Open mike 26/02/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, February 26th, 2025 - 96 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 …

96 comments on “Open mike 26/02/2025 ”

  1. Incognito 1
    26 February 2025 at 9:16 am

    More Man Up-style intimidation in NZ by folks who have an axe to grind and the means to pull out the big guns. We’ll even have pretty legal vigilante groups soon. NZ is starting to resemble the US more and more, with more fear, more intimidation, and quite possibly, more violence. At the same time, [our] democratic rights are being curbed.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/542987/gender-affirming-care-law-firm-s-letter-an-attempt-to-intimidate-gp-group-says

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/543012/expanded-citizen-s-arrest-powers-to-be-announced

    Reply
    • PsyclingLeft.Always 1.1
      26 February 2025 at 9:34 am

      I had just been reading the vigilante Citizens arrest article. And for sure….how could that possibly go wrong !?

      Wannabe cops/Batman types launching in to something they could well regret..for the rest of their lives.

      To save already wealthy companies some dollars?

      At least a voice of caution…

      Retail NZ chief executive Carolyn Young was concerned about an escalation of violence and threats to staff.

      Frontline retail workers were often young and in their first job and "don't go to work to do law enforcement", she told Morning Report.

      "We have grave concerns about proposals to empower people to physically restrain or physically engage with people to stop them doing a crime, and the fact that could create more violence and people will get hurt.

      "We know that in the past where people have chased after alleged offenders there have been deaths."

      I also note Sunny Kaushal has had much involvement. I wonder what level of engagement he would like?

      Sunny Kaushal supported an expansion of citizens' arrest powers, and some smaller retailers also backed the move.

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/543012/expanded-citizen-s-arrest-powers-to-be-announced

      And yes sadly, NZ in some ways becoming very much a little Amerika.

      Reply
      • I Feel Love 1.1.1
        26 February 2025 at 10:59 am

        & will business owners expect their workers to chase & stop shoplifters as part of their duties? Will they be trained for such things? Have protections if they over step on behalf of the business owner?

        Fuck National.

        Reply
    • gsays 1.2
      26 February 2025 at 12:26 pm

      I heard RNZ's 'reportage' of the Inflexion Point conference.

      I say 'reportage' because both the audio and article only mention the more provocative speakers.

      No mention of: Mia Hughes: Author of the WPATH files.

      Ro Edge: Save Women’s Sports Australasia

      Jennifer Bilek: Journalist / Writer.

      Bilek's "..research has led her to uncover the financial backing of the transgender movement by billionaires and the role of biotech and transhumanists in shaping the narrative."

      Which I would have thought was newsworthy. But then it may undermine the myth that anyone with a dissenting view on trans issues has fallen for Tamaki's hateful rhetoric.

      HT Twig for posting the link to Inflexion points site on OM the other evening.

      https://inflectionpoint.nz/

      Another irony is RNZ 'omitting' almost all of the female voices…

      Reply
      • weka 1.2.1
        26 February 2025 at 12:39 pm

        Also New Zealander Jan Rivers who was instrumental in the MoH removal of the words 'safe and reversible' from its page on puberty blockers.

        Reply
      • tWig 1.2.2
        26 February 2025 at 3:35 pm

        Mia Hughes: a expert member of the MacDonald-Laurier Institute in Canada, part of the Atlas network.

        Ro Edge Ro Edge (@rosey_nz) / X. A kiwi whose twitter says about Ardern: 'If Prince William thinks Ardern’s brand of ‘kindness’ needs to be spread, he’s delusional. New Zealanders rejected it outright, as should everyone else.' Another quote: 'How anyone can talk about white privilege when for decades this appalling racial abuse against white girls has been allowed to continue absolutely beggars belief. Identity politics has a lot to answer for.' Ro Edge has an ideological position, believing participation of trans women anywhere in womens' sports is unsafe and unfair, whereas the IOC has developed a policy that trans inclusion/exclusion is something to be scientifically debated by all stake-holders, not applying a blanket ban.

        Jennifer Bilek: She has written books about the trans movement, claiming billionaire funding via, eg, the Arcus Foundation, to push trans ideology. Arcus has these aims: "The Social Justice Program at Arcus envisions a world in which all LGBTQ people live with dignity, safety, and opportunity in inclusive communities and societies. The program provides grants to organizations supporting the rights of LGBTQ people, prioritizing communities who have been pushed to the margins, and focusing on specific countries in the Americas and Africa." Evil identity ideology?

        Reply
        • weka 1.2.2.1
          26 February 2025 at 4:00 pm

          please provide links for the quotes of Ro Edge, that's direct links to the two tweets.

          I'm getting really sick of asking for links from regulars. You know this is a requirement here (for good reasons, so we can see context), so why disrespect TS by not doing it?

          Reply
    • weka 1.3
      26 February 2025 at 12:58 pm

      it's hard to tell if the Franks Olgivie letter was out of line or not, because it hasn't been made public (a curiosity in itself).

      I agree that the ante is being upped by the reactionary right and we are in danger of going down a terrible path. What concerns me more than the existence of Inflection Point, is the dearth of good strategy on the left on what to do.

      Re the gender clinic issue, I will note a few things:

      1. liberal complain about being served a legal letter that points out potential legal ramifications of gender transition medical services, but are quite happy to cancel people.
      2. This is particularly ironic in a week when NZ feminists are discussing, in private because it's not viable to do so publicly any more (thanks to liberal adoption of cancel culture and No Debate), woke icon Ash Sarkar's announcement that woke is dead. Sarkar is an arch hypocrite, but the fact that she has come to some of her senses means there is a sea change (or maybe she will just get cancelled).

      https://youtu.be/Av74Yj6CJno?si=jxet09Q2SMpKMsza

      1. Women in NZ lost their jobs, careers and political voices over this shit. The left wing ones will retain leftist political positions and analysis, but we are losing the centre left and centrists who will read about that Franks Olgivie letter and shrug and say tit for tat. Which is not an unreasonable position.
      2. it's the left wing gender critical feminists who have both the analysis and understanding of the whole gender war and the ability to present progressive solutions. Maybe the left should stop ostracising us if it doesn't want orgs like Inflection Point to dominate. What I see is liberals saying acting as if they would rather lose than allow GCFs to have a voice.

      Which brings me back to strategy. How can we address the growing tensions in NZ? Do we have a compelling alternative story about what NZ is and can be going into an uncertain future? How can the left hold space for diverse thought? What are our values now in regards to community and relationship? Do we want to force our beliefs on the country and how would we do that successfully? Or do we want to work with people across the political spectrum to find common ground and allies who also want to build a sustainable and resilient future?

      Reply
      • tWig 1.3.1
        26 February 2025 at 3:46 pm

        Guardian review of Sarkar's book

        "In Minority Rule, Ash Sarkar blames the rightwing press for this shift. Thanks to tabloid agents provocateurs and their political creatures in Westminster, she says, the lower orders have abandoned class war for the culture wars. Accordingly, more and more of them spend their weekends not on the barricades but behind computer screens, fuming over small boats and gender ideology."

