Expectations colour much of our sexual behaviour.
People wish to be desirable and that can be an important turn on. By striving to be desirable they are not implying consent, but their desirability may provoke unrealistic expectations among those experiencing the desire.
Similarly, IMO, marriage does not necessarily imply consent, although many people, particularly men, would disagree - expectations again.
Unrealised expectations of frequency of sex, type of sex, and responses to sex can undermine relationships.
Media portrayals of sex tend to foster expectations, often unrealistic ones.
Fewer expectations = a healthier relationship, in my view.
According to The Herald, Slater appears to have tried to arrange a prison hit.
Is there enough evidence for a prosecution? What are the legal implications of this type of info?
"My pick is that if Robertson did get chosen, then Key would either tell Slater to pull his head in, or he would distance himself from Slater as much as possible. And that might be very hard to pull off, because I don’t think Slater would take kindly to being shoved away. Key is actually stuck with the guy now, and we’ve only seen the beginning of how toxic that could prove for National."
Ben, Slater's oxygen is getting tidbits of inside info and then having journalists follow his lead. Stop the tidbits and he's a nobody, and ditto if the parroting journalists stop parroting. It surely has to be the kiss of death for a journo to parrot him now?
Do you imagine that Key has undergone some sort of rebirth towards centrist politics? IMO he's just as neoliberal as he always was, but he recognises that in ACT he would wield no power, while pretending to be centrist in National he can blame entreme stuff, such as privatisation of education, on ACT.
The debate here is not about core Labour values, but about who has the charisma and intelligence to stop Key et al. from stuffing the country. Labour should stop arguing about factions and so called core values and focus on the crisis at hand and the need to find a leader who can recapture the treasury benches.
Labour should take a punt and install her as leader
.. if she wants it. The pressure is not fair if she isn’t ready, for the good of the Party. Think about it.
I agree, but what would give her pause is all the competition from over-ambitious colleagues who delude themselves that they are in a strict pecking order for the PM spot. With loyal support from them she would do well, I think, and that would be good for the party.
I am sure David Cunliffe is a nice, smart fellow, but he consistently fails to communicate effectively with voters. He always sounds defensive, he often sends a slightly off message, and he lacks the charisma to front the party and challenge a loved PM like John Key.
A large minority of NZers worships JK, even after all the revelations in Dirty Politics, ministerial resignations, assets sales, unswimmable rivers, punitive policies for beneficiaries, tax cuts for his rich mates, huge deficits, memory “lapses”, expensive and ineffective charter schools, and failed responses to climate change. The man is a master manipulator of the media and a clever dissembler. Labour needs someone who can cut through all that and connect with the public. DC is not that person, and neither is GR. I think Jacinda Ardern shows promise – she’s sharp on message, inoffensive, and likeable in front of a camera. Labour should take a punt and install her as leader with the full support of the party, then sort out how to bring all of National’s failures into focus while offering a positive alternative in partnership with the Greens (who performed far better than Labour with their own natural constituency).
""And please can people stop saying half of New Zealand voted for National … sigh.""
"Can we say half of them didn’t?
I think, statisticaly, that is more accurate."
No it isn't. Roughly a million voted for National and another million didn't vote at all. The remainder voted for someone else.
This is a thought provoking post, and a much needed one. New Zealand is approaching the status of a one party state, much as it did after the 2002 election, and the “critic and conscience” role of academics is therefore more important than usual.
I was deeply disturbed when in response to Mike Joy’s clearly articulated and well-supported statements about water quality the Hon. John Key said that he could always provide another academic to give a counterview. The implication is that for John Key, “evidence-based policy” means finding a source of evidence that apparently supports what you have already decided to do.
Russell, if you received a Canon Media Award for the best blog would you feel honoured or horrified? :)
Labour lost, they are not the Government, they have not been accused of corrupt behaviour, there has been no scandal of conflict of interest, there has not been a suggestion of obstruction of justice, there has been no evidence of deliberate destruction of the reputations of public figures, there has been no reports of cash for favours.