It was the original plan until this government decided how much focus there was going to be was "none", which is why Iwi Chairs have pulled out
Xcf456
joined 1 year ago
You're talking absolute nonsense
You've missed the point I was making, but quick with the insults as always.
Yeah maybe but in honesty, all this hand wringing about the messaging and the "right way" to protest is just a derailing tactic that comes up no matter what people do.
Protesting too many things at once? Not focused enough
Protesting one big thing? Too vague, not practical enough
Doing a peaceful march, signalled ahead of time in coordination with the authorities? Useless, what does it achieve
Carrying out civil disobedience? How dare you interrupt people's daily lives, this only hurts your cause
Etc etc etc. I feel like if people actually care about the underlying cause they have to move past just doing their best political pundit impression about the optics and they how think it plays with the public, as if they're somehow above it all
Because the fundamental thing about climate activism is you can't just separate the environment from everyone and everything that happens within it. This includes political structures, which is why the voting age thing is in there.
I don't understand how this isn't more self evident to people when the most common point that comes up about personal solutions to reduce your emissions like EVs and solar panels etc is that many people can't afford them. This speaks to more than just 'environmental stuff' being part of addressing climate change.
Why can't it be about anti-racism for other groups, and be about systemic and colonial racism? It doesn't have to be one or the other but gee this government sure loves playing the two off against each other.
It reads a lot like the kind of colonial and institutional racism theyre wanting to address in the first place.
"what I can say is we looked at a range of boys for these jobs. We make no apologies for choosing everyday New Zealanders who all happen to be former National Party Ministers"
Repeat ad nauseum to any follow up questions until the next scandal comes along in about a day and a half.
What parts of what I said do you find confusing?
I'm blaming the government for emboldening it through their constant culture war bullshit, not for this actual act. They are definitely connected issues.
National aren't the whole government. ACT and NZ First are well into this to try and stave off the coalition curse, and National is unable to control them.
Nah they won't act against their base - those are "operational matters for the police". We'll see it when there's counter action akin to the anti TERF protests last year.
I'm not saying we can't, I'm just saying I think it's a bad idea that undermines the scheme as a whole. Better to address the issue through the tax system.
Our means tested benefits are dogshit compared to super.
I can see the case for this, but my view is means testing super itself is the wrong way to go about addressing this.
You create a whole bureaucracy around applying means testing and a cottage industry of wealthy people avoiding it through trusts and so on.
Then when it becomes means tested it becomes a target to slash and burn politicians, just like all the other benefits. The fact it's universal is the only reason it's survived in the relatively good shape it's in, because so many have a stake in it.
Imo it'd be far better to claw it back by taxing wealth, property and high incomes.
That's ok, I've seen what you think is a good point