The Curia average of the public polls has the parties as:

• National 43.3%, 54 seats
• Labour 39.7%, 49 seats
• Greens 6.6%, 8 seats
• NZ First 6.5%, 8 seats
• TOP 1.6%, 0 seats
• Maori Party 1.0%, 2 seats (one overhang)
• ACT 0.4%, 1 seat (one overhang)
• United Future 0.1%, 0 seats

Now this average includes all the polls done by the main public pollsters during an election but time and size weights them. This means it includes the earlier One News Colmar Brunton polls that showed Labour leading.  The two final TV polls have 100% weighting, the ones from the week prior have 87% and 84%, the two before that 65% weighting and the two from the start of the campaign around 45% each. I’m not saying this weighted average will be accurate. It has been pretty accurate in the past, but the huge variability in the One News Colmar Brunton poll has impacted the average and has National lower than the final two TV polls this week.

So anyway who will be a Member of Parliament under this poll? First we need to decide on electorate seats. The only public polls showing a change are Ohariu going to Greg O’Connor and Te Tai Hauauru going to Howie Tamati from the Maori Party. I believe there will be mroe changes than that, but as I’ve done polling in a number of seats for a number of clients, I can’t be explicit about what they are. So the electorate seat assumptions are based on the public polls, and are not my private predictions.

So projected MPs (new ones in bold) are:

National

1. Auckland Central: Nikki Kaye
2. Bay of Plenty: Todd Muller
3. Botany: Jami-Lee Ross
4. Christchurch Central: Nicky Wagner
5. Clutha Southland: Hamish Walker
6. Coromandel: Scott Simpson
7. East Coast: Anne Tolley
8. East Coast Bays: Erica Stanford
9. Hamilton East: David Bennett
10. Hamilton West: Tim Macindoe
11. Helensville: Chris Penk
12. Hunua: Andrew Bayly
13. Ilam: Gerry Brownlee
14. Invercargill: Sarah Dowie
15. Kaikoura: Stuart Smith
16. Maungakiekie: Denise Lee
17. Nelson: Nick Smith
18. New Plymouth: Jonathan Young
19. North Shore: Maggie Barry
20. Northcote: Jonathan Coleman
21. Otaki: Nathan Guy
22. Pakuranga: Simeon Brown
23. Papakura: Judith Collins
24. Rangitata: Andrew Falloon
25. Rangitikei: Ian McKelvie
26. Rodney: Mark Mitchell
27. Rotorua: Todd McClay
28. Selwyn: Amy Adams
29. Tamaki: Simon O’Connor
30. Taranaki-King Country: Barbara Kuriger
31. Taupo: Louise Upston
32. Tauranga: Simon Bridges
33. Tukituki : Lawrence Yule
34. Waikato: Tim van de Molen
35. Waimakariri: Matthew Doocey
36. Wairarapa: Alastair Scott
37. Upper Harbour: Paula Bennett
38. Waitaki: Jacqui Dean
39. Whanganui: Harete Hipango
40. Whangarei: Shane Reti
41. Bill English
42. David Carter
43. Steven Joyce
44. Chris  Finlayson
45. Michael Woodhouse
46. Paul Goldsmith
47. Alfred Ngaro
48. Brett Hudson
49. Melissa Lee
50. Kanwal JK Bakshi
51. Jian Yang
52. Paramjit Parmar
53. Jo Hayes
54. Chris Bishop

Labour

1. Christchurch East: Poto Williams
2. Dunedin North: David Clark
3. Dunedin South: Clare Curran
4. Hauraki-Waikato: Nanaia Mahuta
5. Hutt South: Virgina Andersen
6. Ikaroa-Rawhiti: Meka Whaitiri
7. Kelston: Carmel Sepuloni
8. Mana: Kris Faafoi
9. Mangere: Su’a William Sio
10. Manukau East: Jenny Salesa
11. Manurewa: Louisa Wall
12. Mt Albert: Jacinda Ardern
13. Mt Roskill: Michael Wood
14. Napier: Stuart Nash
15. New Lynn: Deborah Russell
16. Ohariu: Greg O’Connor
17. Palmerston North: Iain Lees-Galloway
18. Port Hills: Ruth Dyson
19. Rimutaka: Chris Hipkins
20. Rongotai: Paul Eagle
21. Tamaki Makaurau: Peene Henare
22. Te Atatu: Phil Twyford
23. Te Tai Tokerau: Kelvin Davis
24. Te Tai Tonga: Rino Tirakatene
25. Wellington Central: Grant Robertson
26. West Coast Tasman: Damien O’Connor
27. Wigram : Megan Woods
28. Andrew Little
29. David Parker
30. Priyanca Radhakrishan
31. Raymond Huo
32. Jan Tinetti
33. Willow-Jean Prime
34. Kiri Allan
35. Willie Jackson
36. Jo Luxton
37. Liz Craig
38. Marja Lubeck
39. Trevor Mallard
40. Tamati Coffey
41. Jamie Strange
42. Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki
43. Kieran McAnulty
44. Angie Warren-Clark
45. Helen White
46. Steph Lewis
47. Duncan Webb
48. Sosene Lemauga Lydia
49. Janette Walker

