Daily Telegraph says.

The UK paper said the National Security Council (NSC), which is chaired by May, agreed on Tuesday to allow the firm limited access to build “non-core” infrastructure such as celltower antennas.
Huawei NZ deputy chief executive Andrew Bowater has told the Herald his company is willing to make the same concession here – and even have its staff barred from access to Spark’s planned 5G mobile network.

So will the New Zealand Government decide to placate the Trump administration or do the right thing?

Just noticed this story from October where The Spinoff reports:

Jacinda Ardern says she has “upgraded my position” on her characterisation of climate change as her generation’s “nuclear-free moment”.
As part of a wide-ranging interview with the Spinoff, the prime minister said the challenge of climate change had one critical difference to the nuclear-movement. Then, “we were unified”, she said.

Well that’s wrong for a start. The decision to ban US ships from visiting was not a unifying issue at the time. Around 30% opposed the ban and 60% supported it. A later poll in 1989 found only 52% in favour if it meant breaking defence ties.

So quite wrong to claim NZ was unified behind the nuclear ban, at the time it happened. To be fair to the PM she was only four years old then, so has no idea how controversial it was.

“I feel at least positive that we’ve moved significantly from a debate that 10 years ago was whether or not climate change was real, now to a debate about how much we need to do and how quickly. Ten years ago I got booed at a public meeting for talking about climate change. When I first came in to parliament, a select committee was established to look at the science of climate change.

The part bolded is a lie. It is a lie she has repeated before.

Dunne was the Chair of the Select Committee and would know.

Eric Crampton writes:

On 5 February, MBIE’s head of the Provincial Development Unit, Robert Pigou, was reported claiming that the Provincial Growth Fund “was on track to create 10,000 jobs” – in contrast to National’s claims that the fund had created only a handful of jobs to that point. I assumed that MBIE had run an economic forecasting exercise to estimate the effects of their various initiatives, and I wanted to know whether their assumptions had stacked up. So I made a simple request:
“Please provide the workings underlying the job creation claims, along with any correspondence with Treasury relating to that modelling.”

A reasonable request. A Government agency claimed 10,000 jobs would be created due to Shane Jones handing out money. So what was the basis for the claim?

On 26 February, Treasury advised me they had no information to provide as they had not provided any advice to MBIE. On 6 March, MBIE advised that they had extended the OIA deadline to 22 March. Why? Because “consultations necessary to make a decision on the request are such that a proper response to the request cannot be made within the original time limit.”
Trying to parse bureaucratese is never easy. I assumed that MBIE’s answer meant the modelling might have drawn on commercially sensitive material provided confidentially by applicants.

It took around eight weeks to finally get an answer. So you would expect that the modelling would be something extremely complex.

And then the truth came out:

Here is what MBIE did to produce the 10,000 jobs figure.
They took the number of jobs that every Provincial Growth Fund applicant promised in their grant application. They added those numbers. Then they added one job for every feasibility study the Provincial Growth Fund was undertaking – that’s because you have to hire somebody to do a feasibility study.
That’s it.

My God. The so called 10,000 jobs is based on what the scavengers with their hand out for the free money claimed. It was not based on even a millimeter of analysis as to rigor or feasibility or probability.

Yes the Government claimed 10,000 jobs will be created, because that is what the people receiving the free money said would happen.

Now you might think people making applications for grants through the Provincial Growth Fund might not be the most unbiased assessors of the number of jobs the grants might support. Perhaps, and hear me out here – maybe, just maybe, the grant applicants might have thought they would be more likely to receive a grant if they put a bigger number on the form. It isn’t like the money would be taken away if job creation figures wound up being less than advertised.

No shit Sherlock.

