Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
Well Jensen Huang has resigned. I always wanted the AI bubble to burst with a bang, but this is taking the mickey.
Such a dick move
This won't deflate the AI overreach. The hardware is just the viagra of the frenzy keeping it up.
The drooping of the market was the results of the US election where local interests clearly said there would be fewer data centres to poke nvidia gear into. That was where the erection of the AI edifice came from.
The gear is still going to be made, but there is a hell of a demand fro older gear – like video cards and RAM that may now be jacked up instead.
Umm. what were you guys talking about?
(this is a test of a AI generated fix on where the scroll winds up after comments are added)…
This post is evidence that I am not long retired and have way too much time on my hands lol.
I am predicting that if a right wing government is elected, even if it is a hung parliament and requires the support of Opportunity, it is going to be very stable and will last the entire 3 year term. The reason is, that it isn't in the interests of the left to run another election under the current rules. And it will take a lot of time to create new rules.
The rational is as follows:
If there is another election under the current rules, game theory suggests that election will become tactical on steriods. TPM have already shown how pure tactical voting can get. And it would be easy to engineer by say ACT and NZ First agreeing not to stand candidates in electorates National has a chance of winning and vice versa.
If we assumed perfect tactical voting in the last election the results would be as per below based on figures at the electoral commission.
I am not saying that there would be perfect tactical voting in reality. But it would be possible to get close to something like that by minor parties not standing candidates.
The results would be as follows, with Nelson flipping to Labour:
MPs
As can be seen, there is a strong 13 seat majority for the right group under this scenario. And, Labour becomes a minor party if they try to do the same. National is still the largest party, but the combined total of NZ First and ACT is larger.
Basically, the system is fucked and needs to be changed. But, that will take quite a bit of time to achieve. Hence, one left wing party or another would probably prefer to give the right wing government confidence and supply and thus exert some control compared to a new election where some flavour of the above would likely produce a strong right wing government.
Labour needs to make democracy and a program of democratic reform a central issue.
I agree the system needs to change. However, it will probably take until the next election for something like that to be sorted by the time it goes through all the hoops. So, until then, I don't think the left can afford a new election.
Labour needs to make it front and centre because they can't complete with the deluge of right wing spending from the right. The politics of it would be to do what the DSA has done to AIPAC – make taking money from the super rich and right wing fronts like the TPU a liability and an issue.
One suspects during this term The Opportunity Party will game its majority (exercise a veto on something otherwise) in parliament to realise
*return to the 1993 or 2023 electoral roll rules
*require same party and MP votes in the Maori electorate seats (no TPM gaming)
*have preferential voting (single transferable vote) in the General Electorates.
*take up EC recommendations – to adjust seats to assist with proportionality and a 3.5% threshold
Have the proposal taken to the public by late 2028.
Arithmetic without human context doesn't work. Consider what would need to happen …
National would have to announce that they do not want the party vote
So, National would plummet in the polls (which ask about party votes)
There would no longer be an assumption that it would be a Nat-led government
They would also have a huge civil war, as party members and non-electorate candidates rebel
The civil war would extend to their own caucus, who will already have plenty to rebel against, as NZF and ACT get their policy wins
NZF would rebel against becoming a National add-on (even if ACT might grudgingly accept it)
But most of all, the public backlash would create such a mood of anger and chaos that the (new) Labour leader would have one simple message: "End this".
Landslide win.
This strategy would largely be driven by the minor parties simply not running candidates. People would work out the rest without there being any need for the major parties to get actively involved. Remember the cat is out of the bag with this tactical stuff.
And what you suggest is the reason the left would want to avoid it. If they are seen as responsible for pushing the country back into this ridiculous tactical voting scenario, they will likely be punished in the polls for it.
Actually, there would be no 'civil war' from list only candidates in National. There are none in Parliament. See Overhang. There would almost certainly be one in Labour, if they tried to follow suit.
