Daily review 06/05/2019

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, May 6th, 2019 - 19 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

19 comments on “Daily review 06/05/2019 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Rosemary McDonald 1
    6 May 2019 at 6:01 pm

    Susan St John from the Child Poverty Action Group explains what was really happening when the Welfare Expert Advisory Group released the Report last Friday….

    Releasing the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report at 2pm Friday (3rd May) just before the weekend at a far-flung West Auckland venue miles from the train station was a masterstroke of political strategy.

    The 209 page WEAG report itself is excellent and provides the blueprint for the needed changes to NZ’s outmoded and inadequate welfare state, but most people are none the wiser as to the report’s contents.

    Was this the intention? Maybe it helps explains why the processes of the WEAG were anything but transparent.

    This is a platinum standard report from one of the most respected researchers/activists in New Zealand and she holds nothing back.

    None of their undoubted expertise was utilised to explain the detail of the report and the rationale for the suggested changes.

    Instead, we got three long and repetitive political speeches. Labour, the Greens and NZ First all wanted to ensure that we understood they were totally on the same page as each other. That they all absolutely agreed with the diagnosis of the WEAG report: that things had been utterly miserable for too long. But, and there is a significant but, they all agreed nothing could take place immediately, apart from a few sops that were already in the budget.

    The Minister’s pre-Budget announcements were breath-taking in their superficiality. There were audible gasps of disbelief when she announced that the sanction applied to sole parents who do not name the father of their children would not come in until 2020. Another lowlight was very minor changes to the abatement thresholds that are to be phased in over 4 years.

    https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2019/05/06/i-am-not-a-conspiracy-theorist-but/#comment-461109

    I think I detected the death of hope in this piece….

    • Sacha 1.1
      6 May 2019 at 6:23 pm

      As you'd imagine Sue Bradford is similarly unimpressed: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/06-05-2019/no-hope-for-progressive-welfare-reform-from-this-government/

      We are seeing the weakest possible response to the WEAG’s sterling efforts. There is no commitment to any significant change during this parliamentary term. To talk about transforming welfare in three, five or 10 years as Sepuloni does is simply meaningless.

      • Rosemary McDonald 1.1.1
        6 May 2019 at 6:55 pm

        Labour appears to remain bedevilled by the deep-seated prejudices middle-class people hold about beneficiaries, the kind of people who have never had to face the reality of extended periods of life at the mercy of the state’s grim benevolence.

        Any beneficiary expecting a sudden onset of empathy from this government can forget about that,

        Well said.

        • greywarshark 1.1.1.1
          6 May 2019 at 9:04 pm

          Anything might be done. But everything that can be done must be done slowly. Especially if it seems to be for the first time (in the memory of that official or leader). Technology is trying to dig out the ground that you stand on and a fast learning curve and a quick jump is required for survival. But anything for people must be analysed, past-your-eyes, and bottled in formaldehyde, labelled 'What a good idea – if only we could…afford it, find the personnel to assist these helpless people etc.'

        • swordfish 1.1.1.2
          6 May 2019 at 9:59 pm

          The 2017 New Zealand Election Study suggests the public has quite a nuanced outlook … on some aspects, it tends toward the less empathetic …

          ———————————————————————————————-

          Should there be more or less public spending on unemployment benefits ?

          ———————————————————————————————–

          Much more 3%

          More 13%

          (Total More = 16%)

          Same as now 45%

          Less 24%

          Much less 8%

          (Total Less = 32%)

          Don't Know 6%

          ————————————————————————————–

          Should there be more or less public spending on welfare benefits ?

          ————————————————————————————–

          Much more 4%

          More 18%

          (Total More = 22%)

          Same as now 44%

          Less 20%

          Much less 7%

          (Total Less = 27%)

          Don't know 7%

          ——————————————————————————-

          Unemployed people should have to work for their benefits ?

          ——————————————————————————

          Strongly agree 29%

          Somewhat agree 44%

          (Total Agree = 73%)

          Neither 9%

          Somewhat disagree 10%

          Strongly disagree 4%

          (Total Disagree = 14%)

          Don't know 4%

          ———————————————————————————

          … although, by the same token, the weight of public opinion is more progressive on these two questions:

          (1) Many people who get benefits don't really deserve help ? (33% Total Agree / 43% Total Disagree)

          and

          (2) With lower welfare benefits people would learn to stand on their own two feet ? (32% Total Agree / 48% Total Disagree)

          And a large majority agree the government should provide decent living standards for the unemployed (58% Yes vs 33% No) … but it looks like they feel that’s already happening.

    • Brigid 1.2
      6 May 2019 at 7:47 pm

      Ugh

      fuksake

      "death of hope" Most appropriately put Rosemary

      "sanction applied to sole parents who do not name the father of their children would not come in until 2020"

      Why the fuck not immediately?? Jesus Christ and bloody Mary

  2. Gabby 2
    6 May 2019 at 6:17 pm

    Well, people are used to being miserable now. Why upset them with hope n shit?

  3. Drowsy M. Kram 3
    6 May 2019 at 6:22 pm

    A reporter on TV One News has just referred to Andrew Little as the "Minister of Spies".

    But the NZ Government doen't have a Minister of/for Spies.

    How difficult is it to use a correct Ministerial title?

    Like Jones' "regional money bag".

    • Sacha 3.1
      6 May 2019 at 6:25 pm

      It's easier to understand than the formal title. And unlike gobshite Jones, he did not bestow it on himself.

    • Psycho Milt 3.2
      6 May 2019 at 7:56 pm

      Just be glad you weren't watching Newshub, on which their political reporter cheerfully referred to the Prime Minister of New Zealand as "Jacinda." I guess the Shub political news team thinks their job is basically celebrity gossip reporting, in which the A-list celebrities are referred to by their first names.

    • mickysavage 4.1
      6 May 2019 at 7:34 pm

      Geez that guy is dangerous. Hope he does not have a position of importance …

  5. Kevin 5
    6 May 2019 at 7:38 pm

    Simon Bridges says he’s concerned the upcoming cannabis referendum could mimic a ‘Brexit-type situation’ – with people voting in favour without full understanding….

    —

    And this comment on FB almost had me in tears:

    Soimon….. you give hope to so many Kiwis you really do. If a bloke like you can become a leader of a political party then really anything, absolutely anything is possible.

  7. Brigid 7
    6 May 2019 at 7:43 pm

    This is damned interesting

    Mediastan: A Wikileaks Road Movie

  8. joe90 8
    6 May 2019 at 8:29 pm

    Concert for one.