Note that those are systematic problems and you're only seeing one headline. In Victoria there's a weird situation where architects can't get professional liability insurance because of the huge liability from all the shitty buildings, so the government has removed that requirement. While also talking about imposing stricter requirements on building professionals...
There are so many dodgy aspects to the industry here that it's hard to know where to start the list (and that affects NZ because we share regulations and many products/companies cross the Tasman. Oh, and the banks...) Even my boss who is a property developer thinks the systems we have are unsatisfactory (but he uses stronger language). What shocks me is that banks here will still lend to people buying, especially apartments. We *know* that the vast majority are not fit for purpose but the banks will still lend against them.
How would you label the spectrum that's not obviously biased, other than green-brown?
survival-suicide is the obvious alternative, but the hard browns have already defined those terms as referring only to economics. Most of the rest have similar definitional issues and I'm struggling to come up with other anyonyms for green, or synonyms for that matter. "anti climate change - pro climate change"is just clumsy and also confuses people who think "pro climate change" means wanting to minimise the scale of the catastrophe..
we’re using blue-red and green-brown political spectra now?
IMO the green-brown one is the only relevant one to use. (More) mass deaths or not, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to take arms against a sea of trouble and all that.
Observation suggests that the black logo signifies scorched-earth or perhaps merely nihilism.
My take is more: this is an emergency, we need to do everything that might work. So my criteria for actions that I support is “will this be catastrophic? Has it been proven so?” and if not then I think it’s better than the current path. Because the current path will be catastrophic, that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Mere inconvenience pales into insignificance next to the high probability of dying as a climate refugee.
Stopping public transport is unbelievably stupid
Really? Political leaders all over the world are publicly commiting to wipe out 9-10 billion people and delaying a train is the thing that strikes you as stupid?
Admittedly I disagree with XR about the idea that simply telling the truth will make a difference, that’s an idea that has been thoroughly discredited. Again, we have people like Jacinda Ardern taking to the world stage to declare that climate change is a huge problem and she intends to make it worse. Sure, there are people who deny that it’s a problem (or that it exists at all), but they are only incidental targets for XR as I understand it. The primary target is people like the kiwi PM who say “I accept the reality of climate change, and the need for urgent action, but I absolutely refuse to take meaningful action or even be specific about what that action might be”.
It might be more obvious where I am in Australia, where 90% of the voters are resolutely commited to business as usual and the government is busy criminalising dissent. But in Aotearoa the number is only slightly better, Labour has a significant core of deny, delay and deflect members and voters (as well as all the voters to the brown of Labour). *they* are the target.
It’s all those commuters on said trains going “oh, maybe we should avoid catastrophe later, but not if it’s inconvenient now”, all the media commentators saying “30 years of going through the proper channels and asking nicely has got us into this mess, but we’re sure that if you keep doing that we’ll get out if it again”, all the other people saying “I accept the science but I have other things to do than worry about my future, or my children’s future”.
I never have used recreational drugs
Can you just clarify whether that includes legal psychoactive substances like alcohol and caffeine? Remember the laughter when the UK proposed to outlaw *all* psychoactive substances, and the horror when they did?
Only the self-righteous may enter the kingdom of heaven?
And now featured by the Guardian in their 'bicycle architecture' photo spread!
Family Fist is concerned about violent behaviour? Talk about the worm turning, whatever happened to "god given right to punch children in the face"?
“Kiwibuild debacle” – sounds like you have swallowed the National party line on this
The rule is that any government programme that succeeds is obvious and what the opposition would have done were they accorded the respect they desrve; and any programme that fails is a complete debacle, entirely the fault of the relevant minister (who should resign) and also symptomatic of the failings of the government in general.
(insert National, Labour or whatever as appropriate).
The above pretty much summarises what is wrong with modern parliamentary politics. It doesn't matter how good an idea is, or even if it was longstanding policy of the opposition when they formed the previous government and all that remains is to pass the bill they introduced to implement it, now that it is those morons in charge the bill will be opposed and if possible voted down.