Open mike 24/09/2024

81 comments on “Open mike 24/09/2024 ”

• Comment on post

1. Jenny 1

   24 September 2024 at 9:00 am

   

   RNZ

   https://www.rnz.co.nz › news › referendum-on-four-yea…

   4 days ago — At the Bloomberg Address in Auckland Friday, Christopher Luxon said the coalition government planned to propose a referendum for 2026

   We need more democratic accountability, not less.

   On the goverment referendum on a four year term.

   Most NZ governments, serve more than one term.

   There have only been two -one term – governments in New Zealand's entire history of parliamentary politics.

   Three is the most common number of terms for New Zealand governments to last, and there have only been a couple of four-term ones

   https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/20-06-2024/a-complete-history-of-new-zealands-one-term-governments

   Nine years is more than enough time for any administration to achieve their policy goals.
   Even in 6 years a less common two term government can enact a lot. And if a lot of what they enact is unpopular, we can remove them before they can enact (and embed), even more unpopular legislation

   We need more youth engagement in our democracy, not less.

   Moving to a 4 year term will disenfranchise young people even more than our electoral system does now.

   If a young person turns 18 just after an election, they will not be able to vote for the first time until they are 22.

   If a four year term is enacted it must also enact young people's demand to ‘Make It 16’.

   Make It 16 is a youth-led, non-partisan campaign aiming to uplift and strengthen youth voices by lowering the voting age to 16. We believe 16 and 17-year-olds are just as affected by government decisions as people over 18

   https://www.makeit16.org.nz/

   We need more democracy, not less.

   Don't vote for less democracy.

   Vote no to a four year electoral term

   Reply
   • Jenny 1.1

     24 September 2024 at 9:23 am

     P.S. As most wars are over in four years. A four year term government could take us into a war and not have to account for their actions for four long years. Four years is way too long for New Zealanders to be dying and killing in an upopular war, without democratic oversight.

     We need less wars, not more.

     Vote no to a four year electoral term

     Reply
     • David 1.1.1

       24 September 2024 at 4:54 pm

       What war Jenny?

       If there was a war that NZ were to be involved then that is for the government and parliament, who have been democratically elected by the people of this country.

       It is unlikely that NZ would become involved with the war in the Ukraine. But worst case scenario, we certainly won’t be on the side of Russia.

       Should things go to custard in the Middle East, which I doubt, NZ is most likely to be neutral or on the side of NATO.

       Reply
   • tc 1.2

     24 September 2024 at 10:17 am

     Yet another distraction folks.

     Reply
     • Drowsy M. Kram 1.2.1

       24 September 2024 at 10:48 am

       Yet another distraction folks.

       Indeed.

       Crunching the Numbers: 1 in 5 Kiwis spending half of income on rent
       [5 Aug 2024]
       In RNZ's new series Crunching the Numbers, we're out chatting to Kiwis about all things affecting their wallets. Our first story takes a look at renting, with research showing almost 1 in 5 New Zealanders are spending more than half of their household income on rent, while home ownership has fallen to below 60%.

       Playing another referendum distraction card <1 year after our CoC govt (by landLords, for landLords) was formed seems panicked – 'honest' John waited 5 years to float the idea of a new flag referendum <9 months before Election 2014.

       Expect further distractions to flow thick and quick from our self-serving CoC govt, while they get the flow of gravy temporarily "back on track".

       Government's anti-working from home move a 'total distraction'
       [23 Sept 2024]

       Government On The Wrong Side Of Māori Wards [16 Sept 2024]
       This Bill has shown this government’s true self and true agenda, but so far forty-three councils have said no to Simeon Brown and his deliberate moves to divide and distract our country.

       Mike Joy’s grave new world [10 Sept 2024]
       On a recent Tuesday afternoon at Victoria University, I watched freshwater ecologist and longtime environmental champion Mike Joy tell an undergraduate class that their world was headed off a cliff. He was being generous; the way he sees things, the cliff has well and truly been run over. He told the students green technologies were not going to save them, the world’s climate is going to break, and that a tipping point in the next few years will upend life as they know it.

       When he was finished, the class murmured and packed their bags and headed out. A group of boys discussed drink options for the evening. Two friends agreed to study outside later. A grand total of three students went to the front of the room to ask questions. On the walk back to his office, Mike figured the content might be gone from their minds in about an hour. This wasn’t his usual class, after all. These were mostly business students, and in their world, exponential growth is a good thing.

       Surplus Energy Economics
       Project 2050, part one – The end of modernity and a race to the bottom

       …well before 2050, what we think of as “modernity” will have come to an end.

       ==============

       The laws of thermodynamics clearly dictate that long-term sustainability of civilization is impossible. Any actions we take to prolong civilization will inevitably have negative impacts on the natural world.

       The most sustainable course of action is to minimize our activities and consumption as much as possible. This includes:

       • Ceased all mining and burning of fossil fuels.
       • Reduced consumption and waste.
       • Protected biodiversity and ecosystems.
       • Promoted social justice and equity.

       While this may seem drastic, it’s the only way to truly minimize our impact on the natural world and improve the chances of a sustainable future.

       It’s important to remember that the goal is not to prolong civilization indefinitely, as this is ultimately impossible. Rather, the goal should be to minimize the suffering and destruction caused by human activity and to preserve as much of the natural world as possible for future generations.

       ==============

       If I can get that (from Gemini), then I suspect the leaders/elite etc of the world already know from more powerful A.I.s than the free ones we have access to.

       All highlights above from the A.I. itself….

       Reply
       • Hunter Thompson II 1.2.1.1

         24 September 2024 at 5:23 pm

         Correct; no civilisation lasts (just look at the Romans). People, especially politicians who like to talk big, need to remember that.

         The universe will end one day too, according to Brian Cox on BBC's The Infinite Monkey Cage, series 22.

         But that's no reason for Mike Joy and others to give up fighting for clean water,.

         Reply
         • Drowsy M. Kram 1.2.1.1.1

           24 September 2024 at 5:40 pm

           But that's no reason for Mike Joy and others to give up fighting for clean water.

           How will our ‘anthropocene civilisation’ measure up in terms of longevity?

           He told the students green technologies were not going to save them, the world’s climate is going to break, and that a tipping point in the next few years will upend life as they know it.

           Reply
     • Incognito 1.2.2

       24 September 2024 at 2:53 pm

       Yup, another red flag referendum.

       Reply
     • Jenny 1.2.3

       24 September 2024 at 3:25 pm

       Jenny @1

       24 September 2024 at 9:00 am

       tc @1.2

       24 September 2024 at 10:17 am

       Yet another distraction folks.

