Stuff reports:

Only just over 3 per cent of houses sold or transferred in the March quarter went to foreigners, Stats NZ data shows.

Of the properties which transferred to new ownership in the three months, 3.3 per cent went to people who were not citizens or residents, up from 2.9 per cent in December.

But Labour said 40% were being sold to foreigners with Chinese sounding names.

“The proportion of overseas sellers also increased in the March quarter, to reach 1.5 per cent, after staying steady at 1.3 per cent for a year.”

So the difference between foreign buyers and sellers is just 1.8%.

Stuff reports:

Light rail in Auckland will be one of the slowest public transport airport links in the world, a new lobby group says.

Paul Miller, of the Auckland Airport Smart Transport Group, said our biggest city has a “horrendous history” of short sighted transport projects, and light rail was not a “rapid” solution.

The newly formed group has calculated that at 45 minutes Auckland would have the fourth longest trip from the city centre to the airport out of 71 international cities.

Thanks to the Waterview tunnels, the trip by car is now often just 20 minutes or so.

“There are no airports with 40 million passengers that have a tram link to the airport as their primary connection,” he said.

Minor detail I am sure.

“When you get off from a 12-hour journey to the airport, do you really want to travel at 32kmh – or just jump in an Uber?”

Miller said few international cities have light rail as their primary airport link, and the Government should instead look to connect to heavy rail on the southern line.

The Government had been “hijacked by a tram lobby”, and although light rail down Dominion Rd was a good idea – it shouldn’t be extended to the airport, he said.

Call me old fashioned but I think you go for the option with the best BCR.

But Transport Minister Phil Twyford said the planned light rail was not about making an express service, but about building a rapid transit network across the city.

“It’s not primarily about getting people to catch a plane, or for tourists,” he said.

So they want light rail to the airport, but it’s not primarily for the millions of people who catch planes. Beyond weird.

The Auckland Airport Smart Transport Group was a group of concerned citizens, local politicians and transport experts, from across the political spectrum, Miller said.

Auckland councillor Mike Lee helped the group come together, he said.

Lee seems to be one of very few independent thinkers on Council.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Mayor Phil Goff says he is maintaining confidentiality by not giving councillors full and open access to a $1 million pre-feasibility report on a potential $1.5 billion downtown stadium.

Following growing pressure from councillors and a former aide to drop strict conditions for accessing the report, Goff said he was concerned to maintain obligations to third parties- believed to be landowners of five potentials sites in the city.

Councillor Penny Hulse told the Herald today that councillors should be treated on an equal footing with the mayor when it comes to the report and respecting its confidential contents.

Three other councillors – John Watson, Cathy Casey and Efeso Collins – have lodged complaints with the Ombudsman over the mayor’s actions.

As they should. Bad enough Goff commissioned this report and kept it secret for so long, but to deny elected representatives a copy is patronising.

A former political adviser to the mayor when he was in Parliament, James Bews-Hair, has criticised Goff’s behaviour over the report and “his peculiar obsession with a waterfront stadium monument to his leadership”.

The Herald reports:

A comparison of Labour’s campaign fiscal plan with its first Budget shows things are not tracking quite as Labour planned during the campaign, something it put down to its coalition agreements and higher costs than expected.

Analysis by NZ Herald data journalist Keith Ng shows total Crown spending is forecast to be almost $12.5 billion higher over the five years to 2021/22 than Labour forecast in the “fiscal plan” it campaigned on in the last election.

Labour campaigned on its fiscal plan against criticism from National that it had not allowed enough to cover the costs of its policies as well as increases in Government spending such as wage increases.

And that criticism has been proven justified. Labour have been saved by the fact the economy they inherited is so booming that extra tax revenue has saved them.

Despite increases in the Budget the forecast spending on health was currently $3.35 billion lower than in Labour’s plan while education was $3.26 billion lower over the next five years.

So they’re spending extra on MFAT and regional slush funds and less than promised on health and education.

Hamish Rutherford writes at Stuff:

Since Ardern led a group of Cabinet colleagues into the Beehive theatrette to announce the move on April 12, there has been mounting speculation about just how little detailed analysis was undertaken behind the move. …

But only on Tuesday did New Zealand learn that whatever advice was provided, it ultimately meant nothing.

This was not an agreement made around the Cabinet table, by New Zealand’s most powerful body, acting in the best interests of New Zealand, bound by collective responsibility.

