Is it the beginning of the end for New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern? Nicholas Sheppard in the Spectator suspects so.
Next year’s election, in the latter half of 2023, is looking like an increasingly difficult proposition for Ardern’s government.
Labour has been sliding in the polls all year. In February, Jacinda Ardern’s party sat comfortably at 44.3%. On Sunday night, it was at 32.3%.
For the first time, there is genuine speculation about how long Ardern will stay on as leader and prime minister.
Labour’s post-2020 decline has been due to a number of factors. Covid, in particular, shifted from a winning issue to one that has given rise to seemingly non-stop problems. The cost of living is pushing many people to the limit, and the crisis is expected to drag on. Rising mortgage rates are sapping Kiwis’ finances.
Unfortunately for Ardern and Labour, much of this is likely to get worse over the next year. This can be partly attributed to a ‘Covid hangover’, as well as the Reserve Bank’s money printing having a detrimental impact.
The Government has a work programme that is turning out to be highly contentious. Substantial reforms in water, health and education are not being rolled out as effectively as the Government would have hoped.
The social and economic dislocation caused by the pandemic and the lockdowns has made law and order a further issue.
Sheppard writes that the “rumours of Ardern stepping down soon are now frequently being put to journalists”. It would not be a bad time to go, he thinks: her personal popularity is still “relatively impressive”, while if she sticks around, “she will be seeking re-election with all of the economic and social fallout from Covid peaking or about to peak, and were she to win, she would have to spend a third term managing difficult coalition partners”.
Sadly, her potential political demise is not because the population has woken up to the horrors of her disastrous Zero Covid policy. Perhaps, though, Sheppard suggests, her presence is a reminder of dark times people would rather forget: “People were grateful for Ardern’s leadership during Covid. But no one wants to think about or be reminded of Covid anymore.”
Could it really be nearing the end for the toothy tyrant?
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
They should also go back to the colour scheme they had in the 90s.
I’m pretty sure that will have more of a calming effect than temperature uncertainty ranges.
I will sum up this great article with my twenty pence version of it for those who cannot be bothered reading my usually longer rants. So here it is—-“The Temperature record of earth and the UK is a dog’s breakfast of adjusted and manipulated data that has been fiddled about with more that hooker’s knickers”.———-I will obviously be doing my regular rant as well just shortly. —-Have a nice day sceptics xxx
There is a far simpler (and imho much more obvious) confounding factor which renders most of the MET Office’s historical analyses close to meaningless. See this little piece of work I wrote in 2013, about rainfall:
https://public-highway.blogspot.com/2013/01/rainmasterall-since-records-began.html?m=1
I’d be grateful if the DS readership could critique it! Professor Julia Slingo never did get back to me. A year or so after writing it and sending it to her for her input, I read about how the MET Office had decided to lock up all possible approaches “unqualified members of the public” could follow to get to data such as I managed to get from them here.
Well done. Mixing up data sets and comparing one bunch of readings to another as if they all came from situations that were identical when they were not is rife in climate science. The classic example being “Mikes Nature Trick”, where two different sets of data were spliced together so as not to reveal that temperatures were not rising. ———It is the same everywhere you look. Children in schools are still being told what Al Gore was saying 20 years ago that “When the CO2 goes up the temperature gets warmer”. They are being told that very strange weather that never happened before is all around us. They are being told Malaria etc will move north because of global warming when infact Malaria is not a tropical disease. It is a disease of poverty and we used to have Malaria in the UK and US. Infact there isn’t a beetle frog or penguin that isn’t at risk of extinction from global warming. No one investigates any of the climate alarm industries claims. They just regurgitate it word for word as if it was all ultimate truth, and people like Gore and Mann are still making a living out of this scam. Infact I think Mann is Bidens Climate advisor. You simply could not make this up.
Epictitus also knew.
Being of the same stoic nature, Epictetus most definitely knew.
I fixed the broken link to the spreadsheet in that article :/
Uncannily similar to that other absolutely impartial and never ever interfered with politically to suit agendas body which collects and collates data –
The ONS.
Election – Fiddling while Rome Burns
What appals me is that in this fiasco of an election that is currently grinding on is that there is no mention of any discussion on climate change or the immiserating ‘drive’ to net-zero misery. This uni-party apology of an election seems to see nearly all parties falling over themselves to agree with each other. I guess it any were challenged with data like the above, they would all bury their heads in the sand muttering settled science and just carry on with the net-zero drive to oblivion.
Will anything wake up the UK public to the net-zero horrors that are being inflicted on them based on dodgy data and unsettling science? To my mind most of the election issues I have heard to date are minor side issues compared to net-zero and yet net-zero issues do not seem to feature at all.
They are all fully onboard with it because the parasites are not working for us. They work for the UN and WEF. They are imposing NET ZERO on us. It is very easy to bamboozle a population with official science masquerading as truth when 70% of people get their news from the BBC.
That is liberal democracy for you.
The illusion of choice.
It wasn’t so obvious before perhaps.
I just heard Tice & Farage on GBN address an audience, both their main points were immigration, legal and illegal with more VAT for a company that hires immigrants. All well and good but they could’ve thrown in some jabs at Agenda 21/30. Also the WHO treaty that is going on right now FFS. To expose the uni-party as Globalists & Davos deviants to borrow a phrase, would be a huge open goal….Why don’t they use it!
A mandatory warning saying “We’re making this up” on the bottom left of the screen would be better.
Pass this around to anyone you know who still thinks CO2 is a toxic red Nazi gas..
Recommended reading…..
‘Is that true or did you hear it on the BBC’ by David Sedgwick
Try also by the same author “BBC–Brainwashing Britain? How and why the BBC controls your mind”.
The temperature data reported from 1860s onward, was/is recorded on meteorological instruments which were not intended to be scientific measuring instruments in the sense of high degree of accuracy to small fractions of a degree, nor were they all calibrated to a single reference instrument – the sort of instruments used in laboratory experiments for example.
They were meant to give approximate temperatures at their location for practical purposes of weather forecasting – weather being short-term, one to two days.
They were not/are not designed to be part of a global network to provide a globalised temperature record. In any case, reporting instruments of varying degrees of accuracy which purportedly provide data for ‘global surface temperatures’, cover probably no more than 10% of the Earth’s surface and are predominantly in North America and Europe and elsewhere in cities or large towns and airports where human activity artificially raises local temperatures.
This mish-mash of temperature readings is then run through a computer programme with algorithms to make corrections for such things as urban heat island effect and station drop-out to produce numbers claimed to be temperatures with an accuracy far greater than the input data.
2.5C uncertainty, is generous. 5C is more likely in my opinion.
On the radio yesterday they were saying India has a ‘record breaking’ heatwave’. No doubt there is some funny business going on with their measurements as well.
I work every day with a team in India and they don’t mention it whatsoever. To them 40 degrees is standard, they were saying about it a few weeks back when we were all freezing and half of us had the heating on in Summer! Every morning you see our team in warm clothes and it’s supposed to be boiling hot here? Really?
Yes I think Chris is too kind, he should call them what they are…a bunch of frauds .
With Reform sitting third in the polls surely they will get a seat in the TV Debates this time around. Tice wants to lay into the others on the Climate Lie, spell out the figures and let people know how much the lie is costing them.
For heavens sakes, once you get into the details, any single one of us could beat Starmer and Sunak on this.
deleted
There are two methods to achieve the primary goal of massive depopulation. One is deployment of bioweapons and their “cures’. The problem with this strategy is that it inadvertentently kills more sheep than Libertarians. The other method is “Man Made” Climate Change aka Global Warming. To fix the “Man Made” problem requires insanities like “Net Zero”. And its those responses that will result in massive depopulation from less vegetation (ie food) and cold temps (10x more die from cold than warm annually) that will hit all people in all demographics and mindsets. Except the uber rich AI perpetrators.
All well-made points, especially on the systematic distortion of the record.
But I’m not sure about your statistics. The average error from an individual station might be +- 2.5 degrees (which is pretty rubbish). However it does not follow that the error in the average of them all is 2.5 degrees.
In a similar way to “poll of polls” being more accurate than individual opinion polls, putting all the rather inaccurate readings together should give a more accurate overall result, unless the error is systematically one way (up or down).