       Democracy, or more pointedly, efforts to limit democracy, are an important issue.

       Yes , they are trying to distract you, they are trying to distract you with what they can do over a longer term with less accountability.

       Reply
   • mpledger 1.3

     24 September 2024 at 1:33 pm

     I am actually for 16 and 17 year olds being able to vote because of the three year cycle, even more so if it's a four year cycle. It seem crazy that for some people the first time they get to vote is not until they are almost 21, or almost 22 if it goes to a four year cycle.

     And they could make it a national standard for year 10 in schools – NZ govt and voting.

     Reply
     • Belladonna 1.3.1

       24 September 2024 at 2:32 pm

       Shifting the voting age earlier, simply shifts the window of age for the people who 'miss out'. If you shift it to 16, then you have all of the 15-year-olds who will be shock, horror almost 19 before they get to vote for the first time.

       Given that virtually no 16-year-olds are living independently in NZ anymore, it doesn't seem like a huge ask for them to wait to 18 before they can vote.

       Teenagers are not adults. They don't have fully developed brains (brain re-wiring in teens is well known, and not even controversial), which is why we limit their liability for criminal penalties, and limit their ability to drive (among other things, requiring the ability to predict the future consequences of their actions) – why should voting be different?

       Reply
       • Jenny 1.3.1.1

         25 September 2024 at 8:24 am

         Unpacking unsubstantiated prejudice

         Belladonna @1.3.1

         24 September 2024 at 2:32 pm

         …..If you shift it to 16, then you have all of the 15-year-olds who will be shock, horror almost 19 before they get to vote for the first time……

         I well remember the stulpifying and patrlponising mock elections teachers made us suffer at highschool when the election cycle came around. Nothing surer would turn young people away from political engagement than having to sit in faux voting civic lessons.
         I don't know whether high schools still do this, maybe instead they ignore the national ballot altogether. Different method same result. Disengagement in our democratic process. The lesson being, elections are not important.

         Belladonna @1.3.1

         24 September 2024 at 2:32 pm

         ……Given that virtually no 16-year-olds are living independently in NZ anymore, it doesn't seem like a huge ask for them to wait to 18 before they can vote.

         All the more reason that the age of franchise should be lowered. At 18 young people have a lot going on, leaving home, starting work, flatting, finding life partners.
         Taking the time to consider and discuss the wider issues with their peers and mentors,and making informed decisions and voting, maybe not so much.

         Studies have shown that young people who don't vote the first time, are likely to make a habit of it.

         …..high levels of youth non-voting may have serious implications for long-term turnout decline in the future, as more young people establish a life-habit of non-voting.

         https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/server/api/core/bitstreams/387cefd5-2449-4e09-8494-a8b12956b5e7/content

         Personally I would advocate the lowering of the voting age to 15. So that young people would have the experience of democracy and voting at least once during their formative years while they are still at High School and at home, to form those habits, befor negotiating the burdens and complexities of young adulthood.

         All political parties that want the youth vote should have to put their arguments before young people, address their school assemblies, let them read their pamphlets, encourage them to watch their debates on the media of their choice.
         Rather than sterile ethics lessons. Let them know their views and opinions count. By making their opinions count.
         This can only enrich our democracy.

         Belladonna @1.3.1

         24 September 2024 at 2:32 pm

         ….Teenagers are not adults. They don't have fully developed brains (brain re-wiring in teens is well known, and not even controversial),..

         Many pundits have remarked on the many young people in the most prestigous uniiversities in the Western world taking up the cause of the Palestinians in Gaza.

         Why? many have asked, have the sons and daughters of the most privileged sections of society who as adults will be those who benefit from the most from privileges of empire and colonialism, have empathy for those most oppressed by empire and colonialism.
         Maybe it is because their brains are still re-wiring. Maybe it is because their brains have not become calcified by adulthood,

         Reply
         • Belladonna 1.3.1.1.1

           25 September 2024 at 10:10 am

           Gosh, that boils down to: 'I think younger teens are more likely to vote for my party, so they should be allowed to vote'

           Reply
           • Jenny 1.3.1.1.1.1

             25 September 2024 at 11:18 am

             Belladonna @1.3.1.1.1

             25 September 2024 at 10:10 am

             Gosh, that boils down to: 'I think younger teens are more likely to vote for my party, so they should be allowed to vote'

             Gosh, that boils down to;

             'I think younger teens are more likely to vote against my party, so they should not be allowed to vote'

             And you wouldn't be wrong.

             University of Waikato

             https://www.waikato.ac.nz › news-events › news › budg…

             17 Jun 2024

             The rolling back of environmental protections and climate action advanced by the previous Labour administration comes as no surprise.

             With no new investment to combat climate change in last month’s budget, and a long list of cuts to climate and environment-related areas, the government risks damaging its global reputation…..

             On Friday 15 March 2019, tens of thousands of young students marched in towns and cities throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. United by their concern for the future of the planet, they joined a global campaign known as School Strike 4 Climate Action.

             School Strike 4 Climate – Te Papa's collections

             As you can see for yourself Belladonna, climate change is an issue that young people are concerned about, concerned enough about to protest in tens of thousands. And probably, if they were allowed to vote, they would vote in the same numbers against the parties you support.

             Make it 16

             Supreme Court of New Zealand declares that preventing 16 and 17 year olds from voting is unjustified age discrimination and in breach of the Bill of Rights Act

             https://www.makeit16.org.nz/court-case

             But you knew that, even if only instinctivly.

             Reply
       • mpledger 1.3.1.2

         25 September 2024 at 10:38 am

         The thing is that you are not asking them to wait until 18 to vote, you are asking some of them to wait until they are almost 21 to vote.

         Noone is saying that 16 and 17 years old must vote – only that 1/3 of them (on average) would get the choice.

         Reply
         • Belladonna 1.3.1.2.1

           25 September 2024 at 11:03 am

           The same is true whichever age you pick. There will always be those who 'just' miss out on turning X and have to wait until the next election.

           Reply
           • Jenny 1.3.1.2.1.1

             25 September 2024 at 11:52 am

             Belladonna @1.3.1.2.1

             25 September 2024 at 11:03 am

             …..There will always be those who 'just' miss out on turning X and have to wait until the next election.

             Really Belladonna?

             Is that your argument? Reductive reasoning, taken to its extreme?

             In my opinion the test for franchise should be; can X years old organise collective political action on a local or national scale?

             If we are going to be reductive, could 1 year olds, or even 10 year olds organise a nationwide strike for the climate, or for any other issue affecting them?