The Guardian reports:

There are also questions over how Crosby’s firm uses arm’s-length companies to run its digital campaigns. Since 2016 it has outsourced work to two rightwing New Zealand political activists called Ben Guerin and Sean Topham through their Auckland-based consultancy Topham Guerin, which bills CTF Partners for the work they do on behalf of Crosby’s company.
Guerin and Topham, both in their mid-20s, are regularly based in CTF’s Mayfair office. They also ran the digital campaign for New Zealand’s National party in the country’s 2017 general election, ultimately failing to stop the Labour leader, Jacinda Ardern, becoming prime minister.
Documents seen by the Guardian suggest Topham Guerin was also involved in running online pro-coal campaigns on behalf of mining giant Glencore to encourage the construction of coal-fired power stations, in addition to working in India and Malaysia.
Topham was previously the chair of the National party’s youth wing, while Guerin was a digital adviser to the office of the former New Zealand prime minister Bill English.

Russell Brown is alarmed:

Topham and Guerin, both young men making their way in the booming industry of digital persuasion, may not feel that they’re doing anything wrong here; that it’s all in the game, that working on contract for Darth Vader is just a hell of a career opportunity. But the rest of us might feel that the material involvement of politically-connected New Zealanders in such a deceptive and deeply cynical covert politics project brings things a little too close for comfort.

I have a very different view. I think we should celebrate the success story of two young Kiwis.

I of course know Sean and Ben. Sean was Chair of the Young Nationals. Like many Young Nats he volunteered a few years ago to help out on a UK election campaign with our sister party. He came back with lots of ideas and information about online campaigning he picked up there, and impressed Steven Joyce enough (a difficult thing to do) that Steven involved him in some of the 2014 campaign.

A few years ago when Sean was finishing law school I asked him what he was going to do for a job. I expected it would be the traditional role in a major law firm. Sean replied he didn’t want to work for someone else and that he and Ben were going to set up a company in their early 20s, based on what they had learnt. I was hugely impressed that you had a couple of guys in their 20s who were willing to take the risk of going into business for themselves.

So they set up Topham Guerin. And you know what – they were bloody good at what they did. They gained National as a client. They did work for the UK Conservative Party. We’ve used them at the Taxpayers Union because they’re bloody good (they were involved in the very successful anti-CGT campaign) and Crosby Textor uses them, because again these two guys in their 20s have established themselves as really smart and effective online campaigners. They’re a huge success story that we should be proud of. There is a huge number of firms and people claiming to be experts at online political campaigning and Sean and Ben have carved out a significant reputation for excellence and have picked up a lot of work due to it.

If they were on the left of politics, they would probably be feted for what they do. But if you’re on the right, anything you do is seen as suspect.

What they do (at least for NZTU) is not dark arts. It is simply science. They help test different messages to see which ones get the best response rates. They are skilled at knowing what gets people to click on links and donate. They understand how you can target ads on Facebook etc etc.

So well done Ben and Sean. To get your own hit piece in The Guardian shows you have come of age.

UPDATE: Also worth highlighting that The Guardian has done a classic 2+2=5. They have said Crosby Textor worked on Brexit campaigns and that Crosby Textor sometimes use Topham Guerin and have assumed this means Topham Guerin worked on Brexit campaigns. As with many assumptions it is a wrong assumption.

Also Ben never worked for Bill English. He had left Parliament before Bill became Prime Minister.

Heather Roy writes:

