tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5076594357677681332024-02-20T03:47:56.618+13:00lefthandpalmThe thoughts, semi-thoughts, splenetic rantings and vague half ideas, of a leftie-lib marooned in Palmerston North, New Zealand.lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.comBlogger1391125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-60653394939632683142024-02-04T14:38:00.004+13:002024-02-04T14:38:23.632+13:00Unsurprising<p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> From the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/03/labour-ditches-radical-reforms-as-it-prepares-bombproof-election-manifesto">Guardian</a>:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p class="dcr-1lpi6p1" style="--source-text-decoration-thickness: 2px; background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #121212; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 1.0625rem; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px 0px 14px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>The <span class="dcr-1lpi6p1" style="--source-text-decoration-thickness: 2px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 1.0625rem; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px 0px 14px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word;">Observer</span> understands that as well as backing away from its £28bn a year commitment on green investment (while sticking to the overall drive to achieve clean energy by 2030), <a data-component="auto-linked-tag" data-link-name="in body link" href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/labour" style="border-bottom: 1px solid var(--article-link-border); border-image: initial; border-left: 0px; border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Labour</a> will not seek to legislate on the creation of a new national care service in its first king’s speech.</i></span></p><p class="dcr-1lpi6p1" style="--source-text-decoration-thickness: 2px; background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #121212; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 1.0625rem; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px 0px 14px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Instead, it will focus on a fair pay agreement for care workers as well as issues of recruitment and retention, as part of a wider workers’ rights bill. Its plans for a complete overhaul of social care will, however, be presented as a longer-term mission taking at least 10 years and two parliaments.</i></span></p><p class="dcr-1lpi6p1" style="--source-text-decoration-thickness: 2px; background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #121212; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 1.0625rem; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px 0px 14px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>In addition, despite Keir Starmer’s previous promises to abolish the Lords in a first term, it is expected to commit only to limited changes. This is likely to mean legislating only for the abolition of the remaining 91 hereditary peers.</i></span></p></blockquote><p class="dcr-1lpi6p1" style="--source-text-decoration-thickness: 2px; background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #121212; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 1.0625rem; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px 0px 14px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Starmer appears to be on a mission to underwhelm and disappoint our (already very low) expectations.</span></p>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-7827574987105545882024-01-16T09:08:00.005+13:002024-01-16T09:13:54.105+13:00Keir Starmer's abstract thinking<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvsGbfpyRZpAsC5O9en_pZNQlXzIdBhyhg4wSnB8tnSM6VoNF_XOumFms5-mu8ISpGyW5N7uAmMwBG_nPTulCDCR_DcDVVLJD10jzFfrHvgCFPjTRgO7CYYk6_s3QcLMpuF081C6_RVJD3v8sLmmEvcSqkezNkP4OPyvnxHMFY3ZwVEEG6Xh1CfAPybi3L/s877/imageedit_2_6518066098.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="481" data-original-width="877" height="352" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvsGbfpyRZpAsC5O9en_pZNQlXzIdBhyhg4wSnB8tnSM6VoNF_XOumFms5-mu8ISpGyW5N7uAmMwBG_nPTulCDCR_DcDVVLJD10jzFfrHvgCFPjTRgO7CYYk6_s3QcLMpuF081C6_RVJD3v8sLmmEvcSqkezNkP4OPyvnxHMFY3ZwVEEG6Xh1CfAPybi3L/w640-h352/imageedit_2_6518066098.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>The grey man of British politics ... Original picture, ITV News</i></span></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Anushka Asthana has written a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/13/i-talked-to-keir-starmer-for-three-months-this-is-what-i-learned">generally favourable profile of Keir Starmer in the Guardian</a>. It is lightweight stuff, pandering to the typical Guardianista, though reading between the lines one can - perhaps - detect Asthana's frustration at the weak porridge Starmer serves up.</p><p>This, in particular, stuck out:</p><blockquote><p><i>For many, growth is a longer-term solution, so what about other more immediate choices, such as taxing people’s wealth? I turned back to Blair, reading this quote: “It’s not a burning ambition for me to make sure that David Beckham earns less money.” Did he disagree with that?</i></p><p><i>“No,” Starmer responded without hesitation about Beckham or a similarly rich footballer today. “I don’t disagree with that.”</i></p><p><i>But if you are prime minister, I went on, would you want to take more money from the super-rich (non-doms aside) and redistribute it to the poorest? Again, a “no”, without hesitation. “That isn’t how I want to grow the economy.”</i></p><p><i>Starmer argued that while, of course, Labour believes in redistribution: “I don’t think redistribution is the sort of one-word answer for millions of people across the country”.</i></p></blockquote><p>So what is his multi-word answer for those struggling millions?</p><p>Dignity and respect. </p><p>I kid you not.</p><blockquote><i>He spoke of the dignity and respect of skilled work. “So I’m afraid if it’s just redistribution, I think that fundamentally disrespects people.”</i></blockquote><p> So all Starmer has to offer the working class is ... abstract nouns.</p><p>Its barely disguised Thatcherism, with 'dignity' and 'respect' of 'skilled work' hinting at their evil twins - the undignified, unrespectable spectacle of unskilled work or - Heaven forbid - unemployment. Politically, we're a cat's conscience away from the least dignified and most unrespectable part of society - Daily Mail caricatures of dole bludgers. I suspect many people struggling to make ends meet will take the 'disrespectful' benefits of redistribution, Keir.</p><p>(It is no surprise that Peter Mandelson also appears, like some grisly revenant, shaking his chains and gibbering.)</p><p>Mandelson's influence on Starmer is manifest. Asked about the Hartlepool byelection defeat Labour suffered under his leadership, he responds by invoking the 2019 General Election, rather explaining how his party lost a byelection in 2021:<br /></p><blockquote><i>“When the electorate reject you as badly as they did in 2019, you don’t look at the electorate and say: ‘What are you thinking?’ You look at yourself and change the party.”</i></blockquote><p>While he makes the usual noises about the futility of opposition, he neglects the salient lesson. The 'moderate' wing of the Labour Party squandered a brilliant opportunity after the 2017 General Election. They couldn't bear the fact the membership wanted Corbyn as leader. Applying his own logic for a moment, the electorate rejected the 'moderate' candidates twice. Decisively. But the anti-Corbyn faction (the party) didn't change. They simply set out punish the membership for making the wrong choice.</p>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-79347269989477482762024-01-11T17:56:00.008+13:002024-01-11T18:11:24.411+13:00Remember 1998?<p>You might recall 1998 was once the hottest year on record. </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjambxsiN1_oohM-4MFxnaVsMKBLBCQIdwZuymHlHL-6GipdczmBLqKh6Rpkvbk7JSvhFGckx4QUt28we4Mra_7eC6s5tHOf6hjAJNVdvQu5MxQ8O7z3cFmWhlGqKCaHosHNAKiJy4QNKKNOaeJJH70vYwc9XoYx0s0_MNDaNw15riBT0vzMb1Gjqqe-0Y/s915/imageedit_2_7074530350.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="915" data-original-width="915" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjambxsiN1_oohM-4MFxnaVsMKBLBCQIdwZuymHlHL-6GipdczmBLqKh6Rpkvbk7JSvhFGckx4QUt28we4Mra_7eC6s5tHOf6hjAJNVdvQu5MxQ8O7z3cFmWhlGqKCaHosHNAKiJy4QNKKNOaeJJH70vYwc9XoYx0s0_MNDaNw15riBT0vzMb1Gjqqe-0Y/w400-h400/imageedit_2_7074530350.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>This is literally what it was like in 1998. I was there. <br />Now EVERYTHING is on fire, all the time.</i></span></td></tr></tbody></table><p>It held this distinction for several years. Climate change deniers would point to it (starting in 1999) and say that, yeah, maybe there had been some warming but it had clearly stopped and now the world was cooling because, otherwise, why weren't the years after 1998 hotter?</p><p>They managed to keep this nonsense up until about 2005, <a href="https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/6228/global-surface-temperatures-in-2005#:~:text=The%20year%202005%20was%20likely,for%20the%20warmest%20ever%20recorded.">which was either just marginally hotter or in a dead heat (pun intentional) with 1998</a>. then, they started it again with 2005 as the reference point. Though the game became a bit repetitive and dull as every three or four years after than there was a new record.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi56gEYzvkrLlEwQDgv68cPPda66szuZpj9GNGP_Qppm9suOrw7Ji4OzrSAUySBdfGhK8DFQjrbLWObHUBmcO6bijPNwsXLlAFWJUzdAHaYKEoIs7r6-0-yTyX0TyGU0GUMnQyjU2TmXHbeUP8BsQbf3xG_w4hzuS_r9tc1sykfdGrWkcG1dfztg1cK1DkK/s704/Graphy%202.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="495" data-original-width="704" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi56gEYzvkrLlEwQDgv68cPPda66szuZpj9GNGP_Qppm9suOrw7Ji4OzrSAUySBdfGhK8DFQjrbLWObHUBmcO6bijPNwsXLlAFWJUzdAHaYKEoIs7r6-0-yTyX0TyGU0GUMnQyjU2TmXHbeUP8BsQbf3xG_w4hzuS_r9tc1sykfdGrWkcG1dfztg1cK1DkK/w400-h281/Graphy%202.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Yeah, I used it in yesterday's post as well. Fucking sue me.</span></i></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>With the (unsurprising) <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/09/2023-record-world-hottest-climate-fossil-fuel">news just in that 2023 is the hottest year on record</a>, it is worth taking a moment to reflect that every single one of the years in the Top 10 hottest years is one of the last ten years. </p><p>I imagine it has been like this for a while, but I haven't been paying too much attention. But every year from 2014 onwards is in the current Top Ten:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0PtRewPpwNopfo7M9Y8JdlLkqrMXG4Yctn8fbkjhxD_7pj5b3Nm3YgNmsGDrT-K6XBIy0-CfBrs37QO2dko3rbYsdAMgWBp6a3KDa6EXGF7TyHEVnXWDZR2StB-XvhgaokDUew_x2q8Q3moZbwdA-ufbj1wqobenjg_1dPD-hV_E7p3gOCJxvU-rwjeAJ/s391/Table%20of%20hotness.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="391" data-original-width="387" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0PtRewPpwNopfo7M9Y8JdlLkqrMXG4Yctn8fbkjhxD_7pj5b3Nm3YgNmsGDrT-K6XBIy0-CfBrs37QO2dko3rbYsdAMgWBp6a3KDa6EXGF7TyHEVnXWDZR2StB-XvhgaokDUew_x2q8Q3moZbwdA-ufbj1wqobenjg_1dPD-hV_E7p3gOCJxvU-rwjeAJ/w396-h400/Table%20of%20hotness.png" width="396" /></a></div>Ponder that for a moment. The last ten years, every last one of them, have been hotter than every other year on the instrumental record.<div><br /></div><div>2014 is, handily, and Number 10 and 2023, helpfully, at number 1 (with a very hot bullet); in between those two chronologically neat bookends, they are a bit jumbled up. But the point is, every single one of the last ten years is there. <div><br /></div><div>Even the relatively chilly 2014 was hotter than every other year in that record.<br /><br /></div></div>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-70705584763600764572024-01-11T17:43:00.007+13:002024-01-11T18:12:24.247+13:00There are sane conservatives<p>It's just that their political representatives are ideological fanatics, in thrall to the Fox News / News Max / Breitbart demographic, bought by big business or just willing to say and do anything to advance their careers.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNh79y95-s2ZqQm3tunuFrlehCoCY5VR7-EmtTF06pYf7TTf4IS0cupIIpxnX1h8nwqom64C48aPoqqXX7UIX1QdEA0aT62y_C1rZicudcUeCvLsKsMPM88czAUe5hO7TmqB-vDEIArel5C9CzY0OFG5C3vIqC5yKJXJRNBT7Y9mfFAobqPivZNh-ztmyz/s1000/imageedit_3_9111432658.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="907" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNh79y95-s2ZqQm3tunuFrlehCoCY5VR7-EmtTF06pYf7TTf4IS0cupIIpxnX1h8nwqom64C48aPoqqXX7UIX1QdEA0aT62y_C1rZicudcUeCvLsKsMPM88czAUe5hO7TmqB-vDEIArel5C9CzY0OFG5C3vIqC5yKJXJRNBT7Y9mfFAobqPivZNh-ztmyz/s320/imageedit_3_9111432658.png" width="290" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">They wouldn't be allowed to write it if it wasn't true.</span></i></td></tr></tbody></table><p>From <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jan/10/republican-debate-2023-desantis-haley-trump-live-updates?page=with:block-659f66228f08b223cc64cd69#block-659f66228f08b223cc64cd69">the Guardian's coverage of the less-than-thrilling debate</a> between De Santis and Haley:</p><blockquote>A question about climate change, and what each candidate is willing to do about it, has – as expected – yielded little useful information. </blockquote><blockquote>
