Stuff reports:

Statistics New Zealand has defended its methodology and warned it may not implement any findings of a Government-ordered review into unemployment measures.

The Labour-NZ First coalition agreement promised to conduct a review of the official measures of unemployment “to ensure they accurately reflect the workforce of the 21st Century”.

This should ring huge warning bells. This is politicians saying they don’t like the official measure, and they want to invent one which better suits them.

Luckily Stats NZ is independent and won’t be bound by the review, but it at a minimum is an attempt to pressure them. Labour risks underminign the neutrality of Stats NZ with their review.

Although there has been no comment on the nature of the review, it appears to stem from Winston Peters’ often repeated criticism that someone working one hour a week could be considered employed.

While Peters’ claim is correct, the quarterly Household Labour Force Survey delves much deeper into the job market than his statements would suggest, including measures of the extent to which people want to work more hours than they currently do.

The definition used is used by every OECD country. It allows for comparisons between countries. And as quoted above the HLFS also provides data on how many people are employed part-time (say 5 hours a week) and want to work for longer. All the data is there.

Ramsay said Statistics NZ had no more information about the review apart from what was in the coalition agreement.

“Nothing at this point. No content at all.”

Asked if she was concerned the report could damage the organisations credibility, Ramsay said: “We do hold the independence of the Government Statistician very, very much at heart.”

Any review would be “open and transparent”, and Statistics New Zealand may not make any changes, she said.

“We do the review. We don’t necessarily have to implement anything that’s there. That’s the process we would work through.”

This is the Government Statistician asserting her independence, as she should.

Dr Eric Crampton, chief economist at the New Zealand Initiative, said the review was “a bit nonsense” because the concerns expressed by Peters about the unemployment rate were already covered elsewhere in the survey.

“They’ve already got a measure of underemployment in there, which counts people who are working less than full time who would like to be working more hours,” Crampton said.

“They’re already tracking this. If it’s something you care about, you should be tracking the underemployment measure.”

Crampton said it was important that the Government Statistician not be seen to be making changes at the request of her political masters.

“They shouldn’t be under any pressure to redefine measures with a change of government.”

Absolutely.

This article by the former interim Chair of the DNC on how the Clinton campaign controlled it is astonishing. Read the full article. Some extracts:

I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.

Now this might be understandable if Clinton was the candidate, but look at the dates:

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

So Clinton had the DNC under her control from August 2015.

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

The interim Chair is using the word corruption. This is huge.

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.

How can you allow one candidate to control the staffing and strategy a year before the nomination is decided?

I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position, but here we were with only weeks before the election.

Cancer and corruption!

This revelation is going to have consequences.

The Herald reports:

Jacinda Ardern says she doesn’t support a new proposal by Ports of Auckland that would extend Bledisloe Wharf into the Waitemata Harbour.

Speaking after her first meeting as Prime Minister with Auckland Mayor Phil Goff, Ardern was asked about the port company’s draft 30-year masterplan for the 77ha of land it owns on the city’s doorstep.

“What I’m happy to say is that I have always opposed port expansion at its current site,” she said.

That was in reference to plans for a 13m piled concrete extension at the end of Bledisloe Wharf, which the company says is essential for a new berth and the success of the other wharf projects.

On this issue I agree with the PM.

NewstalkZB reports:

National wants the Iranian diplomat who delivered a “hate speech” against Jews at an Auckland mosque expelled from New Zealand.

Reports that Hormoz Ghahremani made the fiery anti-Israeli speech alongside Holocaust-deniers surfaced late last month.

Jewish community leaders and Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy reacted strongly, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said it had “conveyed its concerns” to the Iranian Embassy.

Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Gerry Brownlee says the diplomat made what was effectively a hate speech, and racial disharmony offences under the Human Rights Act are quite clear.

“It raises questions as to why Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters hasn’t already required the withdrawal of the diplomat’s credentials and his removal from the country,” he said on Friday.

“Diplomats have a privileged position in most societies, allowing them to best represent the relationship between the country they’re from and the country they’re posted to.

