I voted yesterday in Porirua. Little surprise that I voted for National and Brett Hudson. I also voted yes on both referendums. I thought I would explain here why I voted yes.
I am one of the 20% of adult NZers who has never tried cannabis and I doubt I ever will. In fact only once have I even used an illegal drug (I was offered some Ecstasy in Sydney on NYE a decade or so ago).
I think there are harms caused by some cannabis use, just as there is harm caused by some alcohol use – in both cases by those who are heavy users. They harm themselves, and sometimes others. The Christchurch and Dunedin longitudinal studies have good evidence on this.
I think New Zealand would be a better place if fewer people smoked cannabis. I also think NZ would be a much much better place without Meth or P.
So why did I vote yes. Here’s 11 reasons why.
The status quo has not worked. When 80% of adults have used an illegal drug, making it illegal has failed.
It is far easier to educate people on safety issues and consequences around a drug, if it is not illegal. You can reduce harm with a focus on education and safety.
I’d rather people have the option of buying cannabis from a legal regulated outlet that asks for proof of ID, and can ensure the product is relatively safe, than from gangs or their dealers
The tax revenue from legal cannabis sales could be used to fund greater drug rehabilitation services, to reduce the number of high end users or addicts.
Meth or P is a terrible drug that both destroys people’s lives but also can cause them to maim or kill others under the influence. I’d like to break any linkage or cycle between cannabis and P by having one legal and one illegal.
I’d rather the tens of millions of dollars and hours of Police time spent on cannabis related crimes was spent on reducing serious violent and sexual offending.
Having cannabis legal, but restricted to adults, should see a reduction in young people smoking cannabis. We have seen this with alcohol, with a big drop in youth drinking over the last decade.
Even though it is not very common now, I don’t think people should end up with criminal convictions simply for personal use or possession of cannabis.
Legalisation would reduce (but not eliminate) revenue for gangs.
A legal regulated regime can be tweaked and improved over time to keep the focus on reducing harm. You can’t really tweak or improve an illegal regime – you have no control over it at all.
A criminal law which 80% of NZers have broken is a bad thing. You want criminal laws to be widely respected. Having laws that are widely ignored doesn’t promote adherence to the law.
There are challenges and risks with legalisation. You don’t want more drugged driving. You don’t want more young people using cannabis. You don’t want people think that something is good or okay simply because it is legal.
But I think these are manageable challenges. I think overall a legal regulated and controlled regime will produce better outcomes for New Zealanders than an illegal regime that operates beyond the law, and has failed to deter NZers.
I was equally bemused and amused to get a call from a radio journalist saying they’ve heard I’ve called the election for Labour. This was news to me, to put it mildly. It seems someone has got excited over this tweet I made on Friday night:
It’s the World Food Programme! Guess this means Labour/Green Government rather than sole Labour!
This was me doing a sarcastic pisstake of if you were a Labour supporter who had their hopes on Jacinda winning. Any journalist who thinks that this is me conceding the election, needs a humour transplant, or worse.
In both my Patreon and here I provide detailed analysis of how I see things. Here’s my current take.
Of course Labour is in a strong position. They are ahead in the public polls, are a first term Government and have benefited from the normal patriotism over politics instinctive response to a disaster.
NZ First are in huge trouble and are highly unlikely to make it
The Greens are running a significant risk of not making it also. In this Patreon post I analyse their latest ONCB result and say that their true level of support is probably between 3.3% and 7.1%. so they have a non-trivial risk of not making 5%.
ACT are doing well and could well be the third largest party in Parliament
So while Labour is in a strong position, there is a credible path to victory for National. It is:
NZ First and Greens don’t make it
There is a 4% swing from Labour to National or ACT in the last two weeks. The last two ONCB polls have had only 6% or 7% between Labour and National/ACT.
Now again it is a challenging task, but far from unachievable. Let’s look at how polls have moved in the past in the last two weeks of a campaign:
1996: Govt dropped 6% from 40% to 34% in last two weeks
2002: Govt dropped 5% from 46% to 41% in last two weeks
2011: Govt dropped 6% from 53% to 47% in last two weeks
Under MMP elections are pretty much always tight. Even in 2008, 2011 and 2014 National never won Government by more than a couple of seats. Anyone who thinks the election is decided doesn’t understand MMP. And anyone who takes a sarky tweet as newsworthy should take a chill pill.
UPDATE: Newshub has gone from reporting news to inventing it, having broadcast a story tonight, totally misrepresenting this tweet. They didn’t even attempt to talk to me about it, unlike Radio NZ who did the courtesy of calling me.
This makes it timely to refer to Karl du Fresne’s post from Thursday on what has been an offensive by Newshub against National. We also saw this in the interviewing the party leaders after the debate. The body language and questions to the two leaders was starkly different.
TVNZ’s election tool, Vote Compass, asked people: ‘From what you saw, heard or read about the debate, who do you think won?’
Among those who watched the debate, 32 per cent of respondents said ACT leader David Seymour won.
Meanwhile, 21 per cent said Greens Party co-leader James Shaw won, 11 per cent said the winner was NZ First leader Winston Peters, four per cent said it was Māori Party co-leader John Tamihere and two per cent said Advance New Zealand co-leader Jami-Lee Ross won the debate.
Now this is a self selecting survey, but as those who watched the debate are self selecting also this is less of an issue than normal.
Matches general feedback that Seymour did very well.
It is quite possible after the election that Seymour will be leader of the third largest party in Parliament. Here’s the number of MPs ACT has had under MMP:
1996: Eight
1999:Nine
2002: Nine
2005: Two
2008: Five
2011: One
2014: One
2017: One
Again it is quite possible 2020 will see ACT’s largest ever caucus.
Action Zealandia don’t just dislike foreigners and immigration, but also the Joooos!!
It seems the Jews are behind the Black Lives Matter movement in the US according to the article!
Back in the heydays of Barack Obama’s ‘leadership’, there was a call to modify legislation to accommodate foreign interests, led by Rabbi Mark Diamond, director of the Los Angeles chapter of the American Jewish Committee. Diamond organized one of those many interfaith ‘dialogues’ that consisted in looking out over the US border towards Mexico and complaining that there aren’t enough illegals living in America. The timing was important because an immigration reform was on the table and the Jews, ever thoughtful, wanted to make a spectacle and guilt trip Americans into accepting people that have no right to be in their country. It seems whenever the US is in talks about reviewing its legislation, agents of an enemy Nation have the cojones to step in and mislead public opinion, in order to interfere with the law-making process:
So the Jews are agents of an enemy Nation.
We have politicians in our government, making our laws, telling us what it means to be an American and in which direction America should be moving, who are citizens of Israel, and no one blinks an eye.
The enemy loves telling us who we are and what we stand for.
Again Jews are the enemy.
Jews continue to enmesh themselves into our societies via their nepotism and tribalistic cohesion
Jews are under the bed and enmeshed!
Today, we are not allowed to criticize or even notice certain things regarding Jews. A great portion of Western, Central and Eastern Europe (apart from Spain, UK, Scandinavia and the Netherlands) criminalizes dissension from the holocaust narrative. This event is not only promoted to the hilt on countries that played no role in it, but it is also the official State Dogma in those countries. Try questioning that dogma and see what happens – your mileage may vary. Just ask 91 year old Ursula Haverbeck if you’re allowed to visit her in prison, that is. That will teach her! For those who cannot visit her but are nonetheless interested in her point of view, I recommend her interview with Panorama, in which she declared passionately: “the Truth needs no laws”. Her sentence is set to end this coming November, so fingers crossed. Her crime was asking pertinent and inconvenient questions to State officials and then to Jewish organizations.
She didn’t just ask questions. She married a Nazi and is a Holocaust denier. Now I disagree with the countries that criminalise Holocaust denial (while understanding why Germany does) but again she doesn’t just ask questions. She claims the mass destruction of Jews was a myth. She has claimed Hitler had a “divine mission” in the world-historical context. She has also threatened Jews with a new pogrom and claimed Auschwitz as a place of death is not proven, but just opinion. Sure she shouldn’t be in jail, but she isn’t exactly a benign person.
Labour will repeal the three strikes legislation if it wins the election as part of the party’s drive to reduce the prison population.
You reduce the prison population by reducing offending, not by letting serious repeat offenders out quickly.
The three strikes law has actually seen a reduction in serious reoffending. The very thing the left often say its vital.
It is likely Labour will have the numbers to repeal it (if they form Govt, as NZ First won’t be there), but they will regret doing so. The reason is because their repeal of the law will be able to be tied to specific violent crimes in future.
Most law changes around parole or bail or sentencing have decisions made by Judges or Parole Board etc and you can’t say with certainty what the sentence would have been under the old regime.
But three strikes is different. It does give certainty. For a second strike you lose parole eligibility. It doesn’t affect the sentence just eligibility for parole.
So let’s take an example of how this would work. Let’s say Andy has a 1st strike offence for violent assault. He gets released in 2021 after Three Strikes has been repealed. A few weeks later he commits another violent assault. He gets sentenced to five years jail.
Under three strikes, he would serve the entire five years. Once they repeal it he will be eligible for parole at some stage after one year and eight months. And if he gets parole and commits a further offence in that period between early release and his full sentence date, then one can fairly and conclusively say the law change allowed that crime to occur. If Andy gets out after three and a half years and six months later kills someone, then the MPs who voted to repeal three strikes will be held responsible for the law change that allowed him to do so.
And there won’t just be one or two Andy’s. There are 12,000 criminals out there with a first strike offence. There will be hundreds who will go onto do a second strike, and who will then get out early on parole and bash, maim, rape or kill someone. And everyone of those victims will find out their crime happened because Labour repealed the law to give parole to repeat serious violent and sexual offenders.
It will take some time, but the backlash when it comes against those MPs who vote to repeal the law will be massive. They will have to confront victims and their families and explain why they thought abolishing a law which had reduced serious reoffending was a good idea.
So Labour and Greens will probably get the votes to repeal the law, if in Govt. But they will pay the price for it electorally down the track. This sort of law change isn’t one where it happens and is forgotten about. It will hurt them, make no mistake.
Remember this is a law only 20% of New Zealanders disapprove of. It is supported by a greater than 3:1 majority. The majority or plurality of Labour and Green voters support it. Now again that won’t stop their MPs from repealing it, but it will hurt them as the consequences become apparent.
Biden, for the first time, has a double digit lead in the 538 poll average. It is now 10.1%. It was 6.6% just three weeks ago.
A double digit gap is generally considered landslide territory.
People need to understand that while there are polling errors, they will not reverse a 10% gap. The average Brexit polls had a loss by around 2% and they won by around 2%. In 2016 the national polls had Clinton ahead by around 4% and she won popular vote by 2%.
Polling errors can be significant in very close races. They are not in landslides.
Of course there are 25 days to go, but that isn’t a lot of time. There may not even be any more debates, and some states have started advance voting.
Also he really can’t help himself. After it is revealed the Governor of Michigan was the subject of a plot to kidnap her and hold a “treason trial”, Trump’s literal very first words were “Governor Whitmer of Michigan has done a terrible job”. That’s not going to convince any swinging voters.
Anyway for those who think I am relentlessly negative on Trump, I am writing a blog post on the 10 things I most like about Trump. I will also do one on the 10 things I least like.
The appendix got in the way this week, but despite that I have finally managed to navigate the extremely un user friendly Facebook process to get authorised to do political ads.
Am just doing a trial run with the ad with a $50 spend and once that is done, will push go on the full campaign. I’ll do a seperate post on how much was donated. Huge thanks to all those who have. It’s quite exciting to crowdfund an ad.
Wellington City Council is investigating giving mana whenua voting rights and remuneration on council committees.
Councillors unanimously voted this morning in favour of a report being undertaken into the legal and logistical steps of it.
Māori partnerships portfolio leader councillor Jill Day led the move with a notice of motion, which was tabled at a strategy and policy committee meeting today.
She choked up when she reflected on the Māori world view.
“Just for a minute imagine what it’s been like to watch for generations your land alienated, your names replaced, and your identity removed from the community, and every time you would like to participate you’re reminded that you can’t because of this law or this process. The rules are stacked against you.”
It is true there has been land alienation etc in the past. But what is the law or process that stops Maori from participating in Wellington City Council? What are the rules that Cr Day says are stacked against them?
As it happens two of the 15 City Councillors are Maori. This is roughly the same proportion as Maori are of the overall Wellington City population.
Councillor Fleur Fitzsimons said the definition of democracy recognised the legitimacy of first peoples.
“In New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi is what gives this council and the whole state any legitimacy to be here at all.”
That is an interesting stance. By this logic, the Governments of Australia, the US and Canada are all illegitmate as they didn’t have a Treaty.
I regard it as a good thing we did sign the Treaty of Waitangi. I think our record with regards to indigenous populations is far better than many other countries, because of it. But that is different from saying the Treaty is what gives the Government legitimacy.
As to the actual issue of Mana Whenua reps on Council committees, I don’t actually oppose that so long as final decisions are made by the full elected Council.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is in a three-way race for the Nobel Peace Prize, according to bookmakers – with Donald Trump hot on her heels.
The world’s most prestigious awards are announced tonight about 11pm NZ time.
Most bookmakers have Ardern in the top three nominees, with the World Health Organisation and climate activist Greta Thunberg. The US president is fourth favourite, say bookies.
There are 318 candidates this year – of which 211 are individuals and 107 are organisations.
If Trump is the 4th favourite with the bookies, that says a lot about the bookies. Not saying Trump’s Middle East peace deals are not highly laudable – just that it is inconceivable he would win given who makes the decision.
The WHO would be a strange choice. They certainly play an important role in battling Covid-19 (especially in the developing world), but they have not been standout performers, to say the least. If they win, it will be more an act of solidarity as they are under fire.
So that leaves Thunberg vs Ardern. If it is between those two, I’d have to say Ardern is the more deserving. Her actions after March 15 had an actual positive impact around the world. Rather than have a backlash and reprisals from Muslim majority countries, NZ’s response to the massacre was praised widely, and the end result was the opposite of what the terrorist wanted to achieve. Not all of that is due to Ardern, but certainly some of it is.
Thunberg has certainly motivated a large number of people, and led to protests and strikes around the world. But has there been any actual change of substance due to her advocacy? No.
Of course it may go to someone outside the bookie favourites.
Whether Ardern wins or not, the publicity around it will probably help coming a week before the election.
The letter was written for a group of Hutt people dismayed by the Hutt City Council’s plans for a new kerbside collection scheme. Some became concerned by biased and incomplete disclosure by the Council in its required consultation with residents. Others have concerns about the loss of incentives for waste minimisation, or loss of choices about collection and bags and bins.
The consultation disclosure left out important options. It should have been balanced, fair and objective. Instead it was obviously intended to steer people into supporting one option apparently preferred by some Council officers and the Mayor.
Under those insiders’ preferred option Hutt households will lose their current Pay as You Throw choices among competing suppliers. Kerbside collection costs will be buried in rates. That reduces the natural reward to people who minimize their waste. Low waste producers will subsidise people who produce lots of waste.
If you want to reduce waste, then you should charge high waste producing households more than low ones.
The consultation, and the information provided to Councillors who made the decision, did not properly explain costs and risks. From what we have seen in thousands of pages of Council information obtained under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, Councillors were likely to have been misled by significant omissions and wrong statements. Among the misleading claims was that Council had to make an urgent decision, because waste contractors would not offer bag collection after the middle of next year.
Many Hutt people will be aware that Councillor Milne has been trying to warn Councillors of the risks in the kerbside collection proposals. He investigated discrepancies in the information fed to Councillors (and the public), including that an end to bag service could not be avoided. That seems to have been intended to stampede Councillors. They were pressed to allow a seriously irregular process that pre-judged the outcome of the consultation. The Council asked contractors to bid on a closely specified new system at the same time as the Council was pretending to consider ratepayers’ views on other options, with an open mind.