        Reply
        • weka 1.3.1.1
          26 February 2025 at 4:04 pm

          "lower orders"?

          Funny though, I thought it was the neoliberal system that had effected the change, but it's not surprising if Sarkar still blames the tools rather than the system itself. She doesn't appear to have as good a grasp of class politics as she makes out (although tbf, I don't know who the journo is and whether they're representing her argument well, and I don't want to read the whole piece, because your quote doesn't really address what I said in my comment)

          Reply
          • tWig 1.3.1.1.1
            26 February 2025 at 8:51 pm

            Just finished Polly Toynbee's family history and journalistic memoir. According to her, the vast majority of journalists in the UK come from middle and upper class backgrounds. Lower orders is a problematc term for 'working class', or more likely these days, service class.

            Reply
            • weka 1.3.1.1.1.1
              26 February 2025 at 9:03 pm

              Is that in common usage in the UK? I've not heard the term before.

              Google says the only use of the term and 'ash sarkar' is in that Guardian piece, so I think it's the journo's term not hers.

              Reply
      • Drowsy M. Kram 1.3.2
        26 February 2025 at 6:44 pm

        It's the left wing gender critical feminists who have both the analysis and understanding of the whole gender war and the ability to present progressive solutions.

        Weka, could you summarise the "progressive solutions" to "the whole gender war" that "left wing gender critical feminists" are presenting. I've just read a 2024 research article (by Dr Fran Amery) which suggests (to me) that (left wing) 'gender critical feminists' are not the only people capable of analysis and understanding in this area.

        Or do we want to work with people across the political spectrum to find common ground and allies…

        "Left wing gender critical feminists" have found right-wing allies, as their common ground doesn't challenge the cult of Mammon, which is a right-wing bottom line.

        "Cancel culture and No Debate" are certainly cause for concern locally, and globally – I've even heard rumours that in Trumpistan (formerly known as the US of A, or simply 'A', that supposed a bastion of free speech), certain words are to be banned. "It's a warning" – "an attempt to intimidate" – imho.

        Reply
        • weka 1.3.2.1
          26 February 2025 at 7:02 pm

          Hi Drowsy, one place to start is that GCFs are often gender non-conforming themselves, and have a critical analysis that says enforcing gender roles is harmful to women, others and society. Because of that they have a vested interest in not allying with people who want to enforce gender roles, and instead create a society of tolerance.

          LW GCFs also tend to be socially progressive and thus see societal tolerance as being important for all groups of people including trans people. They sit uniquely in the space of being able to hold women's sex based rights and the rights of gender identified people at the same time. There are other people doing that, I'm talking here about a politics.

          I don't know Fran Amery, what solutions is she proposing?

          "Left wing gender critical feminists" have found right-wing allies, as their common ground doesn't challenge the cult of Mammon, which is a right-wing bottom line.

          I don't know what that means, but if you name some LW GCFs who have allied with the right, I will comment further. Not saying it never happens, just that I'm not sure what you are referring to.

          And of course, when I said "Or do we want to work with people across the political spectrum to find common ground and allies…" I wasn't talking about GCFs, but the left. Which makes me wonder why you would conflate the two. Were you trying to make a point about working across the political spectrum? If so, would you mind making the point directly rather than by inference?

          "Cancel culture and No Debate" are certainly cause for concern locally, and globally – I've even heard rumours that in Trumpistan (formerly known as the US of A, or simply 'A', that supposed a bastion of free speech), certain words are to be banned. "It's a warming" – "an attempt to intimidate."

          Again, I don't know what your point is. If the left wants to uphold cancel culture and No Debate, that's not really anything to do with RW authoritarianism.

          I also don't know why you would reference the Franks Olgivie letter about potential legal issues with gender medicine in NZ in the same paragraph. None of us have seen the letter, so we don't really know what it was doing, do we.

          Reply
          • Drowsy M. Kram 1.3.2.1.1
            26 February 2025 at 8:30 pm

            I don't know Fran Amery, what solutions is she proposing?

            I don't know what solutions Amery is proposing, if any. I was asking for a summary of "progressive solutions" to "the whole gender war" that "left wing gender critical feminists" are presenting, and "societal tolerance" is certainly better than nothing, whether one regards it as a 'solution', or a stepping stone.

            I don't know what that means, but if you name some LW GCFs who have allied with the right, I will comment further. Not saying it never happens, just that I'm not sure what you are referring to.

            Apologies, shouldn't have embedded the "right-wing allies" link. I can’t remember if there are other examples, historical and/or current, but will have a fossick.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-critical_feminism#Political_alliances_with_conservatives_and_the_far_right

            And of course, when I said "Or do we want to work with people across the political spectrum to find common ground and allies…" I wasn't talking about GCFs, but the left.

            So, with regard to making (political) allies, you weren''t talking only about "left wing gender critical feminists", but rather "the [whole, broad] left" – got it.

            Again, I don't know what your point is. If the left wants to uphold cancel culture and No Debate, that's not really anything to do with RW authoritarianism.

            My point wasn't that "the left wants to uphold cancel culture and No Debate." That's certainly not the case if TS is anything to go by – this lefty likes a bit of debate, and I reckon you do too. Rather, I was (admittedly obliquely) suggesting a shared motivation for "cancel culture and No Debate" and 'word banning' – both are "an attempt to intimidate," to control behaviour.

            I don't know if the Inflection Point NZ letter sent by Stephen Franks' law firm is also an attempt to intimidate, but, thanks to the RNZ link provided by Incognito @1, we know the Royal College of GPs is of that view.

            • A letter warning of potential legal action against health professionals offering gender affirming care has been sent to more than 20 practices
            • The Royal College of GPs says the letter is a "blatant attempt" to "intimidate and alter behaviour"

            https://inflectionpoint.nz/

            Reply
            • weka 1.3.2.1.1.1
              26 February 2025 at 8:44 pm

              In my comment to Incognito I said,

              It's the left wing gender critical feminists who have both the analysis and understanding of the whole gender war and the ability to present progressive solutions.

              To which you said,

              Weka, could you summarise the "progressive solutions" to "the whole gender war" that "left wing gender critical feminists" are presenting. I've just read a 2024 research article(by Dr Fran Amery) which suggests (to me) that (left wing) 'gender critical feminists' are not the only people capable of analysis and understanding in this area.

              Your comment combines two things: a request for GCF solutions, with the idea that non-GCF also have progressive solutions. Hence my question about Amery's solutions. If she doesn't have any, or you don't know what they are, why even mention it?

              I was asking for a summary of "progressive solutions" to "the whole gender war" that "left wing gender critical feminists" are presenting, and "societal tolerance" is certainly better than nothing, whether one regards it as a 'solution', or a stepping stone.

              yes, and I gave you two interrelated starting points for understanding that, one of which you ignored and the other you minimised rather dismissively. If you don't believe that holding a politics of societal tolerance for women's sex based rights and gender identified people is central to solutions, please explain why.

              Apologies, I shouldn't have embedded the "right-wing allies" link.

