False Tweets Archive, NZ2017

This page will gather all the false and misleading tweets from each of the Echo Chambers.

Criteria:

False tweets are demonstrably counter-factual.  Misleading tweets can easily be interpreted in a way that would lead to a counter-factual conclusion.  Tweets with links to articles and blog posts that contain false or misleading content are also included.  Tweets and articles that conflate facts with opinions are also considered misleading.

Partisan and opinionated commentary is not considered misleading, as long as the opinions are not conflated with facts.  It should be noted that the distinction is a fine one, and borderline cases may be contested – those in the business of creating fake news deliberately strive to blur the line between fact and fiction.  You may not entirely agree with my assessment of what is misleading and what is not.  I advise you use your own judgement, and I am open to feedback, though I may not necessarily agree with you after I hear it.

Echo Chamber National:

(!) Linking a tweet that links to an aggregator, which then links to a partisan opinion blog that mingles opinions with quotes and facts taken out of context:

(!) This tweet misrepresents the content of the linked news article, where Andrew Little clarifies that Labour does not support the charter school model:

(!) This article does not describe Labour infighting at all:

(!) Race baiting, misrepresenting the content of the linked article.  Retweeted by @bhudson_nz:

(!) Misleading use of statistics.  2009 was at the height of the Subprime Mortgages global financial crisis, and the New Zealand government cannot claim credit for the global economic recovery that followed:

(!) The linked article does not say anything about the existence of internal disputes within Labour.  King lashed out at the Herald journalist, who was the one who suggested Ardern might replace King as deputy:

(!) No, Foster-Bell, the news is real, your tweet is the lie.  The link has actual video footage of Wayne Mapp acknowledging civilian casualties in the raid.  If one spelling mistake constitutes “fake news”, well bad news for you, the mistake was quickly corrected, too:

(!) Misleading omission of information.  This refers to greenhouse gas emissions from energy generation and use only, does not include agriculture, construction, and other industries.  Also, year-to-year variability may not reflect long term trends:

(!) Brett Hudson (@bhudson_nz) retweeting unsubstantiated and unverifiable rumours:

(!) The linked article literally shows that there are more people unemployed now than in 2008, when National came into power:

(!) Look-Through Companies are an legal invention created in 2010 by the National government to allow more streamlined tax offsetting, which was previously done through Loss Attributing Qualifying Companies.  This “standard tax practice” was invented by the National government, and doesn’t exist outside New Zealand, nor did it exist before National was in government:

(!) The image does not, in any way, provide any evidence for a causal relationship between land availability and house prices in Christchurch.  Alternative hypotheses for lower house prices may include, for example, a population slump after the earthquake (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11140576 ):

(!) When your linked “opinion” piece is contrary to facts, it’s not an opinion, it’s lies:

(!) Labour’s health funding analysis takes into account the age of the population as well, with higher costs as people age.  Also, no rebuttal for housing shortage and poverty:

(!) Is this a loaded question designed to implant a certain presupposed conclusion into the readers’ minds, while also obfuscating important facts such as the disassociation of Matt McCarten from Labour before the alleged immigration fraud took place?:

(!) The linked article quotes one union leader who specifically says that their union wasn’t involved.  The whole point of the scandal is that Campaign for Change didn’t get any union money or official Labour support, and that’s why things went bad:

(!) This is for the first Monday morning only after the new tunnel opened, specifically from the CBD to the airport.  Does not necessarily reflect how traffic patterns will adjust in the long term.  Statistic taken completely out of context, and is deeply misleading:

(!) “Kiwi families” veils the fact that National’s tax cuts benefit the richest far more than the poorest, and misleadingly implies an equivalence where there is none.  National proposes tax cuts that go mostly to the rich, Labour proposes benefits for low- and middle-income families:

(!) No, actually, inequality was falling under the last Labour government (1999-2008), then it rose back up under the National government (2008-present) (http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-social-indicators/Home/Standard%20of%20living/income-inequality.aspx):

(!) Labour has a plan, a “diverted profits tax”, it’s not even complicated:

(!) One of eight, not one of three.  I don’t think the person in charge of National’s Twitter account even read the whole article they linked.  Just the headline of the article lists four countries among the “stand out digital economies”:

(!) The article also says that it is due to low global interest rates and high overseas equity prices, things that are out of our control.  Our net foreign liabilities remains high by international standards, and has not changed much in real dollar terms:

(!) This completely misrepresents Labour’s policies.  For numbers on where Labour plans to spend the money, see (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/94879965/labour-lays-out-financial-plan-with-billions-more-for-health-education):

(!) From the linked article, “The report said there was headroom for growth but it was possible the Hawke’s Bay commercial properties were at a valuation peak, or approaching it.  “It seems likely that 2017 could be overall another ripper for New Zealand and Hawke’s Bay commercial-industrial property, however, with heightened risks that could conspire to spoil the party and maybe at short notice.”  Associate director Kurt Richards said: “This is possibly typical of a market, at or nearing its peak.””  Also, the article says retail vacancy is improving, and fewer vacant properties are better, but the person in charge of National’s Twitter account thinks “vacancy is up” is a good thing:

(!) This claim picks the most favourable statistic, without considering how much of that income is disposable.  On page 110 of said report, the increase in median disposable income after housing costs is from 2008-2016 is shown to be around 5%.  For the bottom 10% of income earners, the increase is less than 1%.  For the top 10% of income earners, the increase is around 10%.  Quote “Using the AHC moving line (relative) measure (60%),the population poverty rate was in 2016 the same as what it was in the recession and in the early to mid 2000s. Rates in 2013 to 2016 were roughly double what they were in the 1980s.”:

(!) Unemployment down, labour force participation also down.  That’s means it’s not more percentage people working, it’s less percentage people trying to find work:

(!) If you read the actual report (https://www.anz.co.nz/about-us/economic-markets-research/job-ads/ ), it says that job growth peaked earlier in the year and is currently stalling.  (Also, is the same white dude getting all the jobs?!):

(!) There are 3820 lakes in New Zealand larger than one hectare, by the way.  You can look up the number of rivers for yourself:

(!) This has nothing to do with sugar.  Bottlers using municipal supplies already pay the local council for the water supply.  Whether the council charge for the water itself or only for the infrastructure is up to the council.  Labour water charge is for extracting directly from rivers and aquifers:

(!) The linked article does not support the Tweet’s assertion:

(!) Actually, the linked article quotes Dunne being quite clear that the citizenship issue has nothing to do with Hipkins:

(!) Do I really point this ignorance out?  “Kids starved of nurturing and love.”  And the boot camps will continue with that.  “What would a boot camp give them? […] Suddenly you’ve got a sense of purpose.”  They already had a sense of purpose: survival.  If you give military discipline to a criminal, they’ll become a disciplined criminal (which is more dangerous, by the way).  What they need is money, food, a home, skills, a good job.  “Some years ago, when I was 18, I did Outward Bound for a month. I’d never been away from home and suddenly I was […] Sleeping rough in the hills in driving rain, […] And that was me for three days on my own.”  You did that for 3 days, and after plenty of training, huh?  Consider homeless kids for whom that’s their everyday, and they’re not even 18 yet, you privileged white woman.  “Will a boot-camp work? It has to.”  Faith before evidence.  “And it has to be better than the alternative. Turning these kids out on the streets once they’ve done their time.”  Straw man alert.  The alternative is not turning them out on the street, the alternative is a home, counselling, training, a job.  Your opinion is privileged ignorance:

(!) 9 years of bad housing policy and now the band-aid on the symptoms cost $6 million per day with no end in sight:

(!) House prices in Auckland has approximately doubled in the past 5 years.  Halving current prices only means correcting the price bubble:

(!) This is a building boom relative to the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2008.  If we look at longer-term trends, current consent numbers are comparable to 1950 – 1980 averages.  We should also note that the current uptick in housing construction follows a larger surge in population growth, thus this boom is merely struggling to keep pace with demand (http://m.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/dwellings-household-trends-1991-2015.aspx ):

(!) This graph is deliberately truncated to mislead (see full data set at https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm ).  The start date of 2005 is below long-term trends for New Zealand.  If 2004 or 2007 were picked as starting dates, then New Zealand would be shown to be below OECD average.  Limiting the data set to the selected countries also misrepresent the data.  Comparing with all OECD countries, New Zealand is in the bottom half in percentages terms, and significantly below OECD average in real dollar values.

