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.
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.
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.
Because, yes, there are - supposedly - shadowy organization and powers whose purpose is to make people drive electric cars for ... reasons that remain unclear.
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.
Here's a You Tube wannbe influencer's called Simon's take on it, titled New Zealand (Cooks Beach) Fire: Media claims "EV not to blame":
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.
(SPOILER: in this case, it is the media.)
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.
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"
A witness told 1News that the initial fire started in the garage where a hybrid car was parked.
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.
Eyewitness accounts (and note Newshub does not use the term 'eyewitness') are notoriously unreliable, and here we have complete chos after just two sentences.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Our host then continues: "All these media outlets are basically saying the same thing - eyewitnesses who were on the scene when the fire started said it was caused by an EV with the fire spreading to the garage."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
But Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Fenz) investigator Ed Hopping said that was not the case.
“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.
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.
“It’s just important to put out there that hybrid cars... aren’t that vulnerable to fires,” Hopping said.
“And then in this instance, the car wasn’t plugged in and wasn’t inside the garage or the structure.”
Based on Fenz experience so far, he said it isn’t common for fires to be started by electric vehicles in New Zealand.
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 ..."
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.
(AN ASIDE: whatever these people may or may not have seen, they all said the car was INSIDE the garage. "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.)
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).
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.
“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.
“The car did not have anything to do with it, and it was parked outside of the garage at the time.”
“It looks like the fire started at the rear of the property. It did not start where the car was.”
Significantly, he tells us to "take mental note of that very carefully because its going to be relevant in a minute."
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.
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.
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 ..."
He also shows us some drone footage of the property blazing away, shortly after the clip.
He is overlooking a couple of pertinent things here, however.
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:
As you can see, the rear of the house is pretty clearly 'involved' as Simon likes to say.
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.
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.
(n.b. 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.)
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."
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.
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?
Just go back to the title of Simon's clip for a moment: New Zealand (Cooks Beach) Fire: Media claims "EV not to blame". 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".
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.
Citing concern over expanding oil and gas exploitation. From The Guardian:
“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.”
Even Tories are starting to get it.
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.
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.
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.
I have linked the Guardian obituary 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.
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.
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.
The Guardian has a space filling piece about the possibility of a May election for Britain.
This bit caught my eye:
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 would hope not. Short sighted political opportunistic point scoring always comes back to bite the left.
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.
It was wrong and irresponsible of the right to attack Brown's tenure and it would be wrong to make similar insinuations about Sunak.
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.
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.
Which I will attempt to update throughout the night, depending on my whims and whether the night seems worth talking about.
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.
7.00 I am predicting / guessing the raw numbers will look like:
National 35%
Labour 32%
Greens 14%
ACT 9%
NZ First 6%
TPM 3%
Wasted 2%
Obviously I have National very low and the Greens very high.
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.
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.
7.05 Will our next PM be called Chris, Chris ... or Winston?
7.06 Crikey. Simon Bridges and Meteria Turei. Why can't TVNZ get some better politicians to talk?
7.07 The Glenglassaugh is disappointing. Prickly and astringent, something of nail polish remover in the nose and the mouth.
7.08 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?
7.12 Shit balls those early votes. BUT that will (probably) change. Remember 2005 where National started well ahead and Labour clawed them back.
7.15 Is this Labour's 2001?
7.18 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 ...
7.35 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 ...
7.38 Shane Jones might get back to parliament. This is getting worse ...
7.40 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.
7.41 Almost 20% counted and no sense that the numbers are going to move much. I suspect Labour will be lucky to scrape over 30%.
7.45 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.
8.00 Chris Luxon's kids are better at talking to the media than he is. I want them to run the country, not him.
8.02 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.
8.06 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 ...
8.17 Will Labour actually get enough MPs to hold a leadership election?
8.23 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.
8.26 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 ...
8.34 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?
8.36 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?
8.51 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?
9.03Grant 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. 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.
9.14 Labour SURGE to 25.75%!
9.32 Another micro surge - 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?
9.38 And again, advance votes SURGE to 26.12%; on-the-day creeps up to 25.96%!
9.43 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.
9.55 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.
10.06 NACT dip under 50%.
10.18 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.
10.24 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% ...
10.27 Jake Tame suddenly looking nervous as he realises everything he's said for the last three hours has been wrong.
10.38 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!"
11.05 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 ...
11.12 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?
11.20 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.
11.40 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.
11.41 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.
12.23 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.
1.08I 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.
Going to try to get into the blogging thing again (ha!) what with anew PM, an election coming up and all that.
So today I thought I'd start small and simple, by merely tackling the world's (second) richest man.
I am not suggesting Elon Musk literally light this fire. But he is doing it, figuratively by allowing knobends to howl bollocks on Twitter
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.)
Oh, and the whole 'pedo guy' thing. What can you say about someone who manages to taint the story of the Tham Luang rescue of 2018?
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”.
Clicking on the recommendation yields dozens of posts denying the reality of climate change and making misleading claims about efforts to mitigate it.
(Snip)
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.
So, yeah, Musk managed the unthinkable and made Twitter worse. Respect is due.
Of course, Musk would say this is neither his fault, nor his problem. He is, after all, a 'free speech absolutist' - expect when people tweet the location of his private jet. Because, apparently, tweeting the whereabouts of his private jet is dangerous.
/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/75HPJYKQYBFBRIWUJDBCOFHCOI.JPG)
