Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, August 19th, 2026 - 94 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 …
It not to say he isn't a very nice guy…
"Wilderland says "we" because his involvement goes beyond being the party's biggest donor. He's on Opportunity's board and the party's strategy team. He was even one of five people responsible for the selection of Wong as the party leader.
Despite the weight of his donations and his influential role in the party, he denies his voice carries more weight than others in the party."
A little naive though, to believe the last sentence…
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics_election-2026/1046615/opportunity-s-200-000-donor-alan-wilderland-you-have-to-play-the-game
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vT1BwherWOU
Don't know much about economics, but House of El's update on the US money market and Trump's international demands sets out just how much the US financial market is under strain.
Given all the cray-cray demands Trump is making on countries and markets, together with the absolute idiot leading NZ, we're an easy mark. See US helicopter and LNG terminal deals. We can’t afford them, and they don’t fit NZ’s needs. But we rolled belly-up to Trump and signed up for them.
Even mining companies are complaining about Data Centres in Oz. Fortescue mining is developing its own off-grid renewable power source (equivalent to five Clyde dams) and thinks DC's should be forced to do the same or consumer prices and power supply will suffer.
".. Fortescue Mining is building a 2.3GW off-grid green grid around its mining operations in Western Australia, describing it as one of the largest green off-grid networks in the world.
Forrest’s argument is blunt: data centers should stand on their own, and eliminate risks to other consumers by using new green energy."
Meanwhile in sleepy NZ, the National Party has implemented no laws at all* to force DC's to provide new renewables to power DC's. This means we will end up importing expensive and dirty LNG to power DC's.
*They have recently waffled a bit about how DC's should provide some power.
It’s a fine line between being a sycophant and a shill and it’s causing an identity crisis for Mike Hosking.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/08/18/inside-luxons-monday-morning-therapy-session/
It seems as if Rachel Smalley is advising Mike Hosking to splain if from boy to boy because she’s not getting through to the big boy.
I thought this comment, from the article you've linked-to, was quite rude, in a Rabelian sort of way!
" No one publicly sticks up for Christopher Luxon as much as Mike."
Speaking of the Hosk, this is very disappointing if true.
Ginny claiming that no additional taxes beyond the CGT is a Labour bottom line
There is no way in hell this country can move forward and be a fairer and more equitible place to live, if we don't restructure our tax system.
Party vote Green to force Labour's hand
The Greens don't have the backbone IMO. TPM will have more fight in them.
TPM don't want your party vote. The bigger the Greens party vote The stronger they can make their argument.
IMO you are underestimating how unwilling the Labour Party is to give the Greens any wins. Hence my point of forcing their hand.
Willie Jackson is undermining the TPM strategy even if it will cost the left the election for example
How exactly is Willie Jackson ‘undermining’ the TPM strategy?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics_election-2026/1011909/te-pati-maori-reveals-election-strategy-as-campaign-launches-in-gisborne
Another example:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics_election-2026/1062576/willie-jackson-expresses-doubt-labour-can-win-all-seven-maori-seats
I know TPM don't want the party vote. But they also can't be pawned off with some high costing green initiative in concession for much needed economic change.
Additionally, and more importantly, Labour have already stated their tax position regardless of the Green party numbers.
Hence, this is more about being able to fight. And with the experience and Labour insight of "Papa Hone" behind them, they got what it takes to win that fight. Further, they sure know how to muster a crowd to help apply pressure
Do you have an example of the Green's being 'pawned off'?
Labour has frightened itself away from the necessary tax changes, they can be emboldened by realising the support that exists for a more thorough and fully-costed tax plan like the one the Greens promote.
Do we want a change in government or not? I guess we shall see, but a party vote for the Greens will guarantee it.
As we're not privy to negotiations, thus concession made, no.
However, they have had some green wins yet no economic ones come to mind
So it doesn't seem there is an example of a 'hogh-costing green initiative' that stopped the Greens from advocating for the necessary changes. Labour does not think these changes are necessary.
We must vote for what we want to happen and not tamp down our expectations and accept an unambitious policy platform just because Labour will fight for it.
An example I can think of is the healthy homes scheme; both a green win and an economic win that has been maintained by governments of all stripes because it is sensible policy. The Greens have a lot of those, worth voting for.
