My Endorsement for NZ 2017: Let’s Vote Green!

Advance voting is already open, but the main voting day is just 1 week away. For some reason opinion polling is still going on even though people are voting. On the left, the mood is tense: are we leading, or are we doomed for another defeat? While there is still strong left policy being released, Labour has made headlines for capitulating to corporate media demands that it announce specific tax details (presumably so that the corporate media can then denigrate the policy). The National Party is only too happy to stoke the scaremongering instead of putting the spotlight on their own policies.

Such a strategy is understandable when one considers how terrible National Party policies are. Recent policies include such economic illiteracy as giving away taxpayers’ money to house-buyers to make housing more “affordable”. This is akin to trying to put out a fire with gasoline, although I’m sure that talentless real estate agents (how tautological!), property speculators, and delusional first home buyers will like it. It shows that the National Party’s feigned concern for low-income earners paying taxes to support middle-class university students was nothing more than a sham. They are obviously happy to give low-income earners’ tax dollars to the comparatively wealthier first home buyers.

National has also put forward some pork-barrel privatisation in the form of selling Landcorp farms to young farmers. It smacks of tone-deafness in an election campaign where public sentiment is very much against to overseas ownership. Such damaging policies in conjunction with their terrible record in government demonstrate why it is imperative that the National Party is removed from office.

The parties best placed to offer a strong alternative government are the Labour Party and the Green Party. New Zealand First and The Opportunities Party are respectively too unreliable and too unpopular. I have decided to give my party  vote to the Green Party, for the following reasons:

  • Green Infrastructure Fund: In order to boost the uptake of renewable energy and sustainable technology, this policy involves a government kick-start to an investment fund that will lend money to those wishing to install green technologies. Private investment will be attracted by the initial government investment and the targeted 7% rate of return. I like these kinds of policies because they exploit the current economic paradigm, making a mockery of those who dismiss green tech as “financially infeasible”. Other policies such as the Kiwi climate fund (a carbon tax used to cut other taxes), tree planting, a commitment to 100% renewable electricity by 2030 and fossil fuel divestment also have my support.
  • Money for Students’ sake: A series of policies that involve a universal student allowance for postgraduate students (those who most deserve it) and free public transport for students. They have also indicated their support for Labour’s three free years of tertiary study. It is heartening to see the left move away from the user-pays model for education. User-pays is a good idea for pollution control and resource consumption, but it is not a good fit for education. It is unnecessary to force tuition fees on students when the public benefits from their skills and they will indirectly pay for their education in the form of higher income taxes.
  • Cash for Trash: Whenever I look on a Pump/h2go bottle, there is a little note to the effect of “10c refund at SA collection depot”. This note is because of South Australia’s container deposit scheme. If you collect discarded bottles, cans or cartons and return them to a collection depot, you are given a 10c refund from the purchase of the bottle. Thus there is an incentive to dispose of empty containers in a responsible fashion rather than allowing trash to accumulate in the ecosphere.
  • Public Transport in Christchurch: If there’s one thing that will improve my quality of life, it’s this policy. Living in the Waimakariri and Selwyn districts, workers face long commutes into Christchurch. I am fortunate that I am able to set my work hours to avoid the worst of the traffic, but there are much better ways I can spend an hour of my day instead of driving. On buses and trains, I could read, mark undergraduate work, or do work on a laptop computer. I would then have more free time since I could spend less time physically at my office for the same amount of work completed. There are also wider benefits: fewer cars on the road means reduced emissions and faster commutes for those who still need to travel by car.
  • That old devil called the 5% threshold: Ever since the disproportionate indignation towards Metiria Turei’s admission of welfare fraud and the rise of Jacindamania, the Green Party polling has not looked as healthy. If any party receives less than 5% of the vote and no constituency seats, then it gets no parliamentary representation. It is unlikely that Labour will be able to govern alone and if National leads Labour, then they benefit from a wasted sub-5% Green vote. Note that New Zealand First also has this problem; I would encourage voters to support NZF if one can tolerate their more retrograde social policies.

Presuming a Labour-Green government is the outcome of the election, I can’t expect all of these policies to be implemented. Deals will need to be struck and the negotiation strength of the Greens will be proportional to the seats that they win. Labour Party policies are also very good, so I have no issue, in fact an expectation that the Greens will enter into a coalition with them.

