Daily Review 07/06/2017

72 comments on “Daily Review 07/06/2017 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. adam 1

   7 June 2017 at 6:19 pm

   One great protest song. Thank you Mr Finn. Well done Miley and Ariana.

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LiI6poe3QE&ab_channel=BBCMusic
   • David Mac 1.1

     7 June 2017 at 9:34 pm

     While we’re chucking out knighthoods I think the Finn brothers should share one. Half Sir Neil and Half Sir Tim, I think they’d dig that.
     • tc 1.1.1

       8 June 2017 at 7:42 am

       Tim didn’t write it, wasn’t in crowded house till 3rd release woodface.
2. Pete George 2

   7 June 2017 at 6:34 pm

   The latest 1 News-Colmar Brunton poll:

   National 49% (up from 46)
   Labour 30% (no change)
   Greens 9% (down from 11)
   NZ First 9% (up from 8)
   Maori Party 1% (down from 4)
   ACT 1% (no change)
   TOP 1% (up from 0)

   Undecided 12%
   Refused to answer 4%

   Field work conducted 27-31 May.

   Preferred Prime Minister:

   Bill English 29% (up from 26)
   Andrew Little 8% (up from 7)
   Winston Peters 7% (down from 9)
   Jacinda Ardern 6%
   • mauī 2.1

     7 June 2017 at 6:44 pm

     Rogue.
   • lprent 2.2

     7 June 2017 at 6:51 pm

     About this time (about 3 months out) in the last election and the election before I seem to remember that CM was bouncing up in the mid-50s. Someone who keeps track of the polls might provide a comparison.

     I wonder if :-
     1. They have changed their methodology.
     or
     2. The public demand for this arrogant pack of the self-entitled is a lot lower this election around.

     After all National and their coalition dummies regularly got more than 60% in the last couple of elections from CM polls at 3 months out. Then slid down to just getting a couple of MPs above the majority.

     BTW: I consider that the only time that CM are remotely accurate is in the week before the election when they curiously move National down to something close to the end result.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.1

       7 June 2017 at 6:55 pm

       I recall someone mentioning a ‘budget bounce’. Or tea leaves. No, wait, it was chicken livers.
     • Pete George 2.2.2

       7 June 2017 at 7:00 pm

       2014 Colmar Brunton polls for National:

       22–26 March 2014 – 47%
       17–21 May 2014 – 51%
       21–25 June 2014 – 50%
       19–23 July 2014 – 52%
       9–13 August 2014 – 50%
       23–27 August 2014 – 48%
       30 August – 3 September 2014 – 50%
       13–17 September 2014 – 45%

       Election result: 47.04%

       Labour:

       22–26 March 2014 – 31%
       17–21 May 2014 – 30%
       21–25 June 2014 – 29%
       19–23 July 2014 – 28%
       9–13 August 2014 – 26%
       23–27 August 2014 – 28%
       30 August – 3 September 2014 – 25%
       13–17 September 2014 – 25%

       Election result: 25.13%

       Labour won’t want to follow a similar pattern.
       • Enough is Enough 2.2.2.1

         7 June 2017 at 7:19 pm

         Colmar was a bit generous to labour in 2014. Hopefully they have better methods in 2017 or this is bad news
         • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.2.1.1

           7 June 2017 at 7:23 pm

           Or your horoscope is more reliable than the result of a single opinion poll.
           • Enough is Enough 2.2.2.1.1.1

             7 June 2017 at 7:38 pm

             Maybe. I am getting tired of the she’ll be right attitude that many seem to be infected with which can be seen with those who dismiss the polls and assume we will just win.

             These polls are real.
             • One Anonymous Bloke …

               7 June 2017 at 7:51 pm

               I don’t assume we’ll just win. Or rather, I assume if we do win it will be “only just”.
             • weka …

               7 June 2017 at 8:53 pm

               I also don’t assume we will win, but I think the whole polling thing is misleading and prescriptive.

