Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
7:49 am, October 4th, 2023 - 91 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
Matt Gaetz as House Speaker?
Ewwww.
Never going to happen.
The MAGA shower have too few votes and there are too many "moderate" Republicans who wouldn't want him anywhere near the speakers gavel either.
OOPS
Goldman Sachs analysts warn National’s proposed tax cuts risk exacerbating inflation, and therefore causing interest rates to remain higher for longer.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/election-2023-nationals-tax-cuts-could-push-interest-rates-up-goldman-sachs-analysts-warn/VB6QT4LQCFFA5HJDPVWQKCQSUA/
Pay walled
Muppetts
Link past the paywall
https://archive.ph/23WEA
That shows how idiotic so much of the coverage of "tax cuts" has been. Treating it like scratch Lotto … "you could get $20 in your hand!". That only makes sense if everything else stays the same.
Economic policy changes things (sorry for stating the obvious, but the obvious isn't being reported much in this campaign). Sure, analysts might not all agree on the possible effects, but at a bare minimum there must be consideration of increased household costs, which would include house prices, rent, interest rates, council rates, and everything else related to the voter's home.
It's a con, and not even a subtle one.
Tax Cuts are National's standard go to Policy, that trick has worked b4 as the average person does not understand the finer detail. Once National are voted in they develop policy to pay for the Tax Cuts like raising GST which for lower income earners nullifies the value of the Tax Cut.
The Lower Socio-Economic groups or "Bottom Feeders" who Luxon refers them as will get hammered by this next NACT Government.
Nikki Willis is doubting Goldman Sachs analysis and Grant Robertson's analysis, obviously she is a lot smarter than they are, hopefully she can clarify this and disprove their analysis.
Bryce Edwards has given 10 reasons why Labour's support has halved.
I think point two is the most critical in terms of this election. That is failure to deliver on key projects such as Kiwibuild and Light Rail. I think this is front and centre of voters' minds when they consider promises that Labour makes for this current election. A lot of voters likely think "yeah right" and doubt what Labour promises will ever happen.
In the case of Kiwibuild, even having brought a Kiwibuild property doesn't necessarily guarantee you will get it.
Light Rail to the Airport is a disaster waiting to happen IMHO.
Brought est-ce que tu bought?
Bryce Edwards is just another National Party poodle, always was, and always will be .
RNZ newsreader, 7am, said Labour MPs had told RNZ that saving the furniture is what matters now – but is parliament's furniture really threatened?
I suppose if the mob invades parliament next week then takes off in all directions carrying it, they'll be vindicated in their stand. Pictures of that happening on the evening news could effect a stunning turn-around in Labour's political fortunes.
However there's a real danger undecided voters will decide Labour has the wrong priorities. After all, folks can buy useful furniture at many large op-shops & parliamentary services could always go to Target if they felt obliged to be more up-market. Still, those Labour MPs could be right – let's wait & see if the mob goes for it.
Situation Tamaki on a knife-edge:
If she wins it'll embed ACT for the forseeable future. I wonder what made her ditch the Greens & switch to ACT – haven't seen any reporter ask her the obvious question.
Why does anyone go to the ACT Party?
More money.
ACT is the party for the people who always want more of it.
ACT Party is for the Greedy and Well Healed.
IMO Brooke van Velden one of the blue …"
Green"? types you keep promulgating…For reasons known to yourself.Hooten? She might like..Green, as in gardening.
I've explained the lack of authenticity of the left-Green stance often enough onsite here in the past, so those reasons you mention ought to be well-known by now. In sum: The Green movement I joined in '68 was deliberately conceived as neither left nor right but in front. Since that ethos went global in the early '80s I'm surprised you remain unaware of it.
Her view of lifting poverty via market forces is valid enough and I've reported stats on that once or twice here – it's just that the picture is more complex for us in the developed world, which is why the GP gets public support for wealth taxation.
