Democalypse 2017 - The Election Thread

Marquee
7.2K
·
9.4K
·
over 13 years

sthn.jeff wrote:

2ndBest wrote:

If 95+ percent of engineers told you a bridge would collapse if you drove over it, would you drive over it?

If 95+ percent of doctors told you had cancer and should have treatment, would you?

the 97% of scientists argument. How many times has that been debunked

Even if it's not 97% or whatever is claimed it is clear that the vast majority do and those that do not have to constantly revise their models because they are wrong or always choose datasets that start from a heat wave in the late 90s rather than a base temperature.

Marquee
2.1K
·
6.4K
·
over 14 years

Ryan wrote:

And even if you do decide that you knew more than experts who have devoted their lives to this research don't the risks of you being wrong outweigh the costs?

In fact if everyone else is wrong and you are right then the main side effect to fighting climate change will be cleaner air and water and a reduced reluctance on finite resources.

i have not said it does not exist. What my contention is relayes to the predictions that are being made based on models that have proved to be inacurate.

Climate change has also been hijacked by those with other agendas beyond climate change and has become a means of welth redistribution

Marquee
7.2K
·
9.4K
·
over 13 years

sthn.jeff wrote:

Ryan wrote:

And even if you do decide that you knew more than experts who have devoted their lives to this research don't the risks of you being wrong outweigh the costs?

In fact if everyone else is wrong and you are right then the main side effect to fighting climate change will be cleaner air and water and a reduced reluctance on finite resources.

i have not said it does not exist. What my contention is relayes to the predictions that are being made based on models that have proved to be inacurate.

Climate change has also been hijacked by those with other agendas beyond climate change and has become a means of welth redistribution

While I don't think that's true at all wealth redistribution is something that needs to happen, especially in a post work society. The top 1% have more money than the bottom 50% which is just insane. We have a surplus of food and resources for the first time ever yet people are still starving, it's barbaric.

Marquee
2.1K
·
8.2K
·
about 17 years

For those supporting the UBI this is very interesting

https://thespinoff.co.nz/featured/31-03-2016/i-lov...

Marquee
1.3K
·
5.3K
·
over 16 years
sthn.jeff wrote:
Ryan wrote:

And even if you do decide that you knew more than experts who have devoted their lives to this research don't the risks of you being wrong outweigh the costs?

In fact if everyone else is wrong and you are right then the main side effect to fighting climate change will be cleaner air and water and a reduced reluctance on finite resources.

i have not said it does not exist. What my contention is relayes to the predictions that are being made based on models that have proved to be inacurate.

Climate change has also been hijacked by those with other agendas beyond climate change and has become a means of welth redistribution

Observations have been pretty close to models: https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-in...

Marquee
2.1K
·
8.2K
·
about 17 years

Ryan wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

Ryan wrote:

And even if you do decide that you knew more than experts who have devoted their lives to this research don't the risks of you being wrong outweigh the costs?

In fact if everyone else is wrong and you are right then the main side effect to fighting climate change will be cleaner air and water and a reduced reluctance on finite resources.

i have not said it does not exist. What my contention is relayes to the predictions that are being made based on models that have proved to be inacurate.

Climate change has also been hijacked by those with other agendas beyond climate change and has become a means of welth redistribution

While I don't think that's true at all wealth redistribution is something that needs to happen, especially in a post work society. The top 1% have more money than the bottom 50% which is just insane. We have a surplus of food and resources for the first time ever yet people are still starving, it's barbaric.

The idea of a "post-work" society was predicted a long time ago and so far has proven to be completely false as a hypothesis.  Can anyone with any certainty predict what the state of the world and the global economy will be in 20 years given the rapid pace of change we are experiencing?  I just do not trust any predictions that far ahead

Woof Woof
2.7K
·
19K
·
almost 17 years

foal30 wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

Ryan wrote:

But, this election is going to be horrible - the leader of the dominant party has personal views which fly in the face of everything that our society represents, our second party is rudderless and doesn't even know what it represents, and the only party which has forward thinking and progressive policies that will bring us forwards in huge leaps suffers from a branding problem.

It's going to be 1996 all over again. People are pissed off with National, but Labour is just pathetic. So a bunch of usual Labour voters will vote Green (as they did for Alliance in 1996), but not in significant enough numbers for a new Government. And a bunch of usual Labour and National voters will vote NZ First. So a Labour/Greens alliance won't have the numbers, and National will depend on NZ First and Winnie to form a government. And Winnie will milk it for all its worth so he can maximise his face time on the 6pm news, and it'll take two months to actually form a government.

August to November is going to be a horrendous little period.

Highly likely Petes First gets the calling shot on who forms the government. 

Not likely he takes 8 weeks to make that call or that it is in anyway certain he'll go with National. 

He'll take all the time he needs to get himself the best leverage he can. He thrives on that, and is also a massive media wh0re, so he'll lap it up. Will it take 8 weeks? Maybe not. Could it? Oh yes.

