More famous dead people who'd definitely vote ACT

[Lilith7]

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/06-09-...y-vote-act



[b]"After David Seymour claimed that Kate Sheppard would vote Act if she was alive today, we surveyed the afterlife and found others keen to show their support.[/b]
Stand down Sue Nicholson, there’s a new clairvoyant in town. David Seymour may be best known as leader of the Act Party, but this week the MP for Epsom revealed he also has a direct line to the afterlife. Not only does he know the names of lots of dead people, but he also knows how they would have voted. Breaking news: all the dead people in the world would have voted for Act. 
Yesterday, Seymour appeared in a multi-party election finance debate where he boldly announced that suffragette and $10 note icon Kate Sheppard would vote Act if she were alive today. It was a statement so unexpected that Green MP Julie Anne Genter’s eyes nearly popped out of her head, much like the reaction of many men when women won the vote in 1893. 

 Last month, the Act leader claimed the inspirational anti-apartheid activist Nelson Mandela would have campaigned for Act, and earlier in the year, declared the Māori chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 would sign up to Act today. 
It seems Act has a wide support base, particularly among the dead. Sadly, it’s rare for the deceased to talk (let alone vote), which makes it tricky to refute Seymour’s assertions about those on a higher spiritual plane (though Mandela’s grandson and Te Pāti Māori have rubbished the claims). With Seymour repeatedly calling upon the ghosts of celebrities past, we wondered: which famous dead person will be next to show their spectral support? 



Diana, Princess of Wales
All Diana wanted was the freedom to do as she pleased, including sunbathing on a superyacht without being bothered by the press. Remember when David Seymour turned up to election night in a speedboat? Same thing. 

Maui
Hated red tape and regulations, was big on innovation (even if it did lead to his death). He also lifted up the heavens, which seems like a handy skill if you want the heavens to give you its party vote. 

William Shakespeare
A man so rich and famous that if Dancing with the Stars existed in the 1500s, he probably would have twerked on it. He also penned the phrase “be great in Act, as you have been in thought.” Makes you think. 

The Toyota Hilux ‘Bugger’ Dog
A true champion of free speech. 

[b]Sir Edmund Hillary[/b]
In a spooky coincidence, 14 year old Seymour played Young Ed Hillary in the television series Hillary: A View from the Top. Surely Sir Ed told a teenage Seymour that should he ever find himself the leader of a right wing classical liberal political party, then Hillary would be happy to help Seymour to “knock the bastard off”, as they say in the next world.  

Michael Joseph Savage
Because it’s never too late to want a smaller, smarter government. 

Jack from Titanic
Pretty sure he muttered “two ticks for personal freedom” when Rose wouldn’t share the floating door."


To be fair to Rose though - there was just NO room for Jack on that floating door. Not with all those books she'd saved...






[b]Laurence Olivier [/b]
The latest press release from the afterlife confirms that all dead actors would have voted for Act. Laurence Olivier is reported to be at the front of the queue, having once uttered the immortal quote “without Act-ing, I cannot breathe”. The evidence speaks for itself. 
Phar Lap
Timaru horses are renowned libertarians, and Phar Lap was always banging on about being tough on crime, wasteful government spending and personal responsibility. 
This 3000-year-old mummy
If you listen closely, the reconstructed voicebox of Nesyamun, the 3000-year-old mummy is definitely saying “Act”. Messages on his coffin revealed the mummy dreamed of one day speaking again. On October 14, it will. 

[Oh_hunnihunni]

You know how they are going to fund those tax cuts? By defunding all the climate change work...

[Lilith7]

You know how they are going to fund those tax cuts? By defunding all the climate change work...

I just had a swift look at the policy.nz site - those New Conservatives are scary people. They've clearly been looking longingly at America & want to ban abortion, teaching abour gender etc. etc.

And ACT is definitely not the party needed if we're cocnerned with climate.

[dken31]

NZ trying to stop climate change is the very definition of pissing in the wind. Which countries are currently most vulnerable to climate change? Poor countries without sufficient resources to mitigate the negative effects. If NZ continues down the path of placing enormous burdens on our economy in what is a completely useless attempt at stopping climate change (or really just a massive virtue signalling "look at us, we're doing our part"), the only result is that we're far less well placed to protect ourselves against the inevitable changes.

ACT isn't turning a blind eye towards climate change, it is just being far more pragmatic and sensible. Even if climate change is 100% caused by human activity, what NZ does or doesn't do will have absolutely no noticeable effect on any changes. The countries that have the largest effect continue to not be interested in making any genuine meaningful changes; therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the climate is going to continue changing. As such, the only sensible approach is to focus our resources on adaptation rather than prevention.

Its not a question of whether or not prevention would be a better outcome than adaptation, it is just an acceptance that prevention isn't an option. NZ pouring resources into trying to stop the climate from changing, therefore vastly diminishing resources available to put towards adaptation, is like me spending all my money on trying to stop it from ever raining over my house instead of putting that money towards putting a roof on my house.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

No one is suggesting we can stop climate change now. It is too late. What those of us supporting these measures want is adaptation, forward planning, and mitigation in order to minimise the destruction and very unpleasant consequences of what is an unstoppable process. The projections just around sea level rises for New Zealand are scary, and being updated regularly to be even more worrying. That is economic loss, financial loss for the country, for local councils, and for individuals. Look at what the floods have cost us already, imagine that with those sea coast changes underway. Cities are built on coastal land. Roading networks follow coastal pathways.

Undoing the very small (note I am choosing not to say 'unbelieveably inadquate'), steps taken under the label Climate Change Emergency is going to set us back decades and cost us lives and livelihoods.

Undoing is probably inevitable, but even worse is the prospect of no action at all, other than opening the doors to the wealthy, who can afford boltholes here, while making sure the other climate change refugees, the ones whose nations are going to disappear completely, will be met with inadequate housing, low paid jobs, next to no medical, education, or other social support necessary to remake lives.

If you think life is a bit challenging now with our public services under pressure, that is going to get a hell of a lot worse on a steady trajectory from now on.

And so far, no government wannabes seem to be even vaguely aware of the fact.

But hey, that's pragmatism for you. Nelson style. Or maybe just Sargeant Schultz...

[Lilith7]

What ACT appears to be doing is a rather 'full speed ahead & damn the torpedos' approach, more or less ignoring the problem to a large extent.
Far more could be done but they choose to ignore that, perhaps because its likely to be hard or perhaps becaise it might intrude on our present lifestyle, or perhaps because they simply don't care about those who will come after us & have to cope with the consequences of their lack of action - to be fair though, it certainly isn't just the ACT party who prefers the head in the sand stance, its virtually all of them (apart from the Greens) who do not seem to wnat to do anything much which might help future Kiwis cope with climate change.

It might be hard, might be unpopular, might lose them votes.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

No guts to face the reality. Like many of their voting bloc I suspect. Mustn't startle the horses.

[dken31]

The Greens aren't at all focused on helping anyone cope with climate change, they're instead fixated on the complete delusion that we can slow down or prevent climate change. It might be a noble delusion, and come from a place of genuinely caring for future NZrs, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a delusion.

Green policies would completely hamstring our economy and result in far fewer resources available with which to help anyone (fleecing "the rich" until they leave or are no longer rich has never helped a country's economy in the long run). As such, it'd result in the destitution and death of many many people.

Although prioritising short-term economic growth too far above all other concerns is dangerous and harmful, it is also very dangerous and harmful to not acknowledge that a strong and healthy economy is absolutely vital to ensuring a strong and healthy population. Also, poor countries can't afford bother with environmental concerns, ironically, Green Party policies would actually harm NZ's ecology in the long term.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

You do understand that dead people are not economically productive? Quite the reverse. People come before economies, simply because economies require people. Preferably healthy happy productive people.

It isn't just penguins that will disappear from vast areas of the planet...

[R2x1]

Lilith7 : "What ACT appears to be doing is a rather 'full speed ahead & damn the torpedos' approach, more or less ignoring the problem to a large extent.
Far more could be done but they choose to ignore that, perhaps because its likely to be hard or perhaps becaise it might intrude on our present lifestyle, or perhaps because they simply don't care about those who will come after us & have to cope with the consequences of their lack of action . . ."

Did you get that from comments on the Keith Holyokel book of action aversion (AKA Steady does it)? It has a familiar ring, but last time it presaged our movement away from the world's 2nd highest standard of living to the stage where Muldoon found himself in a position where policies of hope had got us to a stage where it was a question of which financier would repossess NZ as a defaulter on the National debt? At least he had the idea of jumping overboard before the other rats got all the best seats in the lifeboats.
That time it killed our standard of living, this time it appears they've aimed at Survival Of The Species, possibly to get the fundamentalists on board?

Place metaphors in blender and energise

[Oh_hunnihunni]

There is one thing I really like about Climate Change. Simply put, anything we do about it is a step in the right direction. Even if it turns out to be the most fantastic fiction of all time any steps we have taken to offset it, mitigate it, or slow it down will be good for the planet.

[R2x1]

Mr Seymour is not at home today, he is rather busy replacing divots.

[harm_less]

The Greens aren't at all focused on helping anyone cope with climate change, they're instead fixated on the complete delusion that we can slow down or prevent climate change.  It might be a noble delusion, and come from a place of genuinely caring for future NZrs, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a delusion.

Green policies would completely hamstring our economy and result in far fewer resources available with which to help anyone (fleecing "the rich" until they leave or are no longer rich has never helped a country's economy in the long run).  As such, it'd result in the destitution and death of many many people. 

Although prioritising short-term economic growth too far above all other concerns is dangerous and harmful, it is also very dangerous and harmful to not acknowledge that a strong and healthy economy is absolutely vital to ensuring a strong and healthy population.  Also, poor countries can't afford bother with environmental concerns, ironically, Green Party policies would actually harm NZ's ecology in the long term.

It's just unfortunate that we can't risk our economy by taking steps to slow the destruction of the environment we all need fully functional in order to actually survive. Tried eating and breathing money recently?

Give NACT a term during which the planet collapses around them and they might realise that there's more to life than tax breaks and economic growth, or maybe they plan on cornering the fire extinguisher and bouyancy aid markets.

[Lilith7]

There is one thing I really like about Climate Change. Simply put, anything we do about it is a step in the right direction. Even if it turns out to be the most fantastic fiction of all time any steps we have taken to offset it, mitigate it, or slow it down will be good for the planet.

And us - if there are any of 'us' left. Ignoring it isn't really a strategy but it does seem very popular with most politicians.

We do nothing at our peril.  We're idiots.   Dogs are right.


"I've seen a look in dogs' eyes, a quickly vanishing look of amazed contempt, and I am convinced that dogs think humans are nuts."
John Steinbeck

[dken31]

You do understand that dead people are not economically productive? Quite the reverse. People come before economies, simply because economies require people. Preferably healthy happy productive people.

It isn't just penguins that will disappear from vast areas of the planet...

When the economy suffers, so does peoples health and well being.  An economic downturn means less money to spend of healthcare, shorter lifespans (i.e. people dying) due to stress/lower quality living conditions/aforementioned reduced healthcare/poorer diets etc.

"The economy" isn't some bonus extra that we can bother with once we've made sure that everyone is happy and healthy, rather it is at the very center of what allows us to make sure people are provided for.

[Lilith7]

The Greens aren't at all focused on helping anyone cope with climate change, they're instead fixated on the complete delusion that we can slow down or prevent climate change.  It might be a noble delusion, and come from a place of genuinely caring for future NZrs, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a delusion.

Green policies would completely hamstring our economy and result in far fewer resources available with which to help anyone (fleecing "the rich" until they leave or are no longer rich has never helped a country's economy in the long run).  As such, it'd result in the destitution and death of many many people. 

Although prioritising short-term economic growth too far above all other concerns is dangerous and harmful, it is also very dangerous and harmful to not acknowledge that a strong and healthy economy is absolutely vital to ensuring a strong and healthy population.  Also, poor countries can't afford bother with environmental concerns, ironically, Green Party policies would actually harm NZ's ecology in the long term.

It's just unfortunate that we can't risk our economy by taking steps to slow the destruction of the environment we all need fully functional in order to actually survive. Tried eating and breathing money recently?

Give NACT a term during which the planet collapses around them and they might realise that there's more to life than tax breaks and economic growth, or maybe they plan on cornering the fire extinguisher and bouyancy aid markets.

Nah, never happen. That lot can't allow themselves to comprehend reality; it might cost money.

[dken31]

There is one thing I really like about Climate Change. Simply put, anything we do about it is a step in the right direction. Even if it turns out to be the most fantastic fiction of all time any steps we have taken to offset it, mitigate it, or slow it down will be good for the planet.

What an ridiculously naive and untrue statement.  Your statement would be true if the steps being taken came at no cost, however the costs, aka allocation of resources, are immense. 

If we allocate significant resources (or slow down/prevent the creation or development of resources) towards "fighting" climate change, that takes away from what we can allocate to food/clothing/housing/education/healthcare etc.  

A really simplistic example of the ridiculousness of your claim: if we ban all farming, that would halt production of all the greenhouse gasses currently produced by farming...and most of us would starve to death.  Any step we take that makes production more costly or time-consuming adds to the cost of feeding and caring for people.

If it turns out to be the most fantastic fiction of all time, the cost to health and wellbeing has immeasurably exceeded any benefit.

[Praktica]

There is one thing I really like about Climate Change. Simply put, anything we do about it is a step in the right direction. Even if it turns out to be the most fantastic fiction of all time any steps we have taken to offset it, mitigate it, or slow it down will be good for the planet.

