Open mike 17/04/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, April 17th, 2025 - 37 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

37 comments on “Open mike 17/04/2025 ”

  1. Tony Veitch 1
    17 April 2025 at 6:14 am

    "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, . . .”

    Trump is upending the world order bigly, using a road map provided by Putin! and in ways that should make any thinking government reconsider relationships with the US of A. (which precludes our CoC taking any meaningful action).

    Thom Hartmann on the decline of the USA under neoliberalism and the rise of fascism – frightening stuff. 12 mins long.

    Reply
  2. gsays 2
    17 April 2025 at 7:10 am

    Here's a first.

    This is a link to Craig Renney's new podcast 'Locked Out'. It is in conjunction with the crew at DOC Studios who produce BHN.

    In this episode Renney chats with Ed Miller, a researcher with CICTAR (Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research).

    They discuss the electricity market, profits, job losses and recent decisions by the government. This may be a tad dry for some folk but a good primer for understanding a recent neo-liberal failure.*

    If I have a criticism, it is the binary nature of some analysis eg the job losses in the meat works, forestry and pulp industries were due soley to electricity prices. While a major factor, it was far from the only one.

    Looks also at the link between the start of privatisation and the fall of investment in infrastructure and the start of the $1B transfer of funds to shareholders.

    • A failure in that the market doesn't serve the citizenry well, just funnels money up and away from most folk.
    Reply
    • SPC 2.1
      17 April 2025 at 7:48 am

      The government gets half the share dividends (and is not associated with rising power price). And while it sold cheap, it now has the half the shareholder value on its books as assets.

      Technology advances resulting in increased use of solar power and battery storage for the grid will help – though the sabotage of offshore wind in Taranaki for seabed mining is the sort of carcinogenic group identity mindset that personifies this retrograde coalition. Are blue greens not ashamed?

      Reply
      • gsays 2.1.1
        17 April 2025 at 9:32 am

        I acknowledge the government's 50% shareholding, it's the corporate behaviour of the board that allocates $ to dividends rather than infrastructure.

        The 'market model' experiment has failed those of us that built the dam(n) things in the first place.

        Reply
      • Tony Veitch 2.1.2
        17 April 2025 at 9:35 am

        What would help the uptake of solar power generation would be if the power companies paid wholesale rates to households that generate that solar power. Instead of the pittance J. Key, of doubtful memory, mandated they pay, so the govt could get more income.

        Reply
  3. Adrian 3
    17 April 2025 at 9:17 am

    Hamish Campbell eh. Luxon will almost certainly not get rid of him, he’s too much like one of them, the Cof C , marginally Christian, associates with kiddy fiddlers, thick as pig shit , lies on command. What I am saying to you is it’s a minor issue so nothing to see here.

    Reply
  4. Stephen D 4
    17 April 2025 at 9:49 am

    Whenever I get too despondent over, well pretty much everything. Hope rides over the horizon.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/life/lifestyle/home/kiwi-firm-designs-low-cost-fast-build-house

    Reply
  5. Bearded Git 5
    17 April 2025 at 10:39 am

    Luxon will be sticking pins in a Trump doll today.

    Infometrics' forecast published today says that, due to the Trump trade policies, the recovery is "on ice" and that growth in GDP for next year will be only 1% not 2.4% as previously forecast.

    Luxon’s election line "look how we have turned around the economy" is in tatters.

    Reply
  6. Visubversa 6
    17 April 2025 at 11:01 am

    And it is a win for the rights of women and the rights of same sex attracted people.

    Thank you "For Women Scotland" and all those other women who would not wheesht

    https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/its-a-win/

    "The judges accepted that sex discrimination against women, or against men, is discrimination against members of an objectively defined, materially distinct group, not a group defined by possession of government-issued pieces of paper. This supports the right of women to female-only spaces and services, and to freedom of association in groups that are female-only, a right that is especially important for lesbians."

    Reply
    • weka 6.1
      17 April 2025 at 11:08 am

      amazing eh. So good seeing all the celebrations.