And he will end up with National, which is why it'll be so farcical. He won't be able to go alone with Labour, and there's no way Greens and NZ First will be in the same government unless hell freezes over.

Marquee
1.3K
·
5.3K
·
over 16 years

james dean wrote:

Ryan wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

Ryan wrote:

And even if you do decide that you knew more than experts who have devoted their lives to this research don't the risks of you being wrong outweigh the costs?

In fact if everyone else is wrong and you are right then the main side effect to fighting climate change will be cleaner air and water and a reduced reluctance on finite resources.

i have not said it does not exist. What my contention is relayes to the predictions that are being made based on models that have proved to be inacurate.

Climate change has also been hijacked by those with other agendas beyond climate change and has become a means of welth redistribution

While I don't think that's true at all wealth redistribution is something that needs to happen, especially in a post work society. The top 1% have more money than the bottom 50% which is just insane. We have a surplus of food and resources for the first time ever yet people are still starving, it's barbaric.

The idea of a "post-work" society was predicted a long time ago and so far has proven to be completely false as a hypothesis.  Can anyone with any certainty predict what the state of the world and the global economy will be in 20 years given the rapid pace of change we are experiencing?  I just do not trust any predictions that far ahead

You don't need predictions to see technology impacting jobs in certain industries. You look at manufacturing in the US, manufacturing output has been growing but the amount of people employed has been decreasing - due to automation. We are only at the very infancy of AI and automation. You are correct that the rapid pace of change does make it tough to make hard predictions though the pace of change also makes it very tough for people to adapt to that change.
Stage Punch
2.1K
·
11K
·
over 16 years

james dean wrote:

For those supporting the UBI this is very interesting

https://thespinoff.co.nz/featured/31-03-2016/i-lov...

 

This is awesome. Cheers Normo!

Marquee
2.1K
·
6.4K
·
over 14 years

el grapadura wrote:

foal30 wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

Ryan wrote:

But, this election is going to be horrible - the leader of the dominant party has personal views which fly in the face of everything that our society represents, our second party is rudderless and doesn't even know what it represents, and the only party which has forward thinking and progressive policies that will bring us forwards in huge leaps suffers from a branding problem.

It's going to be 1996 all over again. People are pissed off with National, but Labour is just pathetic. So a bunch of usual Labour voters will vote Green (as they did for Alliance in 1996), but not in significant enough numbers for a new Government. And a bunch of usual Labour and National voters will vote NZ First. So a Labour/Greens alliance won't have the numbers, and National will depend on NZ First and Winnie to form a government. And Winnie will milk it for all its worth so he can maximise his face time on the 6pm news, and it'll take two months to actually form a government.

August to November is going to be a horrendous little period.

Highly likely Petes First gets the calling shot on who forms the government. 

Not likely he takes 8 weeks to make that call or that it is in anyway certain he'll go with National. 

He'll take all the time he needs to get himself the best leverage he can. He thrives on that, and is also a massive media wh0re, so he'll lap it up. Will it take 8 weeks? Maybe not. Could it? Oh yes.

And he will end up with National, which is why it'll be so farcical. He won't be able to go alone with Labour, and there's no way Greens and NZ First will be in the same government unless hell freezes over.

Nail on head.

The interesting thing with the Green Party is that the most tangible rhing they gave achieved in their history was when they actually had an arrangement with tbe Nats and had the Insulation scheme progressed

Marquee
2.1K
·
6.4K
·
over 14 years

Bullion wrote:

james dean wrote:

Ryan wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

Ryan wrote:

And even if you do decide that you knew more than experts who have devoted their lives to this research don't the risks of you being wrong outweigh the costs?

In fact if everyone else is wrong and you are right then the main side effect to fighting climate change will be cleaner air and water and a reduced reluctance on finite resources.

i have not said it does not exist. What my contention is relayes to the predictions that are being made based on models that have proved to be inacurate.

Climate change has also been hijacked by those with other agendas beyond climate change and has become a means of welth redistribution

While I don't think that's true at all wealth redistribution is something that needs to happen, especially in a post work society. The top 1% have more money than the bottom 50% which is just insane. We have a surplus of food and resources for the first time ever yet people are still starving, it's barbaric.

The idea of a "post-work" society was predicted a long time ago and so far has proven to be completely false as a hypothesis.  Can anyone with any certainty predict what the state of the world and the global economy will be in 20 years given the rapid pace of change we are experiencing?  I just do not trust any predictions that far ahead

You don't need predictions to see technology impacting jobs in certain industries. You look at manufacturing in the US, manufacturing output has been growing but the amount of people employed has been decreasing - due to automation. We are only at the very infancy of AI and automation. You are correct that the rapid pace of change does make it tough to make hard predictions though the pace of change also makes it very tough for people to adapt to that change.

jobs come and go. New jobs replace old jobs and have done for ever.
Marquee
2.1K
·
6.4K
·
over 14 years

Bullion wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

Ryan wrote:

And even if you do decide that you knew more than experts who have devoted their lives to this research don't the risks of you being wrong outweigh the costs?