“Inciting racial tension by making anti-Semitic statements is the antithesis of that important role, regardless of the context or setting in which the comments were made.”

The diplomat’s only defence seems to be he didn’t realise his speech would be put on the Internet. It was meant to be secret hate speech, nit public hate speech.

Diplomats are meant to be, well, diplomatic. Making fiery speeches alongside holocaust deniers calling for the destruction of another country is incompatible with that role. And it has real world consequences in terms of radicalisation towards jihad.

CNN reports:

 Air New Zealand gets regular kudos for innovating everything from in-flight services to safety videos, its funky films featuring Hobbits and other famous Kiwis.

And now, for the fifth consecutive year, the carrier has come out on top in the annual Airline Excellence Awards, created by Australia-based aviation safety and product rating agency AirlineRatings.

Celebrating the best in the aviation industry — from budget operators to culinary champions — the awards named Air New Zealand as Airline of the Year for 2018.

“Air New Zealand came out number one — or equal first — in all of our audit criteria, which is an exceptional performance,” the AirlineRatings judging panel said.

The Herald reports:

The Government is giving assurances that industry-wide strikes will not be possible under its proposed Fair Pay Agreements, which would set minimum standards across entire industries.

The agreements represent a major change to the workplace and have been hailed by unions, but criticised by the National Party as taking industrial relations back to the 1970s.

Workplace Relations Minister Iain Lees-Galloway has assured businesses that the agreements – which could include pay rates, weekend rates, hours per week – would not allow workers to have industry-wide strikes.

“Business NZ was very concerned about industry-wide strike action, so there will be no mechanism for striking if you’re pursuing a Fair Pay Agreement.

 “The flipside is that if the parties can’t agree, there will need to be some form of arbitration to make a final decision.”

This is arguably worse than strikes. At least with strikes the employer still gets to decide whether to give in to the demands or not. What Labour is proposing is that the de facto national awards will be imposed on an industry against their will. Even if not a single employer agrees to the demands, the unions can then just go to a friendly arbitrator and get it imposed.

This is the most radical change in labour laws in a generation. The law is that all collective agreements must be agreed to by both employers and unions. This changes that – it means employers no longer need agree.

These changes are all about lining the pockets of unions, who can then increase their funding of the Labour Party.

Stuff reports:

Newly minted Defence and Veterans’ Affairs Minister Ron Mark threw the script out the window when he essentially promised the RSA government funding.

The NZ First deputy leader spoke to the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association (RSA) at the opening of its 101st National Council, following a speech by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

At the end of his speech, Mark said he was confident the Government would be able to provide funding to the RSA.

Mark said he reminded the Prime Minister in 2007, following a discussion between Winston Peters and RSA executives at the time in a Koru Lounge, the NZ First-Labour Government of the time agreed to appropriate funds to the RSA.

“I understand now from my briefings, that appropriation was terminated. I did remind the Prime Minister of that, and I’m pretty confident that there will be discussions a little bit later on, which you might like the outcome of.”

Mark made the comments following a literal stage whisper to the PM, during the RSA president’s speech, where Mark reminded Ardern of the former Labour-led Government’s promises that were never seen through.

So this is how Government now works. NZ First Ministers promise funding to organisations off the cuff during speeches, forcing Labour to them do it.

The announcement by Bill English is here.

I have to say I find it a bit underwhelming. Most former Ministers have kept their portfolios. Sure this means they can be up to speed straight away in opposition but there are missed opportunities.

I hope this is not seen as too long-term and that midway through 2018 there is a more substantive shake up.

I think law and order is going to be a huge area next year with Labour’s plan to repeal three strikes. I would have moved Simon Bridges into a law and order portfolio, considering his background as a former crown prosecutor.

