I’ve often said that any progress on greenhouse gas emissions has to include the ten largest emitters, and especially China and the US who are responsible for 40% of global emissions.

Hence the recent agreement between Obama and Xi is significant. Obama has said the US will reduce its 2025 emissions to 28% below its 2005 level. Xi has said China will peak its emissions by 2030.

The agreement is not legally binding, and Obama has only two years left in office. But it provides an opportunity for a global agreement, which will include all the major emitters.

However setting a date for China to peak is not the same as setting a level at which they may peak. The US has agreed to a cut of 2 gigatons by 2025, while China is forecast to increase by 8 gigatons. And China’s per capita emissions are already higher than the EU.

Stuff reports:

King believed the problems stemmed from underfunding, saying it had been six years since the board’s funding formula was altered. “I think the chronic problems are coming back to being underfunded by the Government. They [the health board] are trying to do what they can and it’s leading to what I think is a dangerous situation for the patients.”

The funding formula needed to take into account factors such as the huge area the health board covered, its ageing population and the high rates of bowel cancer in the south, King said.

“The formula isn’t taking account of these things, they need to review the formula.”

So is the Southern DHB under-funded compared to when Labour was Government?

In 2008 the Otago and Southland DHBs had a combined income of $741 million.

In 2013 the Southern DHB had income of $850 million – a 15% increase. This is a greater increase than inflation of 11% during this time.

Stuff reports:

As re-captured killer and paedophile Phillip Smith faces an ignominious return to jail, it can be revealed that he was convicted of defrauding the taxpayer of almost $50,000 from behind bars.

Meanwhile, it has been discovered Smith rorted the tax credit system by fraudulently claiming Working for Families credits, income tax and student loan refunds while behind bars.

Inland Revenue confirmed yesterday it successfully prosecuted Smith in July 2012 on 12 charges of obtaining by deception, involving $47,565. Smith was sentenced to 15 months in prison and ordered to pay reparation of $50 a week.

It staggers me that Corrections approved him for temporary release, when he had been convicted of offending just two years ago.

Up until the day before the Inca Trail, I just assumed that I was part of a large group doing the trail. But is turned out I was wrong, so I was a bit embarrassed that there was just me, a guide, a chef and four porters! The chef is on the right, and the porters on either side of me.

Basically you need the same number of support staff whether it is one person or half a dozen, as the weight is with the tents, the cooking gear and the food.

This is the view from the campsite.

Some pigs looking for food.

And some new born chicks.

Then it was time to get going up the hill.

The track was not too steep at first.

Around 80% of the trail is the original Inca Trail, built around 800 years ago.

d

The morning has a vertical ascent of 1,200 metres from 3,000 to 4,200 metres. The first 800 metres is a combination of uphill and flat but the last 400 metres is just pure uphill – and almost all steps.

One can see Dead Woman’s Pass at the top.

Looking back down you can see the 1,200 metres ascended.

Very happy to have made the pass. Normally take around four and a half hours to do, but I did it in around two and three quarter hours.

The view down the other side. You then descend 600 metres to Pacamayo campsite.

Had lunch at Pacamayo. The meals were better than in most restaurants!

Normally one stays the night here, but the porters suggested to the guide that as I was trekking so fast, that we could attempt to do the four day trek in 3 days. As that would get me back to the SO a day earlier, I was keen to try this.

However did have a quick siesta after lunch.

Then after lunch it was another 400 metre climb to the second pass.

One can see the lunch campsite below.

The steps are very uneven and can be challenging to go up, and even more so down.

Near the top, a small lake, where deer sometimes drink,

Then we got to the second pass, which you can see below me. Pretty tired as by this stage have done a total of 1,600 vertical metres ascent.

Then another 400 metres descent down the other side.

The steps going down, around 800 years old.

This is Sayacmarca, which means ‘Inaccessible Town’.

Then a relatively easy 150 metres climb up to where we camped for the night.

And these alpacas were happily grazing outside my tent.