               Although I’m sure it’s working well for Corbyn right now.
       • lprent 2.2.2.2

         7 June 2017 at 7:25 pm

         The July one is probably about the closest for the relative time of the election. This coming election is about 60 days earlier.

         19–23 July 2014 – 52% cf 49% National
         19–23 July 2014 – 28% cf 30% Labour

         Roughly a 5% swing. Plus of course you have to consider the other parties. Because there hasn’t been a non-coalition government possible in NZ since 1993.

         The coalition situation is quite different to 2014.

         National doesn’t appear to have gained anything from the demise of the Conservative vote. That means that they are still significantly diminished compared to last election because they are the natural home for that vote.

         Act and UF are essentially still defunct unless National want to waste votes on them again. The MP is probably going to drop down below 1 MP vote in the part stakes and even with the inherent sitting MP conservatism of the Maori electorates, Flavell may have reelection issues. Hard to see how National would get to a majority with their usual gaggle of desiccated past parties.

         Meanwhile the Greens and NZ First are still polling well.

         TOP? Unlikely to make a good run and their policies are even worse for National than NZF’s are. I rather suspect that National would have problems with either party, and the MPs from those parties would face a revolt of their parties if they go into coalition with National.

         And above all it is unlikely to have anything like a Internet-Mana or Dotcom to distract, divert and disgust this time.

         What we are in now is a 4 horse race – not a 2 horse….. And incidentally, why do so many conservatives STILL keep thinking that it is a goddamn two headed race. Nostalgic wishful longing for the 197s and 1980s still?
         • Pete George 2.2.2.2.1

           7 June 2017 at 7:37 pm

           No the 2014 election was Saturday 20 September.

           I agree the coalition situation is very different, the whole situation is quite different. No Conservatives (of any significance) or Dotcom, and TOP is quite different. No Key, No Cunliffe, no Norman.
           • mickysavage 2.2.2.2.1.1

             7 June 2017 at 8:42 pm

             Hey Pete just checking. Have you ever posted an opinion poll when there was a significant bounce for the left?
             • Enough is Enough …

               7 June 2017 at 8:58 pm

               Has anyone?
             • Pete George …

               7 June 2017 at 9:01 pm

               I post all of the New Zealand political opinion polls. They go either way.
               • weka …

                 7 June 2017 at 9:16 pm

                 he meant on TS.
                 • Pete George …

                   8 June 2017 at 7:22 am

                   I think he can speak for himself.

                   I post results here if no one has already done it – significant bounces to the left tend to be fairly quickly posted here so less need for me to do it.

                   I simply posted the Colmar results here without comment because I knew it would be of some interest. You have diverted from the actual topic a tad.
             • weka …

               7 June 2017 at 9:11 pm

               I was wondering that too micky, and whether he posted the left bouncing ones at Farrar’s blog and what happens if he does.
               • Pete George …

                 8 June 2017 at 7:19 am

                 More unsubstantiated ‘wondering’.

                 I rarely post anything at Kiwiblog these days. If I posted poll results there it would be more likely to be a swing against National to ‘encourage discussion’.
   • Skinny 2.3

     7 June 2017 at 7:34 pm

     This is the stat to keep an eye on;

     Undecided 12%
     Refused to answer 4%

     That is a whooping 16% of the vote. This must be concerning to 3rd term regime seeking a 4th term.

     Maori party down to a one trick pony on this slump if they get back at all? Peter Dunne he is toast, a gone burger.

     The little twerp from Epsom has no pulling power and would do better by replacing him with Jordan Williams as leader.

     NZ First will rise when Jones comes out of the closet.

     Cat killer needs to be neutered 1% at this point in time signals 2.5 % so by not liking his posts and ripping TOP to bits when the puss puts his boot in his mouth is advisable.
     • weka 2.3.1

       7 June 2017 at 9:14 pm

       I’ve been trying to decide whether to write posts about TOP’s shortcomings or just stay away from the topic entirely.

       Didn’t Peters rule out Jones the other day?
     • Rightly or Wrongly 2.3.2

       8 June 2017 at 10:42 pm

       I think most polls have a group of undecided/RTA.