      There's some more conversation here

      https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-16-04-2025/#comment-2031719

      Reply
    • Psycho Milt 6.2
      17 April 2025 at 12:25 pm

      Just a shame it needed a supreme court judge to explain something obvious that should never have been disputed in the first place. That it was disputed says a lot about how unseriously women's rights are taken. I hope the UK women had a good old celebration afterwards.

      Reply
    • AB 6.3
      17 April 2025 at 2:06 pm

      The judgment is that this is what the word "woman" means in the context of the UK Equality Act.

      It has no legal or intellectual or moral force outside that context. In particular, it is not a judgment that this is the only thing that the word "woman" can ever mean in any imaginable context. But that is undoubtedly going to be how the judgment is interpreted (or more accurately, over-interpreted) by the public. This over-interpretation is likely to cause some problems.

      Reply
      • weka 6.3.1
        17 April 2025 at 3:00 pm

        It doesn't affect places outside of the UK, apart from possibly influencing future court decisions in countries like NZ.

        But to say it has no intellectual or moral force outside of the UK misses what feminists have been doing for the past 15 years, including other court cases (and yes, even in NZ). The veteran campaigners in the UK talk in decades to reassert women's rights. Following those cases in the UK (and Australia) has given me a much better understanding of NZ law. Other feminists who are active in this area will be looking much more closely.

        I don't know what will happen here, but sisterhood is global. In the UK, everyone marginalised the feminists and now they're winning case after case. Society is changing, politicians are changing, law and policy is changing. That has both moral and intellectual force for women.

        Reply
        • weka 6.3.1.1
          17 April 2025 at 3:10 pm

          the other thing that is likely to happen is that as lw feminists in particular continue to be marginalised, the right are making hay. Including the far right, who are making good use of the GC to right wing pipeline. Another leftie own goal. Read Jane Clare Jones if you are interested, she is writing about both gender critical feminism, and the rise of fascism in the UK and the US.

          Reply
        • AB 6.3.1.2
          18 April 2025 at 11:09 am

          I'm sure the judgment will have great influence of what many people think. But I'm not convinced that this will always be helpful.

          What I am really talking about is language, how it gets used and the effect this will have on social relations. I'm suggesting that we can't reach a social accommodation on this issue by insisting on a biological essentialism about the meaning of the word "woman" that must be applied and enforced in all social contexts. Instead, we need a form of contextual essentialism, as in the Wittgensteinian aphorism of "the meaning is the use".

          This would mean that the essential characteristics required of any person to be called a woman, and treated as such, are different in different social contexts. For example, in casual social interaction or the workplace, I am quite happy to regard a person as a woman and treat them as such if I know they honestly believe this to be their true nature. On the other hand, I would require a different set of essential characteristics when deciding on a romantic partner (though I'm old enough to be past all that), or on deciding who might be placed in a women's prison.

          This contextual essentialism is not hypocrisy and it's not intellectual inconsistency. It simply recognises the social function of language and tries to keep the peace.

          Reply
          • SPC 6.3.1.2.1
            18 April 2025 at 11:21 am

            A biological sex base and right to allow (as guests) or exclude others is the natural default.

            Reply
          • Karolyn_IS 6.3.1.2.2
            18 April 2025 at 11:45 am

            Acknowledging the material reality of sex (male or female) is not biological essentialism, it's biological reality. Gender, as feminism has long seen it, is a social construction related to sex. Gender = sex-based roles, norms, behaviours and expectations, etc. And those social constructions do change according to context: ie they change over time, and are different in different societies.

            Under conservative/patriarchal systems, gender becomes a form of biological essentialism through which females are kept in a subservient position. In such systems, sex-based roles, expectations, etc are very limiting for the female sex, restricted to the domestic sphere, low paid, precarious labour, and reproduction, etc. Feminists have long embraced gender non-conformity and gender criticism so that females as a sex can have opportunities to achieve their full human potential in society, politics, economics, etc. That was where second wave feminism was before mainstream/popular feminism got neoliberalised

            Trumpism, some NZ right wingers, and even some of the alleged liberal/left embrace the reality of biological sex along with restrictive gender essentialism to a greater or lesser extent. They embrace social structures (at work, home and play) where it's easier for males to flourish.