              I saw the link, I'm just not prepared to read a wiki article and try and parse your argument. You are making some kind of claim about LW GCFs being allied to the right, and I'm asking you to name some of them so we can talk about it.

              So, with regard to making (political) allies, you weren''t talking only about "left wing gender critical feminists", but rather "the [whole, broad] left" – got it.

              Here's what I said,

              I agree that the ante is being upped by the reactionary right and we are in danger of going down a terrible path. What concerns me more than the existence of Inflection Point, is the dearth of good strategy on the left on what to do.

              [mid side bar rant about GCF]

              Which brings me back to strategy. How can we address the growing tensions in NZ? Do we have a compelling alternative story about what NZ is and can be going into an uncertain future? How can the left hold space for diverse thought? What are our values now in regards to community and relationship? Do we want to force our beliefs on the country and how would we do that successfully? Or do we want to work with people across the political spectrum to find common ground and allies who also want to build a sustainable and resilient future?

              Does that make more sense now? If we, the left, or those aligned with the labour movement, want to do something about the shit storm that is bearing down on all of us, specifically in this thread, the one of "NZ is starting to resemble the US more and more, with more fear, more intimidation, and quite possibly, more violence. At the same time, [our] democratic rights are being curbed.", then we need to have a way of doing that. A plan, with strategy.

              Reply
              • Drowsy M. Kram …
                26 February 2025 at 9:59 pm

                Hence my question about Amery's solutions. If she doesn't have any, or you don't know what they are, why even mention it?

                'It' being Amery's article, ‘Gender critical’ feminism as biopolitical project?

                I mentioned it to support a PoV that "both the analysis and understanding of the whole gender war" is not necessarily the exclusive preserve of "left wing gender critical feminists". I'm sure that's something you would agree with, but thought it would be good to get it on the record anyway.

                I've just read a 2024 research article (by Dr Fran Amery) which suggests (to me) that (left wing) 'gender critical feminists' are not the only people capable of analysis and understanding in this area.

                As to whether "progressive solutions" to "the whole gender war" are the exclusive preserve of "left wing gender critical feminists", I hope not.

                If you don't believe that holding a politics of societal tolerance for women's sex based rights and gender identified people is central to solutions, please explain why.

                So I was only rather dismissive – phew! I do believe that holding a politics of societal tolerance for women's sex-based rights and gender identified people is the absolute minimum the broad left should be striving for – I would prefer that tolerance be a stepping stone to acceptance, but that is a step too far for some.

                I'm just not prepared to read a wiki article

                I'm not prepared to summarise an 'article' that you're not prepared to read. The relevant subsection of the Wikipedia article on "Gender-critical feminism" is titled "Political alliances with conservatives and the far right". Some might consider alliances to the conservative groups mentioned in that subsection, and in the 17 reference links, to be poor quality evidence, and fair enough – it's only Wikipedia.

                I wasn't talking about GCFs, but the left. Which makes me wonder why you would conflate the two.

                I read "left wing gender critical feminists" and "the left", and 'conflated' the two – my bad.

                … then we need to have a way of doing that. A plan, with strategy.

                Yes, we (the broad left) need "a plan, with strategy". I'd like the NZ Labour party to go back to its Savage roots – however politically unpatable (or not) that might be – for the many, not the few.

                Reply
                • weka …
                  26 February 2025 at 10:39 pm

                  Hence my question about Amery's solutions. If she doesn't have any, or you don't know what they are, why even mention it?

                  'It' being Amery's article, ‘Gender critical’ feminism as biopolitical project?

                  I mentioned it to support a PoV that "both the analysis and understanding of the whole gender war" is not necessarily the exclusive preserve of "left wing gender critical feminists". I'm sure that's something you would agree with, but thought it would be good to get it on the record anyway.

                  I haven't claimed that only LW GCF have the solutions. And you haven't said how Amery brings both an understanding and analysis of the gender war *and* progressive solutions. So I can't comment on that.

                  So I was only rather dismissive – phew! I do believe that holding a politics of societal tolerance for women's sex-based rights and gender identified people is the absolute minimum the broad left should be striving for – I would prefer that tolerance be a stepping stone to acceptance, but that is a step too far for some.

                  What does acceptance mean here? Because for women, we are being told that we have to accept gender identified males in our spaces. Acceptance without exception was one of UK Stonewalls tactics in silencing women and other gender dissenters and was part of No Debate. This doesn't mean your ideas on acceptance are a problem, it simply means if you don't explain them there's no way to know if you are bringing something useful here.

                  I don't think societal tolerance for women's sex-based rights and gender identified people is the absolute minimum, I'm saying it's *central*. Without resolving that one, we can't resolve the others.

                  I'm not prepared to summarise an 'article' that you're not prepared to read. The relevant subsection of the Wikipedia article on "Gender-critical feminism" is titled "Political alliances with conservatives and the far right". Some might consider alliances to the conservative groups mentioned in that subsection, and in the 17 reference links, to be poor quality evidence, and fair enough – it's only Wikipedia.

                  I'm less concerned with wikipedia, than I am with your argument. You made a claim about LW GCFs allying with the right and yet you can't/won't name some of them. Why on earth should I read a wiki piece and follow up on the references when it doesn't appear to name any of said feminists?

                  Generally I would expect someone to be able to explain their point without expecting me to do a lot of reading to try and parse it. But on this topic in particular, there is so much nonsense written, I'm really not going to waste my time.

                  The wiki is about gender critical feminism, I'm talking about LW gender critical feminists. The single reference to the left I can find via a keyword search is this,

                  Bev Jackson, one of the founders of the LGB Alliance, has argued in contrast that "working with The Heritage Foundation is sometimes the only possible course of action" since "the leftwing silence on gender in the US is even worse than in the UK".[161]

                  Did Jackson work with the Heritage Foundation? Is she a LW GCF? Is she representative of LW GCF generally? Do you understand what a shitty source Pink News is (ref 161)? Did it occur to you that PN might have an agenda to misrepresent the situation? Is it likely that GCFs have already discussed this in depth a lot?

                  If you follow this thread you are on, I think you will find it leads nowhere. LW GCF and other women had a major falling out with the general GC movement as the GC movement tracked right. In other words, contrary to what liberals are saying (even on wikipedia), LW GCF remained true to leftist principles (yes, yes #notallLWGCF). You would know this but for No Debate, because I and other feminists would have been writing about it on TS. But No Debate still holds a lot of power and here we are.

                  The reason all this matters (apart from that whole women's rights thing), is that the left cannot have a meaningful or indeed robust debate about this or the whole rising RW fascism thing, because we are generally mired in an utter clusterfuck of misinformation.

                  Reply
                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    27 February 2025 at 10:15 am

                    It's the left wing gender critical feminists who have both the analysis and understanding of the whole gender war and the ability to present progressive solutions.

                    I haven't claimed that only LW GCF have the solutions.

                    yes Yep, simply that the LW GCFs have "the ability to present their progressive solutions", such as "societal tolerance." There's probably nothing quite like the feeling of being tolerated.