       I wouldn’t get to excited about these folks as if they can’t be bothered to answer a question on the phone I’d be surprised if they have the energy to toddle off to the voting booth on election day.
   • James 2.4

     7 June 2017 at 8:13 pm

     Labour are leaving their run to 40% a bit late arnt they ?
     • mickysavage 2.4.1

       7 June 2017 at 8:44 pm

       MMP. I wish all you blowhards would understand it. When the Greens get 10-15% Labour has to get 35-30% to pretty well finish it.
       • James 2.4.1.1

         7 June 2017 at 9:04 pm

         The blowhard who said they wanted to get labour to 40% was the Labour Party president.

         https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/labour-sets-target-40-per-cent-party-vote
         • Enough is Enough 2.4.1.1.1

           7 June 2017 at 9:14 pm

           Heh – Priceless
         • weka 2.4.1.1.2

           7 June 2017 at 9:15 pm

           so? Does it matter what they get if they can form govt? I’m sure you can understand the difference between setting a goal and still having a good outcome even if one doesn’t reach it.
           • James 2.4.1.1.2.1

             7 June 2017 at 9:36 pm

             At the moment labour are heading towards achieving neither.
             • weka …

               7 June 2017 at 9:38 pm

               Yawn.
   • swordfish 2.5

     7 June 2017 at 8:49 pm

     … Latest One News-Colmar Brunton …… Previous CB

     Nat + Maori + ACT …… 51% ….. …… ….……. … 51%
     Lab + Green + NZF ….. 48% … …… …..………. . 49%

     Still …… not a great Poll for ze Left
     • James 2.5.1

       7 June 2017 at 9:06 pm

       Of course if nzf come with the nats …..
       • swordfish 2.5.1.1

         7 June 2017 at 9:26 pm

         One doth hear on the grapevine that Winnie only likely to head Lab’s way at next Election if – at a minimum – Lab+Green = Nat’s Party Vote

         Only a possibility mind – not necessarily cast in stone
3. weka 3

   7 June 2017 at 6:40 pm

   Dude getting mocked on twitter for claiming that NZ is ungrateful given that the US has been protecting us and given us our freedom (reference throwing water-filled condoms at an effigy of Tillerson),

   https://twitter.com/7kidchaos/status/871976264562872320
   • Alan 3.1

     7 June 2017 at 7:24 pm

     Be grateful you are not speaking Japanese or German
     • In Vino 3.1.1

       7 June 2017 at 8:23 pm

       What???

       The Russians beat the Germans, not us.

       The USA came into World War 2 only on the end of a well-placed Japanese boot.

       Don’t give us that old simplistic drivel about how the Americans selflessly saved us: they were fighting for themselves, and we were damned lucky that our interests co-incided.
       • Chuck 3.1.1.1

         7 June 2017 at 8:36 pm

         The Russians had a lot of help from the USA in terms of equipment…sure the Russians spilled the blood, but with out aid from the USA it may have been different.

         You last paragraph is nonsense…without the USA, NZ and Australia would have been in a tonne of trouble.
         • In Vino 3.1.1.1.1

           7 June 2017 at 8:55 pm

           Bollocks – in the well-schooled Western propaganda-influenced, you think that the minimal stuff the West shipped through to Murmansk made a difference? Rubbish. The tanks we sent were feeble, little competition for the superior German Panzer 4s, let alone the Tigers.
           Russia had moved all of its important military production industry East of the Urals. The war-winning tank (the T-34) was produced there, in huge numbers. Along with good aircraft that defeated the Luftwaffe. We don’t hear about this.
           80% of Hitler’s war effort went into the East, the Russians took the major impact, and did the major work. All our heroic efforts were against only 20% of Germany’s war effort.

