Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
6:00 am, April 11th, 2022 - 94 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
The Greens are planning "constitutional considerations that will be decided at a special general meeting". https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/04/08/green-party-may-scrap-rule-requiring-male-co-leader/
It hasn't alienated enough kiwi males yet, so this change ought to complete the job. The asymmetric gender imbalance in the Green support base needs to be tilted further to the extreme, to force the remaining men away.
Obviously it hasn't been sufficient to park the party in the extreme left cul-de-sac for twenty years. They need to dig a hole in the back of that and hide down it.
Gareth Hughes saw this coming years ago.
Perhaps they imagine that young men – who now find themselves legitimately out-competed by young women in education and the workplace for the top marks and entry to the best courses and jobs – will just welcome another defeat as legitimate punishment for the crimes of their fathers and grandfathers.?
Is this a way of saying that men will vote against having women in charge? If the status quo has been male dominant (and still largely is), then men aren't willing to reverse that for a time, equity must be either male dominant or exactly 50/50?
Given that there was no obvious differential when the party formed – during my first five years inside the proportion of male to female members always seemed like parity – I actually have no insider knowledge on what made it tip.
Best guess: the natural empathy of women makes them more sensitive to the Green ethos. One could also argue that kiwi males have an encultured reluctance to do big-picture thinking…
right. So tweaking the co-leadship rules is a much lesser influence than the way NZ men are generally. Even left wing or green leaning men apparently.
green leaning men
Those will be alienated by the tweak. It sends a powerful signal: you aren't valued, you aren't even wanted.
They'd go blue-green if the Nats weren't such control freaks. Faced with a choice between dumb & dumber, they are forced into realising that democracy doesn't provide them with a realistic option at present.
What are you basing that on? Quick look at the latest Roy Morgan (as a starting point),
10.5% support for GP
11.5% women
9% men
https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8942-nz-national-voting-intention-march-2022-202204080325
Is that really such a big difference?
Compare to Labour
32% vote
40.5% women
23.5%
How are men forced away by having policies that seek to redress the inherent sexism bias in parliament?
in other words, how can you be sure you're not pointing to the sexism in NZ men as much as anything?
I'll see if I can find the data from pre-Ardern.
What are you basing that on?
Reporting of stats on the gender-differential in the Green supporter base in recent years. Can't recall any particular such instance.
How are men forced away by having policies that seek to redress the inherent sexism bias in parliament?
I wasn't assuming they are. I think there's more to it. Plenty of guys support the principle of gender equality. Dunno when it was last measured by poll but I reckon it would be around half (maybe even more). I think it's more that the Greens aren't much good at talking the lingo of the land to kiwi males. I always could but I've always been untypical.
If you weren't assuming they are, what did you mean by this?
I'll take the RM, limitations notwithstanding, over vague references to an asymmetric gender balance in GP support. Especially when we compare it to Labour.
This I agree with. It's the whole cultural fit thing. But then I've seen plenty of left wing men moan about the GP and I'm not sure they would support them even if they could speak the lingo, so I reckon the GP should stick to its knitting.
what did you mean by this?
I was interpreting the subconscious motivation in the current group mind controlling the GP. I bet there was no way they were ever going to be honest enough to admit it to each other. They're leftists.
Symptomatic of their credibility problem is the fate of John Hart. A young farmer, dead keen about the authentic Green cause, got rated on the candidate list but not far enough up to get into parliament. Has subsequently dropped out. Identity politics is extremely corrosive nowadays.
It would be one thing if they had a requirement for two gender unspecific co-leaders but to take away the male co-leader and keep the female co-leader requirement borderlines on both misandry and as a member of the LGBT+ leads me to think the Greens see Trans women as men by putting them in the former male co-leader role.
This is stupid and not as progressive as they think and honestly
Everytime I think …. Yeah …. I'll vote Greens next election… They come out with some ridiculous, stupid identity politics box ticking policy like this rubbish.
I reckon Labour should do some sort of seat deal with Top, if TOP are sensible they'll take it, Top who in 2017 and 2022 got a hell of a lot of votes from males of all ages who used to vote Green.