             Obviously not.

             Reply
             • Belladonna …

               25 September 2024 at 12:12 pm

               I've yet to see any argument from you explaining why 16 is more justifiable than 18.

               Your entire argument seems to be that 16-year-olds are more likely to vote left, so we should encourage them.

               Meanwhile – there are plenty of 40 year olds who can't organize collective political action on a local or national scale. Why should they be able to vote – if that is your entry level criteria?

               For that matter, I've yet to see any 16 year olds organizing a nationwide strike for climate (or any other issue). The best they've been able to achieve is a nice day out protesting – 'but don't let it affect my exam results….'

               My argument is that 18 is currently the closest we come to an 'official' adult level of responsibility in NZ. It's recognized in a whole lot of legislative and legal areas. The only thing that 16 is a threshold for, is beginning the process of getting your driving license, and legal sex.

               Reply
               • Drowsy M. Kram …

                 25 September 2024 at 1:00 pm

                 I've yet to see any argument from you explaining why 16 is more justifiable than 18.

                 Many have argued to make it 16, and I like the idea – agree to disagree?

                 Busting the myths about voting at 16 [27 Nov 2022]
                 It’s common to hear that young people are not mature enough to vote because their brains are still developing. Our brains do develop rapidly until our mid-20s. However, as leading adolescent neurologists like Professor Sara Johnson from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine have shown, this also means young people can learn more quickly – yet we don’t presume to deny older people, who may struggle with processing large amounts of new information, the right to vote.
                 …
                 Research also indicates that when 16- or 17-year-olds cast a vote, they are more likely to continue to vote into the future. Enabling younger people to vote not only increases turnout, it is also correlated with other pro-social behaviours including volunteering, and local civic engagement.
                 …
                 From 14 years, a ‘young person’, can be held criminally responsible for breaking any law; and at 16 can apply for a firearms licence, leave school, and agree to or refuse medical treatment, pay tax, and work full time.

                 [“My argument is that 18 is currently the closest we come to an ‘official’ adult level of responsibility in NZ.“]

                 As the UK Liberal Democratic Peer, Sir Norman Lamb put it, the decision to enfranchise 16 to 17-year-olds is not a decision about when one becomes an adult, but a decision about who is able to have a voice in the process of determining the nation’s future direction.

                 https://nzccss.org.nz/submission/inquiry-into-the-2023-general-election/

                 https://nzhistory.govt.nz/te-akomanga/contexts-activities/should-voting-age-be-lowered-to-16

                 https://www.makeit16.org.nz/

                 Lowering voting age to 16 'not a matter of if, but when' [2 June 2024]

                 Reply
                 • Jenny …

                   26 September 2024 at 3:28 pm

                   Drowsy M. Kram…

                   26 September 2024 at 11:01 am

                   …..I could be open to a conditional argument – if you are aged 16, living independently, and have a full-time job – then you're contributing to the tax base, and are entitled to vote

                   Hey Sunshine, it's disappointing that B, a self-declared respectful political centrist, might be open to relaxing their resistance to 'Make it 16' only for young Kiwis who are "contributing to the tax base".

                   Not contributing to the tax base, pensioners, pernanent invalids, sickness benificiaries, unemployed, sole parents on the DPB, injured people on ACC.

                   There are many categories of voters who are not contributing to the tax base.

                   Belladonna is clutching at straws.

                   Contributing, or not contributing to the tax base are not grounds for withholding the franchise from anyone.

                   To which I migt add, we go to extraordianry lengths to make sure those who ar incapitated in one way or the other, (whether they are taxpayers or not), can vote.
                   And so we should.

                   New Zealand Electoral Act (1993, last amended 2014)

                   Updated: October 2020

                   Table of Contents:

                   • General Right to Vote
                   • Exclusion or Potential Exclusion Based on Disability
                   • Assistive Tools and Policies

                   Section 170 states:

                   (1) Any elector who is wholly or partially blind, or (whether because of physical handicap or otherwise) is unable to read or write or has severe difficulty in reading or writing, or is not sufficiently familiar with the English language to vote without assistance, may vote in accordance with the provisions of this section…

                   (2) At the request of any such voter, any person nominated by the voter, or, if no person is so nominated, the issuing officer, shall accompany the voter into one of the inner compartments provided for the marking of ballot papers, and the ballot paper may there be marked by the voter with the assistance of the person nominated or, as the case may be, of the issuing officer, or may be marked by the person nominated or, as the case may be, by the issuing officer in accordance with the instructions of the voter….

                   Belladonna may well be a self-declared respectful political centrist, but this debate reveals herself as being at home with Right Wing voter suppression based on tax paying status and age

                   Voter suppression

                   

                   Wikipedia

                   https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Voter_suppression

                   Voter suppression is a strategy used to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing specific groups of people from voting…..

                   [You’re back to your old habits of overly long comments containing too many links and relying (too much) on quotes from others. I remind you of a previous warning regarding this behaviour here: https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-06-01-2024/#comment-1983432 – Incognito]

                   Reply
                   • Incognito …

                     26 September 2024 at 4:27 pm

                     Mod note
               • Jenny …

                 25 September 2024 at 1:46 pm

                 Belladonna @…

                 25 September 2024 at 12:12 pm

                 I've yet to see any argument from you explaining why 16 is more justifiable than 18…..

                 …..My argument is that 18 is currently the closest we come to an 'official' adult level of responsibility in NZ…..
                 ……The only thing that 16 is a threshold for, is beginning the process of getting your driving license, and legal sex.

                 Wrong on both counts.
                 In this country the threshold for attaining the majority of 'official adult levels of responsibility' is not '18' it is 16.

                 The exceptions are:

                 • You can't get a sex change until you are 18
                 • You can't get married until you are 18
                 • You can't smoke until you are 18
                 • You can't vote until you are 18

                 In NZ at age 16 you can:

                 • Hold a learner driver licence
                 • Leave school.
                 • Leave home permanently without permission.
                 • Be paid at least the minimum wage.
                 • Consent in writing to having your name changed.
                 • Get a passport without parental consent.
                 • Have consenting sex (heterosexual or gay).
                 • Apply for a firearms licence.
                 • Hold a Class 2 Aviation Pilot's Licence
                 • Legally get a tatoo. (though tatooists will generally ask for parental consent)
                 • In NZ You can't join the army until you are 17
                 • Though abortion without parental consent is legal at all ages, generally can't get an abortion (without adult or guardian consent) until you are 17

                 Reply
                 • Belladonna …

                   25 September 2024 at 4:47 pm

                   Can't enforce a legal contract under 18.
                   While you can begin the process to acquire a firearms license or pilot license – at 16 (like a driver's license) you're most unlikely to gain one under 18.