DeSantis promised to tear up the “Biden’s green new deal” while Haley said she opposed “extremes” in policy and transitioned the conversation over to the topic of crime. </blockquote><blockquote>
Last summer, during the first Republican presidential debate, a pointed question from a young activist elicited slightly more interesting results. <b>Alexander Diaz, a young conservative who is part of the American Conservation Coalition (ACC), a youth conservative group that pushes for action on the climate crisis, asked candidates what they would do to improve the party’s standing on climate policy. None of the candidates at that time raised their hands to affirm that climate change was real.</b></blockquote><p>So, there you go. Even though 2023 was just declared the hottest year on the instrumental record AND all <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years">the top ten years are the last ten years</a>, one candidate wants to nix climate action just because a Democrat did it, and the other can't actually talk about it at all. And neither is actually willing to say they think it is happening.</p><p>And the terrifying thing is they are both infinitely better options than the goon who (unless the courts save the Republican Party from its membership's atavistic urges) is back to his favourite trick of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/10/trump-nikki-haley-birther-conspiracy">implying people he doesn't like aren't proper Americans</a>.</p>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-66330264981846381302024-01-10T18:19:00.000+13:002024-01-10T18:19:03.968+13:00We're screwed<p> ... The only question is, how badly.</p><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/09/2023-record-world-hottest-climate-fossil-fuel">2023 was the hottest year on record</a>, 1.48C above the pre-Industrial Revolution average.</p><blockquote><i>The planet was 1.48C hotter in 2023 compared with the period before the mass burning of fossil fuels ignited the climate crisis. The figure is very close to the 1.5C temperature target set by countries in Paris in 2015, <b>although the global temperature would need to be consistently above 1.5C for the target to be considered broken</b>.
</i><p><i>
Scientists at the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (CCCS) said it was likely the 1.5C mark will be passed for the first time in the next 12 months.</i></p></blockquote><p>So, very roughly, 0.1C pre decade for the last 150 years.</p><p>The Guardian also reproduces this nice graph:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMlrDpAhI4gQjA0T94tK67jmw-L-pxXWq3gGp-QhyphenhyphenbJ5-BGeQLdYf9kouOXXBZX8cGSnyqRKrAFVOaT7dA9j9dixT6DYuI02gbpFZ-IybOwJme_ZGVteWhGmCMt7XQkBChefwnFmYKlrrjxlF4UVSx77QtSvTT1pgroUcZ8ktPK8B1N8HRDAnkgHTUmtzm/s704/Graphy%202.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="495" data-original-width="704" height="450" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMlrDpAhI4gQjA0T94tK67jmw-L-pxXWq3gGp-QhyphenhyphenbJ5-BGeQLdYf9kouOXXBZX8cGSnyqRKrAFVOaT7dA9j9dixT6DYuI02gbpFZ-IybOwJme_ZGVteWhGmCMt7XQkBChefwnFmYKlrrjxlF4UVSx77QtSvTT1pgroUcZ8ktPK8B1N8HRDAnkgHTUmtzm/w640-h450/Graphy%202.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>Obviously, those still banging the denialist drum will claim 'natural variation' - but note the period from the 80s to the 90s. Then there were several exceptional years (so many you might wonder if the term 'exceptional' is the right one). Fast forward to 2000-2010 period - every year of that decade was as hot or hotter than the 'exceptional' years of the 80s. </p><p>If the trend holds, it takes a decade for the exception to become the norm. So when the Guardian points out "the global temperature would need to be consistently above 1.5C for the target to be considered broken" that will be 'achieved' by 2034.</p><p>We've got a rapidly diminishing opportunity to limit the disaster engulfing us. But it is diminishing very, very rapidly.</p>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-73514385059778713612024-01-08T16:28:00.002+13:002024-01-08T16:38:21.393+13:00Cook's Beach Fire - Misrepresentation and Propaganda<p style="text-align: left;">Just before Christmas, 2023, a swanky bach in Cook's Beach went up in smoke. It was immediately claimed that some sort of electric vehicle was responsible, with the claim being advanced via social media and repeated in traditional media - albeit in the latter case with caveats that it was hearsay from 'neighbours' and 'eyewitnesses' and had not been established.<span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;">Soon after, the local fire service made a public announcement, stating the fire was not started by an EV / PHEV and originated elsewhere in the house, adding the vehicle was not in the garage at the time the fire started and that it was not charging.</p><p style="text-align: left;">In a sane world that might have been the end of it - an official announcement had been made. We don't live in a sane world, however, so instead it was decreed this was simply a part of the cover up, a deliberate lie put out by FENZ to advance the EV agenda.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Because, yes, there are - supposedly - shadowy organization and powers whose purpose is to make people drive electric cars for ... reasons that remain unclear.</p><p style="text-align: left;">A few days after the fire some footage surfaced, filmed by a witness. It was immediately seized upon by the anti-EV voices because it seemed on the surface to contradict the official narrative.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Here's a You Tube wannbe influencer's called Simon's take on it, titled <span style="background-color: white; color: #0f0f0f; font-family: inherit;"><b><i>New Zealand (Cooks Beach) Fire: Media claims "EV not to blame"</i></b>:</span></p><p style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="408" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/maXP086bPn4" width="491" youtube-src-id="maXP086bPn4"></iframe></p><p style="text-align: left;">His main points are that multiple eyewitness described it as being caused by an EV. The media initially reported this but later - mysteriously - changed their story to report the EV was not to blame. FENZ said the fire started elsewhere in the house, yet the garage is ablaze and the rest of the house is intact. And(of course) there is some nefarious attempt to "pull the wool" over our eyes by someone.</p><p style="text-align: left;">(SPOILER: in this case, it is the media.)</p><div style="text-align: left;">So, here is what he has to say. Describing the blaze itself, he says, "The initial media reports indicated that some kind of EV was responsible for the fire" - this is NOT TRUE as we will see. The media reports he cites don't apportion blame - they simply repeat information they have been given. They simply quote unidentified sources saying this is what they (the sources) thought happened; Simon neglects to acknowledge the caveats these media sources often included. He's presenting a false account of the media reports.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">He hits us with the extracts from the media reports that he thinks back up the claim that "initial media reports indicated that some kind of EV was responsible for the fire"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">First, he gives us <a href="https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/12/fire-destroys-two-waterfront-homes-in-coromandel-s-cooks-beach.html">a quote from Newshub</a>:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #414042;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>FENZ hasn't confirmed the cause of the fire - but neighbours told Newshub the fire started while an electric car was charging in the garage.</i></span></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />Then he quotes <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/12/16/cooks-beach-house-fire-spreads-to-neighbouring-property/">1 News' initial reporting</a>:</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: #fcfcfc; color: #212226;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">A witness told 1News that the initial fire started in the garage where a hybrid car was parked.</span></i></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><span face="blacksans, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: #fcfcfc; color: #212226;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">Note there are discrepancies - in one case, it is an 'electric car' and in the second it is 'hybrid'; in the first story it is described as charging, and in the latter it is parked. The second report says the fire started in the garage, but the first one only says it started 'while an electric car was parking in the garage,' without explicitly saying where it started.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Eyewitness accounts (and note Newshub does not use the term 'eyewitness') are notoriously unreliable, and here we have complete chos after just two sentences.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Of course, our genial host has already prompted us to think it was the EV charging that ignites the garage, and the media reported this so we overlook these discrepancies.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">His third source is the NZ Herald, which simply repeats (with due acknowledgement) what 1 News reported; he also provides some TV news footage, neither of which add anything to the mix, though the TV footage voice over describes the "inferno the locals say was caused by an electric car catching fire while charging in the garage."</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So, finally we have a claim that the EV caused the fire - but here the "neighbours" and the "witness" have been downgraded to "locals" - by this stage, we could be getting the thoughts of anyone who was in Cook's Beach at the time and who was willing to talk to a journalist, regardless of whether they saw anything at all. And if I know one thing about people who don't like EVs, it is that they are happy to talk about them and how wicked they are, usually from a stance detached from any sort of direct experience or knowledge.