If anything the greens should get rid of the co-leader requirement and just put Chloe in the leadership.
Honestly…. I was probably only considering the greens cos I hadn't heard them say anything in months…. The less we see or hear of the greens the more likely people are to vote for them , then the greens open their mouths and we're all like yeah na , no thank you.
Put some trans people in caucus by all means, hell if you get some great trans mps make them co-leader, but don't say "trans women are women but they don't qualify for the female co-leader role but dw we'll change the male co-leadership role so you could have that, bugger men we only have two and we don't even want them in our caucus "
That's offensive to trans people, males and mind boggling to a lot of people.
If you must be more gender inclusive get rid of both co-leader requirements.
Poor old much maligned James Shaw who kept the party alive in 2017 should go and join Top. He'd be much better treated I'd wager.
I wanna vote green but gosh they make it difficult
I've voted Green for 11 consecutive elections but next one I'm likely to not vote – last time I did that rebel thing was 1975.
You vote for Luxon then.
Naughty, Patricia, to misrepresent the political stance of someone else. Always better to be honest & tell the truth. Even for leftists!
The dame gives us an interpretive context for co-governance: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/anne-salmond-te-tiriti-and-democracy-part-3
I suspect the judge didn't realise he was being racist back in '87. Thought he was articulating tradition respectfully, I bet. Given that the signatories were sovereign rulers, to what extent is it realistic to include the people anyway?
Okay, well done. Chalk one up for the dame. Is she first cab off the rank in noticing this? I don't recall seeing that preamble cited anywhere before.
The judiciary will have to scramble to catch up with this Green view. Perhaps she could organise night classes for them?
I was firmly told that ToW has nothing to do with race – it was a contract between the iwi chiefs and the Crown. Everyone else was to line up for the crumbs.
As a foundation document is was a remarkably good effort for the era – effectively Maori became the first indigenous people anywhere to become full citizens of the global super-power of the day, the British Empire. Deal of the century.
But the relevance of both the Crown and the iwi elites as parties to the contract in 2022 is much diminished. NZ is a modern nation of diverse immigrants from all over the planet – and in this Seymour is perfectly correct.
Expect zero houses to be built on Ihumatao this term. Top work SOUL, Prue Kapua and the rest of the idiots.
Housing Progress On Ihumātao Land Hits The Wall | Newsroom
What we would have had in Mangere by now from the deal struck by Te Warena Taua with Fletchers is 40 homes for those who whakapapa to the area out of a total of 480 on the project.
Whereas over on Bastion Point the Ngati Whatua Orakei lot are going gangbusters.
That's a positive outcome for SOUL. Their desire is for zero building to go ahead. Delay has no downside from their perspective.
Also co-governance… [from quoted article]
So, all SOUL need to do (assuming they control the Ahi Kā votes – which appears likely) is to persuade the Kīngitanga rep to vote with them, and no development will happen ever.
What I don't know is how permanent this governance group is. Because the risk is, that if nothing has happened before a National/Act government gets in (which will happen eventually) – they'll simply dismiss the group.
Economically it would make sense to build later.US lumber prices for example have dropped 30% in the last month (at a seasonal time they should be increasing.
US internal freight rates have also dropped by significant amounts,indicating the wisdom of the masses ( deferring consumer spending) and reducing inflationary pressure.
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/the-supply-chain-bullwhip-is-doing-the-feds-job-on-inflation
Māori have good reason to not trust the Crown, and this is another example. The Pākeha dominant system is too stupid to figure out sustainable and resilient solutions (including culturally appropriate) to the housing crisis other than BUILD MOAR HOUSES, which isn't an actual solution, it will just perpetuate it. Why should Māori lose out further because of that stupidity?
It would have been a papakainga next to an existing papakainga.
Nothing stupid about it.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it would have been a shit load of middle – upper middle class housing for the private property market, which would fuel local and wider property values. That's the big stick in the spokes of the housing crisis solution, and it's one of the stupidest things we are doing as a society. Not quite as stupid as AGW, but up there.
