|
El Pollo Blanco posted:I'm upgrading my vague suspicion of ardern to actual hatred and loathing at this point, she's gone full mask off within 24 hours lol this election (and tbh the 2017 government) has really turned me off labour in general. i attribute this partly to them being psycho neolibs who actively want the left-er parties to fail, and partly to a moderate case of cspam brain
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 11:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
redleader posted:this election (and tbh the 2017 government) has really turned me off labour in general. i attribute this partly to them being psycho neolibs who actively want the left-er parties to fail, and partly to a moderate case of cspam brain  except probably upgrade me to an extreme case of cspam brain
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 12:47
|
|
|
Ardern bangs on about meaningful change having to be done incrementally, otherwise it shits the bed. Similar to Obama or Aunty Helen argue Idk, maybe give the cspam brain a rest and wait until she at least forms a government to see what happens?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
Gentle Autist posted:Ardern bangs on about meaningful change having to be done incrementally, otherwise it shits the bed. Similar to Obama or Aunty Helen argue she can incrementally change herself into someone who walks into the ocean so Chloe can run poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 22:29
|
|
|
Gentle Autist posted:Ardern bangs on about meaningful change having to be done incrementally, otherwise it shits the bed. Similar to Obama or Aunty Helen argue hmm i feel like something happened after helen lost the 2008 election and obama's term ended almost like a decade of tory misrule that reversed every incremental gain made or something but it happened so long ago i can't remember
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 22:33
|
|
|
Gentle Autist posted:Ardern bangs on about meaningful change having to be done incrementally, otherwise it shits the bed. Similar to Obama or Aunty Helen argue She got reelected and immediately ruled out two things that would actually change something at all. So yeah it could be incrementalism, if the increments are so small as to be imperceptible. Oorrrr she's entirely focused on maintaining the status quo with a kind face because her party is just as full of landlords as national...nah Oh and why does progressive poo poo have to be incremental but regressive bullshit always happens in big chunks? It's almost like the whole concept of incrementalism is a way to do nothing while defusing people's anger. Slavvy has issued a correction as of 22:37 on Oct 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 22:35
|
|
|
Quote is not edit!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 22:37
|
|
|
I'd rather have Chloe running things too but although I have intense self loathing like any self respecting online leftist I am also not willing to go into full flagellation mode less than 48 hours after a pretty good election result
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
Gentle Autist posted:Ardern bangs on about meaningful change having to be done incrementally, otherwise it shits the bed. Similar to Obama or Aunty Helen argue The government of Savage didn’t do it in an incremental fashion. They just got stuck in and did it. The results made NZ a better place to live for decades afterwards. The issues we are facing will also need a massive shift, not just incremental tinkering to achieve a positive outcome. Not to mention things like child poverty are having very real and dreadful impact on people’s lives today. Do we tell them to be patient and lose important years in their life while we slowly implement small changes that will get reversed as soon as National has the treasury benches?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 22:42
|
|
|
Gentle Autist posted:Idk, maybe give the cspam brain a rest and wait until she at least forms a government to see what happens? I'm telling my brain to shut up for a while and wait to see what government she forms Unrelated but I'm sort of surprised there's no blood on the floor yet for National. Maybe the beating they got shocked even the rats
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 22:45
|
|
|
Varkk posted:The government of Savage didn’t do it in an incremental fashion. They just got stuck in and did it. The results made NZ a better place to live for decades afterwards. The issues we are facing will also need a massive shift, not just incremental tinkering to achieve a positive outcome. Not to mention things like child poverty are having very real and dreadful impact on people’s lives today. Do we tell them to be patient and lose important years in their life while we slowly implement small changes that will get reversed as soon as National has the treasury benches? I completely agree, I'd rather see a top down systemic change too. I'm just saying what I heard Ardern talking about on her interview with Katherine Ryan on the Friday before the election Coming back to NZ after 10 years away (pretty much the whole National5 govt) and seeing people living in cars and the rivers unswimmable was profoundly shocking and disgusting for me. There's no good reason a modern prosperous country like NZ can't ensure a good quality of life for everyone
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
Gentle Autist posted:I'd rather have Chloe running things too but although I have intense self loathing like any self respecting online leftist I am also not willing to go into full flagellation mode less than 48 hours after a pretty good election result cspam: where the highs are low and the lows are crushing
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 00:26
|
|
|
Gentle Autist posted:I completely agree, I'd rather see a top down systemic change too. I'm just saying what I heard Ardern talking about on her interview with Katherine Ryan on the Friday before the election There’s a good reason Chinese property investors are just better people, to politicians
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
We COULD meet everyone's basic needs but that would necessitate obliterating the housing market, which is sacred.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
as the minimum bar for me saying "jacinda may be ok i guess", all she has to do is nationalise all rental properties
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
Property prices are starting to run away again similar to what they did 2012-2016, and any of the changes that the land owning class in NZ will allow Jacinda to make without calling her mean names, even the most drastic, won't actually start to have any impact for another 3-5 years because it's all supply-side tinkering. By that time median house prices in Auckland will have jumped another 500k and Labour will have lost the opportunity to put the brakes on the primary driver of inequality in NZ. poo poo needs to change now, is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 01:04
|
|
|
the family home of my best friend, who lived in a lovely backwater rural town cost them about $40k in 1996. yesterday I saw it for sale with offers over $420,000. it looks like it has some new carpet, new paint job and a new kitchen put in that’s it. property is wealth. savings in this country is poo poo. banks make no money on savings. just the percentage of their offshore borrowings they lend to you for your half a million dollar mortgage for a tiny house with a new kitchen in the middle of no where.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
