- Date published:
7:00 am, October 17th, 2019 - 153 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 …
Judicial reviews take time.
Meanwhile, Massey University has cancelled a feminist conference due to health and safety. Who would’ve thought that a university could be so craven.
[this is the third offtopic comment I have had to move. Please read the previous moderations from yesterday. I don’t know if you haven’t seen them or are ignoring them, but count this as an instructional ban. It’s better not to do spray and walk away commenting on TS, but instead revisit one’s previous comments, any mod notes and replies and think about them before commenting again. 1 week off, which I will remove if you reply to this comment acknowledging the moderation and agreeing to not keep posting off topic – weka]
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
mod note for you Ross.
In what way was it off topic? You were suggesting that free speech seemed to be under threat, and I was in agreement.
As for moderations yesterday I have no idea what you’re referring to which perhaps isn’t surprising given that there’s nothing in the relevant threads about this.
And those reading this thread might wonder why I said what I said about judicial reviews. Context is everything.
[Use the Comments list to find replies to your comments. The onus is on you to do this work if you want to keep commenting privileges. I’m happy to explain the off topic issue, but only once you’ve read the moderations and indicated you will abide by them. In the meantime please don’t change your commenting details to skirt the ban. – weka]
Nick Hanauer as readable as ever on why the economic story lefties need to be telling is how putting money into the hands of people that actually spend it on actual activity is good for the economy, and how putting money into the hands of those that use to play games of big boy's monopoly as bad for the economy.
The Hanauer article starts like this:
The greatest trick that trickle-down economics ever pulled was its simplicity. The rules of trickle down are so easy to explain that even a child can understand them.
Which is so simple and direct that you want to read it all. Which I will.
But Groucho Marx's ironic comment came to mind. His request when hearing about childish simplicity was: Send someone to fetch a child of five!
I see AOC is endorsing Sanders. More to the point, she just made sure that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2024 or 2028 with her radical credentials intact.
Make no mistake – she is a once in a generation politician with just the right combination of nous, charisma, pragmatism, conviction and thick skin and she will be president.
Agreed. I actually wrote a post advocating for her to be the nominee but then realised the constitution has this weird age restriction.
Why do i think AOC is the real deal? Because look at what isn’t.
Here is a chilling warning for all those who think Jacindamania means much beyond keeping the other lot out. Listen to this broadcast and replace Liberal with Labour and Trudean with Jacinda…
"…Trudeau – only liberal of that kind in what was a very difficult period for liberal around the world he was was able to hack the formula on how you keep the politics of the 1990s, how you keep third way liberalism going in a world where it is under assault from both left and right… he was to do that by basically channeling a version of the elite consensus in Canada while also ceding ground rhetorically at least to what people wanted… so there are lots anxious people, working people, middle class people who want a government the act on climate change, that is interested in the redistribution of wealth, who think inequality has gone to far, who care about the right of indigenous peoples, you know who basically support a social democratic policy agenda and Trudeau was able to embrace that pretty well at least rhetorically. I think a lot of people who vote liberal thought they were voting, you know, for a left of centre government that was going to do those things and after his election that was very much how it was received… …just amplified his false bone fides as a transformative and progressive figure… and he has led a pretty technocraatically minded, not particularly ambitious government that I think you can see the contradictions in rhetorically embracing all these cause I mentioned while persuing a market friendle, centre right agenda that doesn't antagonise… ..wealth or power…"
Part 1 of this youtbe cast also contains some very interesting observations on Elizabeth Warren which basically conclude she is just a vulnerable as Hillary Clinton to Trump's anti-elitism.
The problem for NZ is what to do if Labour don't have an up and coming AOC. It's not like such a person can be manufactured. Worse, even the slow process of nurturing incoming candidates is likely to block an AOC in Labour because of the culture within Labour and who they want.
We got lucky with JA, not because she is an AOC, but because she enabled the change of government. The issue for me isn't that she is never going to be an AOC (that was obvious at the start), but what we on the left do about the overall situation?
I still think the Greens are our best hope within parliament, and that more Green MPs would see a move left. But that's a window that won't be open forever. If the only way the Greens can effect change is by becoming more mainstream, then that's what we will end up with. I'll be really interested to see what the party list looks like next year.
Swarbrick is the closest we have to Ocasio-Cortez.
.. if she can be bothered staying in party politics long enough, given other ways her generation can see to make change happen.
She is really good. Next election and how many MPs the Greens get is going to be a key point for the party, and for the country. Time we stepped up or wear the consequences.
She was 7th on the list last time. That needs 6% of the vote.
Greens will definitely out poll NZF at the next Election.
I wouldn’t bet on it. The basic electoral difference between these two parties has always been that the supporters of NZF don’t talk much to pollsters but do get out and vote. Whereas based on past evidence, Green supporters tend to blow the wind but consistently don’t vote.
