NatTube: Not Really

My second survey of the AM Show took place today between 7 and 8am. National didn't get a single mention so I'm going to back down and say I was wrong. The AM Show are quite fair minded.

All mentions that directly related to New Zealand politics were clearly references to Labour, or one or more of their coalition partners. The AM Show did so generally positively 11 times and negatively 7 times. Included in those 7 times was a 42 second rant against Labour from both Duncan Garner and Mark Richardson who used the old anti-left canard of the "hypocrisy of the left". Nothing surprising from Richardson, he's the ugly face of conservatism in New Zealand. I'd be surprised if he's ever read a book.

But the audience expect nothing else really and there was so many positive mentions of Labour that I'd go so far as to say that their rant makes them look balanced. It's likely to reinforce the positive mentions of Labour, not boost National.

What of National now? They're spent and you have to place the blame firmly at the feet of the staggeringly incompetent Simon "Bill" English.

[A follow up survey 13/11/17, 7-8am showed more positive about Labour than negative, despite that hour being dominated by CPTPP talk. Only the one positive mention of National. This illustrates the difficulty of being in opposition, they can't get heard at all. Well they deserve it so I won't be crying.]

Astros World Champions

Congratulations to the Houston Astros on winning their first World Series. Now c'mon Rockets, win the NBA playoffs. It'd be nice to think the Texans could add the Superbowl as well.

AM Show aka NatTube

I can report progress on my survey of the AM Show on New Zealand's TV3 and whether they're really National Party TV.

What I do is throw dice to determine which day and what hour I'll be surveying. The first hour drawn was today, Wednesday the first day of November. The time surveyed was one hour between 8 and 9am.

Early days I know, but so far there is no evidence of bias. If anything the bias is pro Labour. I divide up which side is being mentioned, National or Labour (Labour includes all parties in government), and whether they're treated predominantly positively or negatively.

During the one hour in question, Duncan Garner talked for 40 seconds predominantly positively about Labour. He did not mention National and nor did Mark Richardson. The news segments presented by Amanda Gillies contained initiatives announced by Labour and these were handled even-handedly.

My readers will be aware that when I surveyed NBA games I found obvious bias, proving NBA regular season games are rigged. Well, so far no obvious bias from the AM Show. I'll keep randomly sampling. Funny thing was my wife saw my survey sheet ready on the coffee table and she left a note and a hand drawn emoji warning me not to get too upset with Mark Richardson as he's known to be a Nat. I called her to thank her for being so thoughtful but she needn't have worried, Richardson didn't offend.

More on this later and a report on the overall results.

AM Show aka National Party TV

The AM Show is a New Zealand weekday breakfast TV show. It's a lightweight attempt at current affairs, most of the guests are conservative and the views expressed are generally right-of-centre. That said, I think in the run up to the recent General Election and in the weeks after they've crossed the line and become an organ of the National Party. To recap, National are now in opposition as they lost the General Election and are out of office.

How I think the AM Show tried and still tries to support National is in the relentlessly favourable coverage they provide. This support extends to all levels, even right down to captions, with the National party leader Simon "Bill" English being described recently as 'National Leader' instead of Leader of the Opposition. With the former title one could be confused about his actual role.

So what I'm going to do is run a survey just to check if I'm right. I'll listen to three hours of the AM Show, each separate hour chosen randomly on any given day (also chosen randomly). What I'll be listening for is either National being mentioned or the government which could be Labour, NZ First or the Greens. How many times does the AM Show mention either and in what proportion?

Then I'll be listening for generally favourable comments. How I'll determine this will be going by how the commentator leaves the viewer or listener (the show is also simulcast on radio).

For example, imagine a new road is being announced. What I think the AM Show do is boost National but detract from Labour. What they'd say is something like this:

"Labour has announced a new road, 'bout time I'd say, where's the money coming from? (Labour spokesperson comes on and makes sense in pointing out National failed to build the road). Trust Labour to have not done their sums."

Then when National have their say (remember National had planned this road but never built it):

"The very capable Steven Joyce will be all over this, over to the money man, what about this then (Steven Joyce speaks with little interruption). Well that's the final word then, trust National to sort this mess out."

Clearly in such an exchange the intention is to create a generally favourable impression of National, wouldn't you say? I don't know why New Zealand puts up with it, there could be a good argument for having TV3's licence to broadcast suspended.