It was a political deal, struck after intense lobbying between the leaders of political parties, who agreed what was going to happen. The Cabinet was informed after the fact.

Here’s what interests me. If this wasn’t a decision taken by Cabinet, then how was Winston persuaded to back it. The decision runs totally counter to their policies and rhetoric. There must be some sort of political pay off in exchange. Maybe the price was the Greens continue to back the waka jumping bill?

In fact, it appears that the deal was the subject of exhaustive meetings and discussions, amid warnings from the Beehive that from time to time, this is how decisions will be made in this coalition.

But this is not how Government should be done.

Especially a decision to close down an entire industry. No consultation or analysis at all.

Politicians ultimately the reserve the right to shortcut the decision-making process to come to the conclusion they want to.

But for a Government which proclaims its values and promises openness and transparency, it is on a fast track to losing any moral high ground.

I’d say the moral high ground was lost some months ago.

Matthew Charles Conchie is a second striker.

His second strike offence was wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He attacked a man in central Auckland with repeated punches before stabbing him in the chest with a knife. The victim was fortunate not to die. The knife punctured his heart. In the emergency surgery to repair it his heart stopped beating and he only lived due to manual massage of it by surgeons.

For this random and unprovoked attack, Conchie received a sentence of just 5 years 2 months imprisonment.  Three strikes ensures he serves the full sentence without early release on parole.  The sentencing Judge indicated she would impose a minimum non-parole period of 60% of the sentence, were it not for Three Strikes removing parole eligibility. So he could have served just three years for almost killing someone.

His first strike offence was an aggravated burglary, in which he kicked down the door to a residence armed with an air pistol and threatened to kill an occupant.  For this armed home invasion he received a sentence of 2 years 8 months imprisonment.

Conchie is understood to have over 30 criminal convictions as an adult, including at least two convictions for threatening to kill, as well as possession of offensive weapons.  He is a P user and addict and a clear and present danger to the community, repeatedly attacking people at random.  If the bar for Preventive Detention was not so high, he would be a perfect candidate.

Under Three Strikes, Conchie remains in prison until at least August 2021.  Without Three Strikes, he would be eligible for release from prison by the Parole Board as soon as July 2019.

It seems inevitable that Conchie will eventually graduate to a Third Strike and will then be subject to the maximum sentence available for the offence committed.

Hamish Rutherford at Stuff reports:

Finance Minister Grant Robertson gave a post-Budget speech at a $600-a-head Labour fundraiser at the exclusive Wellington Club, drawing comparisons to the previous National Government’s “Cabinet club” scandal.

According to several attendees, about 40 people, including party supporters, business figures and corporate lobbyists, attended the dinner hosted by Labour president Nigel Haworth on Wednesday, at which Robertson was the key attraction.

A similar dinner is due to be hosted at the even more exclusive Northern Club in Auckland on Thursday night.

National leader Simon Bridges has accused the Government of hypocrisy, after Labour once described National’s events, which appear similar to the one attended by Robertson, as “cash-for-access”.

It shows how insincere and hypocritical Labour are. They railed against this in opposition, and of course do exactly the same in Government.

Personally I have no problems with fundraising dinners. The problem is Labour’s hypocrisy in attacking them in the past.

A spokeswoman for Robertson refused to make any comment, describing the dinner as “a party matter”.

The Prime Minister, who is charged with ensuring Cabinet rules are being adhered to, has also refused to comment. …

Haworth said Robertson should not be speaking about party matters, given he was there as an MP, not finance minister.

“He was there, invited by me, as a senior member of the party.”

Shortly after the story was published, an invitee supplied Stuff with a copy of the invitation sent out by Haworth, which suggested Robertson was at the event as finance minister.

“You are cordially invited to join me at a private post-Budget dinner with the Finance Minister, Hon Grant Robertson MP.”

So the Labour Party President says Robertson was there as an MP, not as Finance Minister – but this is contradicted by the invitation the President sent out. Don’t we call this a lie?

Ontario is going to the polls. I’ve taken a lot of interest in this election as up until a few months ago a mate of mine, Patrick Brown, was the Leader of the Opposition and likely to become Premier.

He got pushed out by his own party within hours of sexual misconduct allegations (which have now somewhat unravelled and are the subject of defamation claims). His replacement as Conservative leader is Doug Ford, the brother of the infamous Rob Ford – the scandal ridden party and drug Mayor of Toronto.

The incumbent Liberal Government has 58 out of 107 seats.