Greens

1. James Shaw
2. Marama Davidson
3. Julie Anne Genter
4. Eugenie Sage
5. Gareth Hughes
6. Jan Logie
7. Chloe Swarbrick
8. Golriz Ghahraman

NZ First

1. Northland: Winston Peters
2. Ron Mark
3. Tracey Martin
4. Fletcher Tabuteau
5. Darrioch Ball
6. Clayton Mitchell
7. Mark Patterson
8. Shane Jones

Maori Party

1. Waiariki: Te Ururoa Flavell
2. Te Tai Hauauru: Howie Tamati

ACT

1. Epsom: David Seymour

I expect the final result to be a bit different to this, but on this projection there would be 35 new MPs in Parliament and one recycled one (Shane Jones).

The table above shows the final polls for the six companies that published during the campaign period. The simple average of them has National and Labour tied. If you average the three who do regular political polling them National is 6% ahead of Labour.

UMR also do polling which is a mixture of public and private. They normally publish their results towards the end of the year. Jacinda Ardern said this morning that UMR has Labour just 1% behind National.

The Curia average of the public polls (which is not the same as Curia’s private polling) has National 4% ahead of Labour. That includes all eight polls from the three main companies during the campaign, with a size and time weighting. As the ONCB poll fluctated so much, that is why this average has it tighter – because it doesn’t just take the last poll from each company.

It will be fascinating to see which poll is closest to the result, and how close any of them are. I’m confident the Newsroom/SSI poll won’t be the closest!

The Herald reports:

National and Labour are planning a post-election shake up of the $50 billion apartment sector, dogged by disputes, power struggles, lax governance, lack of pre-purchase disclosure, poor maintenance and management plans and financial issues.

Whoever wins on Saturday, the rules governing where around 100,000 Aucklanders live will change significantly.

Nick Smith, Building and Construction Minister, and Phil Twyford, Labour housing spokesman, this week vowed to amend the Unit Titles Act, following Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye’s big push on the issue in the summer of 2016.

This is a good example of someone being a good local MP. It can be very challening to champion an issue as a local MP when you are also a Minister as it cuts across the portfolios of your colleagues. You need to be able to advocate for a solution that benefits your constituents, but do so in a way which doesn’t undermine the Minister.

Smith said the reform was an area where detail mattered a great deal. Key policy changes would overhaul pre-purchase disclosure so people knew what they were buying, clarify rules of body corporate managers, provide greater rigor around the building maintenance plans with a differential for larger complexes and improve the dispute resolution system, Smith said.

The Tenancy Tribunal would have its jurisdiction extended into the unit titles’ sector and the Ministry of Business, Employment and Innovation’s powers to investigate would also be extended, he said.

Kaye said this week: “I am pleased that we have committed to progress legislation by the end of the year. I think it really important for people to have confidence in issues like disclosure and capital maintenance plans for apartments and units.

“It’s another important step in ensuring we have a diverse range of affordable housing options for Aucklanders. As MP for Auckland Central I have worked hard to ensure we have change on these issues.”

Not everything is about party politics. You often get MPs who are incredibly hard working and effective advocates for their electorates. Annette King is a great example in Rongotai as Nikki Kaye is in Auckland Central. Despite being Minister of Education, she is relentlessly active in the electorate.

The Herald reports:

Self-service ordering kiosks are being rolled out at Wendy’s, McDonalds and other restaurants and fast food chains over the next few years. So I guess it’s just a matter of time until automation takes over the kitchen.

Actually . . . that time has come.