I get that there are people who are ok with the compromise. But the people who oppose that have solid rationales and values based positions too.
Non-state cryptocurrencies – company scrip of the 0.01%
https://twitter.com/davetroy/status/1380934374602981379
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1380934374602981379.html
Peter Thiel Shreds $100s and Mocks the Unwashed Masses at Crypto Conference
The billionaire used his Miami Bitcoin 2022 keynote to rip several hundred-dollar bills as an opening bit and lambast the anti-crypto "gerontocracy" of finance.
[…]
After a brief and boring interlude of opining on Bitcoin and Ethereum, Thiel offered his thoughts on why crypto was lacking mainstream adoption. If you asked anyone else that same question, they’d likely offer opinions backed by tangible evidence: that the world’s already buckling technological infrastructure can’t support an energy-sucking Bitcoin wallet in every pocket, or that these currencies are too volatile to be useful for everyday transactions. But if you ask Peter Thiel, the lack of mainstream appreciation is the result of the utter failure, intentional ignorance, and desperate maneuvering of the world’s banks.
“Bitcoin is the most honest market in the world. It’s the most efficient market,” Thiel said, “It is telling us that the central banks are bankrupt, that we are at the end of the fiat money regime.”
https://gizmodo.com/peter-thiel-bitcoin-talk-miami-2022-1848764790
got up early this morning and watched the breakfast telly. first up was jenny coffins with a nasty whine that really got to me. JA swas too polite but if that is the sort of crap that tvnz deems in the public interest then coffins has got to go asap
what did Coffins say?
The Military Situation In The Ukraine
https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine/
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1513005692986175498.html
Such great links aj,thanks
Impressive credentials too
Charming vox pop.
https://twitter.com/AlexKokcharov/status/1510376214724325377
And while Caspian above talks to the geopolitics, the mythology is important too:
I think the Caspian Report is great. Thanks for that link.
You might find this video interesting as well. It gives some historic context relating to about 90 years ago where Russia attempted to starve the Ukranian population into submission.
The point being made is that the Ukranians are movitivated by being in the right, but also by revenge. In that the history of what happened to great-grandparents still resonates with the Ukranian population. Thus, they are much more highly motivated than the Russians to defend their land because their is no way they want to revisit that past.
Yes Shirvan has a long track record of producing well researched material. I also appreciate that he brings a non-Western centric perspective to his work.
They very nearly succeeded but for Gareth Jones.
https://twitter.com/AndreaChalupa/status/1028848977767227393
Gareth Richard Vaughan Jones (13 August 1905 – 12 August 1935) was a Welsh journalist who in March 1933 first reported in the Western world, without equivocation and under his own name, the existence of the Soviet famine of 1932–1933, including the Holodomor.[a]
Jones had reported anonymously in The Times in 1931 on starvation in Soviet Ukraine and Southern Russia,[2] and, after his third visit to the Soviet Union, issued a press release under his own name in Berlin on 29 March 1933 describing the widespread famine in detail.[3] Reports by Malcolm Muggeridge, writing in 1933 as an anonymous correspondent, appeared contemporaneously in the Manchester Guardian;[4] his first anonymous article specifying famine in the Soviet Union was published on 25 March 1933.[5]
After being banned from re-entering the Soviet Union, Jones was kidnapped and murdered in 1935 while investigating in Japanese-occupied Mongolia; his murder was likely committed by the Soviet secret police, the NKVD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Jones_(journalist)
Thanks for this. Sometimes you come up with the most extraordinary things.
I've seen a few of these threads recounting the building of the mythology of ethnic Russian superiority.
https://twitter.com/olga_chyzh/status/1512911246957420555
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1512911246957420555.html
RedLogix
Sorry, but I find that a tendentious load of propaganda. May possibly be true, but more likely a bloated, hostile analysis of Russian policy.
On the other hand, I think Jacques Baud is just telling it as he saw it all. Far more credible. How cheats really work.
