- Date published:
5:30 pm, June 10th, 2021 - 21 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:
Daily review is also your post.
This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Don’t forget to be kind to each other …
I didn't treat myself to Nick Smith's valedictory. It seems that like a lot of people, empathy was a quality he was capable of only when he had a personal stake.
Too bad he didnt apologise for throwing thousands of long term ACC claimaints off the rolls and onto the benefit system, throwing them into hardship and poverty, in some cases onto the streets.
Sad to have a career 30+ years in one workplace, and your stated highlight was 3 years in Cabinet or 10% of that time, and of that 10% just the formation of one marine reserve as something to remember as good.
He's an object lesson in getting out after 2 or 3 terms tops.
Up or out, as they say at Russell McVeigh
Here here. Same can be said of local body politics. Councils up and down the country seem to have their fair share of local body politicians who’s career defining highlights were last millennium.
That is pretty much the career of most of these guys. so as long as they get elected, or get in via list is a guaranteed job for life. It is not as if they had KPI's to fulfill or have an anual feedback with those that elected them. And then you look at who runs in certain electorates and it is no wonder the same person gets elected until they either resign or die.
He is a lesson for all of these suits, two terms and then you go to private industry and that should count for everyone in parliament. Also, if you lose the same electorate twice, join private industry. It could certainly not make the lack of choice in available people to vote any worse then it is.
I would go as far to say you must have six years of work experience outside of politics as a requirement to run for parliament. Get some real world experience, can't stand the Beltway lifers,
Yes, that too, or say a quota on people in parliament that need to be of the trades and the arts.
Ok here's my proposal, we keep mmp and its proportionality but discard list only candidates.
The 'list' spaces are decided by ranked unsuccessful candidates. Ie best performers that didnt win their electorate.
Granted a formula would need to be established to calculate this measure but not insurmountable by any means.
This makes all candidates to some extent at least beholden to the communities in which they stand for election.
Do we need that many ministers in the first place?
The idea was that List MPs would represent communities of interest, not of place. It's why our parliament now looks more like our population.
Also a test about the main features of a democracy and then of fascism to make sure they know the difference. And what powers they have to get what they want done in the right manner – so they know the strength of the civil service.
They might find themselves unsuited to the job and instead become coal miners. But those are declining with climate change, so perhaps they could use their natural confidence and projection and become buskers or stand-up comedians.
But Peter Cook knew all about getting through the aptitude tests.
RIP Richard Nunns, sensitive ear and companion of Maori instruments.
Hirini Melbourne died in 2003. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirini_Melbourne
Brian Flintoff continues to bring forth his magnificent carving creations.
Maya Forstater who lost her job because of tweeting gender critical views on her personal account, and who lost her tribunal case against her employer, has just had that ruling overturned on appeal. Important decision that says gender critical belief is protected as a legal right (you cannot be fired for what you believe).
To clarify, that was never the legal question.
The main problem with the original prelim hearing was that it set the bar at which expression of a belief is not protected too low. It should be at "Nazi" level. Hence the concentration on "Grainger V" in the appeal.
The additional problem was the original prelim got distracted by how inconsistent, absolute, and factually flawed her beliefs were, which was beside the point for that hearing.
Actual rulings from the prelim and the appeal at the bottom of the wikipedia article.
Tweet image doesn't display for me, so in case that's across the board, here's what the image says,
prelim used the wrong threshold for the test, appeal applied the new "not actually a Nazi" test, claimant's beliefs passed that test.
To clarify, that's your opinion 😉
Thanks to MF, we now have very clear legal clarification that GCF beliefs aren't even close to being those of Nazis. This is important legally (eg you can't be fired), but also culturally. Now the legions of TAs running round social media and elsewhere calling feminists akin to Nazis (or anti-Semites) will increasingly have to account for their beliefs. It's also a massive push back from the No Debate position, which was based on framing GCFs as Nazis or similar.
Not merely my opinion. The appeal said the prelim analysed unrequired elements to make its finding (hence "distracted"), and the other words have their bases from the prelim hearing.
from the appeal:
And yet it did evaluate the claimant's belief.
from the prelim:
prelim clause 83:
Since the appeal explicitly avoided assessing the claimant's beliefs on their merit, those bits of the prelim hearing haven't been overruled.
So the legions of "GCFs" looking to exclude trans women from various spaces and events are also folk who "will increasingly have to account for their beliefs" that have legally been found to have significant scientific evidence that they are wrong.
An interesting opinion piece from 2019 which purports to tell "what really happened" to put Maya Forstater in front of the Employment Tribunal.
…she began using her personal Twitter account to tweet about her opposition to potential changes to the U.K.'s Gender Recognition Act, writing, “I share the concerns of @fairplaywomen that radically expanding the legal definition of 'women' so that it can include both males and females makes it a meaningless concept, and will undermine women’s rights & protections for vulnerable women & girls." …
She then added: "Some transgender people have cosmetic surgery. But most retain their birth genitals. Everyone's equality and safety should be protected, but women and girls lose out on privacy, safety and fairness if males are allowed into changing rooms, dormitories, prisons, sports teams.”
Note that, in both cases, Forstater explicitly and unmistakably referred to trans women as "males"; the law to which she was referring — the Gender Recognition Act — explicitly recognizes trans women as female, not male, and the changes being contemplated were about increasing transgender women's inclusion.
The entire piece is worth a read…even though it is blindly supportive of the "law" that clearly confuses sex with gender.
I'm hoping to live long enough to read how history will view this bizarre phase of human evolution where males exerted enough power and influence to convince lawmakers and judges that being female is simply a matter of an individual's state of mind.
Well done Maya, and hopefully the dark tide has turned.
Amazing work from her. I’m cautiously hopeful although I think there are still significant challenges.
lots of legal commentary since yesterday. This one absolutely burns (bookmarking here as I’m only half way through).