Open mike 23/02/2020

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, February 23rd, 2020 - 197 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 …

197 comments on “Open mike 23/02/2020 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sacha 1
    23 February 2020 at 7:44 am

    How NZ's health system is racist: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/119627680/why-do-maori-suffer-inequality-in-the-health-system-some-experts-say-its-white-privilege

    The Waitangi Tribunal red flagged the ongoing disparities in Māori health last year. It determined a likely cause of disparities was racism, both systemic and personal, and stereotyping in the health system.

    If Māori were treated the same as non-Māori in health, the tribunal found, there should be no difference in health outcomes or interventions.

  2. Robert Guyton 2
    23 February 2020 at 8:15 am

    "On February 6, 2020, weather stations recorded the hottest temperature on record for Antarctica. Thermometers at the Esperanza Base on the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula reached 18.3°C (64.9°F)—around the same temperature as Los Angeles that day. The warm spell caused widespread melting on nearby glaciers.

    The warm temperatures arrived on February 5 and continued until February 13, 2020. The images above show melting on the ice cap of Eagle Island and were acquired by the Operational Land Imager (OLI) on Landsat 8 on February 4 and February 13, 2020."

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146322/antarctica-melts-under-its-hottest-days-on-record?fbclid=IwAR3OcrCYBnFUTbTamsK5ywoiVQBcxoIHUonwnzDgnwWG_oDcy3g2A-J58cE

    Just sayin'

    • Sacha 2.1
      23 February 2020 at 8:48 am

      Warmer than Invercargill. 🙂

    • Bill 2.2
      23 February 2020 at 6:24 pm

      We's fucked. It's over. "How fast?" is the only question I still have. (Sort of, as in "How much time elapses between the body impacting on the ground at a great rate of knots and the actual moment of death?")

    • Alice Tectonite 3.1
      23 February 2020 at 10:32 am

      Any particular reason you've dug up a two year old article?

      • WeTheBleeple 3.1.1
        23 February 2020 at 11:06 am

        Cos he thinks a single day's measurements lend controversy to what is actually a trend e.g we just went through our hottest ever decade.

        Following the prompts of bots and boofheads on social media to prove lack of acumen. Spreading the shit to show lack of moral fibre.

        • Incognito 3.1.1.1
          23 February 2020 at 11:28 am

          When we need a mind-reading Moderator on this site, you should definitely submit your application with full CV.

          • Sacha 3.1.1.1.1
            23 February 2020 at 11:44 am

            I recall a lot of moderating required to manage CV's mindreading. 🙂

            • Incognito 3.1.1.1.1.1
              23 February 2020 at 12:04 pm

              He has/had a unique mind 😉

              Given that quite a few seem to have trouble reading what is actually written here I’d suggest they leave the mindreading out of it. It can easily lead to putting words into people’s mouths and making stupid assumptions and attributions, which usually lead to a war of words instead of robust debate.

              Given that the pressure on Moderators will increase in Election Year there is bound to be less mindreading and more direct action. For example, some might find themselves shunted onto the Blacklist till Moderators have time and energy to sort out things whilst protecting the flow of comments and debate (and writing Posts!).

              PS CV was before my time as Moderator on this site; I’ve had it relatively easy so far 😉

              • Incognito …
                23 February 2020 at 2:46 pm

                @ Muttonbird: don’t blame us for your predicament. It will be sorted so be patient till the Moderator has time to look into it; you can help (i.e. make it easier for all involved) or hinder and that is for you to choose. My personal advice: choose (your words) wisely. No more communication from me on this.

          • WeTheBleeple 3.1.1.1.2
            23 February 2020 at 1:43 pm

            Yeah fair call. Should have been some prefix's like 'maybe', and 'perhaps'. But I'm not so stupid I can't draw the dots

            Perhaps he's implying a single weather event makes climate change data controversial. Which is utter tosh.

        • Alice Tectonite 3.1.1.2
          23 February 2020 at 3:13 pm

          Very likely, given his past form. I was hoping he'd elaborate…

      • Ross 3.1.2
        23 February 2020 at 2:05 pm

        Any particular reason you've dug up a two year old article?

        History is more than just stuff that happened yesterday. I like history although I acknowledge that not everyone is a fan. 🙂

        • Alice Tectonite 3.1.2.1
          23 February 2020 at 3:11 pm

          Climate is more than a day taken in isolation. Taking a single day in isolation looks remarkably like cherry picking which is a classic climate change denier technique.

          As for history: needs relevant context, which you (funnily enough) fail to give.

          • Ross 3.1.2.1.1
            23 February 2020 at 7:52 pm

            Climate is more than a day taken in isolation.

            Quite correct. But when Robert said that the hottest day on record has been recorded in Antarctica, you didn’t respond. That’s your prerogative but it’s hard to take you seriously. If you wish to call him a climate denier, you are welcome to do so. But given his previous comments on climate change, I think you’d be well wide of the mark.

            • Incognito 3.1.2.1.1.1
              23 February 2020 at 8:49 pm

              That’s a reasonable comment albeit that Robert’s comment @ 2 was in line with CC, based on a recent observation, and he has no form as a CC ‘sceptic’ or denier.

              Given that you’re a fan of (climate) history, here’s a little treasure trove for you: https://niwa.co.nz/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temperature-record

            • Alice Tectonite 3.1.2.1.1.2
              23 February 2020 at 10:19 pm

              If your post was meant to be a reply to Robert's then why didn't your make it one?

              Why I questioned you: you have form and have run these sort of distractions before. Robert's posting history shows he generally understands climate whereas yours contains repeated climate denial lines. As I said, context is important…

              Did you bother to read the article about Antarctica? It provides some context: warm temperatures becoming more frequent this century when they were previously rare.

              As you interested in climate history, perhaps you could look up what happened last time there was very high atmospheric CO2. What was Antarctica covered in?

              • RedLogix …
                23 February 2020 at 10:40 pm

                perhaps you could look up what happened last time there was very high atmospheric CO2. What was Antarctica covered in?

                Oh I dunno …

              • Ross …
                24 February 2020 at 7:00 am

                yours contains repeated climate denial lines.

                You must be thinking of someone else. But if you can post a copy of what I’ve said in the past, you’ll realise that.

    • RedLogix 3.2
      23 February 2020 at 2:28 pm

      @ Ross

      I read you as a reasonably smart contributor here; so I offer this simple, concrete explanation. Imagine people are walking past your shop doorway and you're measuring and recording their height (a simple smart camera would do the job).

      Over the period of a week or so you'd notice that the data fell within a certain upper and lower limit. (You'd also quickly notice the bi-modal difference between males and females, but for the sake of the analogy, lets set that aside.) The actual height of any given person would be both stochastic and normally distributed within this range. The vast majority of people fall within 3 standard deviations of the average. Hopefully this 101 Statistics is familiar to you.

      Interestingly you'd find some extreme outliers that happen at very low frequencies, but they are very rare. What is more interesting is that the reason why they are such outliers often has underlying medical causes that puts the reason for their extreme into a different class than the usual causes of height variation. Or imagine you were recording the temperature in a room on a daily basis, that was usually held between 20 – 30 degC. Then one day the data came back at -40degC for just that one day, then returned to normal. Is this real data? It's way more likely this one day was because the instrument had been turned off, rather than representing a real variation. On this basis it's reasonable to discard this extreme outlier because it will contaminate the long term record if you leave it in.

      But then if you leave the camera recording long enough something else becomes apparent; over the period of decades the average height slowly increases. The change is far too small to notice on a daily or even yearly basis, but as a whole generation passes by it becomes obvious. At the large secondary school I went to I was one of the two or three tallest, but these days I get a crick in my neck looking up at them.

      Note carefully … while the frequency of very tall kids between say 184 and 194cm has increased significantly, the frequency of the extreme outliers (274cm) has not … because the reason why they are so extreme is not driven by the underlying mechanism (improved nutrition in this case) that is causing the average height to rise.

      Sorry if this is a laborious explanation, hopefully the parallel to climate change is obvious to you. I've made this point a few times now; both climate deniers and alarmists indulge in cherry picking weather events and climate to suit their agenda. They also frequently misrepresent extreme events without properly attributing them.

      In simple terms climate is just weather trended to a 30 year basis. What we clearly see in the data is that over this time frame, average temperatures everywhere are rising. Case closed. What we don't know, and this is critical to understand, is what impact the increasing heat energy in the system is going to have on the variability of the weather and what impact on extreme events this will have. It’s reasonable to hypothesise that variability will increase but exactly how and where is not obvious; case definitely still open.

      That complicates the discussion a lot.

  4. Herodotus 4
    23 February 2020 at 10:42 am

    Various govts over the years have attempted to make life bearable for those in need: give $50 winter heating allowances, meals at school, hardship allowances, etc.

    When will those in power ever learn to fix the cause not try a bandage cure the symptoms ? if benefits, wage conditions are inadequate why not go the rather root ? Or do they not trust those in need to spend the $ wisely ?

    • JanM 4.1
      23 February 2020 at 11:06 am

      Probably because as soon as you raise income the landlords will put the rent up

      • WeTheBleeple 4.1.1
        23 February 2020 at 11:17 am

        Rent caps. Screw these racketeering assholes.

        • Sacha 4.1.1.1
          23 February 2020 at 11:24 am

          Rent caps only work if there are enough homes already. Say, after a big state house building programme or when financial speculation incentives are structurally removed from the system.

  5. Sacha 5
    23 February 2020 at 11:22 am

    So that's where the recent party-line digs about art auctions have fitted in: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/410130/labour-got-donations-from-two-accused-in-national-party-case

    Labour Party president Claire Szabo said in a statement that Zheng Hengjia donated $10,000 by buying a piece of art at a silent auction in April 2017.

    • Incognito 5.1
      23 February 2020 at 11:31 am

      Never put all your eggs in one basket.

    • Puckish Rogue 5.2
      23 February 2020 at 11:31 am

      A bob each way so they backed a winner, wonder if they got anything for their donation angel

      • mac1 5.2.1
        23 February 2020 at 12:01 pm

        A piece of art? He got a piece of art.

        I bought a piece of art in a NZLP auction. Can't remember what I paid for it, a print. But I got no favours for it.

        I once donated, with permission from the artist, an art work for auction. It went for a good sum. I was given it by the artist who has since died, thereby immeasurably increasing its value. The painting was bought by a National party supporter who I know. I hope she is enjoying it, because she got no favours either apart from owning a fine painting by a top artist which is appreciating in value. Sometimes, just sometimes, there is nothing ulterior but a good deal all round. I lost a painting, another person got it, the NZLP got a good donation- all happy.

      • mac1 5.2.2
        23 February 2020 at 12:07 pm

        A piece of art?

        I bought a piece of art in a NZLP auction. Can't remember what I paid for it, a print. But I got no favours for it, except for seeing it every day.

        I once donated, with permission from the artist, an art work for auction. It went for a good sum. I was given it by the artist who has since died, thereby immeasurably increasing its value. The painting was bought by a National party supporter who I know. I hope she is enjoying it, because she got no favours either apart from owning a fine painting by a top artist which is appreciating in value. Sometimes, just sometimes, there is nothing ulterior but a good deal all round. I lost a painting, another person got it, the NZLP got a good donation- all happy.

        • Puckish Rogue 5.2.2.1
          23 February 2020 at 12:10 pm

          Yes thats it, I'm sure the guy was just being benevolent laugh

          • mac1 5.2.2.1.1
            23 February 2020 at 12:28 pm

            Can you point otherwise? To what personal benefit this man has achieved from buying an art work? You're saying that $10 grand buys influence? That's pretty cheap…….. in at least two ways.

            You need at least $200 grand it seems for two MPs of superior quality.

            Silent auction, indeed!

      • McFlock 5.2.3
        23 February 2020 at 4:21 pm

        well, ten grand one way and a hundred k the other.

        I guess they knew who was more likely to grant favours.

        • Puckish Rogue 5.2.3.1
          23 February 2020 at 4:26 pm

          Price is what you pay value is what you get…

          • Incognito 5.2.3.1.1
            23 February 2020 at 4:29 pm

            What value did the voters get from paying the price?

            • Puckish Rogue 5.2.3.1.1.1
              23 February 2020 at 4:31 pm

              Beats me but they don't seem the type to throw around some cash without expecting something in return

              • Incognito …
                23 February 2020 at 6:00 pm

                In other words, just more hot air from you?

                Pity, because we could have had a robust debate about the perverse influence of donations (declared and undeclared) on NZ politics.

                I see you’ve found another topic to use your considerable bandwidth on.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  23 February 2020 at 6:09 pm

                  Well heres my view, no public funding of political parties and all donations to be declared or up to $50 or some similar number

                  Whatever is easiest

                  • Incognito …
                    23 February 2020 at 6:29 pm

                    Here’s my view: equal State funding for each political party standing in the Election. No monetary private donations at all.

                    • In Vino …
                      23 February 2020 at 7:16 pm

                      Agree. And I have a similar proposition regarding private schools:

                      that private schools should be allowed to retain their 'special character' in curriculum, etc, but that in funding per student they should be strictly kept down to that of state schools.

                    • Incognito []
                      23 February 2020 at 8:56 pm

                      I can live with that too 😉

  6. Puckish Rogue 6
    23 February 2020 at 11:34 am

    Interesting post from kiwiblog, can any Greenies confirm if its correct?

    https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/greens_panicking.html

    'I won’t lie, the last two polls aren’t looking good for us. Last night’s poll marks the second in a row that indicate we are at risk of falling below the 5% threshold'

    • Incognito 6.1
      23 February 2020 at 11:40 am

      You don’t have to be a “Greenie” to draw your own conclusions from polls. Unless you’re severely mathematically challenged or biased.

      • Puckish Rogue 6.1.1
        23 February 2020 at 11:44 am

        I actually wanted to know if the email was correct and that kiwiblog wasn't telling porkies, I'm well aware that NZFirst are well below the threshold and that the Greens are floundering (#labournomates) and its a beautiful thing to see

        • Incognito 6.1.1.1
          23 February 2020 at 12:21 pm

          Why didn’t you actually ask the question that you actually wanted to know?

          Why not ask the question on KB instead of linking to it here under false pretences?

          Why not test out the e-mail for yourself and report back?

          Why not stop wasting our time and attention here with your little wind-ups?

          BTW, these are rhetorical questions.

          • Puckish Rogue 6.1.1.1.1
            23 February 2020 at 12:25 pm

            Why didn’t you actually ask the question that you actually wanted to know?

            – I did

            Why not ask the question on KB instead of linking to it here under false pretences?

            – No false pretences and more Greenies on here than on kiwiblog I suspect

            Why not test out the e-mail for yourself and report back?

            – I don't like giving emails out to political parties, who knows what they'll do with them

            Why not stop wasting our time and attention here with your little wind-ups?

            – Its political and interesting don't you think

            BTW, these are rhetorical questions.

            – Because I respect you enough as a poster to give you honest answers to questions

            • Ed1 6.1.1.1.1.1
              23 February 2020 at 1:43 pm

              Well you will be pleased to know that the huge group of "undecided" means that your concern may well be misplaced. The government is also showing that they can still achieve a lot even with a party that is trying to position itself to appeal to National voters who may well be looking for another home. The mutual respect means that any of the three parties can advise that they will not support particular legislation; without that breaking the government. No small party has flourished from trying to work with National, who do not understand working with others; it was good that Bridges made his position clear. I am confident that the Green Party will achieve over 5%; I am however disappointed that the government did not accept the recommendation from the review to reduce the 5% threshold.

            • In Vino 6.1.1.1.1.2
              23 February 2020 at 7:23 pm

              PR – do you actually understand the nature of a rhetorical question?

              The common example is, 'What use is it to be rich if you are not happy?'

              No answer expected, because the question is already telling you; 'It is no use to be rich if you are not happy,'

              Try looking again at Incognito's questions in that light.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                23 February 2020 at 7:27 pm

                I did and I took it to mean that Incognito was being a flibbertigibbet so I answered completely truthfully, because I'm good like that

                • In Vino …
                  23 February 2020 at 7:40 pm

                  But you haven't looked at his/her questions again and understood what he/she was telling you. Too depressing?

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    23 February 2020 at 7:55 pm

                    Because this:

                    Why didn’t you actually ask the question that you actually wanted to know?

                    – I did

                    After that it was all moot wasn't it, Incognito was assuming I had ulterior motives for the question I asked whereas I actually asked the question I wanted an answer for

                    • In Vino …
                      23 February 2020 at 8:06 pm

                      Evasion

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      23 February 2020 at 9:51 pm

                      Naah not really, I'm asking the question I want answered anything else is other peoples business I guess

                    • Incognito []
                      23 February 2020 at 10:43 pm

                      Sigh

                      Your first attempt at a question @ 6 was vague, ambiguous, and pretty much unanswerable to anyone who had not read the post on KB or even for those who had read it. Your Q was followed by a link to divert traffic away to the sewer blog and quoted text that was self-evident.

                      Then, @ 6.1.1, you state that you actually wanted to know about the e-mail address, which you could have explained in the first place @ 6.

                      Diverting traffic to KB is generally not a good idea and with your personal political preferences, it was a logical assumption that this was your false pretence. Never mind, you would not have admitted it in any case.

                      Why ask if the e-mail address is legit if you have no interest whatsoever in sending them an e-mail?

                      Your diversion and wind-ups are time wasters and not “political and interesting”, IMO.

                      A rhetorical Q does not require an A but you seem unable to stop bleating.

                      So, here we are, answering your Q that you actually don’t give a toss about. Let’s just say that you have burnt quite a bit of credit with me for no gain whatsoever. Consider it throwing away money at a silent auction and leaving empty-handed.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      24 February 2020 at 6:50 am

                      I wasn't asking if the email address was correct, I was asking if the information in the email that was sent was correct.

                      IE was the information sent correct or was the information sent incorrect

                      "Let’s just say that you have burnt quite a bit of credit with me for no gain whatsoever."

                      Wow thats quite an arrogant statement don't you think

    • Ad 6.2
      23 February 2020 at 12:29 pm

      The Green Party campaign director going out into print like that is a really clear public warning that there's a really good chance the Green Party is about to go the way of the Maori Party.

      Even in a mediocre government run by inherited surpluses and a single person's charisma, the Green delivery has been the standout worst since 2017.

      The Green Party deserves the arse card this year.

      • swordfish 6.2.1
        23 February 2020 at 4:00 pm

        .
        Latest UMR / CB / RR Polls were conducted 7-8 months out from the 2020 Election.

        Based on results from the same Pollsters at the same point in the run-up to previous Elections going back to 1999 … & making a few crucial assumptions about differing electoral contexts (always a tricky business) … I'm still predicting that:

        Greens are heading for 6.0 – 6.5% Party Vote.

        • Puckish Rogue 6.2.1.1
          23 February 2020 at 4:29 pm

          So I'm curious and you're quite switched on, whats your prediction for the party vote for National, Labour, NZFirst and Act?

          • swordfish 6.2.1.1.1
            23 February 2020 at 11:15 pm

            .
            Well, if you twisted my arm … then … (apart from retaliating with a quick jab in the Kidneys) … I'd be forced to say something along the lines of:

            Green: 6.2%

            NZF: 5.7%

            But I haven't even begun to look at the Major Parties … needs to be done in a systematic way … so a few weeks away yet.

            (Then again, in a few weeks’ time COVID-19 might be all we’re interested in talking about).

            • Puckish Rogue 6.2.1.1.1.1
              24 February 2020 at 6:47 am

              NZFirst that high? Interesting

              • Sacha …
                24 February 2020 at 8:00 am

                They have a track record of a decent bounce at the poll that counts.

              • swordfish …
                24 February 2020 at 1:11 pm

                Consider NZF Poll support at the same point during their last 2 stints in Govt:

                I'll use Colmar Brunton as an example:

                2008

                Colmar Brunton

                April 2008 (same point out from Election): 1.5%

                (Up 2.57 points on this at subsequent Election)

                CB 4 Poll Average (Dec 2007-April 2008):: 1.9%

                (Up 2.17 points on this at subsequent Election)

                CB Average over previous 12 Months: 2.2%

                (Up 1.87 points on this at subsequent Election)

                2008 Election Result (Party Vote): 4.07%

                1999

                Colmar Brunton

                April 1999 (same point out from Election): 2%

                (Up 2.26 points at subsequent Election)

                CB 4 Poll Average (Dec 1998-April 1999): 2.2%

                (Up 2.06 points at subsequent Election)

                CB Average over previous 12 Months: 2.2%

                (Up 2.06 points at subsequent Election)

                1999 Election Result (Party Vote):4.26%

                2020

                Colmar Brunton

                Feb 2020 (same point out from Election): 3.3%

                CB 4 Poll Average (July 2019 – Feb 2020): 3.8%

                CB Average over previous 12 Months: 4.1%

                2020 Election Result (Party Vote): looking very 5.5-6.0%

                A similar comparison with UMR figures suggests something broadly similar, while TV3 Reid Research / CM stats would suggest NZF are heading a little lower (close to the 5% threshold).

                So, the upshot of all of that – plus one or two assumptions about differing political / electoral contexts – plus a little bit of magic – leads me inexorably towards a 2020 NZF Party Vote of 5.7% …

                … 5.68% to be exact 🙂

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  24 February 2020 at 2:55 pm

                  Thats cool but dont think Bridges ruling out Winnie will have an impact on his right leaning voters, they won't be happy knowing a vote for Winnie is a vote for Labour and all that

                  • swordfish …
                    24 February 2020 at 4:37 pm

                    .
                    Yeah … but the problem with that argument:

                    Oppo Leader John Key also ruled out forming a coalition or entering any kind of support arrangement with NZ First in the run-up to the 2008 Election …

                    … and yet, as you can see, NZF still ended 2.6 points higher (at the 2008 Election) than they were polling in the Colmar Brunton 7 months out (ie the same point we're at currently).

                    3.3% (NZF in latest CB)
                    + 2.6
                    = 5.9%

                    • veutoviper …
                      24 February 2020 at 5:01 pm

                      Thanks for that, swordfish. Do you have similar information for NZF for the Colmar Brunton polls for 2011, 2014 and 2017? I would be interested to see whether the same trends happened then between the polls and election results – but only if you have the info readily available.

                    • swordfish …
                      24 February 2020 at 8:49 pm

                      veutoviper

                      NZF

                      .
                      2011

                      Colmar Brunton

                      April 2011 (same point out from Election): 2.7%

                      (Up 3.9 points on this at subsequent Election)

                      CB 4 Poll Average (Sep 2010 – April 2011): 3.0%

                      (Up 3.6 points on this at subsequent Election)

                      CB Average over previous 12 Months: 2.6%

                      (Up 4 points on this at subsequent Election)

                      2011 Election Result (Party Vote): 6.59%

                      2014

                      Colmar Brunton

                      Feb 2014 (same point out from Election): 3.1%

                      (Up 5.56 points on this at subsequent Election)

                      CB 4 Poll Average (July 2013 – Feb 2014):: 3.5%

                      (Up 5.16 points on this at subsequent Election)

                      CB Average over previous 12 Months: 3.4%

                      (Up 5.26 points on this at subsequent Election)

                      2014 Election Result (Party Vote): 8.66%

                      2017

                      Colmar Brunton

                      Feb 2017 (same point out from Election): 11%

                      (Down 3.8 points on this at subsequent Election)

                      CB 4 Poll Average (June 2016 – Feb 2017): 10.3%

                      (Down 3.1 points on this at subsequent Election)

                      CB Average over previous 12 Months: 10%

                      (Down 2.8 points on this at subsequent Election)

                      2017 Election Result (Party Vote): 7.2%

                      I think it’s most useful / appropriate to focus on NZF’s two stints in Govt (though, of course, they were ailing third term administrations = so no perfect comparisons).

                    • veutoviper …
                      27 February 2020 at 1:08 pm

                      Thanks for the extra information, swordfish. Really appreciate it.

                      I agree that it is probably "most useful / appropriate to focus on NZF’s two stints in Govt (though, of course, they were ailing third term administrations = so no perfect comparisons)". However, it is also interesting to see that the trends appear to have continued for the 2011 and 2014 elections. Re the 2017 election, the opposite downward trend in actual result is not surprising given the high polling and the extraordinary events that took place pre-election.

                      I have also tracked down your various predictions etc in Oct and Aug 2019 here on TS and looking at the whole lot together is now on my To Do list but have a few other priorities to be cleared before that can happen. Thanks again.

    • mauī 6.3
      23 February 2020 at 12:37 pm

      Time to sack the odious suit Shaw… and put a real socialist in charge – Bradford or McDonald.

      • Puckish Rogue 6.3.1
        23 February 2020 at 12:53 pm

        Not trying to be funny but don't the Greens have a thing about equal gender representation and currently they 8 MPs but only two males…so a split of 75-25

        Mind you I suppose he could be sacked and still stay on

      • Psycho Milt 6.3.2
        23 February 2020 at 12:56 pm

        Time for the Green Party to ditch environmenatlism in favour of socialism? I have to admit this makes as much sense as anything else you post.

    • Psycho Milt 6.4
      23 February 2020 at 12:55 pm

      I haven't been back and checked the email, but that quote matches my memory of it. However, the email was a request for donations, which always come with a message about how the county is doomed if you don't bung the party some dosh right away. This one was no different in that respect, and DPF's post is just the usual "fomenting happy mischief" in the interests of the National Party.

      • Puckish Rogue 6.4.1
        23 February 2020 at 1:28 pm

        Though Labour should be worried, the Greens falling under 5% wouldn't do them any favours

        • Psycho Milt 6.4.1.1
          23 February 2020 at 3:51 pm

          Oh, for sure. I tend towards the view that the country would quite literally be doomed if the Greens fall below 5%, so I immediately bunged the party some dosh as requested. I don't think many in Labour share that opinion about the value of the Greens, though.

          • Puckish Rogue 6.4.1.1.1
            23 February 2020 at 4:18 pm

            (I'm no fan of the Greens of course) Thats quite short-sighted of Labour I'd have thought

          • McFlock 6.4.1.1.2
            23 February 2020 at 4:30 pm

            I suspect the Greens have more support in Labour than you imagine – quite a few people do "christmas tree" voting (Labour and Green), and the smart way would be to electorate Labour and party vote Green, as they're the ones closest to the threshold.

            NZ1, on the other hand, I reckon most Labour and Greens could take or leave. Supergold card good, immigration, guns, fossil fuel policies bad lol.

            • Psycho Milt 6.4.1.1.2.1
              23 February 2020 at 6:54 pm

              I hope you're right that I'm wrong(!) about Labour in this respect.

              … quite a few people do "christmas tree" voting (Labour and Green)...

              Me too. Apologies to whoever the Green candidate in my electorate will be, but I probably won't even learn your name – keeping the Labour electorate MP as this electorate's MP will be my priority.

      • Incognito 6.4.2
        23 February 2020 at 1:37 pm

        … DPF's post is just the usual "fomenting happy mischief" in the interests of the National Party.

        Indeed, that’s why I frown upon unthinking commenters who link to it with questionable motives.

      • Muttonbird 6.4.3
        23 February 2020 at 7:30 pm

        Yep. The email to members/supporters/donor is just normal fundraising technique. I get these all the time from Labour saying how hard the fight is going to be and how every little bit helps. Will you chip in?

        Farrar may as well have done a post on each Party's election year email correspondence with their supporters but he chose to highlight the Greens' email because that is the Party he is most afraid of this week.

  7. Anne 7
    23 February 2020 at 11:34 am

    What's a silent auction?

    • Puckish Rogue 8.1
      23 February 2020 at 12:08 pm

      I like it! I mean my one hope for the election was to see Winnie gone, didn't care who got into power as long as Winnie was gone but to see the Greens floundering at this stage in the cycle is just the cherry on the top.

      Lets face it Winnies going to be going at the Greens big time from now until the election to get back into parliament so its going to be a rough ride for them

      Maybe if they get a shellacking in the election it might force them to think of a better way, a way to be able to work with all parties for the sake of the environment… wink

      • mac1 8.1.1
        23 February 2020 at 12:21 pm

        Remind me again why the 5% threshold is a Good Thing? Remind me again why doing deals with electorate seats because of the MMP rule giving parties with electorate seat/s a % of the seats commensurate with their party vote , but otherwise restricting minor parties to a 5% threshold?

        So far people on this blog have advocated for special deals for three parties, Greens, ACT and NZF. I bet others would welcome TOP with 2.4% on the 2017 vote, the Conservatives etc.

        I am sure that a Green/NZF % would outweigh a ACT, Conservative, TOP, Maori league.

        It might even encourage the full impact of MMP by inducing the National Party to shrug off its factions and devolve into at least two parties similar to the ones it coalesced from in the Thirties.

        • Puckish Rogue 8.1.1.1
          23 February 2020 at 12:33 pm

          Well I'd like MMP changed (no I don't want FPP), last election the largest party has nothing to do with government and to me thats wrong because that means 44% of the voters are ignored.

          This election it looks like Labour will be a one term govt and as much as I'll enjoy the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the left (and I will) it'll still be a really large percentage of voters that're now ignored.

          Is MMP the best electoral system, can it be improved? If the threshold can be lowered then what other changes can be made to make the system fairer?

          • mac1 8.1.1.1.1
            23 February 2020 at 12:43 pm

            If the polls you are citing are correct, then it would easily be possible that the party/coalition with a higher percentage of the vote would goive way to one party with a buy-in deal in Epsom with a lower vote.

            FFP has dealt that situation in NZ before. One reason why we went to MMP. Now the intricacies of MMP could deliver the very same result if the Greens and NZF were to fall below the 5% threshold without buy-in deals in Nelson, Auckland Central, Northland as have been suggested.

            • Puckish Rogue 8.1.1.1.1.1
              23 February 2020 at 1:03 pm

              Theres more chance of me spontaneously growing my hair back then there is Jones winning Northland.

              Nelson is a possibility but not until Smith retires (hes really well liked up there)

              Auckland Central isn't likely either (no matter what Bradbury thinks)

              To see how it is to win an electorate seat even with a deal just look at Epsom:

              Act 16 500 votes and National 10500, I mean with the deal on you'd expect Act to be higher

              • Incognito …
                23 February 2020 at 2:07 pm

                To see how it is to win an electorate seat even with a deal just look at Epsom:

                Act 16 500 votes and National 10500, I mean with the deal on you'd expect Act to be higher

                Incorrect!

                The numbers you are quoting are the Candidate votes for David Seymour (16,505) and Paul Goldsmith (10,986), respectively.

                The Party votes were:

                Green Party 3,263

                National Party 22,875

                Labour Party 9,575

                New Zealand First Party 1,229

                ACT New Zealand 696

                https://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2017/electorate-details-12.html

                No wonder that you predict even four seats for ACT

                A large proportion of the Epsom electorate are very well informed (and another part is not, when you look at the number of votes for the other candidates!). However, in other electorates there may be too many “low info” voters to pull it off so this makes these a risky proposition. There’s something counter-intuitive or counter-instinctive to vote for the enemy to win the war and obviously many can’t bring themselves to doing it.

              • Prickles …
                23 February 2020 at 6:27 pm

                “He’s really well liked up there”. Not by anyone I know. And the Labour and Green candidates got more votes than he did last time round so many locals clearly think it’s time for him to go.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  23 February 2020 at 6:47 pm

                  Well maybe you need to start talking to other people.

                  The Tasman electorate was Labour from 1972 to 1990 when it was won by Nick Smith, he held it for two elections before heading to Nelson

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasman_(New_Zealand_electorate)#1990_election

                  He then won the Nelson electorate in 1996 which hes held ever since, a couple of points to note is that his lowest voting turnout was 2017 when he only got 40% of the vote plus prior to Nick Smith Labour had held that seat since 1957

                  So you and your friends may not like him but enough people certainly do

                  • Incognito …
                    23 February 2020 at 8:31 pm

                    Reading comprehension does not seem to be your strong point. You have not rebutted Prickles’ comment at all. Nick Smith’s share of the vote went down by 12.13% and the combined vote of the Labour and Green’s candidates was higher than Nick’s.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_(New_Zealand_electorate)#2017_election

                    Only 40.69% of the Nelson voters voted for him, and 53.97% for Labour+Greens but they were ignored. This wrong should be corrected in September, don’t you agree?

                    • McFlock …
                      23 February 2020 at 8:41 pm

                      wow, Matt Lawrey really jumped up for the Greens.

                      And Nick Smith last gained in % support in 2008. Going down ever since (although one was almost level). Wonder if it's a demographic change in the electorate.

                    • Incognito []
                      23 February 2020 at 9:03 pm

                      Quite a few regulars on this site are in the Nelson area. I can’t comment.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      23 February 2020 at 9:50 pm

                      "Only 40.69% of the Nelson voters voted for him, and 53.97% for Labour+Greens but they were ignored. This wrong should be corrected in September, don’t you agree?"

                      I agree, ignoring that many votes is not good at all.

                      Maybe a power sharing model oer something could be instigated or maybe STV could give a clearer decision.

                    • McFlock …
                      24 February 2020 at 11:34 am

                      Selecting electorate mps via STV or similar isn't a bad idea.

                  • Prickles …
                    23 February 2020 at 11:38 pm

                    From what I can gather from speaking to people across the political spectrum here at the top of the South (not just my friends and family – some of whom, incidentally, are blue to the depths of their souls – family that is, not friends so much) even the blue ones think that nick smith has passed his use-by date. Of course when he is at the market he surrounds himself with sycophants. He’s not so keen in taking the time to speak to anyone with a different perspective on what is important. He does, however, deign to speak to anyone slightly red or green who may enable him to get his photo in the local paper. Many locals are embarrassed to have him “representing” us. The only person nick smith represents is nick smith.

              • In Vino …
                23 February 2020 at 7:31 pm

                Just a asde, PR, when I got a reverse mirror view of my back, I was astonished to see how old age had brought on hairiness, almost as much as the chest. Have you checked your own back lately? I suspect that you may have already grown those hairs you offer on condition. Or they will soon appear anyway. You may then consider yourself as paying a debt.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  23 February 2020 at 7:37 pm

                  Ahh see I wrote my hair back not my back hair because I don't need any help growing my back hair

                  When they talked about growing hair where there was none before they never mentioned the back, shoulders, nose or ears…

          • mikesh 8.1.1.1.2
            23 February 2020 at 1:26 pm

            Whatever form of election we have, it will result in voters who supported the losing parties "being ignored". So what?

            • Puckish Rogue 8.1.1.1.2.1
              23 February 2020 at 9:53 pm

              Just because thats the way its always been doesn't mean it always has to be that way

          • Incognito 8.1.1.1.3
            23 February 2020 at 1:28 pm

            According to the simplistic belief about democracy, up to 49% of the voters are ‘ignored’ at any given time (and sometimes more). In your thinking, it is wrong to ignore 44.4% of the voters but is it ok to then ignore 36.9% of the voters?

            You sound like a semi-utilitarian.

            Is MMP the best electoral system, can it be improved? If the threshold can be lowered then what other changes can be made to make the system fairer?

            Feel free to read/re-read my Post: https://thestandard.org.nz/mmp-mark-ii/

            • Puckish Rogue 8.1.1.1.3.1
              23 February 2020 at 2:30 pm

              As I said:

              "This election it looks like Labour will be a one term govt and as much as I'll enjoy the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the left (and I will) it'll still be a really large percentage of voters that're now ignored."

              I don't want a really large percentage of voters ignored

              • Incognito …
                23 February 2020 at 3:13 pm

                I don’t want a really large percentage of voters ignored

                MMP is a step in the right direction but not a magic bullet. The FPP mentality is still strong, partly because it underpins the status quo.

                Contrary to common belief, irrespective of who’s in Government, nobody is more or less ignored and status quo prevails, by and large. This is good and bad because there are definitely members of (our own as well as the global) society who are literally on the cliff’s edge or are falling between the cracks. Nobody seems to give a rat’s arse because they all are too busy looking at and appeasing the ‘majority’ or the ‘centre’.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  23 February 2020 at 3:26 pm

                  This next election is basically a FPP election. Labour (maybe the Greens sneak in) v National (with a couple of Act seats), NZ (the media?) just doesn't seem to "get" MMP

                  I mean I'm legit in wanting to see National and the Greens compromise to work together or Labour and Act or even National and Labour (they have more in common than differences)

                  I just think that no party has all the answers, National need some prompting from the left, the Greens need some conservatives to smooth out the edges etc etc

                  • Incognito …
                    23 February 2020 at 3:48 pm

                    I believe there is more cooperation and collaboration going on than the SMS make us believe. It is in the MSM’s interest to magnify differences and contrast these as insurmountable fault lines. The public seems to swallow this without choking. Interestingly, and dare I say it, many political blogs and their commentariats seem to be even worse …

                  • lprent …
                    23 February 2020 at 3:56 pm

                    Your statement pretty much defines you as a idiot politically.

                    I’d say that the probability of NZF getting back in approaches certainty – simply because they are small targeting their audience. Of course that is why their audience doesn’t get picked up in polling. Cynical buggers those NZF voters – they don’t talk to pollsters and never really have. The small audience is course why the Nats are gunning for them again – but using the same tactic and pretext as last time. FFS how stupid are those impotent dildos?

                    And what rough edges? Problem with the greens is that politically they don’t have them. It makes it hard for them to develop a ‘voice’. And BTW: conservationist parties of the type you’re wanting basically don’t exist politically. Offhand I can think of about 8 in my lifetime. They lose their deposits.

                    The important difference between National and Labour is that Labour thinks longer term and is more fiscally prudent on a long term basis. No point in trying to do what National does of developing a beneficiary bashing strategy as National does if all that means is that the opportunities are closed off for their kids. Cutting taxes for Labour is what you do AFTER you manage to grow the whole economy rather than just giving to their donors to squander. etc..

                    In my opinion National are short-term accountants who can’t think past their own wallets and their prejudices, and who hate to invest in a future. They are inherently economic wastrals because they selfishly don’t consider the whole of our future together.

                    In other words, if Labour headed down your proposed path, then I’d have a great deal of satisfaction in raising a revolution. It is the reason why Shearer was a darling of the right and something that a lot of us helped kick out.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      23 February 2020 at 4:17 pm

                      Well as the self-proclaimed worlds greatest sy-sop I bow to your greater knowledge in all things political

                      [lprent: self-proclaimed worlds greatest sy-sop. That is an outright lie. Banned until October 2021 – unless you make a public abject apology or find evidence that I actually said or wrote that phrase.

                      From my memory this was just some dumbarse meme made up by one of the fools from kiwiblog. And you have had similar bans for this before. ]

                    • stunned mullet …
                      23 February 2020 at 4:31 pm

                      impotent dildos ?

                    • lprent …
                      26 February 2020 at 7:40 am

                      impotent dildos – they vibrate all over the place saying that they have a purpose and a reason for existence, but never actually even try to do something about achieving it. Instead other people waste far too much time on them.

              • Psycho Milt …
                23 February 2020 at 4:04 pm

                I don't want a really large percentage of voters ignored

                Oh, it's worse than that. The binning of their votes effectively redistributes their vote share to parties they didn't vote for. That's the whole basis of National trying to drive NZF below the threshold, eg suppose a hypothetical example of 100 votes, of which National gets 46 and 10 votes are wasted. National goes from having 46 out of 100 votes to 46 out of 90, so its vote share goes from 46% to 52% and a ruling majority. That's the unspoken reason for National and Labour setting the threshold so high in the first place.

        • Ad 8.1.1.2
          23 February 2020 at 12:38 pm

          – 5% helps stop loony extremists get in to Parliament. Doesn't stop them, but it helps.

          – doing deals is completely part of the cooperative nature of MMP

          – bringing in one or two MPs with deals can however add a bit of spice to a government, and even one or two good big concepts. Painful as it was, we wouldn't have merged Auckland without it.

          – National MPs know which way their bread is buttered. There's only the Alliance to look to on that lesson. They have a really good chance at winning this year – unusually after only one term and new leadership.

          • mac1 8.1.1.2.1
            23 February 2020 at 12:45 pm

            Are the Greens and NZF, or for that matter TOP, loony extremists?

            • Ad 8.1.1.2.1.1
              23 February 2020 at 1:58 pm

              Greens and New Zealand First got in over 5%.

              They cater to a small fringe each, but they're not completely loony.

              • Incognito …
                23 February 2020 at 2:09 pm

                Loony is in the eye of the beholder 😉

              • mac1 …
                23 February 2020 at 2:27 pm

                If the Greens and NZF were below 5% as some pundits predict for September 2020 was my starting point. Funnily enough, when some political questionnaire came out in 2017, I was closest to TOP, they said. I was surprised at that; so definitely not loony!

                I’m not frightened by the NZF left faction, and the Greens when not reduced to their authoritarian rump are also fine with me as partners.

              • Andre …
                23 February 2020 at 2:31 pm

                It's quite an extremist conformity view that you have to have at least 1 in 20 of your fellow citizens to share a similar set of beliefs in order to not be labelled a loony extremist.

                Me, I'd be happier holding off labeling someone a loony extremist until those sharing their set of beliefs falls below 1 in 120 of the population.

          • I Feel Love 8.1.1.2.2
            23 February 2020 at 12:47 pm

            44% are ignored, yet 56% aren't? Sounds like democracy to me.

            • mac1 8.1.1.2.2.1
              23 February 2020 at 2:36 pm

              On the money, IFL. The Nat voting centre-right are disciplined enough to recognise that they have to accommodate their factions within the party. That's why there is a bit of a move to the right in their pronouncements, and candidate selection, to shore up their support there.

          • Sacha 8.1.1.2.3
            23 February 2020 at 12:59 pm

            Labour supported merging Auckland’s councils, and the Nats led most of the work on it with Rodney as a convenient figleaf. Would have happened without his party.

            • Ad 8.1.1.2.3.1
              23 February 2020 at 2:15 pm

              Maybe. It wouldn't have looked like this.

              • Sacha …
                23 February 2020 at 2:47 pm

                Without a convenient yellow figleaf they would have had to acknowledge more of the extreme elements as their own party’s agenda. Much like charter schools, etc. Guess that may have been unpalatable enough to discard. As it was, they did not go through with subsequently privatising Watercare.

          • mikesh 8.1.1.2.4
            23 February 2020 at 1:36 pm

            If "looney extremists" are what some voters want why shouldn't they get into parliament. NZ is deemed to be a democracy when all is said and done. Better to have a zero threshold and let the chips fall where they may. The high 5% threshold benefits only the status quo.

            Today's "looney extremist " party may well be tomorrow's majority party.

            • Ad 8.1.1.2.4.1
              23 February 2020 at 1:57 pm

              And I would agree with you, once they've got the credibility and policy-sense to get to 5%.

      • Ed1 8.1.2
        23 February 2020 at 3:24 pm

        You are demonstrating an attitude that, I am sorry to say, is closer to a National Party ethos than that of The Green Party, Labour or even NZ First. National are careful about what they say in public, but their policies and decisions when in government have demonstrated they are prepared to write off a large segment of our population. Labour and the Green Party have demonstrated that they are about all New Zealanders – they want thriving businesses to create the equal opportunities that National only pays lip service to. NZ First has positioned itself as being between National and other parties – the 'keep them honest'" mantra that worked well for "Captain Sensible". All three however are looking to govern for all New Zealanders. If we truly believe in equal opportunity, respect for others, then we must accept that our personal views will not be held by all. To promote a system for our elections that seeks to make it hard for new parties to start, or to exclude smaller parties due to an arbitrary level of votes that they have to achieve, is in my view destructively elitist. Your attitude towards NZ First is disrespectful to a large number of New Zealanders , and essentially bordering on being anti-democratic. I appreciate that many see politics as if it is a card game – it has meaning for most New Zealanders that is beyond that level; do not demean whatever party you support by effectively saying that some people matter more than others.

        • Incognito 8.1.2.1
          23 February 2020 at 3:38 pm

          Well said!

          If we truly believe in equal opportunity, respect for others, then we must accept that all of our personal views will not be held by all.

          FIFY

    • Ad 8.2
      23 February 2020 at 12:25 pm

      The Greens just don't have a compelling electorate candidate for Auckland Central. Nikki Kaye is just a really, really good electorate MP.

      The Greens could propose a more attractive deal in Nelson.

      Nick Smith is finally down to a reachable majority of 4,000 – with a running start, a pole vault and a favorable wind.

      2017

      Nick Smith 14,966

      Rachel Boyack 10,956

      Matt Lawrey 8,324

      Nelson is the place to secure the Greens future in Parliament, if Labour really needs it.

      I'd be very surprised if the PM goes for any deal anywhere though.

      • Puckish Rogue 8.2.1
        23 February 2020 at 12:41 pm

        Yeah Nelsons probably the best option, once he retires that is. I've been up to Nelson at Christmas time the last few years and Nick Smith just seems really popular (this was at the Nelson market to be fair) so many people at his tent and hardly ayone else at the others

        • Ad 8.2.1.1
          23 February 2020 at 1:56 pm

          He has delivered for the Nelson area like the proverbial milkman.

          That Waimea Dam is one of his biggest deliverables. Sure it's going over budget – what major infrastructure doesn't? It's a real region-changer.

        • Robert Guyton 8.2.1.2
          23 February 2020 at 8:19 pm

          I'm thinking, "flies" and remembering the Nick Smith sculpture made from cow manure.

      • Incognito 8.2.2
        23 February 2020 at 2:37 pm

        I'd be very surprised if the PM goes for any deal anywhere though.

        I don’t think so either but I think it is largely irrelevant for two reasons:

        One, will the electorate in question actually understand the ‘hint’, ‘suggestion’, ‘guidance’, or ‘instruction’ to vote for their non-preferred candidate to change the chances (possible outcome) of a certain coalition deal in Wellington?

        Two, voters are free to vote in the way they see fit and nobody, not even the PM, can make them vote in another way, thankfully.

        Epsom seems to be the only electorate so far that has shown enough political nous to pull it off successfully. Barry Coates and David Parker had 9,852 votes combined, which could have been used to try thwarting the National/ACT deal.

    • Puckish Rogue 10.1
      23 February 2020 at 2:32 pm

      This is good news for Trump

      • Morrissey 10.1.1
        23 February 2020 at 2:34 pm

        Truly foolish comment. Are you a member of the Democratic National Committee, perchance? no

        • Puckish Rogue 10.1.1.1
          23 February 2020 at 2:49 pm

          Seriously? You don't think Trump wants to go up against Saunders? Of course he does, so this is good news to Trump.

          • Sacha 10.1.1.1.1
            23 February 2020 at 2:52 pm

            Heck, even Pooters agrees with you.

          • Morrissey 10.1.1.1.2
            23 February 2020 at 3:46 pm

            Dunno about Saunders, but he certainly wouldn't want to go against Sanders. Trump fears Bernie almost as much as the corrupt and delusional DNC fears him.

            Trump knows, just as well as you and everyone else knows, that in every metric, Bernie Sanders outperformed Trump in 2016. The DNC installed the unlikeable and unelectable Clinton instead.

            • Puckish Rogue 10.1.1.1.2.1
              23 February 2020 at 4:16 pm

              Incorrect. Trump wants to against a socialist that honeymooned in Russia, supported the Sandinistas, recently had a heart attack, millionaire that owns three homes (but rich people are bad), wants to take away peoples healthcare that they like and replace with a health care system that he doesn't know how much will cost or how to implement it

              Trump would have had problems with Gabbard but the DNC took care of that, the only candidate Trump would like to go against more would be Warren

              • Morrissey …
                23 February 2020 at 4:33 pm

                a socialist that honeymooned in Russia,

                That is wrong…how, exactly?

                supported the Sandinistas,

                Whereas you support the Contra terror squads illegally armed and supported by the United States?

                recently had a heart attack,

                He's a lot fitter than Trump.

                millionaire that owns three homes (but rich people are bad),

                Don't think he said all rich people are bad. His critique is more analytical and intelligent than your portrayal of it.

                wants to take away peoples healthcare

                <snip rest of ignorant Leighton Smith-level ranting>….

              • RedLogix …
                23 February 2020 at 4:43 pm

                Trump would have had problems with Gabbard but the DNC took care of that,

                I'm inclined to agree. In my view the DNC are running this election as a losing proposition, with the explicit intention of using it to knock out elements of the party they don't like. The last thing they want is someone they cannot control like Sanders, Yang or Gabbard actually winning.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  23 February 2020 at 5:01 pm

                  I've got a lot of time for Gabbard and Yang, she went on Joe Rogan and he went on Ben Shapiro

  11. Morrissey 11
    23 February 2020 at 2:30 pm

    Reasons to feel hopeful about America

    No. 1: Max Blumenthal

  12. Puckish Rogue 12
    23 February 2020 at 3:15 pm



    Tuckers nailing it again

    • Bill 12.1
      23 February 2020 at 4:55 pm

      It's not unusual for Tucker to hit the nail on the head. It basically depends on the topic. On war, he's on point. On the bullshittery of liberal elites, he's on point. Immigration and other stuff…not so much.

      Anyway. I'm not really awaiting responses from the liberal twats who bought into the Steele Dossier, the Russia Hoax and the Mueller as white knight bullshit – like, how they going to square this nonsense that's coming from the intelligence community now that both Trump and Sanders are Putin puppets?! 🙂

      • McFlock 12.1.1
        23 February 2020 at 4:59 pm

        Sanders got hookers in Moscow, too? golly.

        • Bill 12.1.1.1
          23 February 2020 at 5:07 pm

          That the supposed shit on Trump, is it?

          The obvious question that peeps who bought the kompromat line is this…

          If Russian intelligence services had dirt on Trump, then how much more dirt do you think lies in the hands of the FBI and CIA?

          I don't think there's a soul out there who would claim Trump is anything but a corrupt and venal expression of humanity…but who is more likely to have the ability to exercise leverage over him?

          As a possible pointer, we might look to his foreign policy, how that stacks up against the rhetoric he spouted when running for office, and whether it favours Russian interests or US Intelligence Community interests.

          Arming fascists in Ukraine. Attempting a coup in Venezuela. Killing the German/Russian pipeline deal. Arming head-choppers in Syria. Pulling out of Russia/US arms treaties. And etc.

          • McFlock 12.1.1.1.1
            23 February 2020 at 5:17 pm

            Maybe the FBI and CIA have a problem with the concept of blackmailing potus, for some reason.

            And try listing the way he fucked up NATO and handed over bases to Russian soldiers in Syria, and fucked the Kurds.

            But rather than having this debate a fucking cheeto again, I've not seen anyone say Sanders is a Russian tool. Sure, I've seen suggestions that Russia fucking with the elections again is helping Sanders, but nothing in the vague ballpark of them having leverage over him.

            • Bill 12.1.1.1.1.1
              23 February 2020 at 5:20 pm

              The ground you've stood on these past years…wobble, wobble.

              • McFlock …
                23 February 2020 at 5:28 pm

                This from the guy who names the Steele Dossier and then appears to not recognise the reference.

                • Bill …
                  23 February 2020 at 6:14 pm

                  The Steele Dossier was as shit smeared toilet paper. I said that at the time.

                  Maddow on MSNBC and all the other Russia Hoax pundits notwithstanding…plus the soggy pissed on mess that was the Mueller Report (you geddit?) and the bullshit impeachment that sought to resurrect elements of failed propaganda…it’s all only served to highlight the shit of both that dossier and subsequent ramblings and rantings.

                  But hey. You believed it all. Such is life.

                  • McFlock …
                    23 February 2020 at 6:25 pm

                    Which is all irrelevant to your "That the supposed shit on Trump, is it?".

                    Which actually makes sense – I really can't understand how you regard the Mueller Report as a "soggy mess" when half a dozen people got sent to prison because of it. But if you're not bothering to refresh your memory or keep track of the news, then your sloganeering makes more sense. They're just bardic phrases, rather than accurate descriptions.

          • Poission 12.1.1.1.2
            23 February 2020 at 9:06 pm

            The obvious question that peeps who bought the kompromat line is this…

            If Russian intelligence services had dirt on Trump, then how much more dirt do you think lies in the hands of the FBI and CIA?

            The Russian strategy may be even more complex then thought due to asymmetric behaviour. such as Surkov.

            “It was the first non-linear war,” writes Surkov in a new short story, “Without Sky,” published under his pseudonym and set in a dystopian future after the “fifth world war”:

            In the primitive wars of the 19th and 20th centuries it was common for just two sides to fight. Two countries. Two groups of allies. Now four coalitions collided. Not two against two, or three against one. No. All against all.

            https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/hidden-author-putinism-russia-vladislav-surkov/382489/

            • RedLogix 12.1.1.1.2.1
              23 February 2020 at 9:51 pm

              The explanation may be simpler in this sense; in a world where all nations are connected physically, socially and economically …. it is inevitable they will also influence each other politically.

              Why would you expect otherwise?

      • Puckish Rogue 12.1.2
        23 February 2020 at 5:02 pm

        Pretty sneaky those Russians to get both of them like that

    • RedLogix 12.2
      23 February 2020 at 5:30 pm

      Of the many sources I routinely touch base with, Carlson's often the best value.

      No-one is all-seeing or perfect, but he's worth listening to.

  13. Fireblade 13
    23 February 2020 at 6:54 pm

    Sustainable NZ leader Vernon Tava allegedly asked his party secretary to 'doctor' membership records.

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/02/sustainable-nz-leader-vernon-tava-accused-of-ordering-membership-records-doctored.html

    • WeTheBleeple 13.1
      23 February 2020 at 7:42 pm

      Schadenfreude bath time. He (or his buddies) also doctored the parties online presence (FB) so detractors were blocked. Was not interested in folk asking hard questions, or having a conversation. Only co-opting others media for smearing Greenpeace & the Green Party with. And did I mention he’s got a problem with his hands…

    • Morrissey 14.1
      23 February 2020 at 10:05 pm

      Darn! He would have been the perfect candidate for either leader of ACT or president of Federated Farmers.

  16. joe90 16
    23 February 2020 at 9:50 pm

    From Syria to the Arctic.

    //

    The Yamal Peninsula contains some of the biggest known reserves of natural gas on the planet. This remote peninsula in the Russian Arctic extends for 700 kilometres into the Kara Sea, and now several pipelines, offshore gas fields, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals have made it their home. Those tens of millions of cubic metres of natural gas have attracted Russia's state-owned gas companies and several international investors; in 2008, Gazprom announced its Yamal Project, to unlock the region's hydrocarbons on a vast scale.

    Yamal is also home to 15,000 people, 10,000 of whom are Nenets reindeer herders

    Indigenous rights activists have also raised concerns about what this large-scale energy extraction could mean for the Nenets and other indigenous peoples of Russia's far north. Dmitry Berezhkov is a member of the Itelmen people from the Kamchatka Peninsula and the former vice-president of the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON), a Moscow-based NGO. Berezhkov says that he was pressured by the Russian security services in the capital into framing RAIPON as a threat to the state.

    […]

    I spoke to Berezhkov about the consequences of natural gas exploitation for indigenous people in Russia's north. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    Maxim Edwards: What does the future hold for the indigenous peoples of the Yamal Peninsula?

    Dmitry Berezhkov: More gas fields are being developed, further to the north and east of the peninsula and towards the other side of the gulf of the River Ob. The gas pipeline network is like an octopus; it spreads across the land. And for every pipeline and for every road, they take another piece of land away from reindeer herders. For now, reindeer herders try to use the rest of the land, but that means their herds may become smaller, and they are now starting to compete with each other for pastures. The problem is developing gradually, it gets a little worse every year.It's like a game of chess, they build one pipeline, then the herds move elsewhere.The growing infrastructure means that reindeer herders have to find new areas to graze, and if there are none, they have to put pressure on the same areas with even more reindeer. For example, the herds eat reindeer moss (Ru: Ягель), and the increased competition means that less of it is left. And less food for reindeer could mean smaller herds, and slaughtering animals which can't be fed. Either the government will sponsor a programme to kill reindeer, or the flocks will die out because of starvation. I don't know. But I think that over the next one or two decades, a huge number of reindeer will die in the Yamal. More indigenous people will settle in the villages, which can lead to social diseases, alcoholism, and other things like that. They will lose their language and traditional livelihood. I think that's the future.

    https://globalvoices.org/2020/02/20/pipeline-problems-for-indigenous-peoples-on-russias-yamal-peninsula/