This polling graphic from the Daily Mail shows how unpopular Ed Miliband is compared to other leaders just before an election.

The Conservatives should lose the election, as they trail in the polls. But there is a widespread belief that Miliband is unelectable.

Of interest is that the UK Labour Party use much the same method to elect their leader as the NZ Labour Party. Miliband has little support from his caucus, but won the union vote.

The final part of the Latin America trip was doing the Inca Trail in Peru. It is a 46 km long route that goes over three mountain passes. This is the start a little way past Ollantaytambo. The elevation here is 2,600 metres.

The track is initially quite flat.

The Vilcanota River which goes through the entire valley.

Then heading into the mountains, to be surrounded by the Andes.

A flowering cactus.

This is Patallaqta, a former Inca settlement which was destroyed by the Incas as they fought the Spanish. Because of this the Spanish never went more deeply into the mountains, and never discovered the other sites there.

These are the Willkaraqay ruins, which is a former hill fort and shrine.

A very tall and lonely tree on the trail.

We climbed around 400 metres on the first day to 3,000 metres above sea level. The neighbouring peaks have a fair amount of snow.

This is the tent I was sleeping in. We camped at Wayllapampa, which means grassy plain. It was my first time sleeping in a tent on a tramp for many years!

Crashed early as had to be up at 5.30 am the next morning for the longest day of the trek.

Pew has divided up US voters into eight types. You can do their quiz to see which type you are. The types are:

• Solid Liberals –
• Faith and Family Left
• Next Generation Left
• Hard-Pressed Skeptics
• Young Outsiders
• Business Conservatives
• Steadfast Conservatives
• Bystanders

When it comes to the mid-terms, the groups most likely to vote are the Business Conservatives, Steadfast Conservatives and Solid Liberals. Hence Republicans are likely to do better as the first two groups vote Republican 88% and the last one is 88% Democrat.

I’m classified as a business conservative:

Business Conservatives generally are traditional small-government Republicans. Overwhelming percentages think that government is almost always wasteful and it does too much better left to businesses and individuals. Business Conservatives differ from Steadfast Conservatives in their positive attitudes toward business and in their strong support for Wall Street in particular. Most think that immigrants strengthen the country and take a positive view of U.S. global involvement. As a group, they are less socially conservative than Steadfast Conservatives.

Would be interesting to be able to divide NZ into political types. You need a lot of data to be able to do it well.

Brian Edwards writes:

Iain Lees-Galloway has taken over responsibility for the ‘End of Life Choice Bill’  after its sponsor, Maryan Street, failed to get elected in September. Lees-Galloway is apparently gauging support before deciding whether to put the Bill back on the private members’ bill ballot. It was removed last year under pressure from the Labour leadership who, according to the Herald, “were concerned it could be an election-year distraction or that it could deter conservative voters”. The new Labour leader, whoever that is, could apparently have the deciding voice on the voluntary euthanasia question.

So what did the contenders for that position have to say?

Well, Nanaia Manuta was in favour of reintroducing the bill  because it would show “that Labour would stand up for those difficult conversations that need to be had”.

I thought that was a pretty principled position to take.

Yep.

David Parker, who voted against legalising voluntary euthanasia in 2003, didn’t want to comment till he’d talked to Lees-Galloway.

Non-committal and therefore less satisfactory perhaps.

Grant Robertson and Andrew Little both support voluntary euthanasia, but neither considered it a priority at the moment. The fairly clear subtext of their replies was that it was a vote-loser and that a party that had polled 25% in September couldn’t afford to be seen supporting unpopular policies.

I’d call that unprincipled.    

So are Grant and Andrew saying they would not have supported same sex marriage going to a vote if it was less popular?

There are precedents galore for this sort of thinking of course, for the abandonment of principle, of forward-thinking, enlightened or socially responsible policies and platforms because they’re unlikely to win or more likely to lose your party votes. Leadership gives way to “followship”.