A global survey in 77 countries was done on issues around same sex relationships. One question was on whether same sex relationships should be criminalised (as in NZ pre 1986). The net agreement by region was:

1. Central Asia +11%
2. Sub-Saharan Africa +9%
3. North Africa +8%
4. South Asia +3%
5. Middle East -7%
6. South-East Asia -11%
7. Caribbean -25%
8. East Asia -25%
9. Eastern Europe -30%
10. South America -39%
11. Western Europe -39%
12. Central America -40%
13. North America -44%
14. Oceania -48%

Rather proud Oceania is the area least likely to think adults should be made criminals for consensual sexual activity.

The NZ specific data in the survey was:

• Support equal rights for people attracted to same sex 59% agree, 15% disagree
• if neighbour is a lesbian, 77% accept or affirm, 8% try to change her
• if neighbour is gay, 78% accept of affirm, 7% try to change him
• 54% know a gay/lesbian person, 30% say they do not
• 15% think same sex relationships should be criminalised, 59% disagree
• 55% comfortable socialising with gay/lesbian people, 16% uncomfortable
• 38% know someone who is trans-gender

The Herald reports:

New Education Minister Chris Hipkins, in an interview with the Herald, says Primary schools will still have to report to parents on individual children’s progress against the eight levels of the curriculum, which most children cover during their 13 years at primary and secondary schools.

But National Standards, which set out levels of literacy and numeracy for Years 1 to 8, will be abolished and schools will be free to choose their own ways of assessing children’s progress.

So back to the days of school reports that don;’t actually tell you objectively how your kids are doing.

School Trustees Association Auckland chair Ebony-Rose Andrews said she unsure how she would know how well her two primary school-age daughters were doing without the standards.

“For me, National Standards have always been a good thing because we understand where our kids are tracking,” she said.

It is more important to Labour that schools are not judged by parents, rather than that parents know how their kids are doing.

Axing national standards may be unpopular with parents. A Herald poll when the standards were introduced in 2010 found that 73 per cent of parents with school-age children supported them.

Would be even more than that now.

Gwynn Compton has done this graph showing the turnout by age for 2014 and 2017. There was no big youthquake. Some increase with 25 to 29 year olds but also 70+ year olds.

The overall turnout was 79.0% which was a significant increase from 76.8% in 2014.  The lowest turnout group was 25 to 29 year olds at 67.6% and highest 65 to 69 year olds at 88.2%.

The turnout for those of Maori descent was 71.1% and 80.4% for everyone else.

But turnout stats only give part of the picture as not everyone enrols. We only have an estimate for the eligible population for each age group but this allows us to estimate the number of people who voted in each age group as a percentage of adults who could vote if they enrolled. The percentages are:

• All: 73.1%
• 18-24: 50.0%
• 25-29: 54.2%
• 30-34: 63.9%
• 45-39: 72.5%
• 40-44: 75.3%
• 45-49: 78.4%
• 50-54: 80.3%
• 55-59: 83.9%
• 60-64: 85.4%
• 65-69: 87.0%
• 70+: 85.2%

Politik reports:

What is thought to be a massive gas find — as big as the Maui field – off the east coast of the South Island is likely to test the pragmatism, of the new Government and the relationship between the Greens and Labour.

New Zealand Oil and Gas wants to start drilling in the Braque, field, 60 km off Oamaru, by April next year.

In an economic impact study released yesterday, the company claimed the field had the potential to generate $15 billion in GDP and $32 billion in royalties and taxes over its life and could  create up to 5,700 jobs annually during the construction phase.

The Greens will say that we must never drill anywhere for anything. NZ First will be keen to drill. So what will Labour do? Do you say no to that many jobs?

Stuff reports:

Abortion law reform advocates are keen on the new prime minister to act on her call to take abortion out of the Crimes Act as soon as possible.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern publicly stated that she didn’t believe abortion should be in the Crimes Act, as it is currently. But the issue doesn’t feature in Labour’s 100 day plan or official Health Policy.

Abortion is currently a crime if not approved of by two specifically certified medical consultants, who have to have to believe that carrying the child to term would endanger the physical or mental health of the mother, or the child is the result of incest, or the mother is “severely subnormal”, or the child is at risk of being “seriously handicapped”.

It will be interesting to see if she lives up to her rhetoric and moves on this.

