My concern that the Campaign is compromised by Lusk's involvement is part of the reason I have urged you to consider standing for Mayor
Because whilst you may have destroyed any remnants of a career in central government, NZers have shown many times that they are prepared to elect just about any nut in the bag as a mayor.
Well, there is a well established theoretical model of nuclear physics that accounts for everything from the banana* to the H-bomb.
Cold fusion is hard to reconcile with this model. If it does happen, what is needed is clearly documented, repeatable research that can then inform an improved theory. No such research has ever been produced.
What Rossi is doing is to make claims about a deliberately obfuscated "experiment" about which he is not providing adequate information to analyse and reproduce his "results".
I'd conclude that he's either self-deluding or a fraudster.
* Bananas are high in potassium, including K40, which decays by beta emission. This is why you should not take them on fishing trips.
There are 40 or so murders a year. A substantial proportion of those will be caused by those with inadequately treated mental illnesses or personality disorders that turn lethal. If the murderer's inner voices involve radical Islam, do we regard this as terrorism and find some other radical Muslims thousands of miles away to bomb? Or do we take the sensible approach and look at imporoving healthcare and support services?
a knob to lower the headlight angle
Most station wagons have those, unless they are Citroens with self-levelling suspension.
Also, maybe the problem is that the Labour party and its ideals are intrinsically out of step with a populace that has been convinced of the merit of the right's narrative.
You could argue this will always be the case, and for both parties:
- if you give everyone a left-right percentile factor where 1 is the 1% furthest to the left and 100 is the 1% furthest to the right, then Labour supporters would tend to the range 5-50, with a mean around 27.
(and similarly National supporters will be 50-95)
- hence most voters will be well to the right of the Labour consensus and well to the left of the National consensus
How about have the membership rank the list like the Greens, with the alternation male/female thing? Then, make a rule that a candidate can't contest a safe/winnable electorate if their list rank doesn't justify it, so candidates and MPs have to reflect the membership.
Also, it would mean that candidates work their way up through low list rankings and un-winnable seats as they gain experience and profile.
The economy is going ok and compared to many countries around the world we are doing very well
In 2000, you could afford to live in Grey Lynn on an average professional's wage and a saved (as opposed to inherited) deposit.
By 2005, it would have been Kingsland, maybe.
Now it's the arse end of Avondale if you're lucky.
But it's happened slowly enough that people don't care, and they think it's actually a good thing that their mouldy shack in a semi-ghetto an hour's drive from the city is worth half a mil.
How much of this dislike for Cunliffe is real and how much is generated by the media, who will simply transfer the perceived disdain across to the next leader?
(The only way they might ease back is when they perceive that a leader is basically a National man with a red badge, and thus good insurance if the people tire of National for a couple of terms. That's how Tony Blair got elected in the UK and look what happened - three Tory parties with no opportunity to elect anything else).
Also, Ilam. How many of the "voted Labour all their life" people are actually Labour, as opposed to Nat supporters who are bloody happy they got their cracks filled and house repainted ahead of homeless people down east.
I'm pretty sure it hasn't. If they did that, it would taste like powdered milk mixed with water, not to mention having been through a lot of expensive and unnecessary processing. As Farmer Green says, there are farms that supply town milk through the winter.
But I'd recommend Zany Zeus, which is use by most cafes around here.
People talk, mistakenly I think, about evidence-based policy, when really we should discuss evidence-informed policy.
Typically, research doesn't produce a black and white answer, it produces something like a consensus that if we do X, then there is a Y% probability of Z happening.
For instance, research could tell us: "if we continue to use current farming methods, it's likely that many rivers will have various measurable measures of poor water quality, and there'll be a chance that if you swim in one, you'll get a waterborne illness"
It's then down to (voter) attitudes whether this is acceptable. You might believe that we should work towards all rivers being swimmable with negligible risk of infection.
Alternatively, and this seems to be the majority view, you might believe that it doesn't matter if the rivers are so polluted they catch fire, because when we want to swim, we'll use our pool, or fly to Hawaii.
The alternative is that you close your ears to the science and pretend that sure, the cows can poop in the creeks, the water will stay clean and we won't catch anything.