Continuing with the neoliberal status-quo is not the safe and dependable option that National has made it out to be. Change is necessary to respond to looming challenges such as climate change, the reappearance of fascism and an economy transformed by technology. Labour and the Greens offer change for the better, with policies that seek to improve the quality of life in New Zealand. That is a change worth voting for on September 23.

This endorsement is only for the party vote, I’ll cover the candidate vote for the Waimakariri electorate later next week (hint: I’ll be endorsing the Labour Party candidate).

Advertisements

New Zealand Election 2017: Fake News Makes an Appearance

The current state of play in New Zealand’s general election is radically different from two months ago. Then Labour Party leader Andrew Little valiantly stepped aside in favour of the charming and articulate Jacinda Ardern who has done well to communicate a raft of popular policies. The public has responded in turn, Labour has now led the National Party for two successive One News/Colmar Brunton opinion polls.

Where there’s strong Labour polling, desperate National party dirty tricks follow. This week, finance minister Steven Joyce claimed that Labour had failed to account for $11.7 billion of announced spending. This claim has widely been regarded as false, even by right-wing economists. Much of the spending will in fact be paid for from operating expenses. Humourously, it has also been revealed that Joyce failed 8 economics papers at university (which he attended for free). The events of this week have demonstrated that he is unfit to serve as finance minister.

Even though swathes of analysts have dismissed Joyce’s claim, the fact that the media reported it in the first place has the potential to cause unwarranted damage to Labour’s electoral fortune. The only person who has piped up in agreement with Joyce was Prime Minister Bill English. As a Catholic, it comes as no surprise that he doesn’t have a problem accepting falsehoods.

So let’s tentatively say the fake news budget hole backfired on the Tories. More fake news was ready to take its place. This time it’s from the obscure Down syndrome advocacy group Saving Downs who have taken issue with Ardern’s pledge to decriminalise abortion. Saving Downs doesn’t like this stance and decided to extract sympathy for their position by fabricating an image to make it look like Labour’s policy was more extreme and would allow abortions up until birth.

By plying fake news about Labour Party policy, Saving Downs has played into the hands of anti-choice interests. The anti-choice viewpoint is generally dishonest and morally inconsistent (try it for yourself). We should respect the bodily autonomy of pregnant people who should be able to choose to terminate their pregnancy for any reason at any time. Those reasons include results from (optional) medical tests that suggest the quality of life of the resulting person may be compromised.

The Labour Party is to be commended for putting forward a strong economic vision that rightfully makes wealthy property owners, resource extractors and polluters pay more tax. At the same time, Labour is committing to spending on initiatives that will provide more opportunities for the public. Similarly, Jacinda Ardern should be commended for front-footing New Zealand’s shameful criminalisation of abortion by advocating for the rights of pregnant people. Conversely, fake news purveyors such as Steven Joyce and Saving Downs must be condemned by the mainstream media in the strongest terms possible. Our democracy must be protected from the manipulation of the populace that fake news seeks to achieve. I can only hope that future polling (and the election result) shows that Kiwi voters see straight through these deplorable tactics.

New Zealand Election 2017: A Tale of Two Political Spectra

I have largely been isolated from the election campaign being away in the Northern Hemisphere. When I left New Zealand, the media hysteria over Green Party leader Metiria Turei’s resignation was coming to an end and Jacindamania was in full swing. While I’ve been away, low quality broadcaster Mike Hosking revealed himself to be a racist and a dumbarse, Peter Dunne gave up and Gareth Morgan was able to gain some attention by being Trump-like.

In our heavily metricised society, even political opinions can be quantified. This usually takes the form of a two axis economic-social map. You are asked a series of relevant questions, your answers dictate the position of your personal co-ordinate on the map. The benchmark for this is the Political Compass. I’ve also had a look at TVNZ’s  Vote Compass, a NZ specific political spectrum calculator.

Since I only have one personality, my position on both charts is very similar. Here’s my Political compass result relative to their assessment of the NZ political parties:

NZ_polCompass_wMe

and my VoteCompass result:

NZ_voteCompass

The big difference between the two charts is the position of the Labour Party. The Political Compass denotes Labour as centre-right economically and slightly socially authoritarian. Like every other Western social democratic party, it’s had an identity crisis during this neoliberal error era. Meanwhile, TVNZ’s Vote Compass marks Labour as extreme economic left and socially progressive.