In fact if everyone else is wrong and you are right then the main side effect to fighting climate change will be cleaner air and water and a reduced reluctance on finite resources.

i have not said it does not exist. What my contention is relayes to the predictions that are being made based on models that have proved to be inacurate.

Climate change has also been hijacked by those with other agendas beyond climate change and has become a means of welth redistribution

Observations have been pretty close to models: https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-in...

then the scientific community need to tell people like Al Gore to STFU
Stage Punch
2.1K
·
11K
·
over 16 years

An interesting insight into the party likely to hold the balance of power come the end of Sept (and poss Oct and Nov too!!):

I joined NZ First and went to their conference to find out what they’re really up to: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/18-07-2017/what-...

Woof Woof
2.7K
·
19K
·
almost 17 years

sthn.jeff wrote:

Bullion wrote:

james dean wrote:

Ryan wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

Ryan wrote:

And even if you do decide that you knew more than experts who have devoted their lives to this research don't the risks of you being wrong outweigh the costs?

In fact if everyone else is wrong and you are right then the main side effect to fighting climate change will be cleaner air and water and a reduced reluctance on finite resources.

i have not said it does not exist. What my contention is relayes to the predictions that are being made based on models that have proved to be inacurate.

Climate change has also been hijacked by those with other agendas beyond climate change and has become a means of welth redistribution

While I don't think that's true at all wealth redistribution is something that needs to happen, especially in a post work society. The top 1% have more money than the bottom 50% which is just insane. We have a surplus of food and resources for the first time ever yet people are still starving, it's barbaric.

The idea of a "post-work" society was predicted a long time ago and so far has proven to be completely false as a hypothesis.  Can anyone with any certainty predict what the state of the world and the global economy will be in 20 years given the rapid pace of change we are experiencing?  I just do not trust any predictions that far ahead

You don't need predictions to see technology impacting jobs in certain industries. You look at manufacturing in the US, manufacturing output has been growing but the amount of people employed has been decreasing - due to automation. We are only at the very infancy of AI and automation. You are correct that the rapid pace of change does make it tough to make hard predictions though the pace of change also makes it very tough for people to adapt to that change.

jobs come and go. New jobs replace old jobs and have done for ever.

While this has been the case to date, the current 'workforce revolution' is different since we're entering the age of AI that was previously the realm of science-fiction only. I don't think that we're in a position yet to fully understand the potential impacts of all this, and any predictions right now are little more than (semi)educated guesses. But doing some sort of modelling and planning for this sooner rather than later is probably a decent idea.

Marquee
7.2K
·
9.4K
·
over 13 years

sthn.jeff wrote:

Bullion wrote:

james dean wrote:

Ryan wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

Ryan wrote:

And even if you do decide that you knew more than experts who have devoted their lives to this research don't the risks of you being wrong outweigh the costs?

In fact if everyone else is wrong and you are right then the main side effect to fighting climate change will be cleaner air and water and a reduced reluctance on finite resources.

i have not said it does not exist. What my contention is relayes to the predictions that are being made based on models that have proved to be inacurate.

Climate change has also been hijacked by those with other agendas beyond climate change and has become a means of welth redistribution

While I don't think that's true at all wealth redistribution is something that needs to happen, especially in a post work society. The top 1% have more money than the bottom 50% which is just insane. We have a surplus of food and resources for the first time ever yet people are still starving, it's barbaric.

The idea of a "post-work" society was predicted a long time ago and so far has proven to be completely false as a hypothesis.  Can anyone with any certainty predict what the state of the world and the global economy will be in 20 years given the rapid pace of change we are experiencing?  I just do not trust any predictions that far ahead

You don't need predictions to see technology impacting jobs in certain industries. You look at manufacturing in the US, manufacturing output has been growing but the amount of people employed has been decreasing - due to automation. We are only at the very infancy of AI and automation. You are correct that the rapid pace of change does make it tough to make hard predictions though the pace of change also makes it very tough for people to adapt to that change.

jobs come and go. New jobs replace old jobs and have done for ever.

Tell that to the people in the rust belt.

The next wave of automation is going to be in the transportation sector, in the US they're predicting 3.1 million job losses from self driving vehicles. What are truck drivers going to do? 

I'm a software engineer pretty soon my job will be gone as well, at some point we'll be providing a specification of an application to a service which will build what we want based on our criteria, one person writing a spec in a few weeks will replace a dozen engineers working away for a year or two.

New jobs won't replace old jobs. Wealth has historically been created by digging holes in the ground, expanding land, and expanding population. We're at the point where populations are shrinking or are on the verge of shrinking in the west, land has been over developed, and it's much harder to extract resources. New Zealand is actually better placed than most as our population will grow until 2050 and we have a surplus of resources.

Stage Punch
2.1K
·
11K
·
over 16 years

A few questions I'm interested in opinions on...