The compliance costs from the Healthy Homes Standards contributed to upward pressure on rents while the market was hot. Bringing into question the economic benefit you tout.
Further, adding to the cost of building new rental homes. Thus, the equation that new rents are calculated.
Perhaps you can give an economic win that isn’t so questionable?
Only you would say such a thing.
The policy I was supposed to be referring to is the Warmer Kiwi Homes Subsidy, not the Health Homes requirements, sorry for that confusion.
Thanks, arkie
Warm Up New Zealand (launched by National) was the predecessor of the Warmer Kiwi Homes Subsidy.
Which, off hand, was a Labour policy launched when they had a confidence and supply arrangement with the Greens and NZFirst.
Can you link to it being solely a Green policy?
https://www.greens.org.nz/green_initiative_addresses_both_climate_and_inequality
You are undermining your argument that the Greens are spineless and unable to fight for their policy gains.
Co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons won an agreement from the National Government.
And she is not part of the Greens today that I'm calling spineless.
Nor is her win related to the era that I was referring re potential concessions made.
The Greens getting add-ons is not the same as getting a full policy win
I am unclear what it is you are arguing for now.
All MMP politics requires negotiation and since the current Greens haven't yet been in the position to negotiate yet, the determination they are spineless seems completely unfounded.
If you want policies more stridently left than Labour's you have few options aside the Greens. Labour is clear that unless they have to, they will not support the needed policies. If we want those policies, the only chance to achieve them is by advocating and voting for those whose platform includes them.
It is ridiculous to claim that an increased vote share would not allow a stronger position in negotiation. Given that the majority of the Green's policy platform spirals out from meaningful changes in taxation it's aldo borderline to assume they would cave for unnamed 'expensive green initiatives' that you still cannot point to.
Finally, Green party members ultimately determine what the party does once they have negotiated. They are privy to any concessions.
The current Greens are largely the same as the last lot.
It's not ridiculous to claim that an increased vote share would not allow a stronger position in negotiation because in case you missed it, Labour have already ruled out the Greens tax policy before negotiations have even begun.
And I’ve yet to hear a peep from the Greens about it. Have you?
Thus, getting green policy is all they're likely to get.
I can't help you if you don't have faith in leverage or see that Labour's announcements are another way of them preventing people from voting for the alternatives.
Party votes are all counted and affect the proportionality, might as well vote for policies that you want.
If you vote Labour because you believe they won't support more tax changes then you just reward that position and they will continue to take it. If they lose vote share to the Greens then they may realise where they erred and correct it.
Don't worry, I won't be voting Labour or for any parties from the right.
Labour's announcements are another way of them setting the conditions of the negotiations bottom lines. And this is done before knowing what support the Greens will have after the election.
But bet the Greens will still go with them just the same
Further, it sends a message to wider voters that Labour won't be introducing more taxes than already announced And that is one reason why I won't be voting for them.
I believe Labour hasn't got enough to produce the change most are hoping for, thus run the risk of being widely disliked once the wider voter realisation kicks in.
The Greens will need to distance themselves from that fallout by calling Labour out.
Hope they don't give their question time away this time around
I didn't think you were I just disagree with your assessment of the Greens. I don't want people to read our convo and give up on voting for who they feel because the Labour Party thinks it can dictate the left position before the vote has even been had.
Now is the time to encourage those unsatisfied with policy timidity to vote for a left-er alternative. And for me that's the Greens.
Good discussion, arkie.
I hear you and fully respect your right to disagree.
I also understand where you are coming from re your concern in putting others off.
The left need all the support it can muster to get this lot out but as you know we need to go far beyond that and bring in change that is going to improve life for the majority.
And as the clock is ticking, there is no time to waste. People are really struggling out there.
So it's hard calling Labour out when the left is so reliant on them wining but we really need them to be willing to do far more and at pace.
Otherwise Hipkins will end up being disliked as Keir Starmer was. And that will take a lot to regain voter trust and support for the left again if that occurs
This (fixing the current mess) goes far beyond merely changing the government. Which I can see the Greens claiming as the big win if successful. However, it means little if little else changes.
Fixing the system is the only game in town.
Nothing wrong with voting Green, but I wouldn't be expecting them to get too much through economically.
Yes, Mr Luxon.
I thought Luxon was all about privatising the system not fixing it?