It’s a depressing view not only of our politicians but also of us, the voters. Are we really so selfish, so venal, so incapable of persuasion that the towel has to be thrown in before the contestants are even in the ring? Have we no admiration for those who stand up for their principles against the seeming odds?

I say “seeming” odds, because the odds can never be totally accurately predicted. But, with the exception of Nanaia Mahuta, these prospective Labour Leaders are betting on the electorate not being motivated by anything other than unprincipled self-interest. That’s pretty bloody offensive really and were I a member of the Labour Party, which I’m not, I wouldn’t vote for anyone who thought so little of me.

Harsh words, but true.

Judy and I worked for Helen Clark from June 1996 to November 2008. She made mistakes of course but she was willing to espouse unpopular policies when she thought it was the right thing to do. In the process she took a lot of flak, but the sky didn’t fall in. She still got 3 terms. She wasn’t always loved, but she was greatly admired and respected.

With the exception of Nanaia Mahuta I’m not finding much to admire or respect in this lot. Their core philosophy appears to have everything to do with giving the punters what (they think) they want, and tossing out anything that doesn’t satisfy that principle.

There seems to be no excitement at all over who will win the leadership contest – unlike last time, when there was genuine excitement and interest.

The Republicans have a confirmed seven seat pick up to give them 52 seats and are well placed to get Alaska and Louisiana also. If they do it will be the best mid-term gain for the Republicans since 1958.

In Alaska the Republican candidate is 8,000 votes ahead with 50,000 to be counted.

There is a run off in Louisiana but they have a system where there are no primaries so there were multiple Republican candidates. The Democratic candidate got 42%, and the next two candidates were Republicans on 41% and 14% so I expect a win there also.

In the House the Republicans so far have a net gain of 12 seats with seven undecided. They have a chance of a pick up in five of those seats and if they get just one of them, it will be their largest majority if the House since 1928. That gives you an idea of how huge a victory this turned out to be.

The Press editorial:

Air New Zealand’s announcement this week that it will next year end services to Westport, Kaitaia and Whakatane will be a blow to those places. All three are small towns. Whakatane has a population of 15,000, Kaitaia 5000 and Westport 4000. Serving towns of that size in a financially sustainable way is difficult anywhere in the world. Air NZ says it has been losing money on the fleet it has serving those towns. But an air service can be considered nowadays to be as essential as roads and should be judged by more than purely financial criteria.

Why?

It is an easy assertion to make but what is the rational case for saying a town of 4,000 people must have air access?

Do all towns in Australia with 4,000 population have air access?

The airline has often been under pressure about its regional services. An University of Auckland study of air services in similar-sized countries to New Zealand last year found that Air NZ had the most coverage of centres with populations of 20,000 or more and the cheapest fares.

Air services should be on a user pays basis. If enough people in a town are willing to pay enough for air service, then a company will provide it. But I see no case for a subsidy.

But an air service is an essential service nowadays. The Government spends billions providing roads and underwriting the railways. Support for air services, even if unprofitable, to places that need them would not be a big step further.

Roads are funded primarily by petrol tax, on a roughly user pays basis. No case has been made for taxpayers to subsidise air services to small towns.

Doctor Jonathan Gruber an economist who was one of Obamacare’s architects has been outed for making controversial remarks about the planning and writing of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Washington Post reports:

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO [Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes,” he said during a panel discussion at the University of Pennsylvania in October, 2013. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the ‘stupidity of the American voter’ or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”

Gruber’s comments were part of a broader public conversation between him and economist Mark Pauly on the economics of health care reform. Gruber was responding to a remark by Pauly about financing transparency in the law and the politics surrounding the ACA’s individual mandate. The political process, he said, striking a critical tone, resulted in inefficiencies in the law which should be corrected.

“In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which explicitly said that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed,” he said. “You can’t do it politically, you just literally cannot do it. It’s not only transparent financing but also transparent spending.”

These remarks are frankly stupid and ill-conceived and have fired up Republicans even more to repeal the ACA. Also to openly admit that there was an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the non-partisan CBO is a particularly odd and damaging admission.