Ideological the Free Trade Ideology in the real world which she probably hasn't experienced International Trade does not work that way, Seymour Butt would not understand that either as he has never had a proper job in his working life.
Interesting. A case of a University Business School succeeding at what it was designed to do. How economics is taught is just one more frontline in the battle.
Hmm – Dennis Frank missed his opportunity for a free hit at universities there
A sizeable proportion of the voters of Tamaki could have had enough of Simon O'Conner's personal views too. I know several National voters who would vote very strategically to get rid of a happy clappy if National put one up in their electorate.
Would say the party vote in Tamaki is still resoundingly blue.
It makes sense to oust O'Connor, even for left-wing voters.
He would be replaced by a National list candidate. Tamaki voters can't choose who, obviously that would depend on National's party vote. But still likely to be less terrible than an ultra-conservative, one of the worst in the House.
(Brooke VV will be there regardless, on the list. So it's a free hit).
The same thing seems to be happening in Mahutu's seat of Hauraki-Waikato. The difference seems to be a little larger at 4% but I can't imagine that Nania is going to be very happy. She is on 36% with the TPM candidate on 32%.
If she loses of course she's gone as she hasn't got a place on the Labour Party list.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/499329/general-election-2023-nanaia-mahuta-facing-serious-challenge-in-hauraki-waikato-poll-shows
Yeah looks like a classic generational divide happening there. Mahuta's track record versus a vote for the future…
Nanaia Mahuta has always gone to the electorate. She believes in Democracy.
That isn't true I'm afraid Patricia.
She was on the list, and quite high up, in every election since 2008 except for 2017 when, if I remember correctly, the party decided that none of the Maori electorate members should be on the list except for Kelvin Davis.
She was number 6 in 2014, 10 in 2008 and 2020 and number 12 in 2011.
I can't be bothered looking any further back than that.
Well I’m bothered! You'd have to look pretty far back to find a general election where Nanaia Mahuta didn't contest and win an electorate seat – 1996 in fact.
An unbroken run of eight electorate seat victories must be close to a record among incumbent electorate MPs.
Her being an mp for 27 years is a weakness not a strength for Gen z and Gen Y voters, a careerist old guard during a new Maori reneisance…
Being in parliament for longer than many voters have been alive is a travesty.
Anyone elected during the Bolger years should have retired during the early Key years.
Yikes.
We need Term limits on parliamentarians, professional politicians are genuinely the worst. Serving and representing your community is an honor, not a career!
I actually despise the party system, it creates professional politicians who don't stand up for their communities and instead they just toe the party line and work their way up the party ladder.
I'm not disputing that fact. It has, however absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.
However Anne was, or at least I assume that she was, suggesting that Nanaia did not stand on the list and tried only for the electorate seat. That was the only interpretation I could make on the statement "Nanaia Mahuta has always gone to the electorate" in response to my comment that she wasn't on the list this time.
If Anne meant something else perhaps she could reply and say what it was she did mean.
I didn't, and still don't believe that your reply to Patricia B was on point.
You began your reply with "That isn't true I'm afraid Patricia." And yet it is true for the last 8 elections – further back than you could be bothered.
Mahuta has won an electorate seat in each of the last 8 elections, and you can’t win an electorate seat unless you have “gone to the electorate.”
It was not true, however, for the 1996 election – let's call it a draw
Or perhaps as George and Ira Gershwin would have put it.
"You like potato and I like potahto
You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto.
Let's call the whole thing off"
If Anne cares to tell us what she really meant I may show some further interest. Otherwise I can't be bothered as to whether your interpretation of what she meant versus mine is the more likely.
George & Ira, or Tina Turner: What's "Anne" got to do, got to do with it?
Are you OK?
Oops – PB @5.4.2
Sorry Anne. Sorry Patricia.
I got confused trying to understand what on earth Drowsy was going on about and used the wrong name in my reply to him.