Right to Life spokesman Ken Orr said in a statement that any moves to legalise or decriminalise abortion would be met with “fierce opposition.”

“She wrongly believes that the killing of our unborn children should not be a crime and that this killing should be a core health service. The proposed legislation will encourage further exploitation, coercion and abandonment of women, disguised all in the name of choice.”

He also criticised Ardern for living with a man who was not her husband.

LOL. This is so funny. Back to the 1950s we go.

Daniel Latter writes:

The numbers reported by recent studies are pretty bleak:

– 82 percent of articles published in the humanities are not even cited once.

– Of those articles that are cited, only 20 percent have actually been read.

– Half of academic papers are never read by anyone other than their authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors.

So how much money goes on research that is never read, let alone cited!

So what’s the reason for this madness? Why does the world continue to be subjected to just under 2 million academic journal articles each year?

Well, the main reason is money and job-security. The goal of all professors is to get tenure, and right now, tenure continues to be awarded tenure based in part on how many peer-reviewed publications they have. Tenure committees treat these publications as evidence that the professor is able to conduct mature research.

This is global or US research. It would be interesting to analyse NZ produced research and see how much is and is not ever read or cited.

Stats NZ reports:

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent in the September 2017 quarter, down from 4.8 percent in the June 2017 quarter, Stats NZ said today. 

There’s a huge amount of good data in the HLFS. It includes:

• 56,000 more jobs in the quarter which is 4,300 net jobs created per week or 860 more jobs per working day or 108 net jobs created per working hour
• 104,000 more jobs than a year ago – 89,000 FT and 15,000 PT
• Unemployment down 0.3% from a year ago
• Labour force participation rate up from 70.1% to 71.1%
• Manufacturing jobs up 9,000 over the year
• Total hours worked up 4.5% (a key indicator for the economy)
• Our employment rate of 77.4% in 3rd highest in OECD.

So Labour, Greens and NZ First have been gifted this (as opposed to National in 2008 who were gifted a recession and the GFC). I can’t imagine their policies are going to lead to an economy where employers are creating 100,000 new net jobs a year.

Also on wages:

• Average FT earnings increase to $61,249 – up 2.5%
• Average hourly earnings increase to $30.51 – up 2.2%
• Average female earnings are 88% of male earnings, up from 87% a year ago

Newshub reports:

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark’s top advisor, Heather Simpson, has returned to advise the new Labour Government.

Ms Simpson has a three-decade working relationship with Ms Clark, working as chief of staff to the Labour Party before spending eight years advising Ms Clark at the UN.

Ms Simpson was given the moniker ‘H2’ to signify her proximity to H1 – Ms Clark.

Her return is seen as a sign of Labour’s move to strengthen its management team behind the scenes.

She is assisting with the staffing of minister’s offices and ‘reviewing the review’ of the campaign.

All the senior former Clark staffers are returning, to work for Jacinda and Grant (who used to work for them). It’s like the band is getting back together.

NewstalkZB reports:

The three strikes law is itself to be struck out.

Justice Minister Andrew Little said it has had no impact on making the country any safer.

That’s absolutely not true. Justice stats show that fewer people who get a first strike are committing second strikes, compared to before the three strikes law.

Little plans to start the three strikes repeal by the middle of next year.

I predict huge opposition to this.  If NZ First vote to repeal this, they’ll suffer for it.

Stuff reports:

The Government will end foreign buying of existing houses by classifying them all as “sensitive” under the Overseas Investment Act, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says.

This “clean solution” would effectively ban foreign speculators without affecting the TPP or most free trade agreements, Ardern said.

Anyone who was not either a citizen or resident of New Zealand would not be allowed to purchase existing homes.

It’s not quite as simple as that, but if this allows Labour to do a u-turn and support TPP, I’m in favour. They also could have used stamp duty to achieve their goals. I don’t care too much what mechanism they use, if it means we don’t walk away from TPP. I suspect Jane Kelsey is furious though.