Among the tender terms was a prohibition on tenderers talking to Councillors, exactly at the time that Councillors might want to hear from those who know costs and unexpected risks in the proposed new system. That prohibition was imposed despite the decision on tender success being expressly reserved to Council officers, away from Councillors. So Councillors were told they could not talk to the people in the best position to know of problems in the Council officer recommendations, allegedly because it could undermine the tender integrity, even though Councillors would not see the final tender assessments and would not be involved in awarding the successful tender.
It is no surprise that a judicial review is being filed.
Two people charged in connection with the NZ First Party donations’ scandal are alleged to have fraudulently depositing more than $740,000 into NZ First Foundation account.
That is not pocket change.
Charging documents obtained by Stuff allege the pair, between September 30, 2015 and February 14, 2020, deposited a total of $746,881 into two separate accounts including the New Zealand First Foundation (NZFF).
The SFO alleges the pair intended to deceive NZ First’s party secretary, and/or the Electoral Commission.
“The defendants adopted a fraudulent device, trick or stratagem, whereby party donations for the Party were paid into the bank accounts of [suppressed] and the NZFF and not notified to the Party Secretary, or declared by the Party Secretary to the Electoral Commission,” the documents stated.
The Electoral Act is crystal clear. S207(B) states “Every person to whom a party donation is given or sent must, within 10 working days after receiving the donation, either transmit the donation to the party secretary; or deposit the donation into a bank account nominated by the party secretary.“
And if the Party Secretary did not know, he or she could not notify the Electoral Commission.
They have the Democrats at 94% probability to keep the House.
Specifically they are forecasting 237 seats for the Democrats and 198 for the GOP. This would be a small four seat gain for the Democrats.
Now there are models for the presidency, Senate and House, we can calculate some odds for overall outcomes.
The Senate is 68% likely to flip to the Democrats and they have Biden at 84% to win the presidency. So overall the chance of Democrats holding both chambers and the presidency is 65%.
A campaign to lower the voting age to 16 has failed to win over a judge in a preliminary legal argument seeking to advance the cause.
The campaign had wanted a High Court judge to declare that the current minimum voting age of 18 discriminated on the basis of age.
Any decision to lower the minimum voting age would be for Parliament to make but a judge’s declaration would have helped clarify the law.
In a decision issued from the High Court in Wellington on Wednesday, Justice Jan-Marie Doogue said restricting voting to people aged 18 was a justified limit on the right not to be subject to age discrimination.
This is not a huge surprise.
The Judge noted:
It is also worth noting that for the purposes of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child a “child” is defined as “every human being below the age of eighteen years.”
In summary, I consider it is reasonable for a democratic society to grant voting rights to adults and not children, and to draw a line between adults and children at the age of 18.
Pretty basic principle – children don’t get the vote, adults do.
Age may be an imperfect proxy for maturity or competence; there will always be precocious children above, and incompetent adults below, the line wherever it is drawn. But a bright line is reasonable when establishing eligibility at the population level.
I’d be happy to go for a competency based eligibility for voting, rather than age. I have a long list of people who clearly should not qualify 🙂
I’m now at home recovering from my appendectomy. It was the first time I have been an non-elective inpatient at a hospital.
Thanks to the good wishes from so many people. For those interested, here is the story of the 48 hours.
Sunday 1 pm
At Chocolate Fish Cafe with the family. Outside supervising Ben whizzing around on the scooters when I appeared to pull a muscle in my abdomen. Well that is what I assumed it was. The weird thing is I wasn’t stretching or anything. But it came out of nowhere.
Sunday 1.30 pm
Drive home. Took Panadol as it was fairly uncomfortable.
Not feeling great. Have a lie down. Take temperature – normal. Still in discomfort but not huge. Despite no temperature feel hot so take a shower.
Sunday 5.00 pm
Still twinging away. Take ibuprofen. Feeling nauseous. Noy very hungry.
