Interesting-the sheep deal has made McCully a liability-the smiling assassin has sent him on his way. Wonder who the Nats have lined up for this plum seat and maybe it will become vulnerable with no McCully and a swing to Labour?
I reckon,
They are saying the Kocks are pissed that Trumps ahead, because he’s rich and paying his own way, so they cant get their claws in there. But Trump in the Whitehorse? This could put the US back to the days of Hoover, with his attacks on the Muslim Religion, and the other insanities coming out..
More likely it will put the US back to the days of Germany 1933.
That guy also had no economic policy except, “I will make this country great again.” His only election message was anger and outrage because of his country’s fall from power.
Today, one one-thousandth of the American electorate is responsible for 25 percent of campaign funding. Members of Congress spend 30–70 percent of their time raising money for their next campaign. No one doubts that politicians are more responsive to the one one-thousandth than to the 99.9 percent.
…so sad to see the twilight of democracy in the US eclipsed by neofascist kochocrats
You’re either being deliberately obtuse or you’re an idiot, arguing from bad faith or stupidity. In other words, it’s a complete waste of time discussing this with you.
The problem is the GINI, and that won’t stop fuckwits like you doing even more harm.
National had a golden chance to lower the rates of domestic violence, lower the number of childhood abuse victims ……….. and lower our prisoner numbers.
It was the Alcohol law review …………..
They had good advice from medical professionals, police officers and others.
But they spent the bulk of their time meeting with liquor company lobbyists ( and political donars ?), and ended up ruling out any changes which would lower alcohol abuse …………….
Our high rates of domestic violence and abuse are Nationals achievement …….and they will use their crisis to give us something that will make us even sicker ……
When you look at the total cost to the government of domestic violence, including: police, prison and court time, and prevention. The amount spent on prevention is less then 1% of total money spent. It’s no surprise nothing changed, and if anything we can expect further cuts to prevention as the government ‘invests’ more money in the prison complex. I think this government will instead focus it’s energy’s on coming up with new ways of measuring data.
You obviously haven’t read enough studies of what happens to animals when you put them in cages.
I seriously doubt that you can extrapolate violence/testoserone levels in men in prison out to the general population. Lots of other criticism of your idea but that will do to start with.
That’s the right’s answer to everything, is that it all comes down to personal responsibility if you’re not a winner in life, blah bla bla, a bloody great scapegoat that one. You don’t have to offer any solutions, its all your own fault.
I have had family involved in several of these as volunteers or professionally. They are largely run on a voluntary basis by groups outside the government, and usually get a slither of funding but are grossly underfunded.
Perhaps you should ask yourself a more basic question – why are there so many ‘options’ and how many of them are effectively defunct. Try using the date filter and see how many of those sites (which is what you were looking at) are dead.
Which is probably part of the problem. People simply don’t know where to go.
The real issue is more about people realizing they’ve got a problem and for those people to take the necessary steps to deal with their anger issues.
People with anger issues usually don’t realise that that they have anger issues. They need to have it pointed out to them which means that we need a proactive organisation doing so.
Such an organisation would be where people who need help from people with anger issues can go to get that help and then that organisation would have the power to force the people with anger issues into dealing with their anger.
He says “public service not delivering, can see why the govt wants to get private organisations involved”.
This is THE classic tactic. Run down the public service, deprive it of the necessary funds, then say its not working and the private sector can do it better ….. and hey presto – the private sector comes in with a big financial incentive from the govt.
with a watertight contract that ensures they get the taxpayer dollars even when they fail to deliver the promised results…but hey, its better value ,right(wing)?
The point of a new project for Bill, like the traditional commission of enquiry, is to delay a public accounting for his failures, ideally until out past the next election.
there is much love for Aunty Double Dipper from Dipton Bill English, also Finance Minister for our current National led Government.
It must be him admitting that despite cuts to all services in regards to Domestic Violence, nothing was achieved that brings out the love sweet love. His solution? More cuts 🙂
I think he is trying to get his micro surplus up and going 🙂
because it is a business. Nothing weird about that. Especially the privatising part of it is business, big business.
I think Pull’s her Benefit calls it ‘sexy business’ the selling of vital services to for profit business…cause you might can’t milk a stone, but you sure can milk a poor person for what their worth, and then off to a private prison they go 🙂
Now that is an A+ response. Poor Bill must be so conflicted that the cost of that private prison business is coming from the budget for which he’s guardian *cough*
Problem is the accademics are not interested in the data because the solution is bleedin obvious. Put more actual money into poverty reduction programs. The governments new fangled data department is (if successful) a cost cutting measure on the other hand. If they dont start getting results soon they will start burying the issues.
Um, which ‘academics’ are you talking about? How will spending more money on poverty reduction address domestic violence in middle and upper income families?
So if we made the poor richer, and the rich poorer i.e. reduced our GINI, then the newly worse off middle class households will have less domestic violence?
How does that work?
Again my general point: most money and most effort in our universities is no longer focussed on solving the crisis level problems facing Kiwis and facing the country.
The role of universities as the “critic and conscience of society”? Out the window. University departments up and down the country should have been backing Jane Kelsey up against the TPP. Instead: crickets.
And it is understandable why that is the case: these are areas with limited international and academic prestige, they are areas which are longstanding and easy to neglect through familiarity, they are areas which are politically controversial and hence always a problem for funding, they are areas which are seen as too low brow pragmatic and not conceptually or theoretically challenging enough, etc.
“So if we made the poor richer, and the rich poorer i.e. reduced our GINI, then the newly worse off middle class households will have less domestic violence?”
We need to reduce inequality across the board (not just who is rich and poor economically). When we do that, reducing domestic violence programmes will be more successful. Do both.
Is that the only way you can think of reducing inequality? I’m pretty sure that such cak-handed incompetence would cause a backlash, so I suggest we don’t do it your way.
Why do upper salaries have to fall if lower ones are rising? Is it because that was the only white-anting approach you could think up on the spur of the moment?
Why do upper salaries have to fall if lower ones are rising? Is it because that was the only white-anting approach you could think up on the spur of the moment?
That of course would be the smarter way to do it, but when Nic the NZer suggested simply giving more income to the poor, you dismissed the suggestion out of hand with your typical clever bullshit reasoning.
Fine, so Nic the NZer gets to put more money directly into anti-poverty programmes, and you get to hand over more money to comfortable and high income earners.
Or you could admit your first paragraph at 3.4.1 was just you mouthing off and poverty reduction programes will likely improve violence measures and GINI measures. (Even if some body else said it)
Australia, for example, has a lower GINI than we do, and a higher average wage, so clearly the “make rich people poorer” approach is nonsense, although I can see why those who specialise in white-anting (whether from the right or the left) fixate upon it.
It is widely acknowledged (among those despised academics at the World Bank, OECD, etc.) that a lower GINI increases a country’s wealth across the board.
So it follows that a sensible approach might actually raise top salaries, just not as quickly as low ones.
I don’t have a strong opinion about it one way or another. Where “earning shit loads” involves environmental degradation, for example, it follows that everyone else isn’t doing ok.
If everyone else is genuinely doing ok then maybe…
While generally very wealthy people develop power to cause mischief somewhat akin to that of states, some enterprises do not intrinsically degrade the environment. JK Rowling’s work wasn’t particularly destructive if you accept that the publishing industry would have printed something else had she been absent.
Seems AOBs reasoning fails on its own merits here however. Or does somebody want to seriously claim that middle and upper income house holds are engaging in domestic violence because they are not paying enough tax?
The main reason to remove wealth from the top to me seems to be so their political power doest reach extremes.
And i would always point out pragmatically you should not put on hold the near term goal of spending on the lower end, to wait for the ability to collect from the top end. Its not an easy task getting wealth off the wealthy and putting poverty reduction on hold is a disservice.
Superb. So where’s the disagreement? Raise wages for all (not just union workers, they are only a small minority of wage earners) and implement a universal basic income set at a decent level. No one here would disagree with that.
You really should go back and address wtf you mean leading up to 3.4.1.1.2.1
As far as i can see i suggested pretty sensible plan of funding poverty reduction programs which would help with abuse rates (I believe).
Of course this would also improve GINI statistics if it reduced absolute poverty.
Apparently thats not going to address middle and upper income abuse rates. But you didnt seem to have any plan yourself there (other than demanding GINI rates fall). Whats the plan there? Your going to bring GINI rates down by shouting at them? Will that address middle and upper income abuse rates anyway.
1) boost incomes for the poor. While the corresponding decrease in incomes for the rich will be the same monetary amount, the percentage drop in their income will be much lower than the percentage increase for the poor because that’s how capitalism works.
2) if there is a socioeconomic relationship at all consistent with almost all other forms of violence and harm, the decrease in violence amongst the poor will be quantitively and proportionately many times greater than any corresponding increase amongs the upper and middle classes
3) one could also imagine a socioeconimic mechanism whereby in more equal societies there is less risk associated in leaving an abusive relationship with a rich partner
4) for the rest, other solutions apply such as social workers, support groups, mandatory follow-ups on IPV incidents to make sure the behaviour isn’t continuing, etc etc etc. Money isn’t the sole factor for any problem except poverty, just a major one for many other problems.
the corresponding decrease in incomes for the rich will be the same monetary amount
Not necessarily: as above,
It is widely acknowledged…that a lower GINI increases a country’s wealth across the board.
So it follows that a sensible approach might actually raise top salaries, just not as quickly as low ones.
@Nick: already answered above at 9:52 am. Lower GINI, less violence across the board. There’s lots of information about the mechanisms involved at the Equality Trust site previously linked.
@Nick: already answered above at 9:52 am. Lower GINI, less violence across the board. There’s lots of information about the mechanisms involved at the Equality Trust site previously linked.
Next: timeframe.
Things are at a crisis point so how many years are we going to give ourselves to signficantly reduce GINI? Maybe four or five?
Edit – Helen Clark’s govt did nothing to lower GINI. Levels of GINI during most of Key’s term appear directly comparable to Helen Clark’s day.
“Boost incomes for the poor. While the corresponding decrease in incomes for the rich will be the same”
Its a bit hard to resolve what the exact policy is from comments like this. That may have something to do with missconceptions in economic discussions.
I fully agree with AOB that its good enough if you can get incomes at the bottom to gravitate up maybe with govt subsidies of some form. Better if that reduces some GINI measure. You dont need to collect more tax for that to happen. The left has already tried to push forward policies about taxing wealth more (and paying less to supposedly well off pensioners). The problem is if they are unpopular then the left doesnt get elected and cant do anything. Clearly thats not doing the best for left wing constituants.
For those who have forgotten what a GINI is – voila Wikipedia.
The Gini coefficient (also known as the Gini index or Gini ratio) (/dʒini/ jee-nee) is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income distribution of a nation’s residents, and is the most commonly used measure of inequality.
Gini coefficient – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Further explanation:
A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality, where all values are the same (for example, where everyone has the same income). A Gini coefficient of one (or 100%) expresses maximal inequality among values (for example, where only one person has all the income or consumption, and all others have none).[3][4]
However, a value greater than one may occur if some persons represent negative contribution to the total (for example, having negative income or wealth). For larger groups, values close to or above 1 are very unlikely in practice.
Now you know, or not, as the case may be. Clear as mud.
And you take what English says at face value? The Sallies say his party tells lies: perhaps everyone else has noticed that it’s counterproductive dealing with callous deceitful hypocrites.
What’s the point of doing a whole lot of research into lies? You’re not going to get published anywhere reputable, unless you shift focus and do a Poli-Sci analysis of exactly how and why the lies are being told.
I think if academics were in it for the money academia wouldn’t appeal to them.
On the funding note, and on what is smiled upon charity-wise and what is not, I thought it was interesting looking at a 2002 ‘book’ guide on charities
to see the following (which says a lot about government wanting people to be fully informed):
2. Under Advancement of education as a legal charitable purpose, the last entry reads:
Education for political or other similar purposes is not charitable as it does not provide a public benefit.
Our problem in NZ a government that desires and ensures our ignorance of our polity! (Being a bit ignorant myself, I checked I had the right word –
Google defined it – an organized society; a state as a political entity.)
I’m saying that English is a minister of a government that tells lies, as detailed by the Sallies, and that while academics would no doubt love to get their hands on the data, they can’t, because the National Party has constructed a dishonesty machine.
All this has been detailed in the Sallies’ report: ‘Moving Targets’ – I suggest you familiarise yourself with it.
Why can’t you give a link One Anonymous Bloke. Always short and sharp you are, and all knowing. Can we gain the background to that info with your help. That’s what we have a left leaning blog for, to assist the spread of useful information and understanding, I thought.
you are correct in saying that funds spend on poverty will not eradicate ‘all’ domestic violence, but it will alleviate the worst of it.
I think that to a large extend it depends how one defines ‘domestic violence’ on a private level – violence by family members, and how one defines ‘domestic violence’ on a state / governmental level – violence by a state who simply does not care how its populace survives.
On a private level, one can help by providing funds to schools for a. appropriate and science based sexual education, education about how to prevent being violent oneself, how to speak to someone in authority should one be a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault at home etc etc.
Then funds could be provided to Shelters and Refuge Centers, so that victims of domestic violence and sufferers of abuse have a save place they can go to.
On a state / governmental level funds could be provided to create social housing and / or maintain current social housing stock (aka State Houses) so that children and their parents can live in a decent home that they can afford.
Benefit levels could be reviewed so that Children and their Parents have enough funds to not only pay rent, but also pay electricity and have food.
Benefit levels could be reviewed so that children of poor parents (there is a big growing class of working poor here in NZ) will receive adequate clothing and other needed items for their schooling.
Not eating, not being warm, being bullied at school for being poor are all symptoms of ‘domestic violence’.
Children dying of cold in a government owned and maintained state house?
Now these are just a very few examples of how to ‘fight’ domestic violence, and all of the examples listed would prolly not cost more than the money that the Double Dipper from Dipton has squandered on ‘Statistics’ to prove that nothing can be done.
What I would like to know is why these guys are actually in government if they believe that the private industry is so much better at governing. It must be that they are so bad that no one would want them in private business.
“Not having Police around to patrol the streets and make certain parts of town safer is a part of ‘domestic violence’ and usually it is women who bear the costs. i.e.
That’s not domestic violence. The most straightforward solution to that is to put a curfew on men. But ultimately men have to do the anti-violence work or the problem just goes somewhere else. Having police patrol the streets to the degree needed to stop rape in public places is ineffective, inefficient and makes people paranoid.
good idea. Or women police could do it. Or do you think that women aren’t capable and that only men can do such a job?
edit, thinking about it, in some places in NZ police men could probably be trusted with the job, whereas in other places obviously not. I’m sure we could come up with a system that allows us to determine who is trustworthy or not.
Frankly i consider the Idea to put a curfew on Men a bit ‘out there’, and maybe to harsh, as there are also female offenders, and there are also man who get raped. And most rapes happen with someone we know and in areas / homes/ office we live and use, aka our domestic environment.
But, our police force is being harmed by budget cuts, an extension of these budget cuts results in certain areas to loose their cop shops, the loss of presence of cops in the street and loss of community constables etc etc. In such an environment were effectively the state has abandoned its duty to provide safety to all citizens, domestic violence will grow. Mugging, Burglaries, Dairies being robbed, assault and sexual violence are all a consequence of this.
This is not a case of this is someone who will beat the living day light out of his/her partner or child/ren, or if this is someone who will assault someone alone in a park. Both happen because they can.
both are instances of domestic violence, if i consider the Park, the road, the sports fields and the shops were i get my milk and bread an extension of my domestic area of habitat.
I don’t say that police on the streets can prevent all rapes or many, but not having police in the streets will for sure do nothing.
I am not saying that having science based sexual education, education re sexual boundaries, and sexual assault, and sexual consent in schools will prevent pregnancy, std or rape, but not having programmes like will surely not create a better outcome.
So we need to have an approach that works in the intimate area of the family home, and the more open area of the families community and surrounds.
“Frankly i consider the Idea to put a curfew on Men a bit ‘out there’,”
Me too. I’m not actually suggesting we should do that, it’s more a device to get people to think (and to see which regressive men would argue against it 😉 ). If we were serious about ending domestic and other sexual violence we would be looking at the behaviour of men and the control structures in society.
Rape of adults (which is what your link was about) is an act done overwhelmingly by men. Yes women can rape, but most women and men who are raped are raped by men. See, that’s putting the responsibility back on the class of people who do the bad thing.
I agree that police should be better funded and that a presence on the street in a community based way is a good thing. But if we are at the stage of thinking that police patrols are needed to control violent crime after dark then we’ve lost a lot of ground. To have prevented the assault in that link by patrolling would have required a huge police presence. I think there are better ways of using police time.
“if i consider the Park, the road, the sports fields and the shops were i get my milk and bread an extension of my domestic area of habitat.”
Fair point, although we don’t know if that was the case for the woman who was assaulted. I also think there is value in differentiating between sexual assualt that happens at home or by one’s partner/family and that which happens in other contexts. As you say, most rape is done to women by people they know in places they are familiar with.
I don’t base anyting on that case, but it is a standard case. A dark park, as per comments from people that live near the area for some reason Lights have been cut in this park so now its dark, is a good place to mug, rob, beat or rape someone. That is my point.
A neighbourhood with our a presence of police is a good place to mug, rob, beat or rape someone. Taht is my point.
Children who think that Dad beating Mum, Mum beating the kids is normal, will do what if no one tells them that it is not normal.
Children who think that being sexually abused by Dad, Uncle or Cuzzie is normal will do what if no one tells them that it is not normal.
So we need to look at domestic violence as ‘societal violence’ that to an extend is even condoned – Women and Children as chattel to be treated as the owner – Dad – Head of the Family – sees fit, and if he spares the rod he spoils the chattel. This is still a valid thought in the eyes and brains of many hyper religious types of all creeds.
And in a nutshell, this is what Bill English is essentially saying, We can’t do anything about it, so lets stop wasting money on it. These ‘domestic violence’ incidents might be not so violent at all, when one has a religious believe in which a women is helpmeet, subservient to the husband, and ultimatively only does as he pleases. (and a women can have an education and a job and still live by the doctrine that the father or husband will decide what is best for her – after all she is only women).
So really we have to look at domestic violence as something that happens intimately in families all over the country, but also as something that happens with the blessings of the state, that refuses to secure the outdoors for the public, that refuses to educate the young ones on how to build boundaries, keep themselves safe, and on how to report domestic violence and to whom, a state that refuses to assure that everyone has a safe dwelling and a plate full of nutritious food to eat, a state that refuses to keep communities safe by rationing their community constable away. (something i am sure that will only happen in certain neighbourhoods), and we have to see domestic violence that is while not outright condoned by our churches – after all violence is bad – but still tolerated in the name of biblical teachings and christian(insert any other creed in that suits you better) values.
Not disagreeing with anyone here so don’t take this the wrong way but there seems to be a strong theme of religion in your views, its probably just my view (being an atheist) but does religion in NZ still have that strong of a hold outside ethnic minorities?
Generally speaking most of our current laws are based on a system stemming for an age where the church (roman catholic, or protestant or anglican) has very much decided the norms and laws.
Don’t forget that until the seventies a women could not have a bank account without her husbands signature, could not have a cheque book without her husbands signature and could not get a contraceptive without her husbands permission to name just a few. These privileges that men have held were those given to men by the church/law of yesteryears. And if you look at communes like the Brethren, LSD, Evangelic Christians (purity, sexual abstinece,), you will find that christian/judaic/islamic believes are still very much alive and still rule when it comes to the relationships of women vs men there is a certain undertone of man knows best and mum goes with the flow.
And yes, religion in NZ is big, have a look at the mega churches being build, chirstian radio stations, tv channels etc etc.
I do believe that half of domestic violence is simply just people not being able to deal with life and letting someone else pay for their frustrations by controlling / beating / abusing partners, kids or elders, and the other half of domestic violence is simply just people living out their believes, i.e. women have to be submissive and do as the husband wishes, and the same counts for children, and she / he is poor and its their fault for them being lazy and this is why they should live in a hovel and only eat when we (government/state/society) judges that they have suffered enough or jumped through enough hoops (WINZ anyone) to get a food voucher, or a bed voucher.
“A dark park, as per comments from people that live near the area for some reason Lights have been cut in this park so now its dark, is a good place to mug, rob, beat or rape someone. That is my point.”
Agree.
Our planners and park designs are purely functional (often for singular sports) and ignore the myriad uses to which the local community can put them.
In particular, sports fields which are used only in evenings and weekends and make up the majority of easily accessible park spaces for most NZers.
Planners also provide blind alleys in the suburbs, where walkways are surrounded by 2 metre high fences, and follow the back or sides of houses where community eyes are unlikely to be looking. (A solution: allow similar builds to laneway homes on back sections, and you will completely change the atmosphere of current dark and unloved spaces.)
Parks and community spaces need to be designed to encourage multi-use, and multi-generational use. In many European communities the public spaces are considered an extension of your home, and social activities with friends and family utilise those spaces at all times of the day and night. As NZ has not been limited by space or transport when planning, designing and building – this public extension has not been common. But it has benefits, and needs to be encouraged.
Better community social cohesion, and also, better public safety due to that extended use and sense of community ownership.
It would be a good initiative programme for some of our currently ignored Auckland suburbs, where family overcrowding is rife.
If you are an owner-occupier of a house, then you should be able to build a small home on the back of your section that both provides affordable living to friends and family (not just an elderly relative) and provides a community benefit of redirecting attention to currently unwatched (and unsafe) public spaces.
Yes, I think I made that point (that the violence just shifts elsewhere). My suggestion was to prompt people to think about what is going on when a woman gets sexually assualted at night in a park by three men.
The problem is that most men will think wtf because its just completely out of their scope of understanding whereas the men that do this sort of thing won’t care at all
I suppose you could if you had millions of cameras in every nook and cranny and every one was chipped.
Every time there was a crime you’d just look at whatever camera caught the incident, over lay that with the stored chip ids and voila, no one would commit crime because you could never get away with it.
“The problem is that most men will think wtf because its just completely out of their scope of understanding whereas the men that do this sort of thing won’t care at all”
In my lifetime the attitudes of men have changed hugely. Men can be educated and made aware of what the issues are and what is acceptable and what is not. Plus, this conversation is happening in the context of GINI and inequality. Do something about those and many other things become easier to solve.
perhaps PR if you believe it is just individuals rather than a culture – that is men’s culture, masculinity as defined and applauded within our society and so on
most men know exactly what the problem is and a fair few know the answers too imo
one easy way to start is to not laugh when certain man make jokes about rape among their mates or on the radio.
another way is to accept that if a girl does not like her hair pulled and she says no, that she said no, consent was not given, and that the pulling of the hair has to stop and not call that ‘horsing around’ or ‘having a bit of fun’.
Baby steps really.
IF you don’t want to have it happen to your wife/mother/ sister/daughter/cuzzie/coworker etc etc then dont let it happen to someone else, and don’t just go a shucks if it does happen saying nothing can be done.
Agreed and when others start talking about inserting beer bottles where they shouldn’t be or start using swiss balls in ways they weren’t designed we really shouldn’t turn a blind eye
Puckish Rogue …
24 February 2016 at 1:08 pm
Agreed and when others start talking about inserting beer bottles where they shouldn’t be or start using swiss balls in ways they weren’t designed we really shouldn’t turn a blind eye
ouch. and no i don’t even want to know what swiss balls are. But i think it goes without saying that is as equally abhorrent as some bloke on the radio joking about soaps.
“What I would like to know is why these guys are actually in government if they believe that the private industry is so much better at governing. It must be that they are so bad that no one would want them in private business.”