The latest projection is they may win just one seat. The Conservatives are projected to win 74 seats and the NDP 49 seats.

Of course the results may vary from the projection, but one things seems certain that the Liberals will be all but wiped out. There is a small chance the NDP may get to form Government rather than the Conservatives.

Paul Moon writes in the NZ Herald:

What makes this audacious and unwanted encroachment on our right to speak and think freely all the more insidious is that this proposed ban on “disharmonious speech” would not apply equally to the criticism of all religions.

The open season on attacking Christianity, for example, would remain, with its followers responding, as their faith requires, by turning the other cheek. Instead, the commission is explicit that this proposed free-speech ban would only apply to the sort of disharmonious comments that are “targeted at the religion and beliefs of ethnic minority communities” in New Zealand.

There’s a show on television called Lucifer. Quite a good show. It’s about Satan having given up ruling hell to run a nightclub and help catch criminals. Portrays God is a pretty bad light and God’s wife even worse!

Probably quite blasphemous to many Christians but I’m not aware of any violent protests against it.

Could you imagine a TV show that featured Mohammed running a night club. Thousands would probably be killed in the protests.

There are several troubling aspects of this plan. Firstly, the commission is moving from protecting people from unpleasant speech (which itself is dubious) to protecting ideas from criticism. If a belief is so fragile that some disharmonious comments might damage it, then maybe the adherents of that belief ought to reconsider its worth rather than seek to shield it from scrutiny.

Exactly.

Also criticism of a religion is not the same as criticism of followers of a religion. I judge people not off what their religion is, but off how they behave.

Secondly, the commission is conflating religion with ethnicity, which is an appalling case of stereotyping. And to show how far the commission has tied itself in knots over this issue, by singling out the religions which it presumes are those of ethnic minorities, it is acting in a way that discriminates on the basis of race and religion, ironically possibly in violation of its own legislation. The thought of the commission investigating itself for a breach of the Act under which it operates indicates how far its ideologues are pursuing the appeasement of certain religions on a Chamberlainian scale.

Islam is not a race. That never stops people calling you racist or having a negative view on Islam.

The freedom to criticise religion and to try to discover the truth was a burning issue (sometimes literally) in previous centuries. Yet in our more enlightened age, the Human Rights Commission is challenging the notion that we have progressed far enough to discuss, debate, and even criticise ideas that are different from our own.

Why does the commission wish to ban and penalise free speech to protect certain beliefs? Surely the commission, and the rest of us, would be far better off adhering to the maxim of the Czech theologian Jan Hus: “Love the truth; let others have their truth, and the truth will prevail.”

I vote Paul Moon to be a Free Speech Commissioner.

The Herald reports:

The country’s largest user of gas in the manufacture of methanol faces a bleak future under the Government’s ban on offshore exploration. 

A briefing paper from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, one of a number of documents on the oil and gas industry released today by Energy Minister Megan Woods’ office, said Methanex would not be able to operate at full capacity from 2021 and would stop completely after 2026.

“Methanex will require a new discovery if it is to continue operating in New Zealand over the medium to long-term.”

Methanex’s managing director Dean Richardson declined to comment on the MBIE paper today.

Methanex last year had 270 staff in New Zealand, earning twice the average Taranaki wage, and about 100 contractors.

It contributed $640 million to the Taranaki economy, accounting for 8 per cent of the region’s economy, and $834m to the national economy.

People in Taranaki should be angry at what the Government has done. It wasn’t as if this was a considered decision where they weighed up the pros and cons. They just decided to kill off an entire industry by fiat regardless of the consequences.

Methanex is our only methanol manufacturer. They earn us export dollars as they export 95% of what they produce. The Government’s decision will mean they close down in NZ. This means that other countries will produce that methanol, which will actually increase greenhouse gas emissions globally. It will also mean we’ll need to import. So we lose jobs, high wages, tax revenue and damage the environment. What a genius Government we have.

Damian Karl Wereta is a second striker.

His second strikes were for two convictions for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, committed on fellow prisoners, for which he received a sentence of 7 years 9 months imprisonment, cumulative on his existing first strike sentence.  He and other prisoners attacked three others in a cell with improvised weapons, leaving one victim with a life-threatening neck injury.  He committed his second strike offences while in prison serving his first strike sentence.  The Judge said he would have imposed a 50% minimum non-parole period, if it wasn’t for Three Strikes requiring that the entire sentence be served in full without parole.