                    And you haven't said how Amery brings both an understanding and analysis of the gender war *and* progressive solutions.

                    I haven't said Amery brings "progressive solutions", only that (to me) her article suggests she is capable of analysis and understanding in this area. That doesn't necessarily mean she can bring progressive solutions, like "societal tolerance" – maybe she can, maybe she can't.

                    It's probably just a misunderstanding – you read my comment @1.3.2:

                    Weka, could you summarise the "progressive solutions" to "the whole gender war" that "left wing gender critical feminists" are presenting. I've just read a 2024 research article (by Dr Fran Amery) which suggests (to me) that (left wing) 'gender critical feminists' are not the only people capable of analysis and understanding in this area.

                    as combining two things ("Your comment combines two things"). Whereas my intention was to do two separate things: (1) Ask about "progressive solutions" (1st sentence), and (2) make a statement about (the diversity of) people who appear capable of analysis and understanding "the whole gender war" (2nd sentence). Perhaps if I had thought to make the second sentence a new paragraph, or swapped the sentence order, then this could have been wrapped up sooner.

                    I don't think societal tolerance for women's sex-based rights and gender identified people is the absolute minimum, I'm saying it's *central*.

                    I think it should be both the absolute minimum and central – we can agree to disagree. Re 'tolerance' vs 'acceptance', I'm just projecting. I can do trans tolerance when I'm careful not to step on my own mines, but full acceptance is (still) a bit of a stretch – maybe one day. And apologies for wasting your time.

                    Tolerance is not the same as acceptance.
                    https://www.tiktok.com/@trans_radio_uk_official/video/7450795386085592352

                    Reply
                    • weka …
                      27 February 2025 at 4:57 pm

                      I think you missed my point early on. Lots of people have various understandings of the gender wars. I'm saying that LW GCFs hold a fairly unique position in having an indepth understanding AND an ability to find solutions that work for women and trans people.

                      I don't know what trans tolerance is (because you didn't say). Intolerance of aspects of the ideologies of TRAs seems completely warranted. When I talked about tolerance I was talking about a pluralistic society with a diversity of belief. As opposed to one where say liberals get to decide who is ok and who isn't.

            • weka 1.3.2.1.1.2
              26 February 2025 at 9:00 pm

              My point wasn't that "the left wants to uphold cancel culture and No Debate." That's certainly not the case if TS is anything to go by…

              It most definitely is the case. Why do you think I am no longer writing GCF posts on TS? Discussion is now pretty much restricted to OM, and even that feels tenuous. The new authors are likely trans ally liberals or will be pressured to not associate with the bigots at TS. I'm a classed as a bigot because I believe in women's sex based rights. There are no feminists currently writing at TS on feminism. In addition to myself I can easily think of several feminists I could cross post or ask to Guest Post, but don't because the situation is so hostile.

              I held a space at TS for a long time for the debate to happen here in a reasonable way so that all sides could come to the table. I did so at some personal cost, and a fair amount of work and stress, but nothing near what other feminists have paid. That's now broken. No Debate has suppressed debate on TS.

              Maybe that puts my comment to Incognito in context.

              ….Rather, I was (admittedly obliquely) suggesting a shared motivation for "cancel culture and No Debate" and 'word banning' – both are "an attempt to intimidate," to control behaviour.

              If you mean similarities between the US government and liberal lefties, then use, RW authoritarianism and LW authoritarianism are both authoritarianism. The right are just more honest about it.

              I don't know if the Inflection Point NZ letter sent by Stephen Franks' law firm is also an attempt to intimidate, but, thanks to the RNZ link provided by Incognito @1, we know the Royal College of GPs is of that view.

              • A letter warning of potential legal action against health professionals offering gender affirming care has been sent to more than 20 practices
              • The Royal College of GPs says the letter is a "blatant attempt" to "intimidate and alter behaviour"

              And? Because it's RCGP this means what exactly? MoH also took this position, and I think it's entirely possible the letter was threatening.

              But maybe it wasn't.

              Maybe RCGP are ideologically captured by gender ideology and they were affronted by the idea that they might be harming children and could be help accountable for that legally at some point.

              As I said yesterday, there are multiple court cases on this internationally, and a lot of very angry ex-patients and parents. As that number grows, there will be increasing pressure on medical people to account for their actions. Doctors should be thinking about this.

              I would be concerned about intimidation. I'm not concerned about a lawyer pointing out the potential consequences of harming kids. Liberals of course see pointing to the harming of kids as bigotry. This is how fucked up the situation is and I don't think the dynamic that Incognito raised about where NZ is going can be resolved without addressing the gender wars. The left has such a massive blindspot on this, and it's a big part of why we are losing. Even here you seem to misinterpret my questions about finding ways for society to work together.

              Reply
              • Drowsy M. Kram …
                27 February 2025 at 9:59 am

                I'm a classed as a bigot because I believe in women's sex based rights.

                sad Sorry to read that. Has anyone on TS classed you as a bigot? If they have and it was my call I'd ban 'em!

                Anyway, why care what you're classed as – here – sticks and stones and all that. As someone on TS once wrote: "Good people can be bigots too.”
                [Can't find the link right now, but will have a fossick.]

                Maybe RCGP are ideologically captured by gender ideology…

                Maybe it's not just the RCGP that have been captured – ideology, culture wars and massive blind spots can all get in the way of working together.

                We can only hope that 10 years from now the 'gender wars boil' will be well and truly lanced. And, even if that boil continues to fester, maybe it won't seem as large or painful, as more pressing matters clamour for attention.

                Reply
                • weka …
                  27 February 2025 at 5:10 pm

                  sticks and stones is right. Women have lost their jobs and careers for being publicly critical of gender ideology, including in NZ.

                  Reply
    • gsays 1.4
      26 February 2025 at 1:12 pm

      On reflection it's a damning blight on our state broadcaster and a lot of the liberal media that the link you cited is published.

      It's that sort of blinkered churnalism, telling part of a story that drives the division we see in the US and is becoming apparent here.

      Reply
    • Georgecom 1.5
      26 February 2025 at 9:07 pm

      My first response how the $@^% does franks think it's his place to point out to GPs. But I will tone it down to say how the heck does Franks think it is his place to "point this out to GPs". Where does he get off doing this. If he thinks some law may be trangressed or not adhered to then go through the proper authorities for them to check and clarify. My other thought was the w in his surname is pronounced as an r

      Reply
      • weka 1.5.1
        26 February 2025 at 9:27 pm

        Doctors aren't gods, and have a history of harming patients. It's entirely appropriate that people in the community expect doctors to be publicly accountable for their practices and policies.

        It's not ok to wait until the power holders in society realise that something is wrong and decide to act. Remember the Unfortunate Experiment and how long it took for changes to be made, or even the problem acknowledged?

        The Cass Review in the UK has already identified significant issues with the transition of children and young people. The NZ MoH removed the phrase 'safe and reversible' from its page on puberty blockers for trans kids. Other countries are doing similar reviews and raising concerns. Why is NZ not willing to have an open discussion about this?