            Acknowledging biological sex and challenging restrictive gender essentialism was strong in second wave feminism. As mainstream/popular and some academic feminism tended to become neoliberalised, the focus shifted from acknowledging sex-based realities to gender and queer theory. In that context we saw the rise of transgenderism.

            Transgenderism also tends to embrace gender essentialism but in a mirror image of gender conservatives: ie transgenderism tends to include the idea that if a person doesn't fit some narrow, prescribed ways of behaving, they must be the opposite gender or neither male for female. While they often claim sex is a social construction, a spectrum, or relatively insignificant, underlying their claims to not fit a gender binary, lurks an unspoken ghost of a sex binary with an inverted kind of gender essentialism the main focus.

            Reply
          • weka 6.3.1.2.3
            18 April 2025 at 4:13 pm

            thanks for sharing your thinking. The argument you make is similar to what I and lots of other women would have made in the past, say 5 – 10 years ago. In a world where most trans women are transsexuals like Georgina Beyer was, it was easy enough to say be polite, or have no problem with Beyer using women's toilets.

            The problem with your argument in 2025 is that it doesn't take into account the current landscape. So sure, if you want to call trans women women (on the basis of your assessment?) then go for it. What's not ok is to insist other people do as well, and this is the point of conflict. Should women in particular be expected to refer to TW as she? At all times? Who decides? Because atm, if someone won't agree to that, there are serious social consequences.

            Trans women no are no longer just people like Beyer. The trans umbrella is broad and it now includes cross-dressing men with sexual fetishes who previously used to do that stuff in private and now want to do it in public and in women's spaces. It also includes GNC males who have not in any way transitioned. Self-ID allows any man (whatever their GI) to access women's spaces. TW have been taking women's places in positions and sports. And not only that, but when women tried to say hang on, we have some things to say about this, we were told to STFU terf nazi bigot. By our own political side.

            Women lost jobs, careers, friends, spaces, and were subjected to some of the worst abuse and political violence. The left stood by and sometimes egged that on, often took an active part. Some women have been fighting for a decade to be heard. Some much longer. My first awareness of the issues was in the 90s over Vancouver Rape Relief being taken to court by a TW to let the TW be part of the women-only support workers (meaning raped women might end up with a male counsellor). VRR won but are still fighting this shit in various ways eg defunding and their building being targeted.

            Michfest, where TW insisted on being able to attend the female only concerts. It's a good case to look at because initially Michfest did find a somewhat subtle way to accommodate, but it wasn't enough and eventually it was destroyed. Parts (not all) of the trans movement are colonising and insist on taking what is women's.

            Women are very very angry. What might have been possible even 5 years ago in terms of social accommodation is largely gone even among left wing gender critical feminists. That women had to spend years working to get to the UK Supreme Court, under vile social and political conditions, means it's unreasonable to expect them to just go oh, ok, the courts found in our favour but of course we will now accommodate males and be kind.

            So while I think there is value in the contextual argument you are making, I don't think women will be willing to do that until we get to have our political voices respected again. Women are winning case after case after case in the UK, there is no value to them now in what you are suggesting. That might change if women were allowed to organise politically and be heard.

            Reply
            • weka 6.3.1.2.3.1
              18 April 2025 at 4:24 pm

              btw, I don't think women are perfect in this by any means. There have been massive fights and splits in the GC movement before the right took it over. What I'm describing is the history and the political realities of why women are not going to be looking at accommodations as a first point.

              Reply
          • weka 6.3.1.2.4
            18 April 2025 at 4:18 pm

            I'm curious what you mean by biological essentialism. Karolyn addressed this, so I will just add that valuing material reality isn't essentialism in political terms. Historically essentialism meant that biology wasn't destiny. It didn't mean biology didn't matter.

            My own view is that material reality (the political term) or nature, are the ground upon which everything else sits, including the kind of contextual politics you are talking about. It's not biology vs identity/social aspects. It's that social aspects of being human sit within the context of material reality or nature. We can have both.

            Reply
      • Psycho Milt 6.3.2
        17 April 2025 at 6:39 pm

        It may not have immediate relevance in the NZ content, but the word 'sex' appears in a lot of sections of the HRA 1993, so the fact the UK Supreme Court has confirmed sex means, uh, duh-uh, sex, ie male or female, may well turn out to have relevance here. After all, there are plenty of male adults in NZ who believe 'women-only' includes them, so this will come up at some point.