Shirvan has been producing solid and credible geopolitical analysis on a very wide range of topics for over a decade now. His work is the very opposite of propaganda – the fact of you finding this clip 'tendentious' speaks more to your state of mind than anything else.
With that in mind – I have just the thing for you.
That is mean! Worse than Fox News.
Or he could be just another Putin/Assad humping genocide denier.
So there are thousands of them, are there? And why the needless 'humping' insult? Compensating for something?
Dude's vociferously defended autocratic thugs against charges that they committed crimes against humanity and my fucking language is the issue?
Pathetic.
//
Pathetic is mindlessly swallowing standard propaganda. Have you noticed that when Americans bomb, the hospitals and schools hit are just collateral damage, or even the callous enemy using 'human shields'?
But when the Russians bomb, suddenly it is all personalised human suffering, and dastardly conduct by those who bomb.
Did we get the story of human suffering when those children were killed in Afghanistan as revealed by Stephenson and Hager?
By the way, I am not offended by the word ‘humping’.. I just wonder why you had to resort to such a pathetic term.
You seem to be more emotional than rational.
I understand that if your entire political outlook is rooted in a fixed aversion to the USA there is no room for anything else. That if the hated Yanks are the source of all evil, that all else must be pure and blameless.
You will find Alexsandr Dugin's work explains everything. And note the date on this article – 2008
That is nonsense. What on Earth makes you think that my aversion to the USA is greater than my aversion to Putin's right-wing autocracy?
My problem is that you seem to pardon the USA everything while excusing the Russians for nothing. Dangerous to my mind.
Those serial numbers are lining up
https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1512805976122048515
But there's always the possibility that the DPR has managed to capture a Ukrainian Tochka.Wouldn't be the first time The DPR has increased its armoury at the expense of the UA
Bomber on "why Jacinda is failing": https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2022/04/10/what-most-voters-dont-understand-about-nz-politics-why-jacinda-is-failing/
Well the historic victory she won last election didn't mandate strategic priorities – or if it did seem to, that doesn't mean delivery results from such voter endorsement. Getting Labour to produce suitable results has never been easy, so don't blame her.
The theory that the public service is the natural enemy of the Labour Party is nothing new, of course. Likewise for the complement you get if you replace Labour with National in the previous sentence.
Is this feeble excuse sufficiently feeble for Labour to use? Dunno, you'd have to ask an insider.
Look, you can't blame Hipkins & Ardern for doing what Ashley told them to do. He was right. Got suitable results. But as regards other ministers, fair enough.
Yeah, we get it already. WB rules, okay? Only if you let it though. You could drive a Labour trainwreck through that hole in his logic.
Readers are sure find the unprecedented combination of Greens & force in the same sentence most entertaining – but he's probably right to hallucinate it.
Not sure if laundering the tedious straw man takes of Bradbury's Jonanism does anyone any favours.
Not sure where this concept of no 100 day legislative agenda comes from, Labour did have one in 2017 and they largely implemented it e.g. cancelling National's tax adjustments/cuts and increasing Working for Families and Accommodation Supplement.
Agree in terms of 2020, but an obvious issue is that they largely campaigned on being a safe pair of hands (e.g. ads with the messages of National isn't the party of John Key or Bill English any more…) and a world-leading Covid response, which makes it difficult to then ram through wholesale changes outside their manifesto or other promises. All that said, Fair Pay Agreements and Income Insurance are massive changes which have the potential to significantly impact people's lives, hopefully positively.
Not sure where this concept of no 100 day legislative agenda comes from
Out of his head – new to me too. But I do agree with the likely effect of the push! I was impressed at Biden hitting the ground running after he took office. He got a huge number of executive orders out in his first 100 days – unprecedented, as far as I know – and very effectively established a post-Trump initiative.
Re your fairness to Labour, yes we ought to acknowledge such achievements. Dunno how well they will hold Labour's vote up though. Plenty of folks wanted more.
If confirmed, a big victory for the Ukrainians.
https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1513067832531169281
I'm watching the Kherson Sector atm, if the Ukrainian Military can dislocate the Russians hard enough back over Dnieper without the Russians blowing up the main road bridge.
