23 September.
Try keep it cival.
Democalypse 2017 - The Election Thread
What is that?
What is that?
Election day
And as for the draconian requirement that people on A job seekers benefit make themselves available to actually look for work.... pfffffft
It's actually removing the financial punishment for not meeting requirement. Because, you know, taking money off people struggling to make ends meet, probably doesn't help much.
it stops people taking the piss. And they will
Except it is combined with a move towards a case manager approach and away from a case management approach. So if WINZ is actually funded properly, there would be a great emphasis on finding the appropriate approach for assisting people into meaningful work.
We've had 30 years of the stick approach, and pretty sure we can conclude it hasn't worked so far.
My son turns 18 the day after. He's not best pleased with the election date timing.
EOM.
One less vote for the Christian Democrat Party then?
And as for the draconian requirement that people on A job seekers benefit make themselves available to actually look for work.... pfffffft
It's actually removing the financial punishment for not meeting requirement. Because, you know, taking money off people struggling to make ends meet, probably doesn't help much.
it stops people taking the piss. And they will
Except it is combined with a move towards a case manager approach and away from a case management approach. So if WINZ is actually funded properly, there would be a great emphasis on finding the appropriate approach for assisting people into meaningful work.
We've had 30 years of the stick approach, and pretty sure we can conclude it hasn't worked so far.
More time to smoke weed without someone on your back suggesting you might want to get out of bed.
Never going to happen anyway so meh
the majority of people aren't taking the piss. It's a balancing act between stopping people taking the piss and not making it too hard for those who are genuine.
There is an argument that you just accept a minority taking the piss as a byproduct of being able to better help those in genuine need.
I can't remember a limper election.
The Utterly Inept and Out of Their Depth being challanged by the Moribund Mediocre.
The Press seem determined to report political matters poorly
The General Population seems without a care.
the majority of people aren't taking the piss. It's a balancing act between stopping people taking the piss and not making it too hard for those who are genuine.
There is an argument that you just accept a minority taking the piss as a byproduct of being able to better help those in genuine need.
be nice to get a wee paid holiday
the majority of people aren't taking the piss. It's a balancing act between stopping people taking the piss and not making it too hard for those who are genuine.
There is an argument that you just accept a minority taking the piss as a byproduct of being able to better help those in genuine need.
be nice to get a wee paid holiday
You seriously think being on a benefit is a holiday?
the majority of people aren't taking the piss. It's a balancing act between stopping people taking the piss and not making it too hard for those who are genuine.
There is an argument that you just accept a minority taking the piss as a byproduct of being able to better help those in genuine need.
be nice to get a wee paid holiday
You seriously think being on a benefit is a holiday?
no I'm saying if you can get it while not being pressured into actively seeking work (if you were choosing not to work)
We're moving towards a society where jobs are a luxury anyway, might as well just investigate universal basic income (which has been demonstrated to actually increase productivity within a society).
But, this election is going to be horrible - the leader of the dominant party has personal views which fly in the face of everything that our society represents, our second party is rudderless and doesn't even know what it represents, and the only party which has forward thinking and progressive policies that will bring us forwards in huge leaps suffers from a branding problem.
the majority of people aren't taking the piss. It's a balancing act between stopping people taking the piss and not making it too hard for those who are genuine.
There is an argument that you just accept a minority taking the piss as a byproduct of being able to better help those in genuine need.
be nice to get a wee paid holiday
You seriously think being on a benefit is a holiday?
no I'm saying if you can get it while not being pressured into actively seeking work (if you were choosing not to work)
Like Keegs said, the majority don't take the piss, and certainly don't view a benefit as a holiday. Where there is a problem is that for some people, being on a benefit is more beneficial than being in part-time employment (which adds a whole range of new costs without bringing extra $$$ in). So people there are people who are reluctant to follow that path. But that's not a problem with the benefit system, that's a problem with our low-wage economy.