As a result, Wereta is certain to serve almost 4 years more in prison than would be the case without Three Strikes. Despite his serious offending he would be eligible for parole after just half his sentence.

Despite Wereta committing numerous violent offences while in prison and his long history of violent offending, the Judiciary have failed to protect the public by sentencing him to preventive detention, despite the Crown asking for that sentence in 2015.  Wereta has also attacked a Crown prosecutor while in Court.

His first strike offence was for the aggravated robbery of a suburban dairy, which he committed with his brother.  For that, and other offending, he received a sentence of 10 years 6 months imprisonment.  Aggravated robberies of dairies can have devastating consequences for the victims. Apart from the obvious violence suffered, the psychological impact is often huge, and financially can be crippling on people often barely able to eke out a living from running their dairy, working long hours, 7 days a week.  When sentenced for this offending in 2013, the court had to have 13 police and security officers in court to ensure Wereta and his brother, who was also being sentenced, behaved themselves.  Both were heavily manacled for the sentencing.

Damian Wereta has at least 76 criminal convictions, including at least 25 convictions for violent offending, and an unknown number of Youth Court convictions.  He is a gang member.  Aged approximately 38, a psychologist has assessed him at a very high risk of offending and creating new victims, whether in prison or out on the community.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Justice Minister Andrew Little want the Parole Board to be able to let him out early, which would allow him to continue his violent offending in the community, rather than in the confines of prison.

Under Three Strikes, Wereta will remain in prison, ineligible for parole, until at least September 2022.

His background is sad, but also makes you realise the chances of rehabilitation are so limited. His dad was a gang chapter president.  He was into drugs and alcohol at a very early age. CYFS got involved with him once he was seven. He never went to secondary school. He has fathered seven children himself. He appears to have never had a job.

The Herald reports:

A play area will be built on the front lawn of Parliament, but without the usual bright play equipment often associated with playgrounds.

Instead, images released by Speaker Trevor Mallard show a natural-looking area designed to blend in with the surroundings of Parliament’s smaller front lawn.

Mallard said it was hoped the play area, which consists of a slide, a pole maze and balance beams, would encourage families to visit Parliament, and to make the experience more welcoming, enjoyable and accessible.

“The play space will also help to meet the rapidly growing need for play spaces in Wellington as inner city apartment living becomes more common for young families,” he said.

A great idea. Of course some have suggested Parliament already has a playground – the debating chamber!

In another move to make Parliament more accessible, Copperfield’s cafe in the Beehive may also open to the public on non-sitting days.

Also sensible. More people will visit a tourist attraction that has an accessible cafe.

Stuff reports:

A campaign of “organised violence” by gang member inmates against guards has led to dozens of staff at Auckland Prison calling in sick on Sunday.

The Corrections Department confirmed it was forced to bring in guards from other prisons because of “a higher than usual number of staff calling in sick this weekend”.

Alan Whitley, president of prison staff union the Corrections Association, said at least 30 staff did not turn up to work at the Paremoremo prison on Sunday, following an assault on a guard on Saturday. …

Saturday’s assault was at the fifth attack by an inmate against a guard at the prison in the past week. 

The answer is obvious. We should just release all those prisoners on parole, so they can no longer assault prison guards.

Genius.

Stuff reports:

One document on the existing rights of exploration permits shows that officials at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) warned the move would “run counter to a number of important public policy objectives”, official James Stevenson-Wallace wrote.

The decision would have a “negligible impact in reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions but a likely increase in global greenhouse emissions”.

Stevenson-Wallace said this could come as a result of methanol which is currently produced from gas in New Zealand being replaced by methanol produced from coal in China.

So really this decision wasn’t about the environment. In fact it is bad for the environment. It was about allowing the PM to virtue signal internationally.

8,000+ jobs will cease to exist, and greenhouse gas emissions will increase. A double whammy.

MBIE also warned that the move was likely to lead to higher gas prices and reduce security of supply “at a time when New Zealand has its lowest reserve to production ratio since…2003”.

That’s okay. We’ll just import more from China!

Joshua John Morrison is a second striker.  Based in the Bay of Plenty, he is a repeat bank robber, recidivist burglar and sexual offender.  He has at least 6 convictions for burglary for which he has served numerous sentences of imprisonment.  With police clearance rates for burglary at between 10-15% of reported burglaries, Morrison may have in fact burgled dozens of houses in his busy criminal career.  Currently aged around 26, he is a high risk offender and has many years of serious burgling ahead of him.