Is voting New Zealand First the most likely way to force a change of government direction?

What I mean by that is, if you accept that the Labour-Green left is so shambolic and fractured and leaderless that it won't be able to get anywhere near the combined votes to get into power, is the only real chance to shift National from its current path on at least some issues to give enough votes to NZ First to give them some bargaining power?

Another one. Was her admission that she was a benefit cheat a genius stroke of PR or effective hari kari from Meteria Turei?

Will Gareth Morgan's TOP do anything this election except take votes away from Labour and the Greens?

Marquee
1.3K
·
5.3K
·
over 16 years

sthn.jeff wrote:

Bullion wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

Ryan wrote:

And even if you do decide that you knew more than experts who have devoted their lives to this research don't the risks of you being wrong outweigh the costs?

In fact if everyone else is wrong and you are right then the main side effect to fighting climate change will be cleaner air and water and a reduced reluctance on finite resources.

i have not said it does not exist. What my contention is relayes to the predictions that are being made based on models that have proved to be inacurate.

Climate change has also been hijacked by those with other agendas beyond climate change and has become a means of welth redistribution

Observations have been pretty close to models: https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-in...

then the scientific community need to tell people like Al Gore to STFU

I don't think Al Gore, and the like, are as big a problem than anti-Govt idealogues and vested interest parties in keeping the energy sector as is.
Marquee
2.1K
·
6.4K
·
over 14 years

el grapadura wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

Bullion wrote:

james dean wrote:

Ryan wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

Ryan wrote:

And even if you do decide that you knew more than experts who have devoted their lives to this research don't the risks of you being wrong outweigh the costs?

In fact if everyone else is wrong and you are right then the main side effect to fighting climate change will be cleaner air and water and a reduced reluctance on finite resources.

i have not said it does not exist. What my contention is relayes to the predictions that are being made based on models that have proved to be inacurate.

Climate change has also been hijacked by those with other agendas beyond climate change and has become a means of welth redistribution

While I don't think that's true at all wealth redistribution is something that needs to happen, especially in a post work society. The top 1% have more money than the bottom 50% which is just insane. We have a surplus of food and resources for the first time ever yet people are still starving, it's barbaric.

The idea of a "post-work" society was predicted a long time ago and so far has proven to be completely false as a hypothesis.  Can anyone with any certainty predict what the state of the world and the global economy will be in 20 years given the rapid pace of change we are experiencing?  I just do not trust any predictions that far ahead

You don't need predictions to see technology impacting jobs in certain industries. You look at manufacturing in the US, manufacturing output has been growing but the amount of people employed has been decreasing - due to automation. We are only at the very infancy of AI and automation. You are correct that the rapid pace of change does make it tough to make hard predictions though the pace of change also makes it very tough for people to adapt to that change.

jobs come and go. New jobs replace old jobs and have done for ever.

While this has been the case to date, the current 'workforce revolution' is different since we're entering the age of AI that was previously the realm of science-fiction only. I don't think that we're in a position yet to fully understand the potential impacts of all this, and any predictions right now are little more than (semi)educated guesses. But doing some sort of modelling and planning for this sooner rather than later is probably a decent idea.

agreed if you can have some sense in that modelling.

Those of us who have seen more than a few summers will remember days of work before PC's.

By now , all mundane tasks were to be automated. We would be living a life of leisure working two days a week.

Call me cynical, but experience has taught me that with most predictions of unknown variables if you divide by about half yiu end up being closer to reality than what the preditions suggest

Marquee
1.7K
·
7.5K
·
almost 17 years

Smithy wrote:

A few questions I'm interested in opinions on...

Is voting New Zealand First the most likely way to force a change of government direction?

What I mean by that is, if you accept that the Labour-Green left is so shambolic and fractured and leaderless that it won't be able to get anywhere near the combined votes to get into power, is the only real chance to shift National from its current path on at least some issues to give enough votes to NZ First to give them some bargaining power?

Another one. Was her admission that she was a benefit cheat a genius stroke of PR or effective hari kari from Meteria Turei?

Will Gareth Morgan's TOP do anything this election except take votes away from Labour and the Greens?

Don't know the answers to many of your questions, but I think the answer to you last one is a firm no.  He is this years Mana/Internet spoiler, except further to the center, and will potentially take more of the votes.

Woof Woof
2.7K
·
19K
·
almost 17 years

sthn.jeff wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

Bullion wrote:

james dean wrote:

Ryan wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

Ryan wrote:

And even if you do decide that you knew more than experts who have devoted their lives to this research don't the risks of you being wrong outweigh the costs?

In fact if everyone else is wrong and you are right then the main side effect to fighting climate change will be cleaner air and water and a reduced reluctance on finite resources.

i have not said it does not exist. What my contention is relayes to the predictions that are being made based on models that have proved to be inacurate.

