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.

Jesus was crucified 1,989 years ago, probably on Friday 7 April 30 AD. The crucifixion of Jesus is accepted by most historians as established fact, along with his baptism.

Since his crucifixion it is estimated around four billion human beings have followed the Christian religion. That is an amazing number as the result of one event 2,000 years ago.

I hope everyone has a peaceful Good Friday.

Danyl McL writes:

At the start of the year Jacinda Ardern declared that 2019 was her government’s ‘year of delivery’. Last year they were still figuring out how their phones worked. Next year is another election. This is the one that counts; the year they make good on those campaign promises of transformational change to our economy and society. They’re doing this through four huge, hugely ambitious policy projects. Or, at least, they were.

Danyl then looks at their four major projects.

The first transformational project is KiwiBuild: the solution to the housing crisis. It doesn’t appear to be going well, with Judith Collins exposing a new flaw, or scandal or oversight in the scheme roughly every seventy-two hours. 

Not far off the truth. They promised 1,000 homes by 30 June. They have 73 days to go and have completed 74 of the 1,000 homes.

The second is the Zero Carbon Act: a framework to price greenhouse emissions and transition us to a green economy. This was supposed to come before select committee in February, but New Zealand First has fought such a prolonged and ruthless campaign against it the prime minister was forced to intervene in the negotiations to ensure its very survival. We don’t know what the act will look like, but Climate Minister James Shaw now predicts our emissions will continue to rise until the mid-2020s, which doesn’t sound hugely reassuring.

GG emissions dropped under National and James Shaw is claiming under his policies they will increase until 2025 or later. How is that delivery?

Next month we get the Wellbeing Budget, built around a ‘living standards’ framework. This is designed to shift the public service away from its neoliberal focus on economic and financial measures and towards ‘human, social and natural capital’, and will let the PM go on TV and talk about how much she cares about Kiwi kids and mums ‘as a mum herself’ If nothing else we can probably put this down as a foregone PR triumph.

The Living Standards Framework was started by Treasury in 2011 under Bill English. Its a worthwhile project but it isn’t about delivery. In terms of delivery the data shows child poverty dropped under National and rose in Labour’s first year of office.

The fourth was the capital gains tax, which Labour has campaigned on for the last three elections – because it is an issue which goes to the heart of inequality in New Zealand – and which they just ditched after one of the most bafflingly disastrous public policy debates imaginable, making John Key’s flag-change campaign look like the Normandy landings. There will be no capital gains tax, the prime minister announced today, and Labour will not campaign for one under her leadership.

So on all four major projects, the Government’s year of delivery is seeing either zero progress or moving backwards.

The total capitulation of the Government on a Capital Gains Tax has numerous aspects to it that are of interest. Let’s look at them in turn:

Total Victory for opponents

While it was unlikely that the Government was going to pass the TWG’s CGT in its entirety, it was even more unlikely that they would capitulate entirely and do nothing. When I discussed this with Taxpayers’ Union staff a few days ago, we didn’t even consider the possibility of total victory. At the very very minimum we expected an extension of the bright line test on investment properties.

Very feasible also was a CGT with a lower rate, current assets grandfathered in and not applying to businesses. That would have met many of the objections.

The fact they couldn’t even get agreement on extending the bright line test for investment properties is embarrassing.

Captain’s Call

Andrew Little ditched Labour’s 2011 and 2014 policy for a CGT. Jacinda Ardern’s first act as Labour Leader was a Captain’s Call to put it back on the table. Doing so pushed them down in the polls and robbed them of any chance of a clear left Government of them and the Greens. If she had not made her Captain’s Call they may well have ended up ahead of National at the election. As the backlash grew, she devised a compromise of no CGT in the first term and have it considered by a Tax Working Group.

It was Labour’s decision, not Winston’s.

The assertion that the announcement this week is all due to NZ First is overly simplistic. The reality is Labour choose not to proceed. How do we know this? Simple. Ardern’s announcement that Labour won’t implement a CGT ever ever ever while she is leader.

If this was simply about NZ First, then Ardern would have said we don’t have the numbers in this Parliament for it, but we believe this is important and we’ll try again when we do get the numbers. This is what National said when they didn’t get the numbers for RMA reform. They didn’t say they’ll promise to never ever try again.

A deal could have been done with Winston

If Labour really wanted to get the numbers to pass it this Parliament, then of course a deal could be struck for some form of a CGT. This is what politics is about.

Look at the oil and gas ban decision. That went against NZ First’s interests just as much as a CGT would. NZ First backed it because they did a deal in exchange for their waka jumping law. Labour could have offered NZ First some other wins if they had wanted to.

The other reason why NZ First were open to a deal, is they didn’t rule out a CGT in the coalition agreement. They choose not to, which indicates that they could be persuaded in return for some policy gains elsewhere.

Summary

A great outcome for opponents of a CGT. It is basically dead for decades to come. Thank you Jacinda.

