Daily Review 24/10/2017

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, October 24th, 2017 - 36 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 …

36 comments on “Daily Review 24/10/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sanctuary 1
    24 October 2017 at 6:03 pm

    Just watching the news. Every time Jacinda appears as the PM I jump up and run around the room giggling like a child.

  2. ianmac 2
    24 October 2017 at 6:59 pm

    A good roundup by Bryce Edwards. Answers for those who believe that the new Labour Government is not legal or have the “moral” authority.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11936270

  3. Bill 3
    24 October 2017 at 7:29 pm

    I’ve heard say that Bryan Gould was the best Labour Party leader the UK never had. (Or words to that effect.)

    Anyway. His latest piece “Why the Left Disappoints” is one of those ‘must reads’ that comes along from time to time. I’d very much like to think that Robertson and Ardern are sitting up and taking notice, though the ‘tin ear’ track record of NZ Labour these past years suggests I just resign myself to the fact they aren’t and won’t.

    • Union city greens 3.1
      24 October 2017 at 7:37 pm

      Best labour pm that never was would have been John Smith.
      If we’re talking best foreign labour leaders that never were, might as well be a kiwi over the welsh windbag Kinnock and Tony Blair.

    • marty mars 3.2
      24 October 2017 at 7:38 pm

      Maybe you should give Jacinda a chance mate instead of judging early. Seems like a lot of the left are actually happy about the change of government – join in, look for the positive, seek out the inspiration, search diligently for the integrity and you WILL find it. And if you look for the opposite you will find that too.

      • Bill 3.2.1
        24 October 2017 at 7:49 pm

        Did you read the article marty?

        What Bryan Gould is drawing attention to is the idiotic commitment made by both NZ Labour and the Greens to ‘fiscal responsibility’.

        I can’t be fucked with the vacuous sugar rush of cotton candy enthusiasm marty, and thought you’d have been around this blog and my comments long enough to appreciate that fact.

        • marty mars 3.2.1.1
          24 October 2017 at 8:06 pm

          Yes ive commented on that below. And yep your point is one of his points – i liked the create money and do something with it approach rather than prop up banks but I’m sure in such a long article there are many take home points depending on what catches the eye.

          Looking for points of connection is not vacous imo and yes imo you appear to be a dour, cloudy, glass half empy, pessimist – good for you – variety and contrast is essential.

          • Bill 3.2.1.1.1
            24 October 2017 at 8:21 pm

            tsk-tsk marty. Who said” looking for points of connection” is vacuous. I didn’t.

            But anyhow, I’ll away and drain that half empty glass so as I can fill it again and then perhaps sit back and watch the last rays of the sun slip off those clouds…

            • marty mars 3.2.1.1.1.1
              24 October 2017 at 8:38 pm

              Nice – sorry if I got it wrong ☺ I thought that was what you meant in your response to my comments about you looking for the positive, the inspiration and the integrity – my bad.

    • marty mars 3.3
      24 October 2017 at 7:59 pm

      Interesting piece – knew it but good to have it set out well. I think those caught within a worldview cannot see from outside that view therefore it is going to be a struggle for a different view to manifest even if the different view was known and is known such as with the examples he uses. This is the completeness of the horror of neo liberalism imo.

    • Ad 3.4
      24 October 2017 at 8:10 pm

      Gould is setting out a single field of monetary policy as the single solution to the decline of the left’s vote over dozens of countries. He knows as much as any that to every complex problem, there is a simple solution, and it is wrong.

    • Macro 3.5
      24 October 2017 at 10:33 pm

      Yep I thought that about his article too Bill.
      It’s what a good few of us on here have been banging on about for a while now, Draco et al. What is needed is to reign in the ability of the banks to create the money. Creating money to lend on existing houses does not produce anything. Lending for creating employment is non-inflationary and is productive. Governments as well as banks can do this. I’m hoping that it is this which NZF wants to work towards when the Agreement says they want to “Review and reform the Reserve Bank Act”.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.6
      24 October 2017 at 11:01 pm

      Corrected link

      Don’t know why but he changed it.

    • gsays 3.7
      24 October 2017 at 11:25 pm

      Excellent and lucid essay.
      Contrasting the idea of the state printing cash for productivity purposes (houses for example) and with banks issuing debt for private (foreign) profit.

      Perhaps those recently elected will heed these words.

