- Date published:
10:22 pm, March 5th, 2011 - 78 comments
Categories: labour, national, uncategorized - Tags: botany by-election, jami-lee ross, michael wood, new citizens party
So another corrupt Nat minister has gone and Jami-Lee Ross has taken her seat in Botany. What an embarrassing resulting. The majority reduced by 7,000 and Michael Wood reduced the gap from 36% to 28%. Nat strategists will be crapping themselves over the New Citizens’ Party’s result.
Considering that Wood had acknowledged from the start that he wouldn’t win and Labour decided not to waste money on this expensive exercise in Nats replacing the corrupt Pansy Wong, the fact that Wood increased Labour’s share of the vote is outstanding.
You would have expected a low turnout given that there was no real race and no attention but you would have expected it would be Labour and other supporters staying away. Instead, it was the Nat supporters that stayed away in droves. Their vote fell by over ten thousand, Labour’s by less than four thousand.
The New Citizens’ Party result, 10%, will encourage their masters in Beijing and scare the crap out of National’s strategists. Winning immigrants’ votes by scaring them about crime has been vital to the Nats. If the NCP can translate the third of the Asian vote they got in Botany nationwide that’s maybe 3%, and it’s safe to assume most of that would come from National.
I wonder if Pansy joined Key, Ross, Whaleoil and co at the ‘gastropub’ for the victory party.
Yep good result to Labour and well done and Michael and most importantly the Otara part of the electorate swung back. Labour shed votes to National last time throughout South Auckland and this looks like it is reversing.
Without the tragedy of the Christchurch earthquake things could have been really interesting. Peoples’ attention was properly focussed on the disaster of Christchurch rather than what was happening in Botany.
Marty, you cant seriously beleive the drivel you just wrote?
If you want a clear picture of the standing you should compare the CANDIDATE percenatges with the CANDIDATE percenatages from the 2008 election.
Not much change at all.
This is like the Mana By-election, less people voted, so to say that the majority is less is obvious due to the number who voted. But when you compare the percentages you see that National candidate has very similar results to the the election:
National Party: Jamie-Lee Ross – 54.65% (Pansy Wong – 56.22%)
Labour Party: Michael Wood – 27.85% (Koro Tawa 21.06%)
Act Party: Lyn Murphy – 4.5% (Kenneth Wang 15.26%)
But dont let the FACTS get in the way of your post.
Interesting. You must be the shift worker at Crosby Textor for the night.
You lot are deluded! A result if this ilk in an election year is a superb one for the government!
Calm down son. I’ve compared to party vote – as I recall was National’s favoured approach in Mt Albert before Lee blew up – because there’s obviously a big personality vote aspect for long-term incumbents. Whichever way you look at it, this isn’t a flash result. Ross should have romped home.
Anyhoo, how are you boys at Nat HQ feeling about the NCP’s performance?
He did “ROMP” home.
He got 54.65% of the vote (Pansy Wong – 56.22%).
Almost the same percentage.
YOu are making yourselves look like jackasses by trying to claim he suffered here.
Just accept the result, and that fact that there was almost no shift at all (-1.57%).
Labour have. THey know that trying to make it appear like a bad result as you have done would look desperate.
Vote for the Right dropped a massive 12.3%, in a Right Wing stronghold, while LAB got a nice bump up.
ACT voters fled ACT – not surprisingly – but remarkably they did not go on to give benefit to National even one little bit.
The NACT strategy team will be shitting themselves with this result.
Yes NAT can be proud that JR held the seat by a clear majority. But the Right Wing foundations of that majority are completely undermined.
With the ACT candidate describing herself as more left wing than a labour member, it’s hardly surprising that michael wood picked up a few of those fleeing votes. To be fair to crosby/textor, even they couldn’t have dreamed up something as harebrained as getting michael to admit defeat on the opening day.
At least Wood was consistent. Remember Mt Albert? National ran a campaign based on winning the by-election right up until Melissa Lee accidentally told the truth, admitting that second would be a good result.
Which reminds me. Why didn’t Lee stand for Botany? Asian, experienced by-election candidate, can see the electorate from her house. Ticks all the boxes, I would have thought.
FYI, I have nothing to do with Crosby Textor or National HQ. What is it with people on this blog site that the second someone says something that they disagree with the standard line is that we must be working for crosby textor or Nat HQ.
Sad that you think people cant have an opposing opinion to yours without having to be linked to one of the above mentioned. Shows the measure of your argument when you resort to that kind of thing.
What a sad little swipe to detract from my points.
Sorry for the insult. You just sound exactly like a nat research unit sock puppet does.
As for the result, remember Labour wasn’t even trying, unlike Parata’s campaign in Mana. And, yet, wood improved labour’s share and the nat voters stayed away.
Well I agree with ‘interesting’, although wouldn’t have phrased it the same way.
Do you think I sound like a nat research unit sock puppet?
It is more the style of how you make your comments that leads them to suspect it.
Repetitively churning a simple repetitive message through a large number of comments where you don’t say anything new. You also don’t really engage with anyone else except when you indulge in faux outrage. These are all things that we have seen before.
Basically acting like a troll in my opinion (and since I do much of the moderation, that is the definitive opinion). Now on these posts I am pretty unconcerned – they will be quite partisan and even long standing commentators are trolling. In some ways your shallowness is an essential part of the debate. It reminds readers of the political choices.
If it interferes in posts where there is discussion going on, then it is a different story. I suggest you read the policy.
[Had your warning fisi…. either get some content into your comments or get deleted….RL]
National has taken a huge drop in favour.From 55.775% in 2008 to 55.65% today
Straw, straw ,straw
There’s three more you can cling to Marty
What a bunch of NACT trolls we have in here extolling the virtues of a Never worked in his life trough feeding, parasitic Nat politician. BUT for all their spin on the Numbers being the same here is one they cant get away from is that the total amount of people that voted for Ross this time was LESS than Patsys Majority in 2008. SO there you go trolls stick that in your pipe and smoke it and go cry to Whale oil and Shonky The NACTS will be crapping as Only 34% even bothered to come out and vote at all. Oh yes the numbers so the Trolls can cry even harder.
SO in 2008 Patsy got nearly 18000 votes and this year Ross got just over 8000 in my book thats a loss of 10000 votes that either 1: went elsewhere or 2: could not be bothered voting at all.
A gastropub ? Somewhere you go to get a Bellyache?
Deadly, you are grasping at straws arent you.
All that matters is how the vote of those that did vote went. Nats bascially went un changed. Labs went up a bit (partly due to greens not having a canidate, partly that they just gained).
But I am happy to let you all live in fantasy land. Makes you look rather sad really.
captcha: try – yes you are try-ing. facts speak for themselves though.
Me grasping at straws??????? You are the ones that don’t seem to get it yes you won woo hoo big deal. However I will type slowly so you can keep up. Anyway yes he got 54% of the vote his total vote was 8150. Pansys Majority was 10872 Now Pansy g,ot 17382 votes and this time the total amount of voters was 14911. So here’s why I think you are in trouble and the question is this if the Smiling wanna be key won, how many of the 18000 voters that did not even bother to vote were NACTS from last time around. Who are sick of the NACTS shenanigans. Yes he won, well sorta, yes he had the same margins , well sorta NO he lost because NO ONE voted for anyone. And about 9000 of the No shows were NACTS from last time. and thats about 50% as well
“of a Never worked in his life trough feeding, parasitic Nat politician”
Hahaha so sad that YOU of all people are now supporting J.R., who is a definitive “Never worked in his life trough feeding, parasitic Nat politician”
Where did I say I supported him, you idiot..
Marty G on slashed majority: “What an embarrassing resulting. The majority reduced by 7,000”
Zetetic on slashed majority: “Key talking on Breaskfast about Mana: “we slashed the majority from 6,155 to 1,080. So by any measure, you’ve got to take that as a win.”
Apart from the one measure that counts. Eh John?
Of course, this is also the dude who reckons that sitting “pretty much next to” Obama for a few minutes is a foreign policy achievement.”
Rob: on slashed majority: “One thing missing from all analysis I’ve seen so far. Yes, Winnie Laban has a 6,000 vote majority in 2008. But that was a personal vote. Looking at party vote Labour’s majority was just 2,500”, “Labour can be reasonably pleased with the Mana result. The majority is small but that does not mean anything for the wider party” http://thestandard.org.nz/assessing-labours-mana-result/
For my part; looking at the majority is meaningless when it comes to comparing by election vs general election because of voter turnout. The key is the percentage of the votes. Labour’s gains have come from the lack of a Green candidate, National and Act’s losses have come from the NCP, who put in a surprisingly good result. Wouldnt expect that to be replicated in the General election though, for a whole bunch of reasons (other than stating the obvious that botany has a large asain population).
1) The immigrant vote in Botany would be more right leaning because it is a wealthy electorate, they will steal votes from Labour as well in a general election.
2) The effect would have been more pronounced because none of the major parties stood an asian candidate (as much as I would like to think people don’t vote along racial lines, they clearly do).
3) People will feel that their vote counts for more in a general election than a by election where one party has already conceeded, and that no one was focusing on, and will be less reluctant to waste their vote.
4) To replicate this result they will need to deliver the same campaign on a national level, something that will take the organisational structure a new party wont have. Not to mention that current electoral finance rules overwellmingly favour incumbent parties.
even Labour agree the result is almost the same as the 2008 election.
Compare apples with apples.
You need to compare the CANDIDATE vote percentage with the CANDIDATE vote precentage.
Nice try though.
For a comparison with the Mana byelection CANDIDATE percentages:
CANDIDATE results from byelection (results of CANDIDATE vote from 2008 general election in brackets)
Labour Party: Kris Faafoi – 47.2% (Winnie Laban – 53.06%) – down 5.86%
National Party: Hekia Parata – 41.1% (Hekia Parata – 34.99%) – up 6.11%
These results compare the CANDIDATE vote percentages so that apples are being compared with apples.
So in the Botany byelection National has held its ground, labour has gained ground – however this is due to there being no Green party candidate.
The Mana byelection showed a slump for Labour and a gain for National
You need to compare the CANDIDATE vote percentage with the CANDIDATE vote precentage
Err no you don’t. By elections are funny things and are affected by all sorts of factors. Because of the Christchurch Earthquake the local candidates never had a chance to have a good go at each other so there were no major positives or negatives there. Voters would then tend to vote according to which party they support and the swing here was clear.
Greens only got 2.6% of the vote last time. Their absence did not really matter.
Actually Micky…there CANDIDATE got 3.97% of the vote.
Interestingly I was talking about the green’s party vote but don’t let that stop you from the insults.
Comapring the precentage Mickey shows how much of the vote they got and eliminates the issue of voter turn out.
When we look at the turn out elections we say that “so ‘n’ so got XX% of the vote”.
That percentage is based on the number that voted.
So in this case we can do the same and say that each candidate got XX% of the vote.
But, hey, dont let the facts get in the way of your fantasy.
So you are suggesting that we simply not consider that National lost more than half of their vote due to low turnout, while LAB lost just over a third?
And ACT lost six sevenths of their vote? But those former ACT voters did not go on to help National?
Sure we can do that if it makes the world a better place for you 🙂
The analysis on a booth by booth basis will be interesting.
I would predict that the voting will show a clear divide across the electorate with the NACToid vote coming from the more affluent Howick end and the slopes & country sides of Botany and the Labour vote coming from the Otara-Dannemora/ Huntingdon Park areas.
The NCP vote will have been spread across the electorate with a greater % coming from the Burswood- Pakuranga Country Club areas.
The coming November election could be interesting if Labour can build on and sustain the impetus it has built up over the past 5 weeks. If I was Michael I’d go into permanent campaign mode from now until the November election and continue to hold the NACToid candidate to account at every step of the way and at every time he opens his mouth in Parliament.
Keeping a person like Jammy Lee unsettled will make his arrogance less convincing and cause the voters to question the wisdom of electing someone with no work experience or qualifications to office.
There was no swing against National, unless you see 0.1% as relevent
It was the Green Party Fubar and the Act party loss that went to Labour.
Botany restated its faith in National
Noone here will listen though sid. they are happy to live in fantasy land. I remember that when thee nats claimed a big swing to themselves in the Mana byelection (which when you look at the candidate vote did happen) they claimed that national was being economical with the truth. now they are being economical with the facts because it shows the Nats have held their support.
Well to be a good sport
I congratulate Labour on the 0.1% swing, I wish them equal success come Nov 26
Impossible to say if they’ve ‘held their support’ given the extremely low turnout. The one thing can you say for sure was that he didn’t excite the faithful.
The MSM will ignore it (like most commenting here), but the New Citizens’ Party result is very significant.
When will the media get their heads around 21st century NZ? Asian people vote too … and in ever growing numbers. But our monolingual journalists and their monocultural bosses can’t (or won’t) engage with these voters, so they’re largely invisible in the TV vox pops that pass for “public opinion”.
If a new Christian Conservative party or Hone/Bradford Left party got 10% in a by-election, it would be big news. This result should be too.
In the last two years, Pansy Wong and Melissa Lee have (in different ways) crashed and burned. They represent tens of thousands of Chinese and Korean voters, and Key got them in 2008.
He needs them again in 2011, and for that he needs new MPs from their communities, high on National’s list. Otherwise there could easily be 2-3% of their party vote going down the gurgler.
And yes, Labour need to grasp this too. Michael Wood did very well. A strong Chinese candidate could have won it for them.
From the No Right Thought school of accounting you lot are.
Majority, it is a by-election! Here are the results to show what a thumping Wood and Labour got.
National Party: Jami-Lee Ross — 54.65% (Pansy Wong – 56.22%)
Labour Party: Michael Wood — 27.85% (Koro Tawa 21.06%)
And here is the thumping Fa’afoi got in his by-election
Labour Party: Kris Fa’afoi – 47.2% (Winnie Laban — 53.06%)
National Party: Hekia Parata — 41.1% (Hekia Parata – 34.99%)
Jami-Lee will thump Wood again in November. Or whomever Labour can scrape together to be the whipping boy next time.
You lot should really work on your satire.
They won, you lost. Suck it up.
Have actually you read your own numbers on Botany, Katie? Doesn’t correlate well with your bullshit.
The most interesting number was actually the turnout. Even for recent by-elections it was pathetic. That does not bode well for national that John Key appearances no longer gets people out to vote.
“does not bode well for National…etc” Eh? Wood got thumped. Even he had sufficient grace to anticipate this drubbing. I suppose like anything not congruent with your militant party-line you’ll claim my obervation as bullshit.
Thanks for saving us time here 😀
Man I wish I could think like a RWNJ. Pick a statistic, any statistic and jump up and down as if it is carved in marble and is irrefutable truth and ignore the implications.
On the one hand we have people at a general election exercising two votes, one for the party one for the local candidate. On the other hand we have a by election where the only vote is for a candidate.
One of these candiates is unknown in the electorate and because of Christchurch is unable to gain any media attention to what he is saying. The other candidate is well known and has been elected to public office three times previously int he area. On the candidate vote the unknown candidate achieves a 4% swing.
If the party vote is used then Labour goes up 2.6% and National goes down 6.6%. This is a 4.6% swing. Either way if Labour achieved this result in the next election and the Greens hold steady at 8% National is gone.
And will Michael win Botany next time? Exceedingly unlikely. But this result will send a shiver down National members spines, at least of those that are not delusional.
Fantastic result. Majority slashed to black and blue ribbons even as the Shill welds his pathetic wee soul to Seismic Bob and enjoys 24/7 coverage.
Fuck off interesting – you’re as boring as Bob Parker and pathetic as your choice of moniker. It’s Left v Right out here in realityworld son, and you just took a left hook to where a chin should be. Suck it up sucker, your saps stayed home and the bell’s a long, long,way off with many a twist on the trip.
But the entrails are astronomical.
Feel it in your bones?
It’s the vibe, people
the people vibe
the smile on the dial
of the queasy snake
shows its weary ache
as from the jolt of calamity
springs default humanity
and watch dear friends,
in the weeks ahead
the shroud unfurl
oer the walking dead
word to the ferret:
the meek will inherit.
Quicker than you think.
Fighting over small changes in percentages, how lame…
National was expected to romp home, and Ross did – got his parliamentary career handed to him on a plate.
NCP came third, will bouy them for November, they are the dark horse at the moment, Asians control large part of the rental property and small business sector in Auckland and are gaining clout in the economic community. Only a matter of time till they start seeking political clout. Another sign of the changing demographics in the community.
More interested in the turn out more than the result. Seems that with the earth quake and the fact that the country was still enjoying summer saw it go down to 35%.
Botany result has proved all parties must consider Asian interests and thus votes. It seems likely that N.Z. First with it’s anti-asian views will pass into history at the next election, killed off by the New Citizens Party. ACT was the first party to produce campaign material in Chinese and Korean, for which they are to be congratulated, in NOvember all parties will have to do it, if they want to be taken seriously.
DPF made the following observation:
“Incidentially this is the first by-election in at least 30 years where the seat was held by the Government, with no significant decline in the share of the vote.”
The point being that, in the context of history, bi-elections have tended to swing quite strongly against the governing party. Given the fiasco around Wong, there is every reason this should have been the case here.
However, in the context of history, the fact that there hasn’t been a significant swing against National should be very concerning for Labour.
The National Government should be congratulated for trying to do one thing – to continue putting on a brave face.
>>>However, in the context of history, the fact that there hasn’t been a significant swing against >>>National should be very concerning for Labour.
You do realise that when there are significant swings against National in by-elections, the swing doesn’t go to Labour, but rather to third parties?
As for this result: it was a by-election, and thus a one-off freak event that should not be used for trying to gauge results in November.
I didn’t know Charlie Sheen was writing pieces for The Standard.
Best comment ever!
Yeah we were lucky to get him. Charlie’s in huge demand… people love him because he’s telling truth to power. And the biggest shit-stirrer since Wikileaks.
According to Marty:
” Instead, it was the Nat supporters that stayed away in droves.”
Well duh, Marty. Following your own logic, if the droves of National supporters who were too apathetic to vote (probably not seeing the point because of the expected large margin) actually bothered to get out and vote, then Labour would have been absolutely humiliated.
If you think this result was wonderful news for Labour, the I guess you would also believe that “Custer’s Last Stand” was an emphatic victory for the US Cavalry.
If you think this result was wonderful news for Labour, the I guess you would also believe that “Custer’s Last Stand” was an emphatic victory for the US Cavalry.
Well, in a way it was TS. The US Cavalry’s response to that loss was decisive, bloody and far reaching.
It cuts both ways.
If Labour voters know that National is going to win no matter what they do (and the Labour Party hasn’t put in a serious effort to tell them otherwise), then they stay home too. Especially if the weather is awful, which apparently it was.
I think that you have just made Marty’s point again. The National vote was depressed.
In terms of candidate votes that meant that National shed over half their votes due to lower turnout (in 2008 Wong got 17,400 while JR got 8,200). While Labour only shed just over a third, due to lower turnout (Tawa got 6,500, Wood got 4200).
Saying that J.R. would have done better if the National vote was not depressed is accurate but that is also *not* what happened.
The other thing that NAT will be concerned about quite apart from the New Citizen Party – ACT shed six sevenths of its vote due to low turnout. In other words, ACT was smashed in this by-election.
So I gotta back Marty here, even though JR maintained a clear majority, he had to do it with a massively depressed Right vote.
The Right’s confidence in the Right is eroding.
While the Nat/Lab decrease is interesting, I think you can’t put too much emphasis on the Act loss.
They ran Kenneth Wang last time, and judging by his surname he’s asian of some sort. This time they put up Lyn Murphy, who I label a ‘mouth breather’ (if you watch one the debates on youtube that was linked here a couple of weeks ago you should see what I mean – comes off very weird) whereas New Citizens Party ran an asian. He didn’t appear to actually stand for anything in particular, except being “for immigrants” because he himself is one.
I think Act’s 2008 vote had a large amount of racial bias, and in this by-election that same racial bias went to the NCP instead.
If you are correct about ACT’s 2008 vote, an ascendent NCP will pose unfavourable implications for ACT in November.
As someone else has commented, NCP results can’t be expected to be the same in the general election, as a by-election is more about a playpen for political parties as it doesn’t really affect the outcome of the government. NCP aren’t likely to have the resources or support base to really campaign nationally.
Then again ACT are putting all of their eggs in the Epsom basket, so it wouldn’t take much for a smaller party to come in there, act as a spoiler and give it to National. I don’t know anything about Epsom, but I think it’s probably mostly white rather than mostly asian like Botany, so a party with Don Brash would do much better there. Hell, Don Brash could stand for Act there and do a better job than Rodney.
Embarrassing result for Nats in Botany. Maybe if you repeat it enough, it might stick 🙂 Instead, lets try a fact base…
1. By elections are about the voting public expressing their current thoughts in the incumbent party AND (where applicable) MP. In Botany, the public had the opportunity to stick it to both National – a voice of displeasure in direction – and voice displeasure over Pansy Wong’s lack of integrity – note, I agree, she deserved to go, she did lack integrity. Neither happened.
2. Usual turnout for a BE, made more so by recent events
3. National almost held the party vote, with that turnout
4. Increase for Labour vote, by someone who actually campaigned this time round, well done them
5. Greens demonstrate why they shouldn’t lead a dog, let alone a country
6. Standard authors shout from the rooftops that it is, and I quote again “Embarrassing result for Nats in Botany” – but I call bull shit on that. National will be very happy with the message from the electorate – which you could interpret as ‘on track’
But then you spin your hearts out boys and girls. Im sure in some place Ive never been this will be a victory. Embarrassing? Yes, for an almost complete lack of traction in the electorate with the current message, and the fact that the interpretation of that by people on here that its the electorates fault, and they need to wake up.
Well, try this – maybe its not, and maybe the voting public don’t consider themselves duped, or stupid, or disengaged. Maybe huh?
Right vote was massively depressed. That’s a warning for National. But as you say it’s simply a by-election and they are funny beasts.
The other warning is that Smile & Wave’s smiling and waving down in Christchurch has done absolutely nothing to help NAT.
This tells me that the Christchurch earthquake holds a lot of potential downside for NAT and very little PR upside, if they do not get the situation in that city well on the road to recovery.
You need a cite for 2 there bob. A quick squizz tells me by elections usually get a much better turn turnout than this:
Selwyn 94: 78%
Taranaki-King Country 98: 62%
Mt Albert 09: 47%
Mana 10: 47%
Gosh aren’t we lucky with the high calibre of MPs elected in recent by-elections, Kris and Jami really do show that the cream of the crop choose to enter parliament in NZ
Pretty embarrassing isn’t it.
You’ve gotta give them both credit for seeing a large safe trough at which to gorge for many years to come, hopefully there’s some altruistic sense in both of them about serving the public rather than just themselves.
The ones that want to serve the public are frozen out by the party hierarchies.
It’d be nice if we could get Nate Silver from FiveThirtyEight to slice and dice these results, and see what he makes of it. I’m sure he would be able to sort out the the really important shifts in the votes and make some analysis of it, or at least be able to show that really we can’t say much from these results at all (due to low turnout or whatever other factor).
Hold on, so would The Standard only acknowledge this as a National party win if they got 12,000 /14,000 votes i.e. 82% of the votes?
Read the post. I’m pretty sure that it said that the National party candidate won.
The other interesting side of the electoral equation was the disappearance of the Act vote. I think it is generally acknowledged that the nat candidate was probably more than acceptable to Act activists. You can see this by just scanning the right blogs this morning and prior to the election. I think the massive Act percentage vote drop compared to the last election is likely to have gone into national vote (or possibly not turned out). And the Nat candidate still dropped?
Oh and George, read the policy, especially the Section on self-martyrdom offenses. You will find ascribing intelligence (or opinions) to a machine is high on my list. Address your remarks to the author of the post or comment you are responding to.
I think it was racial, see my reply at 14.3.1.
How much lower would Labours vote had been if the Greens had managed to have a candidate?
Good question. We would have to understand if Green voters would turn out and vote LAB if they do not have a Green candidate. My guess is they generally would not as most of them do not view LAB as being at all interchangeable with the Greens.
With a Green candidate there, the Left vote might actually have gone up two or three percent – but we’ll never know.
I suspect Labours overall vote would have gone down, just like if Act hadn’t run a candidate then Nationals probably would have gone up
ACT may as well not have run a candidate, they lost sixth sevenths of their previous vote due to the low turnout. But those lost votes didn’t seem to go to NAT. Perhaps Lanth is correct and their Asian vote all went to the NCP.
Which means Labour will start to leak votes as well…
How pathetic you lot are crowing about a decreased majority.
On that turnout even if National had got near 100% of the votes the majority would have decreased
On lower turnout, National’s votes dropped by over half, while Labour’s dropped by just over a third.
And NAT voting did not benefit at all from ACT’s destruction.
The main news was that acts vote collapsed, nationals held up quite well but it did not get a lift from acts demise. Finally labour did improve it’s position – possibly off greens?
Hmm, no satire tag…
This article adds new meaning to the saying: “hope springs eternal”.