Daily review 19/02/2024

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, February 19th, 2024 - 38 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

38 comments on “Daily review 19/02/2024 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. SPC 1
    19 February 2024 at 5:36 pm

    David Warner is coming. Ideas for theme music as he walks to the crease – yellow submarine, grandad by Corporal Jones, something by the Sandpipers.

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/sport/2024/02/cricket-australia-s-david-warner-takes-aim-at-kiwi-crowd-abuse-before-blackcaps-twenty20-series.html

  2. Robert Guyton 2
    19 February 2024 at 5:50 pm

    "You keep Luxin' when you outa be truthin'

    Christopher Luxon’s campaign to win last year's election continued yesterday with a speech."

    David Slack is as sharp as a tack.

    https://subslack.substack.com/p/you-keep-luxin-when-you-oughta-be

  3. SPC 3
    19 February 2024 at 5:52 pm

    Another labour hire firm has gone under. Again a lot of migrant workers.

    There is growing unemployment in the construction sector.

    Maga said FIRST Union was also calling on the Government to review the labour market in the construction industry, where hundreds of migrant builders had been recruited from overseas but ended up without jobs in New Zealand.

    “This reflects poor labour market planning and a lack of consultation with stakeholders in the industry,“ he said.

    “The receivership of ELE reflects such poor labour market planning, and there could be other firms to follow if unemployment in the construction industry continues.”

    https://www.thepress.co.nz/business/350135696/800-staff-lose-jobs-receivership-labour-hire-firm-ele-holdings

    Immigration NZ said some of Buildhub’s workforce were on accredited employer work visas, which connect a person’s right to be in the country to their employment.

    “We appreciate that this situation will be very difficult news for these employees.

    “We are working closely with the employer, the employees, and other interested parties to ensure these workers can remain in New Zealand lawfully. We are also exploring options for those who are still overseas.”

    To apply for new employment, they would need to change their visas, which would take time, he said.

    He said there were questions for the Government in why labour hire firms had been able to saturate the construction sector with migrant labour.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/350184942/labour-hire-firm-liquidation-immigration-nz-helping-staff

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 3.1
      19 February 2024 at 7:47 pm

      "He said there were questions for the Government in why labour hire firms had been able to saturate the construction sector with migrant labour. "

      Main purpose is to suppress wages. For every low-wage worker you bring in, you drive the wages down in another 10 jobs with increased competition (=worker desperation).

  4. Anne 4
    19 February 2024 at 5:56 pm

    Monday Post Cabinet conference:

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/509589/post-cabinet-update-with-pm-christopher-luxon

    Starts 16 mins. in.

    Somebody found National’s old welfare policy from the 1990s in a bottom drawer, blew the dust off it and updated some of the wording. It is now being presented as the new welfare policy for the 2020s. Luxon has even started using the 1990s buzz word "tough love". It's 30 plus years out of date you jerk.

    Thousands upon thousands lost their jobs in the 1990s. Many of them were high calibre people just thrown on the scrap heap due to adherence to a false ideology. It took years for the country to slowly recover and now we have to go through it all over again.

    • SPC 4.1
      19 February 2024 at 6:38 pm

      One hopes Taskforce Green is operating – training up ex public service people to be beneficiary advocates, watchdogs on W and I.

      What works is known.

      Paid community work in areas with higher levels of unemployment (PGF reprise in Northland – Auckland property market exiles). Similar for areas with post flood recovery work. And wherever work is required to reduce flood risk. Training focus on home improvements/maintenance skill development and then practical experience helping older folk with this.

      Organising work gangs for youth – working around the country in seasonal work/labour in flood recovery work/flood prevention.

      Pre industry training with work experience/on the job development/internships.

      Employers have a bias against those who are unemployed, and all they have done for months/a year is look for jobs and done interviews.

      • Muttonbird 4.1.1
        19 February 2024 at 6:52 pm

        Upston wants tens of thousands more clients brought under the gaze of case managers currently working with 60,000 high needs or complex people. This while MBIE has to cut 6.5% or 7.5% of its staff.

        Only result is case managers with a lot more to do diluting their efforts with current clients and hard managing the new ones. End result everyone receives a poorer service I guess with the expectation clients absorb that or get their lifeline cut.

        Interesting proposition that the 6.5% – 7.5% of WINZ staff which must be fired according to policy move into advocacy, directly working against their former colleagues. Trouble is, that is work the government used to pay for but now doesn't, and who will now pay?

        But then perhaps that has been the plan all along. Not so much about the beneficiary numbers but more about the public service numbers. What load can be taken from amateur landlords and other wealthy elite taxpayers to be placed onto poorly funded NGOs and volunteer organisations.

        • Descendant Of Smith 4.1.1.1
          19 February 2024 at 9:01 pm

          Let's think about the 26 week renewal as being a step to time limiting benefits.