Sabine, I believe it goes deeper than that, more complex. These guys, Double Dipper, Paula Benefit and Ann Tolley for example are well paid and receive exceptionally generous superannuation benefits plus perks so they hang in there. They could get jobs outside from directorships etc – but they would never get the freedom and power to exert the control they do without being scrutinised and these punitive cost cutting exercises put pain on vulnerable people and affect morale in State Services Departments – like the police, teachers and nursing staff. Its more a control thing which is very addictive, plus there has to be a streak of sadism/vindictiveness in their psyche to enjoy stretching the rubber band so fine. Control is a big component of family violence as well and it makes the person perpetuating it feel more powerful and its like a dose of “feel good” for them. No normally balanced human being would enjoy cost cutting, to the state that ill and unemployed exist hand to mouth week by week. I suggest that these ministers just love their jobs.
Yes, hence why I call it ‘state sanctioned domestic violence’.
i suggest that these ministers are control freaks that not only love their jobs, but that also love the power that they have and the misery they can inflict.
Marquis de Sade comes to mind ,and most of what the dear Marquis wrote about had nothing to do with sex but all to do with what people that have power do to people that don’t have power.
i suggest that these ministers are control freaks that not only love their jobs, but that also love the power that they have and the misery they can inflict.
Maggie says that the generous Government put in a “modest amount”. Are we as outraged as we were with Gareth? Other bidders put in some dollars as well. Announcements later today.
didn’t he come out and say it was a ruse to get ‘ordinary’ kiwis to go hard to beat him and ensure the campaign succeeded – I didn’t buy it of course 🙂
If so, he was smart, it apparently worked. Can we try something similar for the next election to get what we want for NZ?? We have tried asking nicely, we have thrown a dildo, we’ve pushed in an onion on a stick! (Referring to comedy Rinse the Blood off my Toga.) We’ll do – almost – anything.
No, because the government (I hope) is not going to, whenever it’s in residence , prevent people walking above the high tide mark (and what a bargain residence that would have been, getting the public to part pay).
Why would a tiny slither of land put back into public hands in a National Park be covenanted and have a different legal status? Wouldn’t it make more sense to consolidate it into the park.
The most interesting part of this is that Maggie Barry said on RNZ this morning that the government is going to buy up other parts of Abel Tasman and merge them into the national park as well. She was expecting to announce this within 3 weeks.
So it seems National is tapping this crowd-funding and cheerful sentiment around it for votes.
Fair enough; but at what cost? Where is the money coming from?
yep they’ve found a seam of gold – smacked the original claim owners over the head and proceeding to take the ‘claim’ over and dig the shit out of it – until it runs dry or their pollsters tell them someone else has some better gold over there.
Hopefully funding for National park extensions would come from fresh funding from the taxpayer. Funding through tax is the ultimate and fully democratically sanctioned original crowd-funding.
Am I the only one who sees the irony of the public crowd funding to keep a piece of beach, while the government can’t wait to sell as much land off as soon as possible?
imo the measurement is ‘popular’ – after rigorous polling the MOST popular (to middle potential swing Gnat voters) is determined. This is then championed, alluded to, connected to the gnats via maskKey. This then dipilaTories from general popularity into popularity for the gnats. Meanwhile the polling continues 24/7, day and night – else how will the gnats know what to support and push.
Caligula was able to govern, but he didn’t do a lot for his country. Like Brownlee, he diverted national resources to ambitious construction projects. Ultimately he was killed by his own security people.
Suppose Key were toppled in a bloody insurrection by a charismatic antipodean Danton – she too would be able to govern.
Mere governance is no achievement at all – there is always someone on top – the trick is to get considerate folk who leave things better than they found them. That doesn’t describe the Gnats at all – they’re wrecking the place.
I’m a bit ‘meh’ on the whole campaign as well. As mentioned above, National have found another wagon to hitch their “fern” to and will ride it for all its worth.
Gareth wanted the use of the existing bach for 15 years. That upset many folk. I think that under DOC that bach will be demolished as not allowed in a National Park. The bach was I think an old boat dragged up from the beach years ago.
In a lot of cases replanting creates a human interpretation of what land should look like, returning land to a “natural original state” is almost impossible. I’ve seen many restoration projects where they don’t even have the care to plant species from that same region. Then there’s the issue of no one being certain of what the land looked like 1,000, 100,000 or a million years ago.
True, although there are also groups that source plants from within the rohe. We don’t have to go back 1,000 years (especially given that there has been localised climate change in that time). If there are still local intact native ecosystems they will tell us a lot. But I take your point, much of the restoration happening is about making it look like something rather than be something.
“The electronic voting machines are owned by private corporations, which are Republican in orientation, generally. And the courts have ruled that the source code on these electronic voting machines is proprietary. So, even the governments that buy or lease these machines have no access to a final verification process.”
“And this year, about 80 percent of the vote nationally will be cast on electronic voting machines. There is no verifiability. In six key swing states—Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and Arizona—you have Republican governors and Republican secretaries of state, and no method of verifying the electronic vote count. At midnight or whenever it is on election night, those two guys can go in there with an IT person and flip the outcome of an electronically counted vote within about 60 seconds.”
A humorous short video about how easily 4 University of Michigan undergraduates hacked to pieces a Washington, D.C. election site that used computer voting. The kids had a great time, but no one has learned the lesson they are teaching us.
Is there any meaning in what the site policy refers to as ‘ reasonably rational debate’ if a ‘debater’ can simply ignore any point that is inconvenient to them?
IMO, the level of ‘genuine debate’ on this blog would be greatly improved if there was a tighter expectation that commenters should engage directly and honestly with ‘reasonable’ discussion points.
At a minimum, If a commenter has willingly engaged in a discussion, and a point is put to them that is: directly relevant to the original post, their own comments, is tightly focused, is based on referenced facts, draws a logical conclusion from those facts, is put politely…. Then it is entirely reasonable that the point should be met in a genuine and direct manner?
Can a discussion actually be ‘debate’ if that minimum level of engagement is not met?
I think sheep is meaning that he is sick of people giving him shit. Which is fair enough. It’s also fair enough that people are sick of his right wing ideas.
You yourself always attempt to answer points directly and honestly Weka.
If you put a rational fact based point to someone yourself, do you have an expectation of a genuine reply?
And If someone answered your genuinely put rational discussion with an accusation that you fucked pigs, would that bother you?
(On a personal level it doesn’t bother me, as I think that kind of comment says more about the abuser than the abused), but what I would ask is whether or not that kind of approach has any place in a ‘reasonably rational debate’?
And does ‘not liking someones ideas’ justify refusing to engage with reasonable fact based points they make, and simply abusing them?
Does ‘don’t like’ make something untrue and therefore requiring no rational debate?
Just over time, I have noted how small a group of people it is who comment here, and how rare it is for new commenters to join the discussion. Do you think that the quality of ‘debate’ and the ‘abuse’ has something to do with that?
“You yourself always attempt to answer points directly and honestly Weka.
If you put a rational fact based point to someone yourself, do you have an expectation of a genuine reply?”
It depends on the person and the context and whether I’ve been giving that person a hard time recently or given them respect.
“And If someone answered your genuinely put rational discussion with an accusation that you fucked pigs, would that bother you?
(On a personal level it doesn’t bother me, as I think that kind of comment says more about the abuser than the abused), but what I would ask is whether or not that kind of approach has any place in a ‘reasonably rational debate’?”
Pig fucker and rat fucker accusations bother me because I think that animals deserve more respect. Generally that particular insult is aimed at people with right wing ideas. I don’t think anyone has used it at me.
There is a lot of commentary here that isn’t rational debate. The rational response to that is to work with what is, or if one wants to fight it or argue within it, then accept the consequences.
“And does ‘not liking someones ideas’ justify refusing to engage with reasonable fact based points they make, and simply abusing them?
Does ‘don’t like’ make something untrue and therefore requiring no rational debate?”
Depends on the ideas. The rationale I hear for abuse is that the ideas are sufficiently abhorrent as to need ridicule in response. OAB takes it to the extreme and condems all people he perceives as fools before the words have even left their mouth. Most other people engage then give up. The point where they reach their limit varies.
You have to understand too that many people here know you from past exchanges, so they’re going to come down hard on the same kinds of right wing ideas.
“Just over time, I have noted how small a group of people it is who comment here, and how rare it is for new commenters to join the discussion. Do you think that the quality of ‘debate’ and the ‘abuse’ has something to do with that?”
I think stomping on newbies as soon as they arrive like OAB and Lynn do is very counter productive. But I don’t think the robust nature in general is the problem, so much as the lack of moderation around politics. Hence we have few feminist authors here, and while there are more women commenting than there used to be, I’m sure the culture here puts many off. How much of that is the politics and how much the macho stuff I don’t know, I’d say both are a problem.
In general I see the long threads where people end up slagging each other off as tedious. But you take part in those as much as OAB or McFlock or whoever, hence my suggestion that if you don’t like how you are being responded to, talk to different people. There are good commenters here who don’t behave like that. Others of us just like the argument. I have a foot in both camps.
ok I’ve just looked at the thread you are referring to and it’s full of people engaging in genuine debate, a lot of effort put in by people to addressing points and backing their views up with facts. Your complaint seems disingenuous now. This is a robust debate culture. It includes people being rude. But people did respond to your ideas, so what’s the problem?
What’s the problem?
As you point out Weka, ‘many people are put off commenting here’, such as ‘feminists’.
Given the general left wing ideals of tolerance, respect, open mindedness, inclusion, etc, that many here would claim to uphold don’t you think there is something wrong when this forum’s culture is such that so few people are willing to engage with it?
Ok, so now you don’t want to talk about rudeness and you don’t want to talk about what constitutes reasonable debate, you want to debate whether there should be a robust debate culture on the standard? Lynn replied to you below, why not take it up with him? He’s one of the ones that ultimately controls what happens here.
Hard to comment on that without you giving an example so we know what you mean. But there is no onus on people here to have to talk to anyone, so if you don’t like the kind of responses you are getting, try talking to different people.
The level of engagement is purely up to the people concerned. We deal with the trolling behaviour of bait and run as flame starters or diversion from the post, but what you are describing doesn’t sound like that. It sounds like someone has raised a point, you have answered it and they have ignored your point for whatever reason. That sounds more like a degree of shunning – which in your case sounds more like your methods of presentation than anything else. But moderators generally don’t perform forcing to debate..
There is a particular case that we will enforce replies. That is when someone makes an unsubstantiated assertion of fact without a link or a explanation. Usually someone stating an opinion of a bit of outright bigotry or urban myth as fact. That is a practice that is designed to start flamewars and is for the site legally dangerous. We keep an eye out for those and will force substantiation on the penalty of a long ban because idiots who do that make the moderators lives a lot harder and we can do without them.
But generally we aren’t going to act on complaints from the floor if they don’t point to instances in the comment (yours did not) and an explanation about why we as moderators should be concerned about it for the good of the site (we really couldn’t give a rats arse about why you or anyone else personally thinks it is important).
So if someone makes a claim something is ‘fact’, and ‘facts’ are produced to challenge that statement, there is no kind of expectation that the person who made the original claim should address those facts?
I had wondered whether this part of the policy implied that there was an expectation of a certain level of genuine engagement with a reasonable debate, but it seems it does not?
Typically trolls do not interact with other commentators as they either ignore what others say in reply or write a reply that ignores what they said. In either case it is ignorant, anti-social, annoying to read, and will often result in a banning
Sure Weka.
Look at the link I give above if you are interested.
Consider the discussion around whether or not the Salvation Army said that Material Hardship was dropping or not.
“Does the report make the following statement based on Perry’s data?
“Table 2 reports estimated changes in material deprivation or hardship measures between 2010 and 2014, and this offers a slightly more positive picture. The number of children estimated to be living in households experiencing levels of material hardship that might be seen as more than moderate is reported to have fallen from 210,000 in 2010 to 145,000 in 2014. This is encouraging.”
Simple eh. Only one possible answer? Would you have a problem accepting that point Weka?
Or the discussion on whether or not the data that backed that assertion was sound or not.
You’ll see I provided the factual evidence that the S.A. considered the data perfectly sound, and a statement from the Author himself that countered OAB’s claim that the data was not valid.
Simple then. We accept the data is sound and the S.A. is making that statement based on it? But no. The answer is a tirade of explicit sexually themed abuse…..
I’m just wondering if ‘debate’ has any credibility at all if no one ever has to concede a point to facts?
See, what you’re rather dishonestly doing is ignoring other parts of the Sally report.
The quote you made referred to “more than moderate material hardship”. You’ve confused it into “Material Hardship”. So the literal “one simple answer” to your question is that there is insufficient data upon which to base a response.
You’ve then ignored other comments in the report that have a wider focus than just one aspect of one estimate of one measure, such as
CHILD POVERTY RESULT
While the data offers a mixed picture, in total it is difficult to see any meaningful change in rates of child poverty and material hardship since the GFC. It is beginning to appear that this area of social progress is not a political priority at present given that the economy and household income have continued to grow modestly.
In that case, the simple answer to your question is “possibly, possibly not, but overall the measures are pretty constant”.
And you argue that “Two examples of these practices are cited in this report” means that measures not included in those examples are considered “perfectly sound”.
Those are a few examples of why I think that time is better spent calling you a fuckwit than actually engaging with your pretence of a debate.
But be sure, the finite and arbitrary number of these examples doesn’t mean that I regard any other comment by you as being perfectly sound. While there is a theoretical possibility that you might end up understanding the implicit messages used in conversational English, the odds are higher that you’ll yet again fail the Turing test worse than an ’80s text adventure computer game.
The quote you made referred to “more than moderate material hardship”. You’ve confused it into “Material Hardship”. So the literal “one simple answer” to your question is that there is insufficient data upon which to base a response.
I agree that anyone who had not read the report might be confused by that. Apologies.
To clarify the data in Table 2 of the report, The number of children living in ‘more than moderate hardship’ (EU standard threshold) in 2010 was 210,000, and in 2014 it was 145,000. The number of Children living in ‘severe’ hardship was 90,000 in 2010, and 80,000 in 2014.
Combined children in hardship figures are 300,000 in 2010, and 225,000 in 2014. (% figures: -30%, -11%, -25%)
1.These figures are correct McFlock?
While the data offers a mixed picture, in total it is difficult to see any meaningful change in rates of child poverty and material hardship since the GFC. It is beginning to appear that this area of social progress is not a political priority at present given that the economy and household income have continued to grow modestly.
In that case, the simple answer to your question is “possibly, possibly not, but overall the measures are pretty constant”.
The Sallies certainly say that. But if you look at the figures above or what they quote for the peak of the GFC, (the % drops being -34%, -23%, -32%. 110,000 less children in hardship),
2. I find it very hard to reconcile those figures with ‘no meaningful change’?
And to go back to my original point, which was that the report was further evidence that the ‘poverty and hardship are increasing meme was false.
3. You will agree that ‘difficult to see any meaningful change’ does at least eliminate an ‘increase’?
And you argue that “Two examples of these practices are cited in this report” means that measures not included in those examples are considered “perfectly sound”.
No. I say that they do not say all data is unsound, and in some areas they explicitly state they have confidence in the data. For Child Poverty they state ‘we have a number of official measures of income adequacy and material deprivation that allow us to create a consistent
and useful picture of poverty trends over time’, and they clearly reference Perry as the source of much of their data. They make definite assertions based on that data.
Is not a meme. The meme, if you insist, is that poverty and hardship have doubled since 1984 (using median household income as a metric) as a result of neoliberalism and will not improve until neoliberalism is abandoned (I’d like to see it smashed and broken too) in toto.
1) I have no way of knowing if those figures are correct. Wasn’t it only a couple of years back that Treasury seriously fucked up the raw data for some of Perry’s work?
2) whoa there, fucko, what happened to “my original point, which was that the report was further evidence that the ‘poverty and hardship are increasing meme was false.” Let’s call that “1b”
1b) from the paragraph above Table 2 in the report:
The proportion of children estimated to be both materially and income poor has declined from around 13% in 2010 (or about 130,000 children) to 8% in 2013, before rising again to around 9% or 90,000 children in 2014.
So, well after the peak of the GFC, the number of children in poverty and hardship seems to be on the increase again. If the figures are accurate. And where the hell did you get “110,000 less children in hardship”?
2) Well, any meaningful increase. But then you need to be clear that you are comparing apples with apples, rather than taking a single measure that happens to suit your data. This is where you keep falling over. But, for example, according to Perry all the income poverty measures had increases from 2013 to 2014. They might not be meaningful, but they are increases.
3) That appears to be the same data source they used in their 2013 report, and the data source turned out to undercount by 20,000. So while it’s correct from a certain point of view, from other points of view its reliability could be regarded as “debatable”.
But bear in mind that this is the best you can do using the peak of the GFC as a starting point. No meaningful change. Not “massive improvement”. Not “continued gains”. Advances in some narrowly-defined measures balanced by regressions in others.
And comparing the rates with 10 years or thirty years ago, the increases are most definitely meaningful.
1) I have no way of knowing if those figures are correct. Wasn’t it only a couple of years back that Treasury seriously fucked up the raw data for some of Perry’s work
Yup. Detected back in 2014 and corrected well before the data the Sallies base their report on.
As I have said several times. The Sallies are happy with the figures…
So, well after the peak of the GFC, the number of children in poverty and hardship seems to be on the increase again. If the figures are accurate.
The number of children in both income poverty and hardship rose by 1% between 13/14, at the same time as the total number of children in moderate or severe hardship dropped by 15%. (see tables 1 and 2)
This reflects an increase in relative income poverty measure, and further illustrates how the linkage between the 2 measures is problematic.
And where the hell did you get “110,000 less children in hardship”?
Table 2. Total number of children in hardship 2011 335,000, in 2014 225,000. That’s 110,000 less by my calculation. (How is that not significant? If it had gone up by that amount it would not be significant?)
2) Well, any meaningful increase.
Agreed. But yes, relative income poverty measures showed a small increase in the year. According to Perry, “On the moving line approach there was a reported rise to 2014, reflecting the sharp rise in the median. ” Again, indicating that Relative poverty can increase at the same time as hardship drops.
And comparing the rates with 10 years or thirty years ago, the increases are most definitely meaningful. Perry makes very interesting reading on trends since 1980.
In short, Inequality has increased significantly.
Income has risen for 80% of us (bottom quintile stayed flat).
Income based poverty measures have been very mixed over that time, and peaked in the mid 90’s, since when they have been dropping. Currently, depending on the measure used they are roughly between 3-10% above 1980 levels.
On the ‘Constant value’ measure (the closest we have to measuring hardship across 1980 to today, current rates are 13% below 1982 levels.
Between 2011 and 2014 you say! Astonishing. Something must have happened in the meantime to make that big a difference!
Oh, yeah, that’s right, they changed the way they measure it in 2012. I know this because I can remember the last time you tried to make something of it.
Detected back in 2014 and corrected well before the data the Sallies base their report on.
As I have said several times. The Sallies are happy with the figures
You can say it all you want, but the fact remains that Treasury phoned it in in 2013. You know, less than reliable.
And where the hell did you get “110,000 less children in hardship”?
Table 2. Total number of children in hardship 2011 335,000, in 2014 225,000.
Your numbers are incorrect:
Sally’s report Table 2: Estimates of proportion and number of children facing material hardship EU ‘standard’ threshold:
2011: 220,000
2014: 145,000
75,000 might or might not be significant. But again what you fail to grasp is that we are not dealing with instrument guages. We are looking at a basket of indicators, some of which measure things precisely but are indirect, and others that are estimates of estimates but are slightly more direct. And through it all there’s the filter of political interference that affects at least, but not restricted to, two indicators relating to the wellbeing of children in NZ. Looking at hardship, extreme hardship has bounced up and down in alternate years, while moderate hardship has decreased. Is this meaningful, if the number in extreme hardship remains steady? Meanwhile, income poverty is not even that rosy.
Income based poverty measures have been very mixed over that time, and peaked in the mid 90’s, since when they have been dropping.
well, until 2007, then they’ve not been dropping. Of course, stating which tables you’re getting this from would be useful, too, given that the Perry report is 229 pages.
Currently, depending on the measure used they are roughly between 3-10% above 1980 levels.
you do realise that the Perry report is “Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2014″
not that fucking mixed, anyway. Always above, never below.
On the ‘Constant value’ measure (the closest we have to measuring hardship across 1980 to today, current rates are 13% below 1982 levels.
Which table? And have you considered the effect of inflation on constant-value threshholds over decades?
Basically, you are so full of shit it’s not funny. Then you whine when people point this out.
Your numbers are incorrect:
Sally’s report Table 2: Estimates of proportion and number of children facing material hardship EU ‘standard’ threshold: 2011: 220,000, 2014: 145,000 Total number of children in both categories of the table…..2011 335,000, in 2014 225,000…
75,000 (110,000) might or might not be significant.
25-32% might or might not be significant? If it was Auckland house prices it would not be significant, or an increase in unemployment, or inequality? I bet you would be saying it was…
you do realise that the Perry report is “Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2014″
not that fucking mixed, anyway. Always above, never below.
Page 98. The graph does start at 1980. I agree the trend has been flat since 2007.
Which table? And have you considered the effect of inflation on constant-value threshholds over decades?
Page 86. The Constant Value Threshold does take inflation into account and according to Perry it “reveals whether the incomes of low-income households are rising or falling in real terms.”
But again what you fail to grasp is that we are not dealing with instrument guages. We are looking at a basket of indicators,
I do understand that McFlock, but my point is that we should be willing to look at all those indicators that are credible with an open mind. It seems to me that you and some others here are unwilling to accept any indicator which doesn’t suit your dogma, even when it is from a credible widely accepted source that is being used quite happily by organisations like The Sallies and The Child Poverty Monitor.
@OAB
To quote from that document … 1. There is no on-going ELSI time series, but the MWI series begins from 2012–13. Because items are common to earlier and later datasets, Perry considers there is sufficient commonality to have a ‘good-enough’ index that will show the shape of the trend line from 2006–07 to 2013–14.
Nowhere in the document does it make any suggestion that Perry’s figures as used extensively by themselves and The Sallies are incorrect.
Apart from in the entire introduction, where it casts doubt on anything that comes out of this government. You’ll deny that, and it’s all there in black and white.
what you fail to grasp is that we are not dealing with instrument gauges
Your numbers are incorrect:
Sally’s report Table 2: Estimates of proportion and number of children facing material hardship EU ‘standard’ threshold: 2011: 220,000, 2014: 145,000
Total number of children in both categories of the table…..2011 335,000, in 2014 225,000…
On what basis do you assume that the kids beyond the extreme hardship threshold are not merely a subset of those kids who are below the standard hardship threshold?
Do you understand what the term “threshold” means?
75,000 (110,000) might or might not be significant.
25-32% might or might not be significant? If it was Auckland house prices it would not be significant, or an increase in unemployment, or inequality? I bet you would be saying it was…
Absolute numbers might or might not be significant, depending on their accuracy. Percentage change in absolute numbers might or might not be significant. Population rates might or might not be significant. Significance depends on things like context, whether the change is within the margin for error of the measurements, and what aspect you’re trying to understand. As a human being, you’d understand all this, of course.
you do realise that the Perry report is “Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2014″
not that fucking mixed, anyway. Always above, never below.
Page 98. The graph does start at 1980. I agree the trend has been flat since 2007.
Do you mean graph F.2? Y intercept is 1980. Do you see a fucking data point at the Y intercept?
It’s this sort of sloppy shit from you that fucks people off.
But then graph F.2 relates to all individuals, not children, so you’re doing a multi-dimensional bounce around.
On the ‘Constant value’ measure (the closest we have to measuring hardship across 1980 to today, current rates are 13% below 1982 levels.
Which table? And have you considered the effect of inflation on constant-value threshholds over decades?
Page 86. The Constant Value Threshold does take inflation into account and according to Perry it “reveals whether the incomes of low-income households are rising or falling in real terms.”