What does Tina Turner have to do with my comment? Did she record it at some stage? George and Ira Gershwin wrote it long before she was around. The best recording of it, as far as I am concerned, was by Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong.
About as much as the Gershwins have to do with mine
OK, so you didn't understand "Nanaia Mahuta has always gone to the electorate.", in response to your comment about pre-election polling in Nanaia's electorate seat and her not being on Labour's list.
Had my doubts even you could be that confused, but no longer.
When Patricia tells me that that is what she meant I will accept it. When you magically divine what somebody else means with a statement I'll take the interpretation with a very large grain of salt. Your record for accuracy in such matters is not great.
Happy for others to decide whose interpretation is more ‘magical’
From the files of things that are never meant to happen. Men lied about being non binary to gain access to a women’s tech recruitment conference.
Lots of them.
Feminists said this would happen and were called bigots.
https://x.com/rottengirl/status/1709195019792318622?s=46
Would be interesting to know why. A so-called "men's rights" protest about a women-only event?. Oddball geeks wanting to hit on women? Tech guys don't always set the highest standards for their own personal behaviour. And genuine trans people aren't to blame for it.
apart from the genuine trans people who are trans rights activists and who wholly supported and fought for exactly this.
From what I can tell, it's a recruitment conference, so the dude's are after the jobs. But yeah, I would suspect there's been some MRA type organising going on, or even just the word got out and it's over entitled blokes who know how to game the systems.
Fair enough. But it still annoys me that genuine trans people, whose lives are surely already difficult enough, get an extra dose of crap thrown at them because of opportunistic behaviour by men.
Completely agree. It's one of the most stupid own goals from liberals I've seen, and they were warned that going beyond trans humans rights to taking from women's rights would backlash against trans people. It's not over yet and I really hope NZ can avoid the worst of that.
https://www.wired.com/story/grace-hopper-celebration-career-fair-men/
It's not even trans people or men pretending to be non-binary, it's men just being men and feeling entitled. To lump trans people in with men as being the issue here is incorrect.
From your linked article.
So, yes, the self-ID provision – theoretically for the benefit of trans people – has been abused in exactly the way that women have said it would be.
By self-identified men – posing as 'women' for the purposes of registration – but with no intention of actually being in any way actually trans.
I don't feel that anyone is blaming trans for the issue. They are blaming the system. And pointing out that the theoretical advantages for trans people haven't eventuated, while the predicted disadvantages for women have come to pass.
The statement that this situation is what trans rights activists 'wholly support and fought for' is absolutely incorrect and it is blaming trans advocates for a number of men (self-identifying men, i.e. not claiming to be trans) attending a space they already couldn't legally be excluded from. It has nothing to with any gains made by trans people in terms of legal recognition of their gender (which is where we hear the alarmism over people 'self-identifying').
No. It's pointing out that the concerns that women had about the self-ID provisions designed to benefit trans people, being gamed by self-identifying men – have been found to be correct.
Perhaps this comment was intended to be in response to someone else – since your quoted phrase doesn’t appear in my comment.
This isn't an issue of identification on legal documents (what trans people want to 'self-ID' about) this is men, who identify as men, gate-crashing the event. Some booked places claiming non-binary status but didn't assert it when they attended. This isn't a situation about self-ID provisions as those are provisions are about legal documentation not about lying on a google form.
You said you don't feel anyone is blaming trans people, the quote is pointing out that which you may have missed, not what you specifically said.
Yes – these men used the self-ID provisions to game the system. Just as women said they would.
If you think that self-ID is limited to legal documentation – I invite you to inspect the real world.
It's clear that you support the self-ID provisions for trans people – which is at least a contributing factor. How do you think this kind of situation could or should be avoided?