  4. weka 4
    24 October 2017 at 8:08 pm

    Does anyone following the prep for the Big One know if a series of smaller shakes on the main faults would release pressure and thus push back the timing of an 8+ quake?

    • Exkiwiforces 4.1
      25 October 2017 at 12:24 am

      I’m not sure if my answer helps you,

      Depending on what paper you read on this subject, it’s pretty much a bet each way according to theboffins and at the end of the day you dealing Mother Nature and when your number is up it’s up.

  5. Foreign waka 5
    24 October 2017 at 8:12 pm

    It is immense disappointing that Bill English shows reactions that are nothing short of a spoiled brat response. His forever stating that more people voted for him shows so very clearly that the right choice for government has been decided on.
    All he conveys is that he believes that he is entitled – really? Is he serious?
    And then you have those hanger ons constantly dishing the new government, almost like treason really.
    Not to mention the veiled threats that increased minimum wage will be negative for the economy, that the labor led government will tank NZ.
    OK, lets just for a moment stop the train here. Firstly, it stands to reason that the current ministers in charge are more than capable. They are experienced and not just fallen off a tree.
    Secondly, families, retirees, minimum wage earners and the working poor are suppose to shiver in their socks hearing of the soothsaying? If anybody tanks the economy than it is this spiteful commenting, it is juvenile and damaging to NZ.
    Some serious cooperation and a honest approach to having a strong NZ economy is called for from all ministers, regardless what bench they warm up with the hard earned taxpayer money – they are the employees of all NZlanders regardless what color, race, religion or creed…or money in the bank.

  6. joe90 6
    24 October 2017 at 8:42 pm

    Despite no official diagnosis one of my brothers is definitely somewhere on the spectrum, incredibly bright but sometimes you’d never know it, sometimes withdraws and cocoons, unable to read cues or get to grips with conversation, impenetrable, sometimes outgoing and life of the party sociable.

    Yet I’ve never really worried about him, he’s just Mick being Mick, and then I read stuff like this and it scares me.

    Summary: People who express certain autistic traits, such as communication and social difficulties, but without a diagnosis of ASD, are at increased risk of suicide, a new study reports.

    http://neurosciencenews.com/autism-suicide-risk-7790/

    • Anne 6.1
      24 October 2017 at 9:09 pm

      I wouldn’t worry too much joe90. While there may be an element of truth to the claim I think those who are ‘at risk’ likely represent the more extreme end of the spectrum. A bit like your average run of the mill psychopath… they may lack empathy and are control freaks but they’re not murderers.

      I, too have a brother who is probably somewhere on the spectrum.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1
        24 October 2017 at 11:09 pm

        And then we get a National government who likes throwing people off of benefits for no reason whatsoever.

        In a downturn, like we’ve been in for the last few years, guess who are the people most likely can’t get jobs in the long term and who are then massively stressed when they get kicked off.

      • joe90 6.1.2
        24 October 2017 at 11:12 pm

        I guess I’m a worrywart. Bit like my mum.

    • weka 6.2
      24 October 2017 at 9:46 pm

      The academics say the psychological model can be used to predict people who will exhibit suicidal behaviour – and once further developed could make a huge difference to creating effective assessment, support and treatment for people at risk of suicide.

      If you treat vulnerable people like shit, they will feel it and it will affect their functioning. The solution isn’t to put an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff (although do that too), it’s to stop treating people like shit.

      I would guess that the suicide risk is at least to some degree from living in a society that enforces disability on neurodivergent people (i.e expects them to be like neurotypicals and penalises them when they’re not). I think believing that people on the spectrum are mentally ill, or that autism is a pathology, is also a problem.

      We need to stop telling people there is something wrong with them.

      http://neurocosmopolitanism.com/neurodiversity-some-basic-terms-definitions/

    • marty mars 6.3
      24 October 2017 at 10:12 pm

      Understandable that you would be feeling some fear for your brother after reading that study Joe. I never realised the increased incidences of depression for those on the spectrum. We must do more to create an inclusive society where everyone is valued for who they are and where support is available for everyone. Thanks for highlighting this serious issue mate.

      • joe90 6.3.1
        24 October 2017 at 11:08 pm

        I always wondered but I think I know now why mum got so damn clingy – mortality is a thing.

  7. Patricia Bremner 7
    24 October 2017 at 9:00 pm

    ‘Some days are diamonds, some days are stone’ so the song goes.