It is distressing and abhorrent that community ANZAC Day commemorations are being cancelled, traditional marches to cenotaphs being halted by police and the traditional volleys fired by NZDF personnel stopped. As a former soldier and former Associate Minister of Defence I have participated in all of these aspects of ANZAC Day and find it offensive that “security concerns” can dictate the way in which we honour and remember the fallen.
Those we remember on ANZAC Day fought for our freedoms, too many of them paid with their lives. Thanks to their sacrifices we live in a free society. We’re free to go where we please, free to gather with others, enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of association. Yet this ANZAC Day the Police have told us we’re not free to gather with our local communities because they can’t protect us. They blame the government imposed heightened security threat. The government says it’s up to Police to sort this out. The Police have caused cancellation of two thirds of Auckland ANZAC Day gatherings to date.
The events of 15 March were horrific – the sort of tragedy we never thought we’d see in our peaceful nation. The government and security agencies take the lead in such circumstances. But the lasting effects of such tragedies rest with the public. We can wait to be protected, live in fear and allow our movements to be curtailed, or we can get on with our lives. The Prime Minister has been praised both at home and around the world for her handling of the terror attack on the Christchurch Mosques. Now it’s time for her to complete the job by encouraging kiwis not to be fearful, to continue going about their normal routines, to continue with traditions like attending ANZAC Day services in our communities.  Anything less means we allow the terrorist to win.
ANZAC Day is a national day of remembrance. The way in which we remember must not be about the convenience for Police, but about New Zealanders being free to attend services and to march in respect of those who fought in global conflicts. I don’t believe any curtailing of ANZAC Day commemorations is founded. It merely builds fear when public unity is called for. For this reason, I have launched a petition today: Resist ANZAC Day Restrictions. Attend and March. You can find more information on the facebook page.

Almost 2,000 have signed already. I have.

Sir Michael Cullen writes:

The fact is that the vested interests opposed to any change were well organised, funded, not too careful with the truth at times and, of course, fully supported by that awful tribe of right-wing shock jocks on private radio who dominate our airwaves during the day.

The best response to this came from Simon Bridges:

A superb sledge.

As for interests opposed to the change being well funded, well if that is true we have Dr Cullen to thank for that. I can’t give details away but I was staggered at how much more money people would donate to an e-mail appeal against CGT, if we mentioned Dr Cullen in the e-mail. He was the best fundraising tool the opponents had.

The real failure in the debate was the absence from it of all the groups who might be expected to support a fairer tax system. Only near the end did a group emerge, but it muddied the picture by throwing into the debate a whole set of other proposals as well.
Where were the social justice groups, the Salvation Army and the churches, the public sector unions clamouring for large wage increases, indeed all those who keep discovering new social crises in the social services left by the previous National government?
The fact is they largely only rode on to the scene after the battle was lost, while blaming the Government for losing it.

The biggest group missing was of course the Labour caucus. As others have pointed out the PM never once fought for it, so no surprise.

And all the unions and social justice groups would have fought for it, if Labour had asked them to. They didn’t turn up, because Labour didn’t. And Labour had a year to work with them and prepare them.

A better analysis of why Labour lost the CGT debate comes from Troy Bowker:

He cites four main reasons:

1. Appointing Dr Cullen as Chair. As I said above, this was mana from heaven for opponents. It made the TWG look like a partisan group, and immediately got the donations flowing in. And keeping him on the payroll after the report was done just added fuel to the fire.
2. Silence from the PM and Finance Minister. They didn’t fight for it once in public.
3. NZ First. Labour should have got some commitment up front rather than pray and hope they might agree.
4. Underestimating the public. They argued only a small percentage of NZers would pay CGT but the reality is it would impact “600,000 small and medium-size businesses, 200,000 lifestyle block owners, 250,000 Bach owners and 1.2 million kiwi savers in New Zealand”

Anyway the CGT is dead and buried for the next 20 years or so. The appropriate quote would be one Dr Cullen himself used “We won, you lost, eat that!”

I don’t think the PM is worried about being attacked by Katie Hopkins, but I figured I;d state the obvious for her. The Herald reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is ignoring a swipe by a British columnist over yesterday’s attacks in Sri Lanka which have left hundreds dead.
Katie Hopkins, a columnist and former contestant in the 2007 The Apprentice TV show, has hit out at Ardern, saying she now expects her to be “dressed as the pope, ringing church bells across #NZ and praying in Latin in Parliament by noon”.

Jacinda Ardern is not the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. She is the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Why on earth would she do anything in response to an attack in another country, except the normal expressions of sympathy?

