- Date published:
5:30 pm, August 15th, 2022 - 24 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 …
"A white supremacist who was jailed for sharing footage of the March 15 terror attack, is standing for the board at one of Christchurch’s most multicultural schools.
Philip Arps was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment in 2019after he sent a video of the mosque killings to 30 people and asked a friend to modify it by adding cross-hairs and a “kill count”.
He is one of nine people contesting five parent trustee roles at Te Aratai College, which is 850m from Linwood Islamic Centre where worshippers were killed and injured in a mass terror shooting on March 15, 2019.
Arps’ attempt to join the school board has prompted calls for the rules to be changed, as they provide “no safeguards against extremist parents”."
“no safeguards against extremist parents”."
Isnt that what an election is…a safeguard against extremist views?
Arps wont be elected, but if by some miracle he was then he will have a negligible impact on the way the school is run.
what are the odds @ 5/9?
very low i would imagine….if anything is going to engage a school community to vote in a board election this is it,
I agree with you, pat. That miraculous outcome; that Arps or some other of his ilk, should be elected, and find themselves entirely boxed-in, neutralised and impotent, seems not to have occurred to any of them. Their stated aim is to make the place 'ungovernable" but what will happen in reality, is they'll be shown the door.
Can board meetings proceed without a quorum?
Nope. You suggest the others should go out for pizza?
One would think thats 3 more candidates than needed to keep Arps off the board. Good on him for incentivising turn-out.
fucking hope so.
How many council positions have only one candidate this time round?
this is the scary bit,
Another pathology for us to address. They're coming thick and fast now. Biologists will have suggestions on how to best manage pathologies, as will medical people, IT experts – smart people from all manner of industries and fields – we need to collate this information and put the known methods into play. If we don't we will fail on every level. As a forest-gardener, I've learned that containment, following recognition, is the step to take, then reduction of the ill-ness, using methods that don't cause collateral harm. Total eradication is a pointless aim, as vestiges have to remain to keep the "mother" organism on her toes.
Aucklanders need to halve our driving in the next 8 years.
Well, I've read the link, and the document that that links to, and I'm still at sea over what, practically, the plan is.
Taking a random example – from the TERP summary document p. 7 point 4, under "The transformation we need to make together"
"Wherever possible we need to reduce the trips we take by for example going online for services (banking, GP appointments, etc.) and mixing working from home with commuting into the office. To make the network efficient we need to use new tools like congestion charging"
So, what does that mean in practice?
The online services examples are poorly chosen.
Online banking is driven by banks (not individuals or local government), and is highly exclusionary – poor people, people without English as a first language, older people, people who are not IT literate – all struggle with online-only services. And it's becoming more and more difficult – and you have to travel a lot further – to actually get a face-to-face meeting in a bank. It's the reverse of the 'local services in your neighbourhood' that they're promoting.
Online appointments with your GP. Again this tends to be driven by the GP – and a phone consultation is frequently offered first. But face-to-face consultation is often necessary – and sometimes essential (the doctor spots something in person, that would never have come out over the phone). However, even if all consultation was in person -this is hardly likely to be a significant 'driver' (pardon the pun) of even local trips – visiting your GP is not an every-day, every-week or even, every-month activity for the vast majority of people.
Mixing working from home with visits to the office. Can we say white-collar, middle-class. The vast majority of Aucklanders don't work in an office (certainly not one in the CBD). And do not have an option to work from home. How does this policy affect them? Or doesn't it? In any case, apart from the office-workers directly employed by the Council – this is not something that the Council has any control over. Working from home is something negotiated between an employer and employee – Council have zip influence over this.
Finally, congestion charging. This is the biggie. Finally a tool that the Council can actually use, rather than pious wishes. But no details. Where is the statement that congestion charging to enter Auckland CBD will be X dollars, from 5 am to 10 am. (examples for illustration, only – I have no idea what they are actually planning).
The wording is so vague, that we don't know if they're planning congestion charging on all roads, all of the time.
If it's a pathway – I'd actually like to see some concrete way-points, rather than fluffy PR bureaucratese.
And, just to make it clear that I'm not against changes, here are some more practical (and radical) changes that the Council could signpost:
22 and counting.
Here is the 2023 NZ election result:
65% beats 25%
And this is from the same poll (i.e. same respondents) released last week, which gave National and ACT a predicted majority.
Clear lesson here. Voters will not switch to National/ACT for economic policy, but only to the "opposition" for being "other".
Labour take note.
Hmm. I suspect that it shows that the top tax bracket isn't a factor that most people are using to determine who they might potentially vote for.
If National (and, indeed, the British Tories) had any sense they'd move in a decidedly centrist direction on fiscal/economic policy while simultaneously adopting an overtly anti-Woke position on cultural issues (emphasising the latter more from a liberal-democratic, universalist, free expression of ideas perspective than a morally-conservative one). In both Countries, that would place them closer to the majority of voters (who tend left-of-centre on the traditional left-right economic spectrum & centrist-to-mildly-conservative on the postmaterialist moral-cultural spectrum).
Because the majority rules and the future, under their direction, is assured?
All futures are assured, but some futures are more assured than others
Equality for some: the challenge of poverty in Aotearoa New Zealand – 2018
The most recent version:
The richest 10% of New Zealanders hold more than half the country’s wealth. The poorer half of the population, meanwhile, holds just 2%. So why are we still so reluctant to talk about wealth inequality?
A succinct illustration of the problem. Do 'Lords' at the head of the table really believe they need all that food? What selfish gluttons – serfs have to eat too.
The real Top Guns.
Where is the Minister getting her advice?