        Reply
        • Georgecom 1.5.1.1
          27 February 2025 at 11:49 am

          However i dont see ot as stephen franks role to send legal letters on behalf of some pressure group to selected GP practises. If the preasure group and franks think the law is being broken report it to the police or sue the GP practise. If they feel GPs are breaching laws then report to the proper authority using the proper processes, or start a public discussion. But private legal letters to selected GP stating a legal opinion with what might be perceived as threats, extremely poor

          Reply
          • weka 1.5.1.1.1
            27 February 2025 at 12:11 pm

            I'd need to see the letter, but afaik the doctors were gender specialists? They're the ones who are probably damaging some kids and potentially will be held legally liable in the future.

            Whether doctors are breaking the law currently I don't know. Partly because we don't have an open public conversation about this area of health care, and partly because it's a new field and it takes time for medico-legal systems to catch up with practice.

            If you want to understand the impetus for the letter better have a look at some of the international cases. We are just some years behind. Start with Keira Bell vs NHS. I'll see if I can find some links to the US cases.

            Reply
            • weka 1.5.1.1.1.1
              27 February 2025 at 12:15 pm

              in case you are unaware, there is a strategy used byTRAs called No Debate. It was started by TRAs in the UK, including charity Stonewall UK I think and was taken up by many on the left.

              It took the position that nothing about trans identity ideology should be debated publicly, including among the left. Any attempt to do so is met with pushback on the actual attempt to debate. Hence accusations of bigotry rather than talking about child safeguarding.

              It's been incredibly successful, although many fought back against it and have made some headway eg the MSM is better at covering the issues than it used to be (but still quite bad).

              This is why there is little discussion in NZ. It's very hard to raise the issues without there being backlash for raising the issues. The people that don't care about backlash from the liberal left are the right, which is why they dominate the narratives and strategies. The progressives have largely been shut down (not totally).

              Reply
          • Incognito 1.5.1.1.2
            27 February 2025 at 12:50 pm

            That letter has already led to several official complaints on grounds that have nothing to do with ideological arguments about the assumed topic matter as such. That was my point yesterday but of course, it took a life of its own.

            https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/543133/law-firm-stands-behind-gender-affirming-care-letter-as-official-complaints-made

            Is it ok to punch a […]?

            Reply
            • weka 1.5.1.1.2.1
              27 February 2025 at 2:26 pm

              Upperton said she had "reasonable grounds" to suspect that the letter contained examples of misconduct and she was obligated to report them.

              "If you read the letter you can see that the law is being used as a threat to create an outcome that the lawyer or the client wants.

              We can't read the letter though, can we. FFS.

              It could be a breach of convention, and/or harassment. Or it could be ok and the reaction is affront at the calling out of the ideology. Not really any way to know without seeing the letter.

              Reply
  2. weka 2
    26 February 2025 at 12:01 pm

    All twelve issues of The Radical Notion are now available for free download. TRN was a grassroots feminist publication based in the UK but featuring writers and artists from all over the world.

    This is a deeply useful resource for anyone wanting to understand feminism and why growing numbers of feminists are challenging both the left and the right while still maintaining a strong leftist political position.

    https://theradicalnotion.org/

    THE RADICAL NOTION was a feminist print journal published from the autumn of 2020 to the autumn of 2024. It was run by an all-women volunteer collective of radical and materialist feminists and was established in the context of the grassroots feminist pushback against dematerialized, identity-based forms of women’s politics that had come to dominate institutional and academic feminism by the early 2010s.

    …

    In today’s neoliberal age, identity politics has fractured the left, women’s rights are imperilled the world over, and feminism has been defanged. THE RADICAL NOTION insists on the continuing relevance of a feminist critique rooted in progressive class politics and structural analysis.

    Male dominance, capitalist exploitation, white supremacy, pervasive disembodiment, environmental collapse, authoritarianism left and right… These crises of patriarchy are the pressing issues of our time, connected by deep and insidious patterns. At a time when feminist analysis is being silenced, it is needed more than ever. The crises of our culture are a call to urgent thinking.

    THE RADICAL NOTION believes in a world that replaces hierarchy, domination and thought-policing with ties of mutual recognition and respect. Thoughtful, open, honest discussion is desperately needed. Its eclectic offerings encompass essays and articles; current affairs from across the globe; philosophical, political and cultural analyses; artwork, poetry, fiction, and personal reflections; reviews, and interviews. THE RADICAL NOTION articulates the principles of a truly left-wing feminism, outlining a vision of the new feminism to come.”

    …

    Throughout its work the collective drew on resources from sexual difference feminism, deconstruction, feminist archaeology, goddess feminism, care ethics, ecofeminism, and the anthropology of non-patriarchal societies to challenge the either/or assumptions of opposition and hierarchy which underpin the patriarchal identitarianism of both left and right. We aimed to underline the importance of interrelation and difference, and resist the polarisation of matter/idea, nature/culture, and biology/history that constantly fractures our understanding of the world, props up material extraction and psychic domination, and is implicated in the continued exploitation of the bodies and labour of women, the earth, and all oppressed peoples.

    We also aimed to resist a culture of increasing political polarisation. During the four years of publication, however, the landscape the collective was working in changed significantly, and radical materialist responses to identity-based feminism came under increasingly hostile pressure from the rising tide of ‘anti-woke,’ anti-left, and anti-feminist populism.

    …

    It is the collective’s deepest hope that we have left behind a substantive record of a remarkable period in women’s politics, and resources that feminist women will find useful and sustaining as we enter an ever-darkening period of our political life.

    Reply
    • arkie 3.1
      26 February 2025 at 12:22 pm

      Live stream is here also:

      The Green Party will deliver a Green Budget this year to offer an alternative to what it calls the government's "trickle-down economics and austerity politics."

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/543044/watch-live-greens-co-leaders-deliver-state-of-the-planet-update

      Reply
      • arkie 3.1.1
        26 February 2025 at 2:28 pm

        Swarbrick said the party was sick of the government pandering to privatisation.

        "Trickle-down politicians and their donors have spent at least 40 years coming after our public services, our media and our democracy, but it's clear now more than ever that their real target has been our hope."

        "Let me be crystal clear: if you're struggling to get by, your beef isn't with someone else struggling to get by. Your beef is with the system that forces almost everyone you know into a life of struggle, and, more precisely, your beef is with those who profit from it."

        Swarbrick said New Zealand was considered one of the wealthiest countries in the world on a per person basis, and asked, "so why can't regular people afford to go to the dentist?"

        "It's not because of the gays, or the migrants, or tangata whenua. It's because that wealth isn't fairly shared."

        Swarbrick said the Green Budget would not be a "defence of the status quo," but would show it was possible to ensure everyone was housed, has access to healthcare and education, and everyone got the "genuine opportunity for a good life."

        Davidson said manaakitanga – or caring for each other – will be the core value that underpins the Green Budget.

        "Care and justice for all people is what binds us together and helps us build a future where all of us thrive.

        "This is what our politics should reflect. A politics of care."

        She said "collective care is not part of this government's plan".