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">This is all worth mentioning as it gives the lie to the suggestion the media are not covering negative stories about electric vehicles, a common claim and one which Simon circles back to at the end of his diatribe. Here we have three different mainstream outlets all reporting information that it would have been easy for them - perhaps even journalistically responsible - for them not to report at this stage.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Our host then continues: "All these media outlets are basically saying the same thing - <u>eyewitnesses</u> who were on the scene when the fire started <u>said it was caused by an EV</u> with the fire spreading to the garage."</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">This statement is untrue. And I am not talking about the quibbles about whether they were describing it as a hybrid or an EV. He has upgraded the "neighbours" and "locals" to "eyewitnesses" who were "on the scene when the fire started"; but only 1 News 1 News used the term 'witness' (and the NZ Herald echoed it in its doppelganger reporting. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So it is untrue to claim - as he does - that "all these media outlets are basically saying the same thing" - only one of them (and its echo) is claiming to be speaking to anyone who could be said to have seen anything.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The other "neighbours" and "locals" don't say how the fire started; only the unidentified TV news coverage directly says their source claims the fire "was caused by an EV". 1 News referred to a "witness" who told them the fire started "in the garage" rather than stating the car started it; News Hub don't even suggest a location for it. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And remember, that TV news coverage only identified its source as "locals" - not dignifying them with the title of "witness" and who may not have seen anything at all. Yet here they are presented as "eyewitnesses who were on the scene when the fire started." Wild, wild surmising and invention from Simon.<br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">That isn't what our host wants to talk about, really. After all, if that was how the story was covered, he would probably be quite happy. But, as he describes it, "But then, two days later, on the 18th of December, the New Zealand Herald put out another article ..." referring to this passage:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><i>Social media posts and a media outlet then reported a witness as saying the fire had been started by an EV (electric vehicle) in the home’s garage. </i></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><i> </i></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><i>
But Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Fenz) investigator Ed Hopping said that was not the case. </i></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><i> </i></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><i>
“The investigation is still ongoing... but I’m comfortable to put it out there in the world that the fire wasn’t a result of the battery in the car failing,” Hopping said.</i> </div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"> </div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><i>He said the fire started within the home, while the car was parked outside the garage and was not plugged in for charging at the time.</i> </div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"> </div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><i>“It’s just important to put out there that hybrid cars... aren’t that vulnerable to fires,” Hopping said.</i> </div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"> </div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><i>“And then in this instance, the car wasn’t plugged in and wasn’t inside the garage or the structure.”</i> </div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"> </div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><i>
Based on Fenz experience so far, he said it isn’t common for fires to be started by electric vehicles in New Zealand.</i><br /></div></blockquote><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #111617;">Simon offers his take on this: "So I'm glad we're getting all the key points of 'the message' out in this article ... I emailed the Fire and Emergency New Zealand media with the following questions: multiple eyewitness reports claim that the fire started in an hybrid vehicle that was parked outside the garage ..."</span></p><p><span face=""Source Sans Pro", Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #111617;">Again, "multiple eye witnesses" were not mentioned. A single "witness" was referred to and how much the rest may have known or seen is unclear. He is simply wrong here. WRONG.</span></p><p><span face=""Source Sans Pro", Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #111617;">(AN ASIDE: whatever these people may or may not have seen, they all said the car was INSIDE the garage. </span>"In the garage" is repeated in all the reports - even though they can't decide if it was a hybrid, an EV, or whether it was charging or just parked. Yet hear is Simon blithely proclaims it was outside, immediately nixing the credibility of those "eye witnesses" (or whatever) he is relying on. You can't have it both ways, trusting them when they say the fire was started by a charging car (though only one of them, the "local" says that) and then happily ignoring them when they say the car was in the garage.)</p><p><span style="color: #111617;"><span style="background-color: white;">Now we get to the nub of Simon's complaining - that Hopping said battery failure was not involved and the fire started else where in the house. He wants to know how this could have been confirmed "so quickly" (his words).</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #111617;"><span style="background-color: white;">The obvious implication being this is a BIG LIE and a COVER UP. The possibility FENZ might have spoken to the people who owned the house and car and got information from them seems to have eluded our host. Though I am willing to be all the money in the world if Hopping had said "The investigation isn't complete but it was totally caused by the EV combusting" our host would not be complaining about the speed of that conclusion being made public.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #111617;"><span style="background-color: white;">The response he received referred Simon <a href="https://www.waikatotimes.co.nz/nz-news/350133321/blame-game-46m-beach-house-goes-flames">to an article in the Waikato Times </a>with three quotes selected (by whom is not clear):</span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p><i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #0d0d0d;">“I can’t comment on the cause, because the investigation is not yet completed, but I can say where it did not start and that was in the garage,” Hopping said.</span></span></i></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #0d0d0d;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">“The car did not have anything to do with it, and it was parked outside of the garage at the time.”</span></i></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #0d0d0d;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">“It looks like the fire started at the rear of the property. It did not start where the car was.”</span></i></span></p></blockquote><div>Significantly, he tells us to "take mental note of that very carefully because its going to be relevant in a minute."</div><div><br /></div><div>He then engages in some boilerplate conspiracy waffle: "It's all very tidy isn't it? Nothing to see here folks, please disperse." If you say so, Simon. Though if I was running a cover up, I'd probably have made sure I had an alternate explanation out in the media, rather than just saying what it wasn't. Just get someone to say they left the iron on in the laundry adjacent to the garage, problem solved.</div><div><br /></div><div>And, finally, we get the reward for all our patience. Simon has a video to show us, "sent to me by one of my viewers" which supposedly exposes the coverup. It is only a few seconds long and shows the garage of the house, the door open and flames pouring out of, with a Mitsubishi Outlander in the process of cooking up nicely.</div><div><br /></div><div>Simon claims it is "very early on in the fire" and "you can see the only part of the house where smoke is coming from is the section where the car and the garage are. The rest of the house is not involved at all at this point ... as we get closer we can see that the garage itself is on fire. The car which is, I understand, a Mitsubishi Plug In Hybrid, is also on fire and the edges of the garage are on fire and the car. But there's no sign of the rest of the house being involved at this stage. And I don't see any evidence of the fire having started at the rear of the property which is completely out of sight compared to this view ... the main part of the house is not involved yet ... its not even involved. Its only that car and the garage that are on fire right now. So for them to say that it started at the rear just doesn't make sense with the evidence ..."</div><div><br /></div><div>He also shows us some drone footage of the property blazing away, shortly after the clip.</div><div><br /></div><div>He is overlooking a couple of pertinent things here, however.</div><div><br /></div><div>First, of course, the first clip shows the front of the house. We can see the garage is in flames. But we can't see the back of the house. Tellingly, perhaps, the drone footage does show the rear of the house, and there are gouts of flame erupting from the read of the property:</div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJg6TDC70A5ixsffDO6Aeggrd_VNSycrESfdd_mO5TBAiZrr0tvH7KH-3i2nXPCTwK4LAo3y84syNacMmWHjLW5gZmu-i_AaWWiAgkGkfnA_O08NH_eY_u1C36-5VRhJ5Qg2a_tkPRZG0xSuvG5ZoMVurPm0GMkrcnTjh4Mcy_F8BJlsvQI3SOdffFsxnz/s1326/EV%20Garage.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="727" data-original-width="1326" height="350" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJg6TDC70A5ixsffDO6Aeggrd_VNSycrESfdd_mO5TBAiZrr0tvH7KH-3i2nXPCTwK4LAo3y84syNacMmWHjLW5gZmu-i_AaWWiAgkGkfnA_O08NH_eY_u1C36-5VRhJ5Qg2a_tkPRZG0xSuvG5ZoMVurPm0GMkrcnTjh4Mcy_F8BJlsvQI3SOdffFsxnz/w640-h350/EV%20Garage.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">As you can see, the rear of the house is pretty clearly 'involved' as Simon likes to say.</span></span></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /></div><div>But ... but ... but ... that drone footage is clearly taken from later on, as there are now firefighters fight fire, down on the left (Simon has helpfully drawn a circle round them). Obviously, by this time the fire has spread through out the house, starting in the garage and only later 'involving' the rear of the house.</div><div><br /></div><div>Possibly. But fires are tricky things - I know because I watched Backdraft obsessively in the 90s and still think it is a top, top film. It isn't uncommon for fires in oxygen poor environments to die down to virtually nothing (this, of course, is how you put them out, if you can only starve the fire of sufficient oxygen) but flare up again when they find sweet, sweet air to breathe. So if the fire had started at the rear of the house, if there wasn't plentiful oxygen, it could well have died down to the point where it wasn't obvious to someone in the street. There aren't ready pathways for smoke to pour out (otherwise, oxygen would be pouring in and the fire would be having a fine old time); the exception to this is the garage, where the door has been fatefully left open, giving the fire oxygen to breath.</div><div><br /></div><div>(<i>n.b. </i>I am not saying this is what happens; and I repeat my credentials are virtually nil - but I reckon they are as robust as Simon's. And unlike him, when I am engaging in fantastic speculation I am making it pretty obvious this is what I am doing. And I amn't wasting the emergency services time with mendacious communications.