According to a report this week in TechCrunch, a fast-casual restaurant chain headquartered in Southern California, US, called Caliburger is installing robotic hamburger-flipping chefs in its Pasadena location and then plans to roll them out to its other 49 outlets around the world over the next few years.

Caliburger’s Pasadena location is conveniently located in the same town as Miso Robotics, a start-up that’s developed its hamburger flipping, “robotic kitchen assistant” called – not unsurprisingly -Flippy.

Flippy loves the living wage movement. The higher activists push minimum wage rates, the more jobs there are for Flippy.

Flippy is a robot, or more specifically a very specialized industrial 6-axis robotic arm that is bolted to the kitchen floor in front of a grill or fryer and has a “spinning spatula” that cooks the food. The unit receives data from thermal and 3D sensors as well as cameras and takes its orders through a digital ticketing system.

It is capable of grabbing and unwrapping food, keeping track of cooking time and temperature and then plating the food so that a human chef can add garnishes.

Flippy sounds like he has a great work ethic.

Kirk Hope from Business NZ writes:

As a result it looks as if Labour might get through to the election without having to explain its policy.

Yet it would appear to herald the biggest industrial relations change in a generation.

This is what we can glean about it, based on the information released so far.

The policy is called ‘fair pay agreements’.  These would be large collective agreements covering all workers in the same occupation, and their employers.

Supermarket, hospitality and childcare workers, cleaners, support workers and similar occupations would be likely targets for this policy.

It would mean everyone in that occupation being awarded the same minimum pay, and being able to bargain – and strike – for extra pay on top of that.

Unions would start bargaining with the employers concerned, and employers would be required by law to take part in the bargaining, even if they didn’t want to.

Then, once bargaining had started, employers would be required by law to come to an agreement with the unions concerned, even if they didn’t want to.

The result could be an occupational wage round where wages are forced up without the voluntary agreement of employers.  

This is the critical part. For the last 25 years or so wages and salaries are set through agreement between the employer and employees (or their union). An employer has to agree to the wages they are obliged to pay. They can be pressured through strike action, but they have to agree.

What Labour is proposing is that the Government will set wages for an entire industry. Individual employers will have no ability to opt out. Their agreement will not be needed. So employers will lose control of their biggest cost centre – staff.

It is concerning that Labour says it will take a year to work out the details of this policy.

That is not good enough. Voters need to know the detail – just as with Labour’s tax policy.

On the sketchy details available, this policy seems very like the national awards of the 1970s and ’80s.

Yet to hear how it is different in any way.

It would be very helpful if Labour could let us know what differences there are – if any – between national awards and fair pay agreements.

We need to know this, because national awards and second-tier bargaining gave us the worst ever period of strikes in New Zealand’s history.

Back to the 70s when New Zealand had one industry after another out on strike.

This column has been updated with Hope’s expanded definition of second-tier bargaining. Labour disagrees with Hope’s view but did not identify any factual errors and declined an offer to submit a right of reply opinion column.

So Labour said Hope was wrong but could not actually say how.

They didn’t do a right of reply because the last thing they want is to have voters realise what their policy will entail. This is their huge huge payoff to their union funders. If they can get to implement this policy, then the unions will gain millions in revenue and be able to pass more of that through to Labour.

The final pre-election poll from Newshub is at Curia. It has National 7.5% ahead of Labour. However NZ First projected to hold the balance of power.

Voters this week have a clear choice between Labour’s optimism and honesty, or rewarding National’s campaign of relentless lies.

National’s failure to acknowledge and fix the housing crisis will be their legacy. Labour will tackle the housing crisis head-on.

Today’s GDP figures reflect an economy that the National Government has allowed to drift along on the basis of growing population rather than improving productivity and adding value.

The average Kiwi worker will be $1060 worse off a year if Labour is elected to government

We are going to give Aucklanders their waterfront back [No need for a tank farm under NZ First! – Ed].

ACT will insist the next government declare a Housing State of Emergency in Auckland to allow the building of new homes within the first 100 days, leader David Seymour said today.

We have achieved a hell of a lot since launching The Opportunities Party just ten months ago, and with election day looming, we know we have convinced tens of thousands of New Zealanders that non-tribal evidence based policies will provide solutions to the country’s problems. [Evidence-based policy, or policy-based evidence? – Ed]

Vote Conservative Party if you really want progress on basic issues like housing.

Last night’s leader’s debate was a fizzer, but latest poll points to National.