The Herald reports:

The cost of Auckland’s City Rail Link project has soared by more than $1 billion.
The new cost “envelope” of $4.419b has been unveiled today along with the announcement of the successful bidder to build the bulk of the 3.4km underground railway, which will run from Britomart Station to Mt Eden Station by 2024.
The successful bidder is a consortium comprising Sydney-based Downer, two subsidiaries of the Paris-based Vinci Group, the global Los Angeles-based Aecom engineering group and Auckland-based Tonkin and Taylor.
CRL Ltd’s (CRLL) Chief Executive, Dr Sean Sweeney, said that after a rigorous and comprehensive review of project costs, a revised cost envelope had been submitted to the project’s sponsors – the Crown and Auckland Council – for approval.

“The $1 billion cost increase on the previous $3.4 billion estimate made in 2014 reflects significant changes impacting the project in the past five years.
“No-one could have foreseen the competitive pressures that have occurred in the construction industry over the past few years and the impact that has on costs, particularly for a project the scale and complexity of the City Rail Link.”

Of course it could have been foreseen. It is hardly a surprise.

Sweeney refused to guarantee that the project would be completed on time by 2024.

So no guarantee on costs or on time.

Goff said it was unfair for Aucklanders to meet half the cost of the CRL when no other part of the country had to do so.

Why is it unfair? People in Invercargill are already paying half the cost. Why should they pay 75%?

Anyway the original cost was forecast to be $2.5 billion. I reckon there is a fair chance it ends up at double that.

Trump is definitely beatable, with his low approval ratings. But he could well win re-election, especially if the Democrats select the wrong candidate.

Here’s my take on how different Dems would do against Trump:

Probably beat him

• Pete Buttigieg – the anti Trump. Intellectual. Served in military. Very likeable. Avoids extreme left policies
• Kamala Harris – a former prosecutor so hard to pigeon hole as a liberal. Popular with broad appeal
• Beto O’Rourke – an empty vessel but a telegenic one who could win just on youth turnout

Probably lose to him

• Bernie Sanders – too left
• Elizabeth Warren – the Native American issue has damaged her
• Kirsten Gillibrand – too unpopular in her own party

Not sure

• Julian Castro
• Cory Booker
• Amy Klobuchar
  

What do readers think? Who if selected would do best and worst against Trump?

The Government is announcing their decision on the proposed Capital Gains Tax this afternoon after briefing Labour caucus at midday.

Use this post to discuss the decision. I’m doing a driving course at Manfeild today so probably won’t have details until this evening.

UPDATE from Mods:

With DPF away on his driving course he has asked us to give a summary of the announcement, which is:

It’s gone. The Government has ruled out a Capital Gains Tax!

Ardern says that no consensus was able to be reached within the Government over it. Here is her full Press Release, available HERE:

The Coalition Government will not proceed with the Tax Working Group’s recommendation for a capital gains tax, Jacinda Ardern announced today.

“The Tax Working Group gave the Government, and the country, an opportunity to look at the fairness of our tax system and debate options for change,” Jacinda Ardern said.

“All parties in the Government entered into this debate with different perspectives and, after significant discussion, we have ultimately been unable to find a consensus. As a result, we will not be introducing a capital gains tax.

“I genuinely believe there are inequities in our tax system that a capital gains tax in some form could have helped to resolve. That’s an argument Labour has made as a party since 2011.
“However after almost a decade campaigning on it, and after forming a government that represented the majority of New Zealanders, we have been unable to build a mandate for a capital gains tax. While I have believed in a CGT, it’s clear many New Zealanders do not. That is why I am also ruling out a capital gains tax under my leadership in the future.

“The Tax Working Group was a valuable exercise that has delivered some useful suggestions well beyond just the debate on CGT, and I want to thank the Group for its work. In fact the majority of recommendations will either be investigated further or have formed part of our work programme.

“There are other things that can be done to improve the fairness of our tax system. As such the Coalition Government has agreed to tighten rules around land speculation and work on ways to counter land banking.

“Work will also continue to cut red tape for business and crack down on multi-nationals avoiding paying their fair share of tax in New Zealand. We have already made changes to address base erosion and profit shifting, and we will shortly release a discussion document on options for introducing a digital services tax.

 “My job now is to focus on the things we can and are doing to improve the wellbeing of all New Zealanders.

“The Coalition Government is addressing the long-term challenges New Zealanders face such as mental health, climate change and child poverty and responding to the March 15 terrorist attack and keeping New Zealanders safe. Those challenges will be my priorities for the remainder of this term,” Jacinda Ardern said

News.com.au reports:

Tony Abbott has bluntly made clear he would agree to return to the Liberal leadership in comments suggesting Scott Morrison might not have the job after the election.
But he would have to be “invited”, Mr Abbott told voters in his seat of Warringah last night, The Guardian reports.

My God the man is deluded.