But, this election is going to be horrible - the leader of the dominant party has personal views which fly in the face of everything that our society represents, our second party is rudderless and doesn't even know what it represents, and the only party which has forward thinking and progressive policies that will bring us forwards in huge leaps suffers from a branding problem.
It's going to be 1996 all over again. People are pissed off with National, but Labour is just pathetic. So a bunch of usual Labour voters will vote Green (as they did for Alliance in 1996), but not in significant enough numbers for a new Government. And a bunch of usual Labour and National voters will vote NZ First. So a Labour/Greens alliance won't have the numbers, and National will depend on NZ First and Winnie to form a government. And Winnie will milk it for all its worth so he can maximise his face time on the 6pm news, and it'll take two months to actually form a government.
August to November is going to be a horrendous little period.
the majority of people aren't taking the piss. It's a balancing act between stopping people taking the piss and not making it too hard for those who are genuine.
There is an argument that you just accept a minority taking the piss as a byproduct of being able to better help those in genuine need.
be nice to get a wee paid holiday
You seriously think being on a benefit is a holiday?
no I'm saying if you can get it while not being pressured into actively seeking work (if you were choosing not to work)
Like Keegs said, the majority don't take the piss, and certainly don't view a benefit as a holiday. Where there is a problem is that for some people, being on a benefit is more beneficial than being in part-time employment (which adds a whole range of new costs without bringing extra $$$ in). So people there are people who are reluctant to follow that path. But that's not a problem with the benefit system, that's a problem with our low-wage economy.
Abatement rates, and thus effective marginal tax rates, don't help with that trade off too. Universal Basic Income type policies help with that.
UBI of $200/week for 18-23 year olds from TOP
The problem with English is that his views are very backwards and harmful, he voted against marriage equality, he has said that he want's to keep abortion as criminal law rather than making it a health issue, and he has been a climate change denier. He's moderated a little bit as he wants to appear more reasonable to get the vote and so the only "good" part about him is how spineless he is.
We have a lot of important issues that the next government is going to have to address, issues like automation and a roadmap towards UBI, the removal of prohibition on marijuana, the legalisation of euthanasia, further movement away from the notion of binary gender, etc. and we don't want someone who's going to make decisions and lead our government based on religious beliefs rather than fact.
Unfortunately National will win the election again, the left is too fragmented and a number of people will vote National just to stop the Greens getting into power without actually looking at Green policy.
so his views are wrong because they aren't yours
so his views are wrong because they aren't yours
Once again your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
His views are wrong for two reasons. The most important one is that they aren't the same as the majority of New Zealanders, the second is that they're based on fantasy or "faith" rather than fact. The issues that we face as a planet are way too important to base on nothing but imagination.
Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, but the point of this thread is that it's a place to speak opinion.
so his views are wrong because they aren't yours
Once again your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
His views are wrong for two reasons. The most important one is that they aren't the same as the majority of New Zealanders, the second is that they're based on fantasy or "faith" rather than fact. The issues that we face as a planet are way too important to base on nothing but imagination.
Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, but the point of this thread is that it's a place to speak opinion.
I don't think you can have a wrong opinion because you are in a minority.
Fair point. Feverish put the word wrong in my mouth and I ran with it, I meant dangerous instead of wrong and anything is of course IMO.
so his views are wrong because they aren't yours
Once again your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
His views are wrong for two reasons. The most important one is that they aren't the same as the majority of New Zealanders, the second is that they're based on fantasy or "faith" rather than fact. The issues that we face as a planet are way too important to base on nothing but imagination.
Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, but the point of this thread is that it's a place to speak opinion.
Surely if he chooses to beleive in a mythical god or a flyi g spaghetti monster that is his choice and a decent society should respect that choice.
The majority of people in New Zealand slso believe we should have Capital Punishment.
the majority of people aren't taking the piss. It's a balancing act between stopping people taking the piss and not making it too hard for those who are genuine.