Last night’s Colmar Brunton: National 46% (up 6); Labour 37% (down 7); Greens 8% (up 1); NZ First 4.9% (down 1); Maori 1%; TOP 2% ACT 0.3%. Seats based on status quo (except Ohariu)

• National 58
• Labour 46
• Green 9
• NZ First 6
• TOP 0
• Maori 1
• ACT 1
• Total Parliament: 121

Conducted from September 16 to September 19.

Three News Reid Research out at 6pm.

Latest update as of 9am Monday:

National Party $8.3b; Labour Party $23.0b; Green Party $14.9b; NZ First $27.5b; Maori Party $12.2b; ACT -$2.4b; TOP $13.7b. Full details here.

Stats NZ released the latest monthly migration stats today. The charts below use their data. These charts are of New Zealand citizens only. So it is not about people moving here as migrants on work or student visas. It is purely about people who are New Zealand citizens and what they have been choosing to do – live in New Zealand, or live elsewhere.

With developed countries, migration of citizens almost always is strongly from smaller countries (actually cities) to larger ones.  Kiwis move from Auckland to Sydney. Aussies move from Sydney to London. Poms move from London to New York etc.

So how many Kiwis are leaving, and have been leaving?

So under Labour the number of Kiwis leaving increased in their last five years from 40,000 to 60,000. It is now almost half that, at just over 30,000.

Now nothing wrong with Kiwis leaving to do their OE etc. But it is nice to have them back. So have they been returning?

So under Labour the number of Kiwis returning dropped from 28,000 to around 23,000. Since then it has increased to around 33,000. Around 10,000 more Kiwis a year are returning home.

What does this mean for net migration of New Zealand citizens?

In 2004 we were losing a net 10,000 citizens a year and by the end of 2008 it was almost 40,000 citizens a year net loss. That is around 750 week or over 100 a day.

Today the annual net loss is around 1,000 a year or 20 a week or 3 a day.

Again this is just New Zealand citizens.

That is a huge turnaround. And even bigger when you consider the cumulative sums.

In the last three years of Labour, the net loss of New Zealand citizens was 93,630.

In the last three years of National, the net loss of New Zealand citizens was just 9,530.

Stats NZ reports:

Gross domestic product (GDP) rose 0.8 percent in the June 2017 quarter, following a revised 0.6 percent rise in the March quarter, Stats NZ said today.

“Strong export and domestic demand underpinned growth this quarter,” national accounts senior manager Gary Dunnet said. “Demand for exports has resulted in strong production growth in manufacturing and service industries.”

Exports rose 5.2 percent, with exports of goods posting its biggest quarterly increase in nearly 20 years.

Well that will stop under Labour with their $6 billion of extra taxes and tariffs (as in now reduced as they won’t be in TPP) on the rural sectors.

GDP per capita rose 0.3 percent this quarter.

Labour have lost an attack line.

Annual GDP growth for the year ended June 2017 was 2.7 percent while the size of the economy in current prices was $268 billion.

Of interest is that manufacturing went up 1.8% in the quarter. Remember Labour claiming there was a manufacturing crisis.

Those wanting a lighter side of politics might want to check out Flat Race 2017 by Jack Buchanan.

The 1st episode is here.

A reader writes in:

Yesterday on Morning Report ( go to http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201859010/ardern-responds-after-farmers-protest-in-home-town ) when being interviewed by Guyon Espiner,  Jacinda Ardern stated (just after 2 minutes 30 seconds and again at 9 minutes 20 second) that the tax would be ten times that  proposed for  water abstracted for irrigation. That irrigation rate is between 1 and 2 cents per tonne.

So now we know what the bottled water tax will be – between 10 and 20 cents per tonne.

This will raise negligible quantities of tax; so little in fact that it wouldn’t be worth collecting.

Here are the sums:

According to a Coriolis  report for MBIE  go to http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/food-beverage/documents-image-library/folder-2017-investors-guides/investors-guide-to-the-new-zealand-beverages-industry-2017.pdf  the exports of bottled water in 2015 were valued at $7 million and the average price per litre was $0.61, giving a sales volume of 11.47 million litres.

Supermarket sales of bottled water sales over the past year were 37 million litres. I do not have the figures for bottled water sales from other outlets such as dairies, self service dispensers and petrol stations etc, but assuming  that these were half of total domestic sales, that would add another 37 million litres of bottled water sales.

