National Thus Far

[pxpx]

The best part of the ad is that it's banger on. Kiwibuild is a shit show

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

And their 1950s barbecue ad. What a shit show.

Disagree. A very clever ad which appears to be achieving exactly what it was intended to.

[xor]

Originally Posted by BoyWonder

The sausage part was the wurst

Best!

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by pxpx

The best part of the ad is that it's banger on. Kiwibuild is a shit show

National's approach to housing has always been what's best for National. Ignore the issue in power, cause it's a steaming mess. Exploit the steaming mess while in power.

[Lightspeed]

*while in opposition.

[pxpx]

That's cool mate, Kiwibuild is still a shit show.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

Disagree. A very clever ad which appears to be achieving exactly what it was intended to.

I don't think making yourself look sexist and unprofessional is an effective way to attack the Govt. National need to get back those middle block voters who have recently swung back to Labour who imo are gonna be overall more turned off by Nationals innuendo that we need a man to run the country than that Kiwibuild is not getting traction.

[BoyWonder]

I can see a point to it. There's no use advertising Kiwibuild's failure to National voters, so they might as well make a ridiculous ad that gets scoffed at and passed around social media, and gets the Kiwibuild message in front of otherwise inaccessible people.

Subliminal Messaging upgrade has been completed sir.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I don't think making yourself look sexist and unprofessional is an effective way to attack the Govt.

The aim of the ad is not to attack the government. The aim of the ad is to infuriate Labour supporters on the Internet, who will then blog and tweet and post their fury about how sexist and unprofessional the ad is, which will prompt the mainstream media to run articles on how leftie commentators are furious about a new National ad which no-one would otherwise have seen, and which will now get massive mainstream coverage spreading the meme that Kiwibuild is a shitshow accompanied by the message that Labour is the party of humourless easily-triggered SJW snowflakes.

[fixed_truth]

The media coverage seemed to be even between people calling out National and people saying don’t be so sensitive. I think it was slightly over the top with the sexism for that message to be significantly reinforced to anyone outside of their hardcore supporters and any mud sticking will be offset by what it reinforced to middle women voters. But hey, it worked for Trump.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by pxpx

That's cool mate, Kiwibuild is still a shit show.

Of course it is. Fixing housing was only going to be a shit show. The only reason to make a point of it is to score easy political points. National knew this, did the smart/cowardly thing.

Labour are doing the necessary thing. Mucking in, getting dirty, working for the future on NZ.

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

The media coverage seemed to be even between people calling out National and people saying don’t be so sensitive. I think it was slightly over the top with the sexism for that message to be significantly reinforced to anyone outside of their hardcore supporters and any mud sticking will be offset by what it reinforced to middle women voters. But hey, it worked for Trump.

HDPA op-ed is inadmissible as evidence to support your point.

[fixed_truth]

Heh this ain't a court room. It's all anecdotal short of commissioning a Reid Research poll asking woman swing voters how they feel about National implying that not having a cock makes you bad at your job.

[pxpx]

I know I've just been watching a lot of Suits lately. :P

[Ab]

I must have been away too long, is this really Paula Bennett?

[DrTiTus]

Yup, she had gastric bypass surgery.

[Ab]

National seems to have contracted "communications incompetence" Labouritis:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/chr...ht-of-shooting

[Lightspeed]

Migrant exploitation laid bare in report

I guess that regulatory framework worked a treat.

So good at governing, totally deserving of all the emphatic support they got while in power.

[Ab]

Did the National party get emphatic support? I think it was more a case of John Key's personal popularity combined with disgust at Labour's awful shitness.

[Lightspeed]

You should try reading this thread. I say "try", it's painful.

I can't recall what Labour's awful shitness was. Helen signed a painting? A minister got a deck built with dodgy labour? Oh, something about shower heads?

[Ab]

It usually seemed to involve Claire Curran as I recall. But as Danyl McLauchlan put it:

If I could distill the Labour Party’s woes over the last six years into just two words, I’d probably choose ‘bewildering stupidity’. The causes are manifold and complex, but the symptom is that Labour and its leaders often do bewildering, obviously stupid things despite the fact the things they are doing are obviously stupid. Think about David Shearer holding up dead fish in Parliament as his poll ratings flat-lined, or Goff dying his hair orange the day before making a major speech, or Cunliffe railing against secret trusts while financing his leadership campaign through secret trusts . . . The list is very, very long. And today:

It seems obvious (to me) that hiring a right-wing columnist to do your PR while you campaign for the leadership of a left-wing political party could go wrong in all sorts of ways. Being a former unionist Little has contrived for it to go wrong in a way that makes him look like a total hypocrite, by not paying Cohen, which gave Cohen ammunition for a column in the NBR and Stephen Joyce a way to mock the new Labour leader in Parliament and embarrass him on the evening news. I mean, doesn’t the former boss of the EPMU have an old and trusted ally to help him with his PR? Apparently not, but why not?

Sure, this isn’t as egregious as National’s Sky City deal, or sending our troops to Iraq so we can stay ‘part of the club’. But Key, Joyce et al have reasons for the questionable stuff they do. They have agendas. It’s deliberate; calculated. They have reasons! Labour just does random bewilderingly stupid shit for no comprehensible reason. All the time.

[Lightspeed]

Oh, you mean awful at looking slick and cool and the stories people spin as a result, rather than awful at producing desired outcomes for the country, and avoiding undesired ones.

[CCS]

See also Cunliffe apologising for being a man.