        Reply
  7. newsense 7
    17 April 2025 at 12:32 pm

    The news that parking buildings at hospitals will be privatised and run on a for profit basis should have us up in arms. It’s an absolutely hideous thing for people who you would assume are under stress already to negotiate. And it’s highly inequitable.

    People with longer treatment will get taxed more, because that’s what this is a tax on supporting your sick relatives. People who are most affected by the grief of having their loved ones in the hospital will get taxed more. People who drop everything and race to support or help are taxed because of that.

    Then you get people measuring their visit with their sick relative by the parking metre. We’d love to spend more time kids, but we can’t afford an extra $15 every day or every other day this week.

    It’s going to be another bureaucratic face and hurdle presented to those who need a hug. Is it going to say ‘Have a nice day!’ On the botton of the ticket?

    Say no to this privatisation. Say no to profiting on misery and grief.

    Edit: my avatarry thingy has changed. Did I mess up my email?

    Reply
    • Obtrectator 7.1
      17 April 2025 at 1:26 pm

      What's new about this? Been going on for years at Wellington Hospital. Even at outstations like their physio clinic, where it used to be free parking. And the profits all go offshore to that Wilson crowd of notoriously avaricious and litigious reputation.

      PS: my “avatarry thingy” has changed too. What gives?

      Reply
    • Ad 7.2
      17 April 2025 at 2:59 pm

      Crikey it's been paid parking at North Shore Hospital, Auckland Central Hospital, Waitakere Hospital – by a long way our largest region for hospital – so the rest of the country is just catching up. I think Dunstan Hospital is still free if you need to pop down for a mountain bike injury.

      Reply
      • newsense 7.2.1
        18 April 2025 at 1:01 pm

        Really?

        Maybe it was memory and irritation from dealing with it previously! I felt maybe there was certain parking paid and other parking free last time I was there.

        There’s still equity issues and barriers to support, love and emotional need if you are poor and have a longer stay. This is top of the cliff stuff.

        Note Labour, et al: just because it is the status quo doesn’t make it right.

        Reply
    • gsays 7.3
      17 April 2025 at 6:52 pm

      Yep, happened here in Palmy quite a few years back.

      My reckons had it as a major change of working conditions.

      Pissed off the local street residents as parking shifted there. A grim event occured here in recent days.

      https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/04/14/gun-wielding-man-threatens-nurse-in-her-car-outside-hospital/

      Another argument for bringing parking, security back in house with the catering laundry and maintenance.

      Reply
  8. tWig 8
    17 April 2025 at 12:43 pm

    It's clearly unfair to link MP Hamish Campbell to child molestation, simply because some members of his 2by2 Cheistian sect have been outed as such. But he has lied about his level of involvement in the sect. He is an elder and runs a study group.

    Reply
    • Stephen D 8.1
      17 April 2025 at 2:19 pm

      He’ll see Cyclone Tam as God’s way of cleansing him off the front pages, and washing his soul clean.

      Reply
  9. Ad 9
    17 April 2025 at 3:08 pm

    We are tracking close to the lowest recorded for Antarctic sea ice.

    https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph

    Hardly a surprise when we have tropical storms coming down the Tasman in mid Autumn.

    But still doesn't bode well for either 2025 snow season or 2025-6 summer droughts.

    Reply
    • Bearded Git 9.1
      17 April 2025 at 8:16 pm

      Never mind Shane will sort it out by restarting drilling for gas in NZ.

      He really doesn't deserve to share this planet.

      Reply
  10. thinker 10
    17 April 2025 at 5:29 pm

    'Best farmers in the world': Christopher Luxon praises New Zealand's agriculture sector https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/558437/best-farmers-in-the-world-christopher-luxon-praises-new-zealand-s-agriculture-sector

    If Luxon acknowledges that farmers are pulling NZ out of recession, what's he saying about the actions/inactions of his government. 1st paragraph.

    Better he and his ministers had got out of the way and let the farmers do their thing.

    Reply

Leave a Comment