Foreigners would still be able to buy land and develop housing on it for on-sale. Australians would have a special carve-out to still be able to buy homes – as Kiwis do in Australia.

So it doesn’t affect some foreigners, and foreigners can still buy up land – they just can’t buy an existing house. A bit daft as land is what is in short supply.

So don’t think this will impact house prices. The best estimate is only 3% of sales were to foreign taxpayers.

National’s finance spokesman Steven Joyce said the amendment wasn’t actually a ban and raised many questions.

“The first and strangest thing about Labour’s announcement is that it isn’t an actual ban. Putting houses through a sensitive land purchase criteria is definitely bureaucratic but does not constitute a ban on such sales,” Joyce said.

The current criteria for sensitive land sales requires the buyer be a resident, citizen, or get a special ministerial signoff.

“There are also all sorts of definitional questions. Is an apartment on the fourth floor of a building ‘sensitive land’? Is a two hectare property with two houses on it that’s being sold for development able to be sold to an international investor?” Joyce said.

The devil is in the detail. As I said I don’t think it will achieve anything much, but if it allows Labour to do a u-turn on TPP that is well and good.

It seems very clear that the truth is not being told over the funding of Labour’s intern scheme. Newsroom has more details:

Newly released documents have shed light on a troubled intern scheme linked to the Labour Party, with the party’s secretary telling electoral officials the scheme’s organiser “had not been forthcoming” in disclosing how it was funded. …

In response to a letter from the Electoral Commission, Labour Party general secretary Andrew Kirton asked for a meeting to discuss the “unusual and complex situation”, accompanied by Kensington Swan lawyer Hayden Wilson.

When you turn up with a lawyer, you know there are real issues!

The Electoral Commission’s notes of the July 5 meeting record Kirton as saying McCarten’s vision “appears to have been to create an independent entity supported by unions etc”.

The scheme was run by Labour Party staff and used the Labour Party name and logo. It was about as independent as the media in Belarus.

Kirton estimated McCarten had spent $104,000 on the intern scheme, with the funding believed to come from “a private funder who he has not disclosed.”

“Andrew believes that Mr McCarten would not have funded any of the costs himself. Andre [sic] and Hayden indicated that Mr McCarten has not been forthcoming…

So the General Secretary of the Labour Party is saying he does not believe Matt McCarten when McCarten says he paid for it all himself. This is staggering, especially as McCarten is the former Chief of Staff to two leaders.

“Andrew and Hayden’s view is that the costs incurred were by Matt. They have stepped in to honour the bills, but at law they have no obligation because Matt was responsible [and] had unilaterally entered into these agreements and had no authority to incur costs on behalf of the party.”

Two Labour Party staffers were working on the scheme. Advertisements appeared overseas promoting it all with the Labour name and logo.

The Electoral Commission then wrote to McCarten on July 10, asking him to provide information on who provided the funding for the campaign and the extent of Labour’s involvement.

After he did not respond to a July 17 deadline, the commission wrote to him again on July 19 saying it was considering whether to refer the issue to the police “given the amount of money involved and the seriousness of [the] allegation”.

Only the Police have the power to investigate fully. They can access bank accounts and determine who actually paid for what.

He told the Electoral Commission the campaign had been set up by “a few mates of mine” after Labour decided not to run an official internship programme, and he had agreed to personally cover or raise the costs for the scheme.

A few mates? Who? The four people involved with it were two Labour Party staffers, a member of their National Council and McCarten. Were there others?

In a follow-up letter on August 1, McCarten said Farrar and media had made “a series of assumptions that then lead to inaccurate conclusions”, and the scale of the project was far smaller than had been suggested.

There were no assumptions. It was all based on the actual documents McCarten drew up saying what it would cost.

He had spent $65,094 on the scheme “paid directly out of my personal bank accounts”, including nearly $37,000 on accommodation and food as well as over $10,000 on rental cars and vans.

I’m sorry but I am as skeptical as Andrew Kirton on this. Who happens to have a spare $65,000 sitting in their bank account to fund such a scheme. I know how much parliamentary staff are paid, and this is highly implausible.