Lacking the courage to say out-loud that he's anti-Green, The Chairman seeks to minimalise, to the point of "having no value", the Greens.
Not at all re lacking the courage.
It's just that I like the Greens but it doesn't mean I'm that tribal I can't criticise them or question them when I see fit
Further, this take on people who do speak out just puts people off them
Why are you diversion trolling my comment?
Not too concerned. Would anyone like the long list of things that Luxon/National didn't campaign on and then decided to do?
No point being the angels when you're fighting the devil. Win first.
Then … "MMP made us do it", redux.
There is no chance – really, none whatsoever – that Labour or the Greens will do what National did on pay equity. (if anyone's forgotten, it went: Every MP votes for it, then every MP votes to scrap what they voted for).
That's how low the bar is, and Labour/Greens etc will clear it comfortably.
How we share wealth is vital to our economic recovery and yes, restructuring our tax system is part of that. Wage and benefit settings along with the cost of expenses also plays a part
Currently, high inflation and stagnant wages are squeezing everyday consumers and small businesses, while large corporations in dominant market sectors (along with their investors, senior leadership and upper management) are reporting high returns. Driving up inflation.
As the saying goes, the rich get richer as the poor get poorer.
This will not improve without some change in the system.
It's a common enough expression, granted, but was Mike subconsciously parroting DJT when he said the coup plotters " they folded like an umbrella?" As Trump did about Janine Perro.
Parroting or channelling?
Unlike many others, I don’t study Trump’s literary oeuvre.
Surprise surprise….
https://bylinetimes.com/2026/08/18/the-peter-thiel-linked-race-science-network-that-penetrated-cambridge-university-and-targeted-jason-arday/
Racist to the core…..and John Key express-tracked Thiel's NZ citizenship.
Says a lot about the National Party.
Snap, spotted this too, but I have an add-on.
https://thestandard.nz/open-mike-18-08-2026/#comment-2070271
Plus more on Cofnas and his motivations.
https://thestandard.nz/open-mike-18-08-2026/#comment-2070288
If you didn’t know it yet, it’s Election Year. This means that there’s a lot more talk about bottoms. Bottom dwellers, scraping bottoms (of barrels), not so much bottom-trawling, bottoming out (of the economic quasi-recession), and bottom lines, for example.
As the wannabe new kid on the block, TOP is avoiding talking about bottoms as much as it can. Whether this is deliberate, trying to please everyone and have a bob each way (aka opportunistic), or political inexperience and naivety, we can debate till the cows’ bottoms run out of methane.
However, it makes it quite difficult to get to know TOP, what they actually stand for, and what they might do when in Parliament. This is a problem – only now we’re getting to know the real Christopher Luxon and it ain’t what the ads promised and the packaging suggested (aka a lemon).
I have commented here that TOP’s policies are vague and lack necessary detail.
Others are saying similar things, which makes me feel as supported as Luxon may feel about Mike Hosking …
https://theconversation.com/the-opportunity-partys-treaty-policy-is-closer-to-labour-than-national-but-is-it-a-bottom-line-289589
Luxon is an arse.
Freedom of speech. I have a rational reply to a comment on Daily Review 18 August from tWig as below but am being knocked back by the system. I think I make a good point and have informative links to the UK law system which has been smothering rights. If someone would like to learn about them just advise and I can put up my comment which I have taken much time to prepare.
19 August 2026 at 11:01 am
You ignore the possibility that McKenzie, the target of the adjective used, may be gay. Or that the tone used was primarily the insult.
RE: My reply there to you on $9k being spent by Gore Council on such a complaint. It also got munched.
In fact, I retracted that statement to say:
However, what is this apparent ‘woke-gone mad’ reporting hiding? There's another $13k under the same complaints budget line. A proper piece of journalism would have added at least a sentence or two on that $13k spend.
Munched, tho’.
That $9k's been well-surpassed by McKenzie Council's $29k investigation.
'A heated conversation in the council reception and later in the chief executive’s office with two other staff members led to what Hocken described as "brushing past" one staff member and closing the door with force on another'
https://www.1news.co.nz/2026/08/19/mackenzie-ratepayers-fork-out-29000-on-councillor-conduct-probe/
State broadcasters told to dig dirt on current council spending?
What’s the point of replying to a comment that isn’t there (anymore) (aka tilting at windmills)?