Adding domestic and exported bottled water sales together gives us total sales of 85.47 million litres.

That is 85,470 tonnes of water. At between 10 and 20 cents per tonne total revenue collected would be between $8547 and $17094 per annum.

That would not even cover the cost of superannuation for one retired couple for one year. Even if my assumptions on volumes sold domestically through outlets other than supermarkets were only half actual annual sales,  the revenue collected would still be negligible.

So Labour’s tax on bottled water will bring in enough revenue to pay for one extra couple on superannuation!! In fact it won’t even do that as the extra public servants needed to administer the bottled water tax will cost more than the tax brings in.

Note this is about the bottled water tax only, which is seperate to the irrigation tax.

Just shows Labour is about symbolism only. Pathethic.

In a rare move The Australian does an endorsement:

New Zealand’s election this Saturday is reminiscent of Australia’s in 2007. A successful, reforming government that has achieved one of the highest growth rates in the world is fighting for survival despite International Monetary Fund projections that New Zealand will outdo all other advanced nations, except oil-rich Norway, in gross domestic product growth by 2025.

And it is economic growth that gives us options.

Kiwis should think long and hard before they dump one of the most successful governments in the Western world and replace the experienced Mr English with Ms Ardern, who in nine years as an MP has neither championed a substantial bill nor served as a minister. For eight years under Mr Key, Mr English was the highly successful finance minister. Unemployment fell and the budget returned to surplus. He was a crucial member of a government that tackled the difficult and unpopular welfare reforms Australia needs but has not been able to achieve. As our experience shows, good economic management cannot be taken for granted. Mr English has shown skill and perseverance in helping New Zealand get to an enviable position.

Australia has drifted for the last nine years or so as it has been unable to gets the books balanced.

Ms Ardern — a staff member for former prime minister Helen Clark and briefly a president of the International Union of Socialist Youth — is promising big spending, including phasing in three years of free tertiary education. She also has shown political nous. Labour’s surge owes much to its hardline stance on immigration, with a promise to cut arrivals by 30,000 a year and ban nonresident foreigners buying homes. Much is at stake in a close race, but Australia’s experience since 2007 should remind Kiwis that seemingly safe changes in government can have lasting and costly impacts.

It was 2007 that saw Kevin Rudd elected!

The Australian Financial Review is also clear:

New Zealand has provided a beacon of sensible government in an increasingly mad world. Yet, in 2008, when National’s John Key became prime minister, New Zealand was headed into recession, burdened by heavy government debt and deficits in perpetuity, and with a collapsed non-bank finance sector. In contrast, Australia had no central government debt, budget surpluses and manna from China-fuelled mining boom. Almost unbelievably, a decade later and after two major earthquakes across the ditch, the positions are reversed.

Just think about that last line.

But New Zealand Labour vows to re-regulate the labour market toward the Australian model through industry-wide union bargaining. Labour is making sceptical noises about free trade deals that give New Zealand business – and workers – a bigger global market to sell into. Ms Ardern’s populist Jeremy Corbyn-style promise to get rid of university fees would likely require higher income taxes, further dulling work incentives. To cover this up, Labour talks of watering down the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s commitment to low inflation and the central bank governor’s control over official interest rates.

It is a bad combination.

Yet National’s fiscal stewardship under Mr English has been impressive enough that even Labour’s shadow finance minister Grant Robertson admits in today’s pages that he has done a good job.

Yet Grant criticised and complained about everything National did when they did it. He opposed every single piece of spending restraint.

It would be sheer folly for New Zealanders not to elect Mr English and the National Party to a fourth term. With all the madness, dysfunction and anti-business law-making emanating from Canberra, New Zealanders have a chance to press home their competitive advantage by re-electing a government that has shown it knows how to properly govern.

I guess if Labour get elected it will reduce housing pressures, as more Kiwis will flee to Australia!

I’ve been sent a spreadsheet that was put together by a senior former Treasury official in consultation with some other senior former Treasury officials. It shows that Labour have not left enough money in their fiscal plan to cover inflation.

Inflation pushes up wages and the costs of goods and services. This benefits the Government’s accounts on the tax revenue side (the more you earn the more tax the Government collects) but it also increases their costs.

Now Budget documents such as the PREFU take account of inflation for tax revenue but they do not allocate inflation costs for expenditure. Instead you have the “operating allowance” which is to cover those inflationary costs, as well as new policies.

