- Date published:
12:08 pm, July 14th, 2017 - 23 comments
Categories: act, benefits, john key, national, radio, same old national, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: beth houlbrooke, Kim Hill, radio new zealand
Day two and ACT is still obsessing about people’s breeding habits. Apparently trying to make sure that kids don’t starve is creating us all into bludgers. And you don’t use the forces of the state to help kids because hell someone might think that it an economically viable thing to do to breed for the benefit despite all the evidence to the contrary.
There was this excruciatingly good interview involving ACT deputy leader Beth Houlbrooke and Kim Hill on Radio New Zealand this morning. Dang Kim is good. Like a chilled out spider she coaxed Beth into her lair then it was all over.
Houlbrooke had created a social media splash by posting this comment on her facebook page about Labour’s policy for increased support for children:
This is an election bribe. It does nothing to address the real causes of child poverty.
When we pay people to have babies, it encourages them to grow their families when they might not be financially prepared or properly mature. In other words, Labour’s baby bonus could extend the misery of child poverty and even child abuse.
The fact is, parents who cannot afford to have children should not be having them. ACT believes in personal responsibility, meaning we stand with the majority of parents who wait and save before having children.
Clearly she believes that if you want to do something about poverty you have to studiously avoid the one thing guaranteed to solve the problem. Under no circumstances is their poverty to be alleviated.
During the interview Holbrooke claimed that an Australian study showed that the baby bonus, introduced by the Government in 2004, caused all sorts of licentiousness and indiscriminate breeding. The fact that the increase in fertility rates had become evident two years previously would tend to refute that assertion. Unless indiscriminate breeders have the ability to accurately predict the future.
In any event the change was said to be modest. I have not seen any analysis to suggest if the increase occurred in god fearing nuclear families where one partner was engaged in full time work or not.
Holbrooke then tried to say the scheme was bad because it cut out after three years. This would in her view perpetuate reliance on the system. Hill’s response that it would protect the child was the perfect response. Why do right wingers think it is right to hurt children’s prospects by punishing their parents for supposedly bad decisions.
ACT does not care. It will bash beneficiaries at every opportunity because there is a political advantage in doing so. Unfortunately enough voters are motivated by fear or hate and by the desire to feel superior that they buy into this branding.
And they talk about intergenerational welfare. According to them it is always the family’s fault. The fact that there has been a rush of resources away from ordinary people to the very wealthy over the past 30 years has nothing to do with it.
Of course National also engage in beneficiary bashing on a regular basis. John Key once claimed that women were engaged in breeding for a business. Hate and dissent are standard fodder for right wing populist parties.
Expect more of this type of publicity to occur. Hopefully there will be reporters as good as Kim Hill to hold them to account.
I love waking to the dulcet tones of Kim Hill disemboweling the heartless ❤️ @radionz
— Annabelle Lee-Mather (@huihoppa) July 13, 2017
Great work from Kim Hill in this interview to bring the implications of this particular form of nonsense to the surface. https://t.co/fzD8MQJ1zS
— Andrew Dean is voting NO to his management's EBA (@andrewhdean) July 13, 2017
— RNZ (@radionz) July 13, 2017