[Lightspeed]

National are a bunch of cunts. Who knew?

[pxpx]

Apparently you did. Why didn't you warn us?

[Lightspeed]

Does anyone care? Only if a politician can be made out a fool it seems.

A politician getting away with it is to be celebrated, regardless of the outcome.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

National are a bunch of cunts. Who knew?

404

[Lightspeed]

Judith Collins sick of 'having to feel virtuous'

[pxpx]

I really hope she never gets the leadership.

[CCS]

Y'know, if we want to do anything serious about climate change then we need to hammer China and India for leading the way in emissions. Oh, and the US too, but I think their emissions are trending downward whereas China and India are trending upward. But of course, they control the means of production, so...

This business about "New Zealand has to lead the way!" that people are always spouting is absolute fucking nonsense. I'm not saying we do nothing, but I am saying we shouldn't be worrying about fractions of a percent when any carbon emissions we stop making are eclipsed in a day by China. Let's not worry about Toyota Hi-Aces for example.

The only place the Greens are leading the way is sanctimonious grandstanding.

[Lightspeed]

It's called moral authority. If we want to be effective in the way you suggest, we need to be able to show these guys up. Not as effective as cruise missiles, but also less dramatic.

We need to do something.

[fixed_truth]

Iirc correctly combining all the countries with less than 1% of emissions adds up to 25% of total emissions.

Widespread change requires momentum to get it to a tipping point. The more countries & cities taking CC seriously the more this resonates globally. Also because our economy relies on income from exports and international tourism then being up with those making genuine change is in our best interests. .

New Zealand accounts for a fraction of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, about 0.17 per cent in 2014.

But, on a per capita basis we have an out-sized carbon footprint, emitting 18 tonnes of greenhouse gasses per person, every year.

That makes New Zealand the 21st biggest per capita contributor to climate change in the world. Amongst the OECD (other rich nations which we benchmark ourselves against) we have the fifth highest per capita emissions.

[crocos]

Random semi-relevant quote from the QI twitter account:

Streaming online porn produces as much carbon dioxide as the whole of Belgium. It accounts for nearly 1% of global emissions annually.

Fucking stop it CCS and MadMax

[Lightspeed]

It accounts for 100% of CCS's emissions, amirite?!

[fixed_truth]

Authoritarians are less willing to make sacrifices for the environment

People who hold authoritarian views or endorse unequal social hierarchies are less willing to make sacrifices for the environment than the average person. These findings come from a study of thousands of people in New Zealand.

[Ab]

In other news, sky found to be blue

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

It's called moral authority. If we want to be effective in the way you suggest, we need to be able to show these guys up. Not as effective as cruise missiles, but also less dramatic.

We need to do something.

Why do we need to have moral authority? Does banning plastic bags and putting a tax on vans really give moral authority? What does China give a shit if we do have moral authority?

If Labour and the Greens really gave a shit about plastic waste, they'd fund a plastic recycling plant in NZ instead of baling it up and shipping our mess out of NZ for someone else to just dump. It'd take care of plastic bags without the need to ban them. Hell, such a plant could be paid for out of the PGF.

But why do something practical and useful when you can use sancitmony and idealogy to get... moral authority.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by crocos

Random semi-relevant quote from the QI twitter account:


Fucking stop it CCS and MadMax

You can talk.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Iirc correctly combining all the countries with less than 1% of emissions adds up to 25% of total emissions.

Yeah and how many countries does it take to get to that 25%?

Widespread change requires momentum to get it to a tipping point.

Yeah, we really need to get that momentum going. Let's restrict water flow on shower heads.

The more countries & cities taking CC seriously the more this resonates globally. Also because our economy relies on income from exports and international tourism then being up with those making genuine change is in our best interests.

I disagree that we're making genuine change by taxing commercial vehicles. I think it's nothing more than a token effort because the Greens don't have any better ideas.

But, on a per capita basis we have an out-sized carbon footprint, emitting 18 tonnes of greenhouse gasses per person, every year.

That makes New Zealand the 21st biggest per capita contributor to climate change in the world. Amongst the OECD (other rich nations which we benchmark ourselves against) we have the fifth highest per capita emissions.

I don't give a crap about per capita emissions. It's a useless metric. China emits less carbon per capita than us, so they must be cleaner than us, right? Palau emits more carbon per capita than anyone, so they must be vile fucking polluters right?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

Yeah and how many countries does it take to get to that 25%?

From this list there’s a lot of countries available to put pressure on China & the US. We can’t persuade China & the US to make changes if we’re not taking care of our share.

Originally Posted by CCS

Yeah, we really need to get that momentum going. Let's restrict water flow on shower heads.

If simple measures can greatly reduce carbon emissions associated with certain activities then yes, as the climate emergency increases then we should examine these kinds of simple measures.

Originally Posted by CCS

I disagree that we're making genuine change by taxing commercial vehicles. I think it's nothing more than a token effort because the Greens don't have any better ideas.

Genuine change isn’t achieved just from doing one thing though.

Originally Posted by CCS

I don't give a crap about per capita emissions. It's a useless metric. China emits less carbon per capita than us, so they must be cleaner than us, right? Palau emits more carbon per capita than anyone, so they must be vile fucking polluters right?

I think that with the desired outcome of significantly reducing global warming then as well as acknowledging per country emissions it’s ALSO important to avoid a tragedy of the climate commons where individuals reason away their (esp. comparatively high) individual carbon footprint as just an insignificant drop in the bucket.