Most likely, the user may have cancelled or deleted their comment and it went to Trash, so there’s nothing to reply to.
?
My original comment was on Daily Review as I said. It was about a councillor using the word 'gay' and apparently was describing some proposal that she didn't like. Offence was taken.
Source – https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/1052206/investigation-into-councillor-s-use-of-slur-costs-council-8000
I commented this: https://thestandard.nz/daily-review-18-08-2026/#comment-2070257
(Note – that the Council's official/officious manner in which this was investigated cost the Council which then had to pay the official and had GST on top!! Do we pay GST on top of every consultation or argument on government matters, local or central, carried out by private or private/public entities??)
There was a reply with sensible suggestion but missing the point I thought:
observer 3.1 18 August 2026 at 7:50 pm
If you look beyond the headline to the full story you'll see that the process worked as it should. An immediate apology would have cost nothing. But there wasn't one. Reply
Here is further on the 'gaffe' and also info about UKs bad speech legislation which details I put further down at end of present comments.
You ignore the possibility that McKenzie, the target of the adjective used, may be gay. Or that the tone used was primarily the insult.
@tWig – I have received insulting looks and comments for just being unexceptionable me, and have learned that there always will be somebody who will disdain people who aren't exactly like them. I have also found that if I am happy within myself and feel I am doing and being as well as I can, then I feel no pain, perhaps surprise if I notice it, from haughtiness.
There was discussion earlier this year. https://thestandard.nz/hate-speech-laws-threaten-free-speech-keith-locke-memorial-debate-2026/
It is when there is a whole societal faulty behaviour that one should protest; gays have now got freedom to be themselves but the rainbow people still are delicate. It seems that some can not be happy and break from feeling discontented or victimised. A small protest at the time and apology would have been sufficient to deal with this as previously suggested.
Freedom of speech is under threat for sure, and if we want to have lives as fully formed, thinking, mature, self-motivated, confident. happy, human adults in a good, cohesive, tolerant, fair and equitable society, then we had better watch out for zealous demagogues intimidating from personal superiority soapboxes.
UK links on their legislation further down. There is quite an amount of it .
@Incognito – Do you know how much of what we do with government local and central that we must pay GST on?
One last stab at this topic from me, too, as I only found this comment of your just now.
Because, from this comment, I believe your position on this issue boils down to: 'why should my rates pay for a 'snow-flake' councillor who isn't tough enough to take a passing comment? It's woke gone mad!'
And I put forward an argument that will appeal to your wallet, the crux of this whole shebang: Forking out this $9k was a small price to pay.
Now however, as eg Raglan (or possibly Hamilton, or both) Council found, instead of muttering behind closed doors after a few wines and several pointed Letters to the Editor being the fallout from such spats, a whole community can split dangerously into factions, like Roman chariot team supporters, as bitching and upset is misrepresented and amplified on Social Media by the participants.
It may have been 'a storm in a teacup', but that storm enacted in Council meetings would have cost far more in Council time and personal irritation, if not stress. Hence, again $9k was a small price to pay by the ratepayers to keep MPEV at satisfactory levels.
Another thing I learnt from student politics pertaining to your ideas. That whole 'love and care for one another' cuts no ice when our monkey brains are involved in debate. How did I learn this life lesson?
In a small meeting split into two roughly equal camps staring daggers at each other, I, aligned with neither, suggested as a defuser that "We all just give each other a big hug" (actual quote, it was at the tail end of the hippie era). The rest of the room all turned and stared daggers at me instead. Won't try that again.
Thanks for replying tWig but I have so far today put up something on water and protests and existential things and have no time from my own tasks to give it my full attention.
I am probably wrong, you are probably right, but the world today has thought up new ideas like how to do more ruinous things while balancing on a tightrope drawn across space. Deranged madmen follow their obsession to find out where the rope is fastened at each end. I get distracted. And so it goes…
Adieu, adieu, adieu.
I don't want to make every day a Luxon day (if we post them all it would break the server!) but this is the latest in a pattern, and crucially is another indication that National MPs miscalculated in keeping him.
There was a case for Luxon staying as leader and learning. "A wake-up call" as the cliche goes. Getting the message that he has to change.
But there is no case at all for him to emerge from the caucus convinced that his approach is just fine, and doing more of the same.
Another day, another potshot at the dumb voters. So, nothing learned. After all, Mike Hosking told him he's doing great, so why change?
Luxon tells cycleway city Wellington: 'You get what you deserve' | Stuff
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has complained that cycle lanes in Molesworth St made it difficult for him to get from his old apartment at the Kate Sheppard complex to Parliament and the Beehive. …
“Now what you've got is a whole bunch of bike lanes up Molesworth St that made it very difficult for me getting from my apartment into the parliamentary precinct,” Luxon said.
PM says Molesworth St cycle lanes made it difficult to get to work | The Post
On yer bike, Luxon!
PM Luxon tch tch
Whatever that icon means, doesn't matter as nothing seems to mean anything these days apart from what people decide it means on first start.
Mike Hosking on Luxon:
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/08/18/inside-luxons-monday-morning-therapy-session/
What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger – works for many pathogens and viruses too.
Bike lane annihilation is written as a target in the Project 2025 manifesto. Luxon probably sleeps with the manifesto under his pillow, and its pervaded his dreams.
'Within a few months of Trump taking office, the Department of Transportation issued a memo ordering employees to immediately freeze all grants issued after 2021 and identify any projects that provide “funding to advance climate, equity, and other priorities counter to the Administration’s executive orders,” specifically targeting any projects “whose primary purpose is bicycle infrastructure,” '
There’s been more since then, with the term ‘DEI bike lane’ used recently by Trump’s Transportation Secretary. Yup, bike lanes are woke.
https://skepchick.org/2026/08/why-trump-hates-bike-lanes/
Regarding those bike lanes that "made it very difficult for me getting from my apartment into the parliamentary precinct" – these guys put Luxon's
bullshitclaim to the test.https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/361022356/it-very-difficult-cross-molesworth-st-luxon-says-we-check
Has there been a dorkier dork occupying the Prime Minister's office before now?
Very sorry to see Martyn Bradbury involved in a significant fall and hospitalisation.
He is a very important left blog and debate leader for the left.
Get well soon Comrade. We need you, back for the 2026 fight.
Bummer!
The "before" reel of key politicians in Trump's administration.
https://bsky.app/profile/jeffrudd.bsky.social/post/3mtc3vluhjk2c
He needs to get some rest. I hope he gets some support.
Ok so
TOP's UBI is going to be $19,400 tax free
Land tax for land value 470,000 = $8225.
That leaves a single pensioner in their slippers, in their own home which they worked hard all their working life to pay for (out of their income taxed salary and wages)
Has exactly $11,175 left to live on for the whole year. ($215 per week)I imagine there are many rates+ water bills of close to $10,000 per year.
And Gareth Morgan has the gall to say this person is living the high-life of a 'tax loophole'???
The more I look at it, the more I think it's hellish.
Not quite, and before you awake the TOP Dragon, TOP will top up their UBI for people receiving Super ($10k for singles).
TOP figures are based on 2025 or 2024 MSD figures. Comparisons in teh chart. TOP is a bit higher than Super.
The land tax is a shit policy for this very reason. Tax high wealth instead, and use a CGT on property when people well. Land taxes are regressive, and they force low income people to sell and move somewhere cheaper, which harms communities.
Hipkins was on fire in the house the other day. One of his best performances.
See here and share (starts at 51.15 in)
https://www.youtube.com/live/6p-oITDKx7s?si=bOzCVmZheZWsuovq&t=3075
Just listened to Question Time and, in particular, the General Debate in the House – and it's more than obvious that the right wing trio are going to make a big thing of taxes – tarring ali the left with the whole range of proposed taxes indiscriminately.
Labour, Greens and TPM (and to an extent OP) need to have a clear strategy to counter the completely superficial crap that is going to be spouted by the Atlas Network influencers.
The tax ploy is already tiresome and we must steel ourselves for a deluge of invented claims from all across the Right wing. They're betting voters will believe the barrage of misinformation/lies and chances are high that they will. The research does show the method works and National et al. have paid big money for the best advice on winning-no-matter-what-it-takes.
Joel MacManus at The Spinoff had a sharp piece on this today.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/19-08-2026/nationals-tax-claims-tripped-up-labour-but-misleading-marketing-comes-with-risks
Fox Meyer at Newsroom has been critical of National’s election tactics.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/08/11/national-uses-nonsensical-ai-website-to-attack-labours-tax-policy/
Yes, the right are trying to create voter fear of taxes from the left and it's working on some.
The left need to do more to counter this. Not only showing most won't be captured but also pointing out user pays tends to cost far more
All credit to Luxon – he's handled the "erase all mention of climate change from the curriculum" issue with his usual elegance:
"The education minister has instructed the Ministry of Education to reinstate climate change into the science and social sciences curriculums, following criticism from opposition.
It comes after Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the Government’s priority was to teach children to “read and do maths” when asked about the omission."
(italicising mine).
Genius response from a very astute amoeba.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/08/19/govt-to-reinstate-climate-change-in-curriculum-u-turn/
It wasn’t me! I know nothing!
Indeed, she didn’t even know anything about the leadership coup when she was summoned to Wellington for that infamous meeting – what’s all this about??
FFS! The dog ate my homework.
Took hand-washing lessons from Lady Macbeth.
And she’ll be using Lux soap!
Ha!
Do you know the "Lindworm"?
Shed a shift, slough a skin?
Very Stanford/Luxon, Willis/Luxon.
https://www.worldoftales.com/European_folktales/Norwegian_folktale
No, I don’t know that. The link doesn’t work for me!?
Organising and a strong progressive message beats big money.
In an upset for the Democratic establishment, progressive Angie Nixon won the party’s US Senate primary in Florida, beating former army intelligence officer Alexander Vindman.
Nixon, a state representative and member of the Democratic Socialists of America, had significantly less funding going into the primary – with $975,000 to Vindman’s $16.3m at the end of July, according to Florida Politics.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/18/angie-nixon-alex-vindman-florida-results
Can't resist a bit of Florida gossip. 1. Bookending you, Trump's pick for Governor, a black republican, won their nomination decisively. 2. One of Governor de Santis's political sidekicks just got charged with sexual abuse of his young grandson. Under law he strongly supported when in legislature, the sidekick will face the death penalty if guilty.
https://www.rawstory.com/mike-caruso-florida-death-penalty/
Florida men….
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5gKfXdxJSvE
MAGA congressman Randy Fine has a strange way of connecting with his constituents.
A Ring doorbell camera captured the Florida representative scouring through a homeowner’s mailbox while he was canvassing over the weekend, according to footage obtained by TMZ.
[…]
As he waited for an answer, the GOP congressman can be seen looking at the homeowner’s mailbox on the exterior wall, opening it, and rifling through the envelopes inside.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/florida-maga-rep-randy-fine-caught-rummaging-through-voters-mailbox/
This clip shows the fiery Ms Nixon protesting Florida redistricting in the legislature.
https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3mtfuc6q2vc23
Brilliant. The article says she had "significantly" less funding. Too true-she had 6% of teh funding of the guy she beat. Epic.
Offensive speech laws in the UK: The taking offence has gone to extremes in UK as below. Here are some Brit stats about their myriad laws revolving around hate speech which can be deemed offensive and bring a person under The Authority's notice. I think it is invasive in people's dealings; unnecessary to go to that level.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8537/CBP-8537.pdf
[Details that summarise the laws under 1 England and Wales 1.1 Background – Definitions.] (I can't manipulate the site to copy the info.)
and https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/hate-crime-reports
and Disclosure and Banning Service https://www.gov.uk/search/all?keywords=disclosure+and+banning+service
and https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/homophobic-biphobic-and-transphobic-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance
And GWS, your point is what? I'd point out that transphobia is no longer considered hate speech. That you can say you think trans people should suffer harm all you want.
That Starmer, when PM, used the phrase 'island of strangers' to condone hardline anti-migrant policies. That there have been race riots in the past 3 months across NI and England, where numerous people of colour, including children, have had their homes fire-bombed, or been pulled out of their cars, all without any strong government condemnation or repression, just an 'oh well, the rioters are upset by the migrant thingy'.
The rw Reform/Restore English and Unionist Irish leaders who incited these riots have not been charged with inciting violence, because they used mealy words like Trump on Jan 6th. Very few fire-bombers and rioters have been charged. Sometimes the police have just made themselves scarce.
In contrast, over 3,000 people have been arrested for saying or holding signs with 'I support Palestine Action' as a protest against the UK government's refusal to denounce the Gaza genocide.
Puts your fret about UK hate speech legislation into perspective, somewhat.
If transphobia is not hate speech why is saying 'gay' something that costs a council $000s to deal with? Saying 'a rose by any other name' thing. I don't have a good feel about your explanation tWig from a rational future POV. Hope I'm not right.
Because I think you have completely misunderstood the issue as reported. This is not about being hauled into a police station to be red-flagged about your hateful language, as per UK, after calling a random a racist or sexist term. Its about individual councils' Codes of Conduct, which require respectful behaviour between councillors and toward council staff.
One councillor has said something that another found disrespectful. When told that, possibly in an aggressive manner, the first refused to apologise. Because that falls into the Code of Conduct, there was an independent inquiry, and probably mediation, to identify who was dissing who, and to get some mutual resolution.
The same inquiry could have taken place if no slurs were involved, as in the McKenzie case, which involved shouting and shoving. It's not the name-calling, it's the context and intent to disrespect someone. It well could have been “I refuse to accept your point of order, Councillor, you hairy, stinking fart who will never amount to anything”.
Yes, GWS I feel as if you have missed out on decades of workplace training in our society, as we have refined our ideas around what constitutes respectful language in formal settings. Have you heard the term 'microaggressions', for example?
The simplest example of respectful behaviour is a sincere apology when you have said something that someone else finds offensive, even if you said it without any malicious intent. Then not saying it in the future.
That's kind of the bottom line for interactions in diverse and multi-cultural societies, and across generations.
I also worry about you too, GWS. There is significant rw propaganda against 'woke' speech. it's a thin disguise for being able to subtly and not so subtly disparage and bully groups of people who don't fit your preferences.
And so it goes. My last word and thank goodness eh! Courtesy and robust opinions always are awkward bedmates but the sensitive victim-oriented are rising uncomfortably and it makes me sick. Expletives and vulgar expressions occur uncivilly echoing a brasher, pushy society. It relates to the 'me, me' syndrome. There are bigger issues affecting truly vulnerable people that can be insensitively bypassed yet this self-ego thing goes on and on.
We can all read history and realise that new ways must be established. But new understanding of how competitive and callous we are would help broader and wiser views. Respecting all others' 'soul' and looking for the good and appreciating it in others, and oneself, with less personal put-downs would make us into a better society.
Sorry if this doesn't fit in with whatever you have been taught. Perhaps you can start thinking some stuff up for yourself and not be moulded by those voicing and modelling the latest memes. (You won't be surprised by my solitary position in a psycho-social exercise where people voted for the person in the room they felt most drawn to; bit of a shock for me. But I think you have a chance of hearing individual perspective.)
I always ‘think stuff up for myself’ since being raised Catholic in the 70s. That provided me with a great bullshit detector. I also learned then to champion the underdog. And a science education taught me about the importance of evidence.
+1 tWig
"Perhaps you can start thinking some stuff up for yourself "
… is not a helpful way to engage in good faith discussion.
What's wrong with that sentence observer? You choose to pick it out from a longer comment. The comment was largely about attitudes of sensitivity to trans-type words and phrases. Context is everything in this.
There has been quite a lot of discussion about this away from our politics directly. I am sensitive about that while watching the demolition of our welfare state and its replacement with overbearing tech machine control and a kleptocracy carried out by kleptomaniacs who take glee in their work and feel no remorse.
Also the end of reliable growing seasons, and water supplies then science and weapons worship, with religious belief becoming the equivalent of good husbandry of assets in prosperity churches. So all these millions of words over a century of discussion about politics have led to the convoluted system we have with actors playing the parts of keen, informed citizens. Let's think now, at the last minute of civilised time. Do it for all those lovely young people coming along who haven't been spoiled by consumerism and lax parents.
Alexander Pope in 1733-1734 said the proper study of mankind is man. We have sufficient levels of education to be thinking about his posit as early as intermediate school,Note from Jonathan Swift's 'Lilliput'
Allan Bloom [USA philosopher] asserts that Swift's lampooning of the experiments of Laputa is the first questioning by a modern liberal democrat of the effects and cost on a society which embraces and celebrates policies pursuing scientific progress. but aren't. Our situation is declining,our willingness to concentrate on the game plan of life pathetic, our so-called civilisation bizarre.
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › An_Essay_on_Man