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Simon rounds it all off with a typically mealy-mouthed quasi-caveat, saying he would, of course, be delighted to learn it wasn't actually an EV that caused the fire but he just can't, for the life of him, see how this can fit with the facts he's presented. Someone, he implies, is telling us lies, and "What I really, really hate is having the wool pulled over my eyes by media outlets determined to push a particular message rather than be truthful with the facts."</div><div><br /></div><div>Wait, what ... media outlets? Dude, they were simply reporting what they were being told. First, by the "neighbours" and "witnesses" and "locals" in Cook's Beach; and then by Fire Emergency New Zealand.</div><div><br /></div><div>In spite of having emailed FENZ and quoted from their response and regurgitated the information stated in public by a spokesperson for FENZ, Simon is trying to blame the media for what he claims is a misrepresentation? This is outlandishly silly. How can the media dictate what Hopping and FENZ say?</div><div><br /></div><div>Just go back to the title of Simon's clip for a moment: <b style="color: #0f0f0f;"><i>New Zealand (Cooks Beach) Fire: Media claims "EV not to blame"</i></b>. No, Simon, the media didn't. FENZ said the fire started else where and the car did not cause it. The media simply REPORTED what FENZ said. But claiming FENZ is spread false information is a riskier proposition than making vague, absurd claims about unidentified "media".</div><div><br /></div><div>I know blaming 'mainstream media' is bread and butter for conspiracy trolls like Simon; but it helps if you can actually point to something bad the media have actually done. Here they have literally just done their job, telling readers and viewers what happened and what people are saying about it, in a fairly even handed way - and I know this because there is plenty of complaining on EV social media sites about how the media mentioned the claims about an EV / hybrid being involved.</div><p></p>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-82731195183442173852024-01-06T10:00:00.004+13:002024-01-11T18:12:01.853+13:00Conservative MP, Chris Skidmore resigns<p>Citing concern over expanding oil and gas exploitation. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/05/chris-skidmore-resigns-conservative-whip-over-sunaks-oil-and-gas-licence-plan">From The Guardian</a>:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">“I can also no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong and will cause future harm. To fail to act, rather than merely speak out, is to tolerate a status quo that cannot be sustained. I am therefore resigning my party whip and instead intend to be free from any party-political allegiance.”<br /></p></blockquote><p>Even Tories are starting to get it.</p><p>He's also resigning from parliament, triggering a byelection (the EIGHTH in a year); obviously, with a general election expected at some point this year (and absolutely no later than the 28th of January 2025). Presumably, he looked at the opinion polls and figured he didn't have much chance of avoiding ignominious defeat and decided to resign on principal rather than be obliterated in the coming route.</p><p>One assumes he has a fairly lucrative exit strategy, as most MPs who decided to fall upon their swords do; but, never-the-less, he's acting on principal and forgoing a year's pay in in a pleasant sinecure.</p>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-80062397230050705162024-01-02T11:06:00.015+13:002024-01-02T11:08:35.872+13:00Jon Pilger<p>2024 is off to a troubling start with the death of John Pilger. That means there will be one less voice challenging received ideas and make people think about stuff they have just taken for granted.</p><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/jan/01/john-pilger-obituary">I have linked the Guardian obituary</a> which I know would annoy him because he spent most of his career spleening about the mainstream media. He'd be pissed off that he's got all those column inches in news outlets that would not have carried his work when he was alive.</p><p>Pilger was a good thing the way that maverick, iconoclastic journalists of what ever political hue are a good thing. They challenge orthodoxies. We need more of that - even people challenging from the right - not less. But as the Grand Old Beasts of classic journalism die, they don't seem to be getting replaced. </p><p>He wasn't perfect - I never agreed with his support for Julian Assange - but no one is perfect. The important thing is that he was brave and went to places people - even journalists - wouldn't normally think of going, to tell us what was going on.</p>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-17214245468281706002023-12-29T09:47:00.005+13:002023-12-29T09:47:26.226+13:00May election in Britain?<p>The Guardian has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/28/may-election-is-worst-kept-secret-in-westminster-says-senior-labour-mp">a space filling piece</a> about the possibility of a May election for Britain.</p><p>This bit caught my eye:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><i>If he fails to call an election in May, Labour may start to spread the narrative that Sunak is a “bottler” and “squatting” in Downing Street, which were the tactics used by the Conservatives against Gordon Brown in 2009 and 2010.</i></blockquote><p>I would hope not. Short sighted political opportunistic point scoring always comes back to bite the left.</p><p>The British Prime Minister is not elected directly. As long as they have the confidence of parliament and can remain in office until the end of the parliamentary term.</p><p>It was wrong and irresponsible of the right to attack Brown's tenure and it would be wrong to make similar insinuations about Sunak.</p><p>If Labour think Sunak does not enjoy the confidence of parliament they can demonstrate this by tabling a confidence motion. They will, of course, lose because the conservatives have an 80 seat majority and turkeys are unlikely to vote for Christmas so soon after the festive season.</p><p>If Labour were to run a negative 'squatter' campaign it will legitimise future campaigns against Labour leaders. And the right tend to be better at these, as they are more ruthless and fundamentally don't care about damaging the institution of government. Every sneer about 'bottling' or 'squatting' will be repeated and amplified when the appropriate time comes.</p>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-31959176396163988562023-10-14T19:00:00.059+13:002023-10-15T01:13:25.694+13:002023 Election live blog<p>Which I will attempt to update throughout the night, depending on my whims and whether the night seems worth talking about.</p><p>This election will be lubricated with Glenglassaugh Revival single Malt. Never encountered it before and it seems to be a bit of a new thing, though with some sort of pedigree. I imagine it will taste like whisky.</p><p><b>7.00 </b>I am predicting / guessing the raw numbers will look like:</p><div><br /></div><div>National 35%</div><div>Labour 32%</div><div>Greens 14%</div><div>ACT 9%</div><div>NZ First 6%</div><div>TPM 3%</div><div>Wasted 2%<br /><div><p>Obviously I have National very low and the Greens very high.</p><p>That would represent a disaster for National as they have failed to see of a rudderless Labour Party without any vision and with a poor track record beyond their COVID response. Luxon looked so awkward in the last leader's debate I suspect some will have had last minute qualms. Would it mean a National government? That would depend - agonisingly - on inscrutable factors. Possibly, but hopefully not. Because a rudderless Labour Party without any vision and with a poor track record will be better than Luxon style National seasoned with David Seymour.</p><p>There will be weeks of Winston seeing what he can milk out of the situation. He wants those baubles, but he also wants to puncture David Seymour. Keeping ACT sidelined - like he did with the Greens in 2017 - will be a goal.</p><p><b>7.05</b> Will our next PM be called Chris, Chris ... or Winston? </p><p><b>7.06</b> Crikey. Simon Bridges and Meteria Turei. Why can't TVNZ get some better politicians to talk?</p><p><b>7.07 </b>The Glenglassaugh is disappointing. Prickly and astringent, something of nail polish remover in the nose and the mouth.</p><p><b>7.08</b> Turei describes the Greens as an old party. Are they now part of the establishment? Should we be looking for a replacement on the democratic left?</p><p><b>7.12</b> Shit balls those early votes. BUT that will (probably) change. Remember 2005 where National started well ahead and Labour clawed them back.</p><p><b>7.15</b> Is this Labour's 2001?</p><p><b>7.18</b> It would be hilarious if - after all his hard work and my earlier comments about him driving David Seymour into the wilderness - he ended up there himself, unneeded and uncalled for ...</p><p><b>7.35 </b>14% in and not much change in the vote share. NACT are hovering at 50%. If they start to fall, even slightly, Winston emerges, like some dark monster from the primordial depths ...</p><p><b>7.38</b> Shane Jones might get back to parliament. This is getting worse ...</p><p><b>7.40</b> Jessica Mutch McKay smile beatifically after realising Winston Peters "might not be needed" ... a lot of journalists might be cackling with glee at the thought of his frustration.</p><p><b>7.41</b> Almost 20% counted and no sense that the numbers are going to move much. I suspect Labour will be lucky to scrape over 30%.</p><p><b>7.45</b> As it become more likely National and Act will be able to govern alone, I would like to announce I was right in my prediction - the polls were indeed wrong. Just the opposite way to how I thought they would err.</p><p><b>8.00 </b>Chris Luxon's kids are better at talking to the media than he is. I want them to run the country, not him.</p><p><b>8.02</b> I would like to apologise to New Zealand for giving two ticks to Labour. I should have remembered I never manage to vote for the winning party. I note the Greens have done better than they have in the elections where I have voted for them.</p><p><b>8.06</b> This doesn't feel as gutting to me as the 2019 election in Britain did. First, as a Scot, I have a visceral response to British politics I just don't get for NZ politics. Also, in 2019 I genuinely thought the polls were going to blunder again, in Labour's favour. I had already accepted National would be the biggest party and the only question would be whether they would be able to govern with ACT or would be forced to negotiate with Winston Peters. But it is still pretty grim ...</p><p><b>8.17 </b>Will Labour actually get enough MPs to hold a leadership election?</p><p><b>8.23</b> It looks likely that TPM will win most / all of the Maori electorates and create an overhang in parliament. This might have the curious effect of denying NACT an outright magority and force them into some sort of seedy arrangement with Winston ... Which would be fun to watch but would probably reinforce the right's desire to get rid of these electorates.</p><p><b>8.26</b> Searching for any silver linings at all on this grim night, I was thinking that at least none of the bizarre fringe parties manage to get a toehold. Then I remember Winston is back ...</p><p><b>8.34 </b>Melissa Lee look likely to take Mount Albert for National. Given it is Helen Clark and Jacinda Ardern's former seat, does this make her the next leader of the Labour Party?</p><p><b>8.36 </b>David Cunliffe suddenly appears on TVNZ, following Bridges and Turei. Are they doing some sort of Pokemon style Gotta Get 'Em All with failed former leaders?