Climate change has also been hijacked by those with other agendas beyond climate change and has become a means of welth redistribution

While I don't think that's true at all wealth redistribution is something that needs to happen, especially in a post work society. The top 1% have more money than the bottom 50% which is just insane. We have a surplus of food and resources for the first time ever yet people are still starving, it's barbaric.

The idea of a "post-work" society was predicted a long time ago and so far has proven to be completely false as a hypothesis.  Can anyone with any certainty predict what the state of the world and the global economy will be in 20 years given the rapid pace of change we are experiencing?  I just do not trust any predictions that far ahead

You don't need predictions to see technology impacting jobs in certain industries. You look at manufacturing in the US, manufacturing output has been growing but the amount of people employed has been decreasing - due to automation. We are only at the very infancy of AI and automation. You are correct that the rapid pace of change does make it tough to make hard predictions though the pace of change also makes it very tough for people to adapt to that change.

jobs come and go. New jobs replace old jobs and have done for ever.

While this has been the case to date, the current 'workforce revolution' is different since we're entering the age of AI that was previously the realm of science-fiction only. I don't think that we're in a position yet to fully understand the potential impacts of all this, and any predictions right now are little more than (semi)educated guesses. But doing some sort of modelling and planning for this sooner rather than later is probably a decent idea.

agreed if you can have some sense in that modelling.

Those of us who have seen more than a few summers will remember days of work before PC's.

By now , all mundane tasks were to be automated. We would be living a life of leisure working two days a week.

Call me cynical, but experience has taught me that with most predictions of unknown variables if you divide by about half yiu end up being closer to reality than what the preditions suggest

I understand your scepticism. I, too, am sceptical of the likes of Nigel Latta who are boldly predicting all sort of things to happen in the next 20 years.

Like I said, I think a very significant change is coming, but even the pace and spread of that change is difficult to predict right now, let alone the impacts.

One thing that intrigues me (and I probably won't be around to see if anything comes of it), is that - you would think - the first impact of this is going to be in the West/developed world. And if the governments in the West don't have ready made solutions, will we see migrations of low-skilled workforce from the Western nations into what we now think of as the developing world? Reckon you could make a decent dystopian movie/TV show out of that. Buuuuut that's getting off-topic somewhat.

Marquee
2.1K
·
6.4K
·
over 14 years

el grapadura wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

Bullion wrote:

james dean wrote:

Ryan wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

Ryan wrote:

And even if you do decide that you knew more than experts who have devoted their lives to this research don't the risks of you being wrong outweigh the costs?

In fact if everyone else is wrong and you are right then the main side effect to fighting climate change will be cleaner air and water and a reduced reluctance on finite resources.

i have not said it does not exist. What my contention is relayes to the predictions that are being made based on models that have proved to be inacurate.

Climate change has also been hijacked by those with other agendas beyond climate change and has become a means of welth redistribution

While I don't think that's true at all wealth redistribution is something that needs to happen, especially in a post work society. The top 1% have more money than the bottom 50% which is just insane. We have a surplus of food and resources for the first time ever yet people are still starving, it's barbaric.

The idea of a "post-work" society was predicted a long time ago and so far has proven to be completely false as a hypothesis.  Can anyone with any certainty predict what the state of the world and the global economy will be in 20 years given the rapid pace of change we are experiencing?  I just do not trust any predictions that far ahead

You don't need predictions to see technology impacting jobs in certain industries. You look at manufacturing in the US, manufacturing output has been growing but the amount of people employed has been decreasing - due to automation. We are only at the very infancy of AI and automation. You are correct that the rapid pace of change does make it tough to make hard predictions though the pace of change also makes it very tough for people to adapt to that change.

jobs come and go. New jobs replace old jobs and have done for ever.

While this has been the case to date, the current 'workforce revolution' is different since we're entering the age of AI that was previously the realm of science-fiction only. I don't think that we're in a position yet to fully understand the potential impacts of all this, and any predictions right now are little more than (semi)educated guesses. But doing some sort of modelling and planning for this sooner rather than later is probably a decent idea.

agreed if you can have some sense in that modelling.

Those of us who have seen more than a few summers will remember days of work before PC's.

By now , all mundane tasks were to be automated. We would be living a life of leisure working two days a week.

Call me cynical, but experience has taught me that with most predictions of unknown variables if you divide by about half yiu end up being closer to reality than what the preditions suggest

I understand your scepticism. I, too, am sceptical of the likes of Nigel Latta who are boldly predicting all sort of things to happen in the next 20 years.

Like I said, I think a very significant change is coming, but even the pace and spread of that change is difficult to predict right now, let alone the impacts.

One thing that intrigues me (and I probably won't be around to see if anything comes of it), is that - you would think - the first impact of this is going to be in the West/developed world. And if the governments in the West don't have ready made solutions, will we see migrations of low-skilled workforce from the Western nations into what we now think of as the developing world? Reckon you could make a decent dystopian movie/TV show out of that. Buuuuut that's getting off-topic somewhat.

that eill be the site to behold.