The current National caucus are likely to see nothing wrong with increasing the numbers of electorate MPs. After all, that is what they are.
Under this scenario, National don't care that their party vote collapses – that is, in fact, the plan. [NB: I don't think this is an effective long-term strategy, or one which is likely to happen]
So you're pinning a lot on "public outrage" changing people's voting intentions. I'm quite sure that there would be plenty of outrage on the Left. But that (according to the stats) isn't enough to propel the Left into government. And, if people are already comfortable voting for the Right – what makes you think that this scenario would flip them to Left voters?
Candidates, not MPs. As stated.
The knock-on effect would be major (though as you suggest, it is not a viable long-term strategy for National, for the reasons stated).
The media narrative switching from "some rich guy's ads on the fringe" to "the central issue for the election" would seriously damage the Right.
Of course there's no way we can prove any of this unless it happens, but it won't.
(And – again, as stated – I talked about collapsing in the polls, which must predate the votes and thus leading to endless Qs like … why should National’s leader be PM?)
Why would candidates care? They would know they have no chance of being elected in the above scenario.
Much like the bottom of the list, now.
Curious why you think that 'collapsing the polls' would matter?
If this ever took effect, it would be well signalled, and the pollsters would change their methodology (a very simple change to report on the likely candidate and the party vote). ATM, I know I've been asked this, in separate questions, when I've been called – but it looks as though the data is bundled together in a single result.
Polls would report on the likely results by electorate – and then top up with any additional party vote (which in this case would be none).
Had they done this for the last election, we'd have had a much clearer idea of the likely outcome.
Curious why you think that 'collapsing the polls' would matter?
Because polls create headlines and headlines lead to consequences (ask Simon Bridges).
Imagine a poll like this (which would be the kind of result this so-called strategy would want):
Lab 31 Green 15
Nat 21 NZF/ACT combined 25
(plus odds and sods)
Even? Sure. But headlines …
"Nat poll slump. Nat leader fends off leadership talk. Seymour/Peters say PM job is up for grabs. Nat leader says it's not. Coalition row continues. Nat MP says "100% support leader". (next day) Nat coup is on …"
And so on. Death spiral not through opposition surging but because the plan is working.
It's sad that horse-race commentary drowns out much else in political coverage – it's very bad for informed debate. But we can't wish away reality.
There are many more consequences likely, they need an essay to list. But we don't need to because National have the resources to do all the focus grouping and polling and strategising they need. No doubt they will.
If they think this would work for them (short and long term) then they'll act in their own interests, of course. I don't think they are that foolish.
Yep. That damage has already been done. So, nothing for them to lose by at least giving a wink and a nudge for the strategy.
A pretty good rule of thumb is: "Work out what your opponents want you to do, and then decide not to do it".
National could reasonably argue that in the 2026 election they did not endorse this strategy (hence John Key etc).
Make it apparent that they do in fact support it, even with a "wink", and the repercussions would be huge. And the opposition would be delighted. I can't really help if you can't imagine how that plays out (in this fantasy that won't happen, and it won't happen precisely because National understand this).
The point I am making is not that it will happen. Just that the left leaning block needs to believe that it could likely happen, and therefore, it isn't in their interests to try and force an election under the current rules.
And, it isn't hard to envisage how it could happen simply by minor parties not standing in electorates and voters working out the rest without major parties saying anything.
And if you are a Green's supporter, you should love this. It is how you can become the major left wing party in parliament. And there is not a hell of a lot Labour could do about it, because the strategy is so well understood in the public now.
If national act and nzf are reelected, there is no chance they'll change the voting system to something that doest make it even harder for the left to get elected. National may have once had ideal and decency but they left with Jim bolger
There is no chance that any party will change the voting system.
It's entrenched, and requires a super-majority of the house to alter.
Or a binding referendum?
I think it will have to change or people will lose faith in the system. We don't want what is going on in Europe atm.