    This is a special day, to continue the theme, ‘pure gold’

    During the election when I realised Jacinda had sparked hope, I said “I was singing in the rain” and wouldn’t it be ‘ luverly luverly….’

    Well it is lovely to see such co-operation to achieve a coalition, with respect for all.

    So the negative bods, please give them 100 days at least, to begin meaningful change.

    I think after 9 years we are entitled to some happiness and relief at this outcome.

    We need to follow Jacinda’s lead, as the new opposition will be nasty in all ways.

    So 24/10/2017 is pretty good. Full of promise.

  8. Doogs 8
    24 October 2017 at 9:46 pm

    I have to agree with people who think Blinglish is moaning. I heard him on RNZ this morning spouting the biggest load of sour grapes I have heard in a long time. This just proves that he ran an FPP campaign in an MMP environment, and when MMP won he whinged. This just goes to show that this droit de seigneur attitude to being in power is not only outdated, it is embarrassing. Toys were coming out of the cot one by one this morning and he went even further down in my estimation. Jacinda and team will have to have their loins well and truly girded against what will be a nasty, dirty, below the belt campaign of vindictiveness. Opposition with reason and conviction is fine, vitriol is not.

    • mpledger 8.1
      25 October 2017 at 8:34 am

      It’s amazing how much time National are giving to the media after losing the election considering how much they disdained the media while in government – they were forever dodging interviews.

      Hopefully, the media will actually get over the novelty and only get them on air when they have something either true or useful to say.

  9. swordfish 9
    25 October 2017 at 1:39 am

    30 reasons why Jane Clifton is wrong

    Jane Clifton / 20 October, 2017

    This is not the first time that the most popular party in an election using a proportional voting system has been left out of the Government, but it’s still an arresting novelty to us: how does the most popular party, National, not get any power at all?

    It’s a fair question, and even those smarty-britches whose habitual retort is, “(Sigh). You just don’t understand MMP, do you?” are a bit out on a limb on this one.

    For the record, the only other time it has happened was in Sweden in the 1970s, and the resultant Government didn’t last the full term intact.

    http://www.noted.co.nz/currently/politics/minority-rules-who-will-be-the-first-voted-off-coalition-island/

    .

    Reality

    (This is a long way from being an exhaustive list incidentally)

    (1) Sweden – 2006 General Election

    Centre-Left Bloc

    Social Democrats 35%(Largest Party)
    Left Party 6% (Sixth)
    Green 5% (Seventh)

    Centre-Right Bloc

    Moderate 26% (Second Largest Party)
    Centre 8% (Third)
    Liberal People’s Party 8% (Fourth)
    Christian Democrats 7% (Fifth)

    Moderates (Second Largest Party) form Centre-Right Coalition Govt

    (2) West German federal election, 1976

    CDU/CSU (Centre Right) 48.6%
    SPD (Centre Left) 42.6%
    FDP (Liberal Right) 7.9%

    Govt formed subsequently = SPD + FDP

    (CDU/CSU = sister Parties treated as one – they don’t compete with one another The CSU only contests elections in Bavaria, while the CDU operates in the other 15 states of Germany)

    (3) West German federal election, 1980

    CDU/CSU (Centre Right) 44.5%
    SPD (Centre Left) 42.9%
    FDP (Liberal Right) 10.6%

    Govt formed subsequently = SPD + FDP

    (4) Czech legislative election, 2010

    Czech Social Democrats 22% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right coalition of ODS, TOP 09, and VV was subsequently formed

    (5) Danish general election, 2015

    Social Democrats 26% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right Govt subsequently formed

    (6) Danish general election, 2011

    Centre Right Venstre 27% (Largest Party)

    But Social Democrat’s subsequently form Left coalition

    (7) Danish general election, 1990

    Social Democrats 37% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right Govt (Venstre 15.8% & Conservative People’s Party 16.0%) subsequently formed

    (8) Danish general election, 1988

    Social Democrats 30% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right coalition Govt (Conservative People’s Party 19% & Danish Social Liberal Party 6%) subsequently formed

    (9) Danish general election, 1987

    Social Democrats 29% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right coalition Govt (led by Conservative People’s Party 21%) subsequently formed

    (10) Danish general election, 1984

    Social Democrats 32% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right coalition Govt (led by Conservative People’s Party 23%) subsequently formed