What an ridiculously naive and untrue statement.  Your statement would be true if the steps being taken came at no cost, however the costs, aka allocation of resources, are immense. 

If we allocate significant resources (or slow down/prevent the creation or development of resources) towards "fighting" climate change, that takes away from what we can allocate to food/clothing/housing/education/healthcare etc.  

A really simplistic example of the ridiculousness of your claim: if we ban all farming, that would halt production of all the greenhouse gasses currently produced by farming...and most of us would starve to death.  Any step we take that makes production more costly or time-consuming adds to the cost of feeding and caring for people.

If it turns out to be the most fantastic fiction of all time, the cost to health and wellbeing has immeasurably exceeded any benefit.

I don't think you realise how serious things are - we have  a choice. Try and have a controlled landing, or do nothing and crash and burn. You also have erected that straw man "ban all farming", which suggest you are not prepared to face the reality of the situation.

[R2x1]

There is one thing I really like about Climate Change. Simply put, anything we do about it is a step in the right direction. Even if it turns out to be the most fantastic fiction of all time any steps we have taken to offset it, mitigate it, or slow it down will be good for the planet.

What an ridiculously naive and untrue statement.  Your statement would be true if the steps being taken came at no cost, however the costs, aka allocation of resources, are immense. 

If we allocate significant resources (or slow down/prevent the creation or development of resources) towards "fighting" climate change, that takes away from what we can allocate to food/clothing/housing/education/healthcare etc.  

A really simplistic example of the ridiculousness of your claim: if we ban all farming, that would halt production of all the greenhouse gasses currently produced by farming...and most of us would starve to death.  Any step we take that makes production more costly or time-consuming adds to the cost of feeding and caring for people.

If it turns out to be the most fantastic fiction of all time, the cost to health and wellbeing has immeasurably exceeded any benefit.

Interesting, is the reason you don't care much about the world your great grand children may inherit that you're already in your own fantasy world where all the trees and leaves are green and the nice young men in their clean . . . ?
Having the best plot in the cemetery is not going to be quite as desirable if there's no one left to use your lovely $$ to build your mausoleum.
Once upon a time there were two passengers who found themselves outside the plane and falling at an increasing speed. One remarked as they passed through 7,000 feet at about 220 KMH, " This isn't so bad as people said it would be, we're already well over half way so no need to worry. Somebody will sort out our luggage and send it on."    Not to sure if they all lived happily ever after . . . Incidentally - The cost of repacking a parachute is rather awesome, but the cost of not opening it is not always the best option, as the parachute you saved might just not be saved after all. still, you have saved some dollars I guess.

Have a great day, don't worry, be happy.

[dken31]

What an ridiculously naive and untrue statement.  Your statement would be true if the steps being taken came at no cost, however the costs, aka allocation of resources, are immense. 

If we allocate significant resources (or slow down/prevent the creation or development of resources) towards "fighting" climate change, that takes away from what we can allocate to food/clothing/housing/education/healthcare etc.  

A really simplistic example of the ridiculousness of your claim: if we ban all farming, that would halt production of all the greenhouse gasses currently produced by farming...and most of us would starve to death.  Any step we take that makes production more costly or time-consuming adds to the cost of feeding and caring for people.

If it turns out to be the most fantastic fiction of all time, the cost to health and wellbeing has immeasurably exceeded any benefit.

I don't think you realise how serious things are - we have  a choice. Try and have a controlled landing, or do nothing and crash and burn. You also have erected that straw man "ban all farming", which suggest you are not prepared to face the reality of the situation.

I don't think you really comprehended what I wrote.

Firstly, my comment you replied to was talking about an "if its hoax, are mitigation efforts still a net benefit" situation.  I didn't raise that scenario, I was merely replying to it being raised by someone else.  Earlier though, I haven't ever advocated for doing nothing, but I've strongly advocated for putting our efforts into adaptation and coping with the change, rather than trying to prevent the change.  Humans are great at adaptation and survival, whereas thinking we can control the global climate is just King Cnut level stupidity/arrogance.

As for my ban all farming example, the post I was replying to stated that anything we did towards fighting climate change would be a net benefit, even if the whole thing was a hoax.  I used the extreme "ban all farming" to provide a very straight forward example of something we could do to fight climate change that would quite clearly not be of net benefit, thereby clearly disproving the assertion that "anything we do is a step in the right direction".  I wasn't suggesting anyone seriously thinks we should ban all farming, and it wasn't an argument for doing nothing instead.