Government changes 1 billion tree target to half a billion

NZ Herald reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is denying that the Government is backtracking over its goal to plant 1 billion trees over 10 years, saying it was always going to be in partnership with the private sector.

Forestry and Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones told the National Business Review today that the Government was going to plant about half of the 1 billion trees, while the private sector would plant the rest.

“[The one billion goal] is not something that is going to be pursued in isolation from the industry. If we work together, if they continue with their 50 million [a year] over 10 years and we continue with 50 million [a year] over 10 years, you get to a billion.”

This is pretty dishonest. Had the government partnered with the private sector to plant the billion new trees over the next 10 years, that would be fine.

However, the 50 million trees planted by the industry are only planted to replace trees that they’ve already cut down. That’s net zero trees from the industry. In fact, we’ll need to be planting more than that, as the trees planted in the 1990s have been forested.

This is just more fudging of the numbers. Half a billion isn’t enough, hence the promise of 1 billion. It’s quite disappointing to see this from a promising government.

New Roy Morgan poll gives Labour and the Greens a majority

CSV  

The latest Roy Morgan poll is out, and it’s looking good for the left!

The Labour/NZF+Green government parties are at 54.5%, with Labour/Greens together at 49.5%.

National has dropped down to 40.5%, and NZ First has fallen to just 5%.

Labour is at 39.5%, just 1% point behind National, and the Greens are back up to 10%.

If this were translated into seats, Labour and the Greens would have a combined 62 seats, 13 of which belong to the Greens. That would mean New Zealand First would be put back into opposition.

Let’s hope these results are sustained for 2020.

 

66.5% say NZ is heading in the right direction, while just 20% say NZ is heading in the wrong direction.

Rocky start on the first day of parliament

House trading
Photo: RNZ / Richard Tindiller

Today was the commission opening of parliament, in which the Speaker of the House was elected. This went in an interesting way.

Winston Peters and David Parker, along with 3 other government MPs and 1 opposition MP, were absent, unable to be sworn in.  Winston and Parker were overseas attending the APEC meeting. Thus, when the time came to elect the speaker, it was believed the government didn’t have enough votes to elect Trevor Mallard.

Simon Bridges raised a question, asking whether members not yet sworn in could vote. Expectedly, the answer was no. The National Party front bench then huddled together in conversation, stalling the process.

Labour’s Minister for State Services came over, as did Grant Robertson, joining National in discussions.

National then voted for Trevor Mallard as speaker of the house.

Afterwards, the opposition confirmed they had struck a deal to increase the number of select committee seats to their advantage in exchange for their support of speaker. National had played their cards well, forcing Labour’s hand. An embarrassing mistake for the new government!

Unfortunately, in reality, the government had 57 MPs (excluding Mallard, who couldn’t vote for himself), while the opposition had 56. The Labour Party never needed to make a deal with National to elect Trevor Mallard. They appeared to have fallen for National’s bluff.

This looks embarrassing.

The government appeared to have given the opposition what they wanted, without having any need to. National made them look like fools who don’t have their stuff together. This is not a great start for a government already being attacked for being messy and chaotic.

The government now states this was to avoid a vote, which they viewed as a rockier start.

It’s hard to tell whether this is genuine, though it probably is. It would have been sensible to communicate this beforehand. I’m not sure why the government would care if it went to a vote or not, unless they really valued their time or an alternate perception of stability over select committee seats.

I would not argue that this outcome was more stable than a contested speaker election.

If National had contested the election of the speaker, they would simply lose, and it would be bad for their reputation. Few like needless challenges. Instead, Labour agreed to National’s terms, giving them more power in select committees. I would call this an embarrassing failure for the government, and a sly move from National that makes them look like clever bargainers.

And this is all before Winston chose to sue National and the media.

Today the Electoral Commission released the voter turnout by each age group, and now the data proves there was a real rise in young voters visiting the ballot box.

Age 2014 Turnout 2017 Turnout Change (percentage points)
18 – 24 62.7% 69.3% 6.5%
25 – 29 62.1% 67.6% 5.5%
30 – 34 67.4% 70.9% 3.5%

In the 18-24 age range, turnout was up 6.5% points from the 2014 election. It’s great to see more young people getting involved and exercising their right to vote.

What if NZ First was split into three different parties: Left, Right, and the Unsures?

There’s been many claims that the majority didn’t vote for this new government, as not all New Zealand First voters want to go into government coalition with Labour. Now, this is a pathetic attempt to undermine the credibility of the new government, and it’s not how proportional representation works, but let’s see if there’s any credibility to this claim.

The only data we have is a poll of NZ First voters before the election. 65% preferred Labour, 25% preferred National, while the other 10% didn’t know. Keep in mind there’s an ±11.6% MoE.

New Zealand First won 9 seats. Let’s split that up according to the voter preferences.

  • 2 of those seats would prefer National
  • 1 of those seats would remain impartial
  • 6 of those seats would prefer Labour

What if each of those hypothetical ‘factions’ was a separate party?

Seats if NZ First were 3 parties

Here, the National/NZF/ACT grouping would have 59 seats, while the Labour/Greens/NZF grouping would have 60 seats. The National grouping could not form a government, while the Labour grouping would need New Zealand First’s one ‘Unsure/Don’t know/Impartial’ seat  to gain the necessary majority.

While the Labour grouping needs that one swing seat in the middle for a majority, National has no use for it as they would still be one seat short of a majority.

Using this visualisation, it’s clear that less than half of voters supported the status quo government, with at least half supporting the left-wing change.

Sore loser National MP calls the Labour government a ‘coup’

Matt King's post

You’d think the man tasked with (successfully) unseating Winston Peters would have a better idea of how MMP works, but evidently not.

This bitterness is in stark contrast to Bill English’s gracious concession speech. There is nothing more bitter than a sore loser claiming this is some kind of constitutional coup.

National and ACT got 44.95%. Labour, NZ First, and the Greens got 50.36%. This is how proportional representation works. It’s not mob rule. The majority of the country are represented in this government.

If we have another term of this kind of bitterness, it’ll be a long 3 years.