No they didn't, they lied on an online form, paid an entry fee and showed up to apply for jobs as a man, identifying as a man, at a women’s conference they cannot legally be excluded from. Entitled behaviour that is very disappointing but unsurprising from men, particularly in this industry (gamergate etc. etc.). This is fundamentally different to someone being able to change their gender marker on their birth certificate by statutory declaration (as they already could for their passport and drivers licence) which is the 'self-ID provision' trans rights advocates support. This isn't a case of trans women taking cis women's spaces, it's men being men and feeling entitled to jobs they already disproportionally dominate. The patriarchy is the problem, the solutions to that are many and varied. In this particular situation the onus is on the companies soliciting applications to discriminate because it is federally illegal for the event organisers to do so and that has nothing to do with self-ID.
“showed up to apply for jobs as a man, identifying as a man, at a women’s conference they cannot legally be excluded from”
How is it not legal to exclude males?
I agree with Belladonna. Self-ID is a set of sociopolitical changes across legislatoon, policy and culture. It’s not just about birth certificates. Self ID enables males to gain access to women’s spaces, it’s not a document that does, it’s societal sanction.
Where I said,
“apart from the genuine trans people who are trans rights activists and who wholly supported and fought for exactly this”
I wasn’t saying that trans people cause men to abuse the system. I was saying that removal of women’s spaces is an intended part of the activism. #notallTRAs of course. But there are TRAs who want an end to single sex spaces (this is what a big part of the UK fight is about).
Further, self ID is inherently a system that allows any man to self ID as a woman at any time and then has to be treated as such (or NB or whatever). That is the intention of the trans umbrella and self ID. There is no external validation needed, that’s the whole point.
When feminists said hang on, that’s going to cause all sorts of problems because men will abuse this system, many feminists were told to shut the fuck up, nazi bigot, and had sexualised abuse directed at them.
TRAs went ahead with self-ID despite being told of the problems. It’s intentional.
The article I posted says it is not legal because of 'federal non-discrimination protections in the US'
You say male because you are lumping trans women in with the men in this situation which is erroneous.
You make extraordinary claims about the views and aims of others quite freely on this issue it seems.
are you saying that you believe trans women aren’t biologically male?
are you also saying that NB males aren’t biologically male?
As the article I posted said the issue in this situation was men, 'self-identifying males'. That excludes trans women and non-binary people. Biology doesn't come in to it
there are two issues here.
The first is self evident. If society says any man can say they are a woman at any time and have to be treated as such, this is a distinct change from women are adult human females and are entitled to their own spaces in some situations. In this case, would the men have felt entitled to enter a women’s conference without the aid of self ID?
I’ve seen no evidence that TW and NB males don’t share at least some of the patterns of behaviours as other males. Observation suggests they do.
Yes, I know. This is the point, men are using self-ID to be NB to access women's stuff. Feminists have been warning about this for a long time and were called bigots.
I didn't lump trans people in with this, I pointed out the problems with self-ID. Now you know what we've been going on about all this time.
It's male entitlement, many men do it and so do many trans women and non-binary males.
In addition, trans women aside, I'm still waiting to hear why NB males would be let into a women's event in the first place. No-one ever explains this.
and then
You can't be serious
Trans women and, as you say, non-binary 'males' would be welcome at this event, the issue here was men, who identify as men, they live as men, they lied to enter a job fair. That men lie to improve their employment chances is not a revelation that trans advocates are surprised by, but is fundamentally different to the idea that it is a property inherent to 'maleness' which incorrectly lumps trans and non-binary people into this situation.
yes, arkie, I'm a gender critical feminist. I see TW and NB males as biologically male. Most people do.
Self ID means that any man can say he is a man at any time and has to be believed. It's very transphobic of you to be thinking you know which are the real trans people.
If I could be bothered I'd go dig up all the conversations were TRAs and trans allies said this shit wouldn't happen. Even when we said it would.
Lying isn't a property inherent to maleness. Males of any identity self ID-ing into women's business is.
You still haven't explained why NB males should be allowed into women's spaces.