Then we might get see the Ukrainian Armoured Corps at their finest hr?
From what I have seen the Ukranian artillery is far more accurate than the Russian artillary in terms of being able to hit military targets. The Russian artillery seem good at hitting cities where they can't help but blow things up. But the Ukranian artillery seem very precise in being able to hit armoured vehicles and the likes. It may be because of their drones giving intelligence along with intelligence NATO is providing.
Apparently home-grown laser-guided artillery.
Ukraine and Russia stopped cooperating on the tech in 2013, according to the link, so it's telling in some regards that one seems to have such an advantage in that tech over the other.
I think a lot of it is that the Ukranians have been getting a lot of training within the NATO framework since the Crimea annexation. Hence, why they are adopting much better tactics. And, perhaps they had a lot of training on artillery usage as well.
Not directly in relation to that technology, though. That's all them.
And don't forget, they've been fighting since 2014, so they've had plenty of time to figure out what works and what they need.
The training would be more in moving from the top-down control system of the societ era into a more integrated system. The other concept is that rather than calling in artillery support with an FAC who needs to be close (or able) to observe the area, coordinating artillery with drones speeds things up. They don't need to expose themselves to paint a target and observe the fall of shot, and with laser guidance the correction is at the terminal end of the flight path rather than waiting a minute or more for the next rounds to come in with corrected coordinates. As long as the artillery is "near enough", a laser designator makes every round count.
I don't doubt NATO training has been useful to the Ukrainians, but in the aspect of drone use and laser designation the Ukrainians might actually be ahead of NATO.
To put it another way, the US artillery might be at the stage now that US bombing was at in the first US/Iraq war in the early 1990s. Sure, there was lots of smart bomb footage at the briefings, but really something like only 3% of the bombs they dropped were guided in any way. Whereas Ukrainian artillery seemingly has loads of guided artillery rounds they developed themselves, and possibly even integrated with off the shelf drones as well as bespoke military drones.
The Ukrainian Artillery units are benefiting from a dedicated integrated joint fires cell imbeded at al levels of command backed up with its UAV & the various Forward Observers including the Stay Behind Teams of the Ukrainian SF inside Russian control Areas.
The Ukrainian Artillery units are benefiting from a dedicated integrated joint fires cell imbeded at al levels of command backed up with its UAV & the various Forward Observers including the Stay Behind Teams of the Ukrainian SF inside Russian control Areas.
A lot of intelligence derived from satellites etc about Russian troop movements is supplied by NATO and UK/US intel officers to the Ukrainians .Possibly what our intel officers are also doing in London .Getting to be a fine line between humanitarian assistance and becoming an outright belligerent in this mess
Yes. As I have said previously, the difference between assisting and participating in the conflict is becoming somewhat semantic.
I see Germany is supplying Ukraine with one hundred long range motorised artillery units capable of 50km targeting range.
I can’t imagine the Russians will be happy about that as the Ukranians will be able to target the Russian artillery and equipment from a distance.
That German Self Propelled Artillery piece is a very good, the Dutch had a couple units in TK at the main joint Oz & Dutch Base off in Afghanistan.
The Ukrainian Artillery Corp are also getting a wheeled SPG from the Czech or Slovakian Governments. Which depending the on what barrel they use can fire either Russia/ WarPac 152mm rds or NATO 155mm rds with a 5rd auto loader. Ideal for shoot & scoot Fire Missions & Counter Battery Fire.
Such activities make those doing them into belligerents. ie, active participants in the war. Russia has clearly warned that it will resort to nuclear war if provoked. What part of 'provoke' do some idiots not understand?
Very dangerous times.
Delivery timeline of these weapons is the second half of 2024, hardly decisive for the upcoming Donbas battles.
Retiring MP Louisa Wall: "I'm not a minister because the prime minister told me I would never be in her cabinet". Not a team player, according to Labour insiders. Really? Wikipedia reminds us she "represented New Zealand in both netball as a Silver Fern and rugby union as a member of the Black Ferns."
