Flavell has “no idea” how homelessness got so bad

Written By: - Date published: 8:00 am, July 19th, 2017 - 173 comments
Categories: accountability, class war, housing, maori party - Tags: , , ,

Hapless Te Ururoa Flavell has spent too long in Wellington – Waiariki candidates debate issues on TV

But the number one issue for Mr Flavell was homelessness in the wider region.

While Mr Flavell said he had “no idea” how homelessness got so bad in the region, he said plans were underway to help remedy the problem with more than 140 homes lined up to be built in the near future in the Bay of Plenty, including more than 40 in Rotorua.

No idea how homelessness got so bad? Could have anything to do with the low wages, the punitive benefits system, the failure to build houses, the growing population, the relentless transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich? Could it have anything to do with the government of the last nine years, and the policies that you and your party have been supporting? What is a “seat at the table” worth?

173 comments on “Flavell has “no idea” how homelessness got so bad ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Keith 1
    19 July 2017 at 8:26 am

    Since his government eliminated all ability to measure this bad news statistic how could this Nat sympathiser ever officially know?

    Maori Party = National Party!

    • Norfolk Traveller 1.1
      19 July 2017 at 11:08 am

      “Since his government eliminated all ability to measure this bad news statistic…”

      That is false.
      Homelessness is measured in exactly the same way it has been for decades, via the census, and by a range of academic studies.
      One of the reasons homelessness statistics are showing a worsening position is because the definition of homelessness actually expanded to include ‘people living in improvised shelters’, ‘people staying in camping grounds/motor camps’ and ‘people sharing accommodation with someone else’s household’. (Busch-Geertsema, Volker. “Defining and measuring homelessness.” Homelessness Research in Europe: Festschrift for Bill Edgar and Joe Doherty (2010): 19-39.)
      This is a serious issue that doesn’t need your misinformation.

      • McFlock 1.1.1
        19 July 2017 at 12:52 pm

        yup, we’re totally imagining the people sleeping in the streets. They weren’t there 15 years ago, so they’re not there now. /sarc

        • Norfolk Traveller 1.1.1.1
          19 July 2017 at 3:00 pm

          Absolutely they were there 15 years ago. Absolutely they are there now. Dealing with this issue won’t be helped by making claims that are patently false, as Keith did.

          • McFlock 1.1.1.1.1
            19 July 2017 at 4:02 pm

            You’re a hypocrite.

            As well as accusing Keith of making patently false claims, you argue that homelessness is being said to rise because of changing definitions.

            Using consistent definitions, homelessness is rising.

            • Norfolk Traveller 1.1.1.1.1.1
              19 July 2017 at 4:11 pm

              “As well as accusing Keith of making patently false claims…”
              Because he did.

              “…you argue that homelessness is being said to rise because of changing definitions.”
              No, I said “One of the reasons homelessness statistics are showing a worsening position is because the definition of homelessness actually expanded…” Learn to read before taking me on, McFlock.

              • McFlock …
                19 July 2017 at 4:19 pm

                whatever, oh great one.

                So you weren’t trying to imply that homelessness isn’t rising, you were just arguing that some of the rise is due to changing definitions? That’s some really useful insight.

                It still means homelessness is rising when any definition changes are accounted for, and this government is watching it get worse.

                And your contribution is to ignore the real rise and focus on the definition change. Well, I guess that shows exactly how much you give a shit about homeless people.

                • McFlock …
                  27 July 2017 at 11:41 pm

                  “On an aggregate level? Feel free to show a relationship between household incomes and contemporary levels of homelessness. ”
                  If it works on an individual level, then it will work on an aggregate level. It’s simple logic.

                  Well, simple, anyway. Even naive. But logical? It’s amazing how many “maybe, sure” things are shown by multivariate analyses to be “nah, fuckall over the entire population, indistinguishable from pure chance”.

                  “Because at the moment homelessness in increasing…”
                  For reasons other than changes to household income.