Labour have allocated almost all of the operating allowance to their new policies and have covered inflationary costs in health and education. But they have not got enough money to cover inflationary costs in the rest of Government.

So to be clear it is not a hole in the sense that Labour has made a mathematical error. But Labour have left basically no money in their budget for inflation (or population growth), yet their tax revenue is based on them. Quite simply they will not be able to keep within their fiscal plan unless you believe they will massively slash spending in some undefined areas (or not give any public servants outside Health and Education a payrise for three years).

This is a summary prepared by the former senior Treasury official. It is not a hole, but it is a shortfall. They have no capacity to fund any impact of wage and cost inflation and this is just over $10 billion.

They have left themselves $7.5 billion (cumulative) for new policies for the next three years. Even if they didn’t announce a single new policy in their entire term of Government, they’s still have a shortfall because of cost pressures on existing programmes.

For those who are good with numbers, I’ve attached the spreadsheet below that I was sent. It is detailed and comprehensive. Again the spreadsheet was put together by a senior former Treasury official in consultation with a group of other senior former Treasury officials.

Excel – Labour’s budget – the cost escalation problem

So for Labour’s fiscal plan to be credible you have to believe that they will either announce no new policies in their first term of Government (if elected) or that there will be no pay rises for any public servants (outside health and education) and that there will be no increase in the costs of good and services the Government purchases.

I look forward to Labour explaining to the unions how it is not going to have any wage rises in the public sector (outside Health and Education) for three years!

Mike Joy wrote at The Spinoff:

After two decades of fighting to halt the degradation of freshwater in New Zealand, you would think I’d be celebrating the fact that water is taking centre stage in this election. Briefly, I was. Yet after raising issues about our disastrous water quality for so long, I find myself now being used as a political football. This has been especially galling after my experiences with dirty politics from the National Party in the past.

Three days ago I made a ‘friends only’ post on my personal Facebook page saying I believe we should be voting on ideas and policies not personalities and tribal affiliations this election. It also said I like some TOP policy. I had no idea what was coming.

My Facebook post was immediately picked up by TOP. They issued a press release based on my ‘endorsement’. At the time of writing, their Facebook post about it has been shared 511 times. They didn’t seek my permission in any way. This use by TOP of my personal Facebook post, and the resulting attacks from people disappointed by my ‘betrayal’, saddened me so much I decided to close my private and public Facebook pages. The very point of the post was about keeping personalities out of this crucial election.

But Sean Plunket on behalf of TOP responded with a copy of this e-mail:

So Mike Joy actually e-mailed TOP a statement they could use, and then he writes a post complaining they used his Facebook status without authorisation.

He now says that he “forgot” he sent the e-mail.

He’s done a pretty good job of destroying his own credibility.

NZ Superannuation is linked to after tax average income. This means that the tax cuts passed by Parliament will see a retired couple on NZ Superannuation get $640 more a year starting the 1st of April.

Labour will repeal those tax cuts which means those retired couples will not get the extra $640 a year.

Important that all retired persons are aware of this. If Labour get elected they will change the law so that they get $640 less a year.

A huge shift in the One News Colmar Brunton poll with National up 6% and Labour down 7%. This brings it into line with Reid Research last week.

The party vote is:

• National 46%
• Labour 37%
• Green 8%
• NZ First 4.9%
• TOP 2.3%
• Maori 0.5%
• ACT 0.3%

Seats based on status quo (except Ohariu)

• National 58
• Labour 46
• Green 9
• NZ First 6
• TOP 0
• Maori 1
• ACT 1

But if Winston loses Northland it would be:

• National 60
• Labour 50
• Green 10
• NZ First 0
• TOP 0
• Maori 1
• ACT 1

Newshub has their final Reid Research poll out tomorrow.

South Auckland suffering from severe housing stress, mental health services at a breaking point.

We are prepared to cap interest rates to protect consumers.

“Voters have a clear choice” etc etc “economic experience” etc etc.

If Labour want to repeal the already legislated for tax bracket shifts, they are effectively raising income taxes.

Our swimability targets will be half the E.Coli levels of National, and we’ll do it by 2030, not 2040.

Minor parties are struggling in this Ardern/English focused campaign.

We are also struggling as a result of the Ardern/English show – so we dropped off $1 billion of Seymour cash to NZEI to highlight our teacher’s policy.