Good comment there weka, I agree that JA is most definitely not AOC, and we unfortunately don't have anyone coming through (once we sadly lost the wonderful and heroic Helen Kelly) that has the proven track record or depth of character that will be needed to lead a transformational political party into the face of what would be overwhelming negativity, personal attacks etc from the Right, the media and probably most damaging of all from the liberal 'Left' of Labour itself…just witness what has been leveled at Corbyn and to a slightly lesser extent Sanders.
The one thing I will say about AOC is that, yes she is breath of fresh air in US politics ( The whole Squad are), and I am a fan, but at the same time, we should collectively just cool our jets a bit on holding her up to high just yet. Lets just see how she develops and what she does over the next few years.
The only reason that Bernie and Corbyn have survived this far is solely because of their consistency and unblemished records..AOC needs to build at least some of that same sort of stable base for herself. It is that (high moral and ethical)base that gives both Corbyn and sanders their power in what is a brutal ideological battle that is raging..and we must win.
Turn Labour Left!
Turn Labour left. It reminds me of Margaret Thorn's book 'she wrote her memoirs, ‘Stick out, keep left’, published posthumously in 1997.
Here is her bio from Te Ara. A wonderful woman, and truly whole-heartedly always supportive of Labour, along with her equally wonderful husband Jim Thorn. If Chloe Swarbrick is similar then she is to be treasured and supported.
And also remembering the wonderful Helen Kelly! RIP.
Next Government will probably be a Labour/Green Coalition, NZF are on it's last legs I feel.
We can but hope.
+ 1 yep she is awesome!!!
Yep, she’s “got it” for sure. Alexandria and Bernie would have been a great team–except there is a requirement as Micky discovered previously, for Presidential and VP candidates to be 35 years or over at time of assuming office. Weird shit, given there seems to be no upper age limit. And it goes back to the formation of the US when 35 was reasonably old given life expectancy then.
…. and Tulsi Gabbard as her AOC's VP!
Gabbard is to centrist. I haven't actually thought about who her running mate would be though.
The best sign that she is smart and effective is that one of the most persistent attack lines consists of calling her 'dumb'. It would be nice to hope that even if Sanders doesn't make it himself – he helped create the conditions that made an AOC presidency possible. And to see a 29 year old woman pick up a torch kept going by a 78 year old man tells us something about the failures of those of us who came in between.
Landlords are greedy. That's the only issue here..not lack of housing, but lack of affordable housing.
I try to get as much as I can for the things I sell. I think most of us do. We all have the potential and regularly exercise our ability to be greedy. Nobody can open a box of chocolates and have just 2.
The disconnect is not us and the deadly sins we wrestle with, it is using a fundamental requirement as a vehicle for greed. Thriving to make a better life for our families is as old as humans.
Private landlords are increasing their rents as the govt. has increased the compliance costs for them and also using this as an excuse to increase rents even more. I think some have exited the market due to extra compliance becoming too hard.
I think landlords are getting on the bandwagon of seeing themselves as victims. (I think Landlords is becoming a dirty word. So as lavatories became toilets, or if USA bathrooms, the landlord is now to be called a Rental Provider. I think that will cause a rueful smile amongst housing market watchers.
I was interested to see this ad in a Nelson paper.
Rental Providers Meeting
Nelson Property Investors invite non-members to join us for free at our next meeting on Tuesday 22 October 7.30 pm at Honest Lawyer Monaco.
(A bar designed in mock Tudor? style. Monaco is on a peninsula due to be overwhelmed by sea level rise. – Just to background the state of things in Nelson.)
Andrew King Executive officer NZ Property Investors is speaking on why the Government does not seem to love us anymore.
Ask for newsletter @ [email protected]
The advert is supported by Summit a local real estate firm.
The property investors of NZ have had lots of help and advice from the sector, while the ordinary citizen looking for an affordable home has every barrier possible raised against them, and little practical interest by governments in helping them to find a home of their own, no matter how humble.
The glossy monthly magazine NZ Property Investor at $8+ has been publishing for years with encouraging articles such as in April 2009, Tina Chan:$25 million portfolio at age 24 and in June 2008 Laurence Pope: 24 years old, 16 houses, 1 street called the Angel of Harlem in Paeroa.
In March 2009 – A heading was 'Don't have all your kiwifruit in one basket – try renting by the room.' These are old articles, old but not defunct as the item below from 2019 indicates that the 2009 advice still stands.
That is what happened recently to aggrieved house owners featured in the Nelson Mail who signed an agreement with a property manager that was not specific enough in its conditions. The Ministry of Biz, Innovation and Emp.-truncated (MOBIE) as I call them, after Moby the unfortunate whale, are looking into this housing company to see whether they have been innovative enough. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/114889533/property-owner-changes-locks-in-middle-of-night-after-subletting-shock
Meanwhile nearby farmer-oriented Tasman Council are trying to prevent someone from settling in a tiny house because it ought to have wheels and they have not been fitted, because of circumstances after the delivery of the house from Christchurch. So everything is against the wishful house owner.