                   If you can't see that the privilege of voting is equivalent to the other age-restricted activities of 18+ – then I guess that there is no point in discussing further.

                   I could be open to a conditional argument – if you are aged 16, living independently, and have a full-time job – then you're contributing to the tax base, and are entitled to vote. NB: I'd say there are very few Kiwis who would fall into this category.
                   Problem for you, is that the majority of people who would fall into this category are unlikely to be left-wing voters.

                   Reply
                   • Jenny …

                     26 September 2024 at 7:49 am

                     Belladonna…

                     25 September 2024 at 4:47 pm

                     – if you are aged 16, living independently, and have a full-time job –

                     …..the majority of people who would fall into this category are unlikely to be left-wing voters.

                     According to Belladonna young left wing voters are dependent unemployed bludgers who shouldn't be allowed to vote.

                     Using Belladonna's reductionist logic –

                     if you are aged 65, living independently, and have a full-time job –

                     …..the majority of people who would fall into this category are unlikely to be left-wing voters.

                     I would suggest that Belladonna try telling this to pensioners and come back to us with the results.

                     Then she might get some inkling into why 16 year olds want the right to vote.
                 • Belladonna …

                   26 September 2024 at 9:29 am

                   If you're interested in the voting patterns of pensioners, then I suggest you do the research.

                   Meanwhile – I note that you haven't actually responded to the points I made – no doubt that is too great a challenge for you.

                   Any evidence that the majority of under-18-year olds are actually tax-positive members of society (that is, they contribute more in taxes than they consume)? It seems highly unlikely. Especially given that the majority of them are in school.

                   That's not in itself bad, education is a pathway to a better job (or, at least it is for most people). However, it's difficult to argue that they are therefore more entitled than (say) 10-year-olds to a be allowed to vote.

                   Requiring 16-year-olds to wait for 2 years before they can vote, is hardly a major infringement of their political rights.

                   Reply
               • Jenny …

                 25 September 2024 at 1:58 pm

                 Belladonna…

                 25 September 2024 at 12:12 pm

                 …..Your entire argument seems to be that 16-year-olds are more likely to vote left, so we should encourage them.

                 And your entire argument seems to be that 16-year-olds are more likely to vote left, so we should discourage them.

                 I am not afraid of how 16 year olds will vote, but you are. And as you have argued, you have a good reason to be afraid.

                 Your fear of extending the franchise to 16 year olds is the same fear conservatives had to extending the franchise to working people, to black people, to women,

                 Reply
                 • Belladonna …

                   25 September 2024 at 4:55 pm

                   No sunshine, my argument is that:

                   • A) there is a difference in cognitive development between 16 and 18.
                   • B) the qualifying age for voting at 18 is similar to other privileges accrued at the same age (there are no learning wheels for voting – unlike driver's licenses).
                   • C) Whichever age you choose, there will be the same number of people who 'unfairly' miss out because they're just under the magic number.

                   Quite frankly, I don't believe that there would be thousands of voters (for any political party) in the 16-18 band. Most teens don't care – and they go on not caring right through their 20s and 30s (there's a tiny boost in the excitement of first time voting – which quickly tails off)

                   https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2023/election-turnout-by-age-and-descent/

                   And, if the limitation of the franchise to 18+ is perceived as so grossly unfair, by those it applies to – they'll be highly motivated to get out and vote when they qualify. Clearly they aren't …..

                   Reply
                   • Jenny …

                     26 September 2024 at 9:33 pm

                     Belladonna…

                     26 September 2024 at 9:31 am

                     Jenny has made it quite clear that she is hopeful that young voters will vote left.

                     Her anticipation is of gaining left votes, rather than rights for young voters, per se.

                     Just as politically corrupt, as she's accusing me of being.

                     I never accused you of being corrupt, politically or otherwise.
                     Personally, I don't think you are corrupt, Belladonna.
                     You are just defending your class position.
                     And are most likely completely sincere in your views.
                     I just pointed out the flaws in your argument and mirroried them back to you.
                     The fact that you unfortunately feel I accused you of being politically corrupt, when I ddn't do so, says more about you than it does about me.
                   • mpledger …

                     26 September 2024 at 9:53 pm

                     Quite frankly, I agree with you that most16 and 17 year olds won't care. But it's worth that so that people don't have to wait until they are almost 21 to be able to vote. And if 18-30 years old don't bother to vote, that is not a good reason to take away their ability to vote.
                 • Muttonbird …

                   26 September 2024 at 10:21 pm

                   It is important to remember Belladonna is conservative right wing posing as a centrist, which to be frank is something all people claiming to be centrist are, and do.

                   That bit does seem to be corrupt.

                   Reply
                   • Belladonna …

                     27 September 2024 at 11:50 am

                     It's important to remember that Muttonbird translates all political views through his filter as a hard left apologist.
                     He's clearly unacquainted with any people who have right wing views, or centrists ones for that matter – and must live entirely in a rose-coloured bubble of left-wing propaganda.

                     If you deny that political centrists exist, and characterize them all as right-wing, you'd better get used to the political wilderness – because Centrists are the ones who decide governments in NZ.
                   • Drowsy M. Kram …

                     27 September 2024 at 3:21 pm

                     It is important to remember Belladonna is conservative right wing posing as a centrist…

                     B's commenting history here does seem more consistent with a right-wing political perspective than a centrist perspective, which is fine as far as it goes. However, imho the taint of deceit (i.e. the "respectful centrist" claim) does B's comments no favours – it's a distracting inconsistency. Still, self-serving righties (and lefties) will have their reasons for attempting to project/adopt false personas/identities.

                     'Merv from Manurewa' aka Roger Bridge resigns from National Party board
                     "I'm that confused."

                     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Garrett_(politician)#Criminal_offences
               • Incognito …

                 25 September 2024 at 1:59 pm

                 At just 10 years old, a [NZ] child can’t smoke, drink or have their own Facebook page, but they can be held criminally responsible for violent crimes such as murder or manslaughter.

                 https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/09/10/govt-resolute-in-allowing-10yos-to-be-treated-as-criminals/

                 Reply
                 • Jenny …

                   26 September 2024 at 8:16 am

                   Belladonna has made it quite clear that she is fearful that young voters will vote left.

                   Her fear is not of young voters per se, but of young left voters.

                   Belladonna writes she 'could be open' to young people voting, 'conditional' to young people who might vote right.