I still don’t get how people get so worked up over a display of empathy to the Muslim community in New Zealand. It was genuine and a great idea.

The sensible comparison is would she have done the same if another religious minority was slaughtered in New Zealand, and I am sure the answer would be yes. If 50 Jews had been killed while praying at a synagogue in New Zealand, then Ardern would probably have worn a kippah or yarmulke as a sign of respect and empathy.

There’s so much legitimate stuff to criticise Ardern on, that it drives me crazy that people get worked up on this.

Of course being attacked by Katie Hopkins is akin to being savaged by Chloe of Wainuiomata.

Very much a getting ready for the big battle episode. A lot of people are going to die next week I’d say. Key points are:

A guest post from a reader:

The Prime Minister should reflect very carefully on her big policy losses of Three Strikes and Capital Gains Tax, courtesy of Winston Peters and NZ First – and thanks to them on both.  They understood the NZ psyche and political implications on these two important policy issues.
 
The next test will be even more important – both for New Zealanders and for the Prime Minister.  Will she pull Justice Minister Andrew Little in line and tell him to drop any attempt to limit freedom of speech/introduce a hate speech law?
 
Any attempt in this area is destined to fail, even more so than they did with Three Strikes and CGT.  The Christchurch Mosque massacre raises important questions in a range of areas that need to be addressed.  But using it as a trojan horse to limit free speech through the power of Government will be met with a massive public backlash. 
 
The public debate would also prove divisive, both racially and religiously.  That would be very unfortunate when New Zealanders have overwhelmingly banded together and unified to grieve with and support our Muslim friends.  We all empathise with them and reject the vile, hate-filled extremist who committed the mass murder. But that does not translate into supporting the curtailing of our ability, and rights, to express our views, our thoughts, our genuinely held opinions.  It would be the worst judgment call of any Government to attempt to do that.
 
Will Jacinda Ardern read the tea-leaves on this one?  Or will Winston and the NZ First caucus read them to her, for a third time?

This will be an interesting space to watch. To be fair to the PM, she has not jumped onto the we must change the law bandwagon. But her Justice Minister and the Greens seem very keen.

As much as I would like to see them try and fail (as they did with three strikes and CGT), I’d rather they didn’t try at all.

Eight bombs were detonated on Easter Sunday in churches and hotels in Sir Lanka. Over 150 are dead.

Obviously not a lone wolf, but a highly co-ordinated attack aimed at killing Christians.

No one has claimed credit at the time of writing, but it is thought they were religiously motivated.

Most (70%) Sri Lankans are Buddhists, 13% are Hindus, 10% Muslims and 7% Christians.

Sri Lanka has had religious violence before with attacks on holy sites for Buddhists and also on mosques. It is a reminder that extremism is the enemy.

A few years ago I did some democracy training in Sri Lanka with the United National Party and met several MPs (including the now PM). Its a wonderful country and tit was hoped that the end of the civil war in 2009 would see such terrorism in the past. Sadly it has not eventuated. My thoughts are with my friends there.

Duncan Garner writes:

If ever Labour was going to scream transformational government then the one policy it had in the shop front window was the capital gains tax.
It was the panacea, the holy grail on the way to Jacinda’s socialist nirvana. 

So what happened?

And put to one side all this nonsense talk of Ardern being an international leader above all others, the latest being from Fortunemagazine. She’s not. Or it’s downright meaningless marketing. She’s best to ignore it. 
If you can’t put in place a policy so central to Labour’s economic plan, then why have this lot in power at all? What’s the point? Remember the slogan? It’s about fairness. It runs through everything they talk about. 

The point of being in power it seems, is simply to be in power.

All that political capital or credit after Christchurch and Ardern doesn’t spend a cent? Even John Key spent capital early on with his hike in GST. And he got away with it. 

And partial asset sales.