</p><p><b>8.51</b> Worth noting that at this stage most of the votes being reported are still advance votes. Any slight late rally by Labour won't be getting picked up yet. I don't think it will make much of a difference, but this was always going to be an election decided at the margins. As on-the-day votes start to get counted, we may still see some shift in the numbers, and that NACT majority start to look questionable. Could Labour still recover to 30%? Will NACT stumble? Will Winston be thrown a lifeline?</p><p><b>9.03</b> <span style="font-family: inherit;">Grant Robertson on TVNZ, looking very chipper, like he is anticipating a promotion. Third time lucky, eh, Grant? Based on the current prediction Labour will get 33 MPs, he only needs to persuade 16 of them to vote for him to make it happen. <span style="background-color: white;">He’s only 51 – which I no longer consider old – and has plenty of experience and energy. I suspect he’d get it simply because in the aftermath of this walloping no one who makes it back into parliament else will want the gig.</span></span></p><p><b>9.14</b> Labour SURGE to 25.75%! </p><p><span style="background-color: white;"><b>9.32 </b>Another micro surge - </span>Labour creep up to 26.03% in the advance votes, dragging the overall tally to 25.95% ... It is strange the advance vote is leading the on-the-day tally. Did Labour manage to repel voters as the campaign wore on?</p><p><b>9.38</b> And again, advance votes SURGE to 26.12%; on-the-day creeps up to 25.96%!</p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>9.43 </b>I remember the 2002 election and how for a brief moment the pundits were talking about how National were poised to be the largest party and a 'Grand coalition of the right' might govern New Zealand. Then it all collapsed to an appalling night for National. Obviously that is not going to happen tonight but I am intrigued by how National are wavering on the edge of needing a three way coalition to govern, in spite of being up against a tired two term government that has nothing to offer but broken promises, failed pledges and the vague memory of how they maybe once saved the nation from the Covids.</span></p><p><b>9.55 </b>NACT are only just over 50% now, and then there is the overhang to be negotiated. I suspect they are going to wake up to a hangover tomorrow and the realisation they might have to give Winston that call. And he will not be in a mood for compromise.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjDmWOf8gz5Oli0sPkWA4PzstjReVMDAIpuOU76-mrkw4MYY5_6ArRBRlIqm7k7gdgXKHNN93wQ9ti3Ed4Y-XSanIEKJvX41Iz08o7BePLxT-AJb1hp8fCGqaTeTT_A775J15iGh85JWQOdyIyKiq5-OeKeLAI8aXEcu0GmN4NcXP4XwZhpVM1dowZRizZZ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="457" data-original-width="805" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjDmWOf8gz5Oli0sPkWA4PzstjReVMDAIpuOU76-mrkw4MYY5_6ArRBRlIqm7k7gdgXKHNN93wQ9ti3Ed4Y-XSanIEKJvX41Iz08o7BePLxT-AJb1hp8fCGqaTeTT_A775J15iGh85JWQOdyIyKiq5-OeKeLAI8aXEcu0GmN4NcXP4XwZhpVM1dowZRizZZ=w400-h228" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>10.06</b> NACT dip under 50%.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEibivouM0cOy7KwMJr0TVGWBQ4lAyctUiSDPBJ3YskdZJ3A3JYvJiMqGi48_RRxo0Wrr_3ljrL7rvogXqkrCWgTU_foznVIzNz7AWgUc0HW0nlJk_SqbIOJBQ9UlxaSfgBx1crapBDzAxfpLqX8E9n6AThdy7Vc_6aNsm_MmqFy-RRQGz1DYkUTxwB-rlQb" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="452" data-original-width="795" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEibivouM0cOy7KwMJr0TVGWBQ4lAyctUiSDPBJ3YskdZJ3A3JYvJiMqGi48_RRxo0Wrr_3ljrL7rvogXqkrCWgTU_foznVIzNz7AWgUc0HW0nlJk_SqbIOJBQ9UlxaSfgBx1crapBDzAxfpLqX8E9n6AThdy7Vc_6aNsm_MmqFy-RRQGz1DYkUTxwB-rlQb=w400-h228" width="400" /></a></div><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div>10.18 </b>David Seymour is speaking, trying to look pleased with the idea of watching Winston eating his lunch tomorrow, and every day for the next three years.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>10.24 </b>A curious moment of crossover is about to occur, as Labour's On The Day vote starts to lead the Advance vote. So now we will see how much difference Angry Chris made. Of course, we're talking dire numbers here - 26.26% ...</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>10.27 </b>Jake Tame suddenly looking nervous as he realises everything he's said for the last three hours has been wrong.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>10.38 </b>Nat's under 40%. Act on 9.19% and looking likely to fall off slightly. In the immortal last words of infamous Scottish cannibal murderer Sawney Bean, "This isn't over! It will never be over!"</div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>11.05</b> The Labour SURGE is surging very slowly. About 0.7% over two hours. I am beginning to wonder if the South Auckland electorates are going to deliver the boost I anticipated ...</div></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>11.12</b> Still, there are some positives here. ACT are stalled at 9%, for all David Seymour's antics. This represents the apex of ACT's power. They will be dangerous, because they will always be hovering about on the right, always threatening to put National into power. But they are limited. No matter how much they try to disguise their economic Darwinist delirium and category error individualism with gurning and twerking, they will never have the influence they seemed to threaten. So the question is how can we push them into the dustbin of history and make them properly, finally irrelevant?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>11.20</b> I must confess. For three years (more or less) I have been saying that Christopher Luxon can not possibly be Prime Minister of New Zealand. I based this on the fact he is bald and bald people are intrinsically off putting. I speak here as a bald person so I am allowed. I am willing to confess that - unless "a most amazing miracle" (Ibsen) occurs - I may have been wrong on this. He seems to be talking about something on TV just now.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>11.40</b> NACT trending towards 48%. Special votes, overhangs and wasted votes will screw up all calculations for now. I think National should have put in Labour in 2020 performance. They fell slightly short, and may live to rue it.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>11.41 </b>Jessica Mutch-McKay on Winston Peters making pleasant overtures in his speech earlier in the evening: "In a tone I wasn't expecting from him" i.e. pleasant and conciliatory. Don't worry, Jess. Winston is acting nice until he know s what the situation is, then he will tear them to pieces.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>12.23 </b>I think I am still awake, though very, very far removed from sober. TV1 has followed its election coverage with a mockumentary about the spread of Covid in Britain and the Johnson government's flailing incompetence. Which suggests someone responsible for programing is very astute indeed.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>1.08</b> <span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Open Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I know all you lightweights are asleep but the Nats are on 39.99% and ACT might be about to drop below 9%. The NZ film Panthers is on TV1. Feels kinda subversive.</span></div>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-66572073347149502023-10-14T18:00:00.002+13:002023-10-14T18:00:28.796+13:00Something something something<p> Apparently there is something happening somewhere, but we aren't allowed to discuss it for another hour.</p>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-1755138639367423062023-01-22T13:16:00.006+13:002023-01-22T13:36:51.803+13:00Mutterings about Musk<p>Going to try to get into the blogging thing again (ha!) what with anew PM, an election coming up and all that.</p><p>So today I thought I'd start small and simple, by merely tackling the world's (<a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/07/business/elon-musk-wealth/index.html">second</a>) richest man.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/resizer/9T5iwyA-S_Payg9O4Yd2kgl5w5o=/1440x810/smart/filters:quality(70)/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/75HPJYKQYBFBRIWUJDBCOFHCOI.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="374" src="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/resizer/9T5iwyA-S_Payg9O4Yd2kgl5w5o=/1440x810/smart/filters:quality(70)/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/75HPJYKQYBFBRIWUJDBCOFHCOI.JPG" width="664" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">I am not suggesting Elon Musk literally light this fire. But he is doing it, figuratively by allowing knobends to howl bollocks on Twitter</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p>I'm no fan of Elon Musk. You don't want to know why, but I'll tell you anyways, because that's what blogging is.</p><p>To me, his helming of tesla has not been 're-writing the narrative' or 're-framing the debate' about electric vehicles. Instead, the companies pursuit of flash, style and higher end consumers has essentially re-affirmed the prejudices surrounding EVs.</p><p>Tesla had an opportunity to completely change our relationship with vehicles. Having licked the technology far more effectively than any of their competitors, they could have produced the electric vehicle we actually need - a cheap, no frills but functioning car that the typical consumer could a) afford and b) want to drive.</p><p>Instead, they kept on (and keep on) releasing increasingly absurdly over-specced, overpriced vehicles that are brilliant to drive but not actually sifting the dial much in terms of mass take up of EVs. We don't need cars that people with a spare $100K can afford, because even the second- or third-hand value of that vehicle will make it unobtainable to the average driver.</p><p>(Incidentally, I do not hold with the stereotype of Tesla owners as smug narcissists who wants to demonstrate wealth through toys. But I suspect that's how Elon Musk views them, because that's the sort of person he is, and he can't imagine anyone one else being different.)</p><p>Oh, and the whole 'pedo guy' thing. What can you say about someone who manages to taint the story of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tham_Luang_cave_rescue">the Tham Luang rescue of 2018</a>?</p><p>This tirade was <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/climate-misinformation-rife-on-musks-twitter/CSWCZAQXURDRJCTGH27H5KRBGQ/">prompted by this</a>:</p><blockquote><i>Search for the word “climate” on Twitter and the first automatic recommendation isn’t “climate crisis” or “climate jobs” or even “climate change” but instead “climate scam”.</i><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Clicking on the recommendation yields dozens of posts denying the reality of climate change and making misleading claims about efforts to mitigate it.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>(Snip)</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Tweets containing “climate scam” or other terms linked to climate change denial rose 300 per cent in 2022, according to a report released last week by the nonprofit Advance Democracy. </i></div></blockquote><p>So, yeah, Musk managed the unthinkable and made Twitter worse. Respect is due.</p><p>Of course, Musk would say this is neither his fault, nor his problem. He is, after all, a 'free speech absolutist' - <a href="https://theintercept.com/2022/12/16/elon-musk-twitter-suspended-journalists/">expect when people tweet the location of his private jet</a>. Because, apparently, tweeting the whereabouts of his private jet is dangerous.</p><p>But allowing climate denialism to spread isn't.</p><div></div>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-42066122884882638722022-09-24T17:32:00.002+12:002022-09-24T17:32:07.599+12:00Real royalty dying off<p> Jean Luc Godard and Hilary Mantel within a few days of each other?