Not that I’m complaining, I’m thrilled that Labour is a liberal-left party that is closely in line with my thinking. Although I can’t help but wonder if this placement can be used by disingenuous commentators and hacks to attack Labour as “far-left” in an attempt to dissuade their increasingly large support base? Maybe TVNZ has exaggerated the difference so that the politically uniformed don’t falsely declare: “they’re all the same”?

Perhaps the Political Compass is a bit pessimistic, I’ve been impressed with Labour’s policy releases so far. These include: some free tertiary education, making water users cover the cost of their damaging activities and strong public transport investment are all ideas I am on-board with. Where I diverge from Labour is in my radicalism. Relevant to the examples above, I think that three years of free tertiary education is not enough and more should be done to limit the use of ICE-powered vehicles.

But the choice is clear: I can either get some of what I want, or I can get lots of things I don’t want; such as more privatisations, illusory GDP growth and more user pays (unless you’re a dairy farmer). Far-left, or centre-right, labels shouldn’t really matter. Policy should. Exactly which party I’ll vote for is still to be determined, but given the policies it will clearly be for a Labour-led government.

Flake Prime Minister to be Awarded Fake Doctorate

Things have been looking up since former New Zealand Prime Minister John Key decided to give up and pass the baton along to his dull, bigoted and ineffective deputy. One of the most surprising aspects of the post-Key era is how quickly the public has forgotten about him. I’m able to go for several weeks at a time without thinking about him.

Of course, that serenity is punctuated by the brief occasions where Key makes the headlines again. One example being  when Key was knighted in the Queen’s Birthday Honours list, an archaic institution that he revived during his tenure as PM. The words “John Key” and “Sir” don’t go well together. However, I manage to forget that he was ever knighted, just as I manage to forget about him altogether.

Key’s back in the headlines again as the University of Canterbury has announced that he shall receive an honourary doctorate at the upcoming December graduation. The press release is obsequious and sanitises his record as PM. Vague references are made to the Christchurch Earthquakes, the Global Financial Crisis and the failed flag referendum, which was described as “focused on enhancing New Zealand’s sense of nationhood”.

The rebuild of Christchurch has been derided as autocratic and homeowners are still battling their insurers to get what they are entitled to. A once-in-a-generation opportunity to upskill our youth and plan for a modern innovative city has been squandered in favour of exploiting overseas workers and urban sprawl.

New Zealand’s trajectory through the GFC was largely credited to the Clark Labour Government who paid off government debt. The gains of the economic recovery have not been felt by the vast majority of the population who rely on borrowing and a property bubble to feel wealthy. Let’s not forget the deeply unpopular partial privatisation of electricity retailers. Higher prices were levied in order to pay dividends to those immoral enough to purchase shares, depriving the government of long-term revenue.

The flag referendum attracted international ridicule, Key was not shy about his bias and his mindless supporters were quick to put his pick up against the current flag. Even anti-British republicans such as myself opted to keep the old flag. Instead, the nationhood discussion was put on the back burner instead of accepting Key’s false national identity which amounted to little more than a tawdry attempt at corporate branding.

UC has a history of giving out fake doctorates to undeserving right-wing maniacs, compromising the rightful recognition also given to artists, activists, engineers, and scientists.  It is a poor reflection on the outlook held by the decision makers, especially given the timing of the announcement which is in the middle of election season.

The University of Canterbury does its graduates (some who have real doctorates) no favours by pulling vapid stunts like this one. Honourary doctorates should be reserved for those who achieve great things in the arts, science and justice sectors, or not awarded at all. They should not be given to failed politicians or so-called “popular” figures as a cynical ploy to embellish the University’s public profile.

On the bright side, I will undoubtedly continue to forget about John Key, his knighthood, and his fake doctorate just as I did before.

 

It’s My One-Year Bloggiversary!

Bloggiversary: n, occasion denoting that a person has been blogging for one year.

It’s hard to believe that I’ve been at this for a year already. In that time, I have produced 39 posts and racked up over 200 views! Much of this was the result of interest in my posts about the video game Elite Dangerous. Judging from the search engine terms which resulted in views, my posts probably didn’t answer many of the questions that the CMDRs had. Sorry if I wasted your time!