        "They are showing us each day they stand for the few and not for the many. They are completely out of touch with the community."

        She said that's seen in the decisions to "gut" school lunches, housing, benefits and the health system.

        "The dominating economic system means that wealth and power are not shared equally. These inequities further divide communities when instead we need to come together."

        She referenced Moana Jackson saying Te Tiriti o Waitangi was about the "rightness that comes from people accepting their obligations to each other".

        "This is a profound vision on which to build a country."

        Kei te tautoko au.

        Reply
        • Drowsy M. Kram 3.1.1.1
          26 February 2025 at 2:57 pm

          … why can't regular people afford to go to the dentist?

          It's because that wealth isn't fairly shared.

          Arkie, thanks for that summary of the Green's vision for Kiwis and Aotearoa NZ.

          About a month ago I opined here that right-leaning political factions (and individuals) in thrall to Mammon are perhaps more willing to put aside their differences about past mistakes, and 'the means', in pursuit of a single (short-term, self-serving) 'end'.

          https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_end_justifies_the_means

          Everyone has different ideas about what constitutes a political mistake, and how important that mistake was/is – maybe we (the broad left) should take a leaf out of the broad right's book and negotiate an enduring consensus on ends. And, if those ends are truly important, then perhaps we could be a little more flexible about means – give and take, if it's not too late.

          It's a pipe dream, of course – by the time the polycrisis gets bad enough to dent Homo sapiens' crippling fascination with Mammon, long-term ends will have receded into the far future. Still, never give up – Party Vote Green!

          Signs of Collapse: A Two-Tier World [3 Feb 2025]
          A more sober assessment of the consequences of a global two-tier society, based on a study of past civilizational collapses, would suggest that the situation is going to get much worse before it gets better. In the absence of power structures that could be leveraged to rectify the unprecedented inequality of wealth, power and precarity, it is almost certain that the very rich will not cede anything that they currently have voluntarily, and they will be prepared to use almost any form of violence to repress (and protect themselves from) the growing masses of angry citizens.
          …
          I think it is the expectation of the ultra-rich that, as collapse deepens, the rest of us, locked into wage slavery and increasingly powerless in a modern world that places all value on accumulated capital and none on quality labour or expertise, will just “roll over and die”. That may not even be an unreasonable expectation, and it would seem to be what we are being conditioned to do. And recent history suggests that resistance groups against the ultra-rich and powerful can easily be propagandized by compliant media and fake populist politicians into fighting each other instead of against our common enemy.

          It’s not going to be pretty, in any case. But, as I have said so often, this is what collapse looks like during its early-to-middle stages: Precarity for all but the billionaire castes. Coming soon to a country near you.

          "Precarity for all but the billionaire castes" may be too strong – how about
          'Precarity for all but the wealthy and sorted.'

          Reply
        • Phillip ure 3.1.1.2
          26 February 2025 at 3:08 pm

          Good words from the greens…!

          I look forward to reading their ideas/plans/solutions..

          Reply
        • alwyn 3.1.1.3
          26 February 2025 at 6:00 pm

          "Swarbrick said New Zealand was considered one of the wealthiest countries in the world on a per person basis,".

          She is about 70 years out of date. Other countries have been having much faster growth in incomes that we have.

          In 1990 for example Singapore was 50% ahead of us in GDP/Capita. Today they are 150% ahead.

          In 1990 South Korea had less than half our GDP/Capita. Now they are ahead of us.

          China's GDP has risen by 13 times in the time period. We have gone up to 1.6 times our 1990 value.

          You can amuse yourself by looking at the numbers here for most countries. It only cover 1990 to 2023 but it'll give you a feel for the numbers

          https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-worldbank?time=earliest

          Reply
          • SPC 3.1.1.3.1
            26 February 2025 at 6:07 pm

            Wrong, income per capita is not wealth.

            New Zealanders who own property compare very well – few people in Singapore own their property.

            Reply
          • arkie 3.1.1.3.2
            26 February 2025 at 6:23 pm

            We are in the top 20% of countries in the world based on the GDP/capita data of the World Bank as of December 2024. It's not out of date to say that that makes us one of the wealthiest countries in the world on a per person basis, it is an objective statement. Your quibbling is making a different argument unrelated to what Swarbrick actually said.

            Best you resume your reminiscing about the 1928 Olympics old mate.

            Reply
          • Incognito 3.1.1.3.3
            26 February 2025 at 6:45 pm

            She also referred to 40 years of neoliberalism that caused NZ to trickle tumble down the ranks.

            Oh, you selectively missed that surprise

            Reply
            • alwyn 3.1.1.3.3.1
              26 February 2025 at 7:12 pm

              I only read Arkies summary of what she said. He didn't quote what you said and so I wasn't aware of it.

              Reply
              • Incognito …
                26 February 2025 at 7:18 pm

                That’s strange, because it’s in the 2nd paragraph of Arkie’s comment and you nit-picked on the 4th paragraph, which means you selectively scrolled past the 2nd one. Your biased brain must have so many blind spots it’ll look like a Swiss cheese.

                Reply
                • alwyn …
                  26 February 2025 at 7:30 pm

                  Arkie quoted nothing like your statement. He says

                  ""Trickle-down politicians and their donors have spent at least 40 years coming after our public services, our media and our democracy, but it's clear now more than ever that their real target has been our hope.""

                  The only person to have used the words "that caused NZ to trickle tumble down the ranks." appears to be you.

                  Reply
                  • Incognito …
                    26 February 2025 at 9:52 pm

                    Sigh

                    I was quoting paraphrasing your own words back to you, combined with Arkie’s comment (or rather, Swarbricks words that are a red rag that enrages you each and every time) to which you’d replied, and all we heard was a big Woosh.

                    You also got corrected on most other points by SPC despite you desperately moving goalposts to avoid scoring an own goal.

                    Engaging with you still is an exercise in futility and thus you are, for all intents and purposes, a troll.

                    Reply
          • SPC 3.1.1.3.4
            26 February 2025 at 7:45 pm

            New Zealand and Australia are both top 10 in wealth both median and mean per capita.

            (And ahead of Singapore).

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

            Reply
            • alwyn 3.1.1.3.4.1
              26 February 2025 at 8:31 pm

              I am amazed.

              It is certainly not what I would have expected. I guess it must be reflecting the crazy house prices and the concentration of peoples wealth in their homes.

              And no. It is not what I expected.

              Reply
              • SPC …
                26 February 2025 at 9:31 pm

                The Europeans have better lifestyles but not the paper property title wealth.

                It'll fall back a bit with the housing correction/value flat-lining.

                It's great for those who can downsize into a small build village or half acre in the cheaper provincial idyll.

                (the USA has a lower median, cheaper housing, but a higher average all those billionaires)

                The USA median will rise or not because funds are buying property to rent (pricing people out of housing) – tight call, if more still own it will go up, but if ownership rates fall below half, then it will go down.

                Reply
  4. Incognito 4
    26 February 2025 at 1:11 pm

    The Coalition has invested in cycling trails but not to for NZ cyclists per se or for the environment, but for overseas tourists.