</p><p>FFS, 2022. Juck fuck off already.</p>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-90907992371474627182022-07-09T23:08:00.002+12:002023-01-28T11:19:36.506+13:00Things We Already Knew - Jonathan Freedland is a Pillock<p> Jonathan Freedland uses the fall of Boris Johnson to continue to fight two wars that any sane, non-obsessed man would have put behind him. In an article titled <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/08/boris-johnson-lies-brexit-exit">Everything Tainted By Johnson's Lies Needs To Be Undone</a>, he first decides 2022 is CLEARLY the most opportune time to have another go at Jeremy Corbyn and the buffoons who made him leader:</p><blockquote> In 2019, it put to the electorate an alternative to Johnson who, by every possible data point, was shown losing and losing badly. By sticking with Jeremy Corbyn in the face of all that evidence, Labour flung the door of Downing Street wide open for Johnson and all but ushered him in. </blockquote><div>No, Jonno. YOU and your Guardianista, relentless anti-Corbynista partisans in the media flung the doors of Downing Street open to Johnson and ushered him in, because you would rather see that happen than see Corbyn win.</div><div><br /></div><div>Don't try to shift the blame to the Labour membership who elected Corbyn leader twice - remember it is THEIR PARTY, you arrogant prick. If you don't like their choices, feel free to join the Tory Party, or perhaps the Lib Dems - where you might feel comfortable as you (like them) like to enable Conservative governments.</div><div><br /></div><div>Given your bully pulpit in the Guardian you COULD have supported the Corbyn project and helped 'usher in' a social democratic government that might have made things a bit better for the people of Britain. Instead, you and your trendy journo mates and buddies in the rightwing of the Labour Party opted to torpedo the leader of the Labour Party.</div><div><br /></div><div>And when your first attempt to do it failed, you redoubled your efforts and the result was an 80 seat conservative majority. Which you clearly preferred - since you've never said so much as "Aw, rats, that sucks!"</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, years later, instead of hanging your head in shame when you look at the consequences of your decisions back in 2017 you indulge in a spot of victim blaming, telling the membership they were too stupid and short sighted to see what was obviously going to happen.</div><div><br /></div><div>Yeah, maybe. Perhaps they were foolish thinking the right wing of the Labour party might tolerate a left wing leader.</div><div><br /></div><div>I don't think you are stupid, by the way. You knew what you were doing and could clearly see what was going to happen, and did it anyway.</div><div><br /></div><div>The other war Freedland is still fighting the apparently unending attempt to turn back time and undo Brexit. He is pretty explicit about the, not pining in maudlin mode for the good old days of ever closer union: "Surely, a country will lose faith in the product it bought when the man who sold it to them has been exposed as a fraud."</div><div><br /></div><div>Mate, this is your delusions speaking again. Boris Johnson did not "sell" Brexit to the British people. They voted for it in 2015, remember. He wasn't Prime Minister then. He wasn't even the NEXT Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister who oversaw the crucial preliminaries, or triggered Article 50. He was a part of the Leave campaign but only one - to characterise him as the one who "sold" Brexit to the public signals a height of delusion on Freedland's part that is almost Johnsonesque. the arrogant assumption of superior insight and dismissal of those silly little people - with their Jeremy Corbyn and their Brexits - makes you wonder if Mr Freedland and Mr Johnson are not, in fact the same person.</div><div><br /></div><div>But Freeland's bonkers narrative requires a magical re-writing of the past just like he had to re-write history to blame 209 on Corbyn and the dim witted members of the Labour party, and not the intractable MPs and journalists who set out to destroy him. Somehow, the collapse of the Johnson administration negates the referendum, the 2019 election somehow means all that history can be undone. Jonno, mate, the reason there are people saying leaving the EU was a mistake is the same reason they were saying we should leave in the first place - because they are unhappy with the way things are and are looking for a panacea or at least something to blame.</div><div><br /></div><div>But like the pillock you are you think people being unsatisfied with life in general means they actually support your pet cause. they don't, you sheltered Guardian column writing pillock. They are fucked off because life is shit and it is shit for a lot of people all around the world and it is likely going to stay shit for a long time leaving the EU was only a teeny-tiny contributing factor to that shitness. It didn't cause Russian to invade Ukraine, it didn't cause Covid, it didn't cause climate change, it didn't cause the cost of living crisis or the breakdown in the NHS or social services or fear of crime or mental health issues.</div><div><br /></div><div>But YOU, by helping sabotaging a decent prospect of getting a half decent leftish government into Downing Street - by helping sell Johnson to the British public by focusing your energies on destroying Corbyn - did contribute more than any decent person should to some of those festering cankers.</div><div><br /></div><div>You, Sir, helped bring all this about. You are tainted by Johnsonism. So hang your head in shame, or fuck off.</div>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-30306781792306323922022-06-21T18:02:00.006+12:002022-06-21T18:02:59.314+12:00Dear striking British workers: F___ You! Love, the Labour Party<p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/20/keir-starmer-tells-labour-frontbench-they-should-not-join-rail-strike-pickets">From the desk of Keir "Patriotic Duty" Starmer</a>:</p><p></p><blockquote><p><i>“We have robust lines. We do not want to see these strikes to go ahead with the resulting disruption to the public. The government have failed to engage in any negotiations.</i></p><div><i>“However, we also must show leadership and to that end, please be reminded that frontbenchers including [parliamentary private secretaries] should not be on picket lines. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i> “Please speak to all the members of your team to remind them of this and confirm with me that you have done so.”</i></div></blockquote><p> So, yeah, there you have it. Adulate the queen and to Hell with the revolting proles. It's satirically hilarious but unfortunately true. We must tug the forelock to the monarch, because she's a nice old bird who has been around forever; we must not do anything as vulgar as acknowledge the historical roots of the Labour PArty in the union movement or show solidarity with workers in general.</p><p>Because that might make Labour less electable and thus jeopardise the job security of Mr Starmer and his allies. Lenin wrote about the aristocracy of labour - the privileged workers in the developed world who were bribed with the 'overflow' of profits from low wage exploitation in the developing world, and so politically neutered and inclined to support the ruling class. Here we've got the aritstocracy of Labour - lead by a genuine knight, no less! - marshalling the supposed parliamentary champions of the workers against the workers.</p><p>And so much for freedom of conscience or association. Apparently not a concern in the Starmerite Labour party.</p><div></div>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-59668022829636673222022-06-09T21:13:00.002+12:002022-06-09T21:13:17.222+12:00SchadenfreudeI'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed the irony of Boris Johnson's desperate attempts to cling onto power.<div><br /></div><div>I recall, almost immediately after Jermey Corbyn was elected, a bunch of memes based on the WW2 film Downfall, associating the mild manner Jermey Corbyn with Hitler in his final, lunatic delusional days, desperately trying to summon up armies that did not exist to resist the unstoppable hordes.<div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ad_181005515.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=540%2C304" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="304" data-original-width="540" height="304" src="https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ad_181005515.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=540%2C304" width="540" /></a></div><br /><div><div>I am old enough to recall the aftermath of the 2010 election (after all I was blogging on a semi-regular basis then!) when people were gloating about how Gordon Brown would have to be dragged out of Downing Street, kicking and screaming, of course, in the end, Brown walked out of Downing Street having willingly pulled the plug on the Lib Dems attempts to try to wring concessions out of him he could not give. </div><div><br /></div><div>(His successor, of course, rather made a mess of things by making concessions he did not imagine he would ever have to give, only to find events have a way of blowing things up in your face, which is how we ended up with Brexit. And Boris Johnson. Cheers, Call Me Dave!)</div><div><br /></div><div>Johnson, of course is a huge fanboy for Churchill, so it is bemusing to see him casting himself in the Hitler role, as his premiership enters in berserk bunker phase.</div></div></div>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-58713914412658986812022-06-03T20:00:00.006+12:002022-06-03T20:00:57.569+12:00Go Away, You Ghastly Little Power Kissing Pipsqueak<p> This makes me want to puke:</p><blockquote><i>The Jubilee weekend isn’t just an opportunity for us to reflect on the 70 years since Her Majesty’s accession to the throne – although it will, of course, be that.</i><div><i><br />And it isn’t simply a chance for a country wearied by the extraordinary circumstances of the last few years to let its hair down – although it is, of course, your patriotic duty to do just that.</i><div><i><br />No, the first Platinum Jubilee in our nation’s history is a chance to celebrate a truly extraordinary Queen, to reflect on the difference she has made to her country and to consider what our Elizabethan age has meant – and what it will mean for our future.</i></div></div></blockquote><p>This isn't Jacob Rees-Mogg or some other doublebarrelled myopic inadequate with a delusions as to wqhat century they exist in. It's Keir Starmer the leader of the Labour Party and <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/31/britain-better-country-thanks-queen/">he's writing in The Telegraph</a>. The f%#king Telegraph.</p><p>The long process that began with Starmer's immediate post-election repudiation of the Corbynist legacy that he claimed to endorse while campaigning has been completed. The Leader of the Labour Party is writing fawning pro-Royalist bilge in the most reactionary newspaper in the country and telling people how to be British, and implying that anyone who doesn't join him in an orgy of monarchist masturbation is unpatriotic.</p><p>There were so many signposts along the way - the refusal to support Rebecca Long-Bailey, the dishonest cliam that Corbyn's banishment was prompted by the EHRC report, every piece of 'alignment' with Johnson and the Conservative massif in the name of 'electability.' Those were more important betrayals than this sickening piece of fawning he's penned.</p><p>But sometimes it's the symbolic moments that give the most clarity.