Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
6:00 pm, July 1st, 2015 - 25 comments
Categories: Daily review -
Tags:
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
When stacking the board won’t cut it..
Legislation giving government ministers sweeping new powers to sell off state houses without the approval of Housing New Zealand has been tabled in Parliament.
The Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill would allow designated ministers to sell Housing NZ properties without the approval of the board of the corporation.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/69886055/ministers-seek-power-to-bypass-housing-nz-for-state-house-sales
Gee why have a board? Why not just let the Minister make the decision?
Perversely, if I were in a Labour government I would do the same:
– eradicate the Board
– decorporatise housing
– pull the whole portfolio under more direct Ministerial control
Bring back real Departments again.
Agreed.
I always struggled to understand why Housing NZ needed a board. It is quite a simple model, own heaps of houses and make sure they have people in need living in them and make sure they are fixed up and kept repaired. And let the Government know how much from year to year you need to make sure you can keep doing this.
Yep. The SOE model of providing profits to government has failed in so many ways.
In fact I would be tempted to get rid of the idea of a Departmental Chief Executive, and go back to a Secretary. I think Twyford would have fun with that 😉
Perhaps take the maintenance work back in house as well. ie having this hypothetical “Department of Public Housing” employ their own tradies and running their own apprenticeships.
I heard Andrew Little repeatedly dismissing national for being “ideological”
When and why did ideology become such a dirty word?
When it is stupid ideological?
When ideology is sold WITH the presupposition ‘people are not greedy’
Even as a child you were a real B-A-S-T-A-R-D!
Things never change!
Ideology is always a dirty word in politics – when it becomes rigidity, dogma, blinked thinking and an inability to embrace any other opinions.
Ideas can be constructive, when it leaves the mind open, creates discussion, and does not impose itself. But ideology, when it believes it is the only right – kills ideas.
The present government has gone down the ideology path into dogma, and right thinking. They have more in common with the old East German communists, than with democrats or social democrats.
They have walked off the reservation into la-la land. Because there is no right way, no perfect set of ideas, no way for one fixed set of ideas to be right. That style of thinking, a right way, with right outcomes, has always lead us to some sort of – man made hell.
Adam your ideology sounds like the brand I’m concerned about… That is some kind of pragmitism or relativism which has turned dogmatic.
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/headlines.cfm?c_id=1
Another balls up by the nats
Oh and apparently motoring safety is all about saving money . They’re one dimensional buggers all right.
Which particular headline are you talking about?
EDIT: I suspect you mean this one.
Bugger yes that one Cheers I forgot to see if link worked properly.
Right, so ideology in general is okay.
You MUST have an ideology to have governance. Ideology is simply a system of ideas and ideals – in the political realm it’s the ‘lens’ through which legislation is developed. Problems occur when ideology becomes dogmatic/dogma
Thanks G C that was my understanding as well. which is why it seems strange when people get “accused” of ideology
Ideoloogy is fine if it produces results for ordinary people. If the ideology is that the rich should be allowed to get richer for all of our benefit and the benefits do not materialise then the ideology is a failure.
Right, I guess I ask because in the past when I have heard the term ideology used as an insult, it has come from Key etc. I thought the rights objection to ideology was it was an antithesis to right thinking, common sense, pragmatic, mainstream, blah blah new Zealanders.
This just makes me sick. Any government who decides to push their chaotic agenda on the the most helpless, is not only lacking morality. It is, for want of a better word – evil.
http://eveningreport.nz/2015/07/01/backers-banking-on-social-bonds-cash-labour/
Now I know that many consider the problem of Plastic bags to be minor – and to a certain extent they may be – but what we don’t see doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
From “Top Ten Facts about Plastic Bags in our Oceans” here is one:
http://www.environmentmassachusetts.org/sites/environment/files/reports/Bag%20Ban%20Fact%20Sheet%20_0.pdf
When “Our Seas Our Future” campaign called for the government to phase out plastic bags The call was immediately rebuffed by Minister for the Environment Nick Smith.
NRT shows that – as per usual – he was lying.
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2015/07/a-scientific-view.html
What does Nick Smith actually have to do to get sacked? Everything he touches turns to shit. And not ordinary shit. Radioactive borderline sentient shit that wants to devour your children and suffocate you in your sleep. If I were even a fraction as incompetent at my job as he is at his, I’d have been sacked a hundred times over.
I recently saw one of the political reporters voice the opinion that they couldn’t sack him because other than Collins there is know one else capable of running a ministry. I guess that’s what happens when you bring unthinking yes men/women to parliament.