The problem with "incremental change so that it sticks" is that the change that happens isn't enough to meet the problem before the government is voted out for failing to deliver on their promises and the next government of course has their own plan on how to fix the problem so those incremental changes either continue as abandoned projects without the necessary funding or they get completely dumpstered. This failure of incremental policies is of course why the government wants to increase the term to four years, because they do know there's a problem with delivering fundamentally non-transformative nature of incremental changes in the face of the increasingly pressing issues of the modern world, they just think the issue is that they're not getting enough time before the next government discards the progress they've made rather than that change needs to be delivered and proved in the time they're in government so that it can't be discarded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 01:35
|
|
|
Displeased Moo Cow posted:$420,000. nice tho, should've added $69 to the asking price
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 01:44
|
|
|
offers over 420...maybe I’ll put in a cheeky 420 069 offer
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
i feel like the banks get a free ride on house price inflation. they could put a stop to runaway price growth pretty much instantly by just refusing to lend at shitso valuations. they have zero incentive to do so, the more people borrow, the more they make. and we all suffer in the meantime building more quality houses is hard to argue against but the money supply is loving out of whack. if we could reign that in somehow it feels like it would make a big difference
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
Displeased Moo Cow posted:the family home of my best friend, who lived in a lovely backwater rural town cost them about $40k in 1996. the same thing's happening in canada and australia too i think housing has become a depository of value rather than a thing to live in and global capital is allowed to slosh around to where it wants unfettered; consequences
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 03:45
|
|
|
Of the 51 MPs that voted against the final reading of the abortion bill, 21 (41%) are gone. 16 voted out, 5 from resignations. Assuming each party's voting proportions remain the same, if the vote was taken now the result would be 83 for (69%), 35 against (29%), 1 absent, (+ 1 unknown) vs. the actual result of 68 for (56%), 51 against (42%), 1 absent. Interesting series of facts: Every party with a majority in favour gained seats, every party with a majority against lost seats National had 35% of their MPs vote in favour, they now have 35 MPs, and there's 35 against with the adjusted proportions, spooky NZ First would also have had 0% in favour and 0 MPs if Tracey Martin and Jenny Marcroft hadn't crossed the floor, so thanks for ruining it
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 07:14
|
|
|
Of the 24 MPs still in parliament who voted against gay marriage, 9 are gone. 6 voted out, 3 resignations. Leaving 15 of the total 44. If the vote was held again with the same proportions it would pass 90 (75%) to 30 (25%) vs. the original vote of 77 (63%) to 44 (36%)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 07:47
|
|
|
Reading through this thread after the election has been very heartwarming, I can't wait for another couple weeks when we do the same for the referenda
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
This is probably dumb but I'm really hopeful about the weed referendum now. Both the CB and Reid polls had it failing, but they also significantly understated Labour support (by ~3.5%) and overstated National support (by ~5.5%), as well as likely underestimating youth turnout which was up 4% on last election. Given that National voters were the largest No group and Labour voters/under 35s the largest Yes groups in their respective demographic breakdowns, I would put money on it passing. This also means I'm going to be crushingly disappointed when it fails. Will probably want to smoke some weed to console myself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
your analysis is sound.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 22:22
|
|
|
The CB 10-14 Oct poll report (page 15) mentions some more granular demographics behind their headline 41/51 number:quote:Those groups of voters who are more likely than average (41%) to support the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill include: For that report, CB polled 400 people over landline and 600 over mobile. CB would need to account for those 400 landline havers being disproportionately old (and per above, disproportionately voting no) when distilling the above per-demographic stats to a final estimated result. In other words, they'd need to guess how many of each demographic will actually vote to come to the final 41/51 that they got. If they were lazy, they might just assume the same turnout demographics as 2017, with some possible tweaks like assuming X% more National voters would stay home. But CB's turnout guesses are probably considered proprietary, and we'll probably know whether weed passed before the 2020 voter demographics get released anyway. Meanwhile the last Reid and Roy Morgan polls don't really give any additional detail beyond the final results (or not for free in any case). Reid headlines their report with "Our quality standards are open to the ultimate scrutiny!" which is a bit odd given how little information they publish. So no real answers here but the above per-demographic stats, combined with assumptions against the 2017 turnout demographics, could probably be extrapolated to make your own estimate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
i celebrated the weed referendum on election night personally
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 06:31
|
|
|
Tova gets exclusives now that she yelled at guy who got 13 votes and has reported mental health problems 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 09:00
|
|
|
eh, i don't think anyone didn't see that coming
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 10:52
|
|
|
hope they like losing in 2023
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 12:11
|
|
|
BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:hope they like losing in 2023
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:hope they like losing in 2023 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
This except it'll be a beers and barbie fascist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 00:46
|
|
|
Egg Zealand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
What time on Friday are the referendum results supposed to be released?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
4.20pm
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 01:04
|
|
|
Nice
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
the real answer is that the electoral commission will do a press release at 2pm
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 01:48
|
|