                  Yup. Like I said, it’s irrelevant. The discussion is about thunder, and you’re producing documented evidence about your most recent fart. Maybe, on an individual level, the two were related. But maybe, across the population, there’s no discernible relationship whatsoever.

                  “But suggestions for conditions or exclusions from a basic income would not be universal.”
                  You didn’t understand what I wrote. Part of the discussion around a UBI is whether or not it even SHOULD be universal.

                  And next you’ll argue that part of the discussion about biology is whether it even SHOULD involve the study of living organisms.

                  But just to be completely clear on your position, when you said you were agnostic about a universal basic income, you’re actually against a universal universal basic income, but currently agnostic about a non-universal universal basic income?

                • McFlock …
                  28 July 2017 at 12:11 am

                  shit replied to wrong one, my bad. repeat below

              • Norfolk Traveller …
                19 July 2017 at 4:35 pm

                “So you weren’t trying to imply that homelessness isn’t rising, you were just arguing that some of the rise is due to changing definitions? ”
                Correct, well done.

                “…and this government is watching it get worse.”
                This problem has been getting worse for longer than the life of this government. It makes me sick when people assuage their own feelings of guilt by finding anyone else to blame.

                “And your contribution is to ignore the real rise and focus on the definition change. ”
                Actually no. My contribution is to provide real, practical help to the homeless. The homeless need real solutions, not misinformation, and certainly not handwringing numpties looking for a reason to take a hit at any particular government.

                • McFlock …
                  19 July 2017 at 4:46 pm

                  My contribution is to provide real, practical help to the homeless.

                  So all the peasants you deem worthy of assistance can give you grateful thanks while you spend the rest of your time minimising their number and the severity of their plight (if your comments here are anything to go by).

                  • Norfolk Traveller …
                    19 July 2017 at 5:25 pm

                    “So all the peasants you deem worthy of assistance can give you grateful thanks while you spend the rest of your time minimising their number and the severity of their plight (if your comments here are anything to go by).”
                    I have never minimised anything. I sense you are keyboard warrior. I happen to have some time at the moment, and a friend pointed to TDB. I didn’t realise I’d meet people who were happy to see lies passed off as truth.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 July 2017 at 5:35 pm

                      Well, fuck off to TDB then.

                      You’ve repeatedly minimised the number and severity of the homeless problem. Going off in a tangent about changing measures rather than actually addressing the issue of increasing homelessness is just the latest example.

                      The only thing you haven’t minimised is how much you think turei obtained by deception – that’s an exagerrated number you invented in order to distract from the actual fact that our pathetic benefit levels are turning normal people into criminals. Not just her, lots of people as the twitter hashtag illustrates.

                      Go to TDB. Bomber will love you.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      19 July 2017 at 5:42 pm

                      “You’ve repeatedly minimised the number and severity of the homeless problem.”
                      No, not once.

                      “Going off in a tangent about changing measures…”
                      That was your tangent. I was correcting Keith, and only mentioned changing measures as a sidebar. I really didn’t think I’d be dealing with obsessives here as well.

                      “The only thing you haven’t minimised is how much you think turei obtained by deception – that’s an exagerrated number you invented in order to distract from the actual fact that our pathetic benefit levels are turning normal people into criminals. Not just her, lots of people as the twitter hashtag illustrates.”
                      No, my estimate will be conservative. But it is unsurprising that you form your opinions from a twitter has tag.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 July 2017 at 8:57 pm

                      “Not once”
                      lol bullshit

                      Your “sidebar” was the bulk of your comment. That’s not how “sidebars” work.

                      Your “estimate” is an invention pulled out of incorrect assumptions that don’t even reflect her comment.

                      And my opinions were based on my experience. The twitter thing shows you that Turei and I are not alone in that experience, by any means. Your dismissal of it is just another baseless minimisation.

                      Go back to your ego-stroking in front of the deserving poor, happy in the knowledge that you’re obviously not going to vote for anyone who’ll do something systemic that will stop you being needed.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      19 July 2017 at 10:03 pm

                      “lol bullshit”
                      Yet you give no example.

