Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: To be expected, in reply to Russell Brown,
Link here. Trigger warning for massive fits of pique from Russel’s Facebook followers (Labour is “corrupt and self-serving” etc). The volume of bile being spat at Labour for differing on the issue seems unhelpful.
Important to clarify that this set of people represents the general public, ie. is quite different from the set of people who are in Green member-only Facebook groups. Unfortunately, people's engagement with politics is often wafer thin, and premised on stirred emotion.
-
I was at a local body committee meeting this morning. It's fair to say that the councillors were disappointed that the responsibility for making the decision on the location of outlets had been put in their hands. They did not know the harm caused by these substances, and were waiting for guidance from the Ministry of Health. But they felt compelled to make decisions on the basis of community response and a desire to minimise harm.
-
Hard News: To be expected, in reply to Keir Leslie,
how does the Green Party play in South Auckland? Well, not very well, to be frank. How about marginals, like the Coast or Waimak? Erm. Ah.
The Greens have done poorly in the South Auckland electorates for the same reason National does poorly; ongoing loyalty to Labour, weak electorate organisations, a lack of resourcing and attention, and poor candidates (a result of the previous factors). Labour doesn't 'need' the Greens in Mangere. But they do need the sum total of the party vote to get sufficient seats to form a government.
-
Again though George, you’re a Green party member! Of course you like the idea that Labour commits to the Greens.
Yes. Their Wellington Central campaign manager (a volunteer position). But I also accept that politics is a business in which numbers count, and Labour would be ill-advised to take a course of action which made it harder for them to form a government. They are essentially saying to the Greens "come back on the 21st of September".
I am asserting that this makes a Labour-led Government of any form less likely, rather than more. This isn't based on sentimentality, but on my own expectations about the behaviour of voters - most of whom are non-partisan and vote based on a range of factors including; competence, likelihood of victory, self-interest, likeability, appearance and superficial factors. I do not believe this announcement strengthens them strongly on any metric that matters except for strength, and weakens them on several that count.
-
Hard News: To be expected, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,
It became routine to talk about the Labour/Green position in the polls (‘Neck and neck!’) instead of just Labour vs National (’miles behind). And that was helpful to Labour. It makes them relevant and gets them to say they’re in with a chance, that there’s a stable government in waiting, and it meant they didn’t have to worry about being attacked from the left.
That falls apart…
The public need a narrative. The media desperately need a narrative supplied, or they are forced to invent their own. And the narrative of 32-35% is quantitatively different than the narrative of 44-47%, as we are at at this point in time.
-
Rob Salmond (who advises Labour's leader) offers his opinion, which comes down to New Zealand's comparatively fair electoral system doesn't provide Labour much incentive to accept it.
I find this unconvincing, but for the reason that I think it does not bolster Labour's own support within its potential voter pool. They (and the Greens, but independently too) need to be able to present themselves as a government in waiting in order to pull together the unenthusiastic masses and convince them that going down to the local school and ticking the red box is a valuable use of their time.
-
I hope that wasn't viewed as me throwing toys from the cot.
I've come to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing to be gained from debating a climate change contrarian/denier. If the evidence of 9135 of 9136 publishing scientists will not convince them, nothing will. The reasons for contrarianism/denial are many, but they all originate from the fact that climate change demands we change. This illustrates the point with humour: https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/446105317332381697/photo/1
I visit this site most days:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
The numbers give a concrete reality to climate change, showing where we are in reducing our emissions and turning the corner. We've passed 400ppm again for the second time in human history (the first was last year), and show every sign of increasing in speed. -
Hard News: The Language of Climate, in reply to Farmer Green,
That might not be precise enough.
There you go, a very simple question and Mr Green refuses to answer it.
I have no time for deniers. None at all. I'll be back when he's away.
-
I'm actually much more sympathetic to the response than others. Not in the sense that what we see is reasonable - it clearly is not a response based in fact. But like alcohol and gambling, responsibilities that elsewhere in the world are given to government agencies have been pushed onto our local councils. In New Zealand there are 67 territorial authorities, plus local boards, many representing just several thousand people, and whose councillors only qualification is a plurality of voting adults. Each is charged with making decisions about the presence of unknown and mysterious chemicals. Unlike liquor or pokies, these are not familiar items.
The shifting of decision-making to people who have not been resourced or given sufficient advice is one sense democratic, but it leads to a scattershot collection of local policies based on instinct rather than knowledge. An equilibrium will eventually be reached, but it seems that it will be forged through heat and noise rather than gentle accommodations.
-
Hard News: The Language of Climate, in reply to Kumara Republic,
There’s a fallacy here in Debating 101, but I can’t quite pin it
You participate in a system not of your choosing, therefore you are disqualified from attempting to change that system. I'm sure we could neologise some of a dead language to fit the concept.
The other form of the argument is: You refuse to participate in the system, therefore you are disqualified from attempting to change that system.