And a sidebar, the presenters are white and middle class. Duncan Garner is the so-called 'star' who wrote an offensive and deeply racist opinion piece for the Sunday Star Times awhile back, while the sports guy is a former cricket player for NZ. Cricket is largely white and who you know not how good you are largely determines selection. His name is Mark Richardson (you are not expected to recognise the name and few know what he has done despite his repeatedly reminding the audience he once played for NZ's biggest sporting chokers) and he openly endorsed National prior to the election.

When TV3 next goes bust, I suggest the frequencies be allocated to Radio New Zealand and let them run a TV news channel.

Lies About New Zealand

From time to time I take to task those who peddle misinformation about New Zealand. Be careful I say, as the writers often have an agenda or are just plain stupid.

The latest example of this came to my attention through Twitter of all places. This is the offending website: http://www.nzpensionprotest.com/Home/the-fight/nz-pension-abuse-website

The arguments as put up by these people are confused and incomprehensible. What I was able to discern from them was they want to be able to double-dip in effect, that is, receive an overseas pension AND have their Kiwi partners also receive a single person pension in NZ as well; all the while living in the blissful harmony of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Err, but no you don't get to do that at all. For the record, NZ has one of the most broad and non-discriminatory pension schemes you'll find - anywhere. But one thing you cannot do is get paid more than others. Everyone who qualifies gets paid the same, singles get what other singles get, married the same as other married and so on. If a millionaire and single you get the same as homeless and single.

Now you may debate the sense of doing this and that would be fine, but what will never happen is a retired person getting paid while the pension income from overseas exceeds what is allowable.

[edit to add "who qualifies" after everyone, third line second to last paragraph]

A partner website of the above link with no contactable address and more of the same attacks, all apparently intended to damage New Zealand, can be found here: http://nzpensionabuse.org.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/index.html

[Essentially the above sites are fake news. The websites may sound legalistic in nature but they constitute propaganda and you have to wonder who is paying for it. Funnily enough a robust refutation of all their claims can be found hidden on their own website. This comes from a government official called Iona Holsted: >The Ministry of Social Development Does Not Raid Overseas Pensions<

Of importance in the above guidance from Holsted is the third paragraph starting with the words 'where a person's overseas pension is higher...' (ignore the underlining - the person who does that cannot comprehend what is written all that well).]

[Edit to add: All correspondence on this matter is now closed. Readers may guess that a successful and widely read blog like mine, read in literally every country of the world, receives a few dipsticks. Most of them are selling something. And they're often Asian. Nice try but they're just deleted. But this lot are the exception, they constantly contact with the same entitled bullshit, attacking New Zealand and me, all the while wanting a free lunch. Read the link you bludgers, the one from the Ministry of Social Development, Iona Holsted nails it. Stop looking for a free lunch, and stop attacking New Zealand.]

2017-18 NBA Season

The new NBA season is under way and the season promises to be a good one with more close games. The usual easy beats aren't so easy to beat this season. For instance, the Washington Wizards look very promising despite going down to the Golden State Warriors in their latest game. Also looking good are the Minnesota Timberwolves.

Across the league more pressure is being applied by defenses to perimeter shooters, about time I'd say. This kind of pressure was evident from the Golden State/Wizards game, with shot selection being the decider in my opinion. Questions would need to be asked of the Wizards coach too, his was a poor display, allowing his team to give up a considerable lead.

I'm going to predict the OKC Thunder will struggle and may not even make the playoffs. A big call I know but I'll explain my view in two words, Carmelo Anthony.

Donald Trump - Is He Unhinged?

It has occurred to me that the President of the United States, Donald Trump, may actually be unhinged and should therefore be removed from office. That's not to say he isn't sometimes right. But when he's right it appears to be more a case of a stopped clock being right twice a day rather any Trump wisdom.

Bear in mind he actually inherited his fortune and the company that bears his name employs some capable people. And if Trump had simply invested in a safe Wall Street fund he'd be a lot richer than he is now. He's actually gone backwards on where he was when he took over from his father when taking the S&P indexes into account.

This latest incident where the President took issue with the widow of a US soldier is another example of his unhinged state. I believe the widow's version and that of Congresswoman Frederica Wilson. No doubt the President had the name of the fallen soldier written down in front of him, but Donald Trump is so out of it, he can't even read. Now that is something to think about.