And in this situation males self-identifying as men were the problem, no need to invoke trans people at all, except that you're a gender critical feminist, again, not new information.
People's genuinely held identities should be respected, but again, that wasn't the issue here and I'm at a loss as to why I'm expected to explain the admission policy choices of this event.
But the only reason they were able to self-ID is because of self-ID. I agree the problem isn’t trans people, it’s self-ID (and TRA pol).
I agree that people’s genuinely held identities should be respected. Including women’s. But self ID is massively disrespectful to women’s culture and identity. You can’t have it both ways.
what you are essentially arguing is the end of women’s culture. I would have less of a problem with a conference for people under represented or who face barriers in tech. But if they’re going to call it a women’s conference, then that’s a problem if it’s not for women only, as we have just seen.
“And in this situation males self-identifying as men were the problem, no need to invoke trans people at all,”
That's just 'La-La-La fingers in the ears' not paying attention to the issue.
Which is males using the self-ID provisions designed for trans people – to access women's spaces.
Women said this would happen. And it has. Multiple times and in multiple different ways.
Still waiting to hear how trans-activists propose to address this – entirely foreseeable – consequence of the self-ID provisions they campaigned for.
Yeah but who wants to know about the real world during an election campaign?
Neither Hipkins nor Luxon will pay attention & do the right thing, I predict. Neolib ideology defeats reality in the minds of such mainstreamers constantly.
Is anyone yet venturing about how this might affect New Zealand?
I'm presuming it will but don't have the expertise to venture how.
I couldn't see it from the participants.
I very much doubt it. They're providing the long-term holistic view. Causal analysis doesn't really work in complex systems, which is why the butterfly effect usually gets mentioned by those up with the scientific play.
Brandolino the yank weather guy is usually good at pointing the media to the guts of whatever's happening but it would get down to the local interaction of El Nino & effects of the sea-ice decline down south. I haven't encountered any science on the effects of significant southern sea-ice reductions on a year-by-year basis.
Ditto. But I think it's a reasonable presumption that it will put more fiscal pressure on governments having to deal with whatever happens. Not a good time to be gutting whatever pathetically inadequate pots of money governments might have already set aside.
Sharon Murdoch doing her thing. The growths on Luxon’s back.
https://x.com/domesticanimal/status/1709265262384689505?s=46
Party Vote Green – or TPM, or Labour – please.
https://www.greens.org.nz/ending_poverty_together
https://vote.nz/enrolling/enrol-or-update/enrol-or-update-online/
Yeah – I sort of feel it glosses over the fact that Luxon/Nats are quite bad enough all on their own. The carbuncles are smallish exacerbations of the same underlying disease.
To those who thought TOP were principled and progressive:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/10/election-2023-national-urged-to-do-deal-in-ilam-to-get-the-opportunities-party-into-parliament-avoid-needing-winston-peters.html
While Luxon has ruled it out, this play by Manji really points out the hollowness of TOPs priorities; none of their 'progressive' policies would be enacted by a potential NACT government.
It's a non-story, really. Manji has no chance, of course.
Bizarre that Newshub last night made it their lead at 6 pm. Yet another case of game-playing ranked above policy. The coverage seems worse than ever this election. All about the "who", not the "what". (And then we're surprised when the "what" emerges, only after we've voted).
IMO The MSM is there to deliver a profit and a RW government – things like information and honesty are at the most 'goal adjacent' and more often aren't even in the building let alone the coverage.
The NZ Media are just playing games with the NZ Public analysis of the different parties policies is above their level of intellect, it reminds me of watching Play School as a child. No wonder this cuntry is in the sh*t with the quality of Politicians available and the the level of intellect in the NZ Media.
'And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling journalists!'
Keep 'em honest, as much as is possible in these $$$-mesmerised times.
good. Hopefully this plays out badly for them now that it's clear.