          "Policy Announcement: Capped Time-Period For Job Seeker Beneficiaries

          New Zealand First today is announcing a policy on adjusting the rules and restrictions around access to the Job Seeker Benefit.

          New Zealand First’s policy is to introduce a capped time-period for any person to access the Job Seeker Benefit during their lifetime.

          Any individual will have the ability to access the Job Seeker Benefit as normal, however, for no more than a total of two years across their working lifetime. If for any reason they need more financial assistance they will be expected to work in the community for their wage."

          PEP schemes and work skills programs went by the wayside as governments did not want to pay the overhead costs for the otherwise cheap labour. The schemes require admin, equipment, etc. No doubt the Salvation Army and other church groups will be salivating though at the thought of bringing work-houses back. There is money to be made off the poor – just ask motel owners.

  5. Robert Guyton 5
    19 February 2024 at 5:57 pm

    "At a media stand-up this morning, Luxon said he was looking forward to going to the Big Gay Out and felt comfortable there.

    “I went there last year. I loved it. Talk to the Rainbow community and what are they fixated on at the moment? Rebuilding the economy, restoring law and order and delivering better health and education.”

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    No, really! He said that!!

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pro-palestine-protest-luxon-confronted-at-big-gay-out/MRJQAOL4IZFV3JIYFL2F2RRJFU/

  6. Muttonbird 6
    19 February 2024 at 6:19 pm

    I think that is now three polls in a short period showing David Farrar to be a corrupt hard right wing activist pollster which huge conflicts of interest, particularly in promoting ACT and its desperate, racist Treaty rewrite referendum:

    Roy Morgan: Greens 15.5%, ACT 7.5%

    Talbot Mills: Greens 12%, ACT 7%

    Verian: Greens 12%, ACT 8%

    Corrupt Curia: Greens 9%. ACT 13.7%

    When will the Research Association do their job and audit David Farrar's polling method and published results, not to mention his close political affiliations?

    What do they do? Have they no rules at all?

    • Anne 6.1
      19 February 2024 at 6:25 pm

      He made a mistake M. 3.7% of it was meant to be Greens but he accidently added it to ACT. (sarc.)

      • Muttonbird 6.1.1
        19 February 2024 at 6:32 pm

        I know the margin of error is +/-3% but it's not meant to be ACT +3% (actually +6% according to Farrar) and Greens -3%.

        But who knows, maybe this is allowed by RANZ.

        The worrying thing is that he, Seymour, and the Tax Dodgers Union knows what poll momentum does, properly publicised and marketed. Publicising massaged, false results doesn’t matter if the message of momentum is spread wide.

        All this probably in Atlas 101: How to influence public opinion with polling.

        • Rolling-on-Gravel 6.1.1.1
          20 February 2024 at 1:53 am

          This is exactly why I want to see the publication of polls be banned.

          At least until we clean out our house of evil organisations like The Taxpayers Union and any similar organisations.

          They are capturing our mediascape to put out anti-human propaganda on the behalf of the bosses and the parasitic landlords.

          The media is a part of the committee of the bourgeoisie in that sense.

    • SPC 6.2
      19 February 2024 at 7:00 pm

      The Herald narrative is telling – they keep stressing how the narrow lead, 43-41, on the right direction track shows momentum behind the new government (when they three party coalition had a larger lead, over 10 points at the election). If anything it demonstrates an underwhelming lack of confidence for an incoming government.

      • Kat 6.2.1
        19 February 2024 at 8:13 pm

        Here are the results for each party:

        • National, 38% (up one point).
        • Labour, 28% (no change).
        • Greens, 12% (down two points).
        • ACT, 8% (down one point).
        • NZ First, 6% (no change).
        • Te Pāti Māori, 4% (up two points).

        28 + 12 + 4 = 44%

        38 + 8 = 46% (Nats stole a point from Act)

        NZ First is the decider….just like in 2017.

        Its not out of order to deduce that the tail is more than wagging the dog…..is it…

        We are a politically divided country, fairly evenly split down the middle….

        But……..

        • SPC 6.2.1.1
          20 February 2024 at 12:58 am

          Given NZF has never been returned to parliament after being in a coalition government (1999, 2008, 2020) one should note the NACT lead at 46-44 another recent poll had them behind 45-46.

          There was close polling for much of the 2017-early 2020 period.

    • Belladonna 6.3
      19 February 2024 at 9:25 pm

      And do you say the same thing about the Roy Morgan result – with a bump of over 3% for the Greens? A higher difference than the Curia one for ACT.

      Polls should only be looked at for trends. All will have outlier results from time to time.

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

      • Muttonbird 6.3.1
        20 February 2024 at 7:50 pm

        Speaking of looking at polls for trends, three polls put ACT at 7.5% and one, the far right wing activist, claims ACT are double that.