His second strike offences were the aggravated robbery of a Tauranga bank just 5 days after the aggravated robbery of a local dairy in which he used a double-barrelled shotgun.  He in fact loaded the shotgun in front of the dairy worker, ensuring the threat was very real.  For these crimes, he was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. He committed these second strike aggravated robberies while on bail for his first strike offence.  Aggravated robberies of dairies can have devastating consequences for the victims.  The psychological impact is often huge, especially being threatened with a weapon, and financially can be crippling on people often barely able to eke out a living from running their dairy, working long hours, 7 days a week.

His first strike offence was for unlawful sexual connection with a young person, an extended member of his own family, an offence carrying a maximum sentence of up to 10 years, but for which he received just 6 months imprisonment.

By age 22, Morrison had at least 21 criminal convictions including male assaults female, wilful damage & assault. 

He appears to have a strong sense of entitlement to do as he pleases, whether it is breaking into people’s homes, relations with underage girls, assaulting people or helping himself to other people’s money at suburban banks at the end of a shotgun.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Justice Minister Andrew Little want the Parole Board to be able to let him out early to continue burgling and committing aggravated robberies.

Under Three Strikes, Morrison will remain in prison, ineligible for parole, until at least July 2020. Without it, he might already be out.

Newshub reports:

Security has been called to remove a Labour by-election candidate from an Auckland mall, in an altercation that led the mall to ban all further campaigning.

Labour got into a spat with Glenfield Mall after being denied permission to campaign inside the shopping establishment. …

Kim Bennett – CEO of Ladstone Glenfield Limited, which own the mall – said Labour had challenged the mall’s decision to not allow them to campaign.

“We had the Labour candidate come to us demanding he campaign in the mall. We advised this is not to happen, consistent with our initial response to both parties.

 “In the future, given the subsequent unpleasant nature of the Labour Party candidate’s behaviour to us, we will have a blanket banning of any campaigning in the carpark within the mall and within retailers’ premises.”

Must take some special behaviour to have security called to escort you out. A real sense of entitlement.

If you think an owner has been inconsistent, then a polite request is likely to be far more effective than trying to intimidate the owner.

The Herald reports:

The Human Rights Act already includes provisions that cover both civil and criminal liability in relation to incitement of racial disharmony. However, there is a extremely high threshold – which in some instances requires the consent of the Attorney-General – before a prosecution can be laid.

It should be a very high threshold – basically inciting violence or hatred. For example advocating assaulting gays, executing Jews etc.

It acknowledged concerns about the adequacy and extent of current legislation.

“Freedom of speech and expression are really important human rights. But most rights are not absolute and we also have to remember that with rights come responsibilities,” a spokeswoman said.

“We need to make sure our laws strike the right balance between protecting the right to freedom of speech and appropriately ensuring that we protect the right to personal security and safety so that people do not suffer actual harm.

“We are not talking about hurt feelings or offence, but situations at the very serious end of the spectrum where serious damage or injury is caused.”

If there is no intention to ban speech that merely offends, then the current law is entirely adequate.

But civil liberties advocate Thomas Beagle said sometimes democracy could be painful and any new hate speech laws should promote more and better speech rather than suppress it.

The answer to bad speech is more speech, not less speech.

If a holocaust denier wants to give public lectures on why he or she thinks the holocaust never happened, then they should be allowed to. And I should be allowed to protest outside the venue (but not disrupt it), or ask questions, or criticise them, or mock them.

He wanted free speech in New Zealand to be genuinely free, even when those views may be unpopular or vilified by others and even when it offends.

There is no virtue in defending popular speech. The virtue is in defending speech we find offensive and believe is entirely wrong.

Stuff reports:

If she is wearing your threads, Cabinet rules allow designers to cash in on Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on social media. But they must call her the Labour leader, or only by her name – not refer to her ministerial warrant.

Ardern, an avid follower of New Zealand fashion, has spent time in the front row at New Zealand Fashion Week, and is friendly with a few local designers.

Luxury clothing label Harman Grubiša was called on by the Prime Minister to create her outfit to meet the French president Emmanuel Macron. They have used the images of Ardern in their clothes to promote their brand across their company’s social media accounts.

And jewellery designer Cathy Pope has also used Ardern’s image in social media accounts.

