Written By: - Date published: 4:28 pm, August 11th, 2008 - 105 comments
Categories: benefits, national, same old national -
Tags:
Wonder of wonders, the Nats’ benefits policy has an 11 page document attached to it. Oh, wait, it’s mostly just stats ripped from the MSD website and long-winded rewordings of the bullet-points, not actual detail of the Nats’ policy.
So, what have we got from the party that proclaims it wants more disciplined spending, less red-tape, and fewer bureaucrats? More spending, including an increase of more than 1% on the cost of the DPB from the higher start off point for abatements*. More red-tape with more assessments needed for Sickness Beneficiaries and greater oversight from MSD of doctors who provide medical certifies for those benefits, budget training for certain beneficiaries, new work requirements in certain circumstances for DPB, Sickness, and Invalids’ beneficiaries (which will, in turn, need exceptions in certain circumstances), and a more complex sanction process for unemployment beneficiaries who fail to look for work. More public servants to administer all of this; easily hundreds more. Most of this is tired old ideas that failed in the 1990s. So much for the public service cap. So much for National’s ambitious new vision.
All of this is silly solutions in search of a problem. Beneficiary numbers are falling, the cost of the system is falling, and the number of long-term beneficiaries is falling even faster. The DPB work requirements would not apply to the 60% of recipients caring for a child under 6, or the 20% already earning an income, or the 22% who state their child’s health is a barrier to work. The 29% who state their own health is a barrier to work might simply be shifted to the invalids’ benefit. And what of the few it does apply to? What if they can’t find work that neatly fits within school hours? Should they leave their children home alone or just keep attending taxpayer-funded training? There is no long-term DPB dependency problem: 64% of DPB recipients have been getting it less than four years and only 11% (that’s 10,000 parents) have had it for longer than 10 years (many of them will have children with severe health issues). This is not about solutions; it’s just beneficiary bashing to grab a few votes.
*(I’m in favour of that, but the issue is National’s inconsistency).
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
“If there is one thing blogging should teach you BDTR, is that it is absolutely unsafe to make assumptions about who you are talking to.”
I don’t see that you have at all disproved my “assumption”. You can still quite easily qualify as nomenklatura. Its all about state sponsored favouritism.
The point is Singapore DOES NOT NEED WELFARE.
Didn’t even look at the link I provided above did you? In absolute denial of the truth aren’t we. The fact is that appalling poverty DOES EXIST in Singapore, but it gets well hidden.
Besides, poverty and homelessness in a hot country is one thing… it is a wholly more brutal thing in a cold damp one.
Because without some form of safety net, that is the reality… people dying in the streets and back roads of cold, hunger and illness.
I’ll just rip a bit from wikipedia:
Although Singapore’s laws are inherited from British and British Indian laws, including many elements of English common law, the PAP has also consistently rejected liberal democratic values, which it typifies as Western and states there should not be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution to a democracy. There are no jury trials. Laws restricting the freedom of speech are justified by claims that they are intended to prohibit speech that may breed ill will or cause disharmony within Singapore’s multiracial, multi-religious society. For example, in September 2005, three bloggers were convicted of sedition for posting racist remarks targeting minorities.[27] Some offences can lead to heavy fines or caning and there are laws which allow capital punishment in Singapore for first-degree murder and drug trafficking. Amnesty International has criticised Singapore for having “possibly the highest execution rate in the world” per capita.[28] The Singapore government argues that there is no international consensus on the appropriateness of the death penalty and that Singapore has the sovereign right to determine its own judicial system and impose capital punishment for the most serious crimes
Ah I see now. Sorry. I’m a late comer to this thread.
Calling people retarded is a bit schoolyard don’t you think?
What’s next – Dickhead? Loser? Tosser?
I’m trying to enrichen this debate BDTR – please work with me.
Lets see how many times you can say nomenklatura in a thread.
“I?m trying to enrichen this debate BDTR – please work with me.”
You’re just wasting my time. You haven’t even read the thread for chrissakes. You’re a retard. Go away.
As for all of the other fevered commentary on Singapore. Its off the point. We are talking welfare here, and my thesis is that Singapore does not need it because the mindset that creates that need does not exist there. Argue that point or STFU.
This is a country to aspire to? Sounds like you have a big boner for state control there buddy.
Duh!!!
How the hell did I miss it? The logical inconsistency of a ‘low tax, small govt, conservative’ like BDTR using a country like Singapore as some kind of an example is hilarious.
Let’s see if he switches over to Dubai as some kind of low tax nirvana next. I’ve never worked there, but one of my close colleauges has for many years.
“Didn?t even look at the link I provided above did you?”
Usually I don’t but I did this time. Its just partisan rubbish for chrissakes. Why would any intelligent person suggest such a politically biased link?? That’s why I hardly ever bother with the links of leftists. They’re mostly always worthless.
“How the hell did I miss it? ”
Maybe the same way you’re continually missing my main and only point. I can only guess at poor comprehension skills.
Oh hell, I’m bored with this shit. You people are utterly hopeless with your desperate obfuscation. Night night.
[lprent: Actually I'd say that you expressed my feelings about your contribution pretty precisely. It was boring reading that same old variation range of comments over and over again. But I'm sure you can do better...]
We are talking welfare here, and my thesis is that Singapore does not need it because the mindset that creates that need does not exist there. Argue that point or STFU.
I have. But you ignore the data I provided. Poverty DOES exist in Singapore. It’s just that their mindset prefers to ignore it. Maybe you would fit in very well there.
And of course arguing one aspect of a country in isolation, and out of context of the rest of their political/economic system is futile. You yourself linked the oil wealth of Norway into the welfare argument somewhere up above. Even you know this is true.
We are talking welfare here, and my thesis is that Singapore does not need it because the mindset that creates that need does not exist there. Argue that point or STFU.
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/truth-about/poverty-in-singapore
BDTR approves of this, because Singapore doesn’t need welfare.
BDTR approves of this, because Singapore doesn’t need welfare.
BDTR approves of this, because Singapore doesn’t need welfare.
BDTR approves of this, because Singapore doesn’t need welfare.
BDTR approves of this, because Singapore doesn’t need welfare.
BDTR approves of this, because Singapore doesn’t need welfare.
BDTR approves of this, because Singapore doesn’t need welfare.
Good night BDTR. Sleep well, if you can.
Maybe the same way you’re continually missing my main and only point.
What you really mean is that yes I got your one and only point about 20 posts ago, and disproved the basic idea that there was no poverty in Singapore in seconds.
As a rule most Asian countries have weak or non-existent welfare systems. This is not unique to Singapore. Whether they NEED a welfare system or not is a wholly unaswerable question in our terms. That is a question for them to answer.
The Western model is based on a rather different set of premises and values. Something around the inherent moral equality and dignity of all human life. Since I judge it wrong to have to dodge people dying of cold, hunger and illness in a bitter southerly while I drive home from work in my nice warm car… in my value system I determine that I do need a welfare system.
I note however that when Asians arrive in New Zealand and they find themselves eligble for welfare, they seem to have few inhibitions about availing themselves of it. So I guess even they can feel the NEED when it arises.
BDTR is like a blind man talking about colour.
And oh what an embarrassment to him it is that Ayn Rand was a woman, its so ironic, of all the ideologies (sorry BDTR that’s what it is, don’t pull out the “logically consistent series of independent beliefs” line), that one of the most bigoted and misogynist, happened to have been kick started by a women.
Hey QoT- while I’m not exactly a fan of this policy, it bears pointing out that National does consider training or education to count towards its 15-hour work requirements.
(Personally speaking, I would’ve thought I better way to get people out of benefits would be to cut down the penalties for part-time or seasonal employment rather than simply cut off their benefits if they don’t. Carrot before the stick and all that)
What’s ridiculous is that even if this is a problem, it’s not a very big one. John Key is proposing to get something like a thousand people into paid employment, and in doing so is greatly increasing the load on government employees- who he isn’t going to hire any more of…
Yeah, I can see that going well
Ari – how many falsely accused fathers (solo dad) do you know on the invalids benefit due to the stress involved in 200 Court appearances?
What else would I expect from a dysfunctional – feminized – corrupt justice system. What about the children you bastard judges.
Proud to be a kiwi – yeah right !!!!
The left seem to think we are on the edge of civilisation’s decay, and that National will push us over. You have to have a heart of stone to hear their lamentations without smiling. (To paraphrase Oscar W.) This is about the kind of leadership we want from government.
National is educating the electorate that alternatives can be discussed and even implemented. One of the central weaknesses of Labour’s policy is that it appears keen to rest on the status quo, and rely on peoples’ fear of change as their justification for doing so. This is not leadership, it is arrogance.
National on the other hand are content to chip away at the herd-like paranoia which so benefits Labour, and propose (here’s an idea!) that running the country can be achieved with an accountable set of ideas at the helm.
The knee-jerk response is typified by the phrase ‘taking the stick’ to benficiaries, redolent of a mind-set that dogwhistles the idea of dawn raids on sleeping mothers, tearing them from the arms of their loved ones, and putting them on a chain gang, or something.
The reality of this kind of policy is that it will see a widening of the tertiary education provison as providers step into the gap provided, and parents are referred to literacy and in-work training to make them ready to join the workforce.
Like the ninety-day probationary period, which as DPF rightly points out, is common in developed nations, and is not, as the left would have us believe, an attempt to ‘steal workers rights’ from under them, this welfare policy will not be about ‘chain-gangs’. Or, ‘forcing people off the benefit’. Rather it will enable WINZ to effectively refer people into the workplace and into education, with the blessing of a leadership which is guided by an ethical principle, rather than a leadership which is guided by a desire to keep people frightened and suppressed in a low-espectation, low-ambition form of state-tyranny.
So, which kind of leadership would you prefer?
no moneky boy…the right just like to push people around for fun. you betcha. whats the point of being a politician? if the economy is at capacity then how will it accomodate solo mums and sickness beneficiarys. the best thing they could do is alter the 15 hours a week to 16 hours a week so then a beneficary could work two full days instead of 1 and 7/8ths of a day. at the moment for all the rhetoric it is just a system for bullying people around with no real goals or aims whatsoever and built in flagellation for those unfortunate enough to find themselves on the unemplyment roll or memebers of the reserve army of the unemployed.
“whats the point of being a politician?”
So you can leech a living randal.
National is educating the electorate
At least they’re putting some policy out there publicly, which is a good development. But it is the opposite of the “visionary” kind of spin you’re trying to put on it. In every case (except the poorly thought out boradband spend up) it is harking back to the past.
Liberal leftie governments are always the forces of change and progress in the world, and conservative right wing ones, by their very name, nature and tradition, are parties of the status quo.
So, which kind of leadership would you prefer?
The genuine forward looking kind. Planning decades ahead, socially reforming, environmentally aware. In short, Labour’s kind, thanks.
RedLogix, 12 points for persistence – most would have given up a long time ago!
Just like to point out that Key reckons we should be more like Singapore. Man, looks better ev’ry day, dunnit?
Monkey-boy: “One of the central weaknesses of Labour’s policy is that it appears keen to rest on the status quo,”
You’re forgetting that benefit numbers have dropped quite substantially as of late. Have you ever thought that such policies as subsidised doctors’ visits (healthy enough to learn, and to work), free childcare (time to learn and work), modern apprenticeships (training) and enhancements to WINZ (getting people into work where possible, without compulsion) actually do exactly what you want, without something such at the Nats policy?
I don’t think you see it, monkey-boy, that this policy is a sham to make National look tough, when all it will do is put a little compulsion and inflexibility in the system, add a layer of bureaucracy that National purports to detest, and provide very little in the way of benefit.
Labour’s way is actually working. You just don’t see it. Maybe their thinking is too lateral for you, but let me say this – to get people off benefits, you don’t change the benefit system – you change what gets people onto it, and what keeps people on it.
The ‘knee-jerk’ is exactly what National propose.
I certainly know what kind of leadership I prefer – one that works, and doesn’t seek to profit off the most ugly aspects of the NZ psyche.
I think the last Labour election mantra was ‘Don’t put it all at risk’ if that isn’t a plea for the status quo then what is? Even the present campaign of fear which is being waged (here) about the mere thought of National getting elected, is a more polished version of that meme.
This is where you are showing your paranoias – Matthew when you say it’s a policy ‘designed to make National look tough’. That is predicated on the idea that now they have released a ‘policy’ it isn’t a real ‘policy’ just a pretend policy, perhaps.
I think that what you are failing to see is that, like the probationary period proposal, the National Party is actually leaking nay drip-feeding- the electorate ideas that for the present government are too heretical to even utter.
And the people’ are finding that they agree, by and large.
The thing is, that perhaps outside of the blog-environment, many people would see these proposals as just reasonable.
I honestly don’t expect you to see any merit in Key’s proposals, but I do invite yu to step outside of the paranoid-political mentality if you are to really give Key a run for his money, because he is starting to make Labour appear anachronisticps I don;t think he is particularly visionary, it is just that he is talking what many see as ‘common sense’ and it does tend to make even a dullard like Key appear like an intellectual with vision, when the rest of the pack are busily screeching yesterday’s mantras to an audience who are clearly tired of what they’ve been hearing.
“I think the last Labour election mantra was ‘Don’t put it all at risk’ if that isn’t a plea for the status quo then what is? ”
How simplistic. What if the status quo is an effective programme of change?
“This is where you are showing your paranoias – Matthew when you say it’s a policy ‘designed to make National look tough’. That is predicated on the idea that now they have released a ‘policy’ it isn’t a real ‘policy’ just a pretend policy, perhaps.”
How is that so? I never said, nor do I suspect it’s a pretend policy. In what way would a policy that is not real (whatever that means) make National look any more tough than a real policy? As always, you’re going off into incomprehensible tangents that make any meaningful discourse difficult.
“I think that what you are failing to see is that, like the probationary period proposal, the National Party is actually leaking nay drip-feeding- the electorate ideas that for the present government are too heretical to even utter.”
I can see it, quite clearly. It’s also knows as dressing mutton like lamb, or a wolf in sheep’s clothing. As I explained above, I don’t think there is a need for such a policy, so why does it need to be uttered? The status quo, a policy platform that is working, and changing New Zealand for the better, is doing the job better than this policy could.
Heretical is the wrong word. You’re implying that they are inherently good ideas, that the current establishment is trying to suppress without just reason. That says to me that you can’t think for yourself and only like ideas because “that nice Mr Key” says them, or because other countries are doing it (as if that’s a good measure), or because the idea is popular. Either of the three is simply a crude mob-mentality reaction.
“I honestly don’t expect you to see any merit in Key’s proposals, ”
I suppose that’s because you think I will dismiss it out of hand, instead of making a considered judgement that the alternative is better? It is a possibility, you know. Please, try it.
“but I do invite you to step outside of the paranoid-political mentality if you are to really give Key a run for his money, because he is starting to make Labour appear anachronisticps I don;t think he is particularly visionary, it is just that he is talking what many see as ‘common sense’ and it does tend to make even a dullard like Key appear like an intellectual with vision, when the rest of the pack are busily screeching yesterday’s mantras to an audience who are clearly tired of what they’ve been hearing.”
What paraniod political mentality – I just gave you quite a good reason above as to hy I don’t like the idea, and why I think that what we have is doing a better job. That’s not paranoid, you’re actually just making things up to sound clever.
You see, I don’t care if ‘many’ people see this as common sense, or if it makes Key seem an ‘intellectual with vision’. I’m not many people. I would not pride to be part of a knee-jerk reactionary mob mentality. I am fully capable of assessing the merits of different ideas presented to me and choosing one I see as best. People might like the idea of the “bludgers going back to work” but that doesn’t make this the best way by default as you are pretending.
You have failed to even attempt to show why this is better than the status quo, which is very telling… All you can muster is a pathetic ‘people seem to like it’. So what?!
I’m going to assume you have intact knee caps. Are you happy with the status quo of your knee caps? What if john Key said he wasn’t? And, say, people seemed to ‘like the idea’ of a change in your knee caps? Would you have to have a paranoid-political mentality to see the problem?
The only mantras of yesterday are coming from the national party – what is ‘new and visionary’ in this announcement? Either you’re making things up, or have limited participation in and knowledge of New Zealand political history.
From macdoctor blog…
“Judith Collins has repeatedly claimed that people are moving off unemployment benefits onto sickness benefits, partially accounting for the drop in unemployment beneficiaries. In an excellent post today, Jafapete demonstrates that this does not appear to be happening. Sickness benefit statistics are doing what you would expect them to do – rise with the increase in population. I’m sure he is correct. I have never bought in to Judith’s argument. I suspect that unemployment closely follows our economic outlook and has little to do with our social policy.
Having said that, Judith is right that something is not right with the number and spread of people on sickness benefits.
…..
The real reason that all GPs blithely sign sickness benefit forms, even though we know they may not be genuine, is that we don’t know that they are not genuine, we only suspect. For most of the suspicious cases, you would need a number of investigations, or a specialist opinion to confirm your suspicion. Your patient will either refuse to go, or make appointments with the specialist and then simply not attend. And there is no way you can force them.
File under “too hard’. Sign the form.
The only way this can stop is if you compel sickness beneficiaries to have an annual (or six monthly) medical with an independent doctor, preferably a specialist. This is not only good politics, it is actually good medicine, as specialist review of long-term illness is good clinical practice. Frankly, I don’t see this as being unpopular with sickness beneficiaries, apart from the ones milking the system. The majority of them would love to get better and go back to work, if they could.”
http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/?p=84
DPB mums are an easy target.
Neither party seems to want to taget young people “on a course”
The unemployed aren’t hidden on sickness benefits. They are hidden on low quality ‘courses’ up and down the country. We pay for their bums on seats and off the streets learning absolutely nothing.
Kids on ‘courses’ come into my office every day, wanting me to write some note of excuse about why they havent been turning up, but should keep getting the money. ‘Computer courses’ where they play cards all day and learn nothing at all.
Thats what both parties should address. But neither is interested in increasing the truly unemployed stats.
As for sickness benefits, lots of people have obtained them for spurious reasons in the past and never got off of them. Many GPs inherit these people and take months or years working out there isnt really anything wrong with them. Especially when seen int he sharp relief of patients they do have missing limbs, or with cancer, or pralysis or needing wheelchairs who DO work.
They do have to see the GP every 3 months to have the form signed. I would have thought GPs should actually address their health or lack of it, at those meetings- rather than just signing the form.
What is MUCH harder is the unemployable, not really sick, but not actually employable and never likely to get any kind of job. So they say they have a sore shoulder or back and hide out on the SB rather than the dole, because the dole is a nuisance, makes you get up in the morning and do ‘courses’. And if you are 63, and cant work as a labourer anymore, or 55 an immigrant with no English and no skills and unlikely to get them, and no role in this society – well SB is easier than the alternatives.
In the end for some ‘sickness’ it is their word against your findings. Add to that the main part of GPs role is to make relationships with people, not accuse or medicalise them with certificates of unfitness when they really arent. Doctors arent detectives. They do get a feel for the real sick and the turn up every 3 months to sign the forms sick.
We need another benefit, the Unemployable Benefit.
Haven’t been following this thread so excuse me if this has been posted before:
http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com/2008/08/get-those-sole-parents-working.html
Take it I’m SPAM blocked.
[lprent: yep. Try a test for me - next time do it with the
<a href='url'>My Title</a>
I believe that fixes the problem. If it does then I can probably do something about it (I hope).
I can't test easily. For some reason the system never refuses me....]
lprent
It works for me that way, every time.
[lprent: Yeah that is what I think happens. If you put a 'raw' link in, then you get the spam checker periodically and frequently. Link with a anchor and it works without problems. That is what Tev meant when she said 'clean' links - didn't click.]
No it’s not CMR but that’s why I support the elimination of capitalism.
I’ve done it that way and been caught as well. From my end it looks kinda random which probably means it has something to do with the algorithm.
I’ll try this one as a test.
Not caught that time
[lprent: Try doing that way for a while. I'll keep an eye on the queue between coding. If it is at that level I'll find some time to put in a code fix. Otherwise try logging in. That is meant to get rid of the problem entirely. rOb is usually logged in (thats how he gets the grey eminence background) and he doesn't get caught in that trap at all despite the numbers of links he posts. ]
rOb is usually logged in thats how he gets the grey eminence background) and he doesn’t get caught in that trap at all despite the numbers of links he posts.
I do get caught (when using links) in some kind of moderation occasionally Lynn, sometimes even for just one link. Not very often, but it does happen.
[lprent: I stand corrected. I wonder what it is deciding on. ]
Lynn
My statement above might not be correct. Are there two separate processes, moderation and spam trap?
(1) Earlier this evening I got caught in moderation (for quoting the word “M*u*ppet”) – after submission the comment appeared on the page with a yellow label “your comment is awaiting moderation”. That hasn’t happened to me for ages, in fact it had been so long I’d forgotten all about this process.
(2) The posts that I mentioned in my previous comment are ones that have simply disappeared without trace at the time of submission (no feedback of any kind), but appear on the page maybe 1/2 an hour later. So I’m guessing now that is a separate spam trap process?
Anyway, the occasions that I mentioned in my previous comment are examples of (2) not (1).
- you know how Cmr dosen’t like paying for the unemployed and mentally ill and stuff…well like…what else does his/her tax dollars go to…like those really useful frigates and stuff?? um..what is ‘corporate welfare?’ hey, you know politicians incomes,, how is that payed for again? Hey, you know how 1 in 3 people in NZ have some form of mental illness…thats their fault eh, like, everyone is completely rational and make cost/benefit decisions all the time and the market is how the world works eh
you know corporations..like, the things they do, like,,to the environment and the people who work for them,,,they’re like much more worthy than those unemployed people eh. Those unemployed/sickness benefit people are really damaging the environment.
And – those people when they get the dole – they keep it all right?
Yeah, they buy assets with their savings. Or,, no, i heard it goes to the landlords and electricity compaines and supermsrket chains.