           NZ and Australia were defended by the USA because it was in the USA’s interest not to lose those areas to the Japanese. Sorry – that makes perfect sense. Had the USA not needed our countries unoccupied by the Japanese, things could well have been much different.
           • David C 3.1.1.1.1.1

             7 June 2017 at 10:04 pm

             In Vino – you are a cock.
             You dont think the 3000 liberty ships made a difference to the European war effort? or the half million US troops that died?
             • Draco T Bastard …

               7 June 2017 at 10:48 pm

               Not enough to change the course of the war. Without them Russia would still have crushed Germany.

               That was a forgone conclusion from the time that Germany invaded Russia.
               • SpaceMonkey …

                 8 June 2017 at 12:14 am

                 I recall a quote from Churchill saying when Germany invaded Russia, that was the moment he knew the Allies would win the war.
             • adam …

               7 June 2017 at 11:28 pm

               Have a wee look at the southern eastern front, and one battle – the Crimean Offensive – David C. Look at the cost of that one battle on the Russians and the Germans. It’s bloody terrifying the loss of human life on both sides. When you consider it’s faught in a area smaller than Otago, and the battle lasted less than a month.

               https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Offensive

               I’d recommend this book as well.”Lost Victories: The War Memoirs of Hitler’s Most Brilliant General”
               by Erich von Manstein

               Brutally honest about the Soviet war machine, and how it wrecked the German Army. Plus, he was one of the best Generals in WW2 who we never hear about, I’m glad he got shafted by Hitler, we all should be.
           • adam 3.1.1.1.1.2

             7 June 2017 at 11:09 pm

             Very true on equipment the Churchil III was a waste of space, nice armor but a useless gun. The Valentine (2 From memory) was a good tank, but very few made it into Russia in working order. The Matilda (sorry canny remember the make off the top of my head) was another OK tank, but again lacked a decent gun so the Russians used it in a support role. Most of the USA tanks could not handle the cold. M4 was a great tank, but would seize up in freezing temps – which was good for the USA to learn come the invasion of Europe post D-Day planing.

             As for aircraft, all of the British aircraft suffered in the cold and we under powered. As for Artillary, this was welcomed by the Russians, as it was solid, but they did not get much. The best thing about the aid to Russia was the psychological effect. The feeling for the Russia’s that they were not alone.

             As for us and the Aussies being stuffed without the yanks. Silly question Chucky do you know who was the first army to beat, and turn back a major Japaneses invasion force? I’ll give you a hint, it happened in Papua New Guinea. It opened up the door for a couple of major naval victories, and meant that the marines didn’t get wasted at Guadalcanal.

             I’m not denying the Yanks did a good job, they did. I think you under estimate what us and the Aussies did.
         • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1.2

           7 June 2017 at 10:46 pm

           The Russians had a lot of help from the USA in terms of equipment…sure the Russians spilled the blood, but with out aid from the USA it may have been different.

           Did you know that some of the best fighter planes in WWII were Russian?

           The final “best” air superiority fighter of the later period of the war in Europe was the Yakovlev Yak-3. Many top Soviet aces flew the Yak series of fighters, which started with the rather primitive Yak-1 and evolved into the Yak-3 air superiority and Yak-9 general purpose fighters. (See the article “The Yakovlev Yak-9” for more details about the latter model.) The Yak-9 was produced in greater numbers than any other Allied fighter of WW II, but it is the contemporary Yak-3 that was regarded as the best dogfighter on the ETO Eastern Front.

           The best tanks were:

           Some of Zaloga’s choices are less surprising. The only tank in “Armored Champions” to receive both the Tanker’s and Commander’s prize is the T-34 in 1941. Despite a two-man turret, its superior firepower, armor and mobility shocked the hitherto-invincible German panzers, as well as German infantry terrified to see their anti-tank guns bounce off the T-34’s thick skin.

           From the same article comes the vital point though:

           It is in 1943 that the contrast between technical capability and battlefield utility becomes most striking. Not surprisingly, the Tiger I is Tanker’s Choice because of its thick armor and powerful gun, which created “Tiger fright” among Allied troops. But Tigers were expensive, few in number (only 1,347 were built, compared to 84,000 T-34s) and hard to maintain. The depleted and desperate German infantry divisions on the Eastern Front needed armor support to stave off massed waves of T-34s, and a few battalions of overworked Tigers were not going to save them.