Ardern is a clear communicator and marketing expert. But listen closely, what is she saying? Nothing. She commentates the situation. We know that. We know what this scenario looks like and sounds like, but we want answers!
Here’s my summary so far:
KiwiBuild is kiwihoax. 
TPP is CPTPP. And yes, Labour marches against it but voted for it.
Child poverty is still child poverty. And more kids are in state care now than ever before. 
People living on the street are still living on the street. 
Carbon zero is lofty but carbon emissions are higher than ever. 
The economy is slowing.

Actual achievements by this Government have been close to zero.

So, big question? Did she fight for a capital gains tax? Did she put her best foot forward? Did she give examples of where it works? No. No. No. Does she believe in it? Who knows?
She no longer cares. Sure it’s the nature of MMP that you win some, you lose some, but this was not the one to lose. This goes to the very DNA of this Government.

What is surprising is she didn’t even attempt to fight for it.

The reporting of the Mueller Report shows that Trump tried pretty damn hard to obstruct justice, but in the end what saved him is his staff and lawyers refused to break the law when he asked them to.

Some examples of his conduct which would probably get anyone else impeached (Trump benefits from low expectations) are:

• Directing the Deputy NSA to send an e-mail falsely claiming Trump never instructed the NSA to have conversations with Russian officials
• Demanding the Attorney-General unrecuse himself as he needs an Attorney-General who will protect him (as opposed to uphold the law)
• Sacking Comey to try and stop the Russia investigation
• Demanding the White House Counsel tell the Deputy AG to call for Mueller’s removal (the WHC refused)
• Asking his former campaign manager to tell the AG to attack the Mueller investigation as unfair to Trump (Lewandowski refused)
• Directed aides to not disclose e-mails about the 9 June meeting with the Russians (they obeyed the law and disclosed them)
• Personally edited a press statement deleting the truth that the meeting was about info the Russians had on Clinton, not adoption
• Demanding the WH Counsel deny that he had been asked to sack Mueller (The WH Counsel refused as it was untrue)

If Trump’s lawyers and staff were as stupid as Trump, and done what he demanded, then the case for obstruction of justice would have been made.

This article further details the multiple times his staff ignored Trump’s demands.

Joel Hernandez writes:

Good evidence-based policy depends on reliable and robust data. Having failed to count more than 700,000 individuals, the 2018 census data has failed all New Zealanders.
As far as national censuses go, New Zealand’s 2018 census was a shocking failure: a dismal 85.7 per cent of the population completed it. To put SNZ’s blunder in the global context, India’s 2011 census counted 97.7 per cent of its 1.2 billion population.
I’m with the 2021 census crowd: bring the next census forward by two years to put it back in line with New Zealand’s original 2006 census timeline. This would allow SNZ to address the issues with the 2018 census. It would also give researchers time to get a handle on the 2018 data and put New Zealand back on track to getting the data it needs for better evidence-based policy. 

Totally agree. Time for the Government to show leadership on this and include funding for a census in 2021 in this year’s Budget.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Council is looking to sell or lease its four carpark buildings to help pay its share of the $1 billion blowout in the cost of the city rail loop.
But the Automobile Association is warning of potential price hikes for commuter parking if the parking buildings fall into private hands.

It’s not the job of Council to compete with the private sector or keep prices down artificially. They should sell the carpark buildings.

Auckland Transport, the council-controlled entity that operates the carparks, raised its daily charges at the Downtown carpark by 67 per cent in January on the basis that the carpark was “frequently full”.

That seems fair. If demand exceeds supply, then the price should go up.

“Aucklanders will be pretty happy to see the council making better use of its assets, but we wouldn’t want a situation where we have private parking companies having total control of off-street parking in the central business district, particularly if it’s a case of just one private operator – a monopoly,” he said.

It is the Commerce Commission’s job to make sure an industry is not a monopoly. Having said that it would be better for the Council to sell the four carpark buildings individually, rather than in one block. That is likely to lead to better competition.