There is an argument that you just accept a minority taking the piss as a byproduct of being able to better help those in genuine need.
be nice to get a wee paid holiday
You seriously think being on a benefit is a holiday?
no I'm saying if you can get it while not being pressured into actively seeking work (if you were choosing not to work)
Like Keegs said, the majority don't take the piss, and certainly don't view a benefit as a holiday. Where there is a problem is that for some people, being on a benefit is more beneficial than being in part-time employment (which adds a whole range of new costs without bringing extra $$$ in). So people there are people who are reluctant to follow that path. But that's not a problem with the benefit system, that's a problem with our low-wage economy.
The fact is there are many capable of working choose not to. It may not be the job you want or the salary you want or even the location you want but there are many jobs out there that end up being filled by immigrants
The problem with English is that his views are very backwards and harmful, he voted against marriage equality, he has said that he want's to keep abortion as criminal law rather than making it a health issue, and he has been a climate change denier. He's moderated a little bit as he wants to appear more reasonable to get the vote and so the only "good" part about him is how spineless he is.
We have a lot of important issues that the next government is going to have to address, issues like automation and a roadmap towards UBI, the removal of prohibition on marijuana, the legalisation of euthanasia, further movement away from the notion of binary gender, etc. and we don't want someone who's going to make decisions and lead our government based on religious beliefs rather than fact.
Unfortunately National will win the election again, the left is too fragmented and a number of people will vote National just to stop the Greens getting into power without actually looking at Green policy.
It's neither backward or harmful to vote against marriage equality.
It's perfectly reasonable to look at Abortion as a Criminal situation as it is a Health One
Many people have issues with Climate Change and use Science as their explanation for taking such a position.
I'm highly skeptical any leader is going to make better decisions because they use a "fact based assessment" over a "religious/ethics/moral" one.
National are likely to be the highest vote getting party. A lot less likely to form a government however. I don't believe Peters First is a shoe in to go Blue.
The enormous angst value of a thread like this is because most of the important issues in "the world" contain an overlay of fact and morality.
Welfare, marriage/gender equality, putting a price on water, building a rail link in Northland. These are all issues that capture debate because there is not a "right" answer independent of morality and opinion.
I am a big fan of welfare, and I have quite a strong dislike for putting a price on water. I don't have very strong feelings about marriage or gender equality. I can trot out various pieces of fact to support my position, but there at least as good facts on the other side of the debate.
Climate change isn't like that though. Climate science is pretty settled. And scientists who argue against climate change are the climatological equivalent of anti-vaxxers.
Climate change is a real thing. Humans causing it is a real thing too. You can argue the merits of various mitigations, and you can argue the accuracy of the models of future impacts, but the fact of climate change, global warming and human industrialisation being behind it are inarguable. There are no good facts on the other side.
But, this election is going to be horrible - the leader of the dominant party has personal views which fly in the face of everything that our society represents, our second party is rudderless and doesn't even know what it represents, and the only party which has forward thinking and progressive policies that will bring us forwards in huge leaps suffers from a branding problem.
It's going to be 1996 all over again. People are pissed off with National, but Labour is just pathetic. So a bunch of usual Labour voters will vote Green (as they did for Alliance in 1996), but not in significant enough numbers for a new Government. And a bunch of usual Labour and National voters will vote NZ First. So a Labour/Greens alliance won't have the numbers, and National will depend on NZ First and Winnie to form a government. And Winnie will milk it for all its worth so he can maximise his face time on the 6pm news, and it'll take two months to actually form a government.
August to November is going to be a horrendous little period.
Highly likely Petes First gets the calling shot on who forms the government.
Not likely he takes 8 weeks to make that call or that it is in anyway certain he'll go with National.
so his views are wrong because they aren't yours
Once again your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
His views are wrong for two reasons. The most important one is that they aren't the same as the majority of New Zealanders, the second is that they're based on fantasy or "faith" rather than fact. The issues that we face as a planet are way too important to base on nothing but imagination.
Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, but the point of this thread is that it's a place to speak opinion.
I don't think you can have a wrong opinion because you are in a minority.
Most NZ'ers were against the Homosexual Law Reform.
25-30 years later it's "hardly an issue". Having the Law changed, IMO , despite the "will of the people" was an inclusive and positive thing.
This is not to say the job is finished or to be self-congratulatory but surely our culture is better because or in part because the State made a decision.
The enormous angst value of a thread like this is because most of the important issues in "the world" contain an overlay of fact and morality.
Welfare, marriage/gender equality, putting a price on water, building a rail link in Northland. These are all issues that capture debate because there is not a "right" answer independent of morality and opinion.
I am a big fan of welfare, and I have quite a strong dislike for putting a price on water. I don't have very strong feelings about marriage or gender equality. I can trot out various pieces of fact to support my position, but there at least as good facts on the other side of the debate.
Climate change isn't like that though. Climate science is pretty settled. And scientists who argue against climate change are the climatological equivalent of anti-vaxxers.
Climate change is a real thing. Humans causing it is a real thing too. You can argue the merits of various mitigations, and you can argue the accuracy of the models of future impacts, but the fact of climate change, global warming and human industrialisation being behind it are inarguable. There are no good facts on the other side.
I tend to agree. However the point I was making around CC denial from a Science based perspective illustrates the folly of demanding only a facts/science/reason/logic is suitable for State policy. Ideological demands may not be the best path to an inclusive and functioning democracy.
Fwiw I don't believe for a second we have either I'm just being an Idealist currently.
the majority of people aren't taking the piss. It's a balancing act between stopping people taking the piss and not making it too hard for those who are genuine.
There is an argument that you just accept a minority taking the piss as a byproduct of being able to better help those in genuine need.
be nice to get a wee paid holiday
You seriously think being on a benefit is a holiday?
no I'm saying if you can get it while not being pressured into actively seeking work (if you were choosing not to work)
Like Keegs said, the majority don't take the piss, and certainly don't view a benefit as a holiday. Where there is a problem is that for some people, being on a benefit is more beneficial than being in part-time employment (which adds a whole range of new costs without bringing extra $$$ in). So people there are people who are reluctant to follow that path. But that's not a problem with the benefit system, that's a problem with our low-wage economy.
The fact is there are many capable of working choose not to. It may not be the job you want or the salary you want or even the location you want but there are many jobs out there that end up being filled by immigrants
The reasons some people may choose to not work are of less value than the reasons why it has been policy to ensure there is not enough work for all members of society.
As the people who make such policy as those least likely to not have work I believe it is more prudent to direct attention at the reasons why this is so instead of targeting the members of society who appear to have neither interest in the political system or any means to facial ate change.
The enormous angst value of a thread like this is because most of the important issues in "the world" contain an overlay of fact and morality.
Welfare, marriage/gender equality, putting a price on water, building a rail link in Northland. These are all issues that capture debate because there is not a "right" answer independent of morality and opinion.
I am a big fan of welfare, and I have quite a strong dislike for putting a price on water. I don't have very strong feelings about marriage or gender equality. I can trot out various pieces of fact to support my position, but there at least as good facts on the other side of the debate.
Climate change isn't like that though. Climate science is pretty settled. And scientists who argue against climate change are the climatological equivalent of anti-vaxxers.
Climate change is a real thing. Humans causing it is a real thing too. You can argue the merits of various mitigations, and you can argue the accuracy of the models of future impacts, but the fact of climate change, global warming and human industrialisation being behind it are inarguable. There are no good facts on the other side.
It is imo dangerous to say the science is settled. Science is rarely ever settled.
If 95+ percent of engineers told you a bridge would collapse if you drove over it, would you drive over it?
If 95+ percent of doctors told you had cancer and should have treatment, would you?
And even if you do decide that you knew more than experts who have devoted their lives to this research don't the risks of you being wrong outweigh the costs?