Table and figure E.1, right? Labelled:
“CV threshold set at 60% of the 1998 median expressed as a proportion of the contemporary median (BHC)”
That doesn’t measure the rate of anyone in poverty. It measures the difference between the CV and REL measures. So what table or chart did you use as your basis for your claim “On the ‘Constant value’ measure […], current rates are 13% below 1982 levels.”?
But again what you fail to grasp is that we are not dealing with instrument guages. We are looking at a basket of indicators,
I do understand that McFlock, but my point is that we should be willing to look at all those indicators that are credible with an open mind. It seems to me that you and some others here are unwilling to accept any indicator which doesn’t suit your dogma, even when it is from a credible widely accepted source that is being used quite happily by organisations like The Sallies and The Child Poverty Monitor.
“Quite happily”. Absence of explicit criticism does not always indicate complete satisfaction.
But what fucks me off about you is that you confuse “any indicator” with “any relevant indicator”. You bounce around with what measurements you use, and finding out what your basing your bullshit on is like extracting hens’ teeth. And nine times out of ten, when we do find out what you’re talking about, it turns out that you’re either making massive assumptions or you’re completely delusional. And then you whinge when people call you a stupid fuckwit because of it.
Here’s a thought: if you don’t want abuse, stop being a dickhead. If people ask for evidence, don’t make them hunt through a 220 page document: at least give the table/chart reference. That way we can quickly see “oh, the lost sheep is just being a fucking moron again, they still haven’t grown a brain”.
On what basis do you assume that the kids beyond the extreme hardship threshold are not merely a subset of those kids who are below the standard hardship threshold?
My basis is the figures the tables show and the commentary provided for them. It’s plain enough IMO, but as you and I are not going to agree on it, I’m happy to leave it to any interested party to read it themselves.
Absolute numbers might or might not be significant, depending on their accuracy. Percentage change in absolute numbers might or might not be significant. Population rates might or might not be significant. Significance depends on things like context, whether the change is within the margin for error of the measurements, and what aspect you’re trying to understand.
That is politspeak. You’ve entered the world of smoke and mirrors and I’m not following you in there. I say that a 30% change in any figure is significant, and If it was going the other way you would be claiming it was hugely significant.
But then graph F.2 relates to all individuals, not children, so you’re doing a multi-dimensional bounce around
The data measure across that timeline is based on Household measures. Children do tend to live in households I believe.
That doesn’t measure the rate of anyone in poverty. It measures the difference between the CV and REL measures.
I referred to ‘hardship’ not poverty, but agree it is not an ideal measure. As I have quoted Perry above “it (CV) reveals whether the incomes of low-income households are rising or falling in real terms.” The tables on real income do show a steady increase for all except the lowest quintile…but i will see if I can find more explicit figures for ‘hardship’ across that time.
“Quite happily”. Absence of explicit criticism does not always indicate complete satisfaction
Sorry McFlock, but that is a fallacious ‘argument from ignorance’. Absence of explicit criticism is just that. It is not evidence of anything else at all.
The fact is that Perry is perfectly well accepted as reliable data by the Sallies and Child Poverty Monitor and everyone else. You and OAB do not accept it and that’s fine by me.
It isn’t ‘politispeak’ – not even Physics deals in absolute numbers – your frequent references to ‘proof’ indicate that you don’t really understand this,
Luckily, we have Einstein to explain it:
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
On what basis do you assume that the kids beyond the extreme hardship threshold are not merely a subset of those kids who are below the standard hardship threshold?
My basis is the figures the tables show and the commentary provided for them. It’s plain enough IMO, but as you and I are not going to agree on it, I’m happy to leave it to any interested party to read it themselves.
So, no basis for that assumption. If Perry had meant 350,000, Perry would have said 350,000. Because people with 8 or more criteria by definition meet the threshold for 4 or more criteria.
Absolute numbers might or might not be significant, depending on their accuracy. Percentage change in absolute numbers might or might not be significant. Population rates might or might not be significant. Significance depends on things like context, whether the change is within the margin for error of the measurements, and what aspect you’re trying to understand.
That is politspeak. You’ve entered the world of smoke and mirrors and I’m not following you in there. I say that a 30% change in any figure is significant, and If it was going the other way you would be claiming it was hugely significant.
So a change from three degrees to two degrees is just as significant as a change from thirty degrees to twenty degrees?
Or three cases of measles in one year and two cases the following year is as significant as the same population having 30,000 assault hospitalisations down to 20,000 the following year? No, because the context of the numbers dictates the significance of those numbers.
But then graph F.2 relates to all individuals, not children, so you’re doing a multi-dimensional bounce around
The data measure across that timeline is based on Household measures. Children do tend to live in households I believe.
Not evenly distributed, however. Which is why the data in section H of perry’s report differs from the household data. Again, your assumptions lead to your irrelevance.
That doesn’t measure the rate of anyone in poverty. It measures the difference between the CV and REL measures.
I referred to ‘hardship’ not poverty, but agree it is not an ideal measure. As I have quoted Perry above “it (CV) reveals whether the incomes of low-income households are rising or falling in real terms.” The tables on real income do show a steady increase for all except the lowest quintile…but i will see if I can find more explicit figures for ‘hardship’ across that time.
So just to clarify, the page 86 chart (E1) comparing CV against REL was irrelevant not just to hardship, but also to child poverty, and your entire case. You fucked up.
“Quite happily”. Absence of explicit criticism does not always indicate complete satisfaction
Sorry McFlock, but that is a fallacious ‘argument from ignorance’. Absence of explicit criticism is just that. It is not evidence of anything else at all.
So it is not evidence of how “happily” (or grudgingly) research is used in an environment that involves less than straightforward or reliable measures.
The fact is that Perry is perfectly well accepted as reliable data by the Sallies and Child Poverty Monitor and everyone else. You and OAB do not accept it and that’s fine by me.
I can’t help but notice the continued absence of explicit evidence to support your description of how happy everyone is.
It isn’t ‘politispeak’
It was straight from an episode of Yes Minister.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
This is an equally pathetic attempt to cast doubt on perfectly credible and accepted data, in order to avoid facing up to facts that contradict your dogma.
So tell me OAB/McFlock, are you going to be consistent in your stance that no data can be really said to be ‘real, certain or significant’?
@McFlock.
Thinking about the discussion re. the level of ‘debate’ here McFlock, we have made some good progress, thanks, but I’m no longer going to respond to points that would involve both parties in a 3rd repetition of what have obviously become fixed and immovable points.
And I think we’ve reached that state on some of the areas we’ve been discussing.
Happy to continue responding to any point that still has some potential for ‘progression’ in the debate.
“So just to clarify, the page 86 chart (E1) comparing CV against REL was irrelevant not just to hardship, but also to child poverty, and your entire case. You fucked up.”
I’ve already stated 3 times what Perry says the significance of it was. As a general indicator of those factors, it shows a very steady downward curve from 1980…..make of that what you will.
I looked to see if I could find any more direct data on ‘material hardship’ across 1982 – 2015, but the answer seems to be that there is no such comparison available due to lack of credible data pre 1998. Perry, in The material wellbeing of NZ housejolds etc, page 57 on, explains why it is only scientifically valid to report on trends from 2007 onwards, with very limited reference back to 1998.
The rest of the chapter contains in depth the material that forms the basis of almost all discussion on material deprivation in NZ, including the base material for the reports of The Sallies and C.P.M much discussed in this thread.
You can choose to acccept it or not McFlock, but as all credible organisations do accept it, it doesn’t matter a damn if you don’t.
Page 57/58 also contain the authors full explanation of why OAB’s claim that ‘changes in data measures completely undermine the validity of the conclusions’ is poppycock.
I can’t help but notice the continued absence of explicit evidence to support your description of how happy everyone is.
You are battling against your own strawman McFlock. I have made no such statement.
You are incapable of summarising my argument. Either that or you’re deliberately misrepresenting it.
You are the one expressing confidence in Perry’s conclusions about material hardship. I am saying that you haven’t made your case, and the problems with the data as detailed by the Sallies cannot be ignored.
Is there the remotest chance you could avoid lying about that in the future?
I’ve already stated 3 times what Perry says the significance of it was. As a general indicator of those factors, it shows a very steady downward curve from 1980…..make of that what you will.
On the ‘Constant value’ measure (the closest we have to measuring hardship across 1980 to today, current rates are 13% below 1982 levels.
I asked:
Which table?
And a supplementary question. You responded:
Page 86.
and an explanation about adjustment for inflation.
The only tables and figures on page 86 have nothing to do with either the CV or REL rates of poverty. The proportionate value of CV is 13% below 1982 REL levels.
You might think all this is piddling stuff, but it’s actually a really good example of why people find more value in just calling you a fuckwit. We’ve said a lot, but the debate has gone nowhere because you:
This is by no means an exhaustive list: what’s also concerning is that you confuse “best available” with “ideal”, and that you seem to believe that silence equals approval. And then there’s your outright bullshit “Perry, in The material wellbeing of NZ housejolds etc, page 57 on, explains why it is only scientifically valid to report on trends from 2007 onwards, with very limited reference back to 1998.” Where in section G does it even mention the year 1998? Let alone “scientific validity” (don’t use words too big for you to understand).
If this tit-for-tat had all your unsubstantiated bullshit and outright imcompetence removed, there would be almost no discussion remaining. You might call that “good progress”, but it’s not. It’s activity masquerading as utility. That’s why you’re frequently on the receiving end of abuse: you’re a fucking moron who thinks they’re a genius. You never acknowledge imperfection on your part, and therefore any disagreement with you must be incorrect. You’re a pointless waste of space.
Much more productive to just call you a stupid fuckwit. Now go write another comment on open mike about how people are mean. Then run crying to your mummy, she’s waiting for you.
Thanks McFlock, but they are all points that we have batted across the net several times now, and have obviously irreconcilable positions on. I’m not going to restate the same answers a third time.
Besides which, I’m really over this situation where you and OAB on the one hand deny the credibility and/or significance of Perry’s data, while at the same time asking me to answer points based on Perry’s data….
bullshit fucking moron pointless waste of space stupid fuckwit run crying to your mummy, she’s waiting for you.
Mate. I worked for 20 years in freezing works / coal mines / fishing boats / building sites / farms, and after that I can assure you that blank shots fired by an effete intellectual hiding behind the anonymity of a computer screen has absolutely zero effect on me.
Abuse can have gravitas, but IMO, only in a situation where the abuser is in the direct vicinity of the abused, and delivers the abuse in full awareness that they will be personally responsible for it. That can take real balls. But abuse from a position of hiding is just cowardice.
McFlock hasn’t denied the credibility of the data: they’ve pointed out that you don’t understand it, and where you have misrepresented it.
Whereas I pointed out (among other things) that (even if your reading of Perry were correct, which it isn’t) relying on a single study as proof of anything is a mistake, especially under the circumstances outlined by the Sallies.
Is there the remotest chance you could refrain from misrepresenting that in the future?
Thanks McFlock, but they are all points that we have batted across the net several times now, and have obviously irreconcilable positions on. I’m not going to restate the same answers a third time.
Restate? Answering even once would be fine. It’s pretty obvious,really: when you said CV rates today were 13% below 1982 levels, you meant that the value of the CV poverty line was 58% of the corresponding REL line in 1982, but is only 45% of the REL value today. But you can’t admit the slightest error, so you keep digging yourself a hole.
Besides which, I’m really over this situation where you and OAB on the one hand deny the credibility and/or significance of Perry’s data, while at the same time asking me to answer points based on Perry’s data….
You’re the one who brought Perry into this. I’m pointing out that what Perry authored isn’t what you say. I’m also suggesting that people who had to put a full column disclaimer at the top of their website might have experienced a little bit of trepidation at having to rely on the same source in future, rather than being “happy” about it.
Mate. I worked for 20 years in freezing works / coal mines / fishing boats / building sites / farms, and after that I can assure you that blank shots fired by an effete intellectual hiding behind the anonymity of a computer screen has absolutely zero effect on me. Abuse can have gravitas, but IMO, only in a situation where the abuser is in the direct vicinity of the abused, and delivers the abuse in full awareness that they will be personally responsible for it. That can take real balls. But abuse from a position of hiding is just cowardice.
lol: besides the confusion between “anonymity” and “pseudonymity”, you just called me a coward from behind a pseudonym. So you’re a hypocrite as well as a fucking moron, even if you’re ever so butch.
But perhaps I didn’t make myself clear: I don’t call you, for example, “a moron so stupid that any of your repeated attempts at pigfucking could well have resulted in your telling an extremely confused zebra to start squealing” because I want you to feel bad. I do it because it provides more opportunity for creativity and catharsis than “debating” statistics and complex issues with someone who can’t even read a single-line chart.
I’m not really too worried about you, your dissonance is strong enough to preserve your ego from even the most accurate criticism. Saying that I’ve trod in horseshit with more brains than you is not expected to have any effect upon your self esteem. I just find it a cleansing experience to describe you as more fucking stupid than Donald Trump’s hairdo.
So suck my balls, I soaked them in Evian rosewater just for you.
I’m not going to read a whole day’s worth of debate lost sheep. The onus on you is to give specific examples by linking. If you want to be taken seriously.
eg, here’s the actual quote you just gave in context so people can see that it was part of a comment, not a comment on its own, and that it was part of a very large conversation.
Again, if you don’t want to be ridiculed, I suggest you don’t pull such disingenuous stunts as you have just done in reply to me. You’ve been here long enough to know how this works.
“Simple eh. Only one possible answer? Would you have a problem accepting that point Weka?”
Only one possible answer if you are a badly programmed AI who doesn’t understand any nuance or context. People did answer you, you just don’t like what they said. You don’t get to dictate how people debate here.
As for the rest, why on earth would you expect me to know what went on in a conversation I wasn’t part of? You give OAB shit for not linking, then you don’t link and then you come here and whine about it. FFS man, if you want to pick a fight with the site, just be more honest about it.
If you want a gentlemen’s club where people abide by the rules that you have had a part in setting up, you are in completely the wrong place.
The reason you attract so much derision is because of how you debate. Today in OM is a classic example, although people seem remarkably restrained given you pull this shit as a matter of course. Me, I’m fucked off at having my time wasted.
I don’t talk to you very often, but my memory is that this is how it always goes. You got a good debate yesterday, so stop complaining about it. No-one here is going to do what you want them to so long as you keep trying to make them behave better than you are.
Weka’s considerably more tolerant than I: I consider her a role model. Me, I’ve been reading your zombie arguments for too long – thirty years at least, and it’s not like these are academic points of difference.
The only controversy here is political, which is utterly shameful, and you’re all bent out of shape because you think you were called names.
“You didn’t even have to reply to my first comment Weka. I didn’t force you…”
Ok, my summary of your comments in OM today is that you appear to believe you get to control what other people do and you don’t like it when people don’t do what you want. Lol, good luck with that. As Lynn said recently, it’s like trying to herd goats.
Thanks for also reminding me that you are basically incapable of engaging in ways that generate discussion that doesn’t end up in this mess. Which is a shame, because even though I disagree with much of your politics, you do have the ability to raise important issues from a RW perspective to be debated here and we need that. If you can find a way to drop the resentment that people don’t act in the way you want then it would probably go way better.
The other thing I was thinking through this was that although I get frustrated by the regulars who love arguing more than I do, I also know instrinsically that people like McFlock and OAB contribute a huge amount to this site. Maybe look at that way, what is it you want to contribute? At the moment it doesn’t look too flash.
Nope. It explains what moderators will look for with fire and forget trolls.
Not getting the conversation you desire under your rules of engagement (which to my reading you read like you are after) isn’t part of that.
I notice that you haven’t said why you think this will be good for the site for months you to try to set the rules of behaviour. Perhaps you should read further into the policy. I am sure I may have noted how we feel about non-existent authors trying to set policy for their own benefit.
I’m not trying to change anything here.
Was simply trying to get clarification on the level of ‘debate’ here, so that I could adjust my expectations accordingly. I’ve shifted them down a notch or three.
Personally, I think that a discussion where neither party has any obligation to meet a fair point squarely is something short of ‘debate’ and definitely of less value, but arguments are more fun.
The best rule of thumb here is to take it as given that a point ignored is a point proven.
Quote: nnovative safety rails especially designed to protect motorcyclists if they crash have been installed on New Zealand roads for the first time.
The new rails have been added to existing roadside safety barriers along a 130km state highway route called the Coromandel loop. Popular with riders, it passes through Kopu, Whangamata, Waihi and Paeroa.
Statistics show around four per cent of fatal motorcycle crashes involve collisions with the traditional roadside barriers, which are designed primarily to protect people in cars.”Quote end.
well considering that we pay some of the highest Rego and ACC levies, yes.
Considering also that riding on two wheels uses less space, less engergy/oil etc etc yes.
We had quite a bit of a ruckus at the time when the ACC levies increased and teh Cheese Cutters became the norm.
And yes, every year we loose people to these machinations from hell, and needlessly.
So yes, this pleases me, but only the Coro Loop? I would like to see these extra rails added to the cheese cutters on our motorways and elsewhere.
Gangs, i heard that some 30 years ago some NZ government went on a crack down on gangs and all male bikies are gang member and all chrome vixens must be gang owned pussies.
And sadly that idea is still prevalent in the minds of many, and also we are a good cash cow to milk. Many of us have a family car, and a bike, so we get to pay ACC on both, even tho we can only drive / ride one at a time.
but heck when the bike hikoi went to Nick Smith, Fuckwit for ACC in Wellington at the time, NZ had no issues giving us shit. right or left, cause bikies…. Never mind that our double triple and quadruple (some have spontaneously multiplying bikes, and cars…..addicts i think would be the right word, and lovers of chrome) ACC donations made for a big fat surplus.
I’m thinking the surplus comes from the failure of ACC to pay out on claims. There are a lot of claimants out there not getting the service they need to get back on their feet.
A systematic move to denigrate the ACC in the minds of the public, before privatisation.
Ahh! I drove over to the beach at Whiritoa today (absolutely magic weather) and saw the new guard-rails up! They went up quickly. Mind you as a motorcyclist from way back ( have just restored my 1957 R50 BMW) I think some of the riders going over that route are just accidents waiting to happen. My bach is right by the road and I see the way they ride – as if they are on a race track. Its a narrow winding road and there can be a lot of traffic during the weekends and logging trucks as well.
“The real damage is done by those millions who want to ‘survive.’ The honest men who just want to be left in peace. Those who don’t want their little lives disturbed by anything bigger than themselves. Those with no sides and no causes. Those who won’t take measure of their own strength, for fear of antagonizing their own weakness. Those who don’t like to make waves—or enemies. Those for whom freedom, honour, truth, and principles are only literature. Those who live small, mate small, die small. It’s the reductionist approach to life: if you keep it small, you’ll keep it under control. If you don’t make any noise, the bogeyman won’t find you. But it’s all an illusion, because they die too, those people who roll up their spirits into tiny little balls so as to be safe. Safe?! From what? Life is always on the edge of death; narrow streets lead to the same place as wide avenues, and a little candle burns itself out just like a flaming torch does. I choose my own way to burn.”
once upon a time when i was about 11 years old I went to find a ‘good german’.
I did not find many, but i did found her and her brother. So much honor, so much humanity, so little fear of living and even less fear of dying. She was made of good stuff this Lady.
I periodically stop to think about what it would be like to be willing to die for what one believed in and how one could do that well. We are so far away from that here*. Finding Sophie Scholl was a gift.
*outside of war, who have we had? The guy who tried to blow up the Whanganui computer comes to mind.
Imagine that. Spending taxpayers money on something that benefits the taxpayer. I would much rather my tax was spent on a beach than on some academic trougher that after 3 years will tell me that excessive sugar will make me fat.
Waiting for some considered and vote-winning words from Little on this one.
You know what Andrew is like.
He was calling for the Government to jump in wasn’t he?
Now he will be screaming blue murder because the Government did so.
“They didn’t oughta have done it” will be Andy’s call now.
“after 3 years will tell me that excessive sugar will make me fat”.
Really? That seems an amazingly short time to discover that. I thought it would have taken some academic their entire career to work that out?
“mortgages in Australia are full recourse”.
As are they here. It was only in the US, as far as I know, that it was normal to just be able to walk in to your mortgage holder, drop the keys and simply walk away from any further obligations.
“Investors” – that is, multinational corporations – can sue New Zealand under the treaty, and taxpayers get to pay damages for lost corporate profit.
New Zealand cannot sue the corporation/investors for any damage they may do. In effect, for corporations it is “heads I win, tails you lose”.
If the TPP is truly without danger from ISDS, as Mr Borrows would lead us to believe, then why have we signed a side agreement with Australia stipulating neither we nor they will allow their corporations to sue under ISDS against the other.
Smearing of TPP opponents is designed to paint peaceful protesters as radicals, hence untrustworthy. But the radical shoe is on this government’s foot amd no amount of cognitive diffusion can hide the fact the TPP contains a Trojan horse called ISDS, bringing an invasive force of legions of lawyers of multinational corporations.
The German Magistrates Association rejects the proposal of the European Commission to establish an investment court within the framework of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The DRB sees neither a legal basis nor a need for such a court.
The investment court ICS was the proposed substitute for the ISDS that was rejected by the EU for being so flawed!
The German Magistrates Association sees no need for the establishment of a special court for investors. The Member States are all constitutional states, which provide and guarantee access to justice in all areas where the state has jurisdiction to all law-seeking parties. It is for the Member States to ensure access to justice for all and to ensure feasible access for foreign investors, by providing the courts with the relevant resources.
Qutoe: Mediaworks’ head of news Mark Jennings has resigned from the role.
Mark Jennings had been with Mediaworks since 1989.
Quote:” Jennings joined MediaWorks TV in 1989, and was appointed director of news in 1994. In December 2014, he was appointed to lead the integration of MediaWorks’ TV, radio and digital news operations into an unified news team, which launched as Newshub earlier this month.
Earlier today it was revealed that ninemsn editor-in-chief Hal Crawford had resigned to take on the “chief news officer” role at Mediaworks, and he will join the organisation “in the coming months”.
In a statement released this afternoon, Jennings said the company had become part of his DNA”.Quote End
Surely not!
“The latest interim dividend figures from the partially-privatised Mighty River Power, Genesis, and Meridian show that the Crown has forgone $945.14 million in dividends since the asset sales. The National Government spent $96 million on the asset sales programme, including bonus-share sweeteners for investors. Combined, that means the asset sales have a total cost of $1.041 billion to date.” http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1602/S00347/asset-sales-cost-hits-1-billion.htm
April 30 was going to be the day we’d be calling Mum from London to wish her a happy birthday. Then it became the day we would be going to St. Paul's at Evensong to remember her. The aim of the cathedral builders was to find a way to make their ...
Rob MacCulloch writes – Can’t remember the last book by a Kiwi author you read? Think the NZ government should spend less on the arts in favor of helping the homeless? If so, as far as Newsroom is concerned, you probably deserve to be called a cultural ignoramus ...
Eric Crampton writes – Grudges are bad. Better to move on. But it can be fun to keep a couple of really trivial ones, so you’re not tempted to have other ones. For example, because of the rootkit fiasco of 2005, no Sony products in our household. ...
A new report warns an estimated third of the adult population have unmet need for health care.Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāHere’s the six key things I learned about Aotaroa’s political economy this week around housing, climate and poverty:Politics - Three opinion polls confirmed support for PM Christopher Luxon ...
Today is May the fourth. Which was just a regular day when my mother took me to see the newly released Star Wars at the Odeon in Rotorua. The queue was right around the corner. Some years later this day became known as Star Wars Day, the date being a ...
Buzz from the Beehive Much more media attention is being paid to something Winston Peters said about former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr than to a speech he delivered to the New Zealand China Council. One word is missing from the speech: AUKUS. But AUKUS loomed large in his considerations ...
Is the economy in another long stagnation? If so, why?This is about the time that the Treasury will be locking up its economic forecasts to be published in the 2024 Budget Economic and Fiscal Update (BEFU) on budget day, 30 May. I am not privy to what they will be ...
