Stuff reports:

Through her lawyer Annabel Cresswell, Ghahraman appealed the convictions at the Auckland High Court on Monday.

Cresswell told Justice Geoffrey Venning the convictions may impact Ghahraman’s June 2024 job application at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

People cannot work for the ICC if they have been convicted of serious criminal offending, Cresswell said, however it was was unclear if Ghahraman’s offending was serious enough for this to be a barrier.

This is a very weak argument. Ghahraman is merely an applicant for a job. She is not stated token be in the running for it, or short-listed yet alone preferred. And even if she was, the conviction is unlikely to be regarded as serious offending.

Auckland’s Crown Solicitor Alysha McClintock, acting on behalf of the police, argued any impacts on Ghahraman’s future employment and mental health were consequences of the offending itself, not the convictions.

McClintock said it was unclear whether the offending would impact Ghahraman’s application to work for the ICC, and that Cresswell had failed to provide evidence regarding the status of the application or whether it was still being pursued.

Can only agree.

The PSC reported that the ethnicity of the public service is:

• Maori 16.7%
• Asian 15.9%
• Pacific 11.0%
• MELAA 2.3%
• European (by calculation) 54.1%

How does this compare the the share of the adult population in the 2023 census?

1. Pacific 11.0% vs 6.6% = 1.7
2. MELAA 2.3% vs 1.6% = 1.4
3. Maori 16.7% vs 13.2% = 1.3
4. Asian 15.9% vs 15.5% = 1.0
5. European 54.1% vs 62.9% = 0.9

So we have a greater share of Pacific, MELAA and Maori public servants than in the overall adult population. The Asian share is pretty spot on, ands we have fewer European public servants than the share of the adult population.

A guest post by a reader:

This opinion is expressed without intimate knowledge of Cabinet rules or the rules around conflicts pertaining to electoral donations if such exist.  It is a “pub-test” analysis which goes looking for and finds what the average bloke might consider hypocrisy and bias.

The Opposition (by which I mean the Media) and the parliamentary parties not in government (Labour and the Greens) have been agitated much about conflicts of interest they perceive in the current Government.  Many stirring words have been written about:

1. Hon Nicola McKee and her links to the gun lobby.

2. Hon Casey Costello and her links to tobacco (with Chris Bishop an honourable mention).

3. Hon Shane Jones and apparent links to mining.

4. The possibility that donors and/or associates of Ministers will be advantaged by the fast-track process and will (or have already) reciprocate(d) appropriately.

The logic goes something like this: Person X used to be involved in business, advocacy or NGO activity around Function Y (perhaps by way of donation), and now Person X is a Minister, perhaps even appointed to oversee that very Function Y, and therefore is conflicted, incapable of acting for the greater good, and indeed their efforts should be dismissed as inherently attempts to favour parties outside Parliament.

The trouble with this is that in Parliament we have three parties not in government whose purposes in part at least are to advance the interests of Unions, Greens and Maori respectively.

So if it is unacceptable today for Person X who was once involved in Function Y, to oversee Function Y while in Government then on the same logic so too was it unacceptable for Ministers in the previous government to oversee functions with which they had prior connections.  Tinetti the school principal, Little and Wood the Unionists, and Ginny Andersen the Police policy wonk immediately spring to mind.  So too one of the most virulent groups of ideologues around at present is the public health physicians and one of their number Dr Ayesha Verrall is a past Minister of Health and remains Labour spokesperson on the subject.  

But the Media has never pursued the angle of inherent conflict and ostensible corruption (i.e working for the benefit of external parties) arising from it with these individuals.  

So clearly it’s not the fact of having a past which is related to present Ministerial responsibilities which is actually the problem for them.  Or to put it another way it’s not the process issue which is challenging.  It’s actually the underlying area of interest which the Media perceives to be abhorrent and which in their mind must, without a shadow of a doubt, unquestionably, always, result in people acting corruptly for external parties.  Their concern is thus ideological.

In summary, for them  a Minister with a Green or Union background can act with the interests of all his or her countrymen in mind, but a Minister with a firearms interest never can.  Indeed they might even go so far as to laud the former by calling them “conviction” politicians.

I have struck this kind of nonsense before.  In the eighties local government was restructured.  Regional councils were established to provide regulatory/environmental oversight of many things including district and city councils.  I always wondered who was watching the watchers, and why it was not considered possible that regional councils could go feral in advancing environmental objectives while district and city councils were perceived highly likely to go feral in favour of development.  There never was an answer…

To the extent there is an answer today, it is this.  In the minds of the Media, and many others in our country there is an ideological bias against commerce,  and also against those activities which reflect an emphasis on individual freedoms (smoking, shooting etc) in favour of warm and pleasant Leftish values such as wealth redistribution, safety and sustainability.  This extends to bias supportive of all activity where such values lurk and against activity where they don’t.  It embraces implicit views of moral turpitude on the part of non-believers.

Now I am not in a position to comment authoritatively on either Costello’s or McKee’s motivations and whether they are seeking to advance narrow sectional interests at the expense of the rest of us.  But I do ask that when you see the Media Opposition and antagonistic parliamentarians frothing about corrupt Ministerial links to external parties, you ask yourself why it was that members of the last government were not assessed by the same standards and whether in any future government, say, a Green Minister will be treated as untrustworthy because of a strong history of advocacy in that sphere.  And when you hear some special-interest group (we see you public health physicians) telling us to join the dots between a Minister’s stance and the views of external parties, just laugh cynically and have another chocolate.

Labour in particular is arguably a stalking horse for the Union movement.  This is reflected in the membership of the Parliamentary Party and in the legislation it passes which always extends the power of Unions and ensures other folks’ money is passed to them.  The Unions in turn support the Labour Party with parallel campaigns to ensure the “right” election result.  

If the same pub logic is applied to this relationship as to current Ministers then no Unionist would ever be involved in developing employment legislation, and no discrete project with collateral advantages to Unions would be decided with Unionists involved.  Does this seem likely to any of us…?

News.com.au reports:

Richard Marles’ chief of staff says she is “being bullied out” of her dream job after reporting misbehaviour directly to the Deputy Prime Minister.

In a press conference on Thursday morning, Jo Tarnawsky said she “loved” her job working for Mr Marles, whom she had known for “more than 10 years”.

But she said everything changed in May when she raised concerns of bullying with her boss privately.

“During the flight home from an official trip to Ukraine in late April, I raised concerns privately with the Deputy Prime Minister about some bullying behaviour within the office,” she told reporters.

Ms Tarnawsky said she had “been plagued with nightmares, flashbacks, symptoms of depression and anxiety, insomnia, panic attacks and suicidal thoughts”.

“I had none of these symptoms before May 2024,” the top staffer said. 

“The way I have been treated has been cowardly, cruel and completely unnecessary.”

It is unusual to have a chief of staff resign in this way. Things must be really bad for her to have done so.

Didn’t know much about Richard Marles, but found out he is the former Assistant Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which will explain a lot. Union bosses are often the worst employers!

Chris Bishop announced:

Sport & Recreation Minister Chris Bishop has asked Sport NZ to review and update its Guiding Principles for the Inclusion of Transgender People in Community Sport.

“The Guiding Principles, published in 2022, were intended to be a helpful guide for sporting bodies grappling with a tricky issue. They are intended to be voluntary, not mandatory. 

“Earlier this year I undertook to keep a watching brief over this genuinely difficult issue. As part of that watching brief I have met with a range of individuals and groups, and have sought advice from Sport NZ. 

“The National-New Zealand First Coalition Agreement commits the Government to ensuring publicly funded sporting bodies support fair competition that is not compromised by rules relating to gender.

“It is important that transgender people feel able to participate in community sport – but there are obviously difficult issues for sporting bodies to grapple with around fairness and safety as a result of that participation.

“I have come to the view that the Guiding Principles do not reflect legitimate community expectations that sport at a community level should not just be focused on diversity, inclusion and equity – but also prioritise fairness and safety. 

This is such a challenging area. You can prioritise inclusiveness or fairness – but not both.

I blogged last year:

I would divide sports into three levels – school age, adult and elite.

At school age sports I would prioritise inclusiveness over fairness. I think it would be incredibly damaging to a trans student to not be allowed to participate in sports in line with their gender identity. The mental health risks at this age are huge. …

At the other end of the spectrum, at elite or professional level, I think you have to prioritise fairness. Elite athletes can spend thousands of hours training to be the best in the world at an event, and it isn’t fair if they have to compete against someone they literally have no chance of beating. 

I think each sports bodies should make their own rules. In archery it might not matter if a biological male competes with biological women, but in swimming it does. Decisions should follow the science.

At adult non-elite level, I tend to favour inclusiveness over fairness, so long as it is safe. So in contact sports you may not allow a trans-woman to compete with biological women, but in table tennis you might. Leave it to each sport again.

The current guidelines are here. They may be officially voluntary. but I hear sporting codes fear funding loss if they don’t abide by them. They do seem rather unbalanced as they don’t at all deal with issues of physical safety etc.

On Sunday I blogged on how the Solicitor-General’s new guidelines for prosecutions instructed prosecutors to consider the race of defendants and victims before deciding whether to lay charges.

I broke the story, that had not been covered elsewhere at all, after a defence lawyer alerted me to it. It is somewhat sad that they asked to keep their name confidential as they feared speaking out against the guidelines could see them lose their practising certificate. That is the culture of intolerance and fear that lawyers now face.

Anyway from my blog post on Kiwiblog, it got noticed by lobby groups such as the Sensible Sentencing Trust and Hobson’s Choice. The Platform picked it up, as did Newstalk ZB. Then on Tuesday ACT criticised the guidelines and other media platforms started to report on it.

On Thursday the Attorney-General said she didn’t agree with the wording of them, and today on Friday the Solictor-General said the guidelines are being withdrawn and rewritten.

This shows the impact one can have. If that defence lawyer had never approached me, these guidelines might well have come into force on 1 January. In just five days we got a major reversal from the Solicitor-General.

Nate Silver has a good way of explaining why he will vote for Kamala Harris. Before he looks at anything else, he asks is there anything that is disqualifying about a candidate. His answer is Trump’s support of January 6 disqualifies him, and there is nothing Harris has done that is disqualifying, so he will vote for Harris.

This is basically my approach too. Now let’s be clear what I mean by disqualifying. I don’t mean I don’t like them. I don’t mean I don’t like their policies. It doesn’t mean I don’t like their rhetoric. It is a very low bar to cross. In New Zealand, Australia, Canada, UK and US I can’t think of any other major party leader who would not pass the disqualification bar. And there are many of them who I think had terrible policies and did a pretty terrible job.

I understand why many people support Trump (unlike those who are so lacking in cognitive ability that they can’t understand why people may not support Trump, and call anyone who disagrees with them as Trump Derangement Syndrome people). In fact I blogged 10 good things about Trump in 2020. They were:

1. He will sometimes defy the conventional wisdom
2. Judicial Appointments
3. He tries really hard to keep his promises
4. His instincts are anti-interventionist
5. He is more available to the media than any other modern President
6. He delivered large tax cuts
7. He is reasonably open about his motives
8. He is sceptical of regulations
9. Middle East peace deals
10. He is a cultural warrior against the woke cancel culture

If you are talking policies alone, of course I would prefer Trump’s policies (not all of them – terrible on trade and security) to Harris’. But I only get to policies if a candidate passes the low bar such as actually supporting democracy and the rule of law.

I also blogged the 10 worst things about him.

1. He suffers from narcissistic personality order
2. Record deficits and debt
3. Trump is a pathological liar
4. Trump is a protectionist
5. Trump is incompetent
6. Trump doesn’t read
7. His own appointees know he is a bad President
8. Trump is cruel
9. Trump is vindictive
10. Trump is a danger to the rule of law

Now not all of the above are disqualifying. Every US President is somewhat protectionist and most have run up huge deficits its and debt.

I want to focus on the four things that I believe are disqualifying. Any one of them would be.

1 Trump does not believe in democracy

Trump has made very clear by actions and words he does not believe in democracy. He tried to subvert the clear results of the last election through threats and violence. His heroes are all autocrats, not democrats.

For those who don’t agree with me, I pose this challenge. Is there any scenario in which Harris is certified by the states (after legal challenges have been heard) as having won a majority of electoral college votes, that Trump concedes the election? We all know he won’t, no matter the actual results. He is incapable of doing so. The only election outcome he can accept is one in which he wins.

If you disagree with me, why not put your money where your mouth it? How about a NZ$1,000 bet where you pay me if Harris is sworn in as President and Trump has refused to concede the election, and I pay you if Harris is sworn in and Trump does concede the election after legal challenges have been exhausted, once the Electoral College has voted?

I’ll even go better than 1:1 odds. Even 1:1 odds are ridiculously favourable for a normal person. The chance of Luxon not conceding the next NZ election if the CL parties get a majority of seats is basically 0%. Same for whomever the Labour Leader is. Same for Harris in the US, Albanese in Australia, Trudeau in Canada. If someone offered me a bet where I pay $20,000 if Luxon doesn’t concede and I get $1,000 if Luxon does concede, I’d take that.

So 1:1 odds implies a 50% chance Trump as loser would concede. I’d even go 5:1 which means I think there is a greater than 90% chance Trump won’t concede. If you are not willing to make that bet, then you basically agree with me that Trump will never concede, regardless of actual results.

2) Trump does not believe in the rule of law

Trump has said numerous time he does not believe the Attorney-General should make decisions based on the law and the facts. He has said he wants an AG who will follow his instructions and prosecute people he asks them to prosecute. He has sacked AGs because they put the law ahead of his wishes.

The rule of law and democracy stand at the heart of good government. Any candidate who doesn’t believe in either, let alone works against them is disqualified in my opinion. No amount of tax cuts can make up for that.

It is not a counter to Trump saying he will prosecute his enemies to point to the fact Trump has been prosecuted while Biden was in office. While you can have legitimate concerns about the politicisation of the US justice system, that is not the same as having a President who says he will sack law enforcement officials who don’t do his bidding. I also point out the Justice Department has prosecuted Biden’s son, a Democratic Senator and the Democratic Mayor of NY.

3) Trump is psychologically dangerous

Trump’s mixture of dementing, narcissism, vindictiveness and lack of self control is a toxic mixture. It makes him super easy to manipulate – just praise him and agree with him. He sacks people who put truth over his narcissism.

4) Trump is a pathological liar

All humans, and especially politicians, lie to some degree. But Trump is incapable of distinguishing reality and fantasy. Anything that doesn’t fit into his self-belief, he lies about.

Here’s a recent example

He doesn’t just lie about things which are contestable. but over things like his inauguration crowd size. A President who puts his feelings over the facts, is not someone I can trust in office. Trump doesn’t understand the difference between reality and fantasy.

If Trump believed in democracy, the rule of law, lived in reality and wasn’t narcissistic – then I would not view him as disqualified and would prefer him to Harris, or any Democrat. But he is incredibly flawed. Dismissing his actions against democracy as a few mean tweets is a recipe for disaster.

Finally I have noted a few Trump supporters dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as captured by the MSM. I find this incredibly arrogant. Basically you are saying that only you have the intellect to not be captured. I subscribe to almost a dozen RW commentators (most who are voting for Trump). I listen to Ben Shapiro every day. I read numerous RW US blogs. I also am friends with and talk to people actually involved in Republican politics at federal and state level. But sure, delude yourself that you with your Facebook group are the sole arbiter of truth, and I just get all my news from CNN.

The media and the left have reported on the reductions in public service numbers as some form of brutal year zero policy which would have you think the Government has turned the clock back decades.

The reality is that we have 421 more (FTE) public servants than a year ago. Yes the reduction in the first six months of 2024, is less than the increase inn the last six months of 2023 under Labour.

Basically they went up 4% in the last six months of Labour and dropped 3.3% in the first six months of National. Where were all the stories about why public sector agencies were massively increasing their staff numbers during the caretaker period before an election?

The age differences in this poll are very alarming. Only 59% of under 30s think Hitler was evil.

A number of forecasts have changed some of their state leads.

RCP now has Trump winning all seven states.

270 to win has Trump now leading in Pennsylvania but dropping behind in Wisconsin.

Nate Silver now has Trump marginally ahead in his projection to win as Harris’ leads are so small in her key states.

All six forecasts have Trump ahead in Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina. That gives him 262 votes. He only needs 8 more to win – Michigan, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. Wisconsin looks most likely at this stage.

A guest post by Roger Evans:

CNN reports:

The Israeli military confirmed on Thursday that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, the chief architect of the militant group’s deadly October 7, 2023, terror attack that set off the war in Gaza, had been killed in battle.

Good. He organised the attack which saw 1,200 people murdered, raped, tortured and kidnapped.

The Herald reported:

In a statement yesterday, Green co-leader Swarbrick confirmed the party had endorsed the “potential use of the Electoral Act to remove Darleen Tana as a Member of Parliament”.

However, she repeated a call to Tana to “finally do the right thing” and resign before being forced out.

In order to trigger the legislation, the Greens need to write to the Speaker saying they believe Tana’s defection from the Greens has distorted the proportionality of Parliament.Swarbrick did this shortly after the meeting concluded.

“We have… written to the Speaker outlining that we believe Darleen’s resignation from the party but not from Parliament has affected the proportionality of the House, triggering the next step of the legislation,” Swarbrick said, adding she had also written to Tana outlining the outcome of the meeting.

Tana will soon be gone.

The Speaker has little discretion here. So long as the notice from Swarbrick complies with the Act, her seat will soon be declared vacant.

The latest Crown financial statements have just been published so let’s look at the annual crown financial statements for 2023/24 compared to 2017/18.

• Crown revenue $110b to $167.3b
• Crown revenue 38% to 40.5% of GDP
• Core crown revenue 86.8b to $129.3b
• Core crown revenue 30.0% to 32.2%
• Tax revenue $80.2b to $119.9b
• Tax revenue 27.7% to 29.2%
• Crown expenditure $104b to $180.1b
• Crown expenditure 36.0% to 43.6%
• Core crown expenses $80.6b to $139b
• Core crown expenses 27.9% to 33.6%
• OBEGAL surplus $5.5b to -$12.8b
• OBEGAL surplus 1.9% to -3.1%
• Residual cash 1.3b to -$19.3b
• Residual cash 0.5% to -4.7%
• Operating balance $8.4b to -$8.4b
• Operating balance 2.9% to -2.0%
• Core crown gross debt $88.1b to $176b
• Core crown gross debt 30.4% of GDP to 42.6% of GDP
• Core crown net debt $57.5b to $175.5b
• Core crown net debt 19.9% of GDP to 42.5%

So what did Labour achieve in six years

Revenue

• Crown revenue increased by $57.3 billion (over $1 billion a week) or 52%. As a share of the economy it went up 2.5 percentage points
• Core crown revenue increased by $42.5 billion or 49%. As a share of the economy it went up 2.2 percentage points
• Core crown tax revenue increased by $39.7 billion or 50%. As a share of the economy it went up 1.5 percentage points

Expenditure

• Crown expenses increased by $76.1 billion (around $1.5 billion a week) or 73%. As a share of the economy crown spending went up 7.6 percentage points
• Core crown expenditure increased by $58.4 billion or 72%. As a share of the economy it went up 7.6 percentage points

Surpluses

• The OBEGAL surplus went from a surplus of $5.5b to a deficit of $12.8b – an $18.3b deterioration. As a percentage of GDP it went from +1.9% to -3.1% so a 5.0 percentage point change as a share of the economy
• The operating balance went from a surplus of $8.4b to a deficit of $8.4b – an $16.8b deterioration. As a percentage of GDP it went from +2.9% to -2.0% so a 4.9 percentage point change as a share of the economy
• The cash surplus went from a surplus of $1.3b to a deficit of $19.3b – an $20.6b deterioration. As a percentage of GDP it went from +0.5% to -4.7% so a 5.2 percentage point change as a share of the economy

Debt

• Core crown gross debt increased by $87.9 billion or 100%. As a share of the economy it went up 12.2 percentage points
• Core crown net debt increased by $118b billion or 200%. As a share of the economy it went up 22.6 percentage points

Now defenders of the indefensible will cry “Covid” but that has minimal impact on income, expenditure or the surplus in 2023/24. Any temporary expenditure around Covid should have ended a couple of years ago.

The Government has increased its spending as a share of the economy by a massive 7.6 percentage points. This is arguably the largest expansion of the state since WWII. But it didn’t result in better schools, better hospitals or less poverty – just better waste!

NZers are now paying $800 million a week more in tax than six years ago.

We have gone from a healthy surplus to a structural deficit that will take years of fiscal restraint to undo. The deficit is not because income didn’t rise enough – it is because of an unprecedented increase in untargeted state spending.

And finally debt has gone up $118b or $59,000 per household. Now some of that is due to the temporary Covid spending needed to get us through lockdowns etc, but most of it is not.

Labour’s six years in office can only be seen as fiscal vandalism of the worst kind. The $76b a year extra spending represents $38,000 a household. Is your household getting $38,000 a year of value from Labour’s extra spending?

Have done my first AMA (Ask Me Anything) over on my paywalled Patreon. Lots of interesting questions:

• Labour’s weak. Despite many controversies, the Greens are closing in. Can they overtake them?
• How closely are you following the polling data on the US election? If you are (and I suspect you will be) who do you think has the momentum, and who do you think is going to win what swing state, and ultimately get to 270 first?
• Have you thought about polling NZ’ers opinions on the two candidates for presidency in the US elections ?
• I’d like to know who you think is the best candidate for the Tory leadership
• Who would be a good candidate for Wellington Mayor and what are the key issues they should run on?
• Why do people call you Pinko?
• Who do you think is most likely to succeed Chris Hipkins as Labour leader, and when might the change happen?
• How important is religion to how people vote in NZ? Is this changing over time? – in the US it seems to be quite a major factor/cohort.
• Do you think Luxon will change his mind re treaty principles, if more polls swing that way
• Why has Luxon not enjoyed the same popularity as Jacinda or Key?

I plan to make this a regular feature.

This is a nice ad from ACT. They take up Chloe’s challenge, make the case for mining and highlight some hypocrisy. Also you see the area that Chloe saw is a taonga, but in fact it looks like some pretty plain land with no particular beauty or conservation value.

The Herald reports:

A new Kāinga Ora complex has opened in Auckland at a cost of $1.2 million per apartment as one of New Zealand’s leading developers calls the state-run agency’s record of running up billions in debt a national scandal and embarrassment. …

The agency yesterday allowed the public to view the newly built Meadowbank complex, saying it spent $11m on the three three-bedroom and six two-bedroom apartments.

That equates to $1.2m per apartment and rises to $1.7m if the about $4m value of the land already owned by Kāinga Ora is added.

This is an astonishing waste of money. A cost to taxpayers of $1.7 million per apartment.

If you assume the two bedroom apartments are 100 square metres each and the three bedroom ones 133 square metres each, then that is a build cost (excluding land) of $11,000 per square metre.

Building websites estimate a cheap build is $3k per sq m, a standard build around $5k per sq m and a bespoke build around $7k per sq m.

How do some apartments cost twice as much standard build and 50% more than a bespoke build?

It is because taxpayers are paying.

A more reasonable build cost could see twice as many apartments built.

The Daily Mail reports:

Prof Rainsborough’s dispute with King’s College began in late 2018 when he organised ‘Endangered Speeches’, a speakers’ series on the growth of over cancel culture.

He said he was ‘hauled over the coals’ by the dean of his faculty after some students tried to get the first talk banned.

If not so sad, it would be funny. He organises a series about cancel culture and they try to get the series cancelled!

Weeks later, in February 2019, he published an article on a website dedicated to the ongoing Brexit debate.

The piece – ‘The British road to dirty war’ – did not take an explicit position on Brexit as it had already happened, he said.

He explained: ‘It was simply said that if political elites generally start trying to ignore the democratically expressed will of the populace, then over time that’s going to lead to problems and civil unrest.’

But the article upset colleagues who complained to the university authorities.

At a meeting with the dean, he was told ‘people were unhappy’ and that he must step down from his post.

The evil of the man. He wrote that the political elite should respect the results of a democratic referendum. No wonder the elite shunned him.

It was only a few months ago UK Labour won in a landslide (helped by FPP). The next election is many years away, but they have a problem that their brand has turned negative so quickly, that it could be hard to change in future.

The latest More in Common poll has the following:

• Labour tied with Conservatives at 27% each, and Reform at 21%
• Labour under 15% with over 65s
• Only 17% think they are doing a good job and 56% a bad job
• Only 12% of women say good job and 59% bad job
• Of those who voted Labour a few months ago, only 44% say the Govt is doing a good job and 33% a bad job – so 1 in 3 Labour voters have already turned
• Keir Starmer has -38% net approval, Rachel Reeves -34%
• An an A to F rating, 45% give them E or F and only 15% an A or B
• 29% of Labour voters give the Government a D or worse
• Their net approval on issues is cost living -59%, Immigration -59%, Ethics -49%