Migrants marching across Europe, onto boats and ealking to Somalia

Marquee
2.1K
·
6.4K
·
over 14 years

aitkenmike wrote:

Smithy wrote:

A few questions I'm interested in opinions on...

Is voting New Zealand First the most likely way to force a change of government direction?

What I mean by that is, if you accept that the Labour-Green left is so shambolic and fractured and leaderless that it won't be able to get anywhere near the combined votes to get into power, is the only real chance to shift National from its current path on at least some issues to give enough votes to NZ First to give them some bargaining power?

Another one. Was her admission that she was a benefit cheat a genius stroke of PR or effective hari kari from Meteria Turei?

Will Gareth Morgan's TOP do anything this election except take votes away from Labour and the Greens?

Don't know the answers to many of your questions, but I think the answer to you last one is a firm no.  He is this years Mana/Internet spoiler, except further to the center, and will potentially take more of the votes.

- do the majority of NZers want a change ? Spcial media not necessarily a good representation of the electorate but I think Lab /Greens and Top will scrap for 35 -40 % of the vote.

Winston will keep his usual 10 % plus a portion of the "protest vote" that may take hime to 15 or 17 % and firmly in the drivers seat.  I honestly can't see him going with Greens / Labour unless they offer the ultimate bauble of the PM's office

Gareth will gain maybe 2 % , will get bored and the party will disappear.

Meterias admission is interesting. Green supporters have predictably rallied around her but her admission alone will not gain votes. The bribe of 20% increases on the other hand may well do but will only take votes from Labour

Legend
2.1K
·
16K
·
about 17 years

Turei was trying to kick beneficiaries into voting. Would have pissed off as many potential Green  voters.

Marquee
1.3K
·
7.4K
·
over 15 years

Feverish wrote:

Turei was trying to kick beneficiaries into voting. Would have pissed off as many potential Green  voters.

National has done much the same by further entrenching Welfarism via the Accomodation Supplement and Working for Familes. 

Landlords and Employers may be a different class of Hand Out receivers but they are recipitants of the State's largesse nonetheless. National simply gambles that there is enough blue voters prepared to let this go or be sufficiently economically illiterate to grasp how their side pays off and bribes it's (likely) voting bloc. 

LG
Legend
5.7K
·
23K
·
almost 17 years

What a great thread. I think most users on here will welcome the chance to talk politics.

First up, I will be voting NZ First. Winston frustrates the crap out of me but I do like Ron Mark. Shane Jones will represent anyone whom will get him into Parliament, something I am not happy about. I won't be trying to convince anyone of doing the same. I value that in the past some people gave their lives up to preserve my right to vote. Thank you to them. 

Every election since I was 18, I made it my duty to vote and over the years I have voted, National, Labour and NZ First. At the various times each of the parties offered some policy/policies that appealed to me at the time. Time has also taught me that most politicians are liars and are just out for themselves (Take note The Minister for Self Preservation, Minister for Fence Sitting and the Minister of Flip Flop. You know who you are with those weird bow ties).

Anyway, I think the Greens just lost a lot more votes than they gained. What a ridiculous idea of restoring full benefits and removing the drug testing. Sadly, this pitched aimed firmly at gaining the Benefit vote or Low income vote was not thought out. The one thing I agreed with National on, was the drug testing for beneficiaries. Instead of wasting their benefits on drugs, they could be using it in a more productive way. Obviously this applies to that small minority that seem to show up at every protest march etc. NOT the real people whom have lost their job or become single with kids and are struggling to make ends meet. For them, I feel for. I know what it is like to be a single income with a couple of kids. 

United Future will no doubt again fence sit and run with what is promising to be popular. Act will become extinct. National will get in, Labour will lose more ground and the Maori party will stay as they are. And Gareth? Well he's offering $200 at the moment. I could suggest that it was a vote buying exercise but I maybe better informed by others on here.

Sadly, I look at 120 politicians of  which I probably could not name 80, due to their lack of time in the spotlight. I think we should have gone to STV (NOT MMP) and cut the number of electorates down to 60 for the whole country. I'd like to see tightening up on a lot of MP perkies too. I maybe wrong but I have always felt New Zealanders just want to see a fair shake of the dice and people working for their country rather than feathering their own nests. I also would like to lose the party lists.

Marquee
1.3K
·
5.3K
·
over 16 years

el grapadura wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

Bullion wrote:

james dean wrote:

Ryan wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

Ryan wrote:

And even if you do decide that you knew more than experts who have devoted their lives to this research don't the risks of you being wrong outweigh the costs?

In fact if everyone else is wrong and you are right then the main side effect to fighting climate change will be cleaner air and water and a reduced reluctance on finite resources.

i have not said it does not exist. What my contention is relayes to the predictions that are being made based on models that have proved to be inacurate.

