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.
7 comments:
As always the left are very picky with what figures they use, they always cherry pick data, this is no exception. I pointed this out on the 'keep out assets' photo.
Opposed:
Labour Party 614,937 + Green Party 247,372 + New Zealand First Party 147,544 + Māori Party 31,982 + Mana 24,168 = 1,066,003
In favor:
National Party 1,058,636 + ACT New Zealand 23,889 + United Future 13,443 = 1,095,968
All others were wasted.
The difference was 29,965 votes IN FAVOR of Asset sales.
It almost sounds like they are against MMP - as it was MMP which denied the other small parties from getting into parliament ...
I sometimes wonder whether tories are venal or stupid. Then I read comments like these and I wonder no more.
It was generally felt by Fonterra management that the share trading scheme needed 75% support to provide a true mandate. Although the 66% support got them through it has been accepted that a significant group were unhappy with the decision.
With the sale of state assets I the biggest percentage I have seen, using the election or any poll since, struggles to go beyond 50%. I would be interested if you can provide at least two polls that provide well over 60% support.
For something as important as this issue there are neither the strong fiscal arguments (I have seen none here) or the numbers to provide a real mandate.
Also the point made in the chart regarded those parties that had the sale of state assets as an election policy. I agree that some assumptions were made, but then again lots of people who did vote National didn't agree with the sales. The election wasn't just about asset sales!
You've seen no fiscal comment from me bsprout, because I'm by no stretch of the imagination an economist. Seventh Form economics in 1973 is a long time ago!
As for assumptions, your last paragraph proves the point I was making. The Left claims that not everyone who voted National supported asset slaes. But conversely, not everyone who voted for Labour, the Greens, NZ First, Mana, Conservatives, ALCP, Democrats for Social Credit and the Alliance necessarily opposed asset sales.
The use of those numbers in that way is spurious at best, and is bourne out by the revelation yesterday that more than half of both Labour and Green Party voters would consider a shareholding in an SOE.
I think we agree then, KS, that the extent of support or opposition to asset sales isn't a forgone conclusion on either side. Therefore, in the interests of democracy and the importance of the assets up for sale, what we need is a referendum to settle the matter :-)
There is no similarity between this issue and section 59 (the so called anti smacking bill) because practically all parties supported the passing of the bill and the resulting referendum was not worded clearly enough to allow a mandate for any particular action and John Key's amendment sorted the issue.
"The use of those numbers in that way is spurious at best, and is bourne out by the revelation yesterday that more than half of both Labour and Green Party voters would consider a shareholding in an SOE."
You keep repeating that like it matters, yet you haven't explained why you think it does. Sixty-four percent of people in the same survey were opposed to the sell-off. Why do you only present part of the information? Is it to please your chums in the National Party Research Unit?
Post a Comment