The precedent for taking steps to remove Trump lies in the events of 1987, when senior staff closely observed Ronald Reagan for any evidence of instability. In that case Reagan performed satisfactorily and so stayed on. Perhaps a similar watch needs to be kept of Trump.

Get Ready For Boom Times Ahead

The incoming Labour-NZ First government has just announced a one billion dollar regional development initiative. This comes on top of Labour's first big promise, 100,000 new homes. With a Labour government a construction boom always follows. It's as sure as any certainty you can get in business.

So everyone will have to put up with the Greens stomping on mining. We'll all just have to wait to deal with them later, hopefully in three years time at the next election when it becomes obvious even to the few who voted for them that they're just communists re-branded. And New Zealand will have to put up with all the political correctness, like low flow shower heads and long life light bulbs. But that will be a small price to pay really, when you consider how much money and jobs are going to be on offer with all the construction that will be occurring.

And don't feel sorry for National. Don't miss them for a minute. They didn't handle the economy that well, all that happened was they inherited the work done by the very capable Michael Cullen. Then they did stupid things like stopping contributions to the Cullen Fund. They hated poor people and preferred to see them living out of old cars instead of providing them affordable accommodation. The Christchurch rebuild stalled, Auckland got its own way on everything, the army shrivelled to almost nothing. The list goes on and on.

Simon "Bill" English - resign and go and get your first real job.

Labour - NZ First Coalition Government

The numbers are in and New Zealand is going to have a new government made up of Labour and NZ First in a formal coalition arrangement with the Greens supporting on confidence and supply. National will be the opposition yet be the largest single bloc of votes with 56 seats in the House of Representatives.

How did this happen? Three things to consider, and please note most pundits have got this completely wrong because, quite simply, they don't know what they're talking about.

The first thing to remember is that both Labour and NZ First campaigned on effecting change. National were seeking a fourth term in office and played an undermining of all others strategy without a support brand of their own to help get them over the line. This was doomed to failure from the start. Simon "Bill" English is a grade A loser as I've said all along. What National needed was National Lite, or Labour Right to help them out, not the largely discredited ACT party.

The second part of the equation lies within NZ First. Contrary to many widely held opinions, NZ First is made up of approximately 60% old-school Labour. At NZ First meetings they can be oft heard using terms like 'what about the workers' or some such. These people joined NZ First as they hate the modern Labour party and its membership of teachers, nurses and social workers. When listening to the modern Labour party all the old-school can hear is flub-flub-flub. So they go to NZ First to join others of like mind then after the meeting head to the Pub to play darts and drink beer. Only about 20% of NZ First are old-Nats, and they are there because the new National party is an undemocratic institution that tells its membership what to think all the time. Policy descends from the top with new-Nats. Then lastly 20% of NZ First are new to politics. They are often Asian, Indians mostly, drawn to NZ First policies of regional development and looking after small businesses.

The NZ First membership is not old either, forget that thinking as National has a much older average age of membership by comparison. Winston Peters would be mindful of his party make-up when deciding who to go with.

Then lastly we have what Labour and National are like to deal with. We have to consider past dealings. National are dishonest in their dealings, they give a lot away up front but then look to undermine and stab their partner in the back. However Labour, while hard to get concessions from, are more likely to honour any arrangement. Compare 1996 with 2005 to see my point from Mr Peters perspective.

It's a no-brainer really and I'm glad I got this right. It's going to be funny seeing Paula Bennett on the AM show with Duncan Garner, no more Princess-waiting-to-be-Queen behaviour from her. That is, if she even shows up again.

DIY Investing

Back in June I picked PACCAR Inc., here: http://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/2017/06/paccar-inc.html

Had my readers taken heed and invested, their investment would be up 16%. Check out my portfolio: http://www.siliconinvestor.com/portfolio.aspx?fid=521

What I say is this: take your own counsel and buy shares directly through a broker. Do not buy into funds, or funds of funds, and eschew financial advice from so-called professionals. All that happens when following investment advisers and funds is they'll take away most of the gains in fees. Do It Yourself, be conservative and look for value.

NZ General Election 2017: The Numbers

This is how things stack up in the House of Representatives in New Zealand following the final count of the General Election 2017.

National: 56 seats, Labour 46, NZ First 9, Greens 8, ACT 1.

