The 2017 Election Thread

[Crasherfromwayback]

Ok - fair point, let me rephrase slightly:

it is that the biggest single proportion of people voted for National.

Too bad.

We have a government that is made up of people and policies that more than 50% of voters wanted.

So Mmp is still working.

Sour grapes doesn't change the maths...

Absolutely!

[Honest Andy]

But fuck all that...

It's time for a ride! Who's with me?

Too slow...
BRAAAAAAAAAAPPPP

[TheDemonLord]

That's nice but it is entirely irrelevant.

Whoever Winston went with, the result would have represented the majority of voters. Some people have trouble grasping that but it's only 'cause they don't ike the result, they don't like MMP, or both.

It seems rather clear that Winston had a score to settle with National, so I reject your notion that it represented the Majority of Voters. It represented Winston's own interests.

That and this is an anomoly compared to every other MMP coalition (where the party with the single biggest vote share formed the Government).

So I'm interested how you explain every other government - were they also a representation of the Majority of Voters?

[1billyboy]

Ok - fair point, let me rephrase slightly:

it is that the biggest single proportion of people voted for National.

Yeah but more people voted NOT for National.

[TheDemonLord]

Yeah but more people voted NOT for National.

So then, every other election result then is invalid - cause last election more people didn't vote for National, same with the election before that, When Labour last won an election, more people didn't vote for Labour etc.

I'll ask again - if that is the line of Logic you wish to trot out - how do you explain EVERY MMP election thus far?

[pritch]

Victim Blaming?

If you tell someone that maybe they did things that either invited, expidited or failed to guard against Disaster - is this Victim Blaming? I find there is something very insidious and corrupt with the notion of Victim Blaming - in which it grants people to act in a manner without a care for the consequences of their own actions, then absolve themselves of any responsibility when something negative as a result (or partial result) befalls them - and screeching like a toddler "VICTIM BLAMING!" at anyone who dares to suggest that maybe they ought to think a little bit more next time.

I was briefly in a conversation last night which reflected on a time when young people who didn't have a job were directed to the freezing works, the woollen mills, the car factory, or the toll room. Those jobs are all gone. Other big employers like the Post Office and Railways are but shadows of their former selves. Rubbish trucks used to have a crew of four, now there is just the driver. This is all more "efficient", but as a result of decisions taken by successive governments, and the drive for ever lower costs, many people are now facing an entire lifetime without a job. Sure, it would help if they had a degree, or two, but some of those people are having difficulty getting a job.

It isn't just the unemployed. In many western countries the working poor are really struggling. We have them here too.

In time those we have excluded from sharing in the benefits* of our society may well come to resent this, and we may be presented with more social problems than we'd like. We could try to ease the problem somehow, but nah, it's easier to blame the victim. Victim blaming is real and it's here. Right here in this thread in fact.





* No pun intended

[Brian d marge]

I was briefly in a conversation last night which reflected on a time when young people who didn't have a job were directed to the freezing works, the woollen mills, the car factory, or the toll room. Those jobs are all gone. Other big employers like the Post Office and Railways are but shadows of their former selves. Rubbish trucks used to have a crew of four, now there is just the driver. This is all more "efficient", but as a result of decisions taken by successive governments, and the drive for ever lower costs, many people are now facing an entire lifetime without a job. Sure, it would help if they had a degree, or two, but some of those people are having difficulty getting a job.

It isn't just the unemployed. In many western countries the working poor are really struggling. We have them here too.

In time those we have excluded from sharing in the benefits* of our society may well come to resent this, and we may be presented with more social problems than we'd like. We could try to ease the problem somehow, but nah, it's easier to blame the victim. Victim blaming is real and it's here. Right here in this thread in fact.





* No pun intended

Never did like working .. best to leave that malarkey to robots

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[1billyboy]

So then, every other election result then is invalid - cause last election more people didn't vote for National, same with the election before that, When Labour last won an election, more people didn't vote for Labour etc.

I'll ask again - if that is the line of Logic you wish to trot out - how do you explain EVERY MMP election thus far?

It come down to how much support the big 2 get from the small parties. History of what has happened in the past is fun to watch.

[TheDemonLord]

I was briefly in a conversation last night which reflected on a time when young people who didn't have a job were directed to the freezing works, the woollen mills, the car factory, or the toll room. Those jobs are all gone. Other big employers like the Post Office and Railways are but shadows of their former selves. Rubbish trucks used to have a crew of four, now there is just the driver. This is all more "efficient", but as a result of decisions taken by successive governments, and the drive for ever lower costs, many people are now facing an entire lifetime without a job. Sure, it would help if they had a degree, or two, but some of those people are having difficulty getting a job.

It isn't just the unemployed. In many western countries the working poor are really struggling. We have them here too.

In time those we have excluded from sharing in the benefits* of our society may well come to resent this, and we may be presented with more social problems than we'd like. We could try to ease the problem somehow, but nah, it's easier to blame the victim. Victim blaming is real and it's here. Right here in this thread in fact.





* No pun intended

Interesting points - So let's talk about them.

For sure - times have changed and to a point I agree in part that as a society, we have failed to keep pace - as you say, people used to go to the local 'big employer' in small town NZ, get a job, work for 35 years, get their golden watch and retire.

The first thing I would point out however is that the level of upskilling, training (paid, subsidized and free) is enormous - now, I'll be the first proponent to point out that not everyone are geniuses who are going to be able to enter complex fields (such as Law, Engineering and my own beloved IT) - but that is not to say that there aren't intermediate and starter positions that are available.

