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.

NewstalkZB reports:

Jim Bolger is warning voters off making their vote based on personality.

The former Prime Minister said people shouldn’t be looking for the most exciting candidate as they cast their vote this week.

He told Rachel Smalley voters need to look at policies, and the big picture.

“Personality doesn’t feed your children or keep the rivers clean, personality doesn’t make the country safe, it requires sound leadership strong intellect and the right policies.”

Bolger believes urban politicians need to stop blaming farmers for all the world’s woes.

Hundreds of farmers gathered in Labour leader Jacinda Ardern’s home town of Morrinsville yesterday over the party’s proposed tax on water.

Many of the protesters claim urban politicians are out of touch with rural communities.

Bolger told Rachel Smalley he’s worried about the growing urban-rural divide.

“If we think the rivers are not clean enough, we blame the farmers, if the sky is not clean, blame the farmers, I mean I think we’ve got to have a much more mature approach.”

Labour’s water tax only targets rural and provincial NZ, and is a nasty peice of scapegoating.

When Labour repeat their lies about National having cut health funding, it is worth reflecting on the significant increase in doctors and nurses employed by DHBs.

This advertisement has appeared as a full page advert in the five largest newspapers around donations, funded 100% by members and supporters of the Taxpayers Union.

You can help it appear to more and more people online, by donating here. Not only will ever dollar you donate go 100% towards buying more impressions for the advertisement, a generous donor has agreed to match every donation dollar for dollar (up to $15,000).So if you donate $50 we can spend $100 more on advertising it. So far over $7,000 already pledged.

On average a $50 donation will see the bribe-o-meter page visited by a further 1,400 people. A real way to make a difference and remind voters that all these promised political parties are making, have to be funded by taxpayers.

Government in full swing to free up the movement of fuel to where it is needed, and minimise disruption to Kiwis and visitors.

Final election ad released.

Auckland fuel crisis exposes frailties of overseas investment.

According to our budget released today, we will pay down debt faster than Labour. (just don’t mention the extra $9.6 billion of budgeted taxes on kiwi households and businesses over the next three years.

National’s report card on health: Three more years of National would bring the same as the past nine – underfunded health services that are cracking under the strain.

Taxpayers’ Union figures show ACT is the only party that would cut government spending – all other parties are guilty of election bribing.

Reid Research Tāmaki Makaurau – Labour Party’s Peeni Henare (46%), Maori Party’s Shane Taurima (32.6%), Green Party’s Marama Davidson (21.4%).

Auckland fuel – who is to blame? 

Latest update as of 9am yesterday:

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 full-page spread of the cost of potential coalitions featured in newspapers across the country. See here. 

CNN reports:

But in an interview Monday with NPR’s Terry Gross, Clinton raised that critique up a notch — not only questioning the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency but refusing to rule out the possibility of contesting the results if Russian collusion is proven by special counsel Bob Mueller.

Here’s the full text of the back-and-forth, courtesy of CNN’s Dan Merica:

Gross: I want to get back to the question, would you completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election if we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now?

Clinton: No. I would not. I would say —

Richard Harman writes:

What has been revealing this election campaign has been how much English is now starting to look like his own man. 

He has spent nine years in the shadows behind John Key and since his own previous failed term as Leader he has tended to portray himself through a sort of awe shucks modesty.

That is going.

He’s proud of the way he has performed on the campaign, and he has surprised many of his own colleagues and supporters.

Nearly five weeks ago, at the start of the campaign, he was in Christchurch announcing Government funding for a new AMI stadium.

A number of Cabinet and party luminaries attended the announcement. His next stop was to be the Riccarton Mall, an idea that didn’t meet with much approval from the luminaries.

It was, said one, full of whingers who would give English a hard time.

They needn’t have worried. He dived into the mall, had endless selfies taken and engaged with children. He looked to be enjoying himself.

And over the weekend at a Rotorua amusement venue packed with families and children, we saw the same boyish enthusiasm which he seemed to get an equally enthusiastic response to.

I think Bill has been a great campaigner.  He has been energised by it, and hasn’t put a foot wrong.

One thing that is interesting is that he has been comfortable going to lots of places where few people will be National supporters, such as the Riccarton Mall. He’s gone to union dominated workplaces, to Labour strongholds such as Wainuiomata etc. He knows he will get challenged by some voters there, but he is happy to take real engagement.

This has been a contrast to the Labour campaign which seems to be mainly about Labour organised events or campus visits. Haven’t seen a lot of them in small towns or rural areas where there is a risk of challenge.

Newshub reports:

The Greens say they can meet all their policy promises and still run budget surpluses.

They’ve put all their election policies together in a single document and it’s been checked out by Infometrics, an independent economic consultant.

“Infometrics has found that the Green Party will run surpluses over the next three years, slightly smaller than those outlined in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU),” the party’s fiscal plan, released on Monday, says.

I’ve had a look through their fiscal plan. Yes it balance the books – by imposing around $9.6 billion of extra taxation on New Zealand households and businesses over the next three years.

As you can see most of the world is not back in surplus. They failed to get spending under control and their debt keeps growing. Some of them will never be able to balance their books again unless they print money.

New Zealand didn’t get back into surplus by luck. It was because we had a Government that had good judgement and guts. They managed to keep funding our valued public services, but keeping tight enough fiscal discipline overall to make it back into surplus.

Almost every single time National showed spending restraint, Labour attacked them for it.

Elections are about choices. I choose to trust a party that has shown an ability to make hard decisions for the greater good.