Yes, of course the rules for a referendum are different. But that's not a 'party' making the change.
I think any change as important as this probably needs to be approved by voters, which is why it will take awhile for the change to be made. It would need to be in by next election though. Otherwise that will turn out to be a farce.
Most unlikely to have a binding referendum before the next election. You'd be lucky to get it held at the next election.
Might have to be 75% of parliament then. This is all such a shit show. Honestly. I am hoping that all parties will realise integrity in our voting system is worth more than who wins. The fact National was so opposed to the strategy while it was happening gives me hope that they will be supportive of a change.
So this is what you get when National and NZFirst donor mates get to rule boards and keep donating to the same politicians who put them there, so that those Board members can make decisions that directly benefit their own businesses.
Chapter 1:
KiwiRail board member Scott O'Donnell had extensive perceived and actual conflicts of interest stemming from his connections to transport and freight companies (including HW Richardson Group and Dynes Transport Tapanui), some of which supplied services to KiwiRail. And let's not forget that Scott O'Donnell as owner of Dynes Transport are one of the major investors in the Mosgiel Inland Port which has just got provisional Fast Track approval and will need Kiwirail investment for the connecting rail siding.
Chapter 2:
The owner of the biggest commercial bus company in New Zealand gets to be chair of the biggest transport entity in New Zealand Auckland Transport, and keeps donating through the election.
Auckland Transport chair donates $120k to National and NZ First – Newsroom
Seriously I thought there were regulators for this sort of thing.
Just to point out what's at stake: that Mosgiel Inland Port project will cost about $240 million.
And the AT bus contracts are several hundred million each time they roll over.
Yes – the State facilitating its own capture by the private commercial sector. Add to that, destruction pf public service (impartial) media and electoral manipulation (voter suppression), you have the building blocks of a slide towards Orban-style 'managed democracy'. If the Coalition crawls back into power, these things will get worse, and the aim is the permanent lockout of the left from power.
Part of left-populist democratic reform should be "draining the swamp" by criminalising cronyism and creating a proper definition in law of what constitues conflict of interest/corrupt behaviour and promise to create an anti-corruption task force with teeth to enforce it – and casually mention you just might think about making the law retrospective. It would put the chill wind of an outdoor high country karzy right up the bum cheeks of our oligarchs and be a wildly popular wedge issue to use against the right. Best of all, it is an election promise that would be cheap to do so no excuse to not get on with it.
Site might run a little slower today. There is a http/2 bug around that hasn't been patched.
https://thehackernews.com/2026/11/critical-apache-http2-flaw-could-let.html
I've removed h2 for the moment.
The server is already complaining.
Ah, the shield I put in yesterday removes that as an issue. Reverted.
I know your pain the bosses prized ewes like dieing, their latest method is elevated sulfur levels , (either volcanic soil,or eating lumps of clumped fert) leads to deficiency in magnesium plus other stuff.
So presents as magnesium deficiency. Clever vet took a brain sample to solve it.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/361114382/acc-pays-3m-rejected-claimants-go-away-claim-reviews-soar
Is this as dodgy as it sounds?
And is it a new thing acc does, ?
I can't get past 2nd para paywalled
It ends with this
Which explains the 'logic'. The problem is that the second para say
And there was a section in the middle
Yes – it is exactly what it sounds like. A bribe to not deal with the actual issue because ACC are under-staffed and have allowed a build up of unresolved claims that they have disallowed, but are arguably wrong. That gets them an ever mounting backlog of more work.
Instead of working out why they were getting so much push back for claim refusals, they’re trying for a shortcut. That in turn means that the ACC fail to learn from their previous mistakes, while actually incurring deeper direct and indirect costs to society.
It sounds like a classic bit of Act economics. Like $3 school lunches and the mounting hunger and poor teaching results that results in lack of productivity issues from it over the following 50 years or so. Stupid and short-sighted fiddlers who can’t think past immediate cost-cutting.