With King vs Burwell also due to be heard by SCOTUS in early 2015 the ACA is going to continue to be critically analysed by both the media and political opponents.

The Washington Post is also reporting on what the GOP will do next in light of Dr Gruber’s remarks.

On the other side of the Capitol, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who is slated to become chairman of the powerful Senate budget committee, also threw his support behind possible hearings. In a furious gaggle with reporters, Sessions said Gruber’s comments could make dealings with the White House more difficult, days after Republican leaders said they would seek areas of common ground.

“The strategy was to hide the truth from the American people,” Sessions said. “I’m not into this post-modern world where you can say whatever you want to in order to achieve your agenda. That is a threat to the American republic… This is far deeper and more significant than the fact that he just spoke.”

Other Senate Republicans expressed similar discomfort with Gruber, but warned conservatives to not get their hopes up about repealing the health-care law while President Obama remains in office, underscoring the tonal difference between the more rabble-rousing House GOP and the new and more even-tempered Republican Senate majority.

Heading into a party luncheon on Wednesday, retiring Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said the health care law “is going to still be there regardless because we don’t have the votes” to undo it.

So yet again there is a split between the conservatives and the moderates in the Republican Party on what is the best strategy to try to get rid the ACA.

[UPDATE 14-11-14 • 10.30am]

Jake Tapper over at CNN is reporting that a fourth video with Dr Gruber talking about the ACA as emerged, he also reports on this response  from Josh Earnest, President Obama’s Press Secretary.

Asked about Gruber’s comments from a 2013 University of Pennsylvania panel in which the economist said “a lack of transparency was a huge political advantage for the President…” in selling the bill to the American people, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said “the process associated with writing and passing and implementing the Affordable Care Act has been extraordinarily transparent.”

Earnest insisted “it is Republicans who have been less than forthright and transparent about what their proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act would do in terms of the choices that are available to middle-class families. I know there is at least one very prominent Republican who campaigned for reelection saying that he would repeal the Affordable Care Act, but yet keep in place the Affordable Care Act marketplace that has operated very successfully in his state.”

Asked about Gruber’s reference to the “stupidity of the American voter,” Earnest said, “I disagree vigorously with that assessment.”

Earnest’s comments about Republicans are a valid criticism, they’re trying to have it both ways by not actually stating what their alternatives are.

Also Bloomberg are reporting Nancy Pelosi’s comments at a press conference that she doesn’t know who Gruber is despite evidence that appears to disprove her assertions.

Did a full day bus tour to the Sacred Valley of the Incas, or Urubamba Valley. Our guide very honestly told us that no one visited it when it was just called Urubamba Valley, so they renamed it Sacred Valley of the Incas and they ow get over 100,000 visitora a year through it 🙂

On the way out of Cusco we noticed the riot police near out hotel. It seems a demonstration was planned for later that day and they sometimes get out of hand.

A view of the valley as we get close.

An Inca agricultural terrace. These were used to grow potatoes and corn. The valley is very well suited for corn, and it grows very large there.

A couple of birds at our lunch stop.

The view from part of the way up the temple at Ollantaytambo.

Note again the great architecture with each stone fitting the ones around it. Also they use male and female grooves to make them an even tighter fit.

Some of these blocks weigh 80 tonnes or so and required 1,600 people to drag them up a 8 degree slope to the top of the temple.

Me at the top.

The following day went to a free (as part of your tour tickets) performance at a theatre demonstrating Peruvian costumes and songs.

The show lasts a bit over an hour and is very entertaining.

Stuff reports:

Escaped prisoner Phillip John Smith has been taken into custody by Brazil Federal Police, NZ Police Commissioner Mike Bush has confirmed.

A New Zealand Police liaison officer in Brazil visited Smith after his arrest and confirmed his identity.

Smith was due to appear in court at 7am in relation to an Interpol Red Notice and the New Zealand arrest warrant.

Bush confirmed Smith was located at a hostel in the Rio de Janeiro suburb of Santa Teresa, Brazil about 2am (NZ time).