My post about predatory conferences has also got some views, hopefully I was able to help others avoid getting trapped by the unethical organisations involved in this practice. No news about how the FTC is going along with their case against OMICS Group. Hopefully President Trump won’t fuck up the FTC and let OMICS get away with their crimes.

Who knows what I’ll write about over the next year? I should definitely have some incendiary opinions regarding the upcoming general election here in New Zealand. And some more Elite Dangerous posts of course. Thanks to all the blog viewers and its commenter for their contributions. It’s good for me to learn from others, just as it is good for all of you to learn from me!

 

Elite Dangerous: Visiting Remote Asteroid Bases

While I enjoy much of the gameplay in Elite Dangerous, I still tire about travelling long distances in supercruise. Supercruise is the mode which players use to move about within a star system. This involves faster than light (FTL) travel, reducing travel times to a matter of minutes. For systems with multiple stars, you arrive at the largest star when you enter the system. Depending on where you want to go the travel time can increase to about half an hour, which gets pretty boring.

One way I like to spend time while in long supercruise periods is browsing the galaxy map. It’s neat to go to the galactic core where all the stars are really squished together, or looking for nebulae. One day while I was searching through nebulae, I noticed that some of the far out systems had economies. That means human habitation. What form would habitation take ~5000 LY away from the “bubble”? I had to go and find out.

I’ve talked about the 2.3 update before. Mega-ships and asteroid bases were introduced in this update, increasing the number of assets that players may dock their ships. It also included some modifications to the Diamondback Explorer, increasing the jump range to ~60 LY, second only to the incredibly expensive Anaconda (when engineered). I took the engineered frame shift drive (FSD) from my Asp Explorer, added to a Diamondback I had just purchased and outfitted it for exploration (fuel scoop, auto-field maintenance unit, scanners, and heat sink launchers). With a full fuel tank, I had a jump range of 52 LY, compared to the Asp’s 47 LY range. If you’re travelling long distances, that means there are fewer jumps that you need to make and less time staring at the loading screen. The time saving is slightly offset by the slow fuel scooping in the Diamondback, which can hold a 4A unit, compared to the 6C that I use in the Asp.

My first destination was the Jellyfish Nebula,which is further outwards from the galactic core compared to Earth. As I got close up, I took an image of the nebula, one can see why it was called the Jellyfish Nebula, with the cloud resembling the bell at the top and the tentacles beneath it.

Elite - Dangerous (CLIENT) 21_05_2017 5_01_37 PM

the system Jellyfish Sector FB-X C1-5 had an asteroid base (Beta Site) within the ring of the gas-giant planet 7. The asteroid bases are much like large starports, many of the assets are similar to any other station, just implanted into an asteroid. It’s a shame we can’t land on asteroids like we can land on planets. Here’s a photo of my Diamondback in the station.

Elite - Dangerous (CLIENT) 21_05_2017 5_15_03 PM

Understandably, the station isn’t as well stocked as one in the bubble would be, but a few more outfitting options would have been nice as I was regretting not taking an SRV. The next stop was the Rosette Nebula, which was a red colour as any decent rosette should be! I forgot to take any shots of the nebula itself, but there is this one from within it:

Elite - Dangerous (CLIENT) 27_05_2017 3_40_31 PM

Being 5000 LY out of the bubble means that there are many systems which haven’t been discovered by other players yet, so this was a good time to get my gamer tag added to many decent objects. I was able to filter a route that took me through A-class stars and above, which tended to yield many nice systems including many water worlds and Earth-likes. In fact I discovered 4 ELWs on this trip, which each gave a good payout when the time came to cash in the data.

earthLikeDiscoveries

Clockwise from top-left, we have: COL 107 SECTOR UE-P D6-98 A 8, COL 107 SECTOR SU-E D12-117 B 6, GLUDGAE IX-L D7-34 6, and GLUDGEIA DK-G C24-13 1 (not to scale). A detailed surface scan of an ELW nets players 600,000 in game credits, plus a 50% bonus if it’s a first discovery, that’s ~4 million credits for my commander. It’s not all about money, sometimes there are unusual and interesting things to find. For example, I came across a gas giant with an axial tilt of ~90°.

