You mean just as Labour did when Helen Clark was the leader of a minority government
Yes, exactly. I was disappointed when Labour decided that they'd govern alone or not at all. Just to be clear, the third paragraph in my post was supposed to explain that:
( I said) And if Labour choose the "anything but government" option again... that's not my preference, and my vote will have expressed that in the only way it can.
Clark seemed to understand what government requires better than the recent crop of Labour leaders, and I think one of her major failings was in tranistion/succession planning. She didn't leave an obvious successor behind, or apparently anyone both able and interested in leading. But we're hopefully past that point and the new Labour leaders will prove interested in government rather than just being "leader of the second most popular party".
I'm definitely interested in what policies Labour bring to the table, and could see myself voting for them. I'm already split voting, because of late Labour have actively campaigned for me to party vote Green, candidate vote Labour. It's very easy to do that when both parties I support are asking for the same thing. Although it feels odd when one of them says they're doing that because they hate the other, and one because they want to work with the other. But not odd enough to get me to vote for Nick Smith. TBH, I'd vote for Kim Dotcom before I'd vote for Nick Smith (and yes I know that would be a wasted vote. That's my point).
I am just wondering what or who all those folk merrily abandoning Labour might be offering as alternatives
One can only hope that this version of Labour is willing to accept that MMP is a thing and contemplate governing with the assistance of other parties. Which means that there are many choices for people who kinda like some things Labour (used to?) stand for but don't necessarily want to vote for whatever it is that Little-Labour might turn out to want.
So for me, there's The Greens, Mana, possibly even a Green-Libertarian party if one of those arose. Sheesh, if The Greens appointed Steffan Green as leader I might even vote for the Internet Party.
And if Labour choose the "anything but government" option again... that's not my preference, and my vote will have expressed that in the only way it can.
As in the News of the World that shut down after getting caught in the phone hacking act?
Yes. There is no connection between profitability and hacking, let me assure you of that ;)
If, for example, someone set up a new newspaper, TV news venture, or some other form of news, would the general population not support it to the same level as the existing mainstream media?
When Russel finishes playing with his collection of luxury cars I'm sure he'll explain how profitable dabbling in the investigative news business is. Or you could check on how profitable The Guardian is if you want a more newspaper-on-the-web outlet.
Big hint: Rupert's newspapers mostly lose money, and more news-focussed they are the more they lose - News of the World is kinda profitable, The Australian loses money like a pokie addict.
improving tenants' rights
Both, but a bit of this would go a long way. As with many things, it's all fine as long as your landlord is reasonable (or your tenants are reasonable, as the case may be). The problem is that there's no social pressure to be a decent landlord, and no real legal requirement either. The idea that any tenant should be able to stay in the property until they're ready to leave just doesn't occur in the law, or to most landlords.
The law is almost written around the needs to "accidental landlords", those nice upper class people who get the opportunity to study at Cambridge for a year, or a grant to finish their novel in Paris. So they want to rent out their house while they're away, but they have no idea what they're doing and they might need to come back unexpectedly (etc).
If we flipped that and said to those people "hire a professional", and directed the law at the 99% of landlords who buy investment properties with the intention of renting them out, I think we'd do a lot better by the people we choose to exclude from home ownership.
This has also crossed my mind, Since we don't have any choice and all our metadata (loosely defined) is recorded and available to all and sundry, surely there are options to use that to our own advantage. Possibly not down to "death threat on phone = in jail", but a lot of the online threats presumably get scooped up and there are already laws against doing that. Which, incidentally, is something I struggle to understand. If a twitter user makes a death threat, linking a meatsack to that account is the obstacle and that's where IP tracking through the courts should work. And apparently the police do that all the time...
There was an article in The Guardian the other day that private investigators in Oz are starting to demand access to metadata through the courts, and it's working. So far only a few cases, but I suspect that one will become a regular even in civil lawsuits. If only I could find the article...
Also, on a slight tangent, Emily Nagoski has an interesting article on "fuck yes" consent up today.
I entirely agree that it should not be this way, but Moz is not saying it should be either, he's merely admitting that the position exists. The difference between what is legally true and what people expect to be true is often a hideous chasm.
Thank you. I was beginning to wonder whether what I'd posted was so hideously miswritten that it was gibberish.
I was actually one step nicer than even your expectations, to be honest, and thinking about people who expect that at some stage during their marriage they might have sex with their spouse. Many people, possibly even most, wouldn't feel it necessary to discuss that explicitly before the wedding. And might therefore bring it up some time after the wedding when it turns out that that unspoken assumption was apparently wrong. Not in the "you must sex me now" sense, but in the "oh my love, I begin to think I was wrong to expect sex after marriage. Was I, in fact, mistaken?" sort of way. This being a "moving beyond no" sort of discussion.
In the context of a "yes means yes" article it's interesting that no-one else is ready to even concede that that might be a possible way to approach consent.
(and Lilith, yes, Adrienne Rich)
we're talking about consenting to sex rather than breaking some random contract. It doesn't matter what reason someone has for not consenting. "I don't want to" is sufficient.
I was specifically talking about peoples reason for consenting, and how those can be judged invalid by others. At the extreme is the Mary Daly "no woman can consent to sex with a man" or the Dworkin/Mckinnon "cold light of day with lawyers" version. And at the other I suppose is the "I got drunk so I could throw myself at this guy I liked, but he said no so I screwed some random dude who happened to be nearby".
I find it somewhat tiresome that we're apparently already retracing past threads here. But, what the heck: marriage is regarded by many people as involving sex, and therefore consenting to marriage is a statement that you do intend to have sex at some point. It's not consent to a specific act at a specific time and place, but many people would consider ongoing refusal to be a betrayal unless discussed before marriage. The law, of course, does not even require spouses to reside in the same country, let alone communicate with each other or share anything.
Euan, marriage definitely does not imply consent, though it used to - rape is rape, also within marriage. This has been the case legally for some years.
I suspect his point was that the law and people's expectations often differ. We see this all the time in a whole range of legal areas, and much of legal practice consists exactly of getting a judge to decide what's reasonable given inconsistent expectations of two parties bound by simple written agreement. When it's two parties operating without a written a greement in a situation of deliberate ambiguity the complexity rises significantly.
There's also a huge gulf between "not a huge fan but I'll do it for reasons" and "fuck no!", and everyone I've met has "reasons" that are acceptable and ones that are not. So adding a third party doesn't necessarily simplify the situation, especially if that third party is explicitly there to judge the reasons...