He was now in the custody of Brazil Federal Police. 

That is welcome news. All his planning seems to have achieved little except probably getting him back behind bars for longer.

Police would work with the Brazil authorities, Interpol and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in order to make the necessary arrangements to return Smith to New Zealand.

There is no extradition treaty with Brazil but somehow I don’t think they will be keen to have a convicted murderer and paedophile remain in Brazil when they can return him to NZ.

The Herald reports:

Labour’s housing spokesman Phil Twyford has raised concerns about anti-competitive building industry practices after the world’s second biggest wallboard maker said it was reviewing its structure in New Zealand. …

Twyford said building materials competition was essential to lowering costs and he urged the Commerce Commission to release the findings of its investigation into the wallboard market, first announced in August last year.

But Nick Smith, Building and Construction Minister, said while wallboard market dominance was being investigated, politicians needed to stay out of it.

“It’s well-established that ministers or MPs shouldn’t be interfering in the independence of the commission,” Smith said.

But good to see a Labour MP talking up the merits of competition to lower costs.

First full day in Cusco, we did a half day city tour. Cusco is the former capital of the Inca Empire and this building was almost opposite out hotel.

The architecture is amazing. They fitted the blocks together perfectly.

A painting showing the Milky Way Galaxy as a llama.

The grounds of Qoricancha.

Then went out of town a short way to Sacsayhuaman.

Some tourists using the local rocks as a slide!

The ruins stretch over a large area.

And go underground.

The Cusco Catholic Cathedral. It is actually three churches in one, and as usual the interior is an amazing sight of gold and pictures.

The fountain in the Plaza de Armas.

Another shot of the Plaza de Armas. IS surrounded by tourist attractions and also some excellent restaurants.

Qoricancha from the front.

A typical side street in Cusco.

A huge collection of melted candles at the Inka Grill.

Previously I assessed the chances of Jeb Bush if he runs for the presidency. This post assesses another front runner on the GOP side.

Scott Walker again thwarted and frustrated his foes the Democrats and the big unions in the Wisconsin Gubernatorial race last week. As has been widely reported in the US media this is his third win in 4 years. The Weekly Standard analyses his performance as Governor and ponders what if he makes a run for the White House in 2016.

Some of Walker’s opponents have tried to console themselves with the belief that he triumphed simply because Republicans win low-turnout midterm elections, while Democrats win high-turnout presidential elections. “President Obama went into Milwaukee” and “did all he could do,” a distraught MSNBC host Ed Schultz said on election night. “He went to the base. This was a base election. He just apparently didn’t get out enough people.”

But in reality, the election didn’t come down to turnout. Walker could have survived 100 percent turnout in the liberal bastions of Milwaukee County and Dane County (which includes Madison, the capital and home to the state’s flagship university). Burke could have netted the same number of votes in Milwaukee and Dane counties as President Obama, but if everything else had stayed the same, Walker still would have won.

Walker’s victory was broad-based. Independents backed him by 10 points, and the racial composition of 2014 voters (88 percent white and 6 percent black) wasn’t that different from the electorate that showed up for the 2012 presidential contest (86 percent white, 7 percent black), when Obama won the state by 7 points.

Having broad-based appeal is clearly important in a presidential campaign. Furthermore being able to win in purple state is also an considerable achievement but he would need to spread his strong ground game nationwide.

Whether Walker can translate his middle-class appeal into a successful presidential campaign remains to be seen. He’ll be able to run for the Republican nomination as someone who can be trusted to govern as conservatively as possible, but no further than what’s possible. Walker was the only governor in a blue or purple state, besides Maine’s Paul LePage, who opposed Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. But Walker never took on any kamikaze missions, and he criticized the 2013 government shutdown. His pragmatism, as well as education reforms that included ending teacher tenure and expanding school choice, could help him appeal to moderate Republicans.

Walker will, of course, face plenty of challenges if he seeks the nomination. In a crowded field of impressive speakers, Walker will have to overcome the perception that he lacks charisma. He will also need to do more than simply point to his record in Wisconsin—he must develop a serious national economic agenda and show that despite his lack of experience in world affairs he has a clear foreign policy.

In Walker’s favour he can argue that he is battle hardened  and has executive experience at the Gubernatorial level which is vital. But being able to transform himself into a national political figure is another ballgame altogether and foreign policy is currently inordinately complex and difficult to manage as both George W. Bush and Barack Obama both found out.

Next week: Hillary Clinton.

The Herald reports:

US President Barack Obama has embraced a radical change in how the government treats Internet service, coming down on the side of consumer activists who fear slower download speeds and higher costs but angering Republicans and the nation’s cable giants who say the plan would kill jobs.

Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to more heavily regulate Internet providers and treat broadband much as it would any other public utility. He said the FCC should explicitly prohibit Internet providers like Verizon and AT&T from charging data hogs like Netflix extra to move their content more quickly. The announcement sent cable stocks tumbling.

The FCC, an independent regulatory body led by political appointees, is nearing a decision on whether broadband providers should be allowed to cut deals with the content providers but is stumbling over the legal complexities.

“We are stunned the president would abandon the longstanding, bipartisan policy of lightly regulating the Internet and calling for extreme” regulation, said Michael Powell, president and CEO of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the primary lobbying arm of the cable industry, which supplies much of the nation’s Internet access.

This “tectonic shift in national policy, should it be adopted, would create devastating results,” Powell added.

Netflix swung behind Obama, posting to its Facebook page that “consumers should pick winners and losers on the Internet, not broadband gatekeepers.”

“Net neutrality” is the idea that Internet service providers shouldn’t block, slow or manipulate data moving across its networks. As long as content isn’t against the law, such as child pornography or pirated music, a file or video posted on one site will load generally at the same speed as a similarly sized file or video on another site.

This will be interesting to see how it resolves. I back the principle that ISPs should not deliver some content to customers slower, unless the content host pays a surcharge.  But the Government should only intervene if there is a serious problem that the market doesn’t solve. The best solution is to have a competitive access market, so that if an access provider tries to charge more to speed up content, customers go elsewhere.

Stuff reports:

The manipulative killer on the run in South America is now playing mind games through his New Zealand lawyer, police believe.

Phillip John Smith, 40, who fled the country while on temporary release from Springhill prison in Waikato, has contacted human rights lawyer Tony Ellis by email from Brazil saying he wants to make a media statement tomorrow, and telling his victims not to be concerned about their safety.

He was sending encrypted emails so his location could not be identified, Ellis said.

Authorities in Chile say Smith never entered that country after flying from Auckland to Santiago on Thursday. He took another plane to Sao Paulo, and then to Rio de Janeiro.

There are several inquiries underway, but to say the least, it it totally unacceptable that Smith managed to get a passport and leave NZ. Also the decision to give him temporary release looks a very bad one, albeit with hindsight.

Also Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key has apologised unreservedly to the family of Phillip Smith’s victims for his flippant comments yesterday.

And he announced overnight the government was also considering if a ministerial inquiry should be held into how Smith was able to flee the country.

Key had talked on Monday about fugitive killer Smith having “done a runner” and had said he would tell Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, whose country Smith was thought to be in: “I’ll just let her know that someone could be out there from New Zealand she may not want to invite round for lunch.”

An insensitive joke.

The family of the man the escaped killer had killed and the boy he had abused said they were revolted by Key’s joke and disgusted that he laughed about it.

Speaking to reporters at the Apec summit in Beijing, Key said he was sorry.

“Obviously it was a very poorly placed attempt at humour and I regret that and I unreservedly apologise.”

“I just misinterpreted the question,” he said.

He said he “absolutely” apologised to the family. They deserved a personal apology from him, and if they wanted one, “I am more than happy to give that to them.”

When you stuff up, apologise.

The Herald reported:

Labour’s leadership contest has turned into a showdown on the party’s capital gains tax policy, with Andrew Little and David Parker at loggerheads over its future.

At the first of three hustings meetings in the critical Auckland region yesterday, Mr Little was stronger than before in condemning the policy, while Mr Parker shifted to more strongly defend it.

Mr Little told the audience of about 300 party members that Labour had now lost support in three successive elections – something that had never happened before.

Been a long time since any major party lost support in opposition two terms in a row.

He said there were a number of reasons for that but two policies stuck out – lifting the retirement age and capital gains tax.

“There are at least two policies I know for a fact have caused people not only to not vote for us but to turn us off completely.”

He said the party and caucus had championed those policies. “But the conclusion I’ve come to now is that those two policies alone are enough to stop people even considering what we have to say any more.”

The tax was aimed at property speculators, but Mr Little said it also impacted on those who had scrimped and saved to buy a second property which they considered their retirement savings.

Mr Parker, the architect of both policies, said it remained the best way to ensure an equitable tax system.

“Currently, our system is rigged and it’s rigged to favour speculation, not investment in jobs. We reward speculation and we punish work. If the capital gains tax is not the answer, then what is?”

People don’t like the Capital Gains Tax because it is an extra tax which will punish families and businesses by up to $5 billion a year when fully implemented, according to their former leader.

But if Labour were smart, they’d stick with a policy for a CGT, but announce they’d give families and businesses reductions in income and company tax to match the increased revenue they’d pay overall with a CGT.

It can be sensible to broaden the tax base – but not to increase the tax take by new taxes. If you want to increase the tax take, then you should concentrate on having a growing economy, rather than new taxes.

The Herald reports:

Sir Owen Glenn’s family violence inquiry has stumbled again, producing a $7 billion estimated cost of family violence based on the mis-reading of a key research paper.

A report by economist Suzanne Snively and Wellington theatre student Sherilee Kahui, published by the inquiry yesterday, said family violence cost New Zealand between $4.1 billion and $7 billion a year – up from Ms Snively’s last estimate in 1994 of just $1 billion.

But the higher figure of $7 billion was based on a claim that 23.6 per cent of women born in Christchurch in 1977 suffered intimate partner violence in the year leading up to interviews when they were 25 in about 2002.

That figure in the original paper published in 2005 by the Christchurch Health and Development Study actually refers to the number of men as well as women who scored 3 or 4 points on a violence victimisation scale for intimate partner violence.

Two-thirds of people in the study scored below 3 points and 9.4 per cent scored above 4 points.

Those scoring 3 or 4 points were described in the original paper as “predominantly a group of individuals reporting frequent minor psychological aggression and occasionally severe psychological aggression”, but “none reported any of the signs of severe domestic violence [injury or fearfulness]”.

So that would mean the estimate is around three times as large as it should be.

NZ does have a woeful record with domestic violence. I have a particular loathing for it. But reports that use such inflated figures probably damage the cause they are trying to assist with.

Personally I’m not very interested in the economic cost of domestic violence. It is the personal cost to those involved which is terrible.

Kiwi in America recently referred to Jim Anderton’s claim that Labour had 100,000 members when he was President.

A former Labour Party parliamentary staffer writes:

I note you picked up on Jim Anderton – re  NZLP’s 100,000 membership claim.

 I don’t believe that the party ever got to 100,000 but probably well over 50,000 in the late 1970s.

History:  In 1976 the NZLP had about 10-15,000 members as best as I could ascertain.   Electorates were controlled by fiefdoms.  The party urgently needed an infusion of members, talent and money.   I knew the NP had 200,000 members at its peak in the late 1940s. 

I suggested a target of 100,000 members by same time in 1977.   Bill was quite taken with the idea and I recollect him discussing it with Bob Tizard and Warren Freer and others.  Part of the logic was to give party members something ambitious to do instead of changing the constitution which they were prone to. 

As I recollect it was the big headline to come out of the conference and Bill was frequently asked over the following year or so how was the party getting along.

Today they appear to have under 10,000 members. Only 5,000 voted in the last leadership election.