                      “Your “sidebar” was the bulk of your comment. That’s not how “sidebars” work.”
                      It was a comment that was part of a wider argument. Your obsession with it is unhealthy.

                      “Your “estimate” is an invention pulled out of incorrect assumptions that don’t even reflect her comment.”
                      No, they are based on the time frame, the number of borders and the number of weeks in a year.

                      “The twitter thing shows you that …”
                      …there are people who will follow just about anything on twitter, and others (yourself) who will swallow it as evidence.

                      You seem hell bent on navigating down side streets of discussion while merrily avoiding the actual issue I raised. Keith was wrong.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 July 2017 at 10:34 pm

                      Yet you give no example.

                      Oh, but I did – your first comment in the thread.

                      “Your “sidebar” was the bulk of your comment. That’s not how “sidebars” work.”
                      It was a comment that was part of a wider argument. Your obsession with it is unhealthy.

                      It was literally the largest part of your first reply to Keith.

                      “Your “estimate” is an invention pulled out of incorrect assumptions that don’t even reflect her comment.”
                      No, they are based on the time frame, the number of borders and the number of weeks in a year.

                      She said five flats, three of which had undeclared flatmates. Not the tenure in each flat, or how many flatmates in each of the three flats that had flatmates. Those were assumptions you pullout out of your arse.

                      “The twitter thing shows you that …”
                      …there are people who will follow just about anything on twitter, and others (yourself) who will swallow it as evidence.

                      Again, I swallow it because I and my friends have lived it. You obviously pretend everyone lies as much as you do.

                      You seem hell bent on navigating down side streets of discussion while merrily avoiding the actual issue I raised. Keith was wrong.

                      Only partially. If Flavell has no idea how we got into this situation of increased numbers of homeless people, he’s wilfully ignored or avoided reality. Like you.

                      And if that was your main issue, you should have devoted more comment space to it than your problem-minimising “sidebar”.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      20 July 2017 at 3:39 pm

                      “Oh, but I did – your first comment in the thread.”
                      No. Your claim referred “You’ve repeatedly minimised the number and severity of the homeless problem.” You haven’t given an example let alone repeatedly.

                      “It was literally the largest part of your first reply to Keith.”
                      Which was about his mistaken claim. Yet you obsessed on it.

                      “She said five flats, three of which had undeclared flatmates. Not the tenure in each flat, or how many flatmates in each of the three flats that had flatmates. Those were assumptions you pullout out of your arse.”
                      The assumptions are not unreasonable. In fact my assumption was conservative as to the $$’s involved. I’ve seen other calculations ranging from $20,000 to $60,000. But clearly you’re comfortable with fraud.

                      “Again, I swallow it because I and my friends have lived it. “
                      You swallow it because it suits your narrative, and because you are gullible. You swallow the ‘throw more money’ line, rather than dig deeper and try to find out why people are int he position they are in and teaching them to fish,.

                      “Only partially. If Flavell has no idea how we got into this situation of increased numbers of homeless people, he’s wilfully ignored or avoided reality.”
                      So? Who am I, Flavell’s keeper?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      20 July 2017 at 3:45 pm

                      “Teaching them to fish”.

                      Patronising much? When you catch them fishing instead of job-hunting, you’ll ‘incentivise’ them by cutting their benefit.

                      I wonder if you actually believe the lies you parrot about the left and our attitudes to welfare. Which would you prefer, that I think of you as a dupe or a liar?

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      20 July 2017 at 5:13 pm

                      “Patronising much? When you catch them fishing instead of job-hunting, you’ll ‘incentivise’ them by cutting their benefit.”
                      Not patronising at all. We should be encouraging people to self sufficiency, not locking them into welfare dependency. The human spirit wants freedom, not repression. That’s why the Greens social support proposals are so utterly dopey.