So she proved she's a national team player in two international sports at the top level. I presume those Labour insiders would respond "Bugger! Hang on, Labour does factions. That makes it different."
A sufficiently feeble excuse to work for Labour? Apparently Wall was a member of the notorious ABC faction. Long-term resentments are sufficient to prevent anyone getting ahead in Labour unless you happen to be Phil Goff.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/departing-mp-louisa-walls-claims-countered-by-ex-labour-party-president/VVNV3ODSHS3REZGSNDTQ3RBJQQ/
Ask yourself who would know if Mike's assertion were true. Wall & her electorate committee. Mike's been retired for many years. Dunno why anyone would believe him – given that he failed to cite info from the insiders as evidential basis.
"Dunno why anyone would believe him – given that he failed to cite info from the insiders as evidential basis."
Dunno why you would think he is not to be believed. He's highly regarded and still a part of the Labour machinery but not in an official capacity. He has no history of telling porkies. In fact he is regarded on both sides of the political fence – including political journos – as both astute and a reliable source of accurate information.
From recollection he played some sort of intermediary role during that Manurewa stoush. In other words. he is the evidence.
My understanding is that the Labour caucus selects the people to become cabinet ministers and then the PM decides the portfolios.
" the Labour Party, for example, has provision for its parliamentary caucus to select ministers, while the National Party allows the Prime Minister to choose of their own free will." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministers_in_the_New_Zealand_Government
So for Louisa Wall to say that it was only the PM that kept her from cabinet denies the Labour selection process. I'm sure that the PM would have strong preferences, but caucus decides. Wall's caucus colleagues decided, and there would have been strong competition.
On the other hand, National allows the PM to select ministers and allocate portfolios, which gives the National PM much more direct control.
Yeah, that was my understanding, too – but found this article from Peter Dunne post the 2020 government formation interesting. [NB: Dunne doesn't say how he knows this – suspect insider information. But, given that it wasn't immediately contracted by Labour insiders – it seems likely to be fairly accurate]
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/a-historic-reshuffle-for-ardern
That article by Peter Dunne twice uses the word 'seems'. To debate a 'seems, a 'reckon,' a 'surmise, is to give it oxygen.
Why give credibility to a former Labour waka jumper? He has an agenda. Why respond? It's just his reckons……
One person’s reckons may suit another person’s narrative.
Critical thinking is not everybody’s strong suit; parroting is much easier when you’re a parrot.
Just found a quote from Ardern, which (given the difference of perspective) seems to support that she handled the selection of ministers and the allocation of portfolios differently. Rather than the classic Labour caucus nomination of members, which the leader then has to allocate portfolios.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/11/jacinda-ardern-s-new-cabinet-who-s-promoted-who-keeps-their-role-and-who-is-pushed-down-the-line.html
Wall said she supported Cunliffe, so the opposite of "Anyone But Cunliffe". Against Robertson.
So it might be a grudge, or could be about future stability/transition of leadership in the next few years (even if Labour win 2023 election, going by historic pattern Ardern is still likely to be replaced as leader within the next five years / two elections).
Maybe she's been passed over for Cabinet as retaliation, maybe she just doesn't have the temperament to be a minister. Maybe the worry is that she's so proactive on social issues that it's a liability for the "Waitakere Man" vote.
Thanks for the correction. Rather Byzantine. Obvious candidate for minister of sports. Instead, they gave it to Robertson who would probably have a problem with running on the spot…
🙄
I think the answer is less dramatic, as I heard Mike Williams say on RNZ just now. She did not have the support of her caucus.
They choose. She was not chosen. As the good Rabbi said, all the rest is commentary.
He's normally a good commentator with whom I rarely disagree. I just find the voice of god stance irritating. Evidence-based explanations carry more weight.
He may be right. Did he say that his opinion was informed by sources within caucus?? If not, perhaps he's psychic. Or just guessing…
It would be a good idea if Labour were to start doing democracy at the local level. Creating the impression that electorate committees can be controlled by the hierarchy is a foolish move. However since the media don't seem to have enquired about the truth from committee members, idle speculation will create a political climate rife with rumour. That corrodes Labour support.
