http://www.ala4christ.com/

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…

Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious. ~ Peter Ustinov…

National – short term, no real vision, and looking for a quick fix to a current symptom. Definitely a populist move as it gives people someone else to look down on. Doesn’t really think about the true costs – it is under-budgeted, and under detailed. The military (rightly) would hate to do this and would drag the chain – doesn’t fit their mission. Same as work for the dole didn’t think about allocating enough of a budget to make it more than a putative exercise.

Labour – longer term, and has a chance of fixing an underlying problem of generational transmission of lack of skills. Does have a more realistic budget. But is definitely not orientated to pandering to the moment. You can see why Labour is disliked by the main stream media – they don’t produce headlines that sell newspapers or get people to read ads.

Obviously, I prefer labour’s approach. I’m really only interested in long term fixes.

Kids with separated parents tend to move back and forth between parents, living at different households at different times, usually with their parents respective new partners. Must help with socialization. Thats not to say they’re without issues – but I find them less screwed up on average

Who introduced the DPB as a lifestyle choice, thus incentivising fatherless families, and all the downstream social pathologies that flow from this deficient [anti-] family model? Liarbour again.

What a pile of bollocks. If you look at the stats on the DPB, you find the vast majority of people on it are there for less than 5 years. Typically as a result of a marriage breakup with young kids and while the kids get old enough to not require fulltime supervision.

Amongst the people I know who have been on the DPB, one now runs a factory, three are lawyers (seems to be a popular retraining option), one is in marketing, and none of them were on it for more than 5 years.

Seems like a more sensible option than forcing marriages to stay together both for the kids and for the partners.

Put it this way;
The “natural” voting bloc that supports the Nats is probably around the 35%-40% of the population (same for Labour too) with the remaining 20%-30% being spread across the rest of the political spectrum.

With National polling at 50% at present, they will know that some of those voters (probably 10% of the population) are ‘traditionally’ Labour party supporters, so they need to make a call about the best way to hold that groups attention.

Making a couple of educated guesses about that demographic, I’d speculate that they’re lower-middle income households, probably with families, and may not have got a great deal from WFF.

I suspect, given the latest media headlines on crime, that this group is accutely aware of what it’s like to feel unsafe in their own neighbourhood. I think they’ll respond favourably to any promises of cracking down on gangs and youth crime.

To put it another way; it may not make good policy, but it does make good politics.

I agree but on the other hand I think Key’s ideas will be perceived as a bit more forceful than HC’s ‘more of the same but better’, especially with the crime stories going around today on gunfights in Manukau and stroppy teen ticked off by judge.

Key basically got a free run on TV and she may not because they will be contrasting the two and asking ‘after nine years what’s new?” . Raising the leaving age I don’t think is that dramatic a policy, especially after Key has effectively said the same thing.

“The nats are a great party for dealing with symptoms rather than root causes. Done it all the time I’ve been politically aware.

“They’re also great at causing problems, leaving it to the left to clean up.”

Really?

The problem is the welfare state. Who created the welfare state in the first place? Liarbour.

Who (in the wake of the McCarthy Royal Commission of 1972 created “entitlement-based” welfare without demanding reciprocal responsibilities from bebeficiaries? Liarbour again.

Who introduced the DPB as a lifestyle choice, thus incentivising fatherless families, and all the downstream social pathologies that flow from this deficient [anti-] family model? Liarbour again.

For an excellent history of the welfare state in NZ that every NZer should read, see:

http://www.act.org.nz/node/20743

With one in three working age NZers now dependent on some form of gummint benefit, who should get the blame? Liarbour.

The nats are a great party for dealing with symptoms rather than root causes. Done it all the time I’ve been politically aware.

They’re also great at causing problems, leaving it to the left to clean up. The left in government have been dealing with the consequences of the Mother of all budgets in the early 90′s, ever since they came into office. This has been mainly by getting people back to work, but also trying to repair the social damage in schools, housing, etc etc.

In this case we are talking about the people (who are now teens) whose families and lives were destroyed by that budget and its after effects.

Since the nats are so predicable about causing social problems – I wonder what ones they are planning now, so they can use the results for an election strategy a decade or so later.

Now that was almost paranoid – I’m starting to sound like a right wing loon. See what being associated with extremists does to a centrist.

Also, Labour and experts got to tear Key’s policy apart and then Labour was right back on the initiative.