McCarten said he was not working for Labour when he set the campaign up, and believed the interns would not have seen themselves as being part of the party’s national campaign.

This is also wrong. He started work on this back in March when he was employed by the Leader’s Office. And the interns absolutely saw themselves as part of Labour’s campaign – they cited Labour on their fundraising pages.

However, McCarten did not meet an August 17 deadline to hand over the information, with a follow-up email from the Electoral Commission on October 3 – nearly two months later – asking him to provide a timeframe for a response.

An Electoral Commission spokeswoman confirmed McCarten had still not provided it with the final donation figures, but there were no “legal obligations” yet.

“The next step is for candidates to file their return of election expenses and donations, and these are due on 23 January. The reason the Commission asked Mr McCarten to come back to us was to make sure the final figures were communicated to us and the candidates for their returns.”

It is not just the figures needed, but who the contributors were. The Electoral Commission needs to satisfy itself that McCarten did indeed fund this all himself, and no-one else contributed.

Asked why he had said he secured a private funder for the scheme, McCarten replied:

“Because I just felt like it really, to be honest – it was really kind of tongue-in-cheek between myself and [the reporter]…I meant it more as a joke, but of course there’s no jokes in these matters.”

This is why this must be investigated by someone who can get to the bottom of it. McCarten has made contradictory statements on who funded this. It would be naive to not try to establish the facts.

Stuff reports:

While the biggest news of the day is the indictments Robert Mueller has handed down against former President Donald Trump aides Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, he also released a plea bargain with a heretofore minor figure in the Russia scandal by the name of George Papadopoulos. And that could actually be the day’s biggest news.

That’s because while Manafort and Gates sure look like they’re going to jail, as of yet they aren’t cooperating with Mueller’s investigation. Papadopoulos is, which means that he likely has information that will lead Mueller closer to the heart of the case.

The Manafort indictment is no surprise. He has been dodgy for a long time and is a well known lobbyist for Russian interests. In fact one wag suggested he was in line to be Chief of Staff to Winston Peters considering Winston’s strange insistence that we pursue an FTA with Russia and Belarus.

Papadopoulos has agreed to plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russians. Specifically, he falsely claimed that they had occurred before he joined the campaign in March 2016. He had communication with a professor who had contacts in the Russian government; this professor told him that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails”. The professor introduced him to a female Russian national who was supposedly Vladimir Putin’s niece (it turned out she wasn’t), and to someone who supposedly had connections in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). Based on those conversations, Papadopoulos pressed the campaign to set up meetings with the Russians, a suggestion that never came to fruition.

So Russia was offering the e-mails. The question is whether anyone on the Trump campaign responded to them.

So what does this have to do with the larger case? I spoke this morning with Barbara McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan law school who is a former US Attorney and has worked extensively in criminal and national security cases. I asked: If Papadopoulos was just some low-level nobody tossing around ideas that were rejected by the campaign’s higher-ups, why would Mueller offer him a plea deal that is contingent on his cooperation? Doesn’t that suggest that he has information that can be used to build a case against someone more important than him?

“I think it’s a fair conclusion to think that he has information that is valuable in the prosecution of others,” McQuade says. “You would only offer that cooperation if you’ve sat down with him and learned that he has information that is of value.”

Going to get interesting. Sacking the FBI Director will turn out to be the stupidest thing Trump ever did, as this led to the Independent Counsel.

The Herald reports:

Political science lecturer and commentator Jon Johansson is the new chief of staff for New Zealand First.

Johansson is a key appointment following New Zealand First’s decision to sign a coalition agreement with Labour.

He replaces David Broome, who previously worked for Federated Farmers.

Winston Peters announced Johansson’s appointment as the party’s chief of staff at Parliament today.

 Johansson is a senior lecturer in comparative politics at the School of History, Philosophy, Political Science & International Relations at Victoria University of Wellington. His specialties include New Zealand and American politics, and political leadership.

It is rare for a political scientist/academic to take up a staff role in politics. It will be interesting to see how it goes.