Another poverty report to ignore

Written By: - Date published: 10:19 am, February 20th, 2016 - 72 comments
Categories: national, poverty - Tags: , , , ,

This week saw the release of yet another report on the appalling state of child poverty in NZ – State of the Nation 2016 report. Here’s coverage on Newshub – New report criticises Govt targets as ineffective

The Salvation Army has released its latest State of the Nation report today, and it says while there have been improvements in some social areas, it’s sometimes just because of targets being changed rather than actual improvement.

The report is titled ‘Moving Targets’ — referring to both the need to re-evaluate targets as time passes, to acknowledge process, but also criticising how some Government agencies may be altering targets to make the results look better.

“Targets are crucial for achieving meaningful social progress,” says report author Alan Johnson. “As a country, we need targets that are aspirational and courageous if we are to tackle issues like child poverty and the current housing crisis.”

The Nats know all about the importance of targets, but when it comes to measuring poverty they ignore or laugh at the idea. In response to this report – Tolley: No overnight fix to child poverty

But Ms Tolley says she is confident Child, Youth and Family (CYF) is doing the best it can and says protecting children from poverty and abuse is a long-term issue that cannot be fixed overnight.

Yeah the task will take a long time to finish, that’s for sure. Especially if you never start.

72 comments on “Another poverty report to ignore ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ropata 1
    20 February 2016 at 12:45 pm

    NatCorp™ simply have other investment priorities, and poor children are not part of the portfolio.

    Crosby textor PR campaigns and flag referenda have a better ROI

    • NZJester 1.1
      20 February 2016 at 3:49 pm

      I have a feeling that child poverty is part of their long term strategy. Child poverty tends to lead to more crime. This works out perfect for their privatized prisons that require people to fill them so that those private companies that run the prisons can make money.

    • Mosa 1.2
      21 February 2016 at 8:12 pm

      And Key wants a fourth term!!!
      The arrogance of this man and his gutless MP’S and Dunne Seymour Fox/Flavell
      coalition

  2. NZJester 2
    20 February 2016 at 3:44 pm

    They love to manipulate the facts so that things look improved.
    Just look at the shorter waiting list in the health sector.
    They achieved that by kicking a lot of people off the waiting lists for instance onto shadow waiting lists that officially do not exist.
    They got rid of child poverty by getting rid of the official government measuring of child poverty so that they can dismiss these second party reports by calling them unofficial.
    They claim that charter schools are doing great compared to public schools by making sure no reports on how well they are actually doing compared to public schools exist.
    If we in New Zealand had animals that represent our parties like the donkey and elephant symbols of the two main parties in the US the symbol for National in NZ would be a ostrich with its head in the sand.

  3. Dot 3
    20 February 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Protecting children from poverty?
    Polls don’t show the need for urgency.

  4. Incognito 4
    20 February 2016 at 4:24 pm

    But Ms Tolley says the problem needs more than three terms in government to fix.

    “This is hard work.

    “That doesn’t mean we’ve got all the answers, but some of this is really long-term, inter-generational work that we’ve got to do and that’s not going to be solved overnight, that’s not going to be solved in three terms, I can tell you that isn’t going to be solved in five or six terms that is a generation change.”

    The subtext is clear: don’t wait for or expect this Government to solve these problems now or in the (near) future and therefore don’t judge it on the outcome and any improvement or lack thereof. It is a cop out.

    In spite of the fact that Tolley admits that it is complex and the Government does not understand what’s happening she offers two ‘solutions’ – after all, the Government has to be seen as ‘working’ on it: more jobs with better pay (!) and lots of time.

    There is no plan and there won’t be one; this Government is washing its hands of the New Zealand children that are born and raised in poverty and are therefore highly likely to continue the cycle of poverty throughout adulthood and set up the next generation to repeat it.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1
      21 February 2016 at 8:22 am

      A total failure of personal responsibility. It would have taken just one or two National MPs to vote against this government’s various attacks on New Zealanders, from the Talley’s enabling legislation to the increase in GST, and stop it dead in its tracks.

      In short, they attack children. It’s that simple.

      • Incognito 4.1.1
        21 February 2016 at 11:23 am

        It is much worse than a lack or better, an avoidance, of personal responsibility. National exhibits no social or collective responsibility, no vision or imagination, no political courage, no will to solve pressing complex societal problems, and no compassion for ‘losers’. National is stuck in an ideological rut, clings on for dear life to the status quo, has a pathological fear of change and losing power & control, and is largely driven by self-interest. National MPs will always toe the party line in fear of ad hoc re-shuffles and missing out on future cushy jobs – they all suffer badly from Blair Disease.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1
          22 February 2016 at 7:09 am

          fear of change

          Various pundits have noted the profound changes National have introduced these last eight years. Bit by bit they’ve done serious structural harm to the health and justice services, education, to the welfare state. Corruption up, rule of law down, human rights abuses. Poverty. Sickness. Homelessness.

          They keep missing their self-defined economic targets.

          It’s hard to escape the conclusion that it isn’t so much change they’re afraid of as competence.

  5. marty mars 5
    20 February 2016 at 5:43 pm

    “Yeah the task will take a long time to finish, that’s for sure. Especially if you never start.”

    Says it all really – but please be nice to all the mums and dads who vote for these depraved politicians – don’t want to upset them – it’s not their fault they vote for their personal self interest – poverty and deprivation aren’t their fault – these are not their children – the mums and dads that vote gnats are innocent and often have pets and that shows that they are kind ///SARCASM

  6. Tautuhi 6
    20 February 2016 at 10:15 pm

    You need to create employment for New Zealanders and have people earning a living wage so they can feed, cloth, house and educate their children-it ain’t rocket science?

  7. Smilin 7
    20 February 2016 at 11:16 pm

    This govt spends so much time making things fit their policies that nothing gets done
    NZ is just a mini clone of the US we have no nationality but what fits Keys idea of running a small country
    All bull and brass and nothing else when you look at it sober
    As long as sport pushes the wow factor Key will be able to dodge the reality that many are screaming stop to. Its got to change
    Keys model is out of date and has been from day one

  8. Tautuhi 8
    21 February 2016 at 12:39 am

    Key and the Natzis talk so much bullwhacky i have given up trying to understand what their long term growth and policies are for NZ.

    • Incognito 8.1
      21 February 2016 at 11:02 am

      It is quite simple: TPPA.

      In essence, we trade ourselves rich and it is business as usual – predominantly centred on commodities.

      To further prop up our ‘lifestyle’ we rely on influx of foreign capital and immigrants. None of these have any barriers (remember TPPA) and are stoked by our local interest rates that are eye-wateringly high compared to overseas benchmarks.

      None of this does or will directly or indirectly address child poverty. In fact, it will keep the pressure on wage rises for lower-paid jobs. It will not deal either with the problem of underemployment and my guess is that it will make it worse, not better.

      In short, National’s ‘plan’ is more of the same and status quo and maybe, very maybe, we’ll see a tiny little trickle-down, likely more of slow seeping leak, to people at the bottom of the economic pick order (in 2030 and beyond?).

      To understand National you have to think like National, i.e. in simple binary terms with the IQ knob turned way down and the EQ knob fully switched off. Just ignore all the political rhetoric, Key’s cute but poorly articulated and pronounced semantics and spin and then KISS. Oh, I forgot, ignore all the side-shows and distractions and focus on the facts – there aren’t many usually.

  9. Tautuhi 9
    21 February 2016 at 12:43 am

    So how does National actually measure that poor people are doing better under this current National Government or is this just a sound bite/clip released to the media for feel good factor?

  10. The lost sheep 10
    21 February 2016 at 11:33 am

    Interesting there is so little comment on this post.
    I suspect that’s because the evidence contained within the report does not support the false meme that poverty and hardship are increasing.

    Without diminishing the areas the report clearly highlights as needing substantial improvement, the fact is that there are significant areas where gains are being made.
    This will be hard to swallow for those of you whose worldview excludes the possibility of any good at all in the current system or Government.

    Youth crime / pregnancy / infant mortality figures all declining. A continuing improvement in early Childhood care in low income areas. Number of children living on benefits lowest since 1998. Continued improvement in low decile NCEA achievement. Continued falls in overall and violent crime. Growth in jobs and incomes. Decline in alcohol/gambling damage.

    But the one I find most interesting, (looking back to previous conversations), is the further evidence of the lack of linkage between relative and fixed measures of poverty and hardship. Once again relative poverty since 2010-14 does not improve, while at the same time hardship drops by 24%.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1
      21 February 2016 at 11:45 am

      How do you know?

      The Salvation Army has detailed the National’s Party’s mendacious approach. Either they’re lying or you are.

      It’s you.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.2
      21 February 2016 at 12:09 pm

      To flesh out my observation that you are lying, I need look no further than your remarks about material hardship: you know the definition of this measure has changed because I’ve had to rub your face in it before.

      This is precisely the criticism leveled by your betters in the report. Your behaviour is shameful and I sincerely hope that one day you have to face the consequences.

      • The lost sheep 10.2.1
        21 February 2016 at 12:46 pm

        To quote the report….
        “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.”

        Figures from Table 2 show combined hardship rate of 29% for 2010, 22% for 2014.

        The Salvation Army must be lying OAB?
        Would you like to put up a substantive argument for that?
        And while you are at it, what about the other indicators I have quoted from the report? Are they lies also? Evidence please.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.2.1.1
          21 February 2016 at 1:29 pm

          The 2016 State of the Nation report has as its theme the idea of ‘moving targets’. We see this as a dual metaphor. On the one hand, it is an allusion to the way in which some government agencies appear to be using targets and the numbers behind them in a less than straightforward and reliable manner. This practice has many subtle and ingenious approaches—ranging from changing the definitions behind indicators so results appear better, to inventing new numbers like pseudo-service level indicators that are difficult to verify and have no point of reference, to simply changing reporting formats in the name of improving accountability without any improvement in the reliability of the information provided. All of these approaches have recently slipped into the reporting practices of some government agencies.

          While the targets may not change with such practices, the meaning behind them can. This can cause us to slip into a ‘movable feast’ mentality, where we find any reason to celebrate success or progress even though we have lost our sense of the purpose behind it all.

          To put it another way:

          Sallies: “The National Party is deliberately manipulating statistics to its own advantage.”
          Wormtongue: “yes, aren’t they doing well!”

          You disgusting specimen.

    • Stuart Munro 10.3
      21 February 2016 at 1:25 pm

      No, it’s more that National’s feckless abandonment of its social responsibilities is so graphic that there is nothing more to be said.

      Tolley is an unusually stupid and ineffectual minister even for a Gnat – a contender for the Nick Smith Pinnacle of Supreme Uselessness award.

      A government so corrupt it employs statistics that redefine unemployment as something else instead of addressing the issue cannot be trusted to do more than lie about issues of child poverty – but the doctors and frontline workers are not deceived. Treasury have no doubt spun a glittering web of bullshit as a sop to the consciences of the more credulous Gnats.

      • The lost sheep 10.3.1
        21 February 2016 at 1:27 pm

        So you too reject the findings of the Salvation Army Stuart?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.3.1.1
          21 February 2016 at 1:32 pm

          The Salvation Army says treat them with extreme caution, Wormtongue, because the National Party has the ethics of a Lost Sheep.

        • Macro 10.3.1.2
          21 February 2016 at 1:35 pm

          🙄
          Its you who reject the findings.
          No let me put that more clearly
          You are the one taking statements out of context to support your sick agenda.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.3.1.3
          21 February 2016 at 1:35 pm

          The problem is the people and agencies responsible for the results are also largely responsible for the analysis and reporting of them.

          In our 2015 State of the Nation report, The Salvation Army called for more transparency around how results and outcomes from public services were accounted for. The subsequent response from Government has been quite disingenuous.

          Sheep: “Go National, go National! Yay for lies!”

          • Stuart Munro 10.3.1.3.1
            21 February 2016 at 1:47 pm

            This is one of the most disturbing things for me about the reign of the Key kleptocracy – the enthusiasm for untruthfulness.

            Traditionally the right were conservative, but even they considered good faith to be integral both to business and to competent administration.

            In the long term this does not bode well for commercial success of NZ, even supposing we get through the difficult period immediately ahead with crazed neo-libs selling off bits of our country like it was a yellow mini.

            • The lost sheep 10.3.1.3.1.1
              21 February 2016 at 2:17 pm

              As I said, this does disprove the ‘things are getting worse’ meme, so it will stick in some of your throats. But outraged dogma aside….

              Specifically?
              Where have I misquoted the report?
              Which of the claims I have made about what the report says are untrue?

              Evidence please, rather than generalities.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                21 February 2016 at 3:31 pm

                Which of the claims I have made about what the report says are untrue?

                As the report itself makes clear, none of them are sound conclusions.

                But you know that, you dishonest piece of shit.

                • The lost sheep …
                  21 February 2016 at 4:08 pm

                  No.
                  The writers of the report are comfortable enough with the evidence to make qualitative assertions about all the indicators I quote, as anyone who reads the report can clearly see for themselves.

                  Your unwillingness to engage in direct terms and the ad hominem attack are the usual signals you have no substantive counter arguments to offer.

                  The real dishonesty here is an intellectual one. You and many others here are incapable of admitting to any facts that contradict your dogma. When you see that syndrome in others you condemn it as blind stupidity or willful ignorance.
                  But when it is your dogma that facts challenge?

                  If the Left is unwilling to have it’s dogma challenged, and insists on false memes, and labels anyone who challenges dogma an idiot, is it any wonder that there has been absoloutely zero progress in swaying voters back to the Left?
                  (Cue ad hominem abuse and derivative generalisations)

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    21 February 2016 at 4:34 pm

                    You see what you want to see.

                    The reports own authors note in the opening sentence that the data in it cannot be trusted.

                    They go on to point out why, and it is a very unflattering picture indeed: this is the substance of the report, that the government has set up a dishonesty machine.

                    You can’t even begin to acknowledge that, which leaves you gobbling up the goop the machine spits out while chanting “yum yum yum”.

                    If you can’t figure out why that earns contempt, that’s sad.

                    They massaged the figures you’re crowing about. Eat it.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      22 February 2016 at 8:22 am

                      Lets try some honest point and counter point OAB.
                      I’ll take a point, and directly and honestly address that point alone, with no deviation of any kind. Then you reply in kind.

                      Your point – The positive factors I have quoted from the report are invalid because there is no sound or conclusive data to support them.
                      Your quotes…
                      “As the report itself makes clear, none of them are sound conclusions.”
                      “The reports own authors note in the opening sentence that the data in it cannot be trusted.”

                      My counter points.
                      1. You have taken a statement that was qualified to some data, and conflated it to all data.
                      The ‘first sentence’ of the report specifies that “some government agencies appear to be using targets and the numbers behind them in a less than straightforward and reliable manner.”
                      It further states that “All of these approaches have recently slipped into the reporting practices of some government agencies. 1″
                      The footnote ‘1’ above specifies that “Two examples of these practices are cited in this report.”
                      Neither of the examples cited impact on the factors i have quoted from the report.

                      2. Nowhere in the report does it state that all data around the matters they survey is ‘unsound’ and ‘cannot be trusted’.

                      3. For many area’s considered in the report, the authors do make definite assertions based on specified data.
                      i.e. They make definite assertions on material hardship based on Perry.

                      4.Self evidently, if they believed Perry was unsound, they would say so, as opposed to making definite assertions based on it. They do not state that this data is unsound.

                      5. For all ‘positive’ factors i reference from the report, the authors have made definite assertions based on referenced data that the authors do not state is unsound. Again, if they had doubts about that data they would clearly state so, but they do not.

                      Based on the above, I say that all the references i have made are true to the report, and based on data the authors had sufficient confidence in to draw definite conclusions from.
                      I look forward to your direct, honest, and non derivative reply to my points above.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 February 2016 at 8:46 am

                      The best response to your cheerleading (“National National rah rah rah, smash the children ha ha ha!”) is provided by the report itself.

                      ASSESSMENT

                      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.

                      CHILDREN AT RISK
                      While the data shows some improvement, its reliability needs to be questioned, particularly given the acknowledged change in approach by Child Youth and Family and the direct link between organisational targets and their reporting of results.

                      CHILDREN AND VIOLENCE
                      Changes in the way crime is reported may improve our understanding of offending and victimisation patterns, but they do not at this stage allow us to gain any sense of what has changed over the past year in terms of violence against children.

                      EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATON

                      It appears levels of ECE engagement among poorer families and communities have improved and the Government’s commitment to making this happen needs to be acknowledged. While questions remain about the quality of a small proportion of ECE services, the real test of its value is the impact for poorer families. Improvements in ECE engagement will take time to flow into tangible results around student achievement. The gap between low decile and high decile communities remains large.

                      EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT
                      While NCEA achievement gaps continue to close (albeit at very moderate rates at Level 󰀱 and 󰀲), recent setbacks around the important University Entrance qualification are quite disappointing.

                      INFANT MORTALITY
                      Another solid year of progress in reducing the numbers of infant deaths. These numbers are probably at an all-time low.

                      TEENAGE PREGNANCY
                      The ongoing reduction in rates of teenage pregnancy is very encouraging and points to a cultural change that should be celebrated.

                      There’s a reason The Salvation Army is condemning the National Party. It’s because they’re rent-a-mob, eh.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      22 February 2016 at 9:23 am

                      Derivative OAB.
                      I’d like you to demonstrate your intellectual integrity and honesty by directly addressing the points I made above?

                    • The lost sheep …
                      22 February 2016 at 10:56 am

                      You talk of honesty OAB.
                      These are straightforward, direct and reasonable points in reply to a claim you made.
                      I’d like to see you prove you have some intellectual honesty by answering these points in a direct and genuine manner?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 February 2016 at 1:51 pm

                      Already answered at 10.5

                    • The lost sheep …
                      22 February 2016 at 3:01 pm

                      Maybe this intellectual honesty concept would be easier for you to grasp if I went first and showed you how it was done OAB?

                      Give me one point, any point at all, and I will answer it directly and honestly without deviation.

                      Then I’ll put one point to you, and you can have a crack at an honest and direct answer yourself?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 February 2016 at 3:21 pm

                      10.5 attacks the premise your entire cheerleading fail is based upon. I note your failure to answer it, and declare that you are being cretinously dishonest, since intellectual honesty is beyond you.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      22 February 2016 at 4:18 pm

                      Fine OAB.
                      I have made a direct and honest reply to all your points in 10.5

                      Now you go down there and demonstrate that you can make a direct and intellectually honest reply?

                  • Korero Pono …
                    21 February 2016 at 10:14 pm

                    @ Tls – (you are lost, aren’t you) – you are taking information out of context and misrepresenting information. It gets a little boring seeing this predictable behaviour, it is a very similar tactic used by another idiot poster…(hmmmm).

                    Regardless of how you and people of your ilk like to play with semantics to further your own ideology, the reality is faced daily by those working on the coal-face, those living the reality and no amount of manipulation and bull-shit can hide those facts. The Key Government have done little to improve the unacceptable levels of poverty https://www.kidscan.org.nz/sites/default/files/ReportCard12_0.pdf. If anything this Government has contributed significantly to the problem, it was certainly the Natzis who cemented the fate of thousands of New Zealand children in the 1990s.

                    The Natzis are not committed to tackling child poverty, it appears that the Natzis are committed to increasing it, while bashing the very victims of their warped and sick policies.

              • Stuart Munro …
                21 February 2016 at 4:32 pm

                The evidence is sleeping on the streets, being denied social welfare and showing up in the suicide statistics – but you know that.

                It is your team that hold the levers of power, imposing these horrors upon ordinary New Zealanders, it is for you to make the case that your neo-liberal fiction is succeeding.

                Oddly enough, lying won’t do it. Kiwis know the truth – they know it when the power bill is too high, or they or their children can’t get a job, or they see beggars on the streets – all the products of this government and lying shills like you.

                But keep telling the lies Sheep – maybe they will save your bacon when the mass of New Zealanders work out your game.

    • RedLogix 10.4
      21 February 2016 at 4:19 pm

      Youth crime / pregnancy / infant mortality figures all declining.

      Almost certainly less to do with politics and more to do with removing lead from petrol in the mid-90’s

      http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615

      • lprent 10.4.1
        21 February 2016 at 5:25 pm

        And simple demographic changes. There are less young as a proportion of the population. But similar resources as a total are expended on them

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.5
      22 February 2016 at 9:58 am

      the evidence contained within the report does not support the false meme that poverty and hardship are increasing.

      In fact, the criticisms are that the rate is far too high, and that National don’t care enough to do anything other than massage the data.

      The report supports these conclusions.

      You are left clutching at strawmen: first projecting a false meaning onto the number of comments made. Personally I hadn’t commented because when the Salvation Army says the government is lying about child poverty, what more needs to be said?

      Lab5’s ECE policy seems to have worked. There’s that. The kids who would otherwise have become young parents grew up under Lab5. There’s that too.

      • The lost sheep 10.5.1
        22 February 2016 at 4:21 pm

        To answer your points….

        The Salvation Army report does not say that ‘the government is lying about child poverty’.
        The word ‘lying’ does not appear in the document. The actual ‘allegation’ made is that ‘some Govt. agencies’ ‘appear to be using targets and the numbers behind them in a less than straightforward and reliable manner’.
        Footnote 1. confirms that only ‘two examples of these practices are cited in this report’.
        Logically, it must follow that everything outside of those two examples are not cited as examples of those practices.
        Child Poverty figures are NOT one of the examples cited, so therefore the report DOES NOT accuse the Govt. of lying about Child Poverty.

        In fact, the authors note that ‘we have a number of official measures….that allow us to create a consistent and useful picture of poverty trends over time’. The data on Child Poverty is taken from Perry, and the report expresses no doubts about the soundness of Perry. On the contrary, the authors are comfortable in making definite assertions about trends on the basis of that data.

        The report makes no allegation that ‘National don’t care enough to do anything other than massage the data’.

        So I have answered all your points directly and honestly in a fact based manner OAB. I welcome your further discussion in a like manner of intellectual honesty.

        But here is one direct point I would like you to answer. 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.”

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.5.1.1
          22 February 2016 at 4:25 pm

          I already covered material hardship at 10.2. It might help the flow of discussion if you adopt a more personally responsible attitude to paying attention.

          Edit: as for “lying” – I am less diplomatic than the SA, and when I quote them directly you demonstrate that you can spell the word “derivative”.

          • McFlock 10.5.1.1.1
            22 February 2016 at 4:35 pm

            I suspect that some of the lost sheep’s comments are made in a less than straightford and reliable manner.

            • The lost sheep 10.5.1.1.1.1
              22 February 2016 at 6:15 pm

              Why ‘suspect’ when you could ‘specify’ McFlock?

              • McFlock …
                22 February 2016 at 7:33 pm

                Because I know what words mean.

                • The lost sheep …
                  22 February 2016 at 8:33 pm

                  You just don’t know how to express them so other people can know exactly what you ‘mean’?

                  • McFlock …
                    22 February 2016 at 9:00 pm

                    If you read the sentence slowly and ask your teacher or caregiver for help with the bigger words, I’m sure you’ll eventually understand it.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      22 February 2016 at 9:50 pm

                      Outside of ad hominem abuse then, you have no substantive point at all to make McFlock?

                      Is this your way of demonstrating your understanding of honest direct fact based debate?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 February 2016 at 10:06 pm

                      honest direct fact based debate

                      Don’t flatter yourself, Wormtongue*.

                      *My Lord, the Salvation Army is coming…they are heralds of woe…they’re not welcome…

                    • McFlock …
                      22 February 2016 at 10:18 pm

                      TLS, I wasn’t even replying to a comment of yours before you asked me to explain a perfectly simple sentence.

                      I wasn’t “debating” with you.

                      I wasn’t comunicating with you at all. Your obvious desire for attention seems to have gotten in the way of your reading ability.

                      If I were to “specify” anything, it would be to specify exactly what you can insert into exacty which parts of your anatomy.

                      I was merely giving OAB my assessment of your discussion here. They can do with it what they will.

                      You probably understood that perfectly well, but playing an idiot is easier than trying to defend this government in good faith.

                      So, feel free to complain that someone you nagged for attention doesn’t want to “debate” with you and instead called you names. Hearts will break at the injustice, bards will tell the tale, and tragic movies will be made. Maybe, in fifty years time or so, I will reach through my shame and snatch a little bit of gratitude and redemption at the thought that my barbarity was responsible for some of the most exquisitely tender works of art in the history of western civilisation.

                      Until then, go fuck yourself, you pointless waste of space.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      23 February 2016 at 8:24 am

                      Exactly like OAB McFlock, you voluntarily inserted yourself into a conversation, and at the instant that conversation got uncomfortable for you, and would have required you to engage in a genuine debate, you ran away.

                      With both of you, the frequency with which you resort to cheap pointless abuse says everything about the ‘intellectual’ level you are working on. (Especially the constant sexually based themes. Very intellectual those.)

                    • McFlock …
                      23 February 2016 at 12:10 pm

                      McFlock, you voluntarily inserted yourself into a conversation, and at the instant that conversation got uncomfortable for you, and would have required you to engage in a genuine debate, you ran away.

                      Keep telling yourself that. It can go on the mantlepiece right next to your award for “everyone should listen to the lost sheep”, below the picture of the Pope hanging on your every word.

                      “Requires”. Lol. Who the fuck are you to require anything of anyone? My initial comment called you a liar. “Debating” with a liar is pointless.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 10.5.1.1.1.2
              22 February 2016 at 10:45 pm

              A false premise and a leading question walk into a bar. The leading question is rendered unconscious immediately but the false premise takes another couple of hits.

          • The lost sheep 10.5.1.1.2
            22 February 2016 at 6:30 pm

            1. You do not ‘deal with’ Material hardship in 10.2 OAB.
            You make a claim, and the only ‘evidence’ you provide to support it is a vague reference to a previous discussion.
            Please provide a link that backs up your claim?

            2. You completely ignore the evidence I state in my post.
            The S.A. report explicitly states that ‘we have a number of official measures….that allow us to create a consistent and useful picture of poverty trends over time’. In the footnotes they make it clear their source is Perry.
            Immediately after this statement of confidence in the data, they make the statement on material deprivation I reference.
            Can you please explain why the S.A. report does not identify the problem with data that you claim exists?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 10.5.1.1.2.1
              22 February 2016 at 7:53 pm

              You can’t remember as recently ago as the 15th December? What the fuck is wrong with you?

              • The lost sheep …
                22 February 2016 at 10:04 pm

                If you had found the discussion OAB, why would you not just provide a link to it…..rather than make it quite difficult for the uncommitted reader to find?
                Only took me 10 minutes….but, can see your problem. In that discussion too, you fail to answer to a crucial point i.e. that Perry (link above) considers that “Because items are common to earlier and later datasets, 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”.

                So that leads us back to the point you have now blatantly ignored twice; Why do the Sallies not have an issue with Perry’s data?
                Please do explain this directly and honestly?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  22 February 2016 at 10:24 pm

                  The “discussion” consisted of you ignoring facts and repeating your mantra ad nauseam.

                  Different measures, Wormtongue. “Different”: look it up.

                  The Sallies detail the problems they have with all the data, including Perry’s.

                  This lack of overlap poses a number of problems for policy makers and, in particular, for problems around targeting—what assistance to target (eg, cash or in-kind) and who to target.

                  Perhaps you’re aware of the problems inherent on relying on a single study – as you do with Perry, but I doubt it. In any event I suggest you cling to it like a security blankie, because the guts of the report are contained in the introduction: the National Party has invented a dishonesty machine, and your pom-poms are fluid, brown and lumpy.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.5.1.2
          22 February 2016 at 4:41 pm

          Now, as for the “two examples” – footnote one provides two examples. The ECE discussion cited in the introduction is not one of them. Neither is the “Better Public Services” empty vessel initiative, also cited in the introduction.

          It does not follow that the rest (what’s left of them) are therefore reliable. Perhaps the Sallies know of others they can’t easily substantiate.

          • The lost sheep 10.5.1.2.1
            22 February 2016 at 6:54 pm

            Now, as for the “two examples” – footnote one provides two examples. The ECE discussion cited in the introduction is not one of them. Neither is the “Better Public Services” empty vessel initiative, also cited in the introduction.
            The Sallies exact quote in the footnote is ‘Two examples of these practices are cited in this report.’ But yes, maybe there are 4. This would not be the only inconsistency in the report…but we haven’t even got to those.

            It does not follow that the rest (what’s left of them) are therefore reliable. Perhaps the Sallies know of others they can’t easily substantiate.
            Seriously? You are offering a fallacious ‘appeal to ignorance’ argument as ‘proof’? That’s pretty much the bottom of the barrel eh!

            Look, you made the specific claim that the Sallies had said the Govt. was lying about child poverty. I have pointed out the hard factual evidence that they did not say that, and in fact expressed confidence in the data available to them.

            Please either present some hard evidence to back your claim, or withdraw it?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 10.5.1.2.1.1
              22 February 2016 at 7:55 pm

              Nope, it’s a perfectly valid way to summarise what they said*, and I don’t give a toss what you think. So take your pom-poms and your little skirt and fuck off.

              *this, the substance, is the part you’ll ignore in favour of whinging about how I give you precisely the level of respect you deserve.

              Edit: I note your failure to address the facts Korero Pono and Stuart Munro dragged your face through. You must be cretinously disingenuous as well as dishonest.

              • The lost sheep …
                22 February 2016 at 10:06 pm

                I’m just an uneducated idiot OAB, but even I understand the basics of genuine and honest debate.
                I have replied to your points with rational arguments, referenced directly to the material we are debating, and the points I have made are based on stated facts.
                In any honest and genuine debate I believe it is a reasonable expectation that you should reply to my points in a like manner. If there are flaws in my argument, you should be able to make a rational fact based argument that disproves them. If my arguments are as stupid as you suggest, this should be very simple for you?
                I do not believe that any genuine forum would accept your ad hominem attacks as a valid substitute for honest debate.

                There is no good reason that I can think of for your refusal to engage my discussion honestly, except that you are being dishonest.

                And if I can get a honest answer out of you, I would be happy to move onto other discussions.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  22 February 2016 at 10:28 pm

                  As predicted, you’re whinging instead of engaging with the substance, which is that the National Party has constructed a dishonesty machine, and your lips are glued to the effluent pipe.

                  It suits you.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 10.5.1.2.1.2
              22 February 2016 at 11:23 pm

              Seriously? You are offering a fallacious ‘appeal to ignorance’ argument as ‘proof’?

              Please find a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word “perhaps”, and drop the witless pretence that I’m trying to prove anything. I already know that your reading is cursory at best, as two becomes four.

              Pay more attention.

              • The lost sheep …
                23 February 2016 at 8:16 am

                That’s the 4th time in a couple of weeks you have blatantly evaded a perfectly reasonable genuine fact based discussion OAB, for the simple reason that an engagement would challenge your dogma.

                And I bet you will think of yourself as someone of impeccable intellectual honesty and integrity!

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  23 February 2016 at 8:38 am

                  Oh fuck off, with your self-serving declarations of victory. Do you think they fool anyone? All you’ve got is leading questions and false premises.

                  When this is pointed out to you, you pack a sad.

                  The Salvation Army says that the National Party has constructed a dishonesty machine. Meanwhile, on the Planet of the Sheep, four equals two.

                  Says “Without diminishing the areas the report clearly highlights as needing substantial improvement…”

                  Goes on to diminish the areas that are clearly highlighted, especially the one about the dishonesty factory. All this is in plain view. Thinks that’s a winning debating strategy 🙄

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  23 February 2016 at 9:02 am

                  Substantive points you’re hiding from, like a lying coward:

                  1. New Zealanders’ concerns about child poverty are not a “false meme”.
                  2. Relying on the results of one study is a mistake.
                  3. Ignoring serious concerns about the quality of all the data in order to concentrate on a single data set isn’t just a mistake, it’s fuckwittery of the highest order.
                  4. The Salvation Army says that the National Party is lying about social and economic indicators including child poverty.
                  5. The definition of material hardship changed half-way through the data series.

                  Who’s running away, tosser?

  11. greywarshark 11
    21 February 2016 at 5:55 pm

    Is there a complaint about women’s equality into the Parliamentary Services? It’s not fair that the oppression of citizens sector of government, the welfare part, does not get the same advantages as the police and army. And why are the women getting the hard jobs of managing a large budget for an ever-growing larger cohort of needy people.

    I say let Nick Smith manage Social Welfare, he has the background in having been overcome by stress and recovered, and could cope well with destitute, despairing people.
    Why do we have to have Gorgons like Anne Tolley. Give the women better jobs, and let the men toil at this soulless Gnat plan of gradual depletion of the commons until their teeth have to be recapped because of all the gnashing.

  12. RedBaronCV 12
    21 February 2016 at 6:54 pm

    I find this “investment approach” of Nact to some citizens lives weird mainly but not at all consistent.
    If you have to have this approach then why not apply the process to all adult members of society whose actions destroy or seriously harm the community?. Why don’t we know what makes a tax dodger, a finance company or banking executive that causes harm do what they do? And how should they be brought up to manage their personalities so that they don’t wreck the place.
    After all economic chaos is not caused by children and single mums is it?

    • ropata 12.1
      22 February 2016 at 8:47 am

      The poll numbers do not give any incentive to fix poverty, it’s much easier to sweep under the rug. And the last thing this government wants is to look too closely at white collar crime