</p><div><div></div></div>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-15692334891261559142022-03-06T11:17:00.004+13:002022-03-06T11:17:41.253+13:00Not surprising<p>Apparently "centre-right" National will undo all the "tax hikes" that were "imposed" by Labour since 2017:</p><blockquote><i>On Sunday Luxon is giving a “state of the nation” address in Auckland, and it is understood that he will use the speech to announce that National will repeal every extra tax hike or effective tax increases the Government has imposed since Labour came to office in late 2017.<p></p>Luxon is expected to also use the speech to outline how the National Party’s centre-right principles can guide New Zealand through a post-Covid world.</i></blockquote><p>What's offensive isn't the disingenuous nature of the implication Labour has raised taxed extravagantly - as opposed to trying to move tax levels back to within (distant) sight of sustainable levels. It isn't even the signaling of a return to welfare bashing and attacks on state spending (except where roads are concerned.) That's same old national, doing what National does.</p><p>Its the indication the media are buying into this narrative, accepting National's framing of the debate - it is a "centre-right" party and tax increases are "hikes" that were "imposed."</p><p>It suggests the media are looking to boost Luxon (why, God, why?) and try to make a fight of next year's election.</p>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-75979167612258799752022-01-13T10:15:00.007+13:002022-03-06T11:21:19.209+13:00What Omicron will be like ...<p> I might not be very good at maths but I never bought into the developing "Omicron is the Covid we can live with" narrative. I remember reading that Omicron was about half as likely to end you in hospital as delta was ... but, I thought, given it is several multiples more contagious, how does that help? You still end up with more people in hospital and more deaths, even if your individual chances of not dying are better.</p><p>The figures from Britain confirm (Thank you, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/30/covid-uk-coronavirus-cases-deaths-and-vaccinations-today">The Guardian</a>) this half-baked idea of mine:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhW_pooATwJWcmmPuj6m6v40-grN90Ml_imb1B6ftWkUuTpwiDLiY4kliYCfpJcbiyqnsXbvTRfGstFN715wS0KE07ykD9ZvBB6kCGiMmdO0MK4MlzvqVnxmCA0IzYWoxyqsEPO9sAY3SqZUe-RaXpHvIJtK0_-SP1GBpOqMGoUE1f8rlN0Ja8QMAmBeA=s820" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="820" data-original-width="499" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhW_pooATwJWcmmPuj6m6v40-grN90Ml_imb1B6ftWkUuTpwiDLiY4kliYCfpJcbiyqnsXbvTRfGstFN715wS0KE07ykD9ZvBB6kCGiMmdO0MK4MlzvqVnxmCA0IzYWoxyqsEPO9sAY3SqZUe-RaXpHvIJtK0_-SP1GBpOqMGoUE1f8rlN0Ja8QMAmBeA=w390-h640" width="390" /></a></div><div><br /></div>Nothing is as bad as the Alpha wave, but that's because of the mitigating effect of vaccines and willingness to stick (vaguely) to lockdown rules. But note that Britain has just experienced two consecutive days where deaths almost hit 500. In New Zealand terms, that would be about 30 deaths a day.<div><br /></div><div>The other day, Britain reached the grim 150,000 deaths mark. Do you remember the early days when experts were saying the country would be doing well to get through the pandemic with 20,000 deaths? I think we can admit Britain has not done well. As I remember it, the Alpha wave seemed to stick at about 45,000 for ages - then when Delta hit the numbers shot up. I suspect we will see the same - the sheer number of people getting sick will mean more hospitalizations and deaths. And on top of that there is the additional impact of absence on the economy, and of delays and cancellations on non-Covid hospitalizations.</div><div><br /></div><div>Here in New Zealand, we've become pretty complacent again. We swatted off Alpha and seem to have knocked Delta out the ring. But once Omicron gets loose in the community, there won't be much we can do to stop it other than another significant, rigidly adhered to lockdown and - it is unlikely the population will accept a third extended lockdown. Its impact will be unlike either of the two previous waves.</div>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-3460526580591105142021-12-28T21:51:00.003+13:002021-12-28T21:57:19.450+13:00I was, of course, completely wrong - we seem to be beating Delta<p> A few weeks ago the government of New Zealand did something that seemed so egregiously stupid it spurred me out of my blogging lethargy and got me posting again. I was furious at how they had decided to give up - as I saw it - in the face of the Delta outbreak and just let us 'take it on the chin' in Johnsonesque style.</p><p>Turns out I may have been wrong as we seem to be - perhaps, perhaps - <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300487222/covid19-only-18-new-community-cases-1-death-from-the-virus">about to squash Delta</a>.</p><p>Just on time for Omicron.</p><p>Get boosted, people.</p><p>(And yes, I'm aware most people probably don't bother getting tested over Christmas, even when they feel sick, and <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300487421/covid19-dip-in-case-numbers-down-to-low-testing-rates-over-the-holidays">this will have reduced the identification of cases</a>. But the over all trend has been indicating the virus has been struggling to find purchase, in spite of the government's move away from elimination. We'll probably see a spike in cases in a few days as people who would have been tested in the last few days come forward; we should try not to panic too much when that happens.)</p>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-81705899897401722222021-12-19T10:44:00.006+13:002021-12-19T10:44:36.309+13:00Conservative peer wants us all dead<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/18/brexit-minister-lord-frost-resigns-over-covid-plan-b-measures"> Says it all, really</a>:</p><blockquote><i>Lord Frost, who has led negotiations with the EU, is reported to have handed in his resignation letter to Boris Johnson last week. But the Mail on Sunday reported he had been persuaded to stay on until January.</i><div><i><br />
The newspaper reported it was the introduction of plan B coronavirus measures, including the implementation of Covid passes, that prompted Lord Frost’s decision. It also said he had become disillusioned by tax rises and the cost of net zero policies.</i></div></blockquote><div></div><div>He's essentially resigning because he's opposed to trying to stop people dying from COVID, having to pay more tax because of the costs associated with COVID and climate change response / mitigation.</div><div><br /></div><div>In other words, he's happy for us all to suffer and die if it means his 'liberty' (i.e. wealth and associated privilege) are not impinged upon.</div><div><br /></div><div>Because generally the wealthy will not have as rough a time of COVID - or climate change - as the rest of us. Their privilege will insulate them from - more or less - from the ravages of the pandemic, in either the economic or health spheres. They won't be stacked up in NHS hospitals, or struggling to find mney to pay rent, or worrying about their businesses collapsing. Their main concern will be wether the bloody lockdowns or travel restrictions or - shudder - vaccine passports will affect their God given right to do whatever they bloody well choose.</div><div><br /></div><div>Nor will climate change hurt them too much. Again, wealth, power and privilege will insulate them and the won't be sweltering in poorly ventilated housing, or made homeless by flooding, or face the prospect of their home becoming worthless in the face of coastal erosion. And they obviously aren't too bothered about the likelihood of it harming the prospects of their grand children or great grandchildren - so much for wealth cascading down the generations. Because they are absolutely selfish.</div>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-49914612223992495532021-12-18T11:14:00.002+13:002021-12-18T16:08:03.281+13:00Eric Clapton and the Impoverished German Widow<p><span style="font-family: times;"> So, Eric Clapton - estimated worth in the hundreds of millions of pounds - <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/dec/17/eric-clapton-wins-legal-case-against-woman-selling-bootleg-live-cd-for-845">has successfully persecuted (sic) a German widow so hard up she was reduced to selling her dead husband's CDs on EBay.</a> One of which happened to be a copy of a bootleg recording of a concert - even though the widow says it was purchased legally from a music store.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;">A multi-millionaire suing a widow is very unpleasant, but as the Guardian notes, it is not the only unlikeable thing Clapton has done recently:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p><span style="font-family: times;"><i>Clapton has made headlines in the past 18 months for taking a staunch stance against Covid-19 protective measures such as lockdowns, vaccines and vaccine passports.</i></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><i>He claimed to have experienced a severe physical reaction to his first dose of the AstraZeneca jab, and referred to scientific research – which has found vaccines to be safe and life-saving – as “propaganda”. </i></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><i> In December 2020, he collaborated with another noted vaccine sceptic, Van Morrison, on the song Stand and Deliver, which likens adherence to government restrictions to slavery. </i></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><i>The song prompted the Black blues musician Robert Cray, who was born in segregated Georgia, to withdraw from supporting Clapton on his US summer tour as planned, the Washington Post reported. </i></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"><i>On that tour, Clapton was photographed posing with Texas governor Greg Abbott, who signed into law the country’s most restrictive abortion legislation and a measure to limit who can vote in the state.</i></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: times;">I don't have a dog in the fight - I am not a German widow and I am of the opinion most of Clapton's musical output can be described as hateful and unpleasant, but that's subjective. So let's not worry about the eternal crappy noodlings of Layla and I Shot The Sherriff.</span></p><p class="dcr-eu20cu" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #121212; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: times;">Let's delve deeper into Clapton's personal history here. I've been reading London Calling by Barry Miles, a history of London's counter-cultural underground. It isn't quite as good as it should be (tldr: Hippies were good, punks were a bit crap really, there were some painters and artists and everyone drank too much, and Alex Trocchi was perhaps one of the worst human beings to ever exist) but it does include a recommendation from one Boris Johnson on the back ("I devoured this wonderful cultural history" - no you didn't, Boris.)</span></p><p class="dcr-eu20cu" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #121212; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: times;">And it does mention a particularly pleasant episode in the Life And Adventures Of Eric Clapton, a sort of musical Lara Croft (though less buxom and unfortunately real) shamelessly raiding the graves of the Blues legends. On the 5th of August, 1975, Clapton exhorted a crowd at a concert in Birmingham to vote for racist provocateur Enoch Powell:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p class="dcr-eu20cu" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #121212; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word;"><i><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal;">Do we have any foreigners in the audience tonight? If so, please put up your hands. So where are you? Well wherever you all are, I think you should all just leave. Not just leave the hall, leave our country. I don't want you here, in the room or in my country. Listen to me, man! I think we should vote for Enoch Powell. Enoch's our man. I think Enoch's right, I think we should send them all back. Stop Britain from becoming a black colony. Get the foreigners out. Get the wogs </span><span style="color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal;">out. Get the coons </span><span style="color: #202122; font-size: 14px; font-variant-ligatures: normal;">out. Keep Britain white. I used to be into dope, now I'm into racism. It's much heavier, man. Fucking wogs, man. Fucking Saudis taking over London. Bastard wogs. Britain is becoming overcrowded and Enoch will stop it and send them all back. The black wogs and coons and Arabs and fucking Jamaicans don't belong here, we don't want them here. This is England, this is a white country, we don't want any black wogs and coons living here. We need to make clear to them they are not welcome. England is for white people, man. This is Great Britain, a white country, what is happening to us, for fuck's sake? Throw the wogs out! Keep Britain white!