In fact if everyone else is wrong and you are right then the main side effect to fighting climate change will be cleaner air and water and a reduced reluctance on finite resources.
The enormous angst value of a thread like this is because most of the important issues in "the world" contain an overlay of fact and morality.
Welfare, marriage/gender equality, putting a price on water, building a rail link in Northland. These are all issues that capture debate because there is not a "right" answer independent of morality and opinion.
I am a big fan of welfare, and I have quite a strong dislike for putting a price on water. I don't have very strong feelings about marriage or gender equality. I can trot out various pieces of fact to support my position, but there at least as good facts on the other side of the debate.
Climate change isn't like that though. Climate science is pretty settled. And scientists who argue against climate change are the climatological equivalent of anti-vaxxers.
Climate change is a real thing. Humans causing it is a real thing too. You can argue the merits of various mitigations, and you can argue the accuracy of the models of future impacts, but the fact of climate change, global warming and human industrialisation being behind it are inarguable. There are no good facts on the other side.
It is imo dangerous to say the science is settled. Science is rarely ever settled.
Edit: this is a nice graphic representation on the various climate forcings: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warm...
But, this election is going to be horrible - the leader of the dominant party has personal views which fly in the face of everything that our society represents, our second party is rudderless and doesn't even know what it represents, and the only party which has forward thinking and progressive policies that will bring us forwards in huge leaps suffers from a branding problem.
It's going to be 1996 all over again. People are pissed off with National, but Labour is just pathetic. So a bunch of usual Labour voters will vote Green (as they did for Alliance in 1996), but not in significant enough numbers for a new Government. And a bunch of usual Labour and National voters will vote NZ First. So a Labour/Greens alliance won't have the numbers, and National will depend on NZ First and Winnie to form a government. And Winnie will milk it for all its worth so he can maximise his face time on the 6pm news, and it'll take two months to actually form a government.
August to November is going to be a horrendous little period.
I wish I could disagree, but I this is how I see it.
If 95+ percent of engineers told you a bridge would collapse if you drove over it, would you drive over it?
If 95+ percent of doctors told you had cancer and should have treatment, would you?
The enormous angst value of a thread like this is because most of the important issues in "the world" contain an overlay of fact and morality.
Welfare, marriage/gender equality, putting a price on water, building a rail link in Northland. These are all issues that capture debate because there is not a "right" answer independent of morality and opinion.
I am a big fan of welfare, and I have quite a strong dislike for putting a price on water. I don't have very strong feelings about marriage or gender equality. I can trot out various pieces of fact to support my position, but there at least as good facts on the other side of the debate.
Climate change isn't like that though. Climate science is pretty settled. And scientists who argue against climate change are the climatological equivalent of anti-vaxxers.
Climate change is a real thing. Humans causing it is a real thing too. You can argue the merits of various mitigations, and you can argue the accuracy of the models of future impacts, but the fact of climate change, global warming and human industrialisation being behind it are inarguable. There are no good facts on the other side.
It is imo dangerous to say the science is settled. Science is rarely ever settled.
Edit: this is a nice graphic representation on the various climate forcings: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warm...
That's a great link.
so his views are wrong because they aren't yours
Once again your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
His views are wrong for two reasons. The most important one is that they aren't the same as the majority of New Zealanders, the second is that they're based on fantasy or "faith" rather than fact. The issues that we face as a planet are way too important to base on nothing but imagination.
Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, but the point of this thread is that it's a place to speak opinion.
The majority of people in New Zealand slso believe we should have Capital Punishment.
I don't think that that is even close to being true, but because I looked tried to look it up because I prefer evidence to gut feels. These were the only references to polls that I could find. Do you have anything that would refute these that show near enough 2-1 against the death penalty (one slightly more, one slightly less).
If 95+ percent of engineers told you a bridge would collapse if you drove over it, would you drive over it?
If 95+ percent of doctors told you had cancer and should have treatment, would you?