Here is the News.

The left got skewed. Rather than everyone should contribute to the best of their ability, it's become no expectation of contribution.

Your idea of the left is certainly not universal. Maybe the UK has completely cooked on this, as on other issues.

Which is implicit in what I said. But I believe it holds water. The community should expect it's members to contribute even if it's not filling potholes. If we don't change our approach somehow, we are fucked. Growing economic inactivity with an aging population.

Inaccurate? Any discussion on tax reform (including this one) regresses to am I better off doesn't it?

Depends. If "better off" can take a societal view, then yes. Will we get better public transport, safer cities, cleaner air, sustainable electricity etc and so forth then most on the nominal Left will be fine with higher taxes if they can afford it.
It's the self-absorbed centre and sociopathic Right that only look at their personal bottom line. In general, obvs.

It's this kind of attitude that tends to make the the populace in general roll their eyes when the left starts spouting. The center tends to perhaps be a bit more commercially driven but have a social conscience. Wanting similar goals but via a slightly more pragmatic mechanism. The worthiness of the left stops them getting a good hearing.

It's that kind of attitude that makes the centre so antithetical to change. Looking for excuses and equating "both sides" rather than saying "that doesn't apply to me, but I can see how some people might be seen that way".
Blame the Left for forcing them to cede to the Right

Id pay more tax if I thought those things would improve. But I'm far from convinced they will. We have to find c3% more of GDP to spend on defence before any of those things get a look in.

The exchange a few days back on trains (public transport) for example, I just don't know how the network could get better without closing it for a few years to start again.

Also in that debate someone said they wanted cheaper fares under government ownership. I'm kind of the opposite, would pay more if it meant getting a seat and long distance trains running on time without people standing in every available space.

On this, I'm pretty much in agreement. Although, in AoNZ, our Labour party buckled under pressure and became very Tory-lite. It's decades of under-investment and poor long-term vision from all parties.

As an aside, I've seen you use AoNZ now. Is that what NZ is now known as within NZ (I've not seen it used elsewhere)?

Aotearoa NZ. Using it makes it easier to use it, if that makes sense. We have a pretty openly racist government right now, and supporting the indigenous (in this case, "first") people is a painless positive.

Thoughts Gentlemen?

Chicago: Interested in opinions

FFS. Very Mary Whitehouse. Should he have done that? No. Should he be prosecuted? Also no.

There’s a legal question of whether it’s likely enough that a law was broken to roll out plod, and that plod is generally prone to roll out when that law is broken. If so, there’s not much to argue against investigating.

Then there may be a whole seperate thing about whether or not that law should exist (or the form in which it is exists).

‘Death to the IDF’ doesn’t seem like a statement that someone should be arrested for in the UK. It’s pretty targeted at a very powerful arm of a very powerful state. It’s punching a long way up. Would ‘Death to the Russian Army’ or Death to the North Korean Army’ have the same consequences? Probably not. I don’t see why Israeli soldiers should get special protection from people saying mean things.

2 out of those 4 things are exact opposites to what I personally want...