Google symptoms for appendicitis. Had assumed my pain was muscular as I thought the appendix was lower down the body but Dr Google informs me the pain is often to the right of the belly button where it was. Had the symptom of nausea but no fever or diarrhea. The pain was’t huge so was thinking I’d maybe see a doctor tomorrow.
Sunday 5.30 pm
Decide to go into the After Hours Medical Centre as a precaution. Take laptop and a book with me, in case I am there late
Drive in and get there around 6.30 pm and see triage nurse and then a doctor.
Doctor is unsure whether it is appendicitis. My pain level is only 3.5/10. I am walking okay and the urine test was negative. But he can feel a hernia there. Luckily he errs on side of caution and rings hospital and the duty registrar says they’ll look at me.
Sunday 7.30 pm
Drive to hospital and go to ED, after passing the Covid-19 checkpoint. Seen by a triage nurse again and do another urine test.
It’s a polling night (every night is during the campaign) so I’m working on my laptop in the ED waiting room setting up report templates for later on.
Transferred up to Ward 7 for assessment. They do a blood test also and that test also comes back negative. My pain level is still 3.5 and they are not sure if it is appendicitis or not. They say best to be safe and have me stay in for observation and they’ll do a scan in the morning.
While waiting for test results I set up the assessment room as a temporary office and work on poll results.
I finish the report around 11 pm and then go to the main ward area to crash for the night.
Sunday 11.30 pm
Pain is increasing significantly. Am glad I didn’t go home. They give me Tramadol as well as Paracetamol. Tramadol is an opioid painkiller and a reasonable step up.
Monday 1.30 am
Despite the Tramadol the pain is getting worse. Comes and goes but spikes at probably an 8.5/10 on the pain scale. Not to be fair that is the male pain scale, so probably just a 2.5 on the female pain scale, but nevertheless was enough for me to be actually yelling out loud.
Am now given Sevredol which is Morphine based. Have high hopes of this, and thought would finally allow me to sleep. Alas even the Sevredol didn’t remove the pain (maybe reduced it to a 6.5) and I am thinking that if this isn’t Appendicitis then I sure as hell want to know what it is. Wishing I never saw the Alien movie.
Monday 2.30 am
I start shivering. I think I must be cold so just need another sheet on top. I hate being a nuisance so don’t actually buzz a nurse, and just crawl under the sheets to try and warm up. After 15 minutes of shivering and shaking I buzz a nurse to ask if they would mind getting me another sheet or blanket. They look at me almost convulsing and say they think I have a fever. Indeed I do have a raging fever.
When any movement causes your abdomen to send agonising pain along your nerves, a shaking fit isn’t ideal. Around this stage I start to think the euthanasia law would be useful around now.
The nurses are trying to get antibiotics into me via IV line. The problem is have you ever tried to get a line into someone who is doing horizontal break dancing. I don’t recall details clearly but I think it took 3 or 4 doctors and nurses to do it, with some holding me down.
Am worried the appendix may have burst, but there is no way of knowing.
Monday 3.30 am
Bliss. The fever has subsided back to 38 degrees (not sure what it was at its peak) and the abdominal pain has lessened also. I do have a serious thought that if morphine can’t effectively negate my pain from an inflamed appendix, then what the hell must it be like for people with terminal cancer, and I become an even more ardent supporter of the End of Life Choice Act.
Monday 7 am
Not really slept but it is breakfast time. Except no breakfast as I have been on zero food and water since 2 am (last food was 5.30 pm). The IV line is working though and I even turn down pain killers. Still have a slight fever though.
Do video calls with the kids. Ben very interested in the five different bandages on my arms where there has been lines or blood taken.
Get taken in a wheelchair for CT scan. Doesn’t take long and back to the ward.
Monday 10 am
Surgeons come around and tell me scan has confirmed appendicitis. This is not a surprise after last night. The good news is the appendix hasn’t burst and it looks to be a uncomplicated case.
They say they heard it was a rough night. They ask me if I want the appendix removed. This is one of the simpler decisions in your life. If I was 25 and single and propositioned by Gal Gadot I’d take longer to say yes than I took to agree to having the appendix out.
Get visited by partner who brings clothes and also by an old Otago Uni friend who is a radiologist at the hospital. We’d been trying to catch up for months, so a silver lining.
Spend a bit of time on the laptop setting up the two polls for the night, and e-mail them off to my staff. Cancel several meetings scheduled for the week.
Monday 3 pm
My time for theatre has come. They whizz my bed down and I go through the normal routine of repeating name and DOB a dozen times to ensure they have the right person. They ask if I want to keep the appendix. I know three year old Ben would love to see it, but I also know equally it will gross out the rest of us, so decline.
98% of appendectomies are done by keyhole surgery, which is a lot better than in the old days.
They start the anaesthetic and I then wake up around 5.30 pm in the second stage recovery ward.
Monday 6.30 pm
Finally get to eat for first time in 24 hours. Not that hungry surprisingly but have some mince, potato and peas.
Very drowsy still. Dad visits. We chat, but don’t remember much details.
Monday 8.30 pm
Still feeling drowsy but data collection for polling finishes at 9 pm so I gingerly get out of bed and grab my laptop. Quite sore to lean over or walk so takes a fair bit of time to set it up on the food tray above my bed.
Start poll analysis at 9 pm despite still having anaesthetic in my body. Hoping I don’t make a mistake and record Advance NZ at 8% or something.
Finish work at 11 pm. Quite pleased that I have managed to complete poll reports on normal schedule, hours after surgery. Others may think rather mad, but I don’t really have anyone to delegate the analysis to. 95% of the operations are delegated, but not the analysis.
Feeling much better than before the operation so only take some paracetamol.
Tuesday midnight
Get my obs checked. The machine beeps because I have low blood pressure. I assure nurse this is normal.
Tuesday 4 am
Am sleeping this night, but being woken every four hours for obs means still fairly tired. A bit sore too, so up the pain killer to Tramadol.
Tuesday 8 am
Another video call with the kids then breakfast – weetbix! Ben has decided he has a sore stomach also and wants to come to hospital.
Tuesday 9 am
Surgeons visit. They come in a flock of five or so. Good news is all clear and I can be discharged. Yay.
Go and have a shower. Slightly alarmed that there is a fairly large pool of blood in the shower and on me. But turns out it is from my hand (where the line had been), not from the surgery so that was ok.
Get discharge papers and prescriptions. No heavy lifting or driving for a week or two. While the keyhole surgery is less intrusive than other surgery, you still have quite a bit of discomfort, especially the hole through your belly button. I am shuffling more than walking.
Get picked up and home around midday – so all over within 48 hours of the first symptom.
Nurses and doctors at Wellington Hospital all great. Excellent care. Glad I live in a country with a good health system.
Will take a while to recover. Was pretty painful yesterday and took Tramadol at night. Feeling a bit better today though. but walking and leaning over still a hassle. Having to work every night until 11 pm is not helping, but the appendix wasn’t willing to wait until after the election!
Just one poll but the 538 polling average has the gap now at 8.9% and growing and Biden at 83% probability to win. Real Clear Politics has Biden with 374 EV votes to 164 for Trump.
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has unveiled tax cuts worth up to $5490-a-year for families and will demand Parliament urgently legislate the relief to ensure the cash can hit workers’ pay packets by the end of the month, in a big spending federal Budget.
Promising the ‘instant’ tax cuts will offer hope in a year marked by “floods, droughts, fires, and a global pandemic”, the Budget will also offer a new wage subsidy to bosses who hire young, unemployed workers.
Sadly we have a Government here that believes the only acceptable fiscal stimulus is them deciding to spend more money, not giving taxpayers more of their own money to spend.
Labour in 2017 said their goal was to get NZ to 100% renewable electricity by 2035. A few weeks ago they announced their target was now to be 100% renewable by 2030.
You might assume that for them to bring their target date forward by five years, they had huge success in the last three years in increasing the share of renewable electricity?
Oh dear. Actually it has gone slightly down under Labour, and after a huge increase over the last nine years.
I guess in Labour world only moving 0.5% in the wrong directions counts as a stunning success!