Climate change has also been hijacked by those with other agendas beyond climate change and has become a means of welth redistribution

While I don't think that's true at all wealth redistribution is something that needs to happen, especially in a post work society. The top 1% have more money than the bottom 50% which is just insane. We have a surplus of food and resources for the first time ever yet people are still starving, it's barbaric.

The idea of a "post-work" society was predicted a long time ago and so far has proven to be completely false as a hypothesis.  Can anyone with any certainty predict what the state of the world and the global economy will be in 20 years given the rapid pace of change we are experiencing?  I just do not trust any predictions that far ahead

You don't need predictions to see technology impacting jobs in certain industries. You look at manufacturing in the US, manufacturing output has been growing but the amount of people employed has been decreasing - due to automation. We are only at the very infancy of AI and automation. You are correct that the rapid pace of change does make it tough to make hard predictions though the pace of change also makes it very tough for people to adapt to that change.

jobs come and go. New jobs replace old jobs and have done for ever.

While this has been the case to date, the current 'workforce revolution' is different since we're entering the age of AI that was previously the realm of science-fiction only. I don't think that we're in a position yet to fully understand the potential impacts of all this, and any predictions right now are little more than (semi)educated guesses. But doing some sort of modelling and planning for this sooner rather than later is probably a decent idea.

agreed if you can have some sense in that modelling.

Those of us who have seen more than a few summers will remember days of work before PC's.

By now , all mundane tasks were to be automated. We would be living a life of leisure working two days a week.

Call me cynical, but experience has taught me that with most predictions of unknown variables if you divide by about half yiu end up being closer to reality than what the preditions suggest

I understand your scepticism. I, too, am sceptical of the likes of Nigel Latta who are boldly predicting all sort of things to happen in the next 20 years.

Like I said, I think a very significant change is coming, but even the pace and spread of that change is difficult to predict right now, let alone the impacts.

One thing that intrigues me (and I probably won't be around to see if anything comes of it), is that - you would think - the first impact of this is going to be in the West/developed world. And if the governments in the West don't have ready made solutions, will we see migrations of low-skilled workforce from the Western nations into what we now think of as the developing world? Reckon you could make a decent dystopian movie/TV show out of that. Buuuuut that's getting off-topic somewhat.

I honestly think that developing nations are going to lose out more than developed nations. As more of the human cost of production is replaced in developed nations, developing nations are less likely to be cost competitive. Developed nations will have to work out a tax and welfare system that is able to support and/or re-train their population while developing nations won't have the wealth or wealth generating industry that will allow them to do the same. 
Marquee
7.2K
·
9.4K
·
over 13 years

Bullion wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

Bullion wrote:

james dean wrote:

Ryan wrote:

sthn.jeff wrote:

Ryan wrote:

And even if you do decide that you knew more than experts who have devoted their lives to this research don't the risks of you being wrong outweigh the costs?

In fact if everyone else is wrong and you are right then the main side effect to fighting climate change will be cleaner air and water and a reduced reluctance on finite resources.

i have not said it does not exist. What my contention is relayes to the predictions that are being made based on models that have proved to be inacurate.

Climate change has also been hijacked by those with other agendas beyond climate change and has become a means of welth redistribution

While I don't think that's true at all wealth redistribution is something that needs to happen, especially in a post work society. The top 1% have more money than the bottom 50% which is just insane. We have a surplus of food and resources for the first time ever yet people are still starving, it's barbaric.

The idea of a "post-work" society was predicted a long time ago and so far has proven to be completely false as a hypothesis.  Can anyone with any certainty predict what the state of the world and the global economy will be in 20 years given the rapid pace of change we are experiencing?  I just do not trust any predictions that far ahead

You don't need predictions to see technology impacting jobs in certain industries. You look at manufacturing in the US, manufacturing output has been growing but the amount of people employed has been decreasing - due to automation. We are only at the very infancy of AI and automation. You are correct that the rapid pace of change does make it tough to make hard predictions though the pace of change also makes it very tough for people to adapt to that change.

jobs come and go. New jobs replace old jobs and have done for ever.

While this has been the case to date, the current 'workforce revolution' is different since we're entering the age of AI that was previously the realm of science-fiction only. I don't think that we're in a position yet to fully understand the potential impacts of all this, and any predictions right now are little more than (semi)educated guesses. But doing some sort of modelling and planning for this sooner rather than later is probably a decent idea.

agreed if you can have some sense in that modelling.

Those of us who have seen more than a few summers will remember days of work before PC's.

By now , all mundane tasks were to be automated. We would be living a life of leisure working two days a week.

Call me cynical, but experience has taught me that with most predictions of unknown variables if you divide by about half yiu end up being closer to reality than what the preditions suggest

I understand your scepticism. I, too, am sceptical of the likes of Nigel Latta who are boldly predicting all sort of things to happen in the next 20 years.

Like I said, I think a very significant change is coming, but even the pace and spread of that change is difficult to predict right now, let alone the impacts.