The issue of whether she was on side with her LEC is immaterial to the issue I am discussing. She said she was not given a ministerial post because she said the PM said she wouldn't get one.
I'm saying only about that issue- because all else is speculation, (and I'd have to ask why you're speculating?)- that the selection of MPs to cabinet rank is done by caucus, not by the PM. The PM chooses the cabinet ranking and post.
So, I agree- idle speculation about LECs, PM opinions, race, gender, sexual orientation etc is just that.
Who benefits from such?
Well the Labour Party presenting itself as opaque while claiming to be transparent in govt is likely to alienate voters. The point of critical feedback is to alert the error-prone to their errors. It helps to speed up the rectification process. Some would argue that Labour are in permanent denial of their error-prone behaviour and therefore there's no realistic basis for improvement. I'm more optimistic. Same logic applies currently to the Greens.
Is being a 'team player' in sports as a late teens / early 20s athlete slightly different than being a team player in politics when you're nearly 40 years old?
Same psychology in each case. Gotta play your part in the team effort because the other members depend on you doing that. Role-specific constraint on behaviour.
Here is an unusual fact that may be a fly in the ointment should Russia wish to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. That is that back in 2013 China guaranteed to protect Ukraine in the event of nuclear attack.
Not that I think China would nuke Russia if they used tactical nukes in Ukraine. But rather, that China may not want the public humiliation of having to reneg on the promise, so may put pressure on Russia not to use them.
It doesnt seem to matter to much to China that they reneg on agreements.
https://youtu.be/KcEEw838EZ8
Yes, as I said, I don't think they would actually defend Ukraine against Russia.
But on the other hand, China is also very sensitive about its relationship with the West from where it derives most of its income. They are already being warned off supplying aid to Russia. So, reneging on the agreement maybe something they don't want to be put in a position of having to do.
That is why I think they may request Russia doesn't use that sort of weapon because it is bad for business.
All China trade transaction with Russia are now in Yuan.Both China and India are now getting heavily discounted commodity products,thats 42% of the worlds population.
https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1512846858980401154?cxt=HHwWhIC90f2M2_4pAAAA
Yes. And I think that is a pointer to the future. Europe now realises their strategic folly in relying so much on Russian energy. So, they are going to wean themselves off that energy source.
I think this may well lead to more developement of green technology, which is good. And countries like Germany will probably reactivate their nuclear power plants I suspect. When I was over there a few years ago, there was a big thing about them weaning themselves of nuclear power..
I think they are only operating three of them now, but may need to reactivate the others.
However, Russia is going to be in a bit of a bind when energy prices start coming back down again. That is because they will be locked into a limited market which will mean they have to discount their prices quite a lot.
Essentially, they will become a vasal state to China.
Welcome news!
Nurses ripped off again by our broken health system. No wonder we can't keep them in NZ. What Aotearoa offers health workers is a sick joke. Low wages, high living costs, poor working conditions, explotative rental market, & useless tax regime that rewards parasites and punishes workers.
https://youtu.be/YyXfgn5TmBs
Even a right winger like me can see the sense in paying our nurses properly.
From an economic perspective we are in a world market. If we want to retain our nurses we need to pay the going rate. Otherwise we will just be training them for the Australian market or whatever. That is a total waste of our resources.
Care to go through the list of professions your happy to see ripped off?
The same principles apply to any profession, especially where skills are internationally transferable. If we are losing people to overseas we need to pay them more to retain them.
Fruit pickers?
A Right-Winger. No concern at all about whether a basic job should provide people with a living wage – just a dumb market-led idea that if your particular skills merit it, you may be blessed with enough pay to actually live on.
Totally stupid idea, designed to create a hell-hole of a society.
Poto Williams, you are the weakest link………….goodbye!
National MP decries 'rejection of clear facts' after PM defends Police Minister's denial of rising gang violence (msn.com)