Daily review 29/11/2022

Written By: notices and features - Date published: - 35 comments
Categories: Daily review

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

35 comments on “Daily review 29/11/2022”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

  2. 2

    This is interesting.

    https://thedisinfoproject.org/2022/11/29/dangerous-speech-misogyny-and-democracy/?fbclid=IwAR3F6ChJ51CpMSqJVeWeO4pAMNY0UDv324zYGgMb_BLfhQv1OngmeYBEWos

    I am amazed that people seem to have no idea that Members of Parliament do not actually clear their own office ansaphones.

    The person who does the one in the Prime Minister's local office is a mother and a grandmother. She has done that job for decades but is now subject regularly to a tirade of obscene and violent threats every working day,

    If we are going to take any of this seriously, we should start with the Diplomatic Protection Service returning all those calls.

  3. 3

    We had Parliament sitting under urgency,to pass all the important legislation,that is mostly not needed,and the use of proxy voting allowed legislation to be introduced into Parliament that neither the PM or labour leader of the house knew about.

    Which raises questions about ,urgency,proxy voting,and a government that does not even know about what is in the legislation being voted on.

    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on Monday said concerns with the use of entrenchment in this case were "legitimate" and Cabinet agreed to refer the matter to Parliament's Business Committee to consider.

    Ardern and Leader of the House Chris Hipkins were aware of the previous attempt to get support for the 75 percent entrenchment, but not of the 60 percent provision put forward by the Greens until after the fact.

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/11/three-waters-christopher-luxon-accuses-labour-of-trying-to-scare-the-public-by-discussing-privatisation.html

    What sane lender would provide funding to an entity that has no legal status (that is known to lenders) has infrastructure that can not be used as collateral against a loan,or that the government did not even know what was in the legislation when passing.

      1. 3.1.1

        In the post cabinet briefing he was quite clear.It seems Mahuta done a sneaky with the Greens.

        Hipkins was more blunt saying the "last he heard" the proposal was for 75 percent, "which would have failed with only Labour and the Greens supporting it".

        "I wasn't aware until after the fact that that had been lowered to 60 percent; I wasn't in the House at the time that it happened."

        Nanaia Mahuta as the responsible minister, however, knew exactly what was going on.

        https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/479745/power-play-three-waters-anti-privatisation-blunder-adds-to-storm-of-controversy

          2. 3.1.1.1.2

            Does anyone really think Hipkins is telling the truth here?

            His office is across all facets of the House agenda. Nothing in the PCO or Clark's Office or Crown Law gets to the House without them setting the agenda.

            This is Hipkins knifing Mahuta and Sage at the same time.

            1. 3.1.1.1.2.1

              Hard to tell from the RNZ report. It is not written very well, but it seems the initial proposal that Hipkins (and Ardern?) knew about was for a 75% threshold that could not be passed with the numbers Labour and the Greens have. In other words a bit of relatively harmless political theatre.

              Then apparently Sage and Mahuta dropped it to 60% without telling Hipkins, while he was out of the House and without even the Opposition realising.

              At this distance I have no way of knowing who is telling the truth, but my gut feeling Hipkins may be telling the truth. If he isn't then it's a bloody big risk being run here.

              1. 3.1.1.1.2.1.1

                On reflection – it matters less if Hipkins is telling the truth or not, than the rather simpler fact of him not covering for Sage and Mahuta.

        2. 3.1.1.2

          I tend to believe Hipkins is running cover for his boss.

          Hipkins is pure politician. Probably our only one.

          This looks like Hipkins making the setup for Ardern to kill the Maori governance parts of 3 Waters, and likely demote Mahuta.

          1. 3.1.1.2.1

            Could be,it becomes an easier target for distraction when Robertson has to make his statement on the real financial state of the economy in early December.

          3. 3.1.1.2.3

            Would killing off co-governance and demoting Mahuta result in a Maori caucus revolt and walk out?

            Labour appears to be between a rock and hard place on this issue.

  4. 4

    So Luxon thinks that unlimited immigration will fix our (perceived) employment problem.

    If the problem is that we have too few people to service our current population, then increasing the population will make it worse.

    3. 4.3

      We just had our space un the works we send our lambs to cut by 40% for our main weaning draft in January, 100% due to lack of staff availability, it's going to be a right barstard of a situation to deal with,

      I don't know what the fix is but it can't be good for a country on the brink of recession.

  5. 5

    Science is a smorgasbord, I'll have the open heart surgery and pass on the vaccine.
    /
    And fuck Liz Gunn

    Two parents are requesting blood used in their baby’s life-changing open-heart surgery be sourced from people who weren’t vaccinated for Covid-19.

    In an online video, Samantha Savage-Reeves and Cole Reeves claim they are concerned blood containing a vaccine would be used during the operation needed by 4-month-old Will, despite their fears reportedly being dismissed by medical professionals and information published by the New Zealand Blood Service.

    […]

    In the video, the parents were interviewed by former TV newsreader Liz Gunn, who has repeatedly voiced Covid-19 mistruths and was seen earlier this year confronting a news reporter about claims of fainting children at an Auckland vaccination centre – a claim that was rubbished by health officials.

    https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-national/parents-request-unvaccinated-blood-be-used-baby%E2%80%99s-surgery

    edit: and they’re off to court

    Health New Zealand is heading to court over the guardianship of a baby in need of heart surgery as the boy’s parents are refusing to allow blood from vaccinated people to be used in the operation, it is understood.

    Court records show documents had been filed with the Auckland High Court yesterday and Health New Zealand/Te Whatu Ora is listed as the applicant for proceedings set down for tomorrow.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/parents-request-unvaccinated-blood-used-in-babys-heart-surgery/U2PRAPN7RVECRPWF3EXDDNEXSM/

    1. 5.1

      That is what they do with the Jehovah's Witness cult that don't allow blood transfusions. They make the child a Ward of Court.

    2. 5.2

      Ignoring the reason for a second (there could be many), it does seem wrong the parents don't have the option to choose the blood their child will receive. Not really what you expect in a free democracy.

      1. 5.2.1

        it does seem wrong the parents don't have the option to choose the blood their child will receive

        Yeah, because assessing and meeting the hematological needs of an infant undergoing open-heart surgery is a fucking doddle.

        FFS

        /

        1. 5.2.1.1

          Yes, and the blood in the hospital blood bank has had all the required tests. Why should they drop everything and take and test the blood of a bunch of randoms because the parents are suffering from a collective delusion? How long would that take?

          1. 5.2.1.1.1

            The parents have already done the ground work and screened potential blood donors themselves, so this doesn't seem to be an issue. The last obstacle is bureaucracy?

    4. 5.4

      Some one should point out to the muppets that the same health system that makes heart surgery and blood transfusion possible thinks vaccines are good.

    1. 6.1

      Oh so it wasn't a hate crime afterall.

      Yup, it was just your run-of-the-mill that will teach them for being gay […] burn those ******* to the ground, crime.

      1. 6.1.1

        So Joe 90 you disagree with what the Judge said? Quote from the article I linked above

        "The judge said while this was a serious case of arson with “very significant” impacts on the victims, he was satisfied it was “not a hate crime [by the definition] popularised by Parliament” nor was it a deliberate targeting of the communities of Rainbow Youth and Gender Dynamix – the two services that operated a drop-in centre from the building"

Comments are closed.