Also Labour did a brainfart and cancelled the SHA policy that had been set up with a sharp and decisive guillotine stroke that left a number of schemes which were in train, legless. Isn't that a lot of mixed metaphors or something! But a worthy description of the outcome of Labour's fatuous announcements and actions concerning housing. This is so true that kind hearts cannot give an alternative view between their positive pronouncements about their policies and the outcomes we would see, and the stark reality.
This is an example of the bad news that people are taking in about Labour and housing. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/115726045/theres-nothing-else-we-can-do-say-young-family-after-subdivision-plan-scuppered
It may be enough to scupper Labour in 2020. So maybe they need to have another brainfart. Try building State houses enabling people a tenure for a 5-8 year period on a stable rental, and encouraging them to look after it well and then get backing for a reasonably priced house to buy at reasonable interest. It would be a better approach and step up from low rents for life, and also from selling up State houses that are needed for others.
Also starting people off in Co-housing tiny houses where they belong to a community that looks after the place with pride, and which receives support and encouragement from the State by say being lauded as good models and getting a free barbecue fun day each year. It would be a positive motivation and bring great reward to the government from setting a good standard for others to emulate. Also having some pilot projects where building trade trainees work under the supervision of experienced licensed builder employers, building their own future small homes. What a great idea! Let's do it. Clap and shout everybody, make it so!
Hi Greywarshark, have you seen the housing they are putting on the new subdivision on the corner of Lower Queen and McShane's here in Richmond? Uninviting is about as positive as I could get. Someone I was speaking to this morning asked me if they had windows along the front or chicken wire – and I knew exactly what he meant. They really do look like rows of chicken houses. No doubt they will still sell at $500K+ Gotta love TDC.
Hi Prickles I think you mean this. https://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/109165819/buyers-snap-up-properties-at-richmond-west-development
The row of uniform housing – like old style British housing except 'detached'. (Looking at the view of the Poutama Stream townhouses.) Depressing.
Compare it to the suburb I lived in in the 1970's which gives an option of style of housing, fencing off the front and planting trees and having a place where you can be back and front going about your life without being on show.
That's definitely the subdivision but the reality does not match the pictures in the article. What they are actually building are two storey square boxes, each one slightly offset from their neighbour. As my friend said yesterday, far more like chook houses than homes. Not at all appealing.
And don't get me started on the new commercial subdivision off Queen St with it's first building starting construction this week. A solid concrete (fire) wall on each of the east and north boundaries. No windows, no redeeming features – and consequently will be no natural light from those aspects and no morning sun. Instead all the windows will face directly west and cop the harsh afternoon sun – air conditioning all summer and heating all winter and no doubt lights on all day. Not even a tip of the hat to eco-friendly design. The first of many down that new road I guess.
That bit about design and sun and shade and light – as you say not even a tip of the hat at important considerations. Picture of four solid citizens with $ for eyeballs. They are samples of many who have not had a new idea since the millenium, and before.
I lived in Australia in the 1970s and note the style of housing being built here is often off the same plans they used then. Or it has gone to 'brutalist' modern square boxes, or ones with soaring porticos for two-storey graceless mansions squatting right up to the boundaries. (If two families are side by side, the kids could set up the old fashioned communication system – stretching a string or wire between houses with tin cans on the ends as speakers and receivers. Fun to try out.)
And what is noticeable, having space to plant trees for amenity and shade is limited and may be forbidden by liens? imposed over whole subdivisions which I detest. Also having space, sunlight and air movement down the side of houses with room for a ladder even, so repairs can be carried out, is not often seen.
You ask/say that landlording is becoming a dirty word.
Since becoming an adult, I have found it to be repugnant to profit from someone's home and shelter.
The idea that you can leverage, write off losses against yr tax, be non-compliant consequence-free and exploit power and market imbalance is wrong.
Just my opinion, but one that is not shared by a sty full of politicians, Wellington and local ones.
The thing is houses are expensive. Someone has to pay for them and if someone else uses them then it is reasonable there is a charge.
But, what I think has happened in the inflationary housing market (but not counted in our inflation index), is that rented properties cost to tenants is based on the property value frequently reassessed. So someone who is paying a fairly high rental in 2015 costs, and is still in that house in 2019, will have likely had their rent hoisted even if the landlord has incurred no extra costs such as maintenance. So the tenant ends up paying the equivalent of a 30% return on investment say, while it was only 8% return in 2015.
(These calcs are examples, but it helps to get the understanding of the complaint of greed. And the more return the landlord gets, the more he/she can borrow to put down on another property where the whole thing will be repeated. Each property has to be done up a little to attract the tenant, then can be ignored largely till they leave and even then they can be blamed for what used to be called fair wear and tear.)
are you saying that landlords should not make any profit on rental property ownership ? Not sure how you could make this work in the real economy unless you had state control to enforce it
I feel there are some things that should not be profitted from e.g. water, electricity, police force, health care. Now perhaps internet access.
The idea that we can rent houses to each other as a driver of our economy is, well… fucked.