                    • McFlock …
                      20 July 2017 at 5:36 pm

                      Your slimy minimisations are quite subtle – it’s largely in what you don’t say:
                      You didn’t say as much about keith’s comment as you said about definitional changes inflating the number of recorded homeless.
                      You didn’t say anything about actual homeless levels, the point of keiths comment and the post.
                      You didn’t say that even with the definitional changes taken into account, homelessness is increasing.
                      You didn’t say that even if someone is sheltering in a garage, an improvised shelter, or couchsurfing in a hugely overcrowded dwelling, that these are still very bad things to happen in NZ.

                      Although it is quite interesting that even in arguing against the specifics of Keith’s comment, you supported the gist of it and justified his contempt: You emphasised the definitional changes in record keeping to distract from (and avoid addressing) the real changes in homelessness.

                      But there is also minimisation in what you do say – when I said that homeless who weren’t there 15 years ago must be figments of my imagination because they can’t be there now, you wrote “Absolutely they were there 15 years ago. Absolutely they are there now.” If homelessness has actually increased, then many of them – even most of them – weren’t there 15 years ago. So “absolutely they were there 15 years ago” is incorrect. Some might have been, but many weren’t. That’s you minimising the problem again.

                      As for Turei, you’re just having a laugh: because you’ve seen other jerks make up bigger lies than yours, your assumptions about Turei are “conservative”? Lol. I might be cool with fraud to feed someone’s family, but you’re cool with lying to preserve a system that criminalises the poor and leaves increasing numbers of homeless in the streets.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      20 July 2017 at 7:48 pm

                      “Your slimy minimisations are quite subtle – it’s largely in what you don’t say:”
                      So they aren’t minimisations.

                      “You didn’t say…”
                      Here is the sum total of Keith’s post:
                      “Since his government eliminated all ability to measure this bad news statistic how could this Nat sympathiser ever officially know? Maori Party = National Party!”
                      What were you reading?

                      “So “absolutely they were there 15 years ago” is incorrect.”
                      No, it’s not. There were homeless 15 years ago. There were homeless 50 years ago.

                      “As for Turei, you’re just having a laugh: because you’ve seen other jerks make up bigger lies than yours, your assumptions about Turei are “conservative”?”
                      Yet you seem incapable of offering alternative calculations. I stand by the numbers. Metiria’s actions are utterly disgusting. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/john-armstrong-timing-metiria-tureis-benefit-fraud-admission-stinks-does-her-handling

                      “I might be cool with fraud to feed someone’s family, but you’re cool with lying to preserve a system that criminalises the poor and leaves increasing numbers of homeless in the streets.”
                      Metiria didn’t commit fraud to feed her family. She could have received more money by following some simple rules. And our system does not criminalise the poor, it criminalises criminals.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      20 July 2017 at 8:14 pm

                      welfare dependency

                      You believe in that. Says something about you, full stop.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      20 July 2017 at 9:30 pm

                      “You believe in that. Says something about you, full stop.”
                      Are you denying there is welfare dependency? Or are you saying welfare dependency is a good thing?

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      20 July 2017 at 9:46 pm

                      Here we go anonymous…some reading for you.
                      http://www.ssc.govt.nz/bps-reducing-dependence

                    • McFlock …
                      21 July 2017 at 12:59 am

                      “Your slimy minimisations are quite subtle – it’s largely in what you don’t say:”
                      So they aren’t minimisations.

                      “You didn’t say…”
                      Here is the sum total of Keith’s post:
                      “Since his government eliminated all ability to measure this bad news statistic how could this Nat sympathiser ever officially know? Maori Party = National Party!”
                      What were you reading?

                      And if you’d spent your entire comment on that, you’d be fine. But you spent the bulk of your response off on a tangent, one that you selectively discussed in order to minimise the growth of homelessness.

                      “So “absolutely they were there 15 years ago” is incorrect.”
                      No, it’s not. There were homeless 15 years ago. There were homeless 50 years ago.

                      They were there 15 years ago. Nope, not all of them. Not even the same number of homeless people. Many more.

                      “As for Turei, you’re just having a laugh: because you’ve seen other jerks make up bigger lies than yours, your assumptions about Turei are “conservative”?”
                      Yet you seem incapable of offering alternative calculations. I stand by the numbers. Metiria’s actions are utterly disgusting. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/john-armstrong-timing-metiria-tureis-benefit-fraud-admission-stinks-does-her-handling

                      You stand by numbers you invented. I won’t invent numbers, because I don’t know enough about her circumstances at the time. You just invented shit.

                      “I might be cool with fraud to feed someone’s family, but you’re cool with lying to preserve a system that criminalises the poor and leaves increasing numbers of homeless in the streets.”
                      Metiria didn’t commit fraud to feed her family. She could have received more money by following some simple rules. And our system does not criminalise the poor, it criminalises criminals.

                      Now you know her circumstances, eligibilities, and the information she was given? Or are you just making more shit up?

                    • McFlock …
                      21 July 2017 at 1:07 am

                      Here we go anonymous…some reading for you.
                      http://www.ssc.govt.nz/bps-reducing-dependence

                      I loved the admission that our “safety net” slowly makes people poor, alienated and ill:

                      Being out of paid work and on a benefit for extended periods increases the risk of poverty, social dislocation and deteriorating overall health. It can also have negative effects on the children of people on a benefit long-term.

                      You say “welfare dependency”, I say “social alienation, disempowerment, and victimisation”. Potaytos-potahtos

                    • McFlock …
                      21 July 2017 at 1:24 am

                      Damn, missed this bit in your previous comedy piece:

                      “Your slimy minimisations are quite subtle – it’s largely in what you don’t say:”
                      So they aren’t minimisations.

                      Yes they are, because the implication is still that the problem is not serious or growing – in this example, that it’s a mere semantic variation. You acknowledge its existence, but refuse to discuss its extent or to acknowledge any change over time. If it’s not changing over time, it’s not growing. But the problem is actually growing, therefore you’re minimising it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      21 July 2017 at 8:48 am

                      You don’t get it do you?

                      The fact that people including the SSC believe that welfare dependency exists does not make it so. Can you do better than argumentum ad nauseam? Or will you change your name to Bellman?

                      Persistent poverty and low levels of social mobility certainly exist, the notion of dependency fits far too well into right wing drivel to assume it is anything more than another hate-based weapon against poor people.

                      Here is some reading for you. It will make you cling even harder to your belief blankie.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      21 July 2017 at 10:56 am

                      “But you spent the bulk of your response off on a tangent, one that you selectively discussed in order to minimise the growth of homelessness.”
                      Don’t give up your day job for mind reading. Your obsessed, and it isn’t healthy.

                      “They were there 15 years ago.”
                      That’s right. They, as in homeless people. 15 years ago, and now.

                      “You stand by numbers you invented…”
                      That are conservative compared to other calculations. We could solve this you know, if Metiria showed some honesty.

                      “Now you know her circumstances, eligibilities, and the information she was given?”
                      We know enough, yes. We know she didn’t name her childs father. We know she claimed to have plenty of family support (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=2197711), yet had to commit fraud. We know she had financial support from family and her childs father (https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2017/jul/20/lie-claim-benefits-mp-tell-you-why-new-zealand) yet still stole from the taxpayer. Metiria committed fraud over a sustained period. She has shown no remorse, and no intention to make good.

                      “Being out of paid work and on a benefit for extended periods increases the risk of poverty, social dislocation and deteriorating overall health. It can also have negative effects on the children of people on a benefit long-term.”
                      Absolutely!!! Which is why moves to get beneficiaries off welfare dependency is to be applauded.

                      “Yes they are, because the implication is still that the problem is not serious or growing”
                      Again, don’t give up your day job. The problem is serious. The problem is growing. I just choose to scratch deeper for the real reasons, and therefore try to achieve real solutions. Your default position is either blame the government or throw money at it.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      21 July 2017 at 10:57 am

                      “The fact that people including the SSC believe that welfare dependency exists does not make it so. ”
                      Denial. OK, I’ll leave you to your own comfortable little world. Meanwhile, significant effort goes in by many to reduce something you don;t believe exists.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 July 2017 at 11:21 am

                      “They were there 15 years ago.”
                      That’s right. They, as in homeless people. 15 years ago, and now.

                      “They” are individuals in hardship, not some homogeneous blob. Many of them weren’t there 15 years ago, and there weren’t as many of them.

                      “You stand by numbers you invented…”
                      That are conservative compared to other calculations. We could solve this you know, if Metiria showed some honesty.

                      You making up less wild numbers than other tories doesn’t make your numbers “conservative”. And we’ll never solve your predilection for inventing numbers to suit your worldview.

                      “Now you know her circumstances, eligibilities, and the information she was given?”
                      We know enough, yes.

                      No we don’t. We don’t even know what time period she’s talking about, just five flats sometime in the 1990s.

                      “Being out of paid work and on a benefit for extended periods increases the risk of poverty, social dislocation and deteriorating overall health. It can also have negative effects on the children of people on a benefit long-term.”
                      Absolutely!!! Which is why moves to get beneficiaries off welfare dependency is to be applauded.

                      Or we could just have a “safety net” that doesn’t make people ill.
                      It’s just a typical tory response to take the safety net away from people who need to use it too often.
                      This government has shown that an obsession with kicking people off benefits makes a liar of our welfare state, as “benefits stopped” rather than “people helped” becomes the goal.

                      “Yes they are, because the implication is still that the problem is not serious or growing”
                      Again, don’t give up your day job. The problem is serious. The problem is growing.

                      And if you’d said that as explicitly and clearly in your first comment in the thread (rather than waiting until about your fourth to even get close to the topic) we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

                      I just choose to scratch deeper for the real reasons, and therefore try to achieve real solutions. Your default position is either blame the government or throw money at it.

                      Ok, what “deeper” reasons for the serious problem of growing homelessness have you raised in this thread?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      21 July 2017 at 11:28 am

                      …significant effort goes in by many to reduce something you don’t believe exists.

                      Money is wasted on all sorts of things right wing ideologues believe.

                      I note you failed to address the arguments raised in the link.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      21 July 2017 at 11:59 am

                      ““They” are individuals in hardship, not some homogeneous blob. Many of them weren’t there 15 years ago, and there weren’t as many of them.”
                      ‘They’ are a group of peole that fall within the definition of ‘homeless’. That definition has changed in recent years, which is part of the reason the reported number has risen.

                      “You making up less wild numbers than other tories doesn’t make your numbers “conservative”.”
                      So you claim, yet you have made no attempt to actually submit your own estimate, point to another, or even explain why Metiria doesn’t just front up with the number.

                      “No we don’t. We don’t even know what time period she’s talking about, just five flats sometime in the 1990s.”
                      Quote – “Over five years, I received a training incentive allowance (a benefit that has since been ditched by our current government), as well as a payment for single parents. I also had help from my family, and my daughter’s father’s family.”
                      “I lived in a few flats over the years with a few different flatmates. I didn’t tell the government department in charge of my benefit about some of those flatmates.”
                      https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2017/jul/20/lie-claim-benefits-mp-tell-you-why-new-zealand
                      So she received a TCI, Single Parent Benefit, and support from family and her in laws. In addition to flat mates board. So she committed fraud, and hid it for the past 25 years. And with all that support, she still couldn’t make ends meet, so I guess she isn’t that great with money either.
                      “Or we could just have a “safety net” that doesn’t make people ill.”
                      A ‘safety net’, yes. That’s what social welfare was originally about. Not a long term lifestyle.

                      “It’s just a typical tory response to take the safety net away from people who need to use it too often.”
                      Ah, name calling now. This is not about how often. If people are in need, then we should help them out. Out of need. Need for state support.

                      “This government has shown that an obsession with kicking people off benefits makes a liar of our welfare state, as “benefits stopped” rather than “people helped” becomes the goal.”
                      The goal of reducing welfare dependency is admirable. It liberates people, encourages them towards self sufficiency. Long term benefit dependence for the able bodied is demoralising.

                      “And if you’d said that as explicitly and clearly in your first comment in the thread (rather than waiting until about your fourth to even get close to the topic) we wouldn’t be having this discussion.”
                      We’re having this discussion because you are obsessing over one comment, that was actually entirely relevant to my exposing the error in the post I was responding to.

                      “Ok, what “deeper” reasons for the serious problem of growing homelessness have you raised in this thread?”
                      Well when you ask, I’ll enlighten you. In the meantime I’m wasting time feeding your obsession.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      21 July 2017 at 12:02 pm

                      “I note you failed to address the arguments raised in the link.”
                      The link uses data that is at least 7 years old, some older. Come up with something more current, and I might take the time to engage.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      21 July 2017 at 12:08 pm

                      The long-term benefit dependency you allege exists has arisen in the last seven years?! 🙄

                    • McFlock …
                      21 July 2017 at 12:22 pm

                      ““They” are individuals in hardship, not some homogeneous blob. Many of them weren’t there 15 years ago, and there weren’t as many of them.”
                      ‘They’ are a group of peole that fall within the definition of ‘homeless’. That definition has changed in recent years, which is part of the reason the reported number has risen.

                      PART. The part you raise so much more freely and unrequested, while never being so free with the “deeper” reasons you reckon you care about.

                      What you choose to omit speaks more than what you choose to offer as distraction points.

                      “You making up less wild numbers than other tories doesn’t make your numbers “conservative”.”
                      So you claim, yet you have made no attempt to actually submit your own estimate, point to another, or even explain why Metiria doesn’t just front up with the number.

                      Why would I invent numbers? that’s what I think is bullshit.

                      “No we don’t. We don’t even know what time period she’s talking about, just five flats sometime in the 1990s.”
                      Quote – “Over five years, I received a training incentive allowance (a benefit that has since been ditched by our current government), as well as a payment for single parents. I also had help from my family, and my daughter’s father’s family.”
                      “I lived in a few flats over the years with a few different flatmates. I didn’t tell the government department in charge of my benefit about some of those flatmates.”
                      https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2017/jul/20/lie-claim-benefits-mp-tell-you-why-new-zealand
                      So she received a TCI, Single Parent Benefit, and support from family and her in laws. In addition to flat mates board. So she committed fraud, and hid it for the past 25 years. And with all that support, she still couldn’t make ends meet, so I guess she isn’t that great with money either.

                      That depends entirely on how much she was getting and what her necessary expenses were. But then you’ve obviously never been to a budget advisor only to be told “your income, even with all benefit entitlements, isn’t enough to pay the bare minimum of bills”.

                      “Or we could just have a “safety net” that doesn’t make people ill.”
                      A ‘safety net’, yes. That’s what social welfare was originally about. Not a long term lifestyle.

                      It’s not a “lifestyle”. If society wants to throw people away for the long term, they’ll need a long term safety net. If society wants to make the already employed more employable than the unemployed, and then remove training and education from the unemployed, what do you expect? The unemployed to suddenly magic their arses into net-taxpaying positions?

                      “It’s just a typical tory response to take the safety net away from people who need to use it too often.”
                      Ah, name calling now. This is not about how often. If people are in need, then we should help them out. Out of need. Need for state support.

                      Removing state support isn’t the same as removing the need for state support.

                      “This government has shown that an obsession with kicking people off benefits makes a liar of our welfare state, as “benefits stopped” rather than “people helped” becomes the goal.”
                      The goal of reducing welfare dependency is admirable. It liberates people, encourages them towards self sufficiency. Long term benefit dependence for the able bodied is demoralising.

                      It’s only demoralising because people like you and winz treat beneficiaries like shit. You’re the guy who kicks someone out of a lifeboat and then says “they’re better off in the ocean. It teaches them to swim, and they weren’t happy in the boat”. They weren’t happy in the boat because you constantly harrassed them.

                      Now, if you taught them how to catch fish over the side, or rig a sail, they could have helped everyone in the boat survive and reach dry land. And they would have liked being in the boat.

                      “And if you’d said that as explicitly and clearly in your first comment in the thread (rather than waiting until about your fourth to even get close to the topic) we wouldn’t be having this discussion.”
                      We’re having this discussion because you are obsessing over one comment, that was actually entirely relevant to my exposing the error in the post I was responding to.

                      No it wasn’t. But even if it were, the fact that homelessness numbers are growing even with your definition change taken into account would be even more relevant. Yet it didn’t occur to you to give it any mention at all.

                      “Ok, what “deeper” reasons for the serious problem of growing homelessness have you raised in this thread?”
                      Well when you ask, I’ll enlighten you. In the meantime I’m wasting time feeding your obsession.

                      Right, so in this entire discussion you’ve only raised the definition issue in relation to increasing numbers of homelessness (completely unsolicited, btw), and none of those “deeper” reasons. And You’ll only mention those “deeper” reasons if explicitly requested? Yep, textbook minimisation

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      21 July 2017 at 12:36 pm

                      “The long-term benefit dependency you allege exists has arisen in the last seven years?!”
                      So you didn’t read your own reference? Here’s a hint. Look at point 1 in the article. It’s about employment. The data is from 2010, when NZ was still recovering from the GFC.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      21 July 2017 at 12:47 pm

                      “PART.”
                      Yes, as I said in my original response to Keith … “One of the reasons…”

                      “What you choose to omit speaks more than what you choose to offer as distraction points.”
                      What you choose to obsess over is very telling.

                      “Why would I invent numbers?”
                      I’m not asking you to invent numbers. I’m challenging you to counter those that have been put forward.

                      “That depends entirely on how much she was getting and what her necessary expenses were.
                      Plenty of people lived and thrived on the same assistance she received. She’s just dishonest.

                      “But then you’ve obviously never been to a budget advisor…”
                      Oh yes I have!

                      It’s not a “lifestyle”.
                      Yes, it is. It is the way people live…that’s a lifestyle.

                      “Removing state support isn’t the same as removing the need for state support.”
                      There is state support. It comes with conditions, as it should.

                      “It’s only demoralising because people like you and winz treat beneficiaries like shit.”
                      No, it’s demoralising full stop. It saps individual enterprise. It steals people of energy and motivation.

                      “No it wasn’t”.
                      Read it, McFlock.

                      “Right, so in this entire discussion you’ve only raised the definition issue in relation to increasing numbers of homelessness (completely unsolicited, btw), and none of those “deeper” reasons.”
                      It’s you who has been obsessing about my very first comment, and gradually your posts have become longer and longer as your obsession grows. If you want to discuss the reasons, I’ll happily join in. But you’ll need to give up your mind reading sideline first.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 July 2017 at 1:06 pm

                      “PART.”
                      Yes, as I said in my original response to Keith … “One of the reasons…”

                      And still choose to mention no others

                      “What you choose to omit speaks more than what you choose to offer as distraction points.”
                      What you choose to obsess over is very telling.

                      Takes two to tango. And you still keep dancing around all of these “deeper” reasons for increasing poverty that you consider.

                      “

                      Why would I invent numbers?”
                      I’m not asking you to invent numbers. I’m challenging you to counter those that have been put forward.

                      You are asking me to put forward numbers based on woefully inadequate information. That’s speculation to the point of invention. If you insist on a random number, I’ll say “$54”, based on likely abatement rates, short term tenancies, and the time on my computer screen. With a 50/50 chance of it being closer to any eventually-announced value than your “tens of thousands”.

                      “That depends entirely on how much she was getting and what her necessary expenses were.
                      Plenty of people lived and thrived on the same assistance she received. She’s just dishonest.

                      Boom, there it is, another bingo card. Just because some people have needs within a certain level, it doesn’t mean everybody does. And that’s giving you a generous pass on the term “plenty of people”, too.

                      “But then you’ve obviously never been to a budget advisor…”
                      Oh yes I have!

                      Really? Did they tell you the benefit wasn’t enough to pay all your necessary needs, i.e. “live on”? Because that happened to “plenty of people” during the 1990s. And today.

                      It’s not a “lifestyle”.
                      