                   Belladonna…

                   25 September 2024 at 4:47 pm

                   Can't enforce a legal contract under 18…..

                   …..I could be open to a conditional argument – if you are aged 16, living independently, and have a full-time job – then you're contributing to the tax base, and are entitled to vote

                   Reply
                   • Belladonna …

                     26 September 2024 at 9:31 am

                     Jenny has made it quite clear that she is hopeful that young voters will vote left.

                     Her anticipation is of gaining left votes, rather than rights for young voters, per se.

                     Just as politically corrupt, as she's accusing me of being.
                   • Drowsy M. Kram …

                     26 September 2024 at 11:01 am

                     …..I could be open to a conditional argument – if you are aged 16, living independently, and have a full-time job – then you're contributing to the tax base, and are entitled to vote

                     Hey Sunshine, it's disappointing that B, a self-declared respectful political centrist, might be open to relaxing their resistance to 'Make it 16' only for young Kiwis who are "contributing to the tax base".

                     The Universal Declaration of Human Rights places no such condition on voting rights, but some Kiwis will have little time for a declaration which makes no mention of tax, or a Taxpayers' Union
                     

                     Article 21

                     1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
                     2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
                     3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

                     “However, Austria was the first European nation to lower its voting age in 2011.“, so it is possible for a capitalist country to make such a progressive change without everything going to hell in a handbasket.

                     https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/legal-voting-age-by-country.html
                 • mpledger …

                   26 September 2024 at 9:53 pm

                   10 years olds can smoke and drink – they just aren't allowed to purchase alcohol or cigarettes.

                   Reply
                   • Jenny …

                     27 September 2024 at 12:16 pm

                     mpledger…

                     26 September 2024 at 9:53 pm

                     10 years olds can smoke and drink – they just aren't allowed to purchase alcohol or cigarettes.

                     Applying the same reductionist logic of Belleadonna

                     10 years olds, would be allowed to purchase alcohol, cigarettes.and guns, 'conditional' on them being in the right tax bracket.

                     Putting aside all reductionist absurdity Belladonna's claim that she would be open for granting voting rights to young people conditonal on their tax status is not new idea.

                     At the beginning of parliamentary politics in this country, and indeed in most capitalist countries of the time the franchise was granted on property rights.

                     The 1850s franchise

                     https://teara.govt.nz/en/voting-rights/print

                     The New Zealand Constitution Act, passed by the British Parliament in 1852, established a system of government for the colony. This act also set the rules for voting in New Zealand’s first parliamentary and provincial elections, which took place in 1853. But not everyone was able to participate. As in Britain at this time, voting was not seen as an individual right of citizenship, but as a ‘privilege’ or ‘trust’ that should be exercised by some on behalf of others.

                     In keeping with British tradition, the right to vote was defined by:

                     • sex (voters had to be male)
                     • age (they had to be at least 21 years old)
                     • nationality (they had to be British subjects)
                     • property (they had to possess property of a certain value).
   • Mike the Lefty 1.4

     24 September 2024 at 3:44 pm

     I would argue that a three-year term is too short. I don't think history of how long each government lasts – one, two or more terms – is the key issue here.

     The key issue is that the electoral cycle of three years means more or less constant politicking. The first year of a government doing what it has promised to do (yeah right), one year of doing what it REALLY wants to do (and we are getting a whiff of that now) and a year of making promises for the next election.

     Most comparable democracies run over a four or five year term legislature. I would support a four year term with one proviso: that we also have an upper house. New Zealand is almost unique in that it has a unicameral parliamentary system. That, in my mind, gives too much untrammelled power to the Executive Council which is essentially the PM, Finance Minister and other senior ministers.

     However I doubt that an upper house would get much support. Also the timing of this referendum is important: Whenever a referendum like this is held the result tends to mirror the present state of popularity of the ruling government. If the government is popular then more people will like a four-year term. If it is unpopular then more people will favour a three-year term because they want the b..s out. The last referendum on a four year term was in the 1990 election and it was pretty soundly defeated along with the Rogernome government.

     This is also what happened in the 1993 vote for MMP or FPP. I believe that MMP won, at least in part, because both National and Labour had lost popularity and many voters felt that supporting a new system that neither Labour nor National particularly liked was a good way of showing both the middle finger.

     I also support lowering the voting age to 16.

     Reply
     • Jenny 1.4.1

       25 September 2024 at 10:31 am

       'Keep politics out of politics'

       Mike the Lefty @1.4

       24 September 2024 at 3:44 pm

       …..The key issue is that the electoral cycle of three years means more or less constant politicking.

       The Right often claim there is 'too much politiks', (sic). What the Right really mean when they say there is too much politics, is that there is too much democracy.

       Wanting to “Keep Politics Out of It” is an inherently political statement which means taking a political position. This keeps society from discussing the hidden economic forces behind our decisions.

       Being able to keep politics out of something, whether it's a discussion or sports or even media is an immediate move to take a position affirming a persons endorsment of the current position of society.

       The more places politics is kept out of, the less places discussions can take place, new ideas can be formed and most importantly minds can be molded. Wanting to keep politics out of something is saying that a person wants to remain ignorant of new ideas and they fear that their method of distraction will be interrupted. By that same vien those who are currently in power have a vested interest in trying to stop politics from encroaching into as many places as possible…..

       https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/j7h1om/wanting_to_keep_politics_out_of_it_is_an/

       In line with the Right keeping politics out of 'as many places as possible' Mike the Lefty, wants to keep 'politiks' (sic) out of parliament.

       What the hell?

       Parliament is where the most politics should be encouraged.

       Reply
     • Jenny 1.4.2

       25 September 2024 at 10:49 pm

       Mike the Lefty @1.4

       24 September 2024 at 3:4

       …..I also support lowering the voting age to 16.

       Good to hear.

       I support Make it 16 as a matter of general principal. In my opinion the more democracy the better.

       I have suggested that if we have to go to four year term, (a move I don'support), then lowering the age of franchise must be a minimum demand of the Left.
       If we have to go to four year term a minimum demand of the Lef, must be the return of the primacy of parliament over government.

       If a government is acting so egregiously against the welfare of this country and its people that some government MPs are moved to cross the floor to vote with the opposition, they won't be expelled from parliament.

       Until that happens, we don't have a genuine democracy, we have an unfettered elected dictatorship. The only real check we have on that elected dictatorship is to remove it every three years, For those who quite like elected dictatorships, once every three years is not enogh to do whatever they like with us, four years would be better Those who support elected dictatorship would be quite comfortable efor an elected dictatorship to even order us into war, whether we wanted to, or not. Whether it is a just war, or not, Whether we supported it or not.