           The US could have kept out of the European front and the Germans would have been crushed by the Russians.

           You last paragraph is nonsense…without the USA, NZ and Australia would have been in a tonne of trouble.

           His last paragraph makes perfect sense. You attacking him by restating his position doesn’t.
       • Sanctuary 3.1.1.2

         7 June 2017 at 9:09 pm

         The United Nations defeated the Axis, actually. So the UN (the “Allies”) fought together against Germany – the USSR couldn’t have destroyed Army Group Centre without US rations, avgas, trucks, jeeps and radios for example. And the Germans would have had a lot stronger defenses in the East if the 22,000 heavy anti-aircraft guns they had defending the Reich could have been used there.

         The Americans were literally shooting down the entire Luftwaffe fighter strength every 3 months at one stage in early 1944 as the German fighters desperately tried to stop the bombers flattening their cities. Basically the Red Air Force had no opposition because the Anglo-Americans shot them all down.

         There was a “second front” against Germany – in the air – long before D-Day.

         However, it was the Americans alone who beat the Japanese.
         • In Vino 3.1.1.2.1

           7 June 2017 at 9:40 pm

           Much of what you say is true, but I think I remember reading that the Luftwaffe lost just as heavily in the East before the Mustang fighter arrived to do the coup de grace in the West. 1944 is very late in the war, and the Russians were well in control by then

           The fact remains that 80% of Germany’s war effort went into the East. Saying that we rescued Russia (as you imply) by forcing the Germans to keep a few resources in the west hardly convinces.
           • Sanctuary 3.1.1.2.1.1

             8 June 2017 at 8:49 am

             Off topic, but this “effort” thing is a really, really interesting subject to a history fan like me. By 1943, the war in the East had largely degenerated into a WW1 style slogging match between two huge armies of militia with motorised formations only common in decisive zones. The Germans looked good only because often the Soviets were worse (at Anzio the Allies were astonished at the inflexible infantry tactics and poor artillery co-ordination of the “good” German divisions transferred from the East).

             Now, if you measure effort as a simple mathematical equation – 200 divisions in the east, 40 in the West, therefore 80% of the effort was in the east – then you are right. But since 1914 numbers have only told (an increasingly less important) part of the story. Modern weapons means concentrating more men at the point of attack simply increases losses.

             The Germans themselves were aware of the technology and tactical flexibility gap between their average units and the western allies, whose entire armies were motorised and lavishly supplied with radios and support weapons. The German army in Normandy featured the cream of their armoured forces – ten full strength divisions including no less than five of the seven Waffen SS armoured divisions.

             In a similar vein, although the Allied bomber offensive required relatively little manpower to defend against it consumed an outsized proportion of the output of the German high technology sector in radars, fire control systems, optics, large and sophisticated night and day fighters, and the highly skilled pilots and workforce needed to support that effort.

             Since the 1980s there has been a revision of the impact the western allies had on the overall war situation. Without wanting to belittle the huge sacrifices of the USSR, technology had a major impact on the way the Western allies fought the war. For example, in the entire Stalingrad campaign the Soviets lost around 1.5 million to inflict 800,000 losses on the Axis. At the same time, the Western allies decisively defeated the Axis in North Africa, losing 240,000 (since 1941) to inflict 900,000 losses on the Axis.
         • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.2.2

           7 June 2017 at 11:03 pm

           The United Nations defeated the Axis, actually.

           Nope, the UN didn’t really exist until after the war. Prior to then it was the Allies.

           the USSR couldn’t have destroyed Army Group Centre without US rations, avgas, trucks, jeeps and radios for example.

           [citation needed]

           Please note, Russia has been a major producer of oil and oil products for decades.

           And the Germans would have had a lot stronger defenses in the East if the 22,000 heavy anti-aircraft guns they had defending the Reich could have been used there.

           I suspect that those AA guns would have had difficulty with the 84000 T34s.

           The Americans were literally shooting down the entire Luftwaffe fighter strength every 3 months at one stage in early 1944 as the German fighters desperately tried to stop the bombers flattening their cities. Basically the Red Air Force had no opposition because the Anglo-Americans shot them all down.

           Sounds more like Western propaganda than reality.
           • garibaldi 3.1.1.2.2.1

             8 June 2017 at 7:03 am

             Sanctuary, the Russians were about to piss all over the Japs. The Yanks dropped the bomb to ‘warn’ the Russians.
             • McFlock …

               8 June 2017 at 9:55 am

               Well, piss all over them in Manchuria, maybe, but the Russians weren’t getting ready to invade the home islands any time soon.

               The best explanation I heard for the yanks nuking cities was that it never occurred to anyone to not drop the bomb: the army didn’t want to invade the home islands, the air force wanted to use it as the fulfillment of strategic bombing, the manhatten and b29 projects needed to be justified, and yes the diplomats had their eye on post-war negotiations.

               The only ones who didn’t see a need for it were the submariners, who’d basically done Japan into the ground already.

               Lots of self-centered reasons for individual groups supporting it, nobody really opposing it.
               • In Vino …

                 8 June 2017 at 5:55 pm

                 A long time ago for me to now quote a source, but I seem to remember an argument that once the Russians had invaded shoreline near Japan, they would be able to mount an invasion before the Americans could ever assemble the distant naval build-up they would need. What they took to Iwo Jima would not suffice…
                 So maybe there was a thought of warning off the Russians?
                 • McFlock …

                   9 June 2017 at 1:20 pm

                   Interesting, looks like your recollection is correct. So it might have been an additional factor.

                   Must confess I’ve never really looked at the Russians in the pacific. Will have to do some catch-up 🙂
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     9 June 2017 at 10:10 pm

                     Soviet–Japanese War (1945)
                   • McFlock …

                     9 June 2017 at 10:17 pm

                     yeah I knew they were transferring land forces and tooling through China and some of the smaller island groups, I just wasn’t aware they had the capacity to land (and protect the landing forces) thirty-odd divisions in the Pacific anywhere close to that time.

                     Bearing in mind that most of the US island-hopping was bad enough going when they routinely provided numerous destroyers, battleships and even aircraft carriers of different sizes to cover the landing ships, I hadn’t really picked that a large-scale soviet naval landing was even on the horizon.
           • mac1 3.1.1.2.2.2

             8 June 2017 at 11:00 am

             In his exhortation to his troops on the eve of D-Day, Eisenhower referred to the ‘united nations’.

             “But this is the year 1944. Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man.”

             Eisenhower had a wider view of who defeated the Nazis than ‘America First’.
             • In Vino …

               9 June 2017 at 11:23 pm

               To Mac1
               Eisenhower, like Churchill, had preferred to fight around peripheral areas, while their two biggest enemies (Nazi Germany and Communist Russia) slogged it out against each other. But then, the Russians started to be obvious winners. So Eisenhower and Churchill had to rush to invade Europe from the west, lest the Russians take over the whole lot.
               Eisenhower knew bloody well who was defeating the Germans – the Russians. Why else did D-day come about?
           • In Vino 3.1.1.2.2.3

             9 June 2017 at 8:24 pm

             To Sanctuary:

             Umm, language?
             “The Americans were literally shooting down the entire Luftwaffe fighter strength every 3 months at one stage in early 1944 as the German fighters desperately tried to stop the bombers flattening their cities.” Literally??
             If they shot down the entire Luftwaffe fighter strength every 3 months, the German production rate must have been phenomenal.
             Sounds bloody fishy to me. And maybe a little metaphorical rather than literal.
             And how can ‘every 3 months’ be at only one stage in early 1944 – a period of 3 months at the most? For just how long did this ‘every 3 months’ period last?
             Care to rephrase most of what you wrote?
       • JJ 3.1.1.3

         8 June 2017 at 7:49 am

         C’mon IV. I have seen enough Hollywood war movies to know that the Americans saved the world in WW2
         • In Vino 3.1.1.3.1

           8 June 2017 at 5:56 pm

           Oh darn, I had forgotten about them!

           Yes, you must be right.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2

     7 June 2017 at 7:28 pm

     Underneath the stupid is a serious issue: how valuable is the five eyes relationship, and given Trump’s treachery, is a “four eyes” relationship worth pursuing?
4. JC 4

   7 June 2017 at 8:14 pm

   Posted this earlier on Daily Review. But being a long Weekend got my dates wrong! ….Doesn’t do much for my credibility I know!, i.e., (Doesn’t know what day of the week it is…)

   If appropriate thought it important enough to resubmit in today’s Review, given posts, and threads of late… And inspiration that Sarah gives!

   And yesterdays threads/Posts can sometimes be Old News… sadly!

   Anyhow… Now for someone with Guts…

   “Law student Sarah Thomson has launched a judicial review of the New Zealand Government’s completely inadequate greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

   Sarah Thomson and her lawyers now have a firm date for the hearing of her judicial review: It will be at the High Court, 2 Molesworth Street, Wellington, from 26-28 June, start time 10am.

   Sarah is encouraging people to attend the hearing to show their support for the need for action on climate change. Do contribute to the important national conversation on climate change in any ways that you can.

   Sarah explains her case and why she’s taking it: “….

   http://coalaction.org.nz/news/stand-sarah-climate-high-court-wellington-26-28-june

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11862450
5. Ethica 5

   7 June 2017 at 10:04 pm

   Poll was done straight after the Budget with all the Government spin and before the gaping holes were exposed. Commentators all expected a post cabinet bounce. Once there is a full manifesto released by Labour and nothing new from National the polls will inevitably close.
   • gsays 5.1

     7 June 2017 at 11:00 pm

     Speaking of a Labour manifesto…
     There is a popular one in the UK.
     I wonder if we could get a copy.
6. greywarshark 6

   7 June 2017 at 10:33 pm

   Hey mighty mod. The Daily Review date should be 7/6/17. You can’t get away with foisting July on us before we have had June. And I don’t want to miss out on the Brit election excitement in the moss pit.
   • r0b 6.1

     7 June 2017 at 11:30 pm

     Right you are, fixed. Mighty Mod – I like it! Maybe I should get a cape.
     • lprent 6.1.1

       8 June 2017 at 1:48 am

       Nah. Haven’t you seen the incredibles? No capes for super her0s. They are too dangerous.

       https://youtu.be/M68ndaZSKa8
       • greywarshark 6.1.1.1

         8 June 2017 at 9:59 am

         Don’t you guys ever go to bed and get some shut-eye?
         • lprent 6.1.1.1.1

           8 June 2017 at 10:06 am

           Yes. But I have also been known to get up when I can’t sleep and do some reading until I sleep.

           I need to find another really interesting but boring book. I used to have one that was about the trading voyages to the ‘Dutch East Indies’ from the 16th century to the 19th. Usually I could manage about 10 pages before I dozed off.
           • McFlock 6.1.1.1.1.1

             8 June 2017 at 10:57 am

             The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Quite an interesting book that argues the US revolutionary war was the product of a hundred years of demographic change that fractured local hereditary power structures (e.g. looking at the changing percentage of settlements where the local mayor or magistrate was son or grandson of the previous mayor or magistrate). Much deeper than the usual myth that a bunch of folks suddenly decided to dump tea in a harbour because enlughtenment.

             States a good case and really describes a fundamental demographic schism, but drier than a scorpion’s toilet paper. Unless you like tables of import/export duties.
             • lprent …

               9 June 2017 at 10:59 pm

               Unless you like tables of import/export duties.

               I love them. They will be like the lists of inventory and auction prices of goods shipped around the world when sail was the fastest method of travel. Incredibly interesting, boring as shit, slower than a snail sprinting, and an instant cure for sleeplessness.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS