Open mike 11/12/2019

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, December 11th, 2019 - 145 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step up to the mike …

145 comments on “Open mike 11/12/2019 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sanctuary 1
    11 December 2019 at 7:21 am

    2010 – Pike River – a catastrophe caused by slack, light handed regulation, allowing the operator to call the shots on safety and letting commercial pressures drive decision making.

    2019 – White Island – a catastrophe caused by slack, light handed regulation, allowing the operator to call the shots on safety and letting commercial pressures drive decision making.

    2028 – /insert next tragedy here/ a catastrophe caused by slack, light handed regulation, allowing the operator to call the shots on safety and letting commercial pressures drive decision making.

    Rinse and repeat ad nauseam.

  2. Sanctuary 2
    11 December 2019 at 7:37 am

    Oh and my advise to the people of Whakatane?

    Don't let the gutless bastards who run the police these days stop you going to recover bodies from the island. It is your island, your decision. Tell the cops you'll do as you please, get in your machines, and go get those people if that is what you feel is the right thing to do.

      • greywarshark 2.1.1
        11 December 2019 at 12:31 pm

        Sanctuary, the police announcements do have an echo of them talking about safety for their officers after the Pike River explosion. But then other people with experience have viewed the terrain and can speak about the conditions prevailing and from their reports we know that they must be dead because of the cyanide effect on the body from the gases and the burns from steam.

        Do you think that police should not be the ones in charge after non-criminal events like this, this sort of natural tragedy? Would it be better to expand the Civil Defence units, and leave the police to concentrate on their own affairs? It seems to me that they have become too widely spread. Also more personally protective beyond what would be expected, and at the same time more of their work is being done by the Fire Service. And we don't want them hurt in carrying out their jobs either, but they seem to try to be careful but also tackle their essential task without reluctance.

        Then there is the control for safety issue of the island. Though it is right by Whakatane, it is overseen by the Internal Affairs Department because off-shore islands fall into their bag. Yet it is Whakatane that people will come to when there is a disaster like this, and some of their own people are involved. So who keeps an overview should be looked at and it seems Whakatane should be the body for overseeing White Island as first call.

        Then there is the situation of the island being privately owned. I would have thought it would be in public ownership, something like a National Park.

        Then there is the attitude about tourism with risk. One woman said that NZ sells itself as an adventure tourism destination and it seemed she was saying, deaths and injuries happen. A bit casual, she'll be right is the way she sounded to me. The trouble with a tourism business, is that they have bookings and want to keep the business going and will underestimate risk. It has been registered as 2 on the risk scale for a while but they have not closed down as a preventative measure, and only they can decide. Hey that is not very responsible that NZ Inc as a tourism destination comes across as casual. We have been severely criticised in the past by a parent of a dead tourist. Just forgotten the details.

        Kathryn Ryan made the point that it was a different sort of event to say a Ruapehu eruption. This one was close and personal, people couldn't run fast and get away. The combination of super-heated steam and sulphurous gases were deadly and would burn skin and airways. Nasty.

        Also though it was mentioned in the same breath as adventure tourism, it was being used as an attraction for a cruise ship, presumably an interesting walk on an island that is an active volcanic site for cruisers who are not usually your mountaineers, and adventurers, but just lookers with money wanting a quick sample of the local features. They would be advised what clothing to wear etc. but I wonder if they were told that it was up to Category 2 on the action scale, and was showing signs of greater activity and thus greater risk.

        If I was a passenger, I would be looking at a class action against the tour operators. So button down Buttles? The government should wait a while and then offer them a low price for it which will help them pay their legal bills. That is if there is a government in the Beehive and not just a lot of buzzing drones flying around in unproductive circles.

        • greywarshark 2.1.1.1
          11 December 2019 at 12:50 pm

          There is something I am not sure about also. I would like NZ Inc to be not making a loss after having to provide rescue efforts and hospital care, (I see the news says that the burns unit is full). Are these treated as externalities by tourism companies? Is there a reliance on ACC? If there is, the public should be aware that what ACC provides is not the complete recovery assistance which someone who could sue would ask for.

          There definitely needs to be a public liability insurance or whatever to cover any costs incurred by tourism agencies, otherwise profits from tourism bringing benefits to the country are largely illusory. Has Treasury done a paper on this? You conservatives who love to quote the official line and figures – do you know if the costs of tourist mishaps are counted, calculated and recovered, or better pre-paid as extra charges through some insurance scheme.

          • Sanctuary 2.1.1.1.1
            12 December 2019 at 7:16 am

            Everyone of the survivors are already a million dollar plus cost. We are giving the everything we've got, unstintingly, because we are good people who take care of our guests.

            But also need to work out if we failed a duty of care.

    • Jimmy 2.2
      11 December 2019 at 9:40 am

      That's pretty silly advice as going there at the moment would be very dangerous without the correct equipment. Maybe you should listen to the audio provided below by Pat as they were finding it difficult to breathe etc. as soon as they arrived and that was through the breathing equipment.

    • francesca 2.4
      11 December 2019 at 9:58 am

      Dec 2019

      Another tragedy?

      People of Whakatane on quixotic quest to recover bodies suffer asphyxiation

      yet another example of lax standards and unqualified people calling the shots?..

    • Sacha 2.5
      11 December 2019 at 10:14 am

      Tell the cops you'll do as you please, get in your machines, and go get those people if that is what you feel is the right thing to do.

      Yeah, nah

      https://twitter.com/supergenericgal/status/1204506987951620096

      The decision to not return to the island can’t have been an easy one to make – but it was the decision made by people with skills, training and qualifications to make such decisions.

      There will be a time to debate what the correct response to these things should be – and it’s a valid discussion worth having. There could be lessons to learn from tragedy. Just not now.

    • weka 2.6
      11 December 2019 at 11:39 am

      two questions.

      1. what is the rush? Given the risk, what is the point of going today instead of waiting? Pike River was different because recovery people weren't allowed in for a very long time, and it's likely that this was in part to prevent investigation of what happened. I'm not seeing that motivation or dynamic here.

      2. what should the response be of the various authorities if people go and get into trouble and need rescuing?

      • Sacha 2.6.1
        11 December 2019 at 1:28 pm

        Pike River was different because the mines rescue experts believed it was safe to go in right after the initial explosion and the Police stopped them.

        None of the expert first responders in this situation are saying that the island is safe enough. Just some armchair warriors.

    • SPC 2.7
      11 December 2019 at 5:21 pm

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/118103101/whakaariwhite-island-helicopter-pilot-said-conditions-perfect-to-recover-bodies

      There have been flyovers today but the geologists note continuing ground tremors and risk of further activity – thus the work and safety side prevents action.

      Just not as high as that faced by those getting the burnt off the island, so little wonder a person who was involved then is prepared to get the bodies off as well.

    • James 2.8
      11 December 2019 at 5:31 pm

      It would seem that your advise is worth about as much as it is accurate.

      It’s not their island – it’s privately owned.
      it’s not their decision either.

      to suggest people do as thy please if they feel it’s right – with a possibility of risk to their safety is absolutely moronic.

      • SPC 2.8.1
        11 December 2019 at 5:58 pm

        Yet if people had not done so it would have been worse on Monday.

        • greywarshark 2.8.1.1
          11 December 2019 at 6:17 pm

          Calling someone moronic must be a no-no especially when they are upset about people dying and being injured! It is a case for helping thinking things through and being a bit understanding. Without being judgmental or sour.

          • SPC 2.8.1.1.1
            11 December 2019 at 6:42 pm

            It's a messy one, a pilot reckoned the day to get the bodies was yesterday (wind cleared away the ash fumes etc and before today's tremors) – but police drones could not fly till today. And apparently they need to survey the scene of the corpse layout for a coronal inquiry (safest by drone to minimise time on the ground etc) before removing bodies etc.

          • James 2.8.1.1.2
            11 December 2019 at 7:09 pm

            I called what he was suggesting moronic- and it is. I didn’t call him / her moronic.

            I’ll add selfish, poorly thoughtout, stupid and dangerous.

            • SPC 2.8.1.1.2.1
              11 December 2019 at 7:16 pm

              People take personal risks all the time. And there are those advocating banning bullrush as part of their school safety programme. There are those exercising their choices and those who would prevent them, is either moronic or both?

              • weka …
                11 December 2019 at 7:53 pm

                what's the rationale for banning bullrush?

                • SPC …
                  11 December 2019 at 7:57 pm

                  From the mid-1980s some schools decided to ban bullrush because they were concerned they would be held liable when children were hurt.

                  https://www.google.com/search?q=banning+bullrush&oq=banning+bullrush&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

                  • pat …
                    11 December 2019 at 8:14 pm

                    the biggest complaints were damage to school uniforms…and the cost of replacement

                  • weka …
                    11 December 2019 at 8:15 pm

                    Liability is a different issue again. Hadn't thought about that in terms of Whakaari and the police.

                    • SPC …
                      11 December 2019 at 8:37 pm

                      It's more workplace safety than liability. There will be an assessment of the tour operators on that side, apart from the coronal inquiry, the police cannot very well breach of that themselves.

                      However it seems the biggest risks of safe work practice (other staff coming in after they heard of the eruption) were taken by those rescuing people, if they had not done this, more lives would have been lost.

                    • weka []
                      11 December 2019 at 8:50 pm

                      on the basis of what I’ve read/seen so far, I have zero problem with the actions of people in the first hour after the explosion (chopper pilots, boat operators, first aiders).

                      What Sanctuary was suggesting is something quite different.

                    • weka []
                      11 December 2019 at 8:52 pm

                      it’s interesting to consider that the boat operators probably made the decision to go back without talking to the passengers.

        • weka 2.8.1.2
          11 December 2019 at 7:51 pm

          "Yet if people had not done so it would have been worse on Monday."

          True. But, that was to save lives, and either needed to happen immediately or not at all, so the justification is for different reasons. It's also valid for people to take action in the moment even if it puts themselves at risk (bearing in mind that the pilots have expertise in assessing risk as well as making judgement calls about that and the value of their own lives). That is different from planning to do something that is dangerous in order to achieve something that can be done at a later date.

          • Sanctuary 2.8.1.2.1
            12 December 2019 at 7:07 am

            What bothers me is:

            1/ If the police had of been on in charge earlier, or the chopper pilots not acted so quickly, then the survivors of the blast rescued by the helicopters would most likely have been left to die of their injuries on the island while the cops dithered for "health and safety" reasons.

            2/ The rationale behind police decision making these days seems to be a creeping US style thinking that their lives are more valuable than those of the public. Car loads of heavily armed cops cruising South Auckland in black SUVs for vague reasons also seems to just come back to the police adopting a hyper-cautious approach to risking police lives, even if it means others are needlessly killed.

            Sometimes people in emergency and rescue services have to take risks. More importantly, sometimes they are willing to risk their lives to rescue people. That is why when they do we call them heroes.

            It is sometimes important to empower people to respond to a local disaster with what they consider to be appropriate steps. Imposing a top down, bureaucratic and technocratic solution based on a rigid adherence to rules can sometimes not be the best outcome. If local people are willing to run the low risk they’ll be on the island when it erupts again in order to recover bodies, who is to say they shouldn’t be allowed to?

            They are not stupid. They know what they would be going into.

            • Pete George 2.8.1.2.1.1
              12 December 2019 at 7:16 am

              If the police had of been on in charge earlier, or the chopper pilots not acted so quickly, then the survivors of the blast rescued by the helicopters would most likely have been left to die of their injuries on the island while the cops dithered for "health and safety" reasons

              I call bullshit on this.

              The police have very difficult jobs to do, especially in major situations like this. They don't always do things well, but they often do, putting themselves at risk on a daily basis.

              Cheap shots like this are shitty.

              • Sanctuary …
                12 December 2019 at 7:19 am

                Your love of authority doing nothing while hiding behind sophistry is well known Pete, so your reply doesn't surprise me.

                We all know it would have played out. After a few weeks, the bodies are recovered and the police declare they most likely all died of unsurvivable injuries during the blast. And Pete George would go, “Thank goodness our police who I trust uncritically have reassured me they didn’t fuck it up and leave people to die, how right they were!”

                • Incognito …
                  12 December 2019 at 7:28 am

                  Good morning. Having a go at each other is not helpful and it bores the shit out of others.

                  • Sanctuary …
                    12 December 2019 at 7:34 am

                    I don't know about that, taking down Pete George is fun game the whole family can play IMHO.

                • Pete George …
                  12 December 2019 at 8:12 am

                  "Your love of authority doing nothing while hiding behind sophistry is well known Pete"

                  I call bullshit on that too. You're making it up, no evidence, it's false.

                  "“Thank goodness our police who I trust uncritically have reassured me they didn’t fuck it up and leave people to die, how right they were!”

                  And on that. That's just pathetic.

                  The police have an essential role to play in a civil society (perhaps that doesn't apply here), they're not perfect but they're far better than the alternative.

            • weka 2.8.1.2.1.2
              12 December 2019 at 8:56 am

              Sanctuary,

              If the police had of been on in charge earlier, or the chopper pilots not acted so quickly, then the survivors of the blast rescued by the helicopters would most likely have been left to die of their injuries on the island while the cops dithered for "health and safety" reasons.

              What are you basing that on? My sense is that people first at the scene will make their own decisions and that it's generally accepted in NZ that people can choose to risk their own lives in such a situation. Had the first helicopter passing by when Whakaari blew been a police helicopter I would expect them to have done pretty much what the private chopper pilots did. Maybe I am wrong about that, but I'd like to see what you are basing your opinion on.

              The rationale behind police decision making these days seems to be a creeping US style thinking that their lives are more valuable than those of the public. Car loads of heavily armed cops cruising South Auckland in black SUVs for vague reasons also seems to just come back to the police adopting a hyper-cautious approach to risking police lives, even if it means others are needlessly killed.

              I'm not seeing the connection. There's a difference between police killing others in an active criminal situation vs saving people's lives in an SAR or first response to emergency situation. Arming cops on the street is a really bad idea, but can you point to cultural reasons within the police that link that to decisions that are made during civil emergencies?

              I think it's likely that all agencies now have more formal risk assessment processes, in part driven by legislation. Are we sure the decision to delay recovery of the bodies is on the police alone? What is CD's role in this?

              If local people are willing to run the low risk they’ll be on the island when it erupts again in order to recover bodies, who is to say they shouldn’t be allowed to?

              When do you think the tourists should be allowed back? I think the central point here is that we don't know what the risk is. When you say low risk, what are you basing that on? The risk was considered low on the day the volcano blew.

              The only private person I've seen saying he wants to go back is the pilot RNZ interviewed. It's a great interview, but I don't think he is saying that it's safe. He's saying that he thinks a 20 minute window would be enough in an unknown safety situation. I'm not sure that 20 minutes would be enough to properly recover the bodies, but I'd be interested if there's been expert opinion expressed on that.

              I'm mindful that on the day of the explosion there were all sorts of people on twitter demanding to know why no-one was going back to look for survivors. As it turns out, the first responders twice checked for survivors and made the decision on the ground that there weren't any other than those they were evacuating. The public didn't get told until midnight that the believe was there were no survivors, and even then there wasn't really an explanation about that. But I think it's safe to say the police and CD had their hands full.

              In other words, police, CD and geonet/GNS will all have access to information that you and I don't have.

              • Sacha …
                12 December 2019 at 9:01 am

                The public didn't get told until midnight that the belief was there were no survivors

                An example of the inadequate official communication that the Police Minister was talking about yesterday?

                • weka …
                  12 December 2019 at 9:26 am

                  Not sure. I wondered if Nash was talking about how police were communicating with family of victims.

                  I assume all the services will review practice, but I'm not sure updating the public on the first evening would have been a priority. Not sure if the first responder pilots also then flew people to hospitals. Might have been a while before police were able to do interviews formal enough to release information to the public. I'm guessing there was a fair amount of chaos given the numbers of agencies and public involved.

            • Sacha 2.8.1.2.1.3
              12 December 2019 at 9:13 am

              If local people are willing to run the low risk they’ll be on the island when it erupts again in order to recover bodies, who is to say they shouldn’t be allowed to?

              Anybody whose duty it would be to rescue them – a duty they can't opt out of. By all means, change the current law and professional standards if that's desired.

              And most of us will defer to actual volcano and rescue experts about whether the risk is 'low' thanks.

              Risk is a combination of likelihood (being on the island at the wrong time) and impact (effects of an eruption). People and organisations will tolerate a higher likelihood if the impact is low.

              A nearby volcanic eruption does not match that calculation. Boiling acid, superhot magma, projectiles and ash flows that nobody can outrun are not things you'd bet against unless you are reckless or stupid. Certainly not something you would bet someone else's life on unless you do not value it much.

  3. francesca 3
    11 December 2019 at 10:01 am

    Finally , journalists from diverse backgrounds rally to defend Assange in an open letter signed by hundreds

    "The journalists write: “We hold the governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Ecuador and Sweden accountable for the human rights violations to which Mr Assange has been subjected.”

    They cite a powerful comment from Melzer, who wrote earlier this year: “It finally dawned on me that I had been blinded by propaganda, and that Assange had been systematically slandered to divert attention from the crimes he exposed.” The UN official pointed to the role of the corporate press in demonising Assange and repeating the smears against him concocted by the intelligence agencies."

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/09/jour-d09.html

    • Bill 3.1
      11 December 2019 at 10:11 am

      Julian Assange will be released from prison and offered all the psychological assistance he requires after Jeremy Corbyn becomes the PM of the UK in a few days from now.

      It'll be interesting to see the take of various pop media outlets that have in turn courted him and buried him. Same for the gangs of hand wringing, nose led liberals who couldn't help shove him down a hole fast enough after initially hailing him as a hero.

      • James 3.1.1
        11 December 2019 at 5:36 pm

        Julian Assange will be released from prison and offered all the psychological assistance he requires after Jeremy Corbyn becomes the PM of the UK in a few days from now.

        I'm guessing that this will age poorly and Bills political judgement will be shown to be incredibly misplaced.

        Or I might be wrong.

        we will know in a few days.

  4. mosa 4
    11 December 2019 at 11:03 am

    "“A Labour victory would represent a sharp break with neoliberalism, the failed economic orthodoxy of the past four decades, which makes an idol of the “market” and re-distributes wealth and power ever-upward "

    https://www.thecanary.co/exclusive/2019/12/10/a-powerful-show-of-solidarity-for-jeremy-corbyn-and-the-labour-party-from-america/

    • greywarshark 4.1
      11 December 2019 at 11:50 am

      I have been looking at the Irish Potato Famine story and parts of the furore over Ireland in the English parliament are reminiscent of Brexit and the slackness of government where firm resolve to do the sensible as well as the right thing has not prevailed.

      Think how the Irish were treated by the UK. There was heavy oppression (austerity) on the population by Brit landlords who ground the Irish tenants down, and took all the profits from their large landholdings away from investing it and growing Irish business, back to Britain.

      Landlords in Ireland often used their powers without compunction, and tenants lived in dread of them. Woodham-Smith writes that, in these circumstances, "industry and enterprise were extinguished and a peasantry created which was one of the most destitute in Europe.

      And there was export of food from Ireland during the famine which puts a final screw on the horrific tale of misuse of the Irish to the extent they believed that England was planning genocide.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Irish_food_exports_during_Famine

      There were numerous times of hardship but the potato blight arrived in Europe about 1844 and from 1845 to 1851 hit the Irish hard. This from the Wikipedia Famine link below reminds me of the UK hoo-ha over recent years from hardship caused by Margaret Thatcher and the adoption of a dose of austerity medicine to the UK public to Brexit, an attack of hubris on the supposedly seasoned heads in UK government.

      In October 1845, Peel moved to repeal the Corn Laws—tariffs on grain which kept the price of bread artificially high—but the issue split his party and he had insufficient support from his own colleagues to push the measure through.

      He resigned the premiership in December, but the opposition was unable to form a government and he was re-appointed. In March, Peel set up a programme of public works in Ireland but the famine situation worsened during 1846, and the repeal of the Corn Laws in that year did little to help the starving Irish; the measure split the Conservative Party, leading to the fall of Peel's ministry.

      On 25 June, the second reading of the government's Irish Coercion Bill was defeated by 73 votes in the House of Commons by a combination of Whigs, Radicals, Irish Repealers, and protectionist Conservatives. Peel was forced to resign as prime minister on 29 June, and the Whig leader, Lord John Russell, assumed the seals of office.

      Wikipedia link on Ireland's background of long-suffering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) There seems a parallel with Brexit's lack of vision.

    • Alan 4.2
      11 December 2019 at 12:00 pm

      A Labour victory with Corbyn in charge would fuck the UK for decades

    • Jimmy 4.3
      11 December 2019 at 1:49 pm

      Would the Labour party have more chance of winning if Jeremy Corbyn was not the leader?

      NZ Labour party changed leaders very close to an election in 2017 with spectacular results?

      • Andre 4.3.1
        11 December 2019 at 2:06 pm

        A couple of days before the election might be leaving it a bit late.

        • Jimmy 4.3.1.1
          11 December 2019 at 2:16 pm

          Good point! I was actually more just musing as to if the Labour party had had a different leader for say the last six months would they have more chance?

          • Andre 4.3.1.1.1
            11 December 2019 at 2:40 pm

            Almost certainly. But who? And how is the best way to choose that leader?

            I'm kinda coming to the view that leader selection processes may have swung a bit too far towards systems that give too much emphasis to the fringes of party membership, and not enough weight to the leader's colleagues (who really are in a better position to assess who actually has the skills to be an effective leader).

            For examples of the former, see "Cunliffe", "Little", "Corbyn", "Sanders". For the latter, see "Ardern", "Clark". Though "Clinton" and "Shearer" stand as pretty solid arguments against the latter idea.

          • James 4.3.1.1.2
            11 December 2019 at 5:37 pm

            I believe they absolutely would have.

            corbyn is unelectable.

  5. pat 5
    11 December 2019 at 12:04 pm

    "The most important conclusion to be drawn from the paranoia into which New Zealand politics has fallen is that its ugly manifestations are driving more and more voters out of their old political pigeon-holes. Those who still see a point in voting are casting their ballots more out of habit than conviction. There may already be an electoral majority in support of a political style that is neither delusional nor irrational.

    All it needs is a party."

    http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2019/12/delusional-and-irrational-rise-of.html

    Chris Trotter advocating for a new political party, in an already crowded field….assuming theres the will what level of support could it expect? or is this NZ First's future when Winston departs?

    • Sacha 5.1
      11 December 2019 at 1:38 pm

      Colonel Trotter really is struggling to understand today's world through the goggles of his up-the-workers youth. His recent reckons and bedfellows suggest Winston First might be the most comfortable retirement home for him.

      • pat 5.1.1
        11 December 2019 at 1:55 pm

        That may or may not be so…but the relevance isnt about his personal position but rather what proportion of the electorate share it

      • weka 5.1.2
        11 December 2019 at 3:17 pm

        Probably. It's not like he can bring himself to support the party in parliament with actual left wing policies.

        • Chris 5.1.2.1
          11 December 2019 at 4:52 pm

          Trotter's obviously quite at home contributing to whaleoil and now its just as incredulous successor.

        • pat 5.1.2.2
          11 December 2019 at 5:28 pm

          Thats not really surprising given his alignment with Jim Anderton's New Labour back in the day…he is , like many i'd suggest, somebody without a natrual political home in todays environment

          • weka 5.1.2.2.1
            11 December 2019 at 5:33 pm

            He doesn't have to cosy up to the Greens to support them on their policy platform. I've long found his negativity towards the left odd.

            • pat 5.1.2.2.1.1
              11 December 2019 at 5:37 pm

              The Greens are not his home, and id suggest never will be…he is like my parents, an old school social democrat…theres a lot of them about

              • weka …
                11 December 2019 at 5:54 pm

                Yes, my question is more about why he doesn't support the Greens anyway? Where did this political home thing being so exclusionary come from? Lots of people don't have a political home, it's ok to still support parties that are doing good things. The alternative is a fractured left, where too many people think that politics has to be what they want it to be or else (which does appear to be where we are at).

                • pat …
                  11 December 2019 at 5:57 pm

                  I dont know how old you are but you need to view from the perspective of someone of his generation (im a little younger than him,but not much)….we are all a product of our environment

                  • weka …
                    11 December 2019 at 5:59 pm

                    I'm in my early 50s. I see people much younger than CT doing this too, but he's had longer to figure out the strategy failure in such an approach.

                    • pat …
                      11 December 2019 at 6:02 pm

                      theres no strategy approach…its visceral

                    • Incognito []
                      11 December 2019 at 6:44 pm

                      CT’s writings are visceral? Ouch!

                    • weka []
                      11 December 2019 at 7:48 pm

                      “theres no strategy approach…its visceral”

                      I’m sure that’s at least partly true. But then that’s the problem isn’t it. He’s smart enough to understand that strategy matters for the greater cause and that one’s gut can undermine that if not used wisely. He makes his political choices just like the rest of us.

                    • Andre …
                      11 December 2019 at 6:53 pm

                      Bowelly.

                    • Sacha …
                      11 December 2019 at 7:09 pm

                      zing, Andre!

                    • SPC …
                      11 December 2019 at 7:09 pm

                      He's of a generation that has, and thus wants to keep, so while a social democrat he was against the CGT because people of his generation did not support it.

                      He likes to pose with the left, but not if it is not popular with his peers, and as you know a lot of oldies voted for Brexit (for the little England of their youth – nostalgia). His is the nostalgia of one no longer of the left, now a cynical realist broken by struggles lost – tired and conceding defeat.

                      He is like the American Catholic middle class – once Democrats, but now many vote GOP seduced by being white and middle class thus acceptable to their now WASP brethren. Or like Bryce Edwards as long as he is not actually left advocating, he can be a media commentator too as one of their token lefties. Or like Josie Pagani advocating a Labour tax cut strategy to get re-elected, so we remain with inadequate government funding.

                    • weka []
                      11 December 2019 at 7:46 pm

                      thanks SPC, that makes a lot of sense.

                    • pat …
                      11 December 2019 at 8:01 pm

                      it is a problem…possibly insoluble. We might think we are making rational decisions but I suspect we largely only seek out justification for our gut instincts…and why would CT be any different?

                    • weka []
                      11 December 2019 at 8:16 pm

                      plenty of people know how to use their minds, and use gut and brain in making decisions about how they act.

                    • pat …
                      11 December 2019 at 8:17 pm

                      plenty?…enough to change an election result?

                    • weka []
                      11 December 2019 at 8:47 pm

                      one would hope that a seasoned political commentator like Trotter had a better hold of his reason. Changing an election result happens because of many factors, and the influence on that includes political commentary. Which takes me back to finding it odd that he can’t bring himself to support the party with the most left wing policies, assuming those are his actual values. I suspect what SPC is saying is part of it.

                    • pat …
                      11 December 2019 at 8:37 pm

                      @SPC

                      think that is a harsh and inaccurate assessment..CT's generation of social dems are by and large unwitting beneficiaries of the asset inflation…indeed many of them are happy to risk their own futures to help their children/grandchildren…there is I fear a deep misunderstanding of the motivations of the older generations

                    • SPC …
                      11 December 2019 at 8:39 pm

                      Sure, for a minority of boomers. Most do not vote social democrat – look at the voting statistics – how those born 1948-64 vote.

                    • pat …
                      11 December 2019 at 9:11 pm

                      @SPC…not sure where you get your stats …the voting turnout for that demographic is high but its split is unknown as far as I can see

                      @weka…a better hold on his reason? you think that commentators are somehow different/unaffected as the rest of us?

                • SPC …
                  11 December 2019 at 9:41 pm

                  I can cite that the Tory and GOP have older voters on their side – and have seen in the past similar stats here. And one would presume that would be the case. But I canna find anything on google search, not sure why.

          • pat 5.1.2.2.2
            11 December 2019 at 7:07 pm

            @ Incognito…if youre honest with yourself your own posts are likely so

      • greywarshark 5.1.3
        11 December 2019 at 3:18 pm

        Sour Sacha – suck a lemon.

    • Bill 5.2
      11 December 2019 at 5:52 pm

      Well since Metirea and Cunliffe were taken out at the knees. And since the managerial set in Labour have well and truly buried any move to democratise the party. And since the only social democrat on the scene is an old school right winger…yeah, there's an almost empty lane waiting to be claimed by simply promoting a social democratic alternative to NZ's woeful liberalism (think Corbyn/Sanders/SNP etc)

      • pat 5.2.1
        11 December 2019 at 5:54 pm

        yep..thats why I nominated NZ First…sans Winston

        • Bill 5.2.1.1
          11 December 2019 at 6:30 pm

          Yeah but…are you suggesting Peters is the only old school Tory in the NZ First ranks? That he suppresses a left leaning social democratic tendency within the party? Not seeing it myself, but hey…

          • pat 5.2.1.1.1
            11 December 2019 at 7:12 pm

            No…Peters is old school no doubt…but hes an old school politician…theres a difference between the voter and the voted for.

            Winston is a divisive character (personality) but the party has the potential to have a wider appeal…sans Winston. Its basis is old school social democrat…that is not to say I support it but I see the appeal for a demographic

  6. UncookedSelachimorpha 6
    11 December 2019 at 12:58 pm

    The Tory lead has dropped again in the latest You Gov poll.

    https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2019/

    Still looks unlikely for Labour – but here's hoping!!

    • Bill 6.1
      11 December 2019 at 6:42 pm

      So apparently (just reading this atm) no polls have factored in people under the age of 39 who registered this year. That's about 4 million people 'blanked'.

      That leaves four million, the majority of whom are young. Even while various pollsters are happy to predict that they will break 2:1 Labour (which is actually quite a cautious estimate: if they’re young, they turn out and they vote tactically, the Labour share could be higher), they have so far been unwilling to build these voters into their predictions.

      And if you look at footage of Corbyn in public and contrast it to footage of Johnson…it really doesn't gel with the narrative being spun by pop media outlets. Corbyn draws crowds and Johnson draws jeers.

      Earlier today (or was it last night?) I ran a wee thought experiment on how pop media would likely slant stuff if Labour was looking good…

      Pop media reflects the interests of elites. And the last thing they want is for a Corbyn led government to be offering the British public the option of remaining in Europe but being free from Europe's economic liberal straitjacket (the one that renders any social democratic policy platform unlawful) – or of remaining in Europe with the straitjacket still on.

      People will opt for the first of those options. And that option fucks elites up. (Reversal of all those privatisation cash cows etc)

      So to prevent a Labour/SNP majority, it's absolutely necessary for elites to discourage the Labour vote and hope for a hung parliament – hence the "foregone conclusion" bullshit that just doesn't accord with what can be seen at those public events/rallies.

      Edit – Hmm, it also appears, if I’m reading things correctly (poll data hurts my head btw) that the polls being reported are generally conducted by way of “online panel”…

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 6.1.1
        12 December 2019 at 12:26 am

        Thanks Bill – the youth vote will be crucial for a Labour win. I haven't got my head around how well different polls are measuring this.

        A lot has been said about the YouGov MRP model (which currently predicts a Tory win), because 'it got it right last time'. But actually a track record of getting one election right once doesn't mean that much. I looked through the methodology – what isn't clear is when their panel of registered voters was selected (and specifically whether it can include the most recent registrations – perhaps it can't)?

  7. Alan 7
    11 December 2019 at 2:23 pm

    No comments yet on the announcement by Grant Robertson?

    This is the best thing that labour has done since forming the current government

  8. Robert Guyton 8
    11 December 2019 at 3:10 pm

    Mr Jones? You okay?

  9. soddenleaf 9
    11 December 2019 at 3:29 pm

    So if we dig up, as a species, CHx and burn them. And to mitigate the effects we bury, mineralize in carbonated, or other COx aren't we adding hydrogen and removing oxygen from the biosphere? As the sea oxygen depletes, is it a good idea to depend on co2 sequestration, doesn't it create a new problem? o2 loss.

    Solution, ban the private automobile globally.

  10. greywarshark 10
    11 December 2019 at 3:40 pm

    Shane Jones taken from Parliament in an ambulance. All the best Shane.

    I was going to ask you why you would fund tarseal of The Lost Highway seeing the gravel was part of the experience. And why you aren't putting that money into investigating a decent road around Raetihi and Whanganui that won't slip into the river. That is really important, not giving the tourists from the cities a nice smooth road. When they are in the backblocks why not let them get the whole experience?

  12. weka 12
    11 December 2019 at 4:57 pm

    Anyone know when the UK election results will start coming in, NZT?

  13. weka 13
    11 December 2019 at 5:17 pm

    Second UK election question. Who are you all following that's got the good takes?