(!) A “NZ tax resident” is very different from a “NZ resident”.  Actual NZ citizens and legal residents are only 40% of the market.  57% of the market are people who pay New Zealand taxes, but are neither NZ citizens nor residents.  You qualify to be a tax resident merely by owning a house in New Zealand, which is tautological when we’re talking about property investors.  From the IRD website on tax residency, “Even if you maintain ties (or even a physical home) in other countries you can still be a New Zealand tax resident. As long as you have a permanent place of abode in New Zealand you’ll always be a [tax] resident”:

(!) A capital gains tax on investment properties is not a tax on small business in general, only property speculators.  It suppresses only the housing bubble.  It encourages job creation because it shifts investment dollars out of houses and into businesses.  It doesn’t affect incomes except for property speculators.  Hudson literally listed all the wrong things, and left out the one thing that’s correct – correcting the house price bubble may potentially push recent mortgagees into foreclosure because it wouldn’t make sense to finance a mortgage that costs twice the value of the house before even factoring in the interest:

(!) Or you can lay another track to increase capacity:

(!) Misleading use of quote marks.  The “quote” is not of the journalist, but of himself being quoted by the journalist.  The only person to use the words “false promise” is Bennett himself:

(!) The definition of “capital gains” is specifically wealth that you didn’t work for.  If you own a house and the government creates a housing bubble so the value of your house doubles without you doing anything, that is, by definition, money you didn’t earn.  The correct question is “why bother working and saving if you can sit on your house and gain money without doing anything to earn it”:

(!) The linked article also says that last year Timaru was on the brink of a recession.  Funny National doesn’t take responsibility for that part:

(!) If you read the linked webpage, the waiting list is 224.  The new funding increases implants to 100 per year.  Currently it is 40 per year, and back before 2013 it was 20 per year.  In other words, they’re making up for years of under-funding, just in time for the elections:

(!) No, really, people aren’t this stupid.  Labour’s tourism levy isn’t new, it was announced all the way back in May, and a couple of days ago National announced extra fees for international tourists.  Please, spare me the hypocrisy:

(!) Holy crap, how can anyone be this stupid?  National’s tax cuts are in percentages, benefiting the rich far more than the poor – cancelling those tax cuts take far more money from the rich than the poor.  People who have the money will get their degrees regardless of whether it costs money or not, whereas the poor can not afford the up-front costs of a degree.  This means free tertiary education has no impact on the future incomes of rich people, while it greatly increases the future incomes of currently poor people.  Taxes and fees apply to all people.  The lawyer also pays the taxes and the truck driver can also get a university degree – it’s not the poor paying for the rich, it’s everyone paying for the same opportunity for everyone.  If you ask people to pay the fee first, then earn money later, it doesn’t work for people who can’t afford the fee in the first place.  If you give people the education up front, then tax them higher later when they earn money, that works because you only take their money when they actually have money to give you.  Why on earth would Maggie Barry retweet this idiotic drivel?:

(!) There’s no “extra” debt.  Labour’s fiscal plan projects surpluses every year.  It’s paying down the debt $11 billion less over the next 5 years to avoid under-funding services.  The debt will still be paid down over time.  See http://www.labour.org.nz/fiscalplan:

(!) The video literally has Grant Robinson saying capital gains taxes in other countries often have a threshold below which small businesses would be exempt:

(!) See http://www.labour.org.nz/familiespackage , and page 14 of Labour’s fiscal plan http://www.labour.org.nz/fiscalplan:

(!) @nzfactcheck is propaganda run by the National party.  It says so on their Twitter profile:

(!) We’ve done this one before.  National’s “middle income” isn’t median, it’s average, which means far more than 50% of New Zealanders are below “middle income” by their definition.  People below their “middle income” (most of New Zealand) get less than that $1000 from National’s tax cuts, and low income people come out better off under Labour’s policy:

(!) Not true.  Houses constructed per capita was far higher in the 60s and 70s:

(!) No, the unemployment rate was lower during the last Labour government.  I know the Great Recession happened and I’m not pinning that on National, but this statement is false:

(!) No, it won’t require increasing debt.  Labour will just pay down the debt less aggressively:

(!) Labour productivity is work output per person per hour worked.  Changing the number of workers doesn’t change productivity, it changes total work.  David Bennett doesn’t have a clue about economics:

(!) Inflation has been hovering barely above 0% since the Great Recession.  Double of 0 is 0:

(!) Because free water extraction creates an externality whereby the economic benefits are privatised but the economic costs aren’t paid for, leading to wasteful and inefficient water use.  If your water use was not charged by volume, you’d just leave the tap running non-stop because it wouldn’t cost you anything to do so.  But even a small token fee by volume will motivate you to turn off that tap when you don’t need it on.  Todd Muller doesn’t have a clue about economics:

(!) Businesses run on being able to hire educated, skilled workers:

(!) The previous Labour government didn’t allow the wanton pollution of rivers by overstocking dairy cows:

(!) And there’s been a shortage of construction workers since the Christchurch earthquakes, but better little than nothing, right?:

(!) Rising average and stagnant median means all the gains are going to the mega-rich at the top:

(!) Actually, lowering supply vs high demand will shift the bargaining power over to the supply side, allowing workers to bargain for better conditions.  It’s just supply and demand:

(!) But not enough when you factor in the needs of an ageing population:

(!) The gender pay gap has been hovering between 9% and 12% throughout the last 9 years of National government – the trend under National is flat, not downwards.  It did trend down during the last Labour government, though:

(!) This is so blatantly chopping out the rest of Ardern’s sentence to take the quote out of context.  Do I even need to point this out?:

(!) Don’t waste your time trying to make sense of this, because it just doesn’t make any sense.  Ok, fine, I’ll say a few things.  Remember National cutting income taxes and raising GST?  Messing with the economy in a way that gave more money to the rich and reduced the spending power of the poor.  Hypocrisy:

(!) No, try http://www.labour.org.nz/education :

(!) There’s no truth here, it’s all Farrar’s imagination:

(!) If you look at the data, New Zealand has always had one of the lowest gender pay gaps in the world, as far back as the records go.  At the current 9.4%, it has gone backwards from the low of 4.5% in 2011:

(!) This analysis is wrong.  The operating allowance is only used for spending that is not counted elsewhere in the budget.  See page 14 of Labour’s fiscal plan.  Joyce’s example increasing police wages would only require bloating the operating allowance in perpetuity if that pay increase wasn’t included in the spending commitments, but if you look at the list of spending commitments, Labour has included increasing police pay from 2018 on.  Since that’s already in the spending commitments, to have that also in the spending allowance would be double-counting – Joyce’s conclusion of a budget blowout comes from double-counting the costs of Labour’s new policies.  As for the other points: extended parental leave was always a part of Labour’s families package, and therefore the costs of the families package always included the cost of extending parental leave – again, Joyce tries to double-count.  Labour’s multinational tax revenue is higher than the PREFU estimate because they intend to tax multinationals harder than National is proposing.  The extra two months of families package costs would correctly come out of the operating allowance.  The extra borrowing costs only happens because Joyce has double-counted a lot of the commitments – no extra debt means no extra costs of borrowing:

(!) He might as well have said, “I concede that the facts refute the claim, but I’m moving the goalposts to base my arguments on speculations of things that may or may not happen in the future.”  This was retweeted by Maggie Barry:

(!) There are many measures of poverty, and this is cherry-picking the rosiest and most unrealistic interpretation.  See page 116 of the Household Incomes Report for an example.  On that graph, poverty is measured in ways: below 50% of the 2007 median, below 60% of the 2007 median, below 50% of the median in each year, and below 60% of the median in each year.   First off, 2011 was a local high point in poverty due to the after effects of the Great Recession – choosing 2011 instead of 2008 (when National came into power) is already deceitful.  In that graph, only the measures against the 2007 median trend downwards.  This is saying, “by 2007 income standards, there are fewer people in poverty”.  But we don’t live in 2007, we live in 2017.  If we compare the proportion of people below 60% of 2007 median income in 2007 with the proportion below 60% of 2017 median income in 2017, they’re essentially the same.  Poverty has not declined.  And this is the before housing cost measure – we know that housing costs have risen faster than incomes.  If you look at page 117 for the after housing costs graph, poverty has increased:

(!) National keeps thinking they can fool people by misusing “average” instead of “median”.  See the Household Incomes Survey.  On page 32, the top graph, it says the median income is $36,600, while the mean (or average) is $45,100.  Notice the median is lower than the mean.  If you forgot your high school math, half of the population earns below the median, and half above the median.  Average, on the other hand, is what you get if you add up everyone’s income and divide it by the number of people – the amount of money you’d get if you got the same as everyone else, or communism.  Now scroll down to the table on page 34, where we see incomes by decile (10% brackets).  On the left column, under the “reference household”, we see that the median is indeed near the top of the 5th decile – roughly 50% are below the median, and 50% above.  Now look for the average of $45,100.  It’s in the 7th decile.  Closer to 2/3 of the population is below the average, while 1/3 is above.  Now look back at the competing claims in the tweet.  If you factor in added benefits under Labour, we can conclude that actually both claims are true.  People on the average wage will pay more tax than under National, but only 1/3 of the population is at or above average wage, so only about 30% of the richest households are better off under National:

(!) Funny that they actually provide you with the graph to show that they’re merely extending the trend line 4 years into the future, not changing the trend in any way:

(!) I guess Steven Joyce is fully committed to running himself off a cliff.  See page 14 of Labour’s fiscal plan.  It’s very simple, just look at the numbers that appear for 2018/19 onwards, but which are not in the 2017/18 column, or are significantly increased from the 2017/18 column.  Joyce says “That’s no new money for wage increases for police, social workers and DOC conservation rangers, for pay equity settlements, for the Ministry of Vulnerable Children, and no money for science and innovation, defence, or law and order.”  In Labour’s fiscal plan, there’s lines of new spending for “extra police”, “Families Package”, “Other welfare changes”, “Regional investment”, “Tourism and Conservation infrastructure Fund”, “R&D tax credits”.  All the items Joyce says is missing are there, except for extra defence spending because Labour isn’t doing any extra defence spending.  Joyce is completely wrong on all his claims:

(!) No, Ardern clearly says no capital gains tax on the family home, or the land it sits on.  The only confusion is created by the journalists asking about a land tax, which Labour has not talked about:

(!) Whereas many experts have calculated that achieving net-zero carbon emissions will create jobs and avoid the severe costs of extreme weather and sea-level rise destroying critical infrastructure.  For example see http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf:

(!) The interviewer literally making up policies that Labour has never said, and talking about something from 2011, two election cycles ago, that is not current policy:

(!) Fool, inheritance is literally things you didn’t earn – someone else worked for it and you just get it after they die.  If you believe in working hard, why don’t you tell your children to work hard and earn their own money instead of handing them a fat inheritance?:

(!) For reference, for 2017, New Zealand GDP growth is 3.06%, OECD total 2.09%, world total 3.47%.  There’s also the 2.1% growth in New Zealand’s population, which makes the GDP per capita significantly less rosy:

(!) Labour’s policy is “all future purchases of all Government vehicle fleets to be electric vehicles unless there is an exceptional reason otherwise”, so if the Police (or any other government department) really need combustion engines, they can get them for exceptional reasons:

(!) The Global Financial Crisis led to quantitative easing, led to sustained low interest rates, led to lower mortgage financing costs, led to increase household debt leveraging, led to increasing vulnerability of the economy to shocks or rising interest rates, which, when it happens, will push a significant proportion of borrowers into insolvency:

(!) Read the actual article, the author all but presumes Labour will win, and also says “Labour’s determination to stop house buyers using negative gearing to reduce their income tax is reason enough to welcome a change of Government. Extending National’s capital gains tax and giving tenants more security should be welcomed too.”:

(!) I’ve detailed this before.  Only about 30% of households are “average” wage or above (average is skewed significantly above the median):

(!) That’s because when you die, it’s no longer your home because you’re dead, and it’s not your children’s family home either if they’re living in a separate home.  If you really really must evade all possible taxes, you can sell your family home just before you die (no tax on that), then rent until you die, then all your money go to your children because we don’t even have an estate tax.  You rich people are supposed to be smart with your money, why do I have to teach you how to evade taxes?:

(!) Read the original.  The author criticises everyone’s water quality policies.  Also, the Greens’ have since announced their nitrate pollution policy, which makes the Greens the only party to have addressed the author’s major concern:

(!) Tax residency only requires you to own a “home” in New Zealand and where your “economic relations are closer”.  A foreigner flipping houses or renting out investment properties qualifies as a New Zealand tax resident, especially when the investment property can count as their permanent New Zealand home.  National has previously released stats showing about half of property sales are not to New Zealand citizens or permanent residents.  If the foreigner investor declares themself a New Zealand tax resident, they can avoid pesky capital gains taxes that are more common in other countries:

(!) Read that sentence carefully.  The best environmental outcome is the absence of humans, so yes, if you end farming, the natural environment will improve.  It’s just that we can’t afford to end farming, we’d starve.  Instead of a nuanced and intelligent argument for farming, Nathan Guy has a complete non sequitur:

(!) This was retweeted by Christopher Bishop.  No references to the original documents are given.  As far as I can tell, the analysis is this document, page 5-7, but there’s no mention at all of 9000 properties or $4083.  Impossible to verify the claims:

(!) Ok, this one by Judith Collins literally confuses “average” with “median”.  National doesn’t understand basic math, but they want you to think they’re good at managing the economy:

 

(!) Watch the video.  It’s a straw-man from Joyce, trying to put words in Robinson’s mouth.  Robinson literally says it won’t be manufacturing first, then Joyce talks about engineers:

(!) No, Labour’s pretty consistently raising taxes on the rich to provide for the poor, and National’s pretty consistent on doing the opposite.  Stop trying to obfuscate:

(!) Stoking baseless speculations.  Clearly the intent is not to inform but to scaremonger:

(!) Retweeted by Barbara Kruiger.  This is bad math, because it’s counting per capita, regardless of whether a person drives or swims in rivers.  I never go swimming in rivers, so I have a 0% chance of getting sick from swimming in rivers, but that doesn’t mean rivers are safe to swim in.  Far fewer people swim in rivers than drive:

(!) National’s tax cuts haven’t taken effect yet.  Income taxes won’t go up, they’ll stay where they are right now, unless the Greens go through with adding a new top tax bracket, but that’s not Labour’s policy:

(!) It’s actually not bizarre at all.  Consider that 1) the government pays for your healthcare and 2) the costs of treatment are lower if illnesses are discovered and addressed early, it means that regular check-ups and preventative care will save the taxpayer money, so it makes economic sense to incentivise regular check-ups to reduce overall healthcare costs.  But go ahead, Maggie Barry, keep retweeting this ignoramus:

(!) I don’t understand why they feel the need to tell these lies.  This is not “just announced”, it’s the same policies they’ve been running the whole election campaign.  Do they think the policies themselves aren’t good enough, that they need to spice it up with “just announced” to make people notice?  Again, they’re talking about “on average”, although they do helpfully provide the fact that the average annual wage is $59,000, so you can figure out whether you’re getting more or less than what they advertise (hint: over 2/3rd of New Zealanders will get less):

(!) “Here’s my ballpark estimates”.  He’s pulling numbers out of his ass and inventing things that aren’t Labour policy:

(!) Retweeted by Maggie Barry.  Literally making stuff up.  Read the actual policy at http://www.labour.org.nz/workplace_relations_policy.  I’m not going to bother to refute every single point, but doing a few starting from the top.  Kiwiblog lie: “The industry will have no ability to say no to it”.  Actual policy: “In conjunction with all relevant stakeholders”.  Kiwiblog lie: “A small employer in Invercargill will be forced to pay the same wages and conditions as a large multinational employer based in Auckland.”  Actual policy: “Agreements that set minimum conditions”, does not preclude conditions above the minimum.  You get the picture:

(!) Talking about averages conveniently ignores all considerations of inequity, of course.  Keep in mind that the wealthy and privileged benefit from ignoring inequality, while the poor and disadvantaged are harmed by ignoring inequality:

(!) The claims are not backed by evidence:

(!) What does it actually mean when more students pass examinations over time?  IQs increasing dramatically from one year to the next?  No.  Teachers becoming dramatically more effective from one year to the next?  Highly unlikely.  Teachers and students figuring out how the examinations work, and optimising their work to pass the exams?  Likely.  The exams becoming easier to pass over time?  Possible.  The thing to keep in mind is that everyone wants more kids to pass – the students want to pass, the teachers want them to pass, the government wants their statistics to look good.  The whole system is designed so that more students pass the examinations:

(!) We’ve addressed these already.  National repeating false and misleading statements:

(!) Retweeted by Paula Bennett.  Factually untrue, the Memorandum of Understanding never bound the Labour and Greens into a coalition government.  The MoU expires on election night:

(!) There are far more than 115 businesses in New Zealand.  The Mood of the Boardroom is qualitative data from a few selected big corporations, is not a representative sample:

(!) I don’t know where these numbers are coming from, but it’s not Labour’s fiscal plan or the PREFU 2017.  Page 16 of Labour’s fiscal plan does not have a $23.5bn figure, nor a “new additional line item spending” category, nor a $7.5bn, nor an “unannounced policies” category.  The operating balance in the PREFU 2017 for the 2018-2021 period totals $31.5bn, not $19.3bn.  The $9.7bn figure for increased revenue includes 2017, not only 2018-2022.  The “wages and cost inflation” criticism is directed at the PREFU and Treasury forecasts, saying that the government have underestimated inflation – that’s not Labour’s fault, nor is it necessarily true, just a different set of assumptions used for different forecasts:

Echo Chamber Labour:

(!) @NagtiBird linking to an old blog post from April 2016, in present tense, portraying it as a current issue.

(!) Can’t tell if this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but drinking river water is more dangerous then driving.  61% of monitored rivers are unsuitable for swimming in, let alone drinking (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8978223/Many-NZ-rivers-unsafe-for-swimming).  E.coli infections are potentially fatal.  Probability of car accidents lower than probability of illness from drinking river water:

(!) This really needs more information about which measure of poverty is used and what data is quoted.  Measures of poverty are controversial and there’s no single universally accepted measure:

(!) “Slowing” is exaggerating.  If the quote was “the rate of increase is slowing”, it would technically be correct, but the reality is that building consents issued appears to have plateaued in the past few months.  See the graph at http://m.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/Construction/BuildingConsentsIssued_HOTPJul17.aspx:

(!) Retweeted by Annette King.  It’s justifiable not to trust National’s promises, it’s propagating fake news to say something like this:

(!) “Sources suggest”.  Seriously?  You’re going to join National in the mud?  State your sources and show your math:

Echo Chamber Green:

Echo Chamber New Zealand First:

(!) That’s not what fascism means.  The bill exploits workers, it’s not a murderous racist dictatorship:

(!) Let’s file this one away for review after the election:

(!) Treaty of Waitangi, Article 2: “Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.”:

(!) You’d have to be pretty thick not to understand that production is meant to ramp up over time:

Echo Chamber Maori Party:

Echo Chamber ACT:

(!) Ad hominem name-calling, and disingenuous economic analogy.  Government borrowing is not similar to a mortgage, the government is typically able to borrow at a far lower interest rate than personal mortgages.  Many of the world’s banks were bailed out of the last financial crisis by borrowing money from governments at a low interest rate, then lending that money out to companies and individuals at a higher interest rate, allowing them to keep the difference as earnings.  There’s nothing inherently wrong with borrowing to invest, if the terms are favourable:

(!) Misleading quote due to missing attribution.  The quote is David Seymour’s words, not the journalist’s:

(!) False equivalence on charter schools.  That Auckland Grammar teaches alternative curricula does not necessarily mean it is a good idea.  That charter schools have not chosen to teach alternative curricula does not necessarily mean the law is correct in allowing alternative curricula.  That one teacher not registered with EDUCANZ is suitable for the role does not necessarily mean that negotiating each individual contract with the Crown on case by case basis is better than a EDUCANZ registration requirement:

(!) Absolutely no evidence or explanation is given as to what is envious about Labour’s policy.  Tweet and heading misrepresents content of statement:

(!) Claims the need to build houses at the same rate as from the 40’s to the 70’s, fails to acknowledge the significant number of state houses built during that time, dismisses current policies by National and Labour to build more state houses:

(!) People earning $70k don’t carry 60% of the country’s income tax burden, it’s people earning above $70k, all the way up into the millions.  Income tax revenue is in the same ballpark as the regressive GST, which means the poor pay a greater proportion of all taxes than ACT’s rhetoric implies.  People earning $70k pay 20% effective income tax, because it’s only above $70k that gets taxed at 33%.  The people who get the most out of ACT’s tax cuts are people earning far more than $70k:

(!) Landcorp manages Crown land.  ACT wants to use conservation as an excuse to privatise Crown land:

(!) There is no statistical correlation between tax rates and GDP growth:

(!) The road network, if made into a “business”, will be a monopoly.  Airlines, accommodation, and grocery stores are not, and not allowed to be, monopolies.  Treating the road network as a business is not a market solution, it creates a market failure:

(!) McCarten was not part of Labour when it happened:

(!) There’s no explanation of where the “$16 billion” figure came from.  Figures from the IRD (https://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/sites/default/files/news/2017-05-25-budget-2017-2-fact-sheet-1-family-incomes-package.docx , Table 2) show the combined accommodation supplement and benefit to be less than $2 billion over 4 years:

(!) “Communism”.  You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means:

(!) Actually, it has been proven empirically that social welfare programmes measurably reduces poverty (e.g. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~noy/300texts/poverty-comparative.pdf , “Detailed analysis confirms that higher levels of government spending as in Scandinavia and Northern Europe and more careful targeting of government transfers on the poor as in Canada, Sweden and Finland produce lower poverty rates”):

(!) Literally making up statistics:

(!) This paper is not from a peer-reviewed journal.  It’s conclusion states “The existence of a temporary introduction effect and a compression effect are not supported by the data. While the results are consistent with a discretionary birth timing effect as a result of the introduction of the baby bonus, the results do not support the existence of such an effect following the 2006 increase in the value of the baby bonus, in contrast to previous literature.”:

(!) This paper notes serious limitations, including “ii) the total fertility rate has increased among low-fertility countries since 2003 and is expected to continue to increase (Goldstein, Sobotka, and Jasilioniene 2009). Therefore, it is likely that the lower fertility rate in Australia before the Baby Bonus was implemented was due in part to tempo effects; during times when the ages of childbearing increase (e.g., fertility postponement), there is a temporary depression of fertility (Bongaarts and Feeney 1998). As a result of these external factors, any delayed or long-term effects of the Bonus cannot be measured, or at least not directly.”:

(!) This paper concludes that cash subsidies do not increase total fertility, though it might encourage people to have children at a younger age. “Results indicate
that there is little ANC impact on completed fertility.”:

(!) Labour isn’t lying about anything, they’re clearly saying they’ll fund more superannuation by not cutting taxes.  This tweet and headline is the lie:

(!) The 40% tax is before deductions, and only for those with incomes over $150,000.  The 11% mortgage and disappearing jobs is completely made up scaremongering, no financial analysis is presented:

(!) Straw manning out the wazoo.  Pre-judging a curriculum before it has even been developed.  If it really does become political propaganda, it’ll be the tool of whoever is in government, not exclusively to Labour’s benefit at all:

(!) Misleading attribution.  The tweeted assertion is not from the New Zealand Herald, but is the Herald quoting ACT:

(!) Reducing speculation will reduce volatility in construction costs, which will in turn make it less risky to build houses, especially for larger projects like apartment blocks:

(!) Allowing corporate executives to pocket bigger bonuses and shareholders bigger dividends doesn’t improve productivity, either.  The actual key to productivity gains is automation, but ACT aren’t smart enough to say that:

(!) So when you have sex with your wife, does she pay you?  Or would you concede that many things people do aren’t part of the economy?:

(!) No farm or grower have provided any actual evidence that the small water royalty will push them out of business:

(!) ACT disagrees with facts and history.  Some light reading if you’re interested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act :

(!) From the Employment Relations Act, 7 (b), “no person may, in relation to employment issues, confer any preference or apply any undue influence, directly or indirectly, on another person because the other person is or is not a member of a union.”  But I guess ACT advocates for law-breaking:

(!) No, it doesn’t breach SSC political neutrality rules.  From https://www.ssc.govt.nz/political-neutrality-guidance, “State servants have the same rights of political expression outside the workplace as ordinary members of the public”, and “State servants have the same rights of association as other members of the public. Political expression and participation must be undertaken in the individual’s own time.”:

(!) The ravings of a madman.  Do I really have to explain that no one is actually enslaved, or that those taxes are to pay for the things that those people need?:

(!) Factually untrue, Labour has plenty of housing policy:

(!) Factually untrue, treaties can be modified if the parties agree:

Echo Chamber United Future:

(!) The Daily Mail is a tabloid that openly supports the UK Conservatives and the UK Independence Party, and is known for its, at best, inconsistent dedication to journalistic integrity:

(!) Where’s National raising the GST?

Advertisements