I think it's generous to take what they say at face value. They often slap on this sort of handwaving away of the predictable negative outcomes of whatever they're proposing to roll back. It's not actually backed up with anything - it's just designed to let them have it both ways.
Kinda like their tax cuts they say won't be inflationary, and their foreign buyer ban relaxation that they say somehow won't lead to house prices going up.
Hard to know whether our wages are too low, or costs are too high, or both. But yeah, looking at how low some of these cap out after a few years' experience and our insane housing costs, you can see why trades may struggle to attract people.
I think there's a short to medium term outlook where parts of the trades sector are very much boom and bust, and then a longer term one where we aren't training enough people to replace an aging workforce overall.
I wasn't arguing? I was pointing out something to be concerned about if the concern is the cost of living crisis.
What I was arguing was that increases to worker conditions gets opposed by vested interests on the same grounds every time, regardless of what the economy is doing. See, here's former National MP Simon Power in Parliament in 2003 opposing the Holidays Act, which brought annual leave up from 3 weeks to the 4 we have now.
We will not support a bill that is harmful to both employers, and people struggling out there to make a dollar in business, and we will not support a bill that, in the long run, will be bad for workers. National will be voting against this bill.
Mate, if you're concerned about the cost of living you should be worried about National prepared to dump over $15 billion onto the housing market through tax cuts geared at the upper end, landlord incentives and reintroducing foreign buyers. At the same time they're wanting to put through other changes that will restrict new supply. Prices are going to absolutely explode again.
I honestly don't know how these types of changes track against the prevailing economic state, and it suspect it doesn't really matter - every rise to the minimum wage, every increase in entitlements gets the same response.
You could probably go check out the Parliament hansard records from 2007 when annual leave when from 3 weeks to 4 and find the exact same arguments.
I'm acting awfully tired of you all over every thread just raging out with act party talking points. I have much more time for people who hold different views but are receptive to an actual discussion
That specific reason? I don't know, the article didn't say but their quote from them alluded to it.
The book does go into that feeling that it seems wrong on a values basis for most people, how the prevailing view in protest movements over the past 40 years or so has been that absolute non-violent protest (specifically that which extends to include inanimate objects, i.e. property, it doesn't advocate violence against people) is the only acceptable way to bring about change.
It then makes a case for targeted, direct action against property that is locking us into the climate crisis, given the urgency, lack of action from governments, and effort by industry to block and delay any action. Its pretty much the 'target the people who have the power to change things' that gets brought up in opposition to this kind of action.
So I dunno, you find me out there doing any of this stuff, but it was an interesting read and makes you think about how the calls to completely passive protest as the only acceptable type is pushed by the status quo because it doesn't work
Did you even read the article you posted, or just the bits where the guy was all
Restore Passenger Rail spokesperson James Cockle said they targeted the car dealer because the car industry was "against sustainable transportation".
"Your luxuries are killing us. The people selling these $200,000 utes and SUVs don't care about our future.
"The obscenely rich are lobbying against us having sustainable transport systems and are turbo-charging the climate crisis with more motorways and more luxury emissions."
Now the government can't implement the stated goals or the next group protesting will try something even worse. >
I mean, they'll say that yes. But for a terrible example think back to the parliament occupation and how the realm of acceptable discourse shifted, despite how it ended and despite how a huge majority of the country hated them. Doing anything to mitigate against covid is a political third rail now.
Also on Gazeley, they were one of the car dealerships on Cambridge tce that mounted legal action against a cycleway through there. This 'just directly go to the government' thing just isn't how society works and isn't where all the power lies.
I feel like a few loyalty/discount type programmes have been shutting down recently. From bigger ones like this, to smaller ones like the stamp cards you sometimes get at food places.
I guess they're a way of addressing inflation by cutting costs instead of raising sticker prices, which the reptilian part of our brains notice more readily
Maori were pretty much all over before Europeans, in a lot of cases I'm sure they had a name for an area that later became a European settlement
Even if they didn't, why should Te Reo be frozen in time at 1840? All languages evolve and take on new words and so on. Why shouldn't it incorporate new words for things and places that didn't exist before?
I think it's generous to take what they say at face value. They often slap on this sort of handwaving away of the predictable negative outcomes of whatever they're proposing to roll back. It's not actually backed up with anything - it's just designed to let them have it both ways.
Kinda like their tax cuts they say won't be inflationary, and their foreign buyer ban relaxation that they say somehow won't lead to house prices going up.