One thing that intrigues me (and I probably won't be around to see if anything comes of it), is that - you would think - the first impact of this is going to be in the West/developed world. And if the governments in the West don't have ready made solutions, will we see migrations of low-skilled workforce from the Western nations into what we now think of as the developing world? Reckon you could make a decent dystopian movie/TV show out of that. Buuuuut that's getting off-topic somewhat.

I honestly think that developing nations are going to lose out more than developed nations. As more of the human cost of production is replaced in developed nations, developing nations are less likely to be cost competitive. Developed nations will have to work out a tax and welfare system that is able to support and/or re-train their population while developing nations won't have the wealth or wealth generating industry that will allow them to do the same. 

Yep, developing nations will become less competitive because manufacturing will move closer to the customer (as we're already seeing with a lot of manufacturing returning to the USA) so what jobs that do exist will return to the US, etc. Some developing countries won't be able to invest in the new infrastructure that's required to be competitive either.

Marquee
1.2K
·
5.5K
·
over 13 years

This thread has so much potential for LOLs and I've only seen one - when I mistakenly read that smithy had joined NZFirst. 

What no one here seems to realise is that one summer last century Winnie was fishing on the Coromandel and ran into the ravishing young hippie called Jeannette. It was suns out guns out for Winnie and he also had a couple of organic trout. Jeanette thought that looked pretty good and she asked him back to her home in the hills to cook up a dish. Well, a bit of homegrown wacky baccy came out of Jeanette's tunnel house and one thing led to another. 

Fast Fwd to 2017 and I'm predicting Winnie will team up with his illegitimate lovechild (they both studied law didn't they) to hold the balance of power. The young and the old will vote Nats and Labour out because they are both sharke and offer little hope for the country. NZ will be celebrated in chucking out the existing political order. Macron, Trudeau, Merkel and Obama will all pay state visits. 

Seriously, there's actually enough policy common ground between these two parties to work together (child poverty, anti neo Lib economics). Not since Rod and Jeanette have we seen true Greens pragmatists. Is it time to grasp the nettle again with a surprise move in which they'd hold more power in alliance with Peters; and the remnants of Labour? 

Marquee
1.3K
·
7.4K
·
over 15 years

is Labour's final surrender to Public Relations over Proper Policy meaning that Lab-Green- Peters First is more or less likely? 

One in a million
4.2K
·
9.5K
·
about 17 years

Jacinda Lets Do It

Marquee
1.3K
·
7.4K
·
over 15 years

Kennedy Graham remembers his Old School Tory Roots.

A pity actually, highly capable guy and a wonderful speaker. Actually has listening skills too which is a very rare thing in a politician.

I wonder if Gareth Morgan would offer him a role now?

LG
Legend
5.7K
·
23K
·
almost 17 years

Green Party imploding and airing their trash in public, not good 6 weeks out.

Marquee
7.2K
·
9.4K
·
over 13 years

It's a shame as the Green Party is usually the sane one, Turie has to resign. You can understand Beneficiary fraud because desperate situations, but electoral fraud you cannot.

Appiah without the pace
6.6K
·
19K
·
almost 17 years

Yet Key and English did the same thing far more recently. 

Marquee
1.1K
·
7.6K
·
almost 13 years

2ndBest wrote:

Yet Key and English did the same thing far more recently. 

If this is the housing allowance. I believe they were entitled to apply for it - It was approved. The rules changed. Govt Services did not review the recipients. Once error was found both paid the money back immediately.
Marquee
1.1K
·
7.6K
·
almost 13 years

Can't find  T.O.P policy on sport funding?

LG
Legend
5.7K
·
23K
·
almost 17 years

2ndBest wrote:

Yet Key and English did the same thing far more recently. 

That they all had their fingers in the trough does not make it  right.

tradition and history
1.5K
·
9.9K
·
almost 17 years

Ryan wrote:

It's a shame as the Green Party is usually the sane one, Turie has to resign. You can understand Beneficiary fraud because desperate situations, but electoral fraud you cannot.

' Green Party is usually the sane one '

Best laugh I've had for ages.

Marquee
7.2K
·
9.4K
·
over 13 years
Leggy wrote:
Ryan wrote:

It's a shame as the Green Party is usually the sane one, Turie has to resign. You can understand Beneficiary fraud because desperate situations, but electoral fraud you cannot.

' Green Party is usually the sane one '

Best laugh I've had for ages.

Why? This is nothing compared to what National and Labor go through regularly, in fact this is the first real controversy that I can recall that doesn't include policy.

Obsessed
45
·
140
·
over 7 years

I see that Joyce spent $1200 on one taxi ride in Australia, telling the cab driver to leave the meter on while he was in meetings.

This from our fudgein finance minister.

Dial another cab you prick before you spend my money like that

That action has made me change my vote 

Think the new labour deputy was tight when he said that Joyce has the integrity of a 4 dollar rollex watch

As for farmer brown

Democalypse 2017 - The Election Thread

You’ll need an account to join the conversation!

Sign in Sign up