The annual list of who's been bribing our politicians is out, and journalists will no doubt be poring over it to find the juiciest and dirtiest bribes. The government's fast-track invite list is likely to be a particular focus, and we already know of one company on the list which ...
In the weeks after the October 7 Hamas attacks on Southern Israel I wrote about the possible 2nd, 3rd and even 4th order effects of the conflict. These included new fronts being opened in the West Bank (with Hamas), Golan … Continue reading → ...
Peter Dunne writes – It is one of the oldest truisms that there is never a good time for MPs to get a pay rise. This week’s announcement of pay raises of around 2.8% backdated to last October could hardly have come at a worse time, with the ...
David Farrar writes – Newshub reports: Newshub can reveal a fresh allegation of intimidation against Green MP Julie-Anne Genter. Genter is subject to a disciplinary process for aggressively waving a book in the face of National Minister Matt Doocey in the House – but it’s not the first time ...
The Treasury has published a paper today on the global productivity slowdown and how it is playing out in New Zealand: The productivity slowdown: implications for the Treasury’s forecasts and projections. The Treasury Paper examines recent trends in productivity and the potential drivers of the slowdown. Productivity for the whole economy ...
Winston Peters’ comments about former Australian foreign minister look set to be an ongoing headache for both him and Luxon. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The podcast above of the weekly ‘hoon’ webinar for subscribers features co-hosts and , along with regular guests on Gaza and ...
These puppet strings don't pull themselvesYou're thinking thoughts from someone elseHow much time do you think you have?Are you prepared for what comes next?The debating chamber can be a trying place for an opposition MP. What with the person in charge, the speaker, typically being an MP from the governing ...
The land around Lyme Regis, where Meryl Streep once stood, in a hood, on the Cobb, is falling into the sea.MerylThe land around Lyme Regis, around the Cobb that made it rich, has always been falling slowly but surely into the sea. Read more ...
Buzz from the Beehive Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters was bound to win headlines when he set out his thinking about AUKUS in his speech to the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs. The headlines became bigger when – during an interview on RNZ’s Morning Report today – he criticised ...
The Post reports on how the government is refusing to release its advice on its corrupt Muldoonist fast-track law, instead using the "soon to be publicly available" refusal ground to hide it until after select committee submissions on the bill have closed. Fast-track Minister Chris Bishop's excuse? “It's not ...
As pressure on it grows, the livestock industry’s approach to the transition to Net Zero is increasingly being compared to that of fossil fuel interests. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / Getty ImagesTL;DR: Here’s the top five news items of note in climate news for Aotearoa-NZ this week, and a discussion above ...
The New Zealand Herald reports – Stats NZ has offered a voluntary redundancy scheme to all of its workers as a way to give staff some control over their “future” amidst widespread job losses in the public sector. In an update to staff this morning, seen by the Herald, Statistics New Zealand ...
On Werewolf/Scoop, I usually do two long form political columns a week. From now on, there will be an extra column each week about music and movies. But first, some late-breaking political events:The rise in unemployment numbers for the March quarter was bigger than expected – and especially sharp ...
David Farrar writes – The Herald reports: TVNZ says it is dealing with about 50 formal complaints over its coverage of the latest 1News-Verian political poll, with some viewers – as well as the Prime Minister and a former senior Labour MP – critical of the tone of the 6pm report. ...
Muriel Newman writes – When Meridian Energy was seeking resource consents for a West Coast hydro dam proposal in 2010, local Maori “strenuously” objected, claiming their mana was inextricably linked to ‘their’ river and could be damaged. After receiving a financial payment from the company, however, the Ngai Tahu ...
Alwyn Poole writes – “An SEP,’ he said, ‘is something that we can’t see, or don’t see, or our brain doesn’t let us see, because we think that it’s somebody else’s problem. That’s what SEP means. Somebody Else’s Problem. The brain just edits it out, it’s like a ...
Our trust in our political institutions is fast eroding, according to a Maxim Institute discussion paper, Shaky Foundations: Why our democracy needs trust. The paper – released today – raises concerns about declining trust in New Zealand’s political institutions and democratic processes, and the role that the overuse of Parliamentary urgency ...
This article was prepared for publication yesterday. More ministerial announcements have been posted on the government’s official website since it was written. We will report on these later today …. Buzz from the BeehiveThere we were, thinking the environment is in trouble, when along came Jones. Shane Jones. ...
New Zealand now has the fourth most depressed construction sector in the world behind China, Qatar and Hong Kong. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: These are the six things that stood out to me in news and commentary on Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy at 8:46am on Thursday, May 2:The Lead: ...
Hi,I am just going to state something very obvious: American police are fucking crazy.That was a photo gracing the New York Times this morning, showing New York City police “entering Columbia University last night after receiving a request from the school.”Apparently in America, protesting the deaths of tens of thousands ...
Winston Peters’ much anticipated foreign policy speech last night was a work of two halves. Much of it was a standard “boilerplate” Foreign Ministry overview of the state of the world. There was some hardening up of rhetoric with talk of “benign” becoming “malign” and old truths giving way to ...
Graham Adams assesses the fallout of the Cass Review — The press release last Thursday from the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls didn’t make the mainstream news in New Zealand but it really should have. The startling title of Reem Alsalem’s statement — “Implementation of ‘Cass ...
This open-for-business, under-new-management cliché-pockmarked government of Christopher Luxon is not the thing of beauty he imagines it to be. It is not the powerful expression of the will of the people that he asserts it to be. It is not a soaring eagle, it is a malodorous vulture. This newest poll should make ...
The latest labour market statistics, showing a rise in unemployment. There are now 134,000 unemployed - 14,000 more than when the National government took office. Which is I guess what happens when the Reserve Bank causes a recession in an effort to Keep Wages Low. The previous government saw a ...
Three opinion polls have been released in the last two days, all showing that the new government is failing to hold their popular support. The usual honeymoon experienced during the first year of a first term government is entirely absent. The political mood is still gloomy and discontented, mainly due ...
National's Finance Minister once met a poor person.A scornful interview with National's finance guru who knows next to nothing about economics or people.There might have been something a bit familiar if that was the headline I’d gone with today. It would of course have been in tribute to the article ...
Rob MacCulloch writes – Throughout the pandemic, the new Vice-Chancellor-of-Otago-University-on-$629,000 per annum-Can-you-believe-it-and-Former-Finance-Minister Grant Robertson repeated the mantra over and over that he saved “lives and livelihoods”.As we update how this claim is faring over the course of time, the facts are increasingly speaking differently. NZ ...
Chris Trotter writes – IT’S A COMMONPLACE of political speeches, especially those delivered in acknowledgement of electoral victory: “We’ll govern for all New Zealanders.” On the face of it, the pledge is a strange one. Why would any political leader govern in ways that advantaged the huge ...
Bryce Edwards writes – The list of former National Party Ministers being given plum and important roles got longer this week with the appointment of former Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett as the chair of Pharmac. The Christopher Luxon-led Government has now made key appointments to Bill ...
TL;DR: These are the six things that stood out to me in news and commentary on Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy at 10:06am on Wednesday, May 1:The Lead: Business confidence fell across the board in April, falling in some areas to levels last seen during the lockdowns because of a collapse in ...
Over the past 36 hours, Christopher Luxon has been dong his best to portray the centre-right’s plummeting poll numbers as a mark of virtue. Allegedly, the negative verdicts are the result of hard economic times, and of a government bravely set out on a perilous rescue mission from which not ...
Auckland Transport have started rolling out new HOP card readers around the network and over the next three months, all of them on buses, at train stations and ferry wharves will be replaced. The change itself is not that remarkable, with the new readers looking similar to what is already ...
Completed reads for April: The Difference Engine, by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling Carnival of Saints, by George Herman The Snow Spider, by Jenny Nimmo Emlyn’s Moon, by Jenny Nimmo The Chestnut Soldier, by Jenny Nimmo Death Comes As the End, by Agatha Christie Lord of the Flies, by ...
On February 14, 2023 we announced our Rebuttal Update Project. This included an ask for feedback about the added "At a glance" section in the updated basic rebuttal versions. This weekly blog post series highlights this new section of one of the updated basic rebuttal versions and serves as a ...
Have a story to share about St Paul’s, but today just picturesPopular novels written at this desk by a young man who managed to bootstrap himself out of father’s imprisonment and his own young life in a workhouse Read more ...
The list of former National Party Ministers being given plum and important roles got longer this week with the appointment of former Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett as the chair of Pharmac. The Christopher Luxon-led Government has now made key appointments to Bill English, Simon Bridges, Steven Joyce, Roger Sowry, ...
Newsroom has a story today about National's (fortunately failed) effort to disestablish the newly-created Inspector-General of Defence. The creation of this agency was the key recommendation of the Inquiry into Operation Burnham, and a vital means of restoring credibility and social licence to an agency which had been caught lying ...
Holding On To The Present:The moment a political movement arises that attacks the whole idea of social progress, and announces its intention to wind back the hands of History’s clock, then democracy, along with its unwritten rules, is in mortal danger.IT’S A COMMONPLACE of political speeches, especially those delivered in ...
Stuck In The Middle With You:As Christopher Luxon feels the hot breath of Act’s and NZ First’s extremists on the back of his neck and, as he reckons with the damage their policies are already inflicting upon a country he’s described as “fragile”, is there not some merit in reaching out ...
The unpopular coalition government is currently rushing to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. The clause is Oranga Tamariki's Treaty clause, and was inserted after its systematic stealing of Māori children became a public scandal and resulted in physical resistance to further abductions. The clause created clear obligations ...
Buzz from the Beehive The government’s official website – which Point of Order monitors daily – not for the first time has nothing much to say today about political happenings that are grabbing media headlines. It makes no mention of the latest 1News-Verian poll, for example. This shows National down ...
It Takes A Train To Cry:Surely, there is nothing lonelier in all this world than the long wail of a distant steam locomotive on a cold Winter’s night.AS A CHILD, I would lie awake in my grandfather’s house and listen to the traffic. The big wooden house was only a ...
Packing A Punch: The election of the present government, including in its ranks politicians dedicated to reasserting the rights of the legislature in shaping and determining the future of Māori and Pakeha in New Zealand, should have alerted the judiciary – including its anomalous appendage, the Waitangi Tribunal – that its ...
Dead Woman Walking: New Zealand’s media industry had been moving steadily towards disaster for all the years Melissa Lee had been National’s media and communications policy spokesperson, and yet, when the crisis finally broke, on her watch, she had nothing intelligent to offer. Christopher Luxon is a patient man - but he’s not ...
Chris Trotter writes – New Zealand politics is remarkably easy-going: dangerously so, one might even say. With the notable exception of John Key’s flat ruling-out of the NZ First Party in 2008, all parties capable of clearing MMP’s five-percent threshold, or winning one or more electorate seats, tend ...
Bryce Edwards writes – Polling shows that Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau has the lowest approval rating of any mayor in the country. Siting at -12 per cent, the proportion of constituents who disapprove of her performance outweighs those who give her the thumbs up. This negative rating is ...
Luxon will no doubt put a brave face on it, but there is no escaping the pressure this latest poll will put on him and the government. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: These are the six things that stood out to me in news and commentary on Aotearoa-NZ’s political ...
This is a re-post from The Climate Brink by Andrew Dessler In the wake of any unusual weather event, someone inevitably asks, “Did climate change cause this?” In the most literal sense, that answer is almost always no. Climate change is never the sole cause of hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, or ...
Something odd happened yesterday, and I’d love to know if there’s more to it. If there was something which preempted what happened, or if it was simply a throwaway line in response to a journalist.Yesterday David Seymour was asked at a press conference what the process would be if the ...
Hi,From time to time, I want to bring Webworm into the real world. We did it last year with the Jurassic Park event in New Zealand — which was a lot of fun!And so on Saturday May 11th, in Los Angeles, I am hosting a lil’ Webworm pop-up! I’ve been ...
Education Minister Erica Standford yesterday unveiled a fundamental reform of the way our school pupils are taught. She would not exactly say so, but she is all but dismantling the so-called “inquiry” “feel good” method of teaching, which has ruled in our classrooms since a major review of the New ...
Exactly where are we seriously going with this government and its policies? That is, apart from following what may as well be a Truss-Lite approach on the purported economic “plan“, and Victorian-era regression when it comes to social policy.Oh it’ll work this time of course, we’re basically assured, “the ...
Hey Uncle Dave, When the Poms joined the EEC, I wasn't one of those defeatists who said, Well, that’s it for the dairy job. And I was right, eh? The Chinese can’t get enough of our milk powder and eventually, the Poms came to their senses and backed up the ute ...
Polling shows that Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau has the lowest approval rating of any mayor in the country. Siting at -12 per cent, the proportion of constituents who disapprove of her performance outweighs those who give her the thumbs up. This negative rating is higher than for any other mayor ...
Buzz from the Beehive Pharmac has been given a financial transfusion and a new chair to oversee its spending in the pharmaceutical business. Associate Health Minister David Seymour described the funding for Pharmac as “its largest ever budget of $6.294 billion over four years, fixing a $1.774 billion fiscal cliff”. ...
Bryce Edwards writes – Many criticisms are being made of the Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill, including by this writer. But as with everything in politics, every story has two sides, and both deserve attention. It’s important to understand what the Government is trying to achieve and its ...
TL;DR: Here’s my top 10 ‘pick ‘n’ mix of links to news, analysis and opinion articles as of 10:10am on Monday, April 29:Scoop: The children's ward at Rotorua Hospital will be missing a third of its beds as winter hits because Te Whatu Ora halted an upgrade partway through to ...
span class=”dropcap”>As hideous as David Seymour can be, it is worth keeping in mind occasionally that there are even worse political figures (and regimes) out there. Iran for instance, is about to execute the country’s leading hip hop musician Toomaj Salehi, for writing and performing raps that “corrupt” the nation’s ...
Yesterday marked 10 years since the first electric train carried passengers in Auckland so it’s a good time to look back at it and the impact it has had. A brief history The first proposals for rail electrification in Auckland came in the 1920’s alongside the plans for earlier ...
Right now, in Aotearoa-NZ, our ‘animal spirits’ are darkening towards a winter of discontent, thanks at least partly to a chorus of negative comments and actions from the Government Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: These are the six things that stood out to me in news and commentary on ...
The Government is again adding to New Zealand’s growing unemployment, this time cutting jobs at the agencies responsible for urban development and growing much needed housing stock. ...
With Minister Karen Chhour indicating in the House today that she either doesn’t know or care about the frontline cuts she’s making to Oranga Tamariki, we risk seeing more and more of our children falling through the cracks. ...
The Labour Party is saddened to learn of the death of Sir Robert Martin, a globally renowned disability advocate who led the way for disability rights both in New Zealand and internationally. ...
Labour is calling for the Government to urgently rethink its coalition commitment to restart live animal exports, Labour animal welfare spokesperson Rachel Boyack said. ...
Today’s Financial Stability Report has once again highlighted that poverty and deep inequality are political choices - and this Government is choosing to make them worse. ...
The Green Party is calling on the Government to do more for our households in most need as unemployment rises and the cost of living crisis endures. ...
Unemployment is on the rise and it’s only going to get worse under this Government, Labour finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds said. Stats NZ figures show the unemployment rate grew to 4.3 percent in the March quarter from 4 percent in the December quarter. “This is the second rise in unemployment ...
The New Zealand Labour Party welcomes the entering into force of the European Union and New Zealand free trade agreement. This agreement opens the door for a huge increase in trade opportunities with a market of 450 million people who are high value discerning consumers of New Zealand goods and ...
The National-led Government continues its fiscal jiggery pokery with its Pharmac announcement today, Labour Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall says. “The government has increased Pharmac funding but conceded it will only make minimal increases in access to medicine”, said Ayesha Verrall “This is far from the bold promises made to fund ...
This afternoon’s interim Waitangi Tribunal report must be taken seriously as it affects our most vulnerable children, Labour children’s spokesperson Willow-Jean Prime. ...
Te Pāti Māori are demanding the New Zealand Government support an international independent investigation into mass graves that have been uncovered at two hospitals on the Gaza strip, following weeks of assault by Israeli troops. Among the 392 bodies that have been recovered, are children and elderly civilians. Many of ...
Our two-tiered system for veterans’ support is out of step with our closest partners, and all parties in Parliament should work together to fix it, Labour veterans’ affairs spokesperson Greg O’Connor said. ...
Stripping two Ministers of their portfolios just six months into the job shows Christopher Luxon’s management style is lacking, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said. ...
Tonight’s court decision to overturn the summons of the Children’s Minister has enabled the Crown to continue making decisions about Māori without evidence, says Te Pāti Māori spokesperson for Children, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. “The judicial system has this evening told the nation that this government can do whatever they want when ...
It appears Nicola Willis is about to pull the rug out from under the feet of local communities still dealing with the aftermath of last year’s severe weather, and local councils relying on funding to build back from these disasters. ...
The Government is making short-sighted changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) that will take away environmental protection in favour of short-term profits, Labour’s environment spokesperson Rachel Brooking said today. ...
Labour welcomes the release of the report into the North Island weather events and looks forward to working with the Government to ensure that New Zealand is as prepared as it can be for the next natural disaster. ...
The Labour Party has called for the New Zealand Government to recognise Palestine, as a material step towards progressing the two-State solution needed to achieve a lasting peace in the region. ...
Some of our country’s most important work, stopping the sexual exploitation of children and violent extremism could go along with staff on the frontline at ports and airports. ...
The Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill will give projects such as new coal mines a ‘get out of jail free’ card to wreak havoc on the environment, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said today. ...
The government's decision to reintroduce Three Strikes is a destructive and ineffective piece of law-making that will only exacerbate an inherently biased and racist criminal justice system, said Te Pāti Māori Justice Spokesperson, Tākuta Ferris, today. During the time Three Strikes was in place in Aotearoa, Māori and Pasifika received ...
Cuts to frontline hospital staff are not only a broken election promise, it shows the reckless tax cuts have well and truly hit the frontline of the health system, says Labour Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall. ...
The Green Party has joined the call for public submissions on the fast-track legislation to be extended after the Ombudsman forced the Government to release the list of organisations invited to apply just hours before submissions close. ...
New Zealand’s good work at reducing climate emissions for three years in a row will be undone by the National government’s lack of ambition and scrapping programmes that were making a difference, Labour Party climate spokesperson Megan Woods said today. ...
More essential jobs could be on the chopping block, this time Ministry of Education staff on the school lunches team are set to find out whether they're in line to lose their jobs. ...
Te Pāti Māori is disgusted at the confirmation that hundreds are set to lose their jobs at Oranga Tamariki, and the disestablishment of the Treaty Response Unit. “This act of absolute carelessness and out of touch decision making is committing tamariki to state abuse.” Said Te Pāti Māori Oranga Tamariki ...
The Government is trying to bring in a law that will allow Ministers to cut corners and kill off native species, Labour environment spokesperson Rachel Brooking said. ...
Cancelling urgently needed new Cook Strait ferries and hiking the cost of public transport for many Kiwis so that National can announce the prospect of another tunnel for Wellington is not making good choices, Labour Transport Spokesperson Tangi Utikere said. ...
A laundry list of additional costs for Tāmaki Makarau Auckland shows the Minister for the city is not delivering for the people who live there, says Labour Auckland Issues spokesperson Shanan Halbert. ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters discussed the need for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and enhanced cooperation in the Pacific with German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock during her first official visit to New Zealand today. "New Zealand and Germany enjoy shared interests and values, including the rule of law, democracy, respect for the international system ...
The Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, Chris Bishop today released his decision on four recommendations referred to him by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council, opening the door to housing growth in the area. The Council’s Plan Change 92 allows more homes to be built in existing and new ...
Thank you, John McKinnon and the New Zealand China Council for the invitation to speak to you today. Thank you too, all members of the China Council. Your effort has played an essential role in helping to build, shape, and grow a balanced and resilient relationship between our two ...
The Government is modernising insurance law to better protect Kiwis and provide security in the event of a disaster, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly announced today. “These reforms are long overdue. New Zealand’s insurance law is complicated and dated, some of which is more than 100 years old. ...
The coalition Government is refreshing its approach to supporting pay equity claims as time-limited funding for the Pay Equity Taskforce comes to an end, Public Service Minister Nicola Willis says. “Three years ago, the then-government introduced changes to the Equal Pay Act to support pay equity bargaining. The changes were ...
Structured literacy will change the way New Zealand children learn to read - improving achievement and setting students up for success, Education Minister Erica Stanford says. “Being able to read and write is a fundamental life skill that too many young people are missing out on. Recent data shows that ...
Trade Minister Todd McClay says Canada’s refusal to comply in full with a CPTPP trade dispute ruling in our favour over dairy trade is cynical and New Zealand has no intention of backing down. Mr McClay said he has asked for urgent legal advice in respect of our ‘next move’ ...
The rights of our children and young people will be enhanced by changes the coalition Government will make to strengthen oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system, including restoring a single Children’s Commissioner. “The Government is committed to delivering better public services that care for our most at-risk young people and ...
The Government is making it easier for minor changes to be made to a building consent so building a home is easier and more affordable, Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says. “The coalition Government is focused on making it easier and cheaper to build homes so we can ...
New Zealand lost a true legend when internationally renowned disability advocate Sir Robert Martin (KNZM) passed away at his home in Whanganui last night, Disabilities Issues Minister Louise Upston says. “Our Government’s thoughts are with his wife Lynda, family and community, those he has worked with, the disability community in ...
Good evening – Before discussing the challenges and opportunities facing New Zealand’s foreign policy, we’d like to first acknowledge the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs. You have contributed to debates about New Zealand foreign policy over a long period of time, and we thank you for hosting us. ...
From today, passengers travelling internationally from Auckland Airport will be able to keep laptops and liquids in their carry-on bags for security screening thanks to new technology, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “Creating a more efficient and seamless travel experience is important for holidaymakers and businesses, enabling faster movement through ...
People with an interest in the health of Northland’s marine ecosystems are invited to a public meeting to discuss how to deal with kina barrens, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says. Mr Jones will lead the discussion, which will take place on Friday, 10 May, at Awanui Hotel in ...
Kiwi exporters are $100 million better off today with the NZ EU FTA entering into force says Trade Minister Todd McClay. “This is all part of our plan to grow the economy. New Zealand's prosperity depends on international trade, making up 60 per cent of the country’s total economic activity. ...
There are heartening signs that the extractive sector is once again becoming an attractive prospect for investors and a source of economic prosperity for New Zealand, Resources Minister Shane Jones says. “The beginnings of a resurgence in extractive industries are apparent in media reports of the sector in the past ...
The return of the historic Ō-Rākau battle site to the descendants of those who fought there moved one step closer today with the first reading of Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara / The Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill. The Bill will entrust the 9.7-hectare battle site, five kilometres west ...
Energy Minister Simeon Brown has announced 25 new high-speed EV charging hubs along key routes between major urban centres and outlined the Government’s plan to supercharge New Zealand’s EV infrastructure. The hubs will each have several chargers and be capable of charging at least four – and up to 10 ...
The coalition Government will not proceed with the previous Government’s plans to regulate residential property managers, Housing Minister Chris Bishop says. “I have written to the Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee to inform him that the Government does not intend to support the Residential Property Managers Bill ...
The Government has announced an independent review into the disability support system funded by the Ministry of Disabled People – Whaikaha. Disability Issues Minister Louise Upston says the review will look at what can be done to strengthen the long-term sustainability of Disability Support Services to provide disabled people and ...
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has attended the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva and outlined the Government’s plan to restore law and order. “Speaking to the United Nations Human Rights Council provided us with an opportunity to present New Zealand’s human rights progress, priorities, and challenges, while responding to issues and ...
The Government and Rotorua Lakes Council are committed to working closely together to end the use of contracted emergency housing motels in Rotorua. Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing) Tama Potaka says the Government remains committed to ending the long-term use of contracted emergency housing motels in Rotorua by the ...
Trade Minister Todd McClay heads overseas today for high-level trade talks in the Gulf region, and a key OECD meeting in Paris. Mr McClay will travel to Riyadh to meet with counterparts from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). “New Zealand’s goods and services exports to the Gulf region ...
Education Minister Erica Stanford has outlined six education priorities to deliver a world-leading education system that sets Kiwi kids up for future success. “I’m putting ambition, achievement and outcomes at the heart of our education system. I want every child to be inspired and engaged in their learning so they ...
The new NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) App is a secure ‘one stop shop’ to provide the services drivers need, Transport Minister Simeon Brown and Digitising Government Minister Judith Collins say. “The NZTA App will enable an easier way for Kiwis to pay for Vehicle Registration and Road User Charges (RUC). ...
Whānau with tamariki growing up in emergency housing motels will be prioritised for social housing starting this week, says Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka. “Giving these whānau a better opportunity to build healthy stable lives for themselves and future generations is an essential part of the Government’s goal of reducing ...
Racing Minister Winston Peters has paid tribute to an icon of the industry with the recent passing of Dave O’Sullivan (OBE). “Our sympathies are with the O’Sullivan family with the sad news of Dave O’Sullivan’s recent passing,” Mr Peters says. “His contribution to racing, initially as a jockey and then ...
Assalaamu alaikum, greetings to you all. Eid Mubarak, everyone! I want to extend my warmest wishes to you and everyone celebrating this joyous occasion. It is a pleasure to be here. I have enjoyed Eid celebrations at Parliament before, but this is my first time joining you as the Minister ...
Associate Health Minister David Seymour has announced Pharmac’s largest ever budget of $6.294 billion over four years, fixing a $1.774 billion fiscal cliff. “Access to medicines is a crucial part of many Kiwis’ lives. We’ve committed to a budget allocation of $1.774 billion over four years so Kiwis are ...
Hon Paula Bennett has been appointed as member and chair of the Pharmac board, Associate Health Minister David Seymour announced today. "Pharmac is a critical part of New Zealand's health system and plays a significant role in ensuring that Kiwis have the best possible access to medicines,” says Mr Seymour. ...
Hundreds of New Zealand families affected by Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) will benefit from a new Government focus on prevention and treatment, says Health Minister Dr Shane Reti. “We know FASD is a leading cause of preventable intellectual and neurodevelopmental disability in New Zealand,” Dr Reti says. “Every day, ...
Regional Development Minister Shane Jones today attended the official opening of Kaikohe’s new $14.7 million sports complex. “The completion of the Kaikohe Multi Sports Complex is a fantastic achievement for the Far North,” Mr Jones says. “This facility not only fulfils a long-held dream for local athletes, but also creates ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters’ engagements in Türkiye this week underlined the importance of diplomacy to meet growing global challenges. “Returning to the Gallipoli Peninsula to represent New Zealand at Anzac commemorations was a sombre reminder of the critical importance of diplomacy for de-escalating conflicts and easing tensions,” Mr Peters ...
Ambassador Millar, Burgemeester, Vandepitte, Excellencies, military representatives, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen – good morning and welcome to this sacred Anzac Day dawn service. It is an honour to be here on behalf of the Government and people of New Zealand at Buttes New British Cemetery, Polygon Wood – a deeply ...
Distinguished guests - It is an honour to return once again to this site which, as the resting place for so many of our war-dead, has become a sacred place for generations of New Zealanders. Our presence here and at the other special spaces of Gallipoli is made ...
Mai ia tawhiti pamamao, te moana nui a Kiwa, kua tae whakaiti mai matou, ki to koutou papa whenua. No koutou te tapuwae, no matou te tapuwae, kua honoa pumautia. Ko nga toa kua hinga nei, o te Waipounamu, o te Ika a Maui, he okioki tahi me o ...
Paul Goldsmith will take on responsibility for the Media and Communications portfolio, while Louise Upston will pick up the Disability Issues portfolio, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced today. “Our Government is relentlessly focused on getting New Zealand back on track. As issues change in prominence, I plan to adjust Ministerial ...
Recreational catch limits will be reduced in areas of Fiordland and the Chatham Islands to help keep those fisheries healthy and sustainable, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says. The lower recreational daily catch limits for a range of finfish and shellfish species caught in the Fiordland Marine Area and ...
Energy Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed an important milestone in New Zealand’s hydrogen future, with the opening of the country’s first network of hydrogen refuelling stations in Wiri. “I want to congratulate the team at Hiringa Energy and its partners K one W one (K1W1), Mitsui & Co New Zealand ...
The coalition Government is delivering on its commitment to improve resource management laws and give greater certainty to consent applicants, with a Bill to amend the Resource Management Act (RMA) expected to be introduced to Parliament next month. RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop has today outlined the first RMA Amendment ...
Overseas models for regulating the oil and gas sector, including their decommissioning regimes, are being carefully scrutinised as a potential template for New Zealand’s own sector, Resources Minister Shane Jones says. The Coalition Government is focused on rebuilding investor confidence in New Zealand’s energy sector as it looks to strengthen ...
Comment: Almost half the world is voting in national elections this year and artificial intelligence is the elephant in the room. There are genuine fears AI-generated or AI-edited deepfakes will potentially manipulate election outcomes not just in the US and UK, but critically in countries such as India. For that ...
Ahead of the reality franchise’s return to New Zealand, allow us to introduce the eight brides and grooms. Chuck on a veil and tie back your man bun, because it’s time to say “I do” to a new season of Married at First Sight NZ. The reality TV “social experiment” ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Norton, Professor in the Practice of Higher Education Policy, Australian National University Every year on June 1, student debt in Australia is indexed to inflation. In 2023, high inflation pushed the indexation rate to 7.1%, the highest since 1990. This ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Changes in the May 14 budget will cut the student debt of more than three million people, wiping more than $3 billion from what people owe. The government will cap the HELP indexation rate ...
Asia Pacific Report The prosecutor’s office at the International Criminal Court (ICC) has appealed for an end to what it calls intimidation of its staff, saying such threats could constitute an offence against the “administration of justice” by the world’s permanent war crimes court. The Hague-based office of ICC Prosecutor ...
By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk A women’s union in New Caledonia has staged a sit-in protest this week to support senior Kanak indigenous journalist Thérèse Waia, who works for public broadcaster Nouvelle-Calédonie la Première, after a smear attack by critics. The peaceful demonstration was held on ...
New Zealand Food Safety is monitoring overseas recalls of Indian packaged spice products manufactured by MDH and Everest due to concerns over a cancer-causing pesticide. ...
By Stephen Wright and Stefan Armbruster of BenarNews Fiji’s ranking in a global press freedom index has jumped into the top tier of countries with free or mostly free media after its government last year repealed a draconian law that threatened journalists with prison for doing their jobs. Fiji’s improvement ...
We might be in Invercargill but all anyone can talk about is Gore. Specifically, Salford Street. That’s where three-year-old Lachlan Jones lived, south of the centre of town, between the A&P Showgrounds and the Mataura River. Roughly 1.2 km away from the single level home he lived in with his ...
MONDAY I lined up the latest round of civil servants from city hall against the wall, and signalled for the firing squad to drop their rifles. I stepped up onto a wooden crate to look at the office workers in the eye. But that didn’t feel right, so I found ...
Keen hiker and second-year MSc student Liam Hewson wears two hats when he’s in the great outdoors. “The scientist in me appreciates nature and goes, ‘Oh, there’s that thing and there’s another thing,’ but then the tramper and the outdoorsy person in me thinks, ‘Cool bush.’” Born and bred in ...
After a long and illustrious career as a goal kicker, Dan Carter’s favourite way to unwind is… kicking goals. Why can’t he get enough of it? And what it’s like to watch him do it for an hour straight? A semicircle of people wielding cameras and phones has formed in ...
Dame Susan Devoy takes us through her life in television, including late night ER debriefs, her proudest CTI moment and the show she watches in secret. Quite aside from her four world champion squash titles, Dame Susan Devoy will likely go down in history as one of the best Celebrity ...
Hera Lindsay Bird reveals the best places in Ōtepoti to score more for your apocalypse-prep book hoard.Sometimes I get the feeling I’ve been killed in a car crash, and this second half of my life is just the brain unspooling itself, like one of those episodes of a hospital ...
ThreeNow’s new murder mystery series takes us on a dark, damp journey into the Australian wilderness.This is an excerpt from our weekly pop culture newsletter Rec Room. Sign up here. High Country is ThreeNow’s new Australian eight-part crime drama, set in a remote part of the Victorian highlands. It tells ...
Introducing a new way to read The Spinoff every weekend. After nearly 10 years of being an online magazine, we’re finally embracing the weekend liftout. Despite our best efforts to convince you otherwise, writers and editors at The Spinoff don’t work weekend. It is through the sheer power of technology ...
Tip one: let yourself be nurtured by this big old man. Tip two: don’t ask him to adopt you. So, you’ve arrived at your first session with a new therapist. He tells you to make yourself comfortable and you opt for the tweed armchair, hoping it makes you look like ...
I didn’t know books could open you back up; that there were books that stayed with you, where reading was like a chemical event. I knew nothing.The Sunday Essay is made possible thanks to the support of Creative New Zealand.Not too long ago, I was listening to the American ...
Former Olympic swimmer James Magnussen has already started training for the Enhanced games, though says he won’t start taking performance enhancing substances until about nine months out from the competition. The Australian world champion was the first athlete to be announced by Enhanced, but he says the organisation has had ...
Everyone thinks he’s dead. Every day they expect his body to be washed up along the coast. Most likely up Karitane way, the way the tide’s running. But nobody’ll be too surprised if his body’s never found. Even in death he wouldn’t have wished for such attention. He would have ...
Council members voted 21 to 4 in favour of Ahluwalia returning to the Laucala campus following a much-awaited meeting in Vanuatu this week. It comes as USP and its two unions — the Association of the University of the South Pacific Staff (AUSPS) and the Administration and Support Staff Union ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicola Henry, Professor & Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Social and Global Studies Centre, RMIT University Shutterstock Following an emergency meeting of the National Cabinet this week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a raft of measures to tackle the problem ...
Analysis - A poll showing the opposition is more popular than the government raises questions, politicians go through their 'trial by pay rise' and a Green MP loses her cool in the debating chamber. ...
The entire stretch of Tokomaru Bay on the East Coast will be subject to a joint customary marine title for two hapū, and extending up to four miles out to sea. A High Court judge has found the two groups, who during the case settled a dispute over boundaries for ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Hall, Lecturer, Media & Cultural Studies, Edith Cowan University A longstanding feud between TikTok and Universal Music Group seems to have finally reached an end, with both parties signing a deal that will see Universal-backed music returned to the social media ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Siobhan O’Dean, Postdoctoral Research Associate, The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, University of Sydney After several highly publicised alleged murders of women in Australia, the Albanese government this week pledged more than A$925 million over five years ...
Political parties have now fully disclosed the donations they received last year - with National getting more than double the cash of any other party. ...
A Pacific regionalism expert has called out New Zealand's Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters for withholding information from the public on AUKUS military pact. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard de Grijs, Professor of Astrophysics, Macquarie University Bruno Scramgnon/Pexels All systems are “go” for tonight’s launch of China’s next step in a carefully planned lunar exploration program. Placed on top of a powerful Long March 5 rocket, the Chang’e 6 ...
National returned a massive donation the day after a Newsroom story linked the donors to a property being investigated for operating unlawfully as a migrant workers’ hostel. The party’s 2023 donation filings, released on Friday, show it returned a $200,000 donation from Buen Holdings on August 23. That was the ...
Pacific Media Watch New Zealand has slumped to an unprecedented 19th place in the annual Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index survey released today on World Press Freedom Day — May 3. This was a drop of six places from 13th last year when it slipped out of its ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Black, Political Historian and Administrator Officer, Australian Historical Association, Australian National University Australia has had its fair share of public record-keeping controversies in recent years. Some have been mere farce, as in the case of two formerly government-owned filing cabinets (containing ...
Heavenly Culture, World Peace, Restoration of Light (HWPL), a United Nations-affiliated organization dedicated to fostering peace through civilian-led initiatives, has issued a statement in response to the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. ...
A poem by Tessa Keenan, from AUP New Poets 10. Mātou These days we are a photograph; one of a farm strewn with cows that used to be bright harakeke or swamp. The kids point at it and say the sun sits behind a smudge (left by someone at Christmas); ...
The only published and available best-selling indie book chart in New Zealand is the top 10 sales list recorded every week at Unity Books’ stores in High St, Auckland, and Willis St, Wellington.AUCKLAND1 Small Things Like These by Claire Keegan (Faber & Faber, $25)The masterful Irish writer ...
Marriage and civil union statistics record the number of marriages and civil unions registered in New Zealand each year, and divorce statistics record the number of divorces granted in New Zealand each year. Key facts Marriages and civil unions In ...
Marriage and civil union statistics record the number of marriages and civil unions registered in New Zealand each year, and divorce statistics record the number of divorces granted in New Zealand each year. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lennon Y.C. Chang, Associate Professor of Cyber Risk and Policy, Deakin University Taiwan stands out as a beacon of democracy, innovation and resilience in an increasingly autocratic region. But this is under growing threat. In recent years, China has used a variety ...
In this excerpt from her new memoir, Dame Susan Devoy remembers her turn as star contestant on the 2022 season of Celebrity Treasure Island. The most anxious time of every day was pre-elimination, when you knew this could be your final day on the show. I felt such contradictory emotions, ...
A week that began in triumph ended in an all-too-familiar disaster for the Green Party. Duncan Greive asks if there’s something in the mission that breaks its best and brightest. A long, strange week for the Green party began with a fantastic poll result. On one level this is hardly ...
By Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific journalist Vanuatu’s former prime minister and opposition MP Ishmael Kalsakau has stepped down — just two days after he confirmed he was the rightful opposition leader. Kalsakau, MP for Port Vila, confirmed to ABC’s Pacific Beat, and the Vanuatu Daily Post on Thursday that he ...
What’s to blame for the coalition’s choppy start? Six months in, and the mojo meter is in the doldrums. A new poll would put National out of power and sees its leader, Chris Luxon, sliding in popularity. How much is it about policy, how much coalition management and a perception ...
The striking report goes far beyond the proposed repeal of the Oranga Tamariki Act’s Treaty of Waitangi provision, and its impact should be felt far beyond the unique circumstances of the claim it addresses. Earlier this week, the Waitangi Tribunal released an interim report on the government’s proposed repeal of ...
The world has been experiencing a productivity slowdown, from which New Zealand has not been exempt. COVID-19 temporarily boosted labour productivity, but more recently, productivity has retreated. The overall trend since 2007 has been one of slow productivity ...
What’s more wasteful than spending $315k on syrup and machine maintenance? Trying to drum up a controversy about it.Cast your mind back to the pre-pandemic idylls of 2019. A “rat” was a disgusting rodent and not a self-administered plague test; the sixth Labour government was in power; and the ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Professor of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, Monash University, Monash University Ken stocker/Shutterstock In the wake of numerous killings of women allegedly by men’s violence in 2024, thousands of Australians have joined rallies across the country to demand action ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Cutler, Professor and Director, Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University Oleg Ivanov IL/Shutterstock Waiting times for public hospital elective surgery have been in the news ahead of this year’s federal budget. That’s the type of non-emergency surgery ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Konstantine Panegyres, McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellow, Historical and Philosophical Studies, The University of Melbourne Amna Artist/Shutterstock One of the earliest descriptions of someone with cancer comes from the fourth century BC. Satyrus, tyrant of the city of Heracleia on the Black Sea, ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Rose, Professor of Sustainable Future Transport, University of Sydney LanaElcova/Shutterstock Electric vehicles are often seen as the panacea to cutting emissions – and air pollution – from transport. Is this view correct? Yes – but only once uptake accelerates. Despite the ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Giselle Natassia Woodley, Researcher and Phd Candidate, Edith Cowan University There is widespread agreement Australia needs to do better when it comes to gender-based violence. Anger and frustration at the numbers of women being killed saw national rallies over the weekend and ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Graham, Lecturer in Economics, University of Sydney Mark and Anna Photography/Shutterstock As home ownership moves further out of reach for many Australians, “rentvesting” is being touted as a lifesaver. Rentvesting is the practice of renting one property to live ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sukhmani Khorana, Associate Professor, Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, UNSW Sydney Netflix The new season of Heartbreak High is garnering mixed reviews. Critics are writing about the racy story lines, comparing it to other coming-of-age series about teenage relationships and ...
Bob Carr intends to launch legal action against Winston Peters and Julie Anne Genter is facing a second allegation of bullying. Both sucked the air out of an announcement on education, writes Anna Rawhiti-Connell in this excerpt from The Bulletin, The Spinoff’s morning news round-up. To receive The Bulletin in ...
In 1995, Sally Clark went out on her own in a bold and unorthodox attempt to join an illustrious group of equestrian riders conquering the world. In the days of glovebox road maps, brick cell phones, and the hit song How Bizarre, Clark refused to follow Sir Mark Todd, Blyth ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Beaglehole, Senior Lecturer, Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago niphon/Getty Images The number of people accessing medication for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in Aotearoa New Zealand increased significantly between 2006 and 2022. But the disorder is still under-diagnosed and ...
To celebrate the start of New Zealand music month, we look back at the best local tuneage that managed to weasel its way into Hollywood productions. There’s nothing quite like the thrilling zap of recognition when New Zealand weasels its way into a glamorous Hollywood production. Crack open a Tui ...
People trust other people more than institutions. So how can the media gain that trust through journalists without losing what’s important about the institution? Anna Rawhiti-Connell reflects on two years of curating the news for The Bulletin.Amonth ago, armed cops descended on my neighbourhood as calls to “lock your ...
Interesting-the sheep deal has made McCully a liability-the smiling assassin has sent him on his way. Wonder who the Nats have lined up for this plum seat and maybe it will become vulnerable with no McCully and a swing to Labour?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11594246
Wonder no longer, my contacts have assured me its a done deal:
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/PcAVckjtNMK/Prince+William+Visits+New+Zealand+Day+1/KekyxxQA7lT/Richie+Mccaw
*This may or not be completely accurate*
Wasn’t this the seat that Crazy Collin was coveting?
Like a cut snake in the grass.
Thanks for bringing back those best-forgotten images: like this and this.
Of course, the thought that this one is a posed studio shot is fairly disturbing.
Judy.
Bill McKibben on the Koch brother’s new brand
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/03/10/koch-brothers-new-brand/
Oh another Koch Brothers article that will get me pissed off I thought (I’ve read a few), but
Jeezzzuzzzz…. Reading that made me nearly physically ill.
Trigger warning for people who have been subject to the machinations of serial F***in a*se***es.
I reckon,
They are saying the Kocks are pissed that Trumps ahead, because he’s rich and paying his own way, so they cant get their claws in there. But Trump in the Whitehorse? This could put the US back to the days of Hoover, with his attacks on the Muslim Religion, and the other insanities coming out..
More likely it will put the US back to the days of Germany 1933.
That guy also had no economic policy except, “I will make this country great again.” His only election message was anger and outrage because of his country’s fall from power.
and on the same nybooks.com page this…
Tonight 1 out of every 100 US adults will spend the night in prison. More young American men of color are in prison than are in university.
That’s more than “sad.” It’s catastrophic.
A country where more men than women get raped on a night to night basis.
Oh noes! Bill English vs. reality!
Maybe, just maybe, those despised ‘academics’ are right, and the problem is the GINI. Nah! Defund the academics!
Read that article, public service not delivering, can see why the government wants to get private organizations involved.
You’re either being deliberately obtuse or you’re an idiot, arguing from bad faith or stupidity. In other words, it’s a complete waste of time discussing this with you.
The problem is the GINI, and that won’t stop fuckwits like you doing even more harm.
since when have private organisations ever improved anything that reflects or measures social or economic disparity???
From the article
Can see why he’s keen to get iwi and the sallies involved in running the state house system.
Meanwhile, the Sallies have just released a report saying they’re sick of being lied to by the National Party.
The problem is the National Party.
+1
National had a golden chance to lower the rates of domestic violence, lower the number of childhood abuse victims ……….. and lower our prisoner numbers.
It was the Alcohol law review …………..
They had good advice from medical professionals, police officers and others.
But they spent the bulk of their time meeting with liquor company lobbyists ( and political donars ?), and ended up ruling out any changes which would lower alcohol abuse …………….
Our high rates of domestic violence and abuse are Nationals achievement …….and they will use their crisis to give us something that will make us even sicker ……
TPPA ………..Serco to run cyf’s ???????????
but they do absolve the government of any responsibility for anything, which is what Nats like.
A comment on the story says:
I just googled domestic violence prevention programs nz
Looks like there’s lots of options.
The real issue is more about people realizing they’ve got a problem and for those people to take the necessary steps to deal with their anger issues.
How you convince people to do that is where it all gets a bit tricky and I don’t think more money is the answer
more money = (more cops + more social workers) – income related stress
It might no be the answer (as if there could even be a single answer for a complex problem), but it’d be a bloody good start.
Another option could be monitoring guys with high testosterone levels.
http://www.crimetimes.org/95c/w95cp4.htm
You obviously haven’t read enough studies of what happens to animals when you put them in cages.
I seriously doubt that you can extrapolate violence/testoserone levels in men in prison out to the general population. Lots of other criticism of your idea but that will do to start with.
Because monitoring is free? Oh, wait…
It’s almost like he wants to find any solution apart from ones that will work that left have been promoting.
That’s the right’s answer to everything, is that it all comes down to personal responsibility if you’re not a winner in life, blah bla bla, a bloody great scapegoat that one. You don’t have to offer any solutions, its all your own fault.
I have had family involved in several of these as volunteers or professionally. They are largely run on a voluntary basis by groups outside the government, and usually get a slither of funding but are grossly underfunded.
Perhaps you should ask yourself a more basic question – why are there so many ‘options’ and how many of them are effectively defunct. Try using the date filter and see how many of those sites (which is what you were looking at) are dead.
Which is probably part of the problem. People simply don’t know where to go.
People with anger issues usually don’t realise that that they have anger issues. They need to have it pointed out to them which means that we need a proactive organisation doing so.
Such an organisation would be where people who need help from people with anger issues can go to get that help and then that organisation would have the power to force the people with anger issues into dealing with their anger.
BM has let the cat out of the bag ! at 3.1
He says “public service not delivering, can see why the govt wants to get private organisations involved”.
This is THE classic tactic. Run down the public service, deprive it of the necessary funds, then say its not working and the private sector can do it better ….. and hey presto – the private sector comes in with a big financial incentive from the govt.
with a watertight contract that ensures they get the taxpayer dollars even when they fail to deliver the promised results…but hey, its better value ,right(wing)?
“public service not delivering”
. . . which is the fault of the minister in charge of that ministry.
So privatizing is an admission that the National cabinet are crap managers.
That is 1,000% true of the minister in charge of prisons.
And the minister in charge of the Christchurch fiasco.
“Defund the academics”
That’s because they’re all saying “we told you so..” The treasury child can’t handle it.
It’s also a prelude to introducing another useless pet project that when the eventual failure occurs will be blamed the poor not the project.
*on the poor not the project
The point of a new project for Bill, like the traditional commission of enquiry, is to delay a public accounting for his failures, ideally until out past the next election.
+1
read the comments.
there is much love for Aunty Double Dipper from Dipton Bill English, also Finance Minister for our current National led Government.
It must be him admitting that despite cuts to all services in regards to Domestic Violence, nothing was achieved that brings out the love sweet love. His solution? More cuts 🙂
I think he is trying to get his micro surplus up and going 🙂
Weird that the article is categorised as ‘business’
because it is a business. Nothing weird about that. Especially the privatising part of it is business, big business.
I think Pull’s her Benefit calls it ‘sexy business’ the selling of vital services to for profit business…cause you might can’t milk a stone, but you sure can milk a poor person for what their worth, and then off to a private prison they go 🙂
Now that is an A+ response. Poor Bill must be so conflicted that the cost of that private prison business is coming from the budget for which he’s guardian *cough*
Problem is the accademics are not interested in the data because the solution is bleedin obvious. Put more actual money into poverty reduction programs. The governments new fangled data department is (if successful) a cost cutting measure on the other hand. If they dont start getting results soon they will start burying the issues.
Um, which ‘academics’ are you talking about? How will spending more money on poverty reduction address domestic violence in middle and upper income families?
The problem is the GINI: our level of inequality is too high. The notion that it only affects the poor is a common misunderstanding.
So if we made the poor richer, and the rich poorer i.e. reduced our GINI, then the newly worse off middle class households will have less domestic violence?
How does that work?
Again my general point: most money and most effort in our universities is no longer focussed on solving the crisis level problems facing Kiwis and facing the country.
The role of universities as the “critic and conscience of society”? Out the window. University departments up and down the country should have been backing Jane Kelsey up against the TPP. Instead: crickets.
And it is understandable why that is the case: these are areas with limited international and academic prestige, they are areas which are longstanding and easy to neglect through familiarity, they are areas which are politically controversial and hence always a problem for funding, they are areas which are seen as too low brow pragmatic and not conceptually or theoretically challenging enough, etc.
“So if we made the poor richer, and the rich poorer i.e. reduced our GINI, then the newly worse off middle class households will have less domestic violence?”
We need to reduce inequality across the board (not just who is rich and poor economically). When we do that, reducing domestic violence programmes will be more successful. Do both.
Actually domestic violence/family violence has been shown to be across the board in socio economic, race and class groups.
Family violence is not just done by the poor, it is just they get caught more and get more media attention.
Ie The white rich prick is just as likely to be beating up his family as the brown poor prick.
Yes, and for other inequality reasons not just financial ones eg gender inequality.
Is that the only way you can think of reducing inequality? I’m pretty sure that such cak-handed incompetence would cause a backlash, so I suggest we don’t do it your way.
Why do upper salaries have to fall if lower ones are rising? Is it because that was the only white-anting approach you could think up on the spur of the moment?
That of course would be the smarter way to do it, but when Nic the NZer suggested simply giving more income to the poor, you dismissed the suggestion out of hand with your typical clever bullshit reasoning.
Flawed reasoning: see below:
it follows that a sensible approach might actually raise top salaries, just not as quickly as low ones
Fine, so Nic the NZer gets to put more money directly into anti-poverty programmes, and you get to hand over more money to comfortable and high income earners.
Win win all round.
Win win? Doesnt that involve AOB not being the only winner? Doesn’t seem like thats a win win for him.
Yawn. If you feel like engaging with CV’s feeble desire to put words in my mouth, go right ahead. You’re wasting your time though.
Just because something is possible doesn’t mean I consider it a desirable outcome. Knocking down CV’s strawmen is too easy.
If you want a clearer picture of my opinion see the discussion with Weka below:
If everyone else is genuinely doing ok then maybe…
Or you could admit your first paragraph at 3.4.1 was just you mouthing off and poverty reduction programes will likely improve violence measures and GINI measures. (Even if some body else said it)
Do you think it’s ok for some people to earn shit loads of money if everyone else is doing ok?
Well that depends on how you define shit loads.
Australia, for example, has a lower GINI than we do, and a higher average wage, so clearly the “make rich people poorer” approach is nonsense, although I can see why those who specialise in white-anting (whether from the right or the left) fixate upon it.
It is widely acknowledged (among those despised academics at the World Bank, OECD, etc.) that a lower GINI increases a country’s wealth across the board.
So it follows that a sensible approach might actually raise top salaries, just not as quickly as low ones.
“Well that depends on how you define shit loads.”
Yes, and it follows from that you and CV might use the word ‘rich’ differently.
You didn’t answer my question 🙂
I don’t have a strong opinion about it one way or another. Where “earning shit loads” involves environmental degradation, for example, it follows that everyone else isn’t doing ok.
If everyone else is genuinely doing ok then maybe…
I don’t think it’s possible to earn shitloads without damaging the environment and/or social conditions.
Yep. The Left still hasn’t really seriously come to terms with the idea of a steady state economy.
It’s still all about growth growth growth.
While generally very wealthy people develop power to cause mischief somewhat akin to that of states, some enterprises do not intrinsically degrade the environment. JK Rowling’s work wasn’t particularly destructive if you accept that the publishing industry would have printed something else had she been absent.
Seems AOBs reasoning fails on its own merits here however. Or does somebody want to seriously claim that middle and upper income house holds are engaging in domestic violence because they are not paying enough tax?
The main reason to remove wealth from the top to me seems to be so their political power doest reach extremes.
And i would always point out pragmatically you should not put on hold the near term goal of spending on the lower end, to wait for the ability to collect from the top end. Its not an easy task getting wealth off the wealthy and putting poverty reduction on hold is a disservice.
I suppose that incoherent mess translates as the false assumption that I favour redistribution as the way to tackle inequality.
I don’t. I think pre-distribution is a far superior approach.
PS: it would help you grasp the issue if you informed yourself about it, as opposed to these rather hysterical displays of ignorance.
Waiting to hear what you think the top initiatives in pre-distribution for NZ are, and how we would push for them politically.
The Living Wage campaign is a good example. The fact that union members get paid more is another.
Superb. So where’s the disagreement? Raise wages for all (not just union workers, they are only a small minority of wage earners) and implement a universal basic income set at a decent level. No one here would disagree with that.
Next – how are you going to fund it.
how are you going to fund it.
You are mistaken: it results in gains not losses.
You’re still looking at it the wrong way. The UBI and other government spending is what funds the rest of the economy.
DTB – well I know that, the question is, does OAB. Or does he think that we are going to have to tax and borrow to fund his proposals.
So, just to clarify, both you and OAB agree that measures such as a living wage and maybe even a UBI are affordable.
You’re just looking for an argument as to why you both agree.
You really should go back and address wtf you mean leading up to 3.4.1.1.2.1
As far as i can see i suggested pretty sensible plan of funding poverty reduction programs which would help with abuse rates (I believe).
Of course this would also improve GINI statistics if it reduced absolute poverty.
Apparently thats not going to address middle and upper income abuse rates. But you didnt seem to have any plan yourself there (other than demanding GINI rates fall). Whats the plan there? Your going to bring GINI rates down by shouting at them? Will that address middle and upper income abuse rates anyway.
1) boost incomes for the poor. While the corresponding decrease in incomes for the rich will be the same monetary amount, the percentage drop in their income will be much lower than the percentage increase for the poor because that’s how capitalism works.
2) if there is a socioeconomic relationship at all consistent with almost all other forms of violence and harm, the decrease in violence amongst the poor will be quantitively and proportionately many times greater than any corresponding increase amongs the upper and middle classes
3) one could also imagine a socioeconimic mechanism whereby in more equal societies there is less risk associated in leaving an abusive relationship with a rich partner
4) for the rest, other solutions apply such as social workers, support groups, mandatory follow-ups on IPV incidents to make sure the behaviour isn’t continuing, etc etc etc. Money isn’t the sole factor for any problem except poverty, just a major one for many other problems.
the corresponding decrease in incomes for the rich will be the same monetary amount
Not necessarily: as above,
@Nick: already answered above at 9:52 am. Lower GINI, less violence across the board. There’s lots of information about the mechanisms involved at the Equality Trust site previously linked.
Next: timeframe.
Things are at a crisis point so how many years are we going to give ourselves to signficantly reduce GINI? Maybe four or five?
Edit – Helen Clark’s govt did nothing to lower GINI. Levels of GINI during most of Key’s term appear directly comparable to Helen Clark’s day.
What’s the problem again?
“Boost incomes for the poor. While the corresponding decrease in incomes for the rich will be the same”
Its a bit hard to resolve what the exact policy is from comments like this. That may have something to do with missconceptions in economic discussions.
I fully agree with AOB that its good enough if you can get incomes at the bottom to gravitate up maybe with govt subsidies of some form. Better if that reduces some GINI measure. You dont need to collect more tax for that to happen. The left has already tried to push forward policies about taxing wealth more (and paying less to supposedly well off pensioners). The problem is if they are unpopular then the left doesnt get elected and cant do anything. Clearly thats not doing the best for left wing constituants.
“if”
Hmm, yes. What do opinion polls tell us?
I note Warren Buffet’s observations about wealth and 70% taxation.
For those who have forgotten what a GINI is – voila Wikipedia.
The Gini coefficient (also known as the Gini index or Gini ratio) (/dʒini/ jee-nee) is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income distribution of a nation’s residents, and is the most commonly used measure of inequality.
Gini coefficient – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Further explanation:
A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality, where all values are the same (for example, where everyone has the same income). A Gini coefficient of one (or 100%) expresses maximal inequality among values (for example, where only one person has all the income or consumption, and all others have none).[3][4]
However, a value greater than one may occur if some persons represent negative contribution to the total (for example, having negative income or wealth). For larger groups, values close to or above 1 are very unlikely in practice.
Now you know, or not, as the case may be. Clear as mud.
For the same reason that lower incomes are falling/stagnating while upper incomes are increasing.
nice straw man
With preconspetions like that, who needs an education…
In the article you linked English complains that only the Salvation army is interested in his data.
Probably violence in middle and upper income families is more difficult to address, but its a more prevalent issue for low socio economic groups.
And you take what English says at face value? The Sallies say his party tells lies: perhaps everyone else has noticed that it’s counterproductive dealing with callous deceitful hypocrites.
Sure, if they no longer want their funding.
What’s the point of doing a whole lot of research into lies? You’re not going to get published anywhere reputable, unless you shift focus and do a Poli-Sci analysis of exactly how and why the lies are being told.
I think if academics were in it for the money academia wouldn’t appeal to them.
On the funding note, and on what is smiled upon charity-wise and what is not, I thought it was interesting looking at a 2002 ‘book’ guide on charities
to see the following (which says a lot about government wanting people to be fully informed):
2. Under Advancement of education as a legal charitable purpose, the last entry reads:
Our problem in NZ a government that desires and ensures our ignorance of our polity! (Being a bit ignorant myself, I checked I had the right word –
Google defined it – an organized society; a state as a political entity.)
Not sure what your implying. Are you saying the accademy is very interested in govt data but English doesnt want people to know that?
I’m saying that English is a minister of a government that tells lies, as detailed by the Sallies, and that while academics would no doubt love to get their hands on the data, they can’t, because the National Party has constructed a dishonesty machine.
All this has been detailed in the Sallies’ report: ‘Moving Targets’ – I suggest you familiarise yourself with it.
Which section/pages of that Sallies report describes the National Government;’s “dishonesty machine”, thanks.
Don’t thank me: I haven’t lifted a finger to help you.
Why can’t you give a link One Anonymous Bloke. Always short and sharp you are, and all knowing. Can we gain the background to that info with your help. That’s what we have a left leaning blog for, to assist the spread of useful information and understanding, I thought.
http://www.salvationarmy.org.nz/research-media/social-policy-and-parliamentary-unit/latest-report/moving-targets
The answer to CV’s doubtful leading question can be found in the introduction. The whole introduction, read as a single piece.
I didn’t link to it because it formed the basis of a post right here a few days ago which is still visible on the front page.
you are correct in saying that funds spend on poverty will not eradicate ‘all’ domestic violence, but it will alleviate the worst of it.
I think that to a large extend it depends how one defines ‘domestic violence’ on a private level – violence by family members, and how one defines ‘domestic violence’ on a state / governmental level – violence by a state who simply does not care how its populace survives.
On a private level, one can help by providing funds to schools for a. appropriate and science based sexual education, education about how to prevent being violent oneself, how to speak to someone in authority should one be a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault at home etc etc.
Then funds could be provided to Shelters and Refuge Centers, so that victims of domestic violence and sufferers of abuse have a save place they can go to.
On a state / governmental level funds could be provided to create social housing and / or maintain current social housing stock (aka State Houses) so that children and their parents can live in a decent home that they can afford.
Benefit levels could be reviewed so that Children and their Parents have enough funds to not only pay rent, but also pay electricity and have food.
Benefit levels could be reviewed so that children of poor parents (there is a big growing class of working poor here in NZ) will receive adequate clothing and other needed items for their schooling.
Not eating, not being warm, being bullied at school for being poor are all symptoms of ‘domestic violence’.
Children dying of cold in a government owned and maintained state house?
Not having Police around to patrol the streets and make certain parts of town safer is a part of ‘domestic violence’ and usually it is women who bear the costs. i.e.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/77201968/Police-seek-information-about-Invercargill-assault
Now these are just a very few examples of how to ‘fight’ domestic violence, and all of the examples listed would prolly not cost more than the money that the Double Dipper from Dipton has squandered on ‘Statistics’ to prove that nothing can be done.
What I would like to know is why these guys are actually in government if they believe that the private industry is so much better at governing. It must be that they are so bad that no one would want them in private business.
“Not having Police around to patrol the streets and make certain parts of town safer is a part of ‘domestic violence’ and usually it is women who bear the costs. i.e.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/77201968/Police-seek-information-about-Invercargill-assault”
That’s not domestic violence. The most straightforward solution to that is to put a curfew on men. But ultimately men have to do the anti-violence work or the problem just goes somewhere else. Having police patrol the streets to the degree needed to stop rape in public places is ineffective, inefficient and makes people paranoid.
Who is going to enforce your “curfew on men”, robots???
good idea. Or women police could do it. Or do you think that women aren’t capable and that only men can do such a job?
edit, thinking about it, in some places in NZ police men could probably be trusted with the job, whereas in other places obviously not. I’m sure we could come up with a system that allows us to determine who is trustworthy or not.
There’s an inverse relationship between the GINI and the level of trust in society. Just saying… 😀
I was thinking about what we could do in our ambulance at the bottom of the cliff culture, rather than waiting for the revolution to come.
The Two Ronnies and Diana Dors presented one scenario of bringing men to heel
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZYCPHuRW_0
No, I’m saying your solution of a curfew on men is fucked.
that’s hardly unexpected. Try seeing the context.
Frankly i consider the Idea to put a curfew on Men a bit ‘out there’, and maybe to harsh, as there are also female offenders, and there are also man who get raped. And most rapes happen with someone we know and in areas / homes/ office we live and use, aka our domestic environment.
But, our police force is being harmed by budget cuts, an extension of these budget cuts results in certain areas to loose their cop shops, the loss of presence of cops in the street and loss of community constables etc etc. In such an environment were effectively the state has abandoned its duty to provide safety to all citizens, domestic violence will grow. Mugging, Burglaries, Dairies being robbed, assault and sexual violence are all a consequence of this.
This is not a case of this is someone who will beat the living day light out of his/her partner or child/ren, or if this is someone who will assault someone alone in a park. Both happen because they can.
both are instances of domestic violence, if i consider the Park, the road, the sports fields and the shops were i get my milk and bread an extension of my domestic area of habitat.
I don’t say that police on the streets can prevent all rapes or many, but not having police in the streets will for sure do nothing.
I am not saying that having science based sexual education, education re sexual boundaries, and sexual assault, and sexual consent in schools will prevent pregnancy, std or rape, but not having programmes like will surely not create a better outcome.
So we need to have an approach that works in the intimate area of the family home, and the more open area of the families community and surrounds.
“Frankly i consider the Idea to put a curfew on Men a bit ‘out there’,”
Me too. I’m not actually suggesting we should do that, it’s more a device to get people to think (and to see which regressive men would argue against it 😉 ). If we were serious about ending domestic and other sexual violence we would be looking at the behaviour of men and the control structures in society.
Rape of adults (which is what your link was about) is an act done overwhelmingly by men. Yes women can rape, but most women and men who are raped are raped by men. See, that’s putting the responsibility back on the class of people who do the bad thing.
I agree that police should be better funded and that a presence on the street in a community based way is a good thing. But if we are at the stage of thinking that police patrols are needed to control violent crime after dark then we’ve lost a lot of ground. To have prevented the assault in that link by patrolling would have required a huge police presence. I think there are better ways of using police time.
“if i consider the Park, the road, the sports fields and the shops were i get my milk and bread an extension of my domestic area of habitat.”
Fair point, although we don’t know if that was the case for the woman who was assaulted. I also think there is value in differentiating between sexual assualt that happens at home or by one’s partner/family and that which happens in other contexts. As you say, most rape is done to women by people they know in places they are familiar with.
I don’t base anyting on that case, but it is a standard case. A dark park, as per comments from people that live near the area for some reason Lights have been cut in this park so now its dark, is a good place to mug, rob, beat or rape someone. That is my point.
A neighbourhood with our a presence of police is a good place to mug, rob, beat or rape someone. Taht is my point.
Children who think that Dad beating Mum, Mum beating the kids is normal, will do what if no one tells them that it is not normal.
Children who think that being sexually abused by Dad, Uncle or Cuzzie is normal will do what if no one tells them that it is not normal.
So we need to look at domestic violence as ‘societal violence’ that to an extend is even condoned – Women and Children as chattel to be treated as the owner – Dad – Head of the Family – sees fit, and if he spares the rod he spoils the chattel. This is still a valid thought in the eyes and brains of many hyper religious types of all creeds.
And in a nutshell, this is what Bill English is essentially saying, We can’t do anything about it, so lets stop wasting money on it. These ‘domestic violence’ incidents might be not so violent at all, when one has a religious believe in which a women is helpmeet, subservient to the husband, and ultimatively only does as he pleases. (and a women can have an education and a job and still live by the doctrine that the father or husband will decide what is best for her – after all she is only women).
This is the thinking that kills women and children world wide, by direct violence, by omitted health care on religious grounds http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/18/michigan-catholic-hospital-women-miscarriage-abortion-mercy-health-partners , by lack of education, smaller portions of food, less value to the community etc etc etc .
So really we have to look at domestic violence as something that happens intimately in families all over the country, but also as something that happens with the blessings of the state, that refuses to secure the outdoors for the public, that refuses to educate the young ones on how to build boundaries, keep themselves safe, and on how to report domestic violence and to whom, a state that refuses to assure that everyone has a safe dwelling and a plate full of nutritious food to eat, a state that refuses to keep communities safe by rationing their community constable away. (something i am sure that will only happen in certain neighbourhoods), and we have to see domestic violence that is while not outright condoned by our churches – after all violence is bad – but still tolerated in the name of biblical teachings and christian(insert any other creed in that suits you better) values.
Not disagreeing with anyone here so don’t take this the wrong way but there seems to be a strong theme of religion in your views, its probably just my view (being an atheist) but does religion in NZ still have that strong of a hold outside ethnic minorities?
Generally speaking most of our current laws are based on a system stemming for an age where the church (roman catholic, or protestant or anglican) has very much decided the norms and laws.
Don’t forget that until the seventies a women could not have a bank account without her husbands signature, could not have a cheque book without her husbands signature and could not get a contraceptive without her husbands permission to name just a few. These privileges that men have held were those given to men by the church/law of yesteryears. And if you look at communes like the Brethren, LSD, Evangelic Christians (purity, sexual abstinece,), you will find that christian/judaic/islamic believes are still very much alive and still rule when it comes to the relationships of women vs men there is a certain undertone of man knows best and mum goes with the flow.
And yes, religion in NZ is big, have a look at the mega churches being build, chirstian radio stations, tv channels etc etc.
I do believe that half of domestic violence is simply just people not being able to deal with life and letting someone else pay for their frustrations by controlling / beating / abusing partners, kids or elders, and the other half of domestic violence is simply just people living out their believes, i.e. women have to be submissive and do as the husband wishes, and the same counts for children, and she / he is poor and its their fault for them being lazy and this is why they should live in a hovel and only eat when we (government/state/society) judges that they have suffered enough or jumped through enough hoops (WINZ anyone) to get a food voucher, or a bed voucher.
“A dark park, as per comments from people that live near the area for some reason Lights have been cut in this park so now its dark, is a good place to mug, rob, beat or rape someone. That is my point.”
Agree.
Our planners and park designs are purely functional (often for singular sports) and ignore the myriad uses to which the local community can put them.
In particular, sports fields which are used only in evenings and weekends and make up the majority of easily accessible park spaces for most NZers.
Planners also provide blind alleys in the suburbs, where walkways are surrounded by 2 metre high fences, and follow the back or sides of houses where community eyes are unlikely to be looking. (A solution: allow similar builds to laneway homes on back sections, and you will completely change the atmosphere of current dark and unloved spaces.)
Parks and community spaces need to be designed to encourage multi-use, and multi-generational use. In many European communities the public spaces are considered an extension of your home, and social activities with friends and family utilise those spaces at all times of the day and night. As NZ has not been limited by space or transport when planning, designing and building – this public extension has not been common. But it has benefits, and needs to be encouraged.
Better community social cohesion, and also, better public safety due to that extended use and sense of community ownership.
Better link for alley/laneway houses.
It would be a good initiative programme for some of our currently ignored Auckland suburbs, where family overcrowding is rife.
If you are an owner-occupier of a house, then you should be able to build a small home on the back of your section that both provides affordable living to friends and family (not just an elderly relative) and provides a community benefit of redirecting attention to currently unwatched (and unsafe) public spaces.
Most family violence happens in the home – which is exactly where a curfew would put men. Not a solution.
Yes, I think I made that point (that the violence just shifts elsewhere). My suggestion was to prompt people to think about what is going on when a woman gets sexually assualted at night in a park by three men.
The problem is that most men will think wtf because its just completely out of their scope of understanding whereas the men that do this sort of thing won’t care at all
How to stop I don’t know
You can’t.
I suppose you could if you had millions of cameras in every nook and cranny and every one was chipped.
Every time there was a crime you’d just look at whatever camera caught the incident, over lay that with the stored chip ids and voila, no one would commit crime because you could never get away with it.
go to the source mate – that is where the answers lie
I think you mean “I can’t”, in which case you should get out of the way and let the people who are making a difference do so.
“The problem is that most men will think wtf because its just completely out of their scope of understanding whereas the men that do this sort of thing won’t care at all”
In my lifetime the attitudes of men have changed hugely. Men can be educated and made aware of what the issues are and what is acceptable and what is not. Plus, this conversation is happening in the context of GINI and inequality. Do something about those and many other things become easier to solve.
“How to stop I don’t know”
Listen to and support the people that do know.
“The problem is that most men…”
perhaps PR if you believe it is just individuals rather than a culture – that is men’s culture, masculinity as defined and applauded within our society and so on
most men know exactly what the problem is and a fair few know the answers too imo
one easy way to start is to not laugh when certain man make jokes about rape among their mates or on the radio.
another way is to accept that if a girl does not like her hair pulled and she says no, that she said no, consent was not given, and that the pulling of the hair has to stop and not call that ‘horsing around’ or ‘having a bit of fun’.
Baby steps really.
IF you don’t want to have it happen to your wife/mother/ sister/daughter/cuzzie/coworker etc etc then dont let it happen to someone else, and don’t just go a shucks if it does happen saying nothing can be done.
Agreed and when others start talking about inserting beer bottles where they shouldn’t be or start using swiss balls in ways they weren’t designed we really shouldn’t turn a blind eye
Puckish Rogue …
24 February 2016 at 1:08 pm
Agreed and when others start talking about inserting beer bottles where they shouldn’t be or start using swiss balls in ways they weren’t designed we really shouldn’t turn a blind eye
ouch. and no i don’t even want to know what swiss balls are. But i think it goes without saying that is as equally abhorrent as some bloke on the radio joking about soaps.
and now I need brain bleech and a cute puppie.
http://www.browneggblueegg.com/Story/BroodyHenAdoptsPuppies/BroodyHenAdoptsPuppies.jpg
Exactly.
“What I would like to know is why these guys are actually in government if they believe that the private industry is so much better at governing. It must be that they are so bad that no one would want them in private business.”
Sabine, I believe it goes deeper than that, more complex. These guys, Double Dipper, Paula Benefit and Ann Tolley for example are well paid and receive exceptionally generous superannuation benefits plus perks so they hang in there. They could get jobs outside from directorships etc – but they would never get the freedom and power to exert the control they do without being scrutinised and these punitive cost cutting exercises put pain on vulnerable people and affect morale in State Services Departments – like the police, teachers and nursing staff. Its more a control thing which is very addictive, plus there has to be a streak of sadism/vindictiveness in their psyche to enjoy stretching the rubber band so fine. Control is a big component of family violence as well and it makes the person perpetuating it feel more powerful and its like a dose of “feel good” for them. No normally balanced human being would enjoy cost cutting, to the state that ill and unemployed exist hand to mouth week by week. I suggest that these ministers just love their jobs.
Yes, hence why I call it ‘state sanctioned domestic violence’.
i suggest that these ministers are control freaks that not only love their jobs, but that also love the power that they have and the misery they can inflict.
Marquis de Sade comes to mind ,and most of what the dear Marquis wrote about had nothing to do with sex but all to do with what people that have power do to people that don’t have power.
I knew a kid at school who had way too much fun playing with a magnifying glass and scurrying ants on a sunny day. Wonder if he went into politics.
Otherwise known as psychopaths.
DA Beach was bought 🙂
http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/themes/beaches/77204688/abel-tasman-beach-offer-accepted
Quote: An offer on the Abel Tasman beach has been accepted.
It’s been a long wait for the thousands of Kiwis who got behind the campaign to buy the beach for New Zealand.
Beach campaigner Duane Major announced the good news on Wednesday morning.”Quote End.
🙂
oh yeah!
Maggie says that the generous Government put in a “modest amount”. Are we as outraged as we were with Gareth? Other bidders put in some dollars as well. Announcements later today.
We were outraged with Gareth? What did i miss?
I am actually just pleased that this bit of land is not going to enter the trophy box of some oversees ‘investors’.
I am pleased it stays owned by NZ.
Gareth Morgan offered to put in a big chunk of money if his family could have a little section for themselves for 15 years or something.
ah, his philanthropist side showed again?
didn’t he come out and say it was a ruse to get ‘ordinary’ kiwis to go hard to beat him and ensure the campaign succeeded – I didn’t buy it of course 🙂
I reckon he was trolling – get your arses into gear and raise the money – or you’ll be gazumped by a rich prick like me.
If so, he was smart, it apparently worked. Can we try something similar for the next election to get what we want for NZ?? We have tried asking nicely, we have thrown a dildo, we’ve pushed in an onion on a stick! (Referring to comedy Rinse the Blood off my Toga.) We’ll do – almost – anything.
re the next election. In the last election I think it could be argued that dotcom did a morgan, albeit inadvertently.
dotcom wanted National to win?
note ‘inadvertently’ – “without knowledge or intent”
Not very good value for money that investment, he’d have done better just giving the money to Labour
well he DID give some money rather than just bogus-big-note-it like your mate key giving his salary to charity.
and not all money given is an ‘investment’ – that is a rightmare
lol
I’d overlooked the line about political donations being “investments”.
If that is indeed the case then that’s quite funny, he’s an infuriating bastard but opinionated people usually are.
“Are we as outraged as we were with Gareth? “
No, because the government (I hope) is not going to, whenever it’s in residence , prevent people walking above the high tide mark (and what a bargain residence that would have been, getting the public to part pay).
I wonder what a modest amount is?
Who will be the eventual legal owner?
The Crown? Which will promptly sell it off to some foreign buyer to help out Bill English’s surplus.
Ahh, i am sure they will hold it for six month and then put it on the market.
That is what is happening in AKL, not that anyone cares. Profit. wait, six month, sell, profit, wait, six month, profit.
Will be under DOC. National Park.
DOC to manage. Will the Crown be the legal owner?
http://www.openspace.org.nz/Site/About_QEII/default.aspx
Are yoy saying that the National Trust is being gifted the title?
I’d say it’s good chance that will happen.
It’s what they’re there for.
Are you basing that on anything in particular?
Why would a tiny slither of land put back into public hands in a National Park be covenanted and have a different legal status? Wouldn’t it make more sense to consolidate it into the park.
I’m asking of the title is being held by the Crown, or if it’s being held by something/someone else but DOC are managing it.
The most interesting part of this is that Maggie Barry said on RNZ this morning that the government is going to buy up other parts of Abel Tasman and merge them into the national park as well. She was expecting to announce this within 3 weeks.
So it seems National is tapping this crowd-funding and cheerful sentiment around it for votes.
Fair enough; but at what cost? Where is the money coming from?
yep they’ve found a seam of gold – smacked the original claim owners over the head and proceeding to take the ‘claim’ over and dig the shit out of it – until it runs dry or their pollsters tell them someone else has some better gold over there.
Hopefully funding for National park extensions would come from fresh funding from the taxpayer. Funding through tax is the ultimate and fully democratically sanctioned original crowd-funding.
does that involve rich people too?
Indeed it does.
Every NZ government does a sort of crowd funding in terms of hospices. Every MP knows hospices save tens of millions in the health budget.
Am I the only one who sees the irony of the public crowd funding to keep a piece of beach, while the government can’t wait to sell as much land off as soon as possible?
no, i think you are in excellent company.
here have a coffee 🙂
imo the measurement is ‘popular’ – after rigorous polling the MOST popular (to middle potential swing Gnat voters) is determined. This is then championed, alluded to, connected to the gnats via maskKey. This then dipilaTories from general popularity into popularity for the gnats. Meanwhile the polling continues 24/7, day and night – else how will the gnats know what to support and push.
Meanwhile the polling continues 24/7, day and night – else how will the gnats know what to support and push.
Up to date relevant data is the key to success.
depends how you define success and how ‘up to date’ and ‘relevant’ the data is or ever can be.
Being able to govern is a pretty decent way of defining succes
Yeah but there are levels within that success.
Caligula was able to govern, but he didn’t do a lot for his country. Like Brownlee, he diverted national resources to ambitious construction projects. Ultimately he was killed by his own security people.
Suppose Key were toppled in a bloody insurrection by a charismatic antipodean Danton – she too would be able to govern.
Mere governance is no achievement at all – there is always someone on top – the trick is to get considerate folk who leave things better than they found them. That doesn’t describe the Gnats at all – they’re wrecking the place.
Exit PR left, pursued by bear.
A fact I have been trying to point out to people but it goes straight over their heads.
I’m a bit ‘meh’ on the whole campaign as well. As mentioned above, National have found another wagon to hitch their “fern” to and will ride it for all its worth.
Gareth wanted the use of the existing bach for 15 years. That upset many folk. I think that under DOC that bach will be demolished as not allowed in a National Park. The bach was I think an old boat dragged up from the beach years ago.
Are DOC still erasing human history from National Parks? They should leave the bach standing and make use of it.
Or demolish it, plant it, and return it to the natural state from whence it came.
Why that rather than preserving the human history? If it was an old pa or kaik site would you want it removed?
In a lot of cases replanting creates a human interpretation of what land should look like, returning land to a “natural original state” is almost impossible. I’ve seen many restoration projects where they don’t even have the care to plant species from that same region. Then there’s the issue of no one being certain of what the land looked like 1,000, 100,000 or a million years ago.
True, although there are also groups that source plants from within the rohe. We don’t have to go back 1,000 years (especially given that there has been localised climate change in that time). If there are still local intact native ecosystems they will tell us a lot. But I take your point, much of the restoration happening is about making it look like something rather than be something.
“The electronic voting machines are owned by private corporations, which are Republican in orientation, generally. And the courts have ruled that the source code on these electronic voting machines is proprietary. So, even the governments that buy or lease these machines have no access to a final verification process.”
“And this year, about 80 percent of the vote nationally will be cast on electronic voting machines. There is no verifiability. In six key swing states—Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and Arizona—you have Republican governors and Republican secretaries of state, and no method of verifying the electronic vote count. At midnight or whenever it is on election night, those two guys can go in there with an IT person and flip the outcome of an electronically counted vote within about 60 seconds.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/23/could_the_2016_election_be_stolen
Which just tells us that we shouldn’t be using voting machines or proprietary software for online voting.
A humorous short video about how easily 4 University of Michigan undergraduates hacked to pieces a Washington, D.C. election site that used computer voting. The kids had a great time, but no one has learned the lesson they are teaching us.
Is there any meaning in what the site policy refers to as ‘ reasonably rational debate’ if a ‘debater’ can simply ignore any point that is inconvenient to them?
IMO, the level of ‘genuine debate’ on this blog would be greatly improved if there was a tighter expectation that commenters should engage directly and honestly with ‘reasonable’ discussion points.
At a minimum, If a commenter has willingly engaged in a discussion, and a point is put to them that is: directly relevant to the original post, their own comments, is tightly focused, is based on referenced facts, draws a logical conclusion from those facts, is put politely….
Then it is entirely reasonable that the point should be met in a genuine and direct manner?
Can a discussion actually be ‘debate’ if that minimum level of engagement is not met?
Open Mike is Open Mike for a reason.
Specific posts are more closely moderated.
Some are some aren’t 😉
I think sheep is meaning that he is sick of people giving him shit. Which is fair enough. It’s also fair enough that people are sick of his right wing ideas.
You yourself always attempt to answer points directly and honestly Weka.
If you put a rational fact based point to someone yourself, do you have an expectation of a genuine reply?
And If someone answered your genuinely put rational discussion with an accusation that you fucked pigs, would that bother you?
(On a personal level it doesn’t bother me, as I think that kind of comment says more about the abuser than the abused), but what I would ask is whether or not that kind of approach has any place in a ‘reasonably rational debate’?
And does ‘not liking someones ideas’ justify refusing to engage with reasonable fact based points they make, and simply abusing them?
Does ‘don’t like’ make something untrue and therefore requiring no rational debate?
Just over time, I have noted how small a group of people it is who comment here, and how rare it is for new commenters to join the discussion. Do you think that the quality of ‘debate’ and the ‘abuse’ has something to do with that?
“You yourself always attempt to answer points directly and honestly Weka.
If you put a rational fact based point to someone yourself, do you have an expectation of a genuine reply?”
It depends on the person and the context and whether I’ve been giving that person a hard time recently or given them respect.
“And If someone answered your genuinely put rational discussion with an accusation that you fucked pigs, would that bother you?
(On a personal level it doesn’t bother me, as I think that kind of comment says more about the abuser than the abused), but what I would ask is whether or not that kind of approach has any place in a ‘reasonably rational debate’?”
Pig fucker and rat fucker accusations bother me because I think that animals deserve more respect. Generally that particular insult is aimed at people with right wing ideas. I don’t think anyone has used it at me.
There is a lot of commentary here that isn’t rational debate. The rational response to that is to work with what is, or if one wants to fight it or argue within it, then accept the consequences.
“And does ‘not liking someones ideas’ justify refusing to engage with reasonable fact based points they make, and simply abusing them?
Does ‘don’t like’ make something untrue and therefore requiring no rational debate?”
Depends on the ideas. The rationale I hear for abuse is that the ideas are sufficiently abhorrent as to need ridicule in response. OAB takes it to the extreme and condems all people he perceives as fools before the words have even left their mouth. Most other people engage then give up. The point where they reach their limit varies.
You have to understand too that many people here know you from past exchanges, so they’re going to come down hard on the same kinds of right wing ideas.
“Just over time, I have noted how small a group of people it is who comment here, and how rare it is for new commenters to join the discussion. Do you think that the quality of ‘debate’ and the ‘abuse’ has something to do with that?”
I think stomping on newbies as soon as they arrive like OAB and Lynn do is very counter productive. But I don’t think the robust nature in general is the problem, so much as the lack of moderation around politics. Hence we have few feminist authors here, and while there are more women commenting than there used to be, I’m sure the culture here puts many off. How much of that is the politics and how much the macho stuff I don’t know, I’d say both are a problem.
In general I see the long threads where people end up slagging each other off as tedious. But you take part in those as much as OAB or McFlock or whoever, hence my suggestion that if you don’t like how you are being responded to, talk to different people. There are good commenters here who don’t behave like that. Others of us just like the argument. I have a foot in both camps.
ok I’ve just looked at the thread you are referring to and it’s full of people engaging in genuine debate, a lot of effort put in by people to addressing points and backing their views up with facts. Your complaint seems disingenuous now. This is a robust debate culture. It includes people being rude. But people did respond to your ideas, so what’s the problem?
http://thestandard.org.nz/another-poverty-report-to-ignore/#comment-1136536
What’s the problem?
As you point out Weka, ‘many people are put off commenting here’, such as ‘feminists’.
Given the general left wing ideals of tolerance, respect, open mindedness, inclusion, etc, that many here would claim to uphold don’t you think there is something wrong when this forum’s culture is such that so few people are willing to engage with it?
Ok, so now you don’t want to talk about rudeness and you don’t want to talk about what constitutes reasonable debate, you want to debate whether there should be a robust debate culture on the standard? Lynn replied to you below, why not take it up with him? He’s one of the ones that ultimately controls what happens here.
Ummm. Just because he hasn’t read the whole policy isn’t a reason to say “enter the dread portal, it is totally safe”. It is entrapment of a sucker…
I was running out of patience.
It’s very generous of you to allow he might not have read the whole policy given how long he’s commented here 😉
I hadn’t noticed a shortage of people commenting. I have a overheating machine that says something quite different.
If someone answered your genuinely put rational discussion with an accusation that you fucked pigs
As McFlock and Weka have pointed out, your mendacity is generally intolerable, and ridicule and contempt ensue.
It’s already been explained to you that one of the local vernaculars for a loaded question can be seen in references to homo-porcine miscegenation.
Ask loaded questions, invite references to animal husbandry. That’s how it is.
Hard to comment on that without you giving an example so we know what you mean. But there is no onus on people here to have to talk to anyone, so if you don’t like the kind of responses you are getting, try talking to different people.
The level of engagement is purely up to the people concerned. We deal with the trolling behaviour of bait and run as flame starters or diversion from the post, but what you are describing doesn’t sound like that. It sounds like someone has raised a point, you have answered it and they have ignored your point for whatever reason. That sounds more like a degree of shunning – which in your case sounds more like your methods of presentation than anything else. But moderators generally don’t perform forcing to debate..
There is a particular case that we will enforce replies. That is when someone makes an unsubstantiated assertion of fact without a link or a explanation. Usually someone stating an opinion of a bit of outright bigotry or urban myth as fact. That is a practice that is designed to start flamewars and is for the site legally dangerous. We keep an eye out for those and will force substantiation on the penalty of a long ban because idiots who do that make the moderators lives a lot harder and we can do without them.
But generally we aren’t going to act on complaints from the floor if they don’t point to instances in the comment (yours did not) and an explanation about why we as moderators should be concerned about it for the good of the site (we really couldn’t give a rats arse about why you or anyone else personally thinks it is important).
So if someone makes a claim something is ‘fact’, and ‘facts’ are produced to challenge that statement, there is no kind of expectation that the person who made the original claim should address those facts?
I had wondered whether this part of the policy implied that there was an expectation of a certain level of genuine engagement with a reasonable debate, but it seems it does not?
Typically trolls do not interact with other commentators as they either ignore what others say in reply or write a reply that ignores what they said. In either case it is ignorant, anti-social, annoying to read, and will often result in a banning
can you please link to two specific examples so it’s clear what you mean?
Sure Weka.
Look at the link I give above if you are interested.
Consider the discussion around whether or not the Salvation Army said that Material Hardship was dropping or not.
“Does the report make the following statement based on Perry’s data?
“Table 2 reports estimated changes in material deprivation or hardship measures between 2010 and 2014, and this offers a slightly more positive picture. The number of children estimated to be living in households experiencing levels of material hardship that might be seen as more than moderate is reported to have fallen from 210,000 in 2010 to 145,000 in 2014. This is encouraging.”
Simple eh. Only one possible answer? Would you have a problem accepting that point Weka?
Or the discussion on whether or not the data that backed that assertion was sound or not.
You’ll see I provided the factual evidence that the S.A. considered the data perfectly sound, and a statement from the Author himself that countered OAB’s claim that the data was not valid.
Simple then. We accept the data is sound and the S.A. is making that statement based on it? But no. The answer is a tirade of explicit sexually themed abuse…..
I’m just wondering if ‘debate’ has any credibility at all if no one ever has to concede a point to facts?
See, what you’re rather dishonestly doing is ignoring other parts of the Sally report.
The quote you made referred to “more than moderate material hardship”. You’ve confused it into “Material Hardship”. So the literal “one simple answer” to your question is that there is insufficient data upon which to base a response.
You’ve then ignored other comments in the report that have a wider focus than just one aspect of one estimate of one measure, such as
In that case, the simple answer to your question is “possibly, possibly not, but overall the measures are pretty constant”.
And you argue that “Two examples of these practices are cited in this report” means that measures not included in those examples are considered “perfectly sound”.
Those are a few examples of why I think that time is better spent calling you a fuckwit than actually engaging with your pretence of a debate.
But be sure, the finite and arbitrary number of these examples doesn’t mean that I regard any other comment by you as being perfectly sound. While there is a theoretical possibility that you might end up understanding the implicit messages used in conversational English, the odds are higher that you’ll yet again fail the Turing test worse than an ’80s text adventure computer game.
The quote you made referred to “more than moderate material hardship”. You’ve confused it into “Material Hardship”. So the literal “one simple answer” to your question is that there is insufficient data upon which to base a response.
I agree that anyone who had not read the report might be confused by that. Apologies.
To clarify the data in Table 2 of the report, The number of children living in ‘more than moderate hardship’ (EU standard threshold) in 2010 was 210,000, and in 2014 it was 145,000. The number of Children living in ‘severe’ hardship was 90,000 in 2010, and 80,000 in 2014.
Combined children in hardship figures are 300,000 in 2010, and 225,000 in 2014. (% figures: -30%, -11%, -25%)
1.These figures are correct McFlock?
While the data offers a mixed picture, in total it is difficult to see any meaningful change in rates of child poverty and material hardship since the GFC. It is beginning to appear that this area of social progress is not a political priority at present given that the economy and household income have continued to grow modestly.
In that case, the simple answer to your question is “possibly, possibly not, but overall the measures are pretty constant”.
The Sallies certainly say that. But if you look at the figures above or what they quote for the peak of the GFC, (the % drops being -34%, -23%, -32%. 110,000 less children in hardship),
2. I find it very hard to reconcile those figures with ‘no meaningful change’?
And to go back to my original point, which was that the report was further evidence that the ‘poverty and hardship are increasing meme was false.
3. You will agree that ‘difficult to see any meaningful change’ does at least eliminate an ‘increase’?
And you argue that “Two examples of these practices are cited in this report” means that measures not included in those examples are considered “perfectly sound”.
No. I say that they do not say all data is unsound, and in some areas they explicitly state they have confidence in the data. For Child Poverty they state ‘we have a number of official measures of income adequacy and material deprivation that allow us to create a consistent
and useful picture of poverty trends over time’, and they clearly reference Perry as the source of much of their data. They make definite assertions based on that data.
4. That is correct isn’t it McFlock?
poverty and hardship are increasing meme
Is not a meme. The meme, if you insist, is that poverty and hardship have doubled since 1984 (using median household income as a metric) as a result of neoliberalism and will not improve until neoliberalism is abandoned (I’d like to see it smashed and broken too) in toto.
Please try and stop lying about the meme.
1) I have no way of knowing if those figures are correct. Wasn’t it only a couple of years back that Treasury seriously fucked up the raw data for some of Perry’s work?
2) whoa there, fucko, what happened to “my original point, which was that the report was further evidence that the ‘poverty and hardship are increasing meme was false.” Let’s call that “1b”
1b) from the paragraph above Table 2 in the report:
So, well after the peak of the GFC, the number of children in poverty and hardship seems to be on the increase again. If the figures are accurate. And where the hell did you get “110,000 less children in hardship”?
2) Well, any meaningful increase. But then you need to be clear that you are comparing apples with apples, rather than taking a single measure that happens to suit your data. This is where you keep falling over. But, for example, according to Perry all the income poverty measures had increases from 2013 to 2014. They might not be meaningful, but they are increases.
3) That appears to be the same data source they used in their 2013 report, and the data source turned out to undercount by 20,000. So while it’s correct from a certain point of view, from other points of view its reliability could be regarded as “debatable”.
But bear in mind that this is the best you can do using the peak of the GFC as a starting point. No meaningful change. Not “massive improvement”. Not “continued gains”. Advances in some narrowly-defined measures balanced by regressions in others.
And comparing the rates with 10 years or thirty years ago, the increases are most definitely meaningful.
1) I have no way of knowing if those figures are correct. Wasn’t it only a couple of years back that Treasury seriously fucked up the raw data for some of Perry’s work
Yup. Detected back in 2014 and corrected well before the data the Sallies base their report on.
As I have said several times. The Sallies are happy with the figures…
So, well after the peak of the GFC, the number of children in poverty and hardship seems to be on the increase again. If the figures are accurate.
The number of children in both income poverty and hardship rose by 1% between 13/14, at the same time as the total number of children in moderate or severe hardship dropped by 15%. (see tables 1 and 2)
This reflects an increase in relative income poverty measure, and further illustrates how the linkage between the 2 measures is problematic.
And where the hell did you get “110,000 less children in hardship”?
Table 2. Total number of children in hardship 2011 335,000, in 2014 225,000. That’s 110,000 less by my calculation. (How is that not significant? If it had gone up by that amount it would not be significant?)
2) Well, any meaningful increase.
Agreed. But yes, relative income poverty measures showed a small increase in the year. According to Perry, “On the moving line approach there was a reported rise to 2014, reflecting the sharp rise in the median. ” Again, indicating that Relative poverty can increase at the same time as hardship drops.
And comparing the rates with 10 years or thirty years ago, the increases are most definitely meaningful.
Perry makes very interesting reading on trends since 1980.
In short, Inequality has increased significantly.
Income has risen for 80% of us (bottom quintile stayed flat).
Income based poverty measures have been very mixed over that time, and peaked in the mid 90’s, since when they have been dropping. Currently, depending on the measure used they are roughly between 3-10% above 1980 levels.
On the ‘Constant value’ measure (the closest we have to measuring hardship across 1980 to today, current rates are 13% below 1982 levels.
Between 2011 and 2014 you say! Astonishing. Something must have happened in the meantime to make that big a difference!
Oh, yeah, that’s right, they changed the way they measure it in 2012. I know this because I can remember the last time you tried to make something of it.
Your insincerity is tiresome and cretinous.
Link please?
cf: Data Sources and Methods.
You already knew that though, because you’ve been informed of it before, at length.
🙄
You can say it all you want, but the fact remains that Treasury phoned it in in 2013. You know, less than reliable.
Your numbers are incorrect:
Sally’s report Table 2: Estimates of proportion and number of children facing material hardship EU ‘standard’ threshold:
2011: 220,000
2014: 145,000
75,000 might or might not be significant. But again what you fail to grasp is that we are not dealing with instrument guages. We are looking at a basket of indicators, some of which measure things precisely but are indirect, and others that are estimates of estimates but are slightly more direct. And through it all there’s the filter of political interference that affects at least, but not restricted to, two indicators relating to the wellbeing of children in NZ. Looking at hardship, extreme hardship has bounced up and down in alternate years, while moderate hardship has decreased. Is this meaningful, if the number in extreme hardship remains steady? Meanwhile, income poverty is not even that rosy.
well, until 2007, then they’ve not been dropping. Of course, stating which tables you’re getting this from would be useful, too, given that the Perry report is 229 pages.
you do realise that the Perry report is “Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2014″
not that fucking mixed, anyway. Always above, never below.
Which table? And have you considered the effect of inflation on constant-value threshholds over decades?
Basically, you are so full of shit it’s not funny. Then you whine when people point this out.
Your numbers are incorrect:
Sally’s report Table 2: Estimates of proportion and number of children facing material hardship EU ‘standard’ threshold: 2011: 220,000, 2014: 145,000
Total number of children in both categories of the table…..2011 335,000, in 2014 225,000…
75,000 (110,000) might or might not be significant.
25-32% might or might not be significant? If it was Auckland house prices it would not be significant, or an increase in unemployment, or inequality? I bet you would be saying it was…
you do realise that the Perry report is “Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2014″
not that fucking mixed, anyway. Always above, never below.
Page 98. The graph does start at 1980. I agree the trend has been flat since 2007.
Which table? And have you considered the effect of inflation on constant-value threshholds over decades?
Page 86. The Constant Value Threshold does take inflation into account and according to Perry it “reveals whether the incomes of low-income households are rising or falling in real terms.”
But again what you fail to grasp is that we are not dealing with instrument guages. We are looking at a basket of indicators,
I do understand that McFlock, but my point is that we should be willing to look at all those indicators that are credible with an open mind. It seems to me that you and some others here are unwilling to accept any indicator which doesn’t suit your dogma, even when it is from a credible widely accepted source that is being used quite happily by organisations like The Sallies and The Child Poverty Monitor.
@OAB
To quote from that document …
1. There is no on-going ELSI time series, but the MWI series begins from 2012–13. Because items are common to earlier and later datasets, Perry considers there is sufficient commonality to have a ‘good-enough’ index that will show the shape of the trend line from 2006–07 to 2013–14.
Nowhere in the document does it make any suggestion that Perry’s figures as used extensively by themselves and The Sallies are incorrect.
“Incorrect”.
Apart from in the entire introduction, where it casts doubt on anything that comes out of this government. You’ll deny that, and it’s all there in black and white.
what you fail to grasp is that we are not dealing with instrument gauges
..and what McFlock said.
On what basis do you assume that the kids beyond the extreme hardship threshold are not merely a subset of those kids who are below the standard hardship threshold?
Do you understand what the term “threshold” means?
Absolute numbers might or might not be significant, depending on their accuracy. Percentage change in absolute numbers might or might not be significant. Population rates might or might not be significant. Significance depends on things like context, whether the change is within the margin for error of the measurements, and what aspect you’re trying to understand. As a human being, you’d understand all this, of course.
Do you mean graph F.2? Y intercept is 1980. Do you see a fucking data point at the Y intercept?
It’s this sort of sloppy shit from you that fucks people off.
But then graph F.2 relates to all individuals, not children, so you’re doing a multi-dimensional bounce around.
Table and figure E.1, right? Labelled:
“CV threshold set at 60% of the 1998 median expressed as a proportion of the contemporary median (BHC)”
That doesn’t measure the rate of anyone in poverty. It measures the difference between the CV and REL measures. So what table or chart did you use as your basis for your claim “On the ‘Constant value’ measure […], current rates are 13% below 1982 levels.”?
“Quite happily”. Absence of explicit criticism does not always indicate complete satisfaction.
But what fucks me off about you is that you confuse “any indicator” with “any relevant indicator”. You bounce around with what measurements you use, and finding out what your basing your bullshit on is like extracting hens’ teeth. And nine times out of ten, when we do find out what you’re talking about, it turns out that you’re either making massive assumptions or you’re completely delusional. And then you whinge when people call you a stupid fuckwit because of it.
Here’s a thought: if you don’t want abuse, stop being a dickhead. If people ask for evidence, don’t make them hunt through a 220 page document: at least give the table/chart reference. That way we can quickly see “oh, the lost sheep is just being a fucking moron again, they still haven’t grown a brain”.
On what basis do you assume that the kids beyond the extreme hardship threshold are not merely a subset of those kids who are below the standard hardship threshold?
My basis is the figures the tables show and the commentary provided for them. It’s plain enough IMO, but as you and I are not going to agree on it, I’m happy to leave it to any interested party to read it themselves.
Absolute numbers might or might not be significant, depending on their accuracy. Percentage change in absolute numbers might or might not be significant. Population rates might or might not be significant. Significance depends on things like context, whether the change is within the margin for error of the measurements, and what aspect you’re trying to understand.
That is politspeak. You’ve entered the world of smoke and mirrors and I’m not following you in there. I say that a 30% change in any figure is significant, and If it was going the other way you would be claiming it was hugely significant.
But then graph F.2 relates to all individuals, not children, so you’re doing a multi-dimensional bounce around
The data measure across that timeline is based on Household measures. Children do tend to live in households I believe.
That doesn’t measure the rate of anyone in poverty. It measures the difference between the CV and REL measures.
I referred to ‘hardship’ not poverty, but agree it is not an ideal measure. As I have quoted Perry above “it (CV) reveals whether the incomes of low-income households are rising or falling in real terms.” The tables on real income do show a steady increase for all except the lowest quintile…but i will see if I can find more explicit figures for ‘hardship’ across that time.
“Quite happily”. Absence of explicit criticism does not always indicate complete satisfaction
Sorry McFlock, but that is a fallacious ‘argument from ignorance’. Absence of explicit criticism is just that. It is not evidence of anything else at all.
The fact is that Perry is perfectly well accepted as reliable data by the Sallies and Child Poverty Monitor and everyone else. You and OAB do not accept it and that’s fine by me.
It isn’t ‘politispeak’ – not even Physics deals in absolute numbers – your frequent references to ‘proof’ indicate that you don’t really understand this,
Luckily, we have Einstein to explain it:
So, no basis for that assumption. If Perry had meant 350,000, Perry would have said 350,000. Because people with 8 or more criteria by definition meet the threshold for 4 or more criteria.
So a change from three degrees to two degrees is just as significant as a change from thirty degrees to twenty degrees?
Or three cases of measles in one year and two cases the following year is as significant as the same population having 30,000 assault hospitalisations down to 20,000 the following year? No, because the context of the numbers dictates the significance of those numbers.
Not evenly distributed, however. Which is why the data in section H of perry’s report differs from the household data. Again, your assumptions lead to your irrelevance.
So just to clarify, the page 86 chart (E1) comparing CV against REL was irrelevant not just to hardship, but also to child poverty, and your entire case. You fucked up.
So it is not evidence of how “happily” (or grudgingly) research is used in an environment that involves less than straightforward or reliable measures.
I can’t help but notice the continued absence of explicit evidence to support your description of how happy everyone is.
It isn’t ‘politispeak’
It was straight from an episode of Yes Minister.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
This is an equally pathetic attempt to cast doubt on perfectly credible and accepted data, in order to avoid facing up to facts that contradict your dogma.
So tell me OAB/McFlock, are you going to be consistent in your stance that no data can be really said to be ‘real, certain or significant’?
Or will that just be data you don’t like?
*whoosh*
No, you graceless cretin, it isn’t an attempt to cast doubt.
“Facts” 🙄
@McFlock.
Thinking about the discussion re. the level of ‘debate’ here McFlock, we have made some good progress, thanks, but I’m no longer going to respond to points that would involve both parties in a 3rd repetition of what have obviously become fixed and immovable points.
And I think we’ve reached that state on some of the areas we’ve been discussing.
Happy to continue responding to any point that still has some potential for ‘progression’ in the debate.
“So just to clarify, the page 86 chart (E1) comparing CV against REL was irrelevant not just to hardship, but also to child poverty, and your entire case. You fucked up.”
I’ve already stated 3 times what Perry says the significance of it was. As a general indicator of those factors, it shows a very steady downward curve from 1980…..make of that what you will.
I looked to see if I could find any more direct data on ‘material hardship’ across 1982 – 2015, but the answer seems to be that there is no such comparison available due to lack of credible data pre 1998.
Perry, in The material wellbeing of NZ housejolds etc, page 57 on, explains why it is only scientifically valid to report on trends from 2007 onwards, with very limited reference back to 1998.
The rest of the chapter contains in depth the material that forms the basis of almost all discussion on material deprivation in NZ, including the base material for the reports of The Sallies and C.P.M much discussed in this thread.
You can choose to acccept it or not McFlock, but as all credible organisations do accept it, it doesn’t matter a damn if you don’t.
Page 57/58 also contain the authors full explanation of why OAB’s claim that ‘changes in data measures completely undermine the validity of the conclusions’ is poppycock.
I can’t help but notice the continued absence of explicit evidence to support your description of how happy everyone is.
You are battling against your own strawman McFlock. I have made no such statement.
You are incapable of summarising my argument. Either that or you’re deliberately misrepresenting it.
You are the one expressing confidence in Perry’s conclusions about material hardship. I am saying that you haven’t made your case, and the problems with the data as detailed by the Sallies cannot be ignored.
Is there the remotest chance you could avoid lying about that in the future?
No, you haven’t.
You made a claim
I asked:
And a supplementary question. You responded:
and an explanation about adjustment for inflation.
The only tables and figures on page 86 have nothing to do with either the CV or REL rates of poverty. The proportionate value of CV is 13% below 1982 REL levels.
You might think all this is piddling stuff, but it’s actually a really good example of why people find more value in just calling you a fuckwit. We’ve said a lot, but the debate has gone nowhere because you:
a) Don’t understand that abstract numbers require context to have significance
b) Make assumptions about adding figures together when you might merely be adding a subset with the population from which it was taken
c) Don’t understand labels on a chart, so refer to data from 1980 when no such data is reported
d) Don’t understand how to read the shape of a chart line (“peaked in the mid 90’s, since when they have been dropping” becomes “I agree the trend has been flat since 2007.”, so you actually misrepresented a full third of the shape of the line)
e) Refer people to 200-page documents or entire comment threads rather than actually link to the specific comment or give the actual table or chart number that supports the narrow point you’re misrepresenting
f) Don’t understand how little you actually understand.
This is by no means an exhaustive list: what’s also concerning is that you confuse “best available” with “ideal”, and that you seem to believe that silence equals approval. And then there’s your outright bullshit “Perry, in The material wellbeing of NZ housejolds etc, page 57 on, explains why it is only scientifically valid to report on trends from 2007 onwards, with very limited reference back to 1998.” Where in section G does it even mention the year 1998? Let alone “scientific validity” (don’t use words too big for you to understand).
If this tit-for-tat had all your unsubstantiated bullshit and outright imcompetence removed, there would be almost no discussion remaining. You might call that “good progress”, but it’s not. It’s activity masquerading as utility. That’s why you’re frequently on the receiving end of abuse: you’re a fucking moron who thinks they’re a genius. You never acknowledge imperfection on your part, and therefore any disagreement with you must be incorrect. You’re a pointless waste of space.
Much more productive to just call you a stupid fuckwit. Now go write another comment on open mike about how people are mean. Then run crying to your mummy, she’s waiting for you.
Thanks McFlock, but they are all points that we have batted across the net several times now, and have obviously irreconcilable positions on. I’m not going to restate the same answers a third time.
Besides which, I’m really over this situation where you and OAB on the one hand deny the credibility and/or significance of Perry’s data, while at the same time asking me to answer points based on Perry’s data….
bullshit fucking moron pointless waste of space stupid fuckwit run crying to your mummy, she’s waiting for you.
Mate. I worked for 20 years in freezing works / coal mines / fishing boats / building sites / farms, and after that I can assure you that blank shots fired by an effete intellectual hiding behind the anonymity of a computer screen has absolutely zero effect on me.
Abuse can have gravitas, but IMO, only in a situation where the abuser is in the direct vicinity of the abused, and delivers the abuse in full awareness that they will be personally responsible for it. That can take real balls. But abuse from a position of hiding is just cowardice.
McFlock hasn’t denied the credibility of the data: they’ve pointed out that you don’t understand it, and where you have misrepresented it.
Whereas I pointed out (among other things) that (even if your reading of Perry were correct, which it isn’t) relying on a single study as proof of anything is a mistake, especially under the circumstances outlined by the Sallies.
Is there the remotest chance you could refrain from misrepresenting that in the future?
Restate? Answering even once would be fine. It’s pretty obvious,really: when you said CV rates today were 13% below 1982 levels, you meant that the value of the CV poverty line was 58% of the corresponding REL line in 1982, but is only 45% of the REL value today. But you can’t admit the slightest error, so you keep digging yourself a hole.
You’re the one who brought Perry into this. I’m pointing out that what Perry authored isn’t what you say. I’m also suggesting that people who had to put a full column disclaimer at the top of their website might have experienced a little bit of trepidation at having to rely on the same source in future, rather than being “happy” about it.
lol: besides the confusion between “anonymity” and “pseudonymity”, you just called me a coward from behind a pseudonym. So you’re a hypocrite as well as a fucking moron, even if you’re ever so butch.
But perhaps I didn’t make myself clear: I don’t call you, for example, “a moron so stupid that any of your repeated attempts at pigfucking could well have resulted in your telling an extremely confused zebra to start squealing” because I want you to feel bad. I do it because it provides more opportunity for creativity and catharsis than “debating” statistics and complex issues with someone who can’t even read a single-line chart.
I’m not really too worried about you, your dissonance is strong enough to preserve your ego from even the most accurate criticism. Saying that I’ve trod in horseshit with more brains than you is not expected to have any effect upon your self esteem. I just find it a cleansing experience to describe you as more fucking stupid than Donald Trump’s hairdo.
So suck my balls, I soaked them in Evian rosewater just for you.
@McFlock, I’m pretty sure I’m the zebra in the equation 🙂
lol each to their own 🙂
I’m not going to read a whole day’s worth of debate lost sheep. The onus on you is to give specific examples by linking. If you want to be taken seriously.
eg, here’s the actual quote you just gave in context so people can see that it was part of a comment, not a comment on its own, and that it was part of a very large conversation.
http://thestandard.org.nz/another-poverty-report-to-ignore/#comment-1137279
Again, if you don’t want to be ridiculed, I suggest you don’t pull such disingenuous stunts as you have just done in reply to me. You’ve been here long enough to know how this works.
“Simple eh. Only one possible answer? Would you have a problem accepting that point Weka?”
Only one possible answer if you are a badly programmed AI who doesn’t understand any nuance or context. People did answer you, you just don’t like what they said. You don’t get to dictate how people debate here.
As for the rest, why on earth would you expect me to know what went on in a conversation I wasn’t part of? You give OAB shit for not linking, then you don’t link and then you come here and whine about it. FFS man, if you want to pick a fight with the site, just be more honest about it.
If you want a gentlemen’s club where people abide by the rules that you have had a part in setting up, you are in completely the wrong place.
The reason you attract so much derision is because of how you debate. Today in OM is a classic example, although people seem remarkably restrained given you pull this shit as a matter of course. Me, I’m fucked off at having my time wasted.
I don’t talk to you very often, but my memory is that this is how it always goes. You got a good debate yesterday, so stop complaining about it. No-one here is going to do what you want them to so long as you keep trying to make them behave better than you are.
You didn’t even have to reply to my first comment Weka. I didn’t force you…
Weka’s considerably more tolerant than I: I consider her a role model. Me, I’ve been reading your zombie arguments for too long – thirty years at least, and it’s not like these are academic points of difference.
The only controversy here is political, which is utterly shameful, and you’re all bent out of shape because you think you were called names.
Priorities.
“You didn’t even have to reply to my first comment Weka. I didn’t force you…”
Ok, my summary of your comments in OM today is that you appear to believe you get to control what other people do and you don’t like it when people don’t do what you want. Lol, good luck with that. As Lynn said recently, it’s like trying to herd goats.
Thanks for also reminding me that you are basically incapable of engaging in ways that generate discussion that doesn’t end up in this mess. Which is a shame, because even though I disagree with much of your politics, you do have the ability to raise important issues from a RW perspective to be debated here and we need that. If you can find a way to drop the resentment that people don’t act in the way you want then it would probably go way better.
The other thing I was thinking through this was that although I get frustrated by the regulars who love arguing more than I do, I also know instrinsically that people like McFlock and OAB contribute a huge amount to this site. Maybe look at that way, what is it you want to contribute? At the moment it doesn’t look too flash.
Nope. It explains what moderators will look for with fire and forget trolls.
Not getting the conversation you desire under your rules of engagement (which to my reading you read like you are after) isn’t part of that.
I notice that you haven’t said why you think this will be good for the site for months you to try to set the rules of behaviour. Perhaps you should read further into the policy. I am sure I may have noted how we feel about non-existent authors trying to set policy for their own benefit.
I’m not trying to change anything here.
Was simply trying to get clarification on the level of ‘debate’ here, so that I could adjust my expectations accordingly. I’ve shifted them down a notch or three.
Personally, I think that a discussion where neither party has any obligation to meet a fair point squarely is something short of ‘debate’ and definitely of less value, but arguments are more fun.
The best rule of thumb here is to take it as given that a point ignored is a point proven.
In your case, a point ignored should be considered a fortunate piece of bullshit in the target-rich environment you create
…a point ignored…
I note that you have not denied your penchant for animal husbandry: according to your rules that’s proof.
Do you see why they call them “loaded” questions yet?
This pleases me very much, i fucking hate cheese cutters
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/media-releases/new-motorcycle-friendly-safety-rails-a-game-changer/
Quote: nnovative safety rails especially designed to protect motorcyclists if they crash have been installed on New Zealand roads for the first time.
The new rails have been added to existing roadside safety barriers along a 130km state highway route called the Coromandel loop. Popular with riders, it passes through Kopu, Whangamata, Waihi and Paeroa.
Statistics show around four per cent of fatal motorcycle crashes involve collisions with the traditional roadside barriers, which are designed primarily to protect people in cars.”Quote end.
Have they added an extra rail to that one in the photo, is that the difference?
yes,
those legs can and have cut of heads and limbs. scary fucking shit.
cheese cutters.
ah. Good to see they are doing something. Lots of money going into new roading or upgrading roading, so some should be going to this too.
well considering that we pay some of the highest Rego and ACC levies, yes.
Considering also that riding on two wheels uses less space, less engergy/oil etc etc yes.
We had quite a bit of a ruckus at the time when the ACC levies increased and teh Cheese Cutters became the norm.
And yes, every year we loose people to these machinations from hell, and needlessly.
So yes, this pleases me, but only the Coro Loop? I would like to see these extra rails added to the cheese cutters on our motorways and elsewhere.
It’s pretty mindblowing that when safety rails were introduced they didn’t make them safe for all road users.
Rumour always had it that Transit NZ despised motorcyclists.
how come?
Gangs, i heard that some 30 years ago some NZ government went on a crack down on gangs and all male bikies are gang member and all chrome vixens must be gang owned pussies.
And sadly that idea is still prevalent in the minds of many, and also we are a good cash cow to milk. Many of us have a family car, and a bike, so we get to pay ACC on both, even tho we can only drive / ride one at a time.
but heck when the bike hikoi went to Nick Smith, Fuckwit for ACC in Wellington at the time, NZ had no issues giving us shit. right or left, cause bikies…. Never mind that our double triple and quadruple (some have spontaneously multiplying bikes, and cars…..addicts i think would be the right word, and lovers of chrome) ACC donations made for a big fat surplus.
” ACC donations made for a big fat surplus.”
I’m thinking the surplus comes from the failure of ACC to pay out on claims. There are a lot of claimants out there not getting the service they need to get back on their feet.
A systematic move to denigrate the ACC in the minds of the public, before privatisation.
Ahh! I drove over to the beach at Whiritoa today (absolutely magic weather) and saw the new guard-rails up! They went up quickly. Mind you as a motorcyclist from way back ( have just restored my 1957 R50 BMW) I think some of the riders going over that route are just accidents waiting to happen. My bach is right by the road and I see the way they ride – as if they are on a race track. Its a narrow winding road and there can be a lot of traffic during the weekends and logging trucks as well.
Marvellous interview by Steve Braunias and Angus Gillies about the forgotten guerrilla war in 1980s NZ: http://thespinoff.co.nz/23-02-2016/i-had-recurring-nightmares-in-which-i-would-fall-victim-to-the-anger-of-the-rastas-an-interview-with-angus-gillies/
Vis a vis, the ‘common man’ meme.
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/801549.Sophie_Scholl
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sophie_Scholl
ahh, Sophie Scholl,
once upon a time when i was about 11 years old I went to find a ‘good german’.
I did not find many, but i did found her and her brother. So much honor, so much humanity, so little fear of living and even less fear of dying. She was made of good stuff this Lady.
I periodically stop to think about what it would be like to be willing to die for what one believed in and how one could do that well. We are so far away from that here*. Finding Sophie Scholl was a gift.
*outside of war, who have we had? The guy who tried to blow up the Whanganui computer comes to mind.
The Government put in $350,000 for the beach. How generous with taxpayers money. I guess my modest donation is very modest.
Imagine that. Spending taxpayers money on something that benefits the taxpayer. I would much rather my tax was spent on a beach than on some academic trougher that after 3 years will tell me that excessive sugar will make me fat.
Waiting for some considered and vote-winning words from Little on this one.
You know what Andrew is like.
He was calling for the Government to jump in wasn’t he?
Now he will be screaming blue murder because the Government did so.
“They didn’t oughta have done it” will be Andy’s call now.
“after 3 years will tell me that excessive sugar will make me fat”.
Really? That seems an amazingly short time to discover that. I thought it would have taken some academic their entire career to work that out?
Aussie housing market about to implode. Video covers mining town first, but about half way through indicates this will happen nationwide.
Youtube comment says that mortgages in Australia are full recourse. Good Lord…
Meanwhile in the Bankers Paradise NZ…
“mortgages in Australia are full recourse”.
As are they here. It was only in the US, as far as I know, that it was normal to just be able to walk in to your mortgage holder, drop the keys and simply walk away from any further obligations.
Not a bad system that one.
News producer legend Mark Jennings leaves Newshub/Mediaworks, http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/297334/head-of-news-resigns-from-mediaworks
Uh oh.. job done? Does he know they’re going belly up next month or something….
Jay Kuten: ‘Rent-a-pols’ muddy TPP waters
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wanganui-chronicle/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503423&objectid=11594671
Jay Kuten is not the only one to bag the ISDS.
The investment court ICS was the proposed substitute for the ISDS that was rejected by the EU for being so flawed!
https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/eu-us_trade_deal/2016/english_version_deutsche_richterbund_opinion_ics_feb2016.pdf
+1
Head of News TV 3 resigns?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/297334/head-of-news-resigns-from-mediaworks
Qutoe: Mediaworks’ head of news Mark Jennings has resigned from the role.
Mark Jennings had been with Mediaworks since 1989.
Quote:” Jennings joined MediaWorks TV in 1989, and was appointed director of news in 1994. In December 2014, he was appointed to lead the integration of MediaWorks’ TV, radio and digital news operations into an unified news team, which launched as Newshub earlier this month.
Earlier today it was revealed that ninemsn editor-in-chief Hal Crawford had resigned to take on the “chief news officer” role at Mediaworks, and he will join the organisation “in the coming months”.
In a statement released this afternoon, Jennings said the company had become part of his DNA”.Quote End
@Sabine -Ah a sacrificial lamb to the entertainment borg. The fall person. Pity Weldon and Christie are not included.
Perhaps they will offer the job to Garner or Gower. Key would like that.
Jaeezusss – just started looking at the Nevada Republican Caucus coverage on the Huffington Post and it’s a fresh ROFL on every link
KKK turns up…
Dropouts from months ago still on the ballots…
Trump supporters voting twice…
Surely not!
“The latest interim dividend figures from the partially-privatised Mighty River Power, Genesis, and Meridian show that the Crown has forgone $945.14 million in dividends since the asset sales. The National Government spent $96 million on the asset sales programme, including bonus-share sweeteners for investors. Combined, that means the asset sales have a total cost of $1.041 billion to date.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1602/S00347/asset-sales-cost-hits-1-billion.htm
t’is is a sexy business selling state assets to mate.