TOP is a right-wing party that rakes some ideas that parts of the left favour (like UBI) and inserts them into a right-wing framing of how the economy works and must work.
It may well be that most farmers will be happy to see these regulations go, but I suspect not all of them will.
This is ACT policy to target for our agricultural economy:
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2310/S00023/six-rural-regulations-first-on-the-chopping-block.htm
This is the Federated Farmer takeover they've always wanted, back into low-grade low-value, low care exports.
Classic neolib fudging to prevent anything intelligent happening. No mention of polluter accountability. Evade consequences to demonstrate loyalty to the establishment. Trad left/right jerk-off for mainstreamers.
Check out this Ukrainian nazi situation:
Author's commentary seems well-written & as a sceptic on the issue I can't fault his stance. Looks like Justin got this wrong.
Uh oh
Dennis
Rookie move to be so even-handed
Have you not read the comments on TS where this has been discussed?
The standing ovation is inconsequential because of Holodomor and Russia's war in Ukraine.
And after the war the Ukrainian nazis were very handy for their hatred of communism, which evened out their slaughter of Jews,Poles, gypsies.
Politico has come forward with an attempt to wash the sins of the Galizien unit away,there will be more to come
The Nazi Party ceased to exist 78 years ago.
The Nazi Party was the party of German Fascists.
Putin the Tiny incessantly carps on about mythical Ukranian Nazi's as a form of his dead cat on the table school of reasoning.
The Wagner PMC's main military strategist was this bloke
https://aijac.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/utkin.jpeg
That's a lovely 'lightning bolt ' tattoo – What could it ever be referring to?
Ooo and is that a German eagle tattoo as well?
Yes most definitely it is .
We have those nutters here too.
What we don't have , and what Russia doesn't have ,is a self avowed white supremacist unit within our military that actively recruits fellow white supremacists internationally .
https://thesoufancenter.org/intelbrief-the-transnational-network-that-nobody-is-talking-about/
Thank you Francesca for your tenacity.
I just believe Russiaphobes are not going to cease their Russiaphobia with facts and logic. Thankfully their opinion is of little consequence in the greater scheme of things.
Thanks Brigid
Of course the Russophobia is built in , to the extent that there are no Nazis in Ukraine!I'm staggered by the Nazi apologists coming to the surface.
The russophobia is built by russia's murderous invasions, tortures, rapes, looting. That is what builds it in.
Here's an idea – how about they take their military and f*ck off back to russia? Unlike Ukraine, they can leave and return to their own country.
You do realise literally the only 'Russian' military force that could actually achieve anything was Wagner (Soledar and Bakhmut) and that Dmitry Utkin (the bloke in the photo) was the military mind behind Wagner – so bemusingly it seems the best Russuian Military mind was a bald freaky looking guy with a pile of Nazi tattoos.
Lol
Buttfly that photo is NOT Utkin, do a little actual research instead of spreading misinformation, similar looking but Utkin ain't the guy in the pic.
We could have a NACT TOP Coalition if National steps aside in Ilam and encourages their voters to vote TOP, will save Luxon having to deal with Winston and NZF ???
Panic in France due to alien invasion?
So looks like Gaia's to blame. No wee alien spacecraft detected yet. If you are headed for a holiday there, Outer Mongolia probably a better move…
This interview of Naomi Klein by Ash Sarkar is some relief from election silliness. Klein looks at the growth of the far right using a literary device, the doppelganger. Her basic idea is that the right has quite tactically taken ground traditionally belonging to the left (such as opposition to hierarchy, elites and corporate power) and turned it into a malevolent double of it's original self by reflecting it back through a right-wing lens. This has splintered the left and pulled sections of it over to the right. It's not an original idea but an interesting take on an existing one.
Mark Mitchell is a liar. "Crime is out of control!" he says but when confronted with Stats he just shouts and blusters jus like Standford and Luxon have taught him. Disgusting.
Stats are interesting too.