“Jesus, [Labour voters] cannot be this thick.” (Desperation?)

Yes, we still exist. We think list MPs who don’t form part of the Government shouldn’t be in Parliament.

Colmar Brunton due tonight 6pm.

Attention still heavily on the fuel crisis … Tonight’s final leaders debate may change this.

Latest update as of 9am Monday:

National Party $8.3b; Labour Party $23.0b; Green Party $14.9b; NZ First $27.5b; Maori Party $12.2b; ACT -$2.4b; TOP $13.7b. Full details here.

A common discussion topic is what will Winston do if he does hold the balance of power after the election. I don’t know what he will decide if he does, but here is what I think are the six factors in order from least influential to most influential.

1. Views of his caucus and board – zero influence. Despite what they may think this will not be a collective decision. Winston will decide.
2. Which minor parties does he dislike the most. I’d say the Maori Party and the Greens. He will try and lock them both out of ministerial roles if possible.
3. Which party leader does he dislike the most? It would have been John Key by far if Key was still leader. I’m not sure he dislikes English or Ardern particularly. He does hate David Seymour a lot though.
4. Policy compatability. This strongly favours Labour.
5. Can he govern with just one other party. Winston gets much more power in a two party coalition than a three party coalition. If one of the major parties can govern just with NZ First and the other needs a third player, then more likely to go with the two party option.
6. Will they make him Prime Minister? This is no longer a viable option so off the table. But he did have dreams of this happening when Labour were polling in the low 20s. A result of Labour 20%, NZ First 16% and Greens 12% could have allowed him to push this option. But Jacinda becoming Labour Leader has thankfully saved us from this fate.

So overall I think Winston will go with Labour, so long as they can make 61 seats between them. If they can’t make 61 seats then he might go with National. I’d rather he didn’t go with National. Personally I think opposition would be preferable to being part of the inevitable chaos that comes with Winston in Government. But at least it would be fun times for journalists and commentators.

Audrey Young looks at possible Ministers in a Labour-led Government.

Her top 10 for Labour are:

Jacinda Ardern

– Prime Minister, National Security

Kelvin Davis

– Deputy Prime Minister, Corrections, Maori Development

Grant Robertson

– Finance

Phil Twyford

– Housing, Building and Construction, Transport, Defence

Megan Woods

– Climate Change, Communications, Science and Innovation

Chris Hipkins

– Education

Andrew Little

– Justice, Treaty Negotiations, Trade

Carmel Sepuloni

– Social Development

David Clark

– Health

David Parker

– Attorney General, Economic Development, Environment

I’d expect the strong performers, if they form Government, to be Twyford, Woods, Little, Clark and Parker.

The biggest risk is Davis.

This shows NCEA Level 2 achievement rates for various demographics comparing 2016 to 2008.

The biggest changes have been Maori and Pasifika students and those in the lowest decile schools.

If you don’t leave school with at least NCEA Level 2, then your options are very limited. The best way to solve inequality isn’t through tax and spend but by lifting educational standards of the most disadvantaged groups.

Germany is also voting this weekend, on Sunday. As you can see in the above chart, the SPD almost were at parity with Merkel’s CDU but they are again 15% behind.

So there is little doubt Merkel will remain Chancellor but who will make up her Government. The parties likely to make the Bundestag are:

• CDU/CSU (Conservatives) 36.6%
• SPD (Socialist) 22.6%
• Left (commies) 9.6%
• Greens 7.7%
• FDP (liberal centrist) 9.0%
• AfD (nationalist) 10.1%

So the 598 seats might be:

• CDU/CSU (Conservatives) 229
• SPD (Socialist) 142
• Left (commies) 60
• Greens 48
• FDP (liberal centrist) 57
• AfD (nationalist) 62

No-one wants to be in coalition with the AfD. In fact they are even squabbling over who will have to sit next to them in Parliament.

A CDU/FDP coalition only has 286 seats and they need 300 to govern so what is quite possible is a CDU/FDP/Green coalition. The German Greens are far more moderate and sensible than the NZ Greens and aren’t just socialists with a green tinge.

You could get another CDU/SPD grand coalition but this is less likely.

SPD/Left/Greens only total 259 seats so would need FDP support (unlikely) to be able to govern.

Personally I’ll be quite relieved if Merkel remains Chancellor. She is a beacon of stability. I think she mishandled the refugee crisis, but has been good in most other areas.