</span></span></i></p></blockquote><p class="dcr-eu20cu" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #121212; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: times;">Just take a moment to read that again and consider, this man has continued to enjoy a career as a revered (by people who like endless guitar wankery) musician. Whatever your views on 'cancel culture' or separating the artist from the work, you have to admit, Clapton probably deserved just a tad more opprobrium than he received. This is a man howling racist hate a crowd of thousands - who had come to hear him masturbate his guitar, now expound his political beliefs - and he's never been adequately censured for it. Nowadays, he'd be shunned by fans, dropped by his record company and find it hard to book venues - and quite right too.</span></p><p class="dcr-eu20cu" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #121212; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: times;">(After manually typing in the quote from the Miles book I discovered <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Clapton#%22Keep_Britain_White%22">I could just have copied it from Wikipedia</a>. The Wiki version is even longer and more disgusting, so I have done just that.)</span></p><p class="dcr-eu20cu" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #121212; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: times;">Clapton has, as far as I am aware, not apologised for his comments, merely trying to excuse himself by saying he didn't know what came over him and that whatever came out as a "garbled thing." Eric, it wasn't garbled. It was pretty clear what you were saying. You wanted people to vote for Enoch Powell because you wanted foreigners - sorry, wogs - sent 'home.'</span></p><p class="dcr-eu20cu" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #121212; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: times;">Clapton performed at a Nelson Mandela freedom concert (again, per Barry Miles) in 1988. Jerry Dammers, from The Specials, reminded him of his comments from 1976 and suggested he could use this as an opportunity to balance the books: "You know, this is your chance to formally apologise for what you said."</span></p><p class="dcr-eu20cu" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #121212; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: times;">Clapton declined the chance to show he is a decent human being, telling Uncut magazine, "I thought, "You must be fucking joking." And I wouldn't do it. I was so insulted."</span></p><p class="dcr-eu20cu" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #121212; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: times;">Yeah, how insulting, holding someone accountable for their words and actions.</span></p><p class="dcr-eu20cu" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #121212; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: times;">Eric has aligned himself with almost every reactionary political position going, defending the right of the aristocracy to tear foxes to pieces for entertainment, and of people in general (a true democrat!) to spread COVID-19 (on the day I write this, Britain set a new record for cases, almost breaking the 100,000 new cases barriers. Eric must be proud of our efforts!)</span></p><p class="dcr-eu20cu" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #121212; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: times;">Sadly, Eric's forthright positions have led to people ... not wanting to know him so much. It's a bit late, and very disappointing it wasn't his unapologetic racism that led to people shunning him, but he is finding it harder to meet up with his old mates and buddies: </span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p class="dcr-eu20cu" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #121212; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word;"><i><span style="font-family: times;">In October, Clapton told a site run by a prominent anti-vax campaigner: “Over the past year, there’s been a lot of disappearing, you know – little dust around with people moving away quite quickly. And it has, for me, refined the kind of friendships I have. And it’s dwindled down to the people that I obviously really need and love.”</span></i></p></blockquote><p class="dcr-eu20cu" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #121212; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1rem; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: times;">Eric, if one person think's you're a dick and cuts you off, maybe it's them that has the problem. But when lots of people are doing it, maybe its you.</span></p>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-21526678821878874232021-12-15T11:19:00.005+13:002021-12-15T11:19:58.082+13:00Living history<p> Boris Johnson is fond of history - the boyish, fun bits about wars, Empire and plucky Brits winning against the odds and what not. He particularly fond of Winston Churchill and really, really fond of matching himself up against Winston Churchill.</p><p>Only, he is comparing himself to the wrong World War 2 Prime Minister.</p><p>Today <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2021/dec/14/uk-covid-live-lateral-flow-tests-unavailable-online-england-boris-johnson-booster-coronavirus-latest-updates?page=with:block-61b8ed4c8f083aad7047543c#block-61b8ed4c8f083aad7047543c" target="_blank">over a hundred of his MPs voted against him</a>, on the absurdly important issue of How We Stop People Dying Of COVID. Which - since we're talking about Johnson here, never one to miss a chance point to history and claim he's somehow being Churchillian - smells a bit like the Norway vote. Though Chamberalin won the vote, the rebellion undermined his authority and he felt he could not continue as Prime Minister. So he resigned which resulted in Churchill becoming PM.</p><p>Only, of course, Johnson is in the role of Chamberlain here, not Churchill. Though it is doubtful that he has the wit, honour or decency to follow Chamberlain's lead and step down when faced with the reality that he is not up to the job.</p>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-70135419897829984082021-12-12T12:56:00.003+13:002021-12-12T12:56:37.571+13:00British Labour take a 9 point poll leadFrom <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/11/labour-races-to-nine-point-lead-in-polls-in-wake-of-sleaze-controversies-at-no-10">Opinium</a>, reported in the Guardian. This, the Guardian is at pains to point out is the biggest lead the party has enjoyed since 2014 or (as they might have preferred to put it since Before Corbyn.<div><br /></div><div>You have to wonder how Labour might have done in 2017 or even 2019 if the right wing of the party had not spend four years trying to assail the hapless and affable Mr Corbyn, and instead directed their energy towards getting a Labour government elected.<div><br /></div><div>Also described by the Guardian, the Lib Dems (remember them?) are threatening a Ribble Valley style upset in the absurdly conservative seat of North Shropshire.<div><br /></div><div>I am horrified to realise I am old enough to remember Eastbourne and Ribble Valley - two glorious by election victories of thirty years ago, where the Lib Dems overturned massive Tory majorities in traditional Blue seats. The Conservatives were at the wrong end of a decade in power, seen as being in office but barely in power, lurching from crisis to crisis and facing a Labour Party that had replaced its worryingly leftwing leader with a younger, more media friendly person - in this case Neil 'father of Stephen' Kinnock.</div><div><br /></div><div>You'll remember Stephen Kinnock as the chap who was so delighted at Labour's gutsy performance in 2017 he almost looked unhappy.</div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i.inews.co.uk/content/uploads/2017/11/p05nddtr-640x360.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="640" height="360" src="https://i.inews.co.uk/content/uploads/2017/11/p05nddtr-640x360.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Unrestrained Joy on the faces of Stephen Kinnock and his coterie as they absorb the 2017 election result.</i></span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />With self control like that, he should play poker. No indication of the internal celebration undoubtedly going on under that worryingly smooth pate.<br /><br /><div>Of course, one should be cautious. Following the humiliations of Eastbourne and Ribble Valley, the Conservatives won the subsequent election in 1992 and remained in power for another six years. Neil Kinnock went off to enjoy a long career of doing obscure, but probably well remunerated, jobs in Europe, so he can probably be blamed for Brexit as well as losing the 92 election. Starmer has a lot of work to do to convince people - on the left as well as the right - that he is worth voting for.</div></div></div><div><br /></div><div>There is a chance of a Labour government in 2024. It's a long road. But the process needs to start now. Corbyn's tenure was derailed by factionalism. Starmer has shown himself very unwilling to heal rifts. That will mean labour going into a future election still licking the self-inflicted wounds of 2019 and risk returning another five years of Conservative misrule.</div><div><br /></div><div>He needs to restore the whip to Corbyn and start acknowledging the left are a valid and legitimate part of the party. He needs to remember the galvanising effect of the 2017 manifesto, with its clarion calls for social democracy and progressive policies. He needs to reject the bland managerialism and unconvincing attempts to portray 'quiet competence' that won't 'spook the markets.' That's not worth voting for. Whatever it is that made Starmer want to be a Labour Party member and fight to become Labour leader, he needs to find it again.</div>lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-507659435767768133.post-83037216117633042412021-11-20T13:24:00.005+13:002021-11-20T13:24:58.600+13:00I'll take the masks and vaccines, thank youFrom <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300458896/antivaccine-mandate-protesters-gather-for-national-compassion-day">Stuff</a>:<p><a href="https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/4/y/v/v/l/2/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.1240x700.4yvvkg.png/1637365657383.jpg?format=pjpg&optimize=medium" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="450" src="https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/4/y/v/v/l/2/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.1240x700.4yvvkg.png/1637365657383.jpg?format=pjpg&optimize=medium" width="800" /></a></p>I don't want to be pedantic, but I'm pretty sure neither masks nor vaccines figure much in the Gospel of Saint John; nor has Jesus shown much efficacy in protecting people from anything.lurgeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08735536088030480119noreply@blogger.com0