Elite - Dangerous (CLIENT) 8_06_2017 9_16_40 PM

The striped pattern of its gas clouds was perpendicular to the orbital plane as a result, unlike Jupiter, where the gas layers are roughly parallel to its orbital plane. Having seen some of the close-up images of Jupiter from the Juno mission, the in-game planet looks a bit bland by comparison.

Having returned to the bubble and cashed in my commander’s discoveries, I can conclude that the asteroid bases by themselves are not particularly groundbreaking. Nonetheless, it is definitely a good thing to increase the diversity of in-game assets. Placing bases in far-flung regions of the galaxy adds to the mystery of the in-game lore and is a great motivation for going on exploration trips. After all, it’s not about the destination, it’s about the places you’ll go while getting there.

UK 2017: May Loses the Unloseable Election

I’ve been rather quiet about the snap-election called in the United Kingdom that took place on June 8. This was for two reasons: (1) it was completely unnecessary and was a contradiction by Prime Minister Theresa May who had promised not to call an election, and (2) I was terrified, UK Labour under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn was polling very poorly and under unwarranted media scrutiny. It looked like a disaster was on the cards.

The campaign was fascinating, the UK Conservative Party was able to squander a 20% lead in the polls to a 2.3% lead on voting day, while Corbyn led UK Labour to their best result since the early Blair years. It was the result those of us on the left had hoped for, but didn’t hope for too strongly given the past heartbreaks we’ve endured. There’s a few points that I would like to raise from the whole event

Labour’s messaging was superb, from the leaked manifesto which offered policies that appealed to marginalised Britons, to turning the “weak on security” meme back onto the Tories with their criticism of spending cuts to police and fire services. The Labour result was extraordinary, the vote share was now up to 40%, with 12.9 million votes, which eclipses Milliband’s result from the 2015 election.

Thus Corbyn’s position as Labour leader is now secure and there is no prospect of a leadership challenge, with the exception of the moronic Chris Leslie who had another go with the now discredited Blairite slogans. I was always a fan or Corbyn, like Bernie Sanders in the USA, he had the potential to redefine politics with his straight-talking decency. I was impressed by his substance over style manner and how he would relay questions from the public during PMQs. I can think of no better representatives for the people than Corbyn and those who follow his example.

It was amusing to see right-wingers give themselves whiplash by shifting the goalposts following Corbyn’s better than expected result. Firstly he was criticised because he would lead Labour to a humiliating defeat. When he does well enough to strip the Tories of their majority, he is criticised for not winning. Such analysis focuses on the 56 seat gap lead the Tories have while ignoring that this is a distortion caused by the FPP system. If the seats were allocated by PR, then the gap would only be 15 seats which doesn’t look like a great victory? It comes as no surprise that right-wingers choose to ignore FPP distortions as it benefits their party and demonstrates their contempt for democracy when it doesn’t go their way.

There’s another great irony in this result. One of the most common criticisms of MMP, the electoral system used in my home country of New Zealand is that minor parties hold undue influence when forming a coalition with a major party. This was predicted to bring economic ruin (which hasn’t happened) by failed finance ministers and corporate robber-barons. FPP was praised for producing strong governments with working majorities, even though it screwed the will of the people. MMP was derided for allowing the “tail to wag the dog”. And lo, here we have an FPP election that produces that exact result!

To hold on to power, the Tories look set to do a deal with the corrupt, wasteful retrogrades known as the Democratic Unionist Party. This leads to all kinds of problems in terms of the Northern Irish peace process and concessions that will be unpopular in the UK. May’s hold on the Tory leadership is also weakened, although nobody seems interested in replacing her. Time will tell whether this government can last, or if a new election will be held. So long as Labour doesn’t trigger it (parties causing unnecessary elections seems to be unpopular), they are well placed to win next time around, although post-election polling is still thin on the ground at the time of writing.

Most importantly, this is a huge defeat for vapid centrism, the prevailing line of thought in 21st century centre-left social democratic political parties the world over. Their obsession with the vague concept of electability has been demonstrated to be a falsehood. It’s no longer good enough to be “not as bad” as the lunatics occupying the political right-wing, now is the time to make a positive case for popular left policies in a way that involves the public. Now is the time for Jeremy Corbyn.