Te Tai Tokerau. Kelvin is currently a list MP. If you are enrolled there you can vote Hone for the electorate and labour party and get two reps :)
Gah. That’s all I’m going to say. There’s just too much to rant about.
Make a submission to the select committee here: AcademicVoice
(Only takes a couple of minutes ... and if you can stomach it, tick the option to be heard. You can change your mind on that, but the more voices in front of the select committee the better.)
Such changes in the past appears to have occurred over a very long time frame – time for adaption to occur.
Not sure this is right either :)
There was a good NYer article by Elizabeth Kolbert, about 5 years ago, about
greenland ice-core drilling, and what it could reveal about climate change going in and out of the last ice age.
And there seemed to be good evidence of wild swings (up to an alarming 8 degrees year to year) in average temperature as glaciation retreats and advances.
Her conclusion: an uncontrolled experiment in changing global climate is a massive crapshoot with no idea the odds.
I’m with Luke and Gordon Campbell et al here. Labour needed this more than the Greens. Because the perception is they are timid and divided and unclear what they stand for. Whereas the Greens (even if their actual policy is ‘incompetently written and uncosted’ – can’t comment on that) come across clearly. You feel you know what they’re for and against.
In that sense, Labour could realistically fear being out-shone by a far smaller but better focussed partner.
An informal arrangement is best, for sure. But it should be tight, with no surprises. The fact this is public and a story is another stumble. And that narrative – of gaffes, fumbles and own goals – has plenty of legs.
A determined and ferociously well-managed change of story could kill it. This could have been the story that did. In the meantime, the zombie stumbles on.
It’ll be nice to bring some data to the party.
Is that even legal? :)
We may need to re-think some parts the city.
In today’s Horizon Poll, two thirds of New Zealanders expect National to lead a potential coalition government post-election. A plurality of New Zealanders want Labour to lead a coalition government post-election.
Fascinating, very understandable (most people I talk to are dubious about Labour/Greens getting over the line), and infuriating all at once :)
From a left perspective, vital the narrative changes from 'National leading' to 'election on a knife-edge'. Since that's a more realistic reading of what we know of the polls, it shouldn't be hard. (Some in National will be wanting the same story, to energise and focus their own vote.)
But there's some powerful voodoo against it.
Definitely not a done deal. Long way to go and bound to be the odd unexpected wobble along the way.
At the risk of cross-threading, a side-note in the polls is how education looks to be at the top of the list this election.
Parata's oblivious blithering isn't doing the Nats any favours.
But NZ needs articulate passionate voices (like Jollissa :)) to explain how National's innocuous-sounding managerial approach - all efficiencies, and 'outcomes' and 'world-class' - is dangerously wrong-headed, at best.
I'm curious if anyone else sees a consistent media fascination with ACT and equally consistent tendency to ignore Mana. They seem to have similar levels of support - Mana have a safer seat than ACT, since ACT's is courtesy of another party, and it seems possible that Mana could pick up another seat (Waiariki). Both are tied to one side of the aisle - no coalition options.
Is it because ACT has a past life as a more significant party; because it's wealthy, and the party of the wealthy; because it's so nutty and liable to implode in various ways that make good stories?