Possible coalitions therefore, in order of likelihood (need 61 seats to form a government). Note that ACT has become irrelevant:

National 56 + NZ First 9 = 65
Labour + Greens + NZ First = 63
Labour + NZ First 55 + Greens on Confidence and Supply = 63
National 56 + NZ First on Confidence and Supply = 65
National + Labour = 102
National + Greens = 64

If we take the top three options as being far more likely than the bottom three, then we can see that National are left stranded. Labour are in the box seat with more options for how they form a government. It is worth mentioning that only Labour increased its share of the vote this time round. Everyone else slipped and this must play on the minds of the leaders during negotiations.

Duncan Garner

Duncan Garner's recent rant in a Sunday paper in New Zealand was definitely racist. More telling is that he defended his words on the AM show the next day.

He's all façade. He's also lightweight as he goes on an on and on. Massively. (Yes I'm copying his poor style).

I have found a very good slap down here: https://discrepancie.wordpress.com/2017/10/07/im-not-racist-but-an-open-letter-to-duncan-garner/

I see parallels between Garner's snake imagery and that used by Fritz Hippler in the Nazi propaganda film The Eternal Jew (1940). Hippler depicted rats running in the sewers, a clear reference to the notion of the wandering Jew. Garner doesn't want wandering mobs of the wrong type of person in his queue at Kmart.

Colin Kaepernick: To Take a Knee or Not?

I've been thinking about the issue of NFL players taking a knee during the playing of the US national anthem. The trend was apparently started by Colin Kaepernick of the San Francisco 49ers. Kaepernick is now unemployed and likely to remain so, possibly due to his protests, but contributing to his lack of work must be his playing record. But I digress as the latter point is not the issue I see.

No, what gets me is the position those who do not take a knee get left in. It's a protest that is divisive amongst the team. There is no I in team. Yes, first amendment right to free speech and all that, but wait, this is a professional sport run for profit and NFL rules require players to stand during the anthem. Can these players get away with it? This is the slippery slope argument.

Is this politicising sport? Yes it is, but you could argue simply playing the anthem is political. Why not do away with the anthem altogether and just play a rousing team song? Lame I know, but does the anthem have to be played at every game?

If we accept that doing away with playing of the anthem is not workable, and accept that rules are rules, then the only conclusion must be all players must stand. If they don't, they could have their pay docked and employment terminated for repeated incidents.

When I started thinking about this, you know, I thought I'd come to the conclusion that actions such as taking a knee are fine. But there was no way I could see to justify such protest as it is not in an appropriate forum. Why don't the players leave the stadium and conduct their protest outside? As well, consider all those who have sacrificed their lives for that same anthem and flag, what of them? Standing during the anthem acknowledges all previous sacrifice, it is not an affirmation of injustice now or in the future.

My advice, Donald Trump is right if at times inelegant. Stand during the playing of your national anthem, no matter where you are in the world.

OKC Clutching at Straws

What are the Oklahoma City Thunder thinking? They've just traded to acquire Carmelo Anthony from the New York Knickerbockers. Will this be the worst trade of the year, worse even than the Sacramento Kings giving up Demarcus Cousins. Maybe.

If we look at the Thunder, they've lost a lot of talent over the years and got back little in return. First they lost James Harden to the Houston Rockets. What a gain for the Rockets that was. Then with a depleted roster Kevin Durant does a runner to Golden State and finally picks up his title. Now the Thunder have only Russell Westbrook as a true class athlete, along with Paul George and Carmelo Anthony who are not anywhere near the Hardens and Durants of this world.

Enes Kanter must pinch himself when waking up in New York. How could such an average big man now be in the world's largest media market? He's certainly landed on his feet. And feel a little sorry for Steven Adams, stranded amongst ball hogs in Oklahoma City, where people compare their tractors and it's a long way to anywhere else. But not too sorry as he's a businessman and has never pulled on the black singlet for his country as an adult, so no doubt Adams will be checking his bank balance and not worrying too much about winning (and just so you know my thoughts on the subject, it's fine that Steven Adams is NZ's top athlete but he's not a great until he plays for his country. Until that happens he's just making up the numbers).

Lesson for NZ from German Federal Election 2017

New Zealand and Germany have the same type of electoral system - mixed member proportional. Both went to the polls over the weekend and both threw up interesting results. For New Zealand it was that the centre/left has spoken and shifted the balance of power. Only Labour grew their vote while all others withered or stood still.