Stuff reports:

The president of the University of Canterbury’s (UC) queer students’ society says he was forced to resign after coming out as a National Party supporter.

Max Farra​, 20, stirred controversy when a Young Nats promotional social media post showing him pledging his support to the party was shared with QCanterbury members.

Many were concerned the post erroneously conveyed the group’s endorsement of the political party. The Young Nats refused QCanterbury’s requests to remove it.

A QCanterbury spokesperson said the club “wishes to avoid association with any political party and to remain unbiased”.

Who thinks that if he had facebooked his support for say Labour or the Greens, it would not be an issue?

Rather than wait for a special general meeting, he chose to have a “slightly more graceful exit”.

“It’s really disappointing,” he said. He had been president for three weeks and a society member since September 2016.

He said there had been a “really big call for me to resign” on a closed Facebook group.

“[They said] I was basically unfit for the job.

“This was completely unexpected, especially from someone like QCanterbury. The backlash was massive and I was not prepared for the intolerance and hate that followed.”

Rather ironic.

In a post on the Canterbury Westland Young Nats Facebook page, Farra is identified as QCanterbury’s leader.

“As an LGBT person, voting National is breaking a stereotype,” he is quoted as saying.

“I’m proud to be an out Nat because tolerance, free enterprise and a great economy means everyone can thrive.”

Sounds good to me.

Patrick Gower writes:

The desperation and fear in the Greens of not being returned to Parliament is clear with the release of a made-up ‘poll’ in Nelson.

The Greens have released the results of some phone canvassing which they’ve referred to as an “internal poll” that claims to show them ahead in Nelson.

As Gower says, the Greens must be panicking about possibly dipping below 5% and being out of Parliament.

It’s a set of numbers Green volunteers have gathered, with no way of checking them and media should be ashamed of reporting them as a “poll”.

It is not scientific, they have not released the raw data or methodology.

The Greens spin team have admitted this morning to me that it was in fact robo-calling rather than polling.

Robo-calling is that invasive and annoying method where an automated voice appears and there is no way of telling whether there is say, for instance, a child on the end of the line.

It is actually “fake news” from the Greens.

Again a desperate look.

A guest post by Michael Littlewood:

According to a report in the Herald on Friday (Labour backs off compulsory KiwiSaver accessible here), Labour is re-considering its KiwiSaver policy.  It wants to consult first before making it compulsory and auto-enrolment is now off the agenda though they still want to make it “universal”.  The subtlety of that distinction escapes me.  However, the whole issue would be looked at “…on a tripartite basis with business and unions…”.  Labour has also apparently “scaled back on plans to lift KiwiSaver [contribution] rates significantly.”  But Labour has yet to release a policy document on KiwiSaver – given the election is just six days away, there isn’t too much time left to do that.

I hope Labour’s policy document starts with some questions and looks for evidence as to what has happened with KiwiSaver so far.  In a recent report that Michael Chamberlain and I released on 27 July (www.alt-Review.com) we finished our section on KiwiSaver with a list of questions:

1. Is KiwiSaver working? We know that 2.8 million people have joined and that there is over $30 billion of savings, but is it working?  Subsidiary related questions include: are KiwiSaver members saving more for retirement than their non-KiwiSaver peers?  Are the total net financial assets of KiwiSaver members greater than the totals of non-KiwiSaver peers?  In other words, is so-called ‘behavioural economics’ working in the KiwiSaver environment?
2. Are New Zealanders saving enough for retirement whether or not they belong to KiwiSaver? If they are, that would undermine the case for ‘strengthening’ KiwiSaver.  If they are not that should direct what changes might be needed for KiwiSaver.
3. What effect has KiwiSaver had on housing ownership patterns and housing debt as between members and non-member peers?
4. What effect has KiwiSaver had on remuneration patterns as between employers with/without ‘total remuneration’ policies and as between employers with preferred KiwiSaver schemes and those without. What proportion of employers have a ‘total remuneration’ policy?  Has KiwiSaver affected that pattern?
5. What effect has KiwiSaver had on occupational superannuation schemes? What is the overall impact of KiwiSaver on workplace-related retirement saving schemes (including KiwiSaver)?
6. Who specifically benefits from the current tax subsidies to KiwiSaver (occupation types; remuneration bands; distribution by age, sex, work status etc.)?
7. What effect has KiwiSaver had on the financial services industry in the last ten years and who benefits? Should New Zealand be concerned about the aggregation of KiwiSaver savings in the hands of a small number of providers, mainly the major trading banks? Note: at 31 March 2016, the trading banks had 69% of all KiwiSaver members and 71% of total assets in all KiwiSaver schemes.

Questions 1 and 2 cannot be answered without a proper longitudinal study of household assets, liabilities and incomes – we talked about that in our report here.  We urge the government, whoever wins the election, to find out what’s happening at a household level before bowing to pressure from the owners of KiwiSaver schemes to increase contribution levels or even to make KiwiSaver compulsory.  It just may not be necessary.

The data is from the Reserve Bank. It shows average effective mortgage rates under Labour and National.

They’re now around 3% lower than they were under Labour. What sort of difference does that make?

The median house price is $540,000 so an 80% mortgage on that is $432,000.

If you have a 25 year mortgage, the difference between 5% and 8% is this:

• 5% = $582 a week
• 8% = $769 a week

So a family with a median mortgage is $187 a week better off.

And while Government policies are only one factor in interest rates, they definitely do contribute. The more inflationary the policies the higher interest rates go. The more spending there is, the higher interest rates go.