The tax advantages that come from landlording don't feel just or equitable.
I understand that this ^ ^ may be offensive to some, but hey, it's just my reckons.
BTW, 'real economy' gave me a snigger. The economy is a fiction.
You could also add to that list, housing & food. The other side of that transaction in that someone has to provide these goods at no profit to themselves, which in theory sounds great, but in the real world (read "real economy") every man & his dog isn't interested in investing/working for no profit.
In Venezuela the price of chicken was regulated by government to keep it down to a price that everyone could afford as it was deemed a "life essential". Guess what happened – eventually you couldn't buy chicken at the government price as there was no money in chicken farming, so the chicken farmers went broke or deserted the industry before they did.
I think you're telling tekas
"Venezuela reported a 21-per-cent increase in chicken production, totaling 1.11 million tons. The National Poultry Federation (FENAVI) said that Venezuela is Latin America's fourth major producer, after Brazil (12.9 million tons), Mexico (2.8 million) and Argentina (1.7 million). "
I see your Teka too
Yr chicken analogy explains why the housing misappropriation must continue.
Bit like they do in that bastion of free enterprise New York then.
In June 2019, the New York State Legislature in Albany enacted the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019.
Oh wow. Thanks for that DoS. How they have acted to prevent the egregious behaviours that landlording has led to for centuries involves a lot of thinking and rules. If housing was free, people would not value it as the expensive work of skilled people. If having a place costs, then it must not become an exploited necessity.
It's not even idealistic to say that things should be free, it is wrong. Everyone has to put something into the system somewhere to keep it going for the people wanting it. On a simple basis, people have to turn out for the community when it is planting season for food crops and help get them in, then they have to be weeded, and watered, and debugged, perhaps they need light pruning to ensure the fruit is a decent size. Then there is the crop available. The story of the Little Red Hen which none of the other animals would help with the work, and were then refused any of the crop, comes to mind as being very relevant.
Water seems free, but some humans want it and will take it all for themselves if they can get away with it. Maori have the principle of kaitiaki over it, and people like Milan Ruka have drawn attention to the need to watch over it. He wasn't being paid to begin with, but there is a group effort now.
https://www.waateanews.com/waateanews/x_story_id/MTYwMDA= Witness exposes farming shame 2017
Was good to see Andrew Little slap Simon Bridges down over the new anti terrorism legislation on tv last night. He was brief but blunt. Time for a bit more of that from the Government.
Angry Andy hasn't got the numbers so he will have to learn how to negotiate if he wants to get that legislation passed.
Naki Man You are so wise. Which Party do you advise on points of practice to enable successful negotiation? And have you been able to get things going in your own rohe? Negotiation seems to be really important these days when authorities seem to come down hard, rigidly and punitively on people looking for solutions that are different from whatever has been BAU for years.
"Harold Wanless, emeritus professor of the geology department at the University of Miami and an expert on ice melt and sea-level rise, warns that the historical record suggests that ice melting and sea-level rise will not proceed linearly but in pulses. The earth is entering such a pulse now, Wanless believes, so it may not be decades before Norfolk and its naval installations experience larger, more frequent, and more debilitating flooding. Those impacts could occur much sooner, Wanless cautions, perhaps as soon as the 2020s. Under such a scenario, protecting low-lying regions such as Norfolk could become practically and financially impossible; managed retreat may be the only real option. “Places like Norfolk need to recognise this fact,” says Wanless, “or we’ll just have local, state, and federal governments pouring money into the ocean”.
The greatest threat to the US military is at home
I had a dark chuckle upon hearing there will be a Formula One Grand Prix awarded to Miami shortly.
The irony was brilliant, Miami being a very low lying city.
More info about Norfolk, USA and the USA Navy.
One of those places is Naval Station Norfolk, a vast complex in southeastern Virginia whose 80,000 active-duty personnel make it the largest naval base on earth by population. The ships and aircraft stationed at Naval Station Norfolk have historically patrolled the Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea.
But in May of 2018, as part of the Trump administration’s new National Defense Strategy “to deter Russia and China,” the Navy announced that it would be expanding operations in the Arctic Ocean. Rising global temperatures were melting polar ice and opening sea lanes in the Arctic, enabling access to sizeable deposits of natural resources, including oil.
To counter anticipated Russian and Chinese claims on those resources, the Navy has reactivated its Second Fleet, which had been deactivated eight years ago by the Obama administration; it’s based at Naval Station Norfolk.
(Notice that it in its sights are natural resources, including oil and concerned about Russia and China claiming them. The USA prepared to fight tooth and nail to be in control of the planet and its resources.)
indeed…one that already has clear day floods…although I imagine the course is well clear of that threat…or maybe not
Bridges bonkers!….or is he?
"These boundaries corralled not only ordinary citizens, but their leaders as well. Step outside them and the retribution could be swift and savage. People who look back wistfully to the days when “consensus” reigned, tend to forget the level of exclusion required to give it effect."
Mr Trotter does a good job of expressing the self evident
Maybe Pat, that is why Bridges and Bennett look smug in the House even when delivering the idiotic. During QT Opposition questions often have key phrases repeated again and again even when they have been answered. We hear the words but Bennett/Bridges are sending an entirely different message to their supporters.
The key question is whether it is effective….and at the moment it would appear to be….IF you trust the polls
If there is anyone that still trust the polls, I have a Bridges I can sell you.
Bridges no longer for sale…bought and paid for by the Chinese.
As for the polls I am not convinced although the reaction they cause would suggest many still are
National, and Labours neo-liberals have long ago adopted the idea, that if you repeat something often enough, even those who should know better start to believe it.
New household water regulation? Any one else aware of this?
Last week I was at a meeting where the new regulations were outlined. Every household in NZ must be able to prove that the water going into all buildings is pure. Baches sharing a water source must upgrade and have a monitored ongoing testing process. Filters, ultraviolet light, or pure sources will be needed. Towns and cities must also show purity. Waste water and rain water disposing will also come into scrutiny.
A new Ministry is being set up with regulations to be promulgated by the end of the year with 5 years for systems to be in place.
Is tanked roof water counted in this too ?
• Extending regulatory coverage to all water suppliers, except individual household self-suppliers
If the water supply crosses the boundary, that is water supplying more than one property, then it is covered. Your own rainwater tank would therefore be not covered – think.
The new Water Regulator and treatment requirements
"Extending regulatory coverage to all water suppliers, except individual household self-suppliers"
Ahhhh "Except individual households." Gotcha.
Hang on. I think that the statement is just stating the current position.
A bit ambiguous but more detail to come. Our source was an agent of the District Council who was giving us a verbal heads up. Therfore detail to come.
Edit oops: “Extending regulatory coverage to all water suppliers, except individual household self-suppliers” – Herald
These announcements every few months about the ongoing improvements raising the mandatory standards of our housing all come with a disclaimer: 'Up go rents.'
A few years ago it was decided that tenants should no longer be held responsible for maintaining the batteries in their smoke alarms. It is now the landlord's responsibility.
Tenants can now not be held responsible for costs for damage beyond the owner's insurance excess or 4 weeks rent, which ever is less. The owners insurance excess amount and details must now be included in all tenancy agreements.
So water filters are next…. Muggins tenants will need to do the council's job for them. Quality household water filters are a bit like computer printers. It's not the purchase price so much as the ongoing filter element replacement. It's unlikely tenants will be held responsible for paying for the supply and installation of a new filter element every few months. Landlords will be held liable, tenants will pay the bill.
I've lived on unfiltered tank water for most of my life. I got a tummy ache once that I traced back to the tank. I had been lazy with the regular maint. Those on tanks aren't those being hospitialised, why target them?
Despite sufficient rainfall we didn't capture rain off roofs in Sweden, had to drill for it and let soil filter it first. When the wind blows the right way clouds of muck float over from the Russian, Latvia, Lituania etc side of the Baltic Sea and acid rain falls on Sweden. The Chenobyl cloud was on it's way to Sweden on those same winds. We don't know how lucky we are. I miss John Clarke.
Yes those of us with the large areas of recently established orchards and vineyards around us, worry about what exactly is landing on our roofs and what we are drinking these days in our rainwater tank water.
I think a thirsty rat with a belly full of baits finding it's way into my tank poses more of a threat where I am. I guess if a nuclear installation went 'Bang' in Australia, the radio-active cloud would be NZ bound.
Clarke unknowingly almost morphs into the current chairman of the ANZ
Recent news about California here is the link. (Within it is a heading about California not being able to keep to good water standards because of too much homelessness with faeces getting into the water. This is supposed to be the powerhouse of the USA economy and indeed the world. Can't any of these well-off entities do anything right and responsibly?)
Economic hit man speaks. There are a number of interesting links about economics round Clarke and Dawe.
John Clarke our best comedian ever.
That guy is a classic very much missed
Yeah, he was a great human being. The Aussies were quicker to embrace him than the Finn brothers. He played with satire like Monet paints water. The ABC compiled a touching tribute, it's 30 mins long, I didn't regret taking the time.
Holy flaming shitballs. This is diplomacy as conducted by greatest stable genius dealmaker the world has ever been blessed with.
Just … wow.
Oh those are priceless joe90.
Yep – his ego is in inverse proportion to his hands
BTW That's not me as the cat .😸
Hamill's gotta do this one.
How about this one!
Doubt he will answer questions he never does https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/116644548/judge-to-peters-answer-the-questions
I thought Peters was suing them for breaching Work and Income laws regarding privacy.
So Discovery now means the person sued has to prove their iinocence
Wonder what the questions Bennett hasnt asked are ? …oh thats right its from Newsroom so they got the inside info from her
Even the Guardian are having to acknowledge Bernies power and the Medias desire to drown him out……
"If the question looming over Tuesday’s Democratic debate was “has Bernie still got it?” the answer was yes. He still had it – for the 10 minutes or so that he was allowed to speak. Even though Bernie Sanders has far more donors than Elizabeth Warren, and has consistently been among the top three candidates in the polls, he was given less speaking time than Amy Klobuchar and Beto O’Rourke, candidates who have been registering as low as 1% in polls recently."
Air New Zealand
So the ex chief executive, John-Key-endorsed-Luxon, is moving to politics with great fanfare.
His replacement at Air New Zealand – another golden boy – apparently faces challenges.
Quote from Stuff "Making New Zealand exciting again…
So remind me, what made Luxon so brilliant that Foran has to improve on?
not only that, but drafting women happens in some places and can easily happen in Canada. Men can never give birth.
Men in my sentence above was referring to sex not gender. But sure, I'm totally good with transmen being in the conversation about abortion and other men not.
Unless I have missed something, surely a male is involved at some stage for reproductive issues to come in to play…
My understanding is that Canada has a volunteer military and doesn't use conscription so no-one is 'drafted' in peace time and certainly not women. Women CAN serve in all branches of the military if they want to but that's a different matter. Canada passed special legislation for conscription of men in both World Wars but didn't rely on it heavily as most Canadian service personnel were volunteers. The legislation lapsed in peace time. My guess is that even if the Canadians were fighting a hot war they would be most reluctant to conscript women into front line roles but who knows what the future holds?
Language is important; the labels and phrases we us in discussing climate change/ global heating are hugely influential and have to be updated at this point. The Guardian has done it. We must do it also.
The Guardian people are leading the way in good journalism I think. And honestly going out asking for people to front up with donations while making their information open and free to the public. Others also need funding but are blocking off the major part of items till you pay. So The Guardian is wearing their heart on their sleeve and we must love them for that in these trying times when knowing now might make all the difference for making important changes with vital outcomes years hence. So even little bits keep the wheels turning. We can all help to crank up the engine.
Very good. I'd noticed global heating. I'd prefer them to use biodiversity and wildlife interchangeably but I understand the rationale.
That is why I have tried where ever possible over the past 20 odd years to refrain from the use of "Climate Change" – which has always been a euphemism – preferring to use the term Anthropogenic Global Warming – because that it is what it is. AGW is causing our Climates to change right now. And we need to address the human activities that are causing the rapid heating of the troposphere.
I found myself using AGW recently and it felt right and I wondered why I stopped using it.
Latest Brexit –
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50077358 Brexit: Marathon makes EU eager to reach finish line
Previously – https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50072847 Buckle up for the next 24 hours
I don't agree with the idea that a man, possibly wanting to access a women's only area (such as a refuge, toilet, women's prison, rape recovery group, dressing room at the local pool…) should be able to just sign a declaration stating that he now identifies as a women and, and suddenly he is granted access. Creepy, and dangerous.
Now obviously it's different if you've gone through the extensive process that a reasonable person would expect, and you identify as a female.
Who are the twits who disagree? Massey University that believes discussing this should be banned.
Who would think that being fair to people who are different from the norm would lead to such swingeing problems. Where does it stop – the demands and extensions to suit the minority of individuals? And taking from the rights of women who generally are more vulnerable than men, more in need of a place where they can feel safe? The demands are aggressive, and in general women are not. It has taken big efforts, sometimes aggressive, for women to be able to move amongst male society and be treated with the same respect as any person should expect; this demand to intrude on women's space is like an invasion.
I think that any productive discussion on this issue in the way you have framed it would first require all participants having the same idea of what "a reasonable person would expect". Starting with a guarantee that all "reasonable" trans-exclusionary people have a shared idea of what that threshold is.
Because for some, there seems to be no "process" that can be completed for them to accept that a trans woman is a woman, or a trans man is a man..
You mean like a process for a person to identify as black or maori or jewish even.
is it really even an issue , but instead a stick to beat those who arent binary?
Is the internet safe , is crossing the road safe.
The code words like safe or 'process to identify' are really about telling trans people especially – NIMBY
Pretty much, especially when you compare the actual threats e.g. trans women face from men compared to the threat trans women present to other women.
what about the threat to women from men?
Shared by trans women.
Obviously, although I think that transwomen get specific harm from men. Some overlaps for both groups, but both TW and women have their own issues with men that the other doesn't.
That doesn't answer my question though. If the issue for women isn't threats from transwomen, but from men, why should women not have a say in how society enables men into women's spaces?
Except it seems that everyone has their own definitions of "men", "women" and "transwomen".
Definitions that often serve as excuses to exclude.
I definitely have a definition of male and female that is exclusionary. Exclusionary isn't inherently bad. Are you suggesting that women should accept a very loose definition of woman or female and the attendant problems with that in regards to men, because trans people also have needs?
I think it's a bit like comedy, where "punching up" (joking about the powerful in society) is often funny but "punching down" (joking about the weak and marginalised in society) is frequently lazy and bullying. If the comic is in a more powerful demographic, a lot of their "punching down" material would be "punching up" and funny if delivered by someone else.
That line is a big part of the exclusionary discussion, I think. E.g. men dealing with the fact that there's a "womens' room" on campus was a case of them getting over themselves and making an accommodation for someone less powerful. But somewhere along the transition a man becomes a trans woman, and in a more invidious social position than most other women.
…compared to the threat trans women present to other women.
I haven't noticed any feminists saying that trans women present a threat to women. I have noticed them saying that allowing men access to women-only spaces is a threat to women, and that that is in effect what is being demanded by trans activists.
there are GCFs who believe that TW are threat to women in female only spaces. This is a problem for feminism and GCF specifically (some of it's fear based, some of it is transphobia, some of it is caution).
I also don't think it's that cut and dried. There's a difference between a rape crisis centre and toilets at a theatre. There may be safety issues in some sports too. The problem I have is that the discussions around this are so polarised and often nasty that it's almost impossible to work through the issues.
that's the nub of it. How does society decide what is reasonable? Especially when there are huge pressures on either not talking about this, or only talking in certain ways.
At one end there are outright bigots who think trans people shouldn't exist, at the other there are people who think that there is no such thing as female (or that female is outdated and inherently oppressive) or that anyone can be a woman. It's a mess.
I'm not sure people need to have a shared idea of what the threshold is (nor that GC people specifically should). We don't have that expectation in other social/political areas.
The threshold problem is that some folks portray "trans" as signing a sheet of paper that says "I'm a woman", running into the ladies' toilets for whatever reason, then signing another sheet of paper to go back to being a man. Whereas others won;t accept a trans woman as a woman even if there were some miraculous gene-editing procedure in addition to all the surgical and hormonal procedures.
It's not my monkey or my circus. It's not my decision to make. But that doesn't mean I can't see that a massively victimised minority is being further victimised by another victimised group, often because of a simple sign on a door.
They won't be prevented from going to a toilet like some sort of untouchable, but they just won't have free access to wherever they like on whim.
Except they already are. And women who don't look "womanly" enough are also abused and victimised on the assumption they are trans.
I agree, it's bizarre that some people think that trans ppl aren't at risk. There are also now reports of girls not feeling ok to use mixed-sex toilets at schools. We're not that good at sorting this out yet.
Reports ? I hope they arent US right wing 'reports'
Nope, from the UK where a lot is changing fast and without much public consultation (or with bad consultation). But it doesn't take much thinking to get to teenage girls not wanting to share bathrooms, manage periods, do girly stuff around boys. Also younger girls and what they feel comfortable with. We have single sex spaces for good reasons.
Yes . Theres this false idea that segregated but public spaces must be 'safe'. All public spaces should be safe for women or non binary. Women or children arent safe in their homes either, that applies to same sex relationships.
When I lived in Australian large city decades back , a friend lived next to a small pub in the inner city that identified as a 'lesbians only' bar. He said there were fights outside when it came to closing time, I didnt believe him until I did see it happen.
Safety is an issue even when men were excluded , as they were then.
Thats why I think safety has become a code word for lesser rights for non binary people and the whole idea of people who dont identify with gender norms.
Meanwhile, feminists have decades of work now demonstrating how women are at risk from men and what to do about it.
That there is violence in lesbian relationships doesn't change that most women and trans people are at risk from men, not from women. No-one is arguing for absolute safety, people are talking about making spaces safer. Safety for lesbians in their own communities and relationships is an issue for lesbians.
Men thinking that they get to have a say on what is safe for women isn't new, it's tedious.
Men arent saying what is safe for women.
Excluding men or excluding non binary doesnt make a space 'safe for women' as a 'political argument', which is what we are doing.
We are just repeating whats happened with all signature womens rights issues from getting the vote, equal pay, womens control of their bodies and so on .
Women have opposed all of those things happening at the time and still do.
An example is the group opposed to the current decriminalisation of abortion laws in NZ , headed by women.
In the broadest sense SAFE is a risk assessment as absolute safety is chimera.
There is no evidence that excluding non binary people makes a 'space' safer.
Plenty of evidence women only spaces are safer not totally safe. Not sure where the evidence for allowing for trans women for example ,make somewhere less safe , instead prejudice is being used.
Really? If there were 'race-critical' whites concerned about 'threats' to their traditional spaces like country clubs and ivy league universities if coffee-skinned people are allowed in them, we would not wring our hands about what degree of racism is OK, surely?
Maybe it would help if men on the thread didn't equate feminism with racism.
that would definitely help.
Unless your feminism is essentialist discrimination, there's no equation. Racism and sexism have obvious parallels, without even going into their intersections.
Not sure how that is relevant to what McFlock was referring to (and my reply to him), but maybe I misunderstood what he meant?
Not at all. McFlock wrote:
I imagined a parallel in race identity, and in US terms as that seems to be a place we are importing these ideas from. One counter to the final sentence is all it was.
The twits that disagree are akin to our feminist sisters in the 60s and 70s pioneering and making the radical mainstream.
A'la Germaine Greer. Only she's now on the oppressors side.
"Massey University that believes discussing this should be banned"
I doubt this very much. They've said a non-university group can't use their premises for a meeting. That's a very long way from banning the discussion.
True, but they've also declared their support for freedom of speech in a press release announcing they're using H&S as an excuse to prevent speakers from expressing unpopular opinions on their campus. Actions speak louder than words, and their actions are those of an opponent of freedom of speech.
Unless they want to prioritise safer culture for trans and NB people so their voices can be amplified. Freedom of speech looks different to the people whose voices are least heard.
I don't agree with the decision, but I don't know if it's political, lobbying, or they just got so many threats of violence they decided to bail.
Massey's action suggests gender-critical feminists may be the people whose voices are least heard on this issue. Not that I'm trying to argue with you – neither of us agrees with the decision, after all – just feeling grumpy at Massey dipping itself in shit again, because I work there and it's getting embarrassing to tell people that.
Lol, I'm sure it is.
My personal position is there are differing needs (trans/NB people and women) and the current discourse pits them against each other. GCFs and trans activists/allies both make this a war, and bystanders, and bigots, add to the fray. Lots of people getting damaged in the process and rippling out effects.
So while I don't agree that SUFW should be shunned, I also think that the needs of trans people are valid and should be part of the process. At the moment it's almost impossible to have that conversation.
I would be happy to see a court look at it.
It would dovetail the council judgement quite nicely to draw a line, especially if the finding is against the university.
I'd be interested for a court to look at just so that Massey have to be honest about their reasons. I doubt that a court process is the way to solve the conflict for society though.
I'm not certain they're being dishonest, to be frank. I'm pretty sure their legal opinion would be a summary of the case law around health and safety requirements and might be based around bullying-caused stress, or a public order hazard. Lawyers can think up all sorts of stuff.
I just suspect that their threshold for risk elimination is more absolute than a basic "reasonableness" assessment of the hazards of this event.
I also think it's most likely about the cultural safety of trans people, but I think there is a public interest in knowing if threats of violence were made.
I wasn't thinking they were being dishonest so much as unclear. Their statement was very brief and didn't explain their reasoning. I assume that was deliberate. There's probably a useful public conversation to be had about what H/S legislation covers (and doesn't cover). I haven't seen that convo yet re Massey.
Yeah the brevity was almost certainly calculated. Even going back to my ROAR ("right of admission is reserved" – we might decline you entry) days on the pub door, only a fool gave precise reasons, and you never got into a debate if you were busy (sometimes it was a fun way to pass the time if things were quiet, though).
Specific reasons can be refuted, or compared with other punters. Vague reasons firmly applied leave no wriggle room. And if the specific reason is illegal, you get in trouble (never worked a bar with a maximum age of entry, but they did exist around town and probably still do).
Non university group can use their rooms/lecture theatres according to their "rooms" handbook
The specific site
"With over 500 bookable spaces across three cities, our team will find the perfect venue for your event. Whether you need a meeting room, lecture theatre or ballroom we have the venue to suit. We understand the importance of matching the most suitable venue to your group type, size and budget."
An application is involved , so presume there is some procedural steps.
Non-uni groups can request to use the rooms. I don't think the university is under an absolute onus to say yes to every group.
You Might Be a TERF if…
This is site and page includes many handy definitions and examples of trans-exclusionary behaviour and attitudes. It also has a good history of the issues. I would recommend a read for those who want to know more.
Thanks for the link arkie.
I realise I have lived a privileged, sheltered and uncomplicated life.
This issue is interesting to observe evolve, watching norms move.
It is akin to environmentalists and the issue of damming rivers versus renewable energy. There are compelling arguements either way.
It appears China have just taken steps to lease an entire South Pacific Island. The residents of Tulagi in the Solomons with it's natural deep water harbour are not sure what's going on.
If I was China I'd be establishing a holiday resort at Tulagi. Bulldozing out an international airport capable of handling big passenger jets (and bombers). Dredging the harbour so it can accommodate the largest ships in the Chinese Family Fun Cruise fleet (aircraft carriers). Guests will need 1000's of rooms (barracks) and several golf courses. (They're just golf courses, the Chinese brass have developed a taste for the stupid game).
Those citizens that accumulate 2000 citizen points in a single month will be entered into the draw for 3 fun-filled days at Tulagi. Winners just need to record the conversations they have at the border.
I still miss Clarke.
Evidently China are also building a fishing port on Penrhyn in the Cook Islands 500km north of Rarotonga. You have to take your hats off the the Chinese they are not stupid ?
Yes, we work with a 5 year plan, they work with 100 years. Step 1. Become richest country in the world. Step 2. Take over world. (Not through invasion, through buying it.) Beat the West at their own game.
I wake up every morning and thank the lord I Bypassed Massey and studied at Lincoln. I a have allways preferred Corriedales and Coopworths to those flighty Perendales.
I prefer the regular crossword