    Together, the 23 Great Rides receive about a million visitors a year, of whom around 20 per cent are international visitors,” Louise Upston says.

    With those numbers expected to continue growing, maintaining and improving these trails is a must, so visitors can keep enjoying the unique experience of pedalling through New Zealand’s beautiful landscapes.

    https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/smoother-path-great-rides

    Yeah, 100% pure NZ beautiful environment subsidised by the taxpayers of Aotearoa. But note this funding is only “for infrastructure upgrades and replacements”, e.g., fixing potholes, et cetera, so that foreign cyclists can move at higher speed and with more efficiency reaching their rest stops quicker and eat more ice creams faster, which will be good for economic growth, obviously – as long as we can sell them a high-quality experience and help them create beautiful pictures and uploads for social media memories.

    Reply
    • alwyn 4.1
      26 February 2025 at 1:38 pm

      "not to for NZ cyclists per se or for the environment, but for overseas tourists."

      When I see a statement like that I expect to see something to explain how the New Zealand cyclists cannot use it, or at least find it hard to use, whereas the foreign ones can easily get access.

      Then the Minister is quoted as saying " the 23 Great Rides receive about a million visitors a year, of whom around 20 per cent are international visitors"

      If only 20 per cent are international visitors then 80% must surely be New Zealand residents. When 80% of the users reside in New Zealand and only 20% are from overseas it doesn't seem to make sense that one can claim that the improvements are "not (to) for NZ cyclists" but "for overseas tourists".

      Is there an explanation for what you are saying that may be a little clearer to someone like me?

      Reply
      • weka 4.1.1
        26 February 2025 at 1:44 pm

        probably not, but it's basically about where the cycle trails are being put compared to where we need cycle lanes and paths for NZ citizens to go about their daily lives It's two different niches, and Nat are prioritising tourism over NZ's need for cycleways at home and work and in our neighbourhoods.

        Having a quick look at the press release, Queenstown desperately needs funding for public transport. Where is that? Also, in the ODT today a piece on how there's a growing locals backlash against tourism precisely because of these issues. I'll find the link.

        Reply
        • alwyn 4.1.1.1
          26 February 2025 at 2:08 pm

          "basically about where the cycle trails are being put compared to where we need cycle lanes and paths for NZ citizens to go about their daily lives"

          That I can understand. The other comment didn't make any sense to me at all. It still doesn't but yours does. Consider yourself awarded the title of clarifier.

          It never occurs to me that cycle lanes are needed but are not being built. As a typical Wellingtonian I tend to take the view that it is the other way around.

          Reply
          • Shanreagh 4.1.1.1.1
            26 February 2025 at 5:10 pm

            It never occurs to me that cycle lanes are needed but are not being built. As a typical Wellingtonian I tend to take the view that it is the other way around.

            probably because we see lots of un- and under- utlised cycle-ways all round Wellington. And still they ride, fast, on the footpaths, even on the shared paths pedestrians don't dare sway out of their space. The Basin Reserve is closed and cyclists have been funnelled onto a so-called shared path for pedestrians/cyclists. This path is no wider than a normal footpath. Is any care taken to slow down or recognise the presence of pedestrians, not on your life.

            I think the cycle lanes were built by people who saw the uplifitng movie Field of Dreams (Built it and they will come) Except they didn't and haven't come and as winter comes they will never come. They stand monument to a dream, or nightmare to ratepayers, while significant feeder streets for public transport etc to the hospital and points south such as Wallace street are like driving/riding on a potholed country road.

            Reply
            • alwyn 4.1.1.1.1.1
              26 February 2025 at 7:26 pm

              You provide a very good summary I must say.

              I had both hips replaced some years ago. I took to walking, on crutches, in Oriental Bay. I was twice knocked down by bicycles coming up behind me and trying to pass very close to me without any warning of their presence.

              Luckily I was only clipped and neither of them put me back in Hospital.

              Reply
      • Incognito 4.1.2
        26 February 2025 at 2:09 pm

        Is there an explanation for what you are saying that may be a little clearer to someone like me?

        I’m afraid not.

        I think it’s self-evident to TS readers that the only motivation for investing was to boost tourism, which is very clearly explained in the press release I linked to.

        Your reading comprehension also seems to be below that of the average TS reader because you don’t seem to be able to parse “per se”.

        Reply
        • alwyn 4.1.2.1
          26 February 2025 at 3:34 pm

          "don’t seem to be able to parse “per se”.

          I very much doubt that I would have ever been able to "pass Percy". I was a competent high school level sprinter but he won both the 100 and 200 metres track events at the Olympic Games.

          Reply
          • SPC 4.1.2.1.1
            26 February 2025 at 4:02 pm

            He was too old to beat me.

            Reply
            • alwyn 4.1.2.1.1.1
              26 February 2025 at 5:01 pm

              You are cheating. You knew, or looked up, the fact that it was the 1928 games.

              Reply
              • SPC …
                26 February 2025 at 5:27 pm

                He was still alive when I was at high school and would have trailed me the entire way (and Goof B was a bit ahead still).

                Reply
                • alwyn …
                  26 February 2025 at 6:17 pm

                  Perhaps I might have beaten him, looking at it that way. He would have been in his 50's when I was at school. At his best of course his 100 metres time was not much different to my best 100 yard numbers.

                  Reply
                  • SPC …
                    26 February 2025 at 9:48 pm

                    Harold and Percy ran 10.6

                    AP entered both events (for a bronze and a DNS).

                    In 1976, a NZSS record was set 10.69 Henley-Smith. The current record 1997, Potter 10.6.

                    Reply
          • Incognito 4.1.2.1.2
            26 February 2025 at 5:15 pm

            So, you went to St. Michaels University School in Victoria, BC, Canada. When did you emigrate to NZ?

            Reply
            • alwyn 4.1.2.1.2.1
              26 February 2025 at 6:22 pm

              No, no. He had graduated by then and he came to New Zealand. At least he might have.

              You've been looking up Wikipedia, haven't you?

              Reply
              • Incognito …
                26 February 2025 at 6:39 pm

                I see, it was an attempt to be funny and you didn’t race against him when in high school. My bad – I thought your ripe age explained a few things.

                Reply
                • alwyn …
                  26 February 2025 at 7:18 pm

                  I guess that would make me about 120 years old wouldn't it?

                  Admit it. Had you ever heard of him until I mentioned 1928?

                  I used him because he was the only top line runner called Percy who came to mind and allowed for the pun.

                  I'm sorry you didn't recognize a pun when you saw it.

                  Reply
      • lprent 4.1.3
        26 February 2025 at 3:16 pm

        Most kiwi cyclists are like me. Have never done a Great Ride. But I have ridden more than 6000km on ebikes since 2015 in Auckland

        Almost all of it has been commuting or just doing tasks around local area. Less than a quarter of that would be on cycleways. Half would be on main roads with heavy traffic. I live up by the corner of K Rd, Ponsonby road. The only reason that I haven't had a car vs bike accident is because I treat all car drivers as bing untrained idiots. Especially those in parked cars.