       Jenny @1.1

       24 September 2024 at 9:23 am

       P.S. As most wars are over in four years. A four year term government could take us into a war and not have to account for their actions for four long years. Four years is way too long for New Zealanders to be dying and killing in an upopular war, without democratic oversight.

       We need less wars, not more.

       Vote no to a four year electoral term

       Reply

       • David @1.1.1

         24 September 2024 at 4:54 pm

         What war Jenny?

         If there was a war that NZ were to be involved then that is for the government and parliament, who have been democratically elected by the people of this country.

       Yay, for elected dictatorship from David

       Reply
2. ianmac 2

   24 September 2024 at 9:44 am

   The last Labour Government had set in place economic arrangements with the plan of completing the embedding over the 3rd term. Alas they lost and the CoC were able to abolish so much because the plans were not embedded enough.

   So a 4 year term would not have helped would it.

   Reply
   • James Simpson 2.1

     24 September 2024 at 2:54 pm

     What stopped them?

     They had a majority with no coalition partners to halt them (unlike the first term where NZ First prevented them from doing progressive things).

     It was a once in a generation opportunity to do brave things. Everyone knew that even if Labour won in 2023, they would lose that absolute majority. But in knowing that they failed to deliver the restructure we needed, an will struggle to ever that opportunity again.

     Reply
3. Reality 3

   24 September 2024 at 10:00 am

   All those working from home who have been ordered back to the workplace have been told by the lovely Willis and Luxon that they must buy coffees and their lunches and pay transport fares and after school care and spend plenty in the shops as well. The sheer gall as they try to deflect the outcome of their policies.

   But not one word about the effect of all those she ordered to be made redundant who are not out spending.

   As for the word "entitlementl" they used – Mr Entitlement himself and his $56,000 to live in his own apartment!

   Reply
   • Anne 3.1

     24 September 2024 at 10:17 am

     The sheer hypocrisy, arrogance and impudence of the 'order' staggers me. As you say, it is an attempt to place the blame of the outcome of their own actions onto public servants. But its more than just that. They have an ideologically-based hatred of public servants and institutions and are out to demonise them at every possible turn.

     Nicola Willis has to be the most venal and arrogant woman politician who has ever graced a NZ parliament and that's saying something because there's strong competitors past and present.

     Reply
     • tc 3.1.1

       24 September 2024 at 11:19 am

       "….the most venal and arrogant woman politician who has ever graced a NZ parliament "

       Bit early for that IMO, stanford, upston and fan favorite judith probably be in for that also with pullya benefits advice available if required from her sinecure at pharmac.

       Honorable mentions to Tolley, Parata IMO

       Reply
       • Ngungukai 3.1.1.1

         25 September 2024 at 2:03 pm

         Ruth Richardson and Jenny Shipley were not particularly pleasant either.

         Reply
     • Drowsy M. Kram 3.1.2

       24 September 2024 at 11:51 am

       How to live large with those tax cuts
       Movie ticket (but likely no cinema snacks) – Nicola Willis said last year that a family’s fortnightly tax relief could mean “instead of movie night being DVDs and Tip Top at home, we might go out to the movies”.

       With movie ticket prices upwards of $25 (and nearly $20 for children in many places), some families might have to choose which children get to go to the movies. Popcorn or ice cream is also probably off the menu.

       Nicola Willis has to be the most venal and arrogant woman politician who has ever graced a NZ parliament and that's saying something because there's strong competitors past and present.

       Could be – Nicotine Willis is quick out of the blocks, insincere, and giving Richardson a run for all money when it comes to punching down on 'bottom feeders'.

       https://waateanews.com/2024/05/21/hardly-the-mother-of-all-budgets-more-like-a-miser-on-the-beads-and-blankets/

       What austerity actually means and how it pays for $10 billion of tax cuts for the richest 40%
       Our richest 40% should know the $10b of tax cuts they'll get & save are being paid for by making poor, sick & disabled kids & nanas poorer, sicker & homeless, not by 'cutting fat from the system'

       Reply
   • AB 3.2

     24 September 2024 at 10:30 am

     Yes. It's interesting how some on the Right viewed the stay at home orders during the pandemic as coercive government over-reach. But it is apparently OK to order people back into the office when there is no evidence presented showing that the current arrangements around work from home make the Public Service less effective.

     So for the right-wing mind, coercion is bad if it's in the common good (public health during a pandemic), but great if it serves the interests of inner city Wellington businesses.

     They are the new authoritarians – who are just the same as the old authoritarians.

     Reply
   • Jenny 3.3

     24 September 2024 at 10:39 am

     Government wants to order the public servants working from home to go back to the office.
     Inner city cafes and restaurant owners and other inner city businesses say they need the foot traffic.

     As Reality says above, no mention of the public service workers laid off and no longer coming into town. And who without jobs are probably spending less in their community as wll

     ….Public Service Minister Nicola Willis said; "updated guidance for the public service will make clear that working from home is not an entitlement and must be agreed and monitored". A number of Wellington businesses spoke to Stuff about what they saw as a need to order workers back into the office, with some calling it an easy fix for the local economy.

     https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350425882/live-pm-christopher-luxon-holds-post-cabinet-press-conference

     Working from home is a cost saving, eating and cooking groceries at home, is much cheaper than buying lunch at a cafe, or lunch bar. Then there is the cost of transport.

     The government expect public servants to bear all this cost to subsidise private business.

     If Willis is ordering public servant back to the office so they can put money in the pockets of inner city business owners. Then she must first put more money in the pockets of the public servants..

     Reply
     • Descendant Of Smith 3.3.1

       24 September 2024 at 11:24 am

       It is about the landlords losing tenants and rental income and property value.

       They don't really care about the small business owners.

       Reply
       • Graeme 3.3.1.1

         24 September 2024 at 6:51 pm

         And government having a lot of now under-utilised office space now that they've laid off 6000 public servants, most of them were probably in the office.

         Once the leases run out they'll probably not renew some spaces and encourage some staff to WFH again to reduce the footprint.

         Which is how WFH came about, to reduce the amount of office space the government, or private employer had to lease, and shift the cost of that onto the employee.

         But hey, framing it all about productivity, rather than layoffs, is really just an admission that the layoffs have tanked outputs and hence productivity.

         Reply
   • Mikey 3.4

     24 September 2024 at 6:59 pm

     Hopefully they will take turns parking in the boss's space.