    (11) Danish general election, 1981

    Social Democrats 33% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right coalition Govt (led by Conservative People’s Party 15%) subsequently formed

    (12) Norwegian parliamentary election, 2017

    Labour 27% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right Conservative (25%)-Progress(15%) coalition subsequently formed

    (13) Norwegian parliamentary election, 2013

    Labour 31% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right Conservative (27%)-Progress(16%) coalition subsequently formed

    (14) Norwegian parliamentary election, 2001

    Labour 24% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right Conservative-led (21%)-coalition subsequently formed

    (15) Norwegian parliamentary election, 1997

    Labour 35% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right Christian People’s Party-led (14%)-coalition subsequently formed

    (16) Norwegian parliamentary election, 1989

    Labour 34% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right Conservative-led (22%)-coalition subsequently formed

    (17) Norwegian parliamentary election, 1985

    Labour 41% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right Conservative-led (30%)-coalition subsequently formed

    (18) Norwegian parliamentary election, 1981

    Labour 37% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right Conservative-led (32%)-coalition subsequently formed

    (19) Norwegian parliamentary election, 1969

    Labour 47% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right Centre Party-led (13%)-coalition subsequently formed (Conservatives = Second Largest Party (23%))

    (20) Norwegian parliamentary election, 1965

    Labour 43% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right Centre Party-led (10%)-coalition subsequently formed (Conservatives = Second Largest Party (21%))

    (21) Swedish general election, 1991

    Social Democrats 38%(Largest Party)

    But centre-right Moderate-led (22%)-coalition subsequently formed

    (22) Swedish general election, 1979

    Social Democrats 43%(Largest Party)

    But centre-right Centre Party-led (18%)-coalition subsequently formed (Moderates = Second Largest Party (20%))

    (23) Swedish general election, 1976

    Social Democrats 43%(Largest Party)

    But centre-right Centre Party-led (24%)-coalition subsequently formed

    (24) Dutch general election, 1982

    Labour 30% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right CDA-led coalition subsequently formed

    (25) Dutch general election, 1977

    Labour 34% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right CDA-led coalition subsequently formed

    (26) Dutch general election, 1971

    Labour 25% (Largest Party)

    But centre-right ARP-led coalition subsequently formed

    (27) Austrian legislative election, 1999

    Social Democrats 33%(Largest Party)

    But right-wing ÖVP-led (27%)-coalition subsequently formed

    (28) Belgian federal election, 2010

    Rightist New Flemish Alliance 17% (Largest Party)

    But Centre Left francophone Socialist Party-led (14%)-coalition subsequently formed

    (29) Bulgarian parliamentary election, 2013

    Centre Right GERB 31% (Largest Party)

    But Centre Left BSP-led (27%)-coalition subsequently formed

    (30) Latvian parliamentary election, 2011

    Social Democrat Harmony 28%(Largest Party)

    But right-wing Reform (21%)-+ Unity (13%) coalition subsequently formed

    • swordfish 9.1
      25 October 2017 at 2:18 am

      Clifton also argues

      Many voters simply won’t see this arrangement as legitimate because National got the most votes

      &

      Ardern’s, Peters’ and Shaw’s most immediate problem is finding ways to soothe a considerable public mood that their coalition is not entirely legitimate

      .
      &

      Again, that’s first-past-the-post thinking, but no matter how big a boffin stick constitutional experts wave around, the voters are always right. If they simply can’t tolerate this sort-of-minority style of governance, it won’t become popular

      .
      &

      But for a lot of people it will come down simply to a long-incubating case of Winston-itis. The only thing for it is for Ardern and her team to come blasting out of the starting blocks with such a flurry of (popular) activity that people forget to be shocked about the maths

      .

      “Many voters” … “considerable public mood” … “a lot of people” … “shocked about the maths” ? ? ? ?

      .

      Evidence from Clifton ? = Zilch

      My Evidence ?

      Sure – One or two Polls a decade ago suggested strong public sentiment in favour of the idea that the party receiving the most votes should form the subsequent Government (eg 79% agreeing in a 2008 Colmar Brunton).

      However Jacinda-mania (and Labour’s subsequent revival) may have mitigated this view – a recent Herald ZB Kantar TNS poll found more voters feeling NZF should make any coalition decisions on the basis of policy wins (38%) rather than simply going with the largest party (35%) – albeit with 27% still Unsure