In Germany, the far right has gained ground, actually winning seats this time round. Significantly, Angela Merkel will be Chancellor off a vote of less than 35% for her party. Get the idea Labour? That's right, Jacinda Ardern can be Prime Minister and there is precedent. All Labour need to do is do the deal with its left-of-centre travellers.

New Zealand General Election 2017

The results are in and I was both right and wrong. The public opinion polls were largely correct and the ruling National party got the single biggest share of the vote. But this is where it gets interesting as National are left like an orphan child, they have only one natural coalition partner, the lone ACT party person.

The first rule of politics - learn how to count. On the current result the centre-left has the overall majority. That is the combined total of Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First are the majority, not National and the one ACT party person.

Labour were successful in crushing the Maori party. They also gained ground in Wellington and Christchurch but not significant ground in Auckland. Turnout was down on three years ago and this dampened the result for Labour. Labour need a big turnout to swing a result their way.

This all sets up a few scenarios:

The first is that the 'moral authority' to form a government sits with Labour and its fellow left-of-centre travellers. They need to sit down and hammer out a deal. The structure of any deal could take a number of forms, one could be a Labour/NZ First minority government supported on confidence and supply by the Greens. The Greens could be given the Speaker role to compensate.

Alternatively NZ First or the Greens could prop up a fourth term National government. That would likely prove a very unpopular move, especially when you consider people voted for change. Either of these small parties should think very carefully before committing to helping National.

Far less likely but strategically worth mentioning is a grand coalition between National and Labour. Such a large bloc would have the effect of crushing the smaller parties by crowding the airwaves. But while making strategic sense it won't happen given the enmity between the two.

The next few days will be interesting. NZ First's leader Winston Peters is effectively kingmaker. Will he prop up a tired National or go for change and vigour? My pick is he knows National will only stab him in the back, he'll look ahead and do a deal with Labour.

[Edit to add: Turnout was actually up at 79.8% of all registered voters but the young are under-represented, only about 50% of those 18-24 who were eligible to vote bothered to vote; the young were also more likely to not even register]

New Zealand General Election 2017

Adding to my previous post, the overall result in the General Election may come down to whether South Auckland votes, or not. A lot is being made of the youth vote and their failure to register. But that has always been the case, nothing to see there. No, what will be decisive will be how South Auckland decide. I remember 2005 and the South Auckland vote coming in late for Labour, it got Helen Clark over the line. Up to then it was looking like the Don Brash led National party were going to be forming a government.

Since then John Key rose to lead National and he won the election in 2008. He managed to successfully straddle the middle ground. But he's no longer around and National now come across as entitled, ignorant, arrogant and Mommy-knows-best. My thinking is South Auckland will return to Labour in sufficient numbers to swing it for Labour. Labour may even get the largest share of the vote.

If I'm right, then that means the public opinion polls are very wrong.

Election: Prediction

I'm going to stick my neck out and predict a Labour landslide in this years general election in New Zealand. I went to vote early yesterday and the booths were busy. When people can't wait to vote and good weather leads up to the polling day it usually means Labour win. And there is a buzz, people are talking politics and this hasn't been the case for 20 or so years. National win when there is no debate and everyone is bored, the blue rinse set who are National's core support put their rents up and then sneak down to the polling booth in their Lexus or Audi and don't talk to anyone. Okay, so I'm being prejudiced, but there is truth in what I'm saying. Labour would have to stone cold drop the ball to lose from here.

Polls: National or Labour in Front?

There are conflicting poll results leading up to this years general election in New Zealand. TV1 has Labour in front while TV3 say National has extended its lead in front. They can't both be right. To find what the problem is I'd suggest looking at the sample sizes and methodology behind each poll. My guess is that TV1 is biased toward the large metropolitan areas while TV3 is biased toward the regions. Considering there are far more people living in cities, I'd pay more attention to the TV1 poll results.

Something else to think about, NZ First usually does better on election day. A myriad of reasons for this, including when asked people won't admit to supporting NZ First, or they're older people and always leave the answer-phone on and so can't be polled.

My money is still on a Labour/NZ First coalition. Labour on 40% plus NZ First's 9%, = 49% and with lost or wasted votes a majority in parliament. This MMP is a stupid system foisted on us by the Greens way back in the day, it's brilliant that same system is going to dump on them. Ha ha you bunch of naysayers.

Turn Sunlight into Liquid Fuel

This is good news, finally a technology that really turns things on its head. Please read the following link:

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/06/bionic-leaf-turns-sunlight-into-liquid-fuel/