     Reply
4. joe90 4

   24 September 2024 at 10:57 am

   While the world is focused on the plight of Gazans Sudan's healthcare and education systems have collapsed, 19 million Sudanese face food insecurity, 13 million Sudanese have been displaced and an estimated 75,000 people have died.

   But never let a crisis go unexploited…

   /

   'Threat to culture' in Sudan is unprecedented

   "The situation is really bad," says Munich Museum of Egyptian Art director, Arnulf Schlüter.

   He does not know whether the archaeological project will ever be resumed.

   "Most of the excavation workers have fled, the excavation house has been broken into and the tires of the vehicles have been stolen. The antiquities site lies defenseless."

   Museums and artifacts are being destroyed and looted across the country amid a severe humanitarian crisis — more than 10 million Sudanese people are displaced and half of the country's 50 million inhabitants are experiencing hunger.

   https://www.dw.com/en/war-torn-sudan-faces-cultural-ruin/a-70284737

   September 22, 2024 (PORT SUDAN) — A Russian trade delegation has been in talks with Sudanese officials about starting gold extraction from multiple sites in the country as soon as next month, government sources told Sudan Tribune.

   The discussions follow the signing in June of an agreement for gold exploration and extraction between Sudan’s Ministry of Minerals and the Russian company Zarubezhgeologiya.

   https://sudantribune.com/article291246/

   https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/power-struggle-sudan

   Reply
5. Ad 5

   24 September 2024 at 12:37 pm

   Tough break Police Commissioner Coster.

   You're definitely leaving with your head held high.

   Hope you aren't lost to New Zealand.

   Reply
   • Ngungukai 5.1

     24 September 2024 at 1:17 pm

     Agree 100% I think Coster has done a good job despite having been criticised badly especially by the like of Simon Bridges ex National Party Leader.

     Reply
     • Jenny 5.1.1

       25 September 2024 at 12:20 pm

       He has got my vote. What a guy.
       The Right hated him.

       Reply
       • mpledger 5.1.1.1

         26 September 2024 at 9:58 pm

         The right hated what Labour was making him do. The right actually like him or else he wouldn't have been appointed to the new role.

         Reply
   • mpledger 5.2

     24 September 2024 at 1:53 pm

     He going to be the new chief of the Social Investment Agency. Not good for women after coming from such a male dominated area – both the villains and the police.

     Reply
     • Jenny 5.2.1

       25 September 2024 at 12:23 pm

       The proof of the pudding is in the eating. It will be interesting to see what he does in this role.

       Reply
6. gsays 6

   24 September 2024 at 12:44 pm

   I wonder how long it will be before the Nanny State meme takes hold regards this coalition.

   Seymour micro managing school lunches now Willis telling companies how to deal with staff.

   There have been a couple of other examples but they slip my mind at the moment.

   Reply
   • Mike the Lefty 6.1

     24 September 2024 at 1:00 pm

     Exactly. If it had been Labour doing the same thing ZB Newstalk trolls would be working overtime.

     But strangely not a murmur.

     Reply
     • Descendant Of Smith 6.1.1

       24 September 2024 at 2:07 pm

       It's a daddy state.

       Controlling, do as I say not as I do, paternalistic, uncaring, cold, might is right, survival of the fittest, …….

       Reply
       • gsays 6.1.1.1

         24 September 2024 at 2:15 pm

         Thanks for the reminder about gender in phrases.

         What was fine in the 20th century is now a bit dodge.

         Reply
   • Belladonna 6.2

     24 September 2024 at 2:24 pm

     Willis is telling government departments how to manage staff – not 'companies'.

     Outside the beltway, with the class of Kiwis who have to be present in their workplaces to do their jobs (tradies, cleaners, nurses, etc.) – this will go down very well indeed. Perks for civil servants are rarely popular.

     Reply
     • gsays 6.2.1

       24 September 2024 at 2:54 pm

       Yeah, nah.

       I'm one of what you describe, a school caretaker and see, once again, the hypocricy of this regime.

       When Labour do it, they shriek overreach.

       Reply
       • Belladonna 6.2.1.1

         24 September 2024 at 3:05 pm

         And are all of your colleagues equally outraged that Wellington civil servants may have to work in the office, rather than from home? I think it highly unlikely.

         Reply
         • mpledger 6.2.1.1.1

           24 September 2024 at 3:18 pm

           Yes, I'm sure it's another gendered issue.

           Reply
         • gsays 6.2.1.1.2

           24 September 2024 at 3:28 pm

           “And are all of your colleagues equally outraged that Wellington civil servants may have to work in the office, rather than from home? ”
           I'll ask.

           I'll also ask at home (a nurse).

           Reply
         • Descendant Of Smith 6.2.1.1.3

           24 September 2024 at 5:07 pm

           I have three children who work in the private sector in three different cities in two different countries. All three work from home and get bonuses and pay increases due to their high productivity.

           All of them have no local manager but meet with their managers mainly on-line and every now and then (two monthly to quarterly) the manager will tour around and one on one with the staff.

           The savings on not needing a local manager and the same office space as previously is quite large. Technology has enabled this for all of them and was happening anyway. All that happened really is that the COVID response sped up the software development and the thinking and the practice e.g. online conferencing now is miles better than the start of COVID with much better integration into other mail, etc. Minute taking in one son’s case is done automatically as a meeting progresses using AI.

           Much more work can be done from anywhere and this will continue to grow and develop – just like on-line shopping has gone from niche to mainstream. Just like good restaurants pivoted from predominantly customers in the door to home delivery (and even beyond that to ghost kitchens).

           Many businesses are no longer constrained by only having access to the best local talent – they now have access to a broader range. My kids are constantly being head hunted with job offers – from businesses not even in their locality.

           Tis a new world and Luxon is behaving like a Luddite.

           Reply
           • Belladonna 6.2.1.1.3.1

             24 September 2024 at 5:58 pm

             No doubt this will also be available to the Wellington civil servants, should they decide that WFH is more valuable to them than their current jobs.

             Reply
             • Descendant Of Smith …

               24 September 2024 at 11:28 pm

               No doubt. I'm just pointing out that much of the private sector has realised the benefits, productivity gains and cost savings.

               I'm old fashioned and concerned about office costs being effectively pushed on to them but the one in Oz earns miles more than I do plus gets 14% super so is not overly worried about that. He is also totally flexible about going into the office when needed so tis a mutual win/win for both him and his employer.

               The problem I see is that his generation are much more likely to up and leave which doesn't bode well I suspect for the future public service. Maybe that is the intention……..