The next is something I've heard in particular from people living in Small town NZ - that people are reluctant to move out of their town and reluctant to move to an Office job - the age old "I don't want to be stuck in an office all day" - if people aren't willing to move to get a job or aren't happy with the job choices available, that somewhat tempers my sympathy

Finally is that for the last 10? or so years - the Trades have been understaffed, In line with your description of the plight of the poor - there was a generation where only a select elite few went to University - the rest became apprentices in trades - this one I see more a a societal/government issue - in that Trades weren't seen in a positive light and the Apprenticeship system had it's heart ripped out (I'm sure someone with more experience/knowledge on this can elaborate at length - I've only briefly read about it)

Now - onto whether or not the poor should reap the benefits,

First point here is that even if we got rid of all the government implemented Benefits systems - the Poor in a modern western country are infinitely better off than the poor in any other country - They don't have to worry about the threat of War (in the same way as the poorest people in central Africa do), They have charities that will clothe and feed them (Auckland City Mission, the Sallies etc.) They have access to legal recourse and recognition of their rights.

This leads to the next question - what level of existence should someone be entitled to? Do they have a right to the Internet? Do they have a right to insulation? Do they have a right to take a holiday?

This is especially poignant when asked in regards to someone who does not work, who does not contribute to society in any way. Tax breaks and assistance programs for people on low income jobs - okay, whilst I may not be overly fond of them, the people they help are contributing to society.

Then finally on this thought - what right do the people who contribute nothing have to dictate to those who DO contribute something, how much they should get?

[Crasherfromwayback]

Then finally on this thought - what right do the people who contribute nothing have to dictate to those who DO contribute something, how much they should get?

Well, even the people that do fuck all except crime, still contribute. Hey, if not for them, prison wardens wouldn't exist!

[James Deuce]

hey have charities that will clothe and feed them (Auckland City Mission, the Sallies etc.) They have access to legal recourse and recognition of their rights.

No they don't. You do not have access to legal recourse if you have no money and no access to debt. You've obviously never tried to access a "charity". They have very narrowly defined conditions for access to their "services". You have no rights if you have no address and no debt. You have the right to die in the street. A society that relies on charity to help its most vulnerable has failed. A society in which people have no access to legal representation has also failed. You cannot use legal aid for a civil case.

Seriously, the debt thing is now the defining mark of citizenship in modern society.

[James Deuce]

So, by that - are you saying you have no agency? Are you saying that there is not any decisions that you could make to change your situation?

I disagree with that sentiment.

We had no agency. We were not informed or involved in the process that related to our "downfall". We have since won 4 court cases but are yet to see a cent. In the meantime we were rendered penniless and I was listed as bankrupt in the Gazette without any court process and listed as having been on the wrong side of a mortgagee sale without it having been registered in court. And before you start the apologetic gabble about there being systems in place to prevent that, there aren't. An agency can list you as bankrupt tomorrow, merely by filing papers with MBIE tomorrow. No court case required. Doesn't matter it it's the wrong person either. The burden of proof falls on the "victim". Which is completely impossible without a starting fee of about $300k to fix both of those problems.

[TheDemonLord]

No they don't. You do not have access to legal recourse if you have no money and no access to debt.

Are you saying that if a homeless, penniless person was assaulted, that the police would turn up and go "Oh, hang on a sec, you don't have any money, sorry".?
Are you saying that Pro Bono doen't exist?

You've obviously never tried to access a "charity". They have very narrowly defined conditions for access to their "services".

And long may it continue... but as a private organization, they absolutely have the right to define the conditions for access to their services.

You have no rights if you have no address and no debt.

The former (from my understanding) is only an issue for the posting of legal documents, but there are normally ways around it. The later, whilst I think I know what you are referring to - I'll let you elaborate.

You have the right to die in the street.

Death is the only real right that anyone has.

A society that relies on charity to help its most vulnerable has failed.

Why? By what Metric do you define success or failure?

A society in which people have no access to legal representation has also failed. You cannot use legal aid for a civil case.

You can represent yourself in a Civil case, and you can get Legal aid for a criminal case - ergo everyone has access to Legal Representation.

However - suppose I concede your point for the hypothetical point I was making - if things were as bad as you describe them are they better or worse than the 3rd world.

Seriously, the debt thing is now the defining mark of citizenship in modern society.

Well, that's a matter of opinion.

[James Deuce]

You cannot represent yourself in a civil case. Unless you want to make things worse.

I cannot elaborate.

Pro bono has to be offered. And you have to have enough money to pay for the hour of a lawyer's time at a decent large practice to be able define what your issues are and what legal branches will be required to investigate. You're oversimplifying everything because it suits your flawed logic that people have access to everything you do. They don't.

[TheDemonLord]

We had no agency. We were not informed or involved in the process that related to our "downfall". We have since won 4 court cases but are yet to see a cent. In the meantime we were rendered penniless and I was listed as bankrupt in the Gazette without any court process and listed as having been on the wrong side of a mortgagee sale without it having been registered in court. And before you start the apologetic gabble about there being systems in place to prevent that, there aren't. An agency can list you as bankrupt tomorrow, merely by filing papers with MBIE tomorrow. No court case required. Doesn't matter it it's the wrong person either. The burden of proof falls on the "victim". Which is completely impossible without a starting fee of about $300k to fix both of those problems.

Okay - I don't know the exact ins and outs of what occurred to you - however you say that you had no agency - yet you state you've won court cases - that sounds like Agency to me.

That there are problems with systems and processes etc. is a separate issue - and it's a very fine distinction:

Having no access to any system to get any form of redress = no agency
Having access to a system that is flawed/broken/doesn't pay out = You have agency, you have rights, but it isn't working properly.

Even if the net result is the same, they are philosophically different

Don't get me wrong - Systems are created by humans, humans are inherently flawed therefore systems are inherently flawed - but in light of this, do we throw the baby out with the bathwater?