        I pay rates. GST on bikes, servicing them and parts. And a shit load of income tax and other GST. But improvements on making cycling safer are really glacial, despite cycling becoming mu h more frequent. It is a lot of tax over the years.

        Most of it appears to be wasted on subsiding truck drivers wrecking roads – something that cyclists are highly aware of. Truck potholes and car drivers opening doors are dangerous as hell.

        I don't care what tourists cycling in the countryside do. I care about safety cycling in urban roads. Which since an ever increasing number of cyclists and scooters are on the roads – that means cycleways.

        Good for cars as well. Cycleways mean that I don't sit 1.5 metres from parked cars doors.

        Reply
        • alwyn 4.1.3.1
          26 February 2025 at 3:38 pm

          You had better move to Wellington. Lots and lots of uncrowded cycleways to enjoy. You have to avoid the frequent fountains that spring into life regularly though.

          Reply
            • lprent 4.1.3.1.1.1
              27 February 2025 at 9:06 am

              I'd go there. Don’t like the city much apart from the cycling side and haven’t ever since doing medic training at Burnham. Living wise I prefer Dunedin (did the MBA there and worked there for 18 months afterwards).

              I keep getting interesting job offers from engineering firms in ChCh, but they are invariably WFW and not remote.

              My partner has settled her roots in Auckland for work and family, and so far I haven't shifted her either to ChCh or Aussie. Probably because she came from the SI and has lived in Aussie and met the best of Australians.

              Reply
          • lprent 4.1.3.1.2
            27 February 2025 at 9:03 am

            Why would I move to Wellington? No interesting jobs. The city is really cramped and you kind of have to live in the suburbs or you freeze worse than Dunedin housing.

            Plus you have to put the cycleways in, connect them up, and let traffic grow. If you want back to 2015 here, the currently extremely busy cycle routes had limited traffic. Now they are flooded at commuter times.

            Of course you could be like the lying dickhead Mike Hosking who famously stood in a cycleway on Hobson street really early in the morning talking about the lack of cycle traffic – while ignoring the few cars of the light traffic sweeping past him.

            Reply
        • PsyclingLeft.Always 4.1.3.2
          27 February 2025 at 8:38 am

          I care about safety cycling in urban roads.

          You would think everyone would get that ? Except for the haters. Ah well, never going to reason with the unreasonable. Sadly the present NAct1 govt are leading by example…chief antiCyclist Simeon Brown, prime headcase

          Government to spend nearly $33 billion on transport over the next 3 years

          "There's less money going into cycleways, and I think New Zealanders are sick and tired of the amount of money going into cycleways."

          He said the move away from prioritising public transport was in the coalition agreement with New Zealand First with the new focus being put on "economic growth and productivity".

          https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/526837/government-to-spend-nearly-33-billion-on-transport-over-the-next-3-years

          We already know the damage heavy trucks do to our roads. Which we subsidise in so many ways. On his "I think" (yea right) statement …

          Healthier, happier, fairer: new research shows major life benefits from decarbonising transport

          https://theconversation.com/healthier-happier-fairer-new-research-shows-major-life-benefits-from-decarbonising-transport-237660

          And many excellent points/links by Bernard Hickey here

          https://thekaka.substack.com/p/no-new-funding-for-cycling-and-walking

          Im away to work now, on my Bike. Happy Biking : )

          Reply
  5. Ad 5
    26 February 2025 at 2:42 pm

    This as per my article a coupe of days ago about "mineral rights for security guarantees" article:

    "The US and Ukraine have agreed on the terms of a draft minerals deal central to Kyiv's push to win Washington's support as President Donald Trump seeks to rapidly end the war with Russia, two sources with knowledge of the matter said on Tuesday.

    Trump told reporters that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wants to come to Washington on Friday to sign a "very big deal." This comes after the two leaders exchanged hostile words last week."

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/543033/volodymyr-zelensky-set-to-sign-a-very-big-deal-on-minerals-donald-trump-says

    OK so if Trump pulls this off and into an actual security deal with actual US security guarantees, and then Europe backs it with peacekeeping troops, we may just have to eat our words and say Trump is on his way to brokering peace.

    OMG.

    Reply
  6. Dennis Frank 6
    26 February 2025 at 4:22 pm

    Herald reports staffing problems in parliament:

    A ministry has stopped sending employees to work in New Zealand First minister Mark Patterson’s office after complaints from staff. The complaints are said to not be directly about Patterson, the Rural Communities and Associate Agriculture Minister. No one involved is willing to explain the nature of the complaints for privacy reasons.

    However, the situation has led the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to not provide staff to the office. Ministries typically send specialist staff to ministers’ offices to assist with their policy work.

    The Department of Internal Affairs’ Ministerial Services, which provides support to ministers, including employing staff, told the Herald it was “aware of complaints involving staff in Mark Patterson’s Office”. “As this is an employment matter, we will not be providing further details. We can confirm the complaint is not related to the Minister,” a spokesperson said. The spokesperson later clarified there had been multiple complaints made.

    Perhaps protocols have been breached, but we won't know unless the complaints produce consequences…

    [You’re in Pre-Mod because the link is missing and your copypasta looks it was produced by an AI bot with minimal intelligence and devoid of critical thinking skills only able to generate bloody obvious statements – Incognito]

    Reply
  7. Dennis Frank 7
    26 February 2025 at 4:34 pm

    Deck-chair rearrangement overseas:

    The US has twice sided with Russia in votes at the United Nations to mark the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, highlighting the Trump administration's change of stance on the war.

    First, the US opposed a European-drafted resolution condemning Moscow's actions and supporting Ukraine's territorial integrity – voting the same way as Russia and countries including North Korea and Belarus at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York.

    Then the US drafted and voted for a resolution at the UN Security Council which called for an end to the conflict, but contained no criticism of Russia.

    The Security Council passed the resolution, but two key US allies, the UK and France, abstained after their attempts to amend the wording were vetoed.

    Europe's moral posturing stance didn't work, but the situation is evolving & the space to watch is the abstentions. If Starmer & Macron are in accord, something intelligent might happen. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7435pnle0go

    Reply
    • Anne 7.1
      26 February 2025 at 10:15 am

      I note Dennis Frank's contributions on OP have appeared some 6.5 hours ahead of time. I know he has a prolific record but goodness me, that is quite a feat. 😉

      Reply
        • weka 7.1.1.1
          26 February 2025 at 4:24 pm

          oh funny, when the comment reaches the actual time on its timestamp, it turns up in the Comments tab.

          Reply
          • Incognito 7.1.1.1.1
            26 February 2025 at 6:02 pm

            Yes, that was an extra bonus that I mentioned in my comment in the Mod Post. I think that from now on I might use this trick more often on those who insist on regularly hogging the top of OM with comments of inferior quality that might put off others. KB hides comments with high numbers of down-ticks, so this is my way of doing something similar (aka what’s good for the goose is good for the gander) 😉

            Reply

Leave a Comment