        Your first paragraph makes zero sense but at least even you are able to acknowledge Farrar's latest attempt is an outlier so there is some hope.

        • Belladonnad 6.3.1.1
          22 February 2024 at 7:37 pm

          OK. Let me break the concepts in the first paragraph down, for the hard of thinking.

          The most recent Roy Morgan poll had the Green Party at 15.5% – well above the 12% of the Talbot Mills and the Verian most recent polls.

          This result is a greater percentage difference than the one which made you claim that Curia was biased. But seems to escaped your eagle eye.

          My point is that it's only trends that matter. Any individual poll result can be an outlier. Which is what I think both the Curia ACT result and the Roy Morgan Green Party result are.

          If you want to claim that Curia is deliberately biased (which is what your initial comment seemed to suggest); then you should back this up with some trend analysis – or potentially find yourself in court facing a defamation case.

          You could start here, with actually looking at the data.

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

          • weka 6.3.1.1.1
            22 February 2024 at 7:49 pm

            please fix your username. Three comments were held back because of the typo

          • Muttonbird 6.3.1.1.2
            22 February 2024 at 8:32 pm

            Sorry, who is taking me to court? I don't get this. Don't threaten me on this site, please.

            Your third para is just stupid. RM had Greens at 15.5% while average of other three was 11%, diff is 4.5%. Farrar had ACT at 13.7% while average of other three was 7.5%, diff is 6.2%. That’s a 138% increase in differentiation for Farrar if you can do the maths…

            The RM Greens result is not an outlier with respect to RM polling because since the election RM has the Greens at 12.5%, 15.5%, and 15.5% which is consistent, and a trend.

            I'd also like to point out the accepted fallacy that RM overstates the Greens vote:

            In the six months prior to the 2023 election the RM average over six polls for Greens was 11.67%. Farrar averaged 9.66%. Election result was 11.61% so RM far more accurate there.

            In the same period the RM average over six polls for ACT was 14%. Farrar averaged 12%. Election result was 8.64% so both wildly overstated ACT support.

            This doubly questions the continuing and false meme that polling in general overstates the Green vote. It's simply not true. Rather, the case of these two polling companies last election they jointly overstated ACTs vote by a massive 150%.

            Anyway, I'm not really interested in the Greens' polling. It's the way Farrar, a far right wing activist who polls for far right wing astroturf organisations and political parties suddenly came up with a ridiculous outlier for ACT way out of step with three other polls held at the same time right after Waitangi Day when the parties he is affiliated with are attempting to erase the Treaty of Waitangi.

            Farrar more than anyone knows the power of influencing public opinion through polling.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_New_Zealand_general_election

            • Belladonna 6.3.1.1.2.1
              24 February 2024 at 2:58 pm

              Don't know if this is willful obtuseness. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

              *If* you make claims which are damaging to a business; *then* you'd better be prepared to back them up with actual data. *Or* risk the business suing you for damages.

              Nothing to do with threats. It's legal reality.

              Given that you're "not interested in the Greens polling" it's self-evidently not worthwhile continuing the debate. Stay safe in your bubble.

              • Muttonbird …
                24 February 2024 at 6:28 pm

                I need to make a correction to my comment @ 6.3.1.1.2

                6.2(%) is 138% of 4.5(%), and an increase of 38% (not 138%)

                Also, RM + Farrar averaged 13% for ACT in the six months before the 2023 election (14% and 12% respectively) which is 150% of ACT's election result of 8.64% and an overestimate of 50% (not 150%).

                You were the one who brought up RM and the Greens, presumably to dilute and distract from Farrar's dubious ACT polling which was the point of my comment @ 6.

                But since you are fixated on the Greens, I've clearly demonstrated with data that RM did not overstate the Greens vote in the six months before the 2023 election, they were bang on. In fact, Farrar understated the Greens vote by a massive 17%, and overstated ACT's vote by double that at 38%, which is another red flag, and interestingly the same amount by which he overstated ACT in this last poll with respect to the other (independent) pollsters.

                If there's any habitual behaviour going on here, it's from Farrar, and the trend indicates it is deliberate.

                If you and others seek comfort deluding yourselves that RM in particular overstates the Greens vote and the Greens vote is overestimated in general, go for it.

                • Belladonna …
                  24 February 2024 at 6:49 pm

                  The only polling figures for which we have any independent verification – are the ones made immediately before an election. When we can compare the polls against the actual voter behaviour.

                  Averaging polls across 6 months is an utterly futile task – as people's voting intention changes. It can be useful to show trends – but averages are just a misleading waste of time.

                  Looking at the final polls immediately before the 2023 election:

                  Green Party
                  Roy Morgan: 15%; Curia: 10.6% Actual GP result: 11.61%

                  ACT
                  Roy Morgan: 11.5%; Curia: 9.1% Actual ACT result: 8.64%

                  Looks to me as though Curia were considerably closer than RM.

                  A point which I'm sure they are making to their future clients – their job isn't to give nice fuzzy-hug projections, but to come as close as possible to cold hard reality.

                  But, even then, I wouldn't call the RM figures biased – there is just variation – and they're within the bounds (although only just)

                  I know who's deluded — and it isn't me.

                  • Muttonbird …
                    24 February 2024 at 6:52 pm

                    First you want trends, and now you don't, you want the single poll point immediately before an election.

                    Could you please make up your mind?

                    • Belladonna …
                      24 February 2024 at 7:09 pm

                      Trends show movement over time. In effect, it is only useful to measure trends by the same pollsters – since they all have variations in how their samples are selected.

                      • There is no value in comparing poll result A against poll result B (by different pollsters) – since you don't know the baseline. The 'fact' that pollster X has ACT at 9% and pollster Y has them at 12% is entirely irrelevant – until you compare against the previous polls from that pollster.
                      • There is zero significance in results which are within the margin of error – from any pollster. All the trumpeting in the media and the angsting on social media over a 2% shift, is actually a waste of time.
                      • It *is* useful to compare polls from pollster X over 3 months – to see if you see trends. If you see the same trends appearing from several pollsters, then you can be reasonably confident that this is a real trend, not just random data. It doesn't matter that pollster X has a shift from 10-15% and pollster Y has a shift from 8-12% – it's the upwards trend you're looking at.
                      • Where a poll result is significantly out of line with the trend from that pollster, you are likely to have a rogue poll result (I recall at least one from ACT and one from TPM in the 6 months before the election). Generally you would simply ignore this (unless it's repeated, in the poll results and/or echoed by others, and you find you have a significant shift)
                      • Since people's voting intentions change all the time, earlier poll results are often significantly different to the way they vote on the day. Averaging this data (which you know to be 'wrong') and comparing it against on-the-day polling behaviour, gives you zero information about the reliability of the pollster. It's a valueless exercise.

                      Individual polls, immediately before an election, give an actual data point, which you can compare against reality. In a way, it's a check of the pollsters' methodology – how good is their sample set against a real life election result.

                      You appear to want to (initially) compare polls against each other over a small window. And then subsequently want to average out polls over 6 months.

                      Neither is a useful strategy for evaluating statistical polling data.

                    • Muttonbird …
                      24 February 2024 at 7:22 pm

                      I've done it all. Compared four pollsters, three independant and one not, over a small window, and looked at medium term poll-of-polls comparing two pollsters, one independent and one not.

                      Here's another. All comers 4 weeks before the 2023 election (10 polls):

                      Greens 13%, election result 11.61%. Over by 12%.

                      ACT 9.8%, election result 8.64%. Over by 13.4%.

                      Which party's vote was overstated more?

                      Still, at least you've stopped threatening a fellow commenter with court action, so that is something.

                    • Belladonna …
                      25 February 2024 at 11:14 am

                      You clearly are incapable of distinguishing between a risk statement (your behaviour exposes you to criminal liability) and a threat (I, personally, am going to sue you)

  7. Muttonbird 7
    19 February 2024 at 8:26 pm

    Nicola Willis is a dangerous idiot.

    A new contract for the same ferries which she just cancelled would now cost 40% more than if she has just stuck to her knitting:

    The $551 million fixed-price contract with Hyundai Mipo Dockyard (HMD) to build the new ferries in 2021 has proven to be a good deal.

    If the same contract were signed today, KiwiRail estimated the cost could increase by as much as 40 per cent.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/tide-starts-to-turn-on-nicola-willis-over-kiwirails-cook-strait-mega-ferries-opinion/Y34AG3V6ZVFO7PPFS4KEMKHYM4/

  8. roblogic 8
    19 February 2024 at 10:14 pm

    Guy Body excellent satire as always: Luxon's State of the Nation

  9. weka 9
    19 February 2024 at 11:15 pm

    One of the pathways that is an alternative to liberal authoritarianism in the face of ongoing stress and chaos,

    The human universe had contracted, and was contracting more.With every connection, every stark, frightened voice he heard in the long, frantic hours, Bull grew more convinced thathis plan could work.The vastness and strangeness and unreasonable danger of the universe had traumatized everyone it hadn't killed.There was a hunger to go home, to huddle together, back in the village.The instinct was the opposite of war, and as long as he could see it cultivated, as long as the response to the tragedies ofthe lockdown were to get one another's backs and see that everyone who needed care got it, the grief and fear might notturn to more violence.

    From Abbadon's Gate Chapter 29, one of the Expanse novels.