Nate Silver has written an interesting post giving 24 reasons why Trump could (not will) win. He is making the case it is not Kamala’s to lose, but hers to win, as so many factors favour Trump. His 24 are:

1. Electoral College bias favours Republicans
2. Inflation hit 9.1%
3. Voters perceive the economy as poor
4. Incumbents are doing badly globally
5. Populism works, ie is popular
6. Massive rise in in illegal immigration
7. Harrius has not explained her flip flops from 2019
8. Cultural vibes shift right as reaction against wokeness, crime, Covid-19 response
9. Voters think economy was better under Trump
10. Democrats have less dominance with racial and ethnic minorities
11. Young men feel lost and shifting right
12. Biden sought to be President until he was 86, neutering concerns over Trump’s age
13. Harris inherited Biden’s campaign staff
14. Undecideds may break against a female candidate
15. Trust in media continues to fall which makes it hard for legitimate critiques of Trump to get through
16. Trump is a con man, and is effective at convincing people he’s on their side
17. Democrats are university elite who have poor instincts for public appeal
18. Democrats rely too much on January 6, which was terrible, but ultimately not successful
19. World has been more unstable in the last four years
20. Israel-Hamas war has split the Democratic base
21. More left leaning third party candidates than right leaning
22. Elon Musk is campaigning for Trump
23. The assassination attempts on Trump help him
24. Harris is running on vibes, not a clear vision

An excellent and insightful list.

Richard Reeves at Politico writes:

Contrary to progressive belief, young men are not turning into a generation of misogynists. Support for gender equality continues to rise, including among men under 30. The problem seems more to be that many men simply don’t see much recognition of their issues, or even of their identity, on the political left.

If the Democrats are the “women’s party,” as one party strategist claimed, it might not be surprising that men are looking in another direction. The official party platform lists the groups it is proud to serve; women are listed but men are not. There is a new Gender Policy Council in the White House, but it has not addressed a single issue facing boys or men.

As I blogged in 2018, boys and men fare badly in numerous areas of education, health, and crime etc.

When problems are neglected, they metastasize into grievances. And grievances can be weaponized in service of reactionary goals. The solution, then, is almost comically simple: Don’t neglect the problems.

The mistake being made on both sides is to see gender equality as a zero-sum game; that to do more for boys and men means doing less on behalf of girls and women.

Absolutely. We should have a Minister for Men, just as we have a Minister for Women. That is because men and women do need different things from the health and education systems (and men are doing much worse in them).

The author proposes some policies for the US, including:

• Recruit More Male Teacher
• Flexible School Starting Ages
• Expand Career and Technical Education
• Promote Apprenticeships
• Support Community Colleges
• Establish a Male Suicide Prevention Task Force
• Create an Office of Men’s Health
• Cover Male Contraception
• Set Public Health Targets for Men
• Increase the Share of Male Mental Health Professionals
• Equal, Independent Paid Parental Leave
• Reform Family Law for Unmarried Fathers
• Introduce a Nonresident Parent Tax Credit

I’d love to see one or more NZ political parties go into the next election with a men’s policy.

A guest post by Sparticus Abundare:

Prompted by the 73 Oil shock, France built 62 Nuclear power stations from the mid 70s to the mid 90s. Now their CO2 emissions are half that of their neighbours and if it wasn’t for the distractions of all that cheese and wine they would be smoking it in an energy starved world. 

In the 50s 60s and 70s NZ built out a fantastic Hydroelectric power grid that’s done our country proud, It enables us to boast about our 85% renewables grid, and until recently provided us with cheap power for things like Aluminium smelters and Paper mills, Stuff that’s not Cows or Sheep or trees

Today the building out of the electricity grid is at least partially in the hands of the “private sector” Their brief is to ensure power generation sufficiency. The cheapest power is now wind and solar, there incentives are to maximise returns, not to build serious durable reliable power stations.

Renewables are cheap and can be built out like lego, but they are intermittent. They don’t work when the wind doesn’t wind or the sun doesn’t sun and they need replacing every 20-30 years. 

To extend Chris Popoffs metaphor, wind and solar are the Narcissistic father of power supply. On a sunny windy day they spark up, flooding the grid with power, crashing the price, saying “Hey look at me, I’m bloody good, surplus power everywhere, aren’t you lucky I’m around”. Then on a still cold night they are nowhere to be seen, and all the old faithful’s, Coal, Hydro, Geothermal run breathlessly to fill the hole left by the absent narcissistic father who’s not around when he’s needed most.

All those that have swallowed the Kool aide and actually believe the renewables propaganda, are now paying the price, just look at the electricity prices in the UK, Germany and California. Once you get to about 30% wind and solar the grid becomes unstable, and everything goes third world.

I say let’s trash sufficiency and aim for abundance; we can even do it under the guise of saving the planet. Let’s do away with crappy little bicycle lanes, Carbon markets, Farmer burp taxes, and put tax money into electricity abundance instead. Cheap and abundant energy is a strategy that would make NZ prosper.

Imagine the manufacturing jobs that would be possible here, were power prices down around the lowest in the world.

We have Hydro Stations consented and ready to go, Gas, somewhat crippled by our past dear leader, but hopefully still has legs, and Geothermal has the potential to double or triple its contribution. The power all three provide is baseload, they would stabilise our grid and make it cheaper in the long term.

Then there is renaissance nuclear power, exploding everywhere. Theres 60 plants under construction worldwide with a further 110 planned. The 60 under construction will produce ten times New Zealand’s current generating capacity. 

It’s fascinating to look at the build out of Nuclear, by country. Theres 2 being built in the UK, 1 in France, China 31, India 7, Egypt, Turkey & Russia 4 each, Bangladesh & Korea 2 each, Argentina, Slovakia and Iran one a piece. This is how the west fades, not from Invasion or revolution but from outdated dogma and sclerotic bureaucracies unable to get out of their own way.

It makes sense to hang back a little and see what system is best, there’s a lot out there, but planning for and installing base infrastructure for Nuclear now, could be resource well spent

France has let its nuclear fleet degrade, captured by the anti-nuclear zeitgeist of the late 20^th century. It was only running at 50% capacity when Russia cut the gas supply to Europe. Let’s not be captured by the de growth zealots, lets not believe that things would be better if we just consumed less. Let’s be like Bob the Builder, “Can we build it, YES WE CAN”. 

Radio NZ reports:

A skin cancer expert is calling for sunscreen to be made cheaper – either by removing GST or offering it on prescription – to reduce New Zealand’s sky-high melanoma rate.

University of Otago skin cancer prevention researcher Dr Bronwen McNoe told Midday Report’s Charlotte Cook that sunscreen was significantly more expensive in New Zealand than in Australia.

The two countries shared the world’s highest melanoma rate, and New Zealand had the unenviable record of the world’s highest death rate from skin cancer.

McNoe said she supported any initiative that reduced the cost of sunscreen for consumers, including the current petition demanding the removal of GST.

No, no, no, no, no. The moment you start treating the GST as a way to decrease prices on things you approve of, and increase prices on things you disapprove of, you destroy the simplicity of the system and massively increase compliance costs.

If the barrier to sunscreen use is price (of which I am not aware of any quality research), then you deal with that through Pharmac, or subsidies. You do not wreck the GST system.

Save the Kiwi announced:

Kiwi feathers collected from across the US and Europe will soon be winging their way home in a repatriation effort between the United States of America and New Zealand.

Why?

We have 70,000 Kiwis in NZ, and lots of feathers. I want us to spend money saving Kiwis, not flying a few feathers back to NZ.

I could understand if they were something rare or extinct like moa eggs, but kiwi feathers are neither.

Jeff Bezos writes:

In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.

Let me give an analogy. Voting machines must meet two requirements. They must count the vote accurately, and people must believe they count the vote accurately. The second requirement is distinct from and just as important as the first.

Likewise with newspapers. We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion. It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.

Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, “I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.” None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one. 

I agree with Bezos that endorsements do not affect how people vote, but they do affect how people view the newspaper or institution that endorses. This has actually been scientifically tested and validated.

I would also like to be clear that no quid pro quo of any kind is at work here. Neither campaign nor candidate was consulted or informed at any level or in any way about this decision. It was made entirely internally. Dave Limp, the chief executive of one of my companies, Blue Origin, met with former president Donald Trump on the day of our announcement. I sighed when I found out, because I knew it would provide ammunition to those who would like to frame this as anything other than a principled decision. But the fact is, I didn’t know about the meeting beforehand. Even Limp didn’t know about it in advance; the meeting was scheduled quickly that morning. There is no connection between it and our decision on presidential endorsements, and any suggestion otherwise is false.

I think that the timing in this case was coincidental, but that doesn’t mean the decision wasn’t influenced by the fact that Trump has said he will punish enemies, and endorsing Harris would get Bezos on the enemies list. There is a principled rationale for the decision, but the reality is that Bezos didn’t want Trump to target him (again). That will of course incentivise Trump to try and use his power even more to punish people who don’;’t supplicate themselves to him – because he knows it works.

It’s one thing to celebrate pensioners being wounded, but to do so while asserting you are a peace activist is really quite exceptional.

An excellent report by the ERO on chronically absent students, being this who are absent for more than three weeks every term. So this isn’t kids who have a week off for sickness, or a week off on an overseas holiday. It is kids who are attending less than 70% of the time – missing 12 weeks a year.

Some key details:

• One in 10 students (10 percent) were chronically absent in Term 2, 2024, double the level of 2015
• Students who are chronically absent are four times as likely to have a recent history of offending
• 55% of students chronically absent do not achieve NCEA Level 2 and 92% do not achieve UE
• Only 43 percent of parents and whānau with a child who is chronically absent have met with school staff about their child’s attendance.
• One in five school leaders (18 percent) only refer students after more than 21 consecutive days absent
• Only 22 schools make up 10 percent of the total chronic absence nationally, so under 1% of schools make up 10% of chronic absences.
• Students in schools in lower socio-economic areas are six times more likely to be chronically absent but there are 95 schools in low socio-economic communities with less than a 10 percent rate of chronic absence (so it is a factor, not an excuse)

The cost to the kids, and society, of such high rates are massive.

Note that lockdowns only occurred in 2020 and 2021. However in hindsight the decision to close schools was a very bad one, as it normalised non-attendance.

The Herald reports:

Young Labour has published an open letter urging the Government to follow Australia’s lead and stop Candace Owens entering the country.

The conservative US commentator and Trump supporter has caused controversy with her views questioning the Holocaust, and criticising feminism, the Black Lives Matter movement, and trans people.

She is booked to deliver a speech in Auckland next month — and had been expected to continue to Australia until she was refused entry. Tickets were selling for between $95 for general admission and $1500 for a VIP package with a pre-show dinner, champagne reception and meet-and-greet.

Australian Immigration Minister Tony Burke said the country’s national interest would be best served with Owens somewhere else, as she could “incite discord in almost every direction”.

An appalling decision from Australia, and one we should avoid.

I do believe Owens is clearly anti-semitic and says many terrible things. I find her a pretty contemptible person.

But if people want to go pay money to hear her in person (or challenge her) they have the right to do so.

Also banning her will just make her more popular and in demand.

Young Labour President Ethan Reille disagreed, and called on the coalition Government to deny Owens entry to New Zealand.

“Her views are not merely just controversial, but they are dangerous. So we do have an obligation to be protecting our communities from that kind of rhetoric that empowers divisive movements. So it is our view that allowing her a platform would fail to uphold our core values.”

Some pro-Palestinian activists are seem as divisive by many. What Young Labour really means is that views they disagree with should not be allowed in.

A comedian at a Trump rally referred to Puerto Rico as an island of garbage. This was very unhelpful to Trump as 100,000 people from Puerto Rico live in the vital swing state of Pennsylvania.

But then Joe Biden blunders in and says that the only garbage he sees are Trump supporters. The only thing more stupid than insulting 100,000 swing state voters is insulting half the electorate.

The White House amended the transcript to add an apostrophe so they could claim Biden meant only one supporter of Trump (the comedian) not all of them, but the damage is done. In an election that will come down to turnout, he has energised Trump’s base in a way which will enrage the Harris campaign.

And Trump is a genius when it comes to stunts, so today he turned up to a rally like this:

A genius troll move.

In just 48 hours an issue which may have cost Trump a swing state, has not turned into a plus for him thanks to Joe Biden. Bet you we won’t be seeing him in public again for the next six days!

The C&R team have once again done a clean sweep of the Entrust board elections, winning 5/5 seats.

Labour and Greens always put up a left leaning ticket, with a new name every time to try and hide who they are. They always have nonsensical policies such as saying they will increase spending, lower power bills and increase dividends. Magic!

Here’s the gap between the lowest polling C&R candidate and highest polling left candidate each election:

• 2024: 1745
• 2021: 838
• 2018: 5,680
• 2015: 4,657
• 2012: 547
• 2009: 2983

They keep trying for different names to appeal to people. They have been:

• 2009: Powerlynk
• 2012: Your Power Team
• 2015: City Vision – Community Voice
• 2018: City Vision
• 2021: More for you, better for climate
• 2024: More for you, better for Auckland

I wonder what name they will use next time?

The Guardian reports:

When Keir Starmer announced a shake-up in his No 10 operation last month he hoped to put an end to the missteps of his first few months in office. But an embarrassing error by Downing Street this weekend demonstrates how many pitfalls there are for a new government still learning the ropes.

In a press release on Friday, Downing Street said five new freeports would be announced in the budget. The Guardian and other outlets covered the news, which was given first to reporters who had travelled with Starmer to Samoa for the Commonwealth summit. Both the prime minister and his aides answered questions on the policy they had unveiled.

Two days later it emerged that there would be no new freeports. The Financial Times reported that the announcement, which had baffled officials and port executives, was wrong. Instead the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, will unveil new customs sites within three existing freeports – a comparatively minor move, though it will make Humber freeport operational for the first time. …

What has baffled everyone in Westminster is how such a major mistake could be made when government announcements – especially those related to the budget – go through a lengthy signoff process involving a large number of people. “You could see this mistake happen if it was the PM saying it and getting the language wrong,” one former special adviser remarked. Instead it was at the top of a No 10 press release.

Having worked in a PMs Office, I find it hard to understand how you can accidentally announce five new freeports in a media release. This would be signed off by multiple officials in ministerial offices and agencies. It does suggest either incompetence or very bad systems.

I do have some experience with the more common experience where a Minister or spokesperson announces something in an interview and gets the details wrong. In one election a spokesperson announced something that was not agreed policy, and it was reasonably significant.

This posed a problem, as announcing the next day the spokesperson was wrong would dominate the day, so would be a bad news day a few days before the election.

As the campaign committee discussed how to correct the spokesperson’s remarks to align with the policy, I suggested why didn’t we just align the policy with the spokesperson. MPs said that it wouldn’t be possible to get the policy amended in time as would have to go through caucus committee, caucus, policy committee, board etc. I clarified that I meant that I just changed the policy on the website. MPs nervously looked around and asked if that was possible. I said sure – could do it in five minutes.

There was a long silence, and then the campaign chair said “OK I think we can move onto the next item”, which I took to mean they didn’t want to explicitly say I should do it, but did want me to do it!

At The Conservation:

We surveyed 316 researchers from research organisations across New Zealand on their engagement with Māori and their attitudes towards mātauranga Māori (Indigenous knowledge system). We found the majority agree engagement is important and mātauranga Māori is relevant to their research.

Our preliminary findings show most of the surveyed researchers engaged with Māori to some degree in the past and expect to keep doing so in the future. A majority agreed mātauranga Māori should be valued on par with Western science.

Any academic who refers to science as “western science” can almost certainly be dismissed as not serious. There is no such thing as western science, just science. We don’t have western gravity.

Oxford defines science as:

the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Anything from any country, race or culture that meets that definition is science. Note it is not just observation but testing against evidence.

The Guardian notes:

What is only now becoming clear (to many in the west) is that during the dark ages of medieval Europe, incredible scientific advances were made in the Muslim world. Geniuses in Baghdad, Cairo, Damascus and Cordoba took on the scholarly works of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, Greece, India and China, developing what we would call “modern” science. New disciplines emerged – algebra, trigonometry and chemistry as well as major advances in medicine, astronomy, engineering and agriculture. Arabic texts replaced Greek as the fonts of wisdom, helping to shape the scientific revolution of the Renaissance. What the medieval scientists of the Muslim world articulated so brilliantly is that science is universal, the common language of the human race. 

Again science is not western. All cultures and races own science. It is about a method.

So an easy rule of thumb is to dismiss anyone who talks about Western science. They have no understanding of either science or history.

Thomas Newman argues against lifting the threshold for jury trials from two years maximum imprisonment to three, five or seven years.

Submissions to the Government on this close today.

The ABC reports:

Israel’s parliament has passed legislation targeting the main UN agency providing aid to people in Gaza.

The new laws designate the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) a terrorist organisation, cutting diplomatic ties with the agency and barring it from operating on Israeli soil.

Two bills passed in the Knesset prohibit ties between Israeli officials and the agency, and strip its staff of their legal immunities.

This is not surprising, considering the many UNRWA staff who have also been terrorists. But it goes well beyond that. UNRWA has allowed their schools to be used to teach hatred. They are part of the problem, not the solution. For example UNRWA will not teach the Holocaust in their schools, as it will upset Hamas who insist the Holocaust is a fiction invented by Zionists.

The vote passed 92-10 and followed a fiery debate between supporters of the law and its opponents, mostly members of Arab parliamentary parties.

The Government only has 68 MPs, so at least 24 opposition MPs voted to ban UNRWA also.

UNRWA commissioner-general Philippe Lazzarini said the move set a “dangerous new precedent”. 

“It ⁠will deprive over 650,000 girls and boys there from education, putting at risk an entire generation of children.”

Not having them taught in UNRWA schools will probably be a good thing. There are in fact over 3,000 schools in Palestine, and only 15% are run by UNRWA. Children in UNRWA schools will be able to access other schools.

There are also other aid agencies that do or can operate in the Palestinian Territories. With UNRWA being banned, we should cease funding them, and instead donate what we used to give to UNRWA to other aid agencies that operate there. I’m absolutely in favour of NZ Government funding aid agencies to help Palestinian families., I’m just not in favour of doing it through UNRWA.

Previously on my Patreon (paywalled) I compared Chris Luxon’s approval ratings to the last six UK PMs, and last six Australian PMs. They were favourable towards him.

In this final part I compare his ratings in his first year to the last four New Zealand Prime Ministers – Key, English, Ardern and Hipkins.

The Education Review Office have published a report correctly calling school attendance in New Zealand a crisis and stating:

“Tens of thousands of “chronically absent” students are missing weeks of school – and the Education Review Office (ERO) says it has reached crisis point.

In the past decade, chronic truancy has doubled in secondary schools and nearly tripled in primary schools.”

The core reason students are not going to school is that many, many families have completely lost faith in the school system as a whole, their local schools, the Ministry of Education and the efficacy of our qualifications system. Don’t forget 10,000 students are enrolled nowhere at all.

We are the nation in the developed world with the most bullying in schools and the greatest difference in achievement between haves and have nots.

Ethinicity statisitics are telling too. In Term 2 of 2024 approx 53% of students fully attended but only 41% of Pasifika and 39% of Maori.

Instead of accepting any level of responsibility for this dire situation the teacher unions come straight out with … give us more money and will will fix things and buy the Auckland Harbour Bridge as well.

Post Primary Teachers’ Association president Chris Abercrombie said “governments need to be brave enough to address underlying causes of chronic non-attendance, including poverty, housing insecurity and mental health”.

This included integrated and funded solutions involving “gateway, alternative education and activity centres, pastoral care and learning support”.

No mention there of teacher quality, school quality, qualifications quality.

NZEI Te Riu Roa President, Mark Potter, says “the weaknesses identified in the current system are down to either lack of resourcing or socioeconomic factors that contribute to absenteeism like trauma and poverty.”

There are two key problems/solutions here:

1. Parenting. This is not to dump on parents but as a society we need to recognise that we need mechanisms to massive improve our parenting – starting from having outstnding information and programmes from pregnancy to 5 years of age. This should in no way be funnelled through the Ministry of Education or schools. Good parenting can, and should, occur – regardless of wealth, ethnicity, parent’s education levels.
   
2. The Ministry and schools need to accept their very significant part in creating the problem – and actually set our to reform and inprove. At present they offer no genuine solutions to the attendance crisis.

Alwyn Poole
alwyn.poole@gmail.com
Innovative Education Consultants Ltd
Education 710+ Ltd
(both sites currently being re-done)
alwynpoole.substack.com
www.linkedin.com/in/alwyn-poole-16b02151/

An excellent address by Attorney-General Judith Collins to the University of Western Sydney (which has also made her an Adjunct Professor of Law).

The criminalisation of speech is one of the most serious limitations on the right to freedom of expression that can be contemplated.

There are situations where this may be justified, such as where speech serves to incite violence.

However, criminalisation should not extend to speech that is merely insulting or offensive.

It is important to condemn speech that is purposefully designed to insult or offend, but this is quite distinct from criminalising it.

To do so could have a chilling effect on democratic participation, leaving people reluctant to express their opinions or views for fear of prosecution.

Criminalising speech that forms part of public discourse carries a risk of undermining the function of democracy.

In the words of Lord Justice Sedley, free speech allows for “not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence.”

It is, therefore, fundamental to a functioning democracy that all people are able to freely express their views. While words matter, the fact that someone possesses an unpopular view, or an opinion that may cause offense to another individual, does not serve as a basis for limiting the right to freedom of expression.

It is undisputable that certain forms of speech are unacceptable – but what level of harm does the speech need to meet for criminal prosecution to be appropriate?

We can, and should, take steps as a society to clearly condemn speech that is offensive or insulting, without always needing to resort to measures that create a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

Good to see the Attorney-General state this, especially as so many other politicians do want to criminalise speech they deem hateful.

The Electoral Commission announced:

A referral has been made to Police on 4 October 2024 relating to Te Pāti Māori’s failure to file annual financial statements with the Electoral Commission. The financial statements and accompanying audit report were due on 30 June 2024 under sections 210G and 210H of the Electoral Act.

Their financial statements are not a few days late, but 115 days late.

Has anyone asked the co-leaders or president why they are refusing to file audited accounts for the year ending 31 December 2024? Every other parliamentary party has done so.