A spokeswoman said  that where the Prime Minister’s Office learnt that her image was being used in such a way, they would ask for such marketing to be stopped. Often that meant simply tweaking the language so it was not seen as her endorsing whatever the product is.

But on Sunday, both companies were still displaying Ardern’s image wearing their clothes, identifying her in her capacity as prime minister.

It can be a fine line between promoting and endorsing.

But political pundit David Farrar says the use of her image is not quite cut and dry. 

The Cabinet Manual, which sets out rules for Ministers of the Crown, talks about endorsements of products and services. Photos of a minister may not be used to endorse a product.

Farrar acknowledged the designers should not be expected to know the rules set down in the Cabinet Manual.  “It’s a bit ridiculous to say you can’t use photographs of her wearing clothes. You need to wear clothes every day. I suspect the Royal Family run into this problem all the time,” he said.

“It’s a hard one to police, but having said that there may be implicit endorsement coming through.”

Farrar noted that all that may be needed is a tweak to language – the title of “prime minister” should not be mentioned, but the name “Jacinda Ardern” still can be.

Stuff approached me on this story. I actually semi-defended the PM and said that she can’t stop designers highlighting the fact she may be wearing their clothes.

I also said there is a line between wanting to promote NZ brands overseas, however not endorse a particular company in the NZ domestic market (as that is unfair to their competitors).

In the end all that may be needed is for the PMO or DPMC to ask those companies using her image, to make clear it is not an endorsement. I know this has happened in the past.

The Herald editorial:

The 10-year budget the Mayor Phil Goff will probably get passed by the Auckland Council today invites easy criticism. It fulfils his 2016 election promise to keep annual rate rises to no more than 2.5 per cent. But on top of that there will be a new dedicated rate for upgrading the city’s drains, another for environmental problems such as kauri dieback and the regional petrol tax for scheduled transport projects.

It is the total bill that matters to ratepayers and the mayor will not expect much praise for keeping the letter of his promise rather than the spirit.

Hopefully in 2019, they won’t be fooled so easily.

The fuel tax, for example, would be more palatable if it were to be tied to the cost of the central rail link now under construction. But the tax turns out to be dedicated to almost everything but that project, for which the council may still need to find a source of finance for its contribution.

The fuel tax would not be needed if the Council was more efficient.

Stuff reports:

The Government’s plan to require foreign firms to collect GST on goods they ship to New Zealanders from October next year – its so-called “Amazon tax” – is suddenly in genuine trouble.

Australia is the canary down this particular coalmine, and right now that canary is looking pretty poorly. …

Amazon has decided that rather than go to that trouble, it will instead block Australians from buying products through its main website.

Instead, Australians will only be allowed to shop at Amazon Australia, which for years at least looks set to offer only an inferior range of goods at higher prices.

Amazon Australia has just 10% of the products of the global Amazon.

We may be even worse off in NZ. There is no NZ Amazon store. So the local Amazon tax may see Kiwis unable to buy anything at all off Amazon.

Matthew Hooton writes:

Fifteen years after Don Brash’s Orewa speech restored National’s fortunes and 12 years since the launch of John Key’s smiley-wavy alternative, the party continues to poll at 45 per cent, just a couple of points away from governing alone.

Such high polling over many years and three leadership changes is near miraculous. Whatever is said about the lost opportunities of Key’s Government, neither he nor Steven Joyce can be accused of leaving National’s brand in anything other than outstanding shape.

Neither Jacindamania nor Labour’s $20 billion Budget spend-up has dragged more than a vanishingly small number of voters across the crucial blue-red line.

National is polling almost exactly the same as before Ardern’s elevation in August. In polling terms, she has done nothing but cannibalise her left.

It is astonishing that National continues to poll so high, despite both a leadership change and going into Opposition.

Here’s what the major opposition party has been after around six months of a new Government under MMP:

• 2009 – Labour at 31%
• 2000 – National at 32%

Ardern will be as aware as anyone how vulnerable she is.

Modelling, published on the Labour-aligned The Standard of 2000 potential election results derived from this week’s polls, suggests she has no more than a 50 per cent probability of a second term.

Push through their catch and release policies for repeat violent offenders and it will be much less than 50%.

The Coalition’s measurable promises of a billion trees, $3 billion for the regions, a net 100,000 new houses and materially reducing child poverty as measured by the Children’s Commissioner are all set to fail. As it becomes impossible to hide the lack of progress on these fronts, expect ministers to cut corners and for scandals to arise.

And zero road deaths and zero suicides!