Yesterday, it was Winstonomics. Today's featured economist is Trevor Mallard.
Trevor Mallard is shopping this picture around social media sites:
There's just one small problem; the assumption on which the numbers are based on are wrong, and totally contradictory to what Labour has been proclaiming over the last few weeks. So here's what's wrong with it.
For a start, the "Keep Our Assets" number includes parties that did not make it into Parliament. It also makes the assumption that everyone who voted for the Conservative Party, Aotearoa Legalise Cannbis Party, Democrats for Social Credit and the Alliance was opposed to the sale of a partial share of SOE's.
Assumptions are dangerous things to make. For you see that every time someone on the Right has suggested that National had a mandate to enact the Mixed Ownership Model legislation as they will today, people on the Left have suggested that not everyone who voted for National, Act or United Future supported partial asset sales. But now the Left wants to claim exlusive right to the raw numbers through the assumption they make.
Labour and Trevor Mallard must decide where they stand. National and its support parties have a mandate because they control the Parliament and can exact whatever legislation they wish. But Labour can't try and play this kind of numbers game when they are making the very same assumptions that their speakers in the MOM debate last week repeatedly rejected.
So we've worked out what Trevornomics represents; clearly, it is a style of economic argument where one is economical with the truth, or making the numbers say what you want them to say even when they don't.