               Reply
               • Belladonna …

                 25 September 2024 at 10:22 am

                 I think that the ones who are likely to leave (because the allure of higher wages is greater than the tug of home) – will do so in any case. You're not going to suddenly decide to immigrate to Australia because you have to work in the office – there will be plenty of other factors in play.

                 I work in a place where hybrid (WFH and in office) and entirely remote are both accommodated. It's very much based on productivity (not entitlement), and is sometimes a way of retaining highly valued staff who are not able to work in the office for a period of time.

                 It can work. Some jobs are more 'friendly' to this than others – and typically jobs which can be siloed off, or are highly measurable are more successful. However, there is no denying that some of the other benefits of working in the office (e.g. collaborative decision making, innovation, training, coaching and mentoring) simply don't work as well with remote staff.

                 I've been working over the last 6 weeks implementing a contract with a government department. All of the people I've been working with are largely (or entirely) WFH. It's been a nightmare trying to co-ordinate their staff for meetings, and/or decision-making. I don't know how much of this is public service slowness, and how much is the fact that they're never together to talk issues through. But the whole implementation schedule has already blown out to double the scheduled time – and I'm picking 4x before we're operational.

                 Reply
         • gsays 6.2.1.1.4

           27 September 2024 at 1:57 pm

           "And are all of your colleagues equally outraged that Wellington civil servants may have to work in the office, rather than from home? I think it highly unlikely."

           Who new blue collar workers were so progressive?

           One colleague reckons ns good on them, if it's available go for it. The other doesn't have an opinion on it.

           The nurse ( my SO), reckons from what she has heard, productivity goes up when work from home is available so is a good thing.

           All of which is a distraction from my point, this regime is looking to micro manage the trivial while making a right royal balls-up of the important stuff. eg Rail able ferries ($1B so far and nothing to show for it).

           Reply
     • Mike the Lefty 6.2.2

       24 September 2024 at 8:21 pm

       The (right wing) government meddling in the classroom and now meddling in the workplace.

       Exactly the kind of thing the same people would have been appopletic about if it had been a Labour government. Flexibility appears to no longer be welcomed in the workplace.

       And note the hospitality industry naively thinking everything will be business as usual once everyone is ordered back to the office.

       Minus the thousands who will no longer have a job, of course.

       Reply
   • Drowsy M. Kram 6.3

     24 September 2024 at 3:56 pm

     Enjoyed this comment on reddit:

     Why are the people trying to strong-arm me into buying a coffee and brunch during the day the same people telling me the reason I can't afford a house is because I'm spending too much on lunches?

     https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1fnc701/pm_christopher_luxon_announces_public_service/

     On Nicola Willis’ Perverse Hostility To Working From Home [24 Sept 2024]
     On RNZ this morning, Luxon had no clue how many public servants would be affected by this edict. Or how this directive would impact on road congestion, let alone how the hours of sitting in traffic might reduce productivity, staff morale and household budgets via the added transport costs.

     Reply
     • Shanreagh 6.3.1

       24 September 2024 at 6:35 pm

       On Nicola Willis’ Perverse Hostility To Working From Home [24 Sept 2024]
       On RNZ this morning, Luxon had no clue how many public servants would be affected by this edict. Or how this directive would impact on road congestion, let alone how the hours of sitting in traffic might reduce productivity, staff morale and household budgets via the added transport costs.

       Of course Luxon/Willis have no clue, It was a fact-free reckon and they never have research but have an enormous whipping power over their loyal subject-voters, as all the Reddits and Tweets are showing them all out for a bash.

       Also many of us will have forgotten the predilection of RW govts to grind down on public servants who traditionally are not able to defend themselves, sort of bully governing.

       Incidentally I worked from home first in the early 1980s and then at various times during my career. My staff did as well. As a manager of staff I did not find it difficult to manage out of office workers. Mine were always in Wgtn but colleagues managed staff across NZ. They have work programmes and deadlines and with tech it is much easier than it used to be.

       So a smokescreen so what are they using this to divert our attention from?

       Reply
     • gsays 6.3.2

       24 September 2024 at 7:16 pm

       Not the first display of contradiction. I speculate that we may be entering a political epoch characterised by hypocricy. Seymour, the right wing libertarian wants to centralise the lunch supply of hungry children.

       Not trying to undermine the working from home vibe, but why do these folk seem to 'have' to buy their lunch. I make my lunch 4 days a week, often leftovers and once a week support the local tuck shop. Or is it a city folk thing?

       Commuting/parking/travel costs I understand.

       Reply
       • Drowsy M. Kram 6.3.2.1

         24 September 2024 at 7:51 pm

         Never developed packed lunch skills, so usually did without – not ideal; not lethal.

         In my last year of paid employment, I developed a taste for cranberry OSM* bars – made in NZ, just not by me!

         https://www.osm.nz/

         * I have no pecuniary interest in OSM®

         Reply
       • Shanreagh 6.3.2.2

         24 September 2024 at 10:37 pm

         Many do make their lunches and many don't join the coffee throngs, many eat their lunch at their desks and don't take a break of half an hour let alone an hour.

         It was the juxtaposition of moaning coffee bar owners swiftly followed by a edict to cease work from home that had many puzzling as to whether the Nacts were doing this to ensure that staff were in town buying.

         Many don't buy in town but now have to meet increased travel costs. I doubt in Wgtn whether the bus transport could cope if all workers went back to working in town. Generally in my 35 or so years catching them to work here in Wgtn they were P**s P**r, unreliable and hence the reason I walked to the next suburb to catch buses as several routes came through. This was good exercise but was of necessity as the buses could not be relied on to get you in to town for a specific time. Ok if you had flexible hours but perhaps Nicola Wlllis has a friend that is not supportive of flexible hours ans this will be the next to be questioned

         I remember times when Nats were in Govt and the ethos was very cruel and unashamedly and blatantly so. I worked in the Beehive on one of these ocasions Nat appointed staff seemed to have the idea that public servants were political appointments or if they were not, brought political sentiments to the job. The concept of apolitical was unknown to them…..after a year or so they got out of this mindset. It amused me that one of the most recalcitrant 'public servants as political animals' believers later was proud to be headhunted into one of these so-called 'political' agencies.

         The first year of a right wing govt is usually hell on wheels for public servants/public sector agencies, the first year of a left wing one not so much. The old concept of 'gentlemanly' old school Nats who were good Ministers from the beginning is long gone.

         Reply
   • Mikey 6.4

     24 September 2024 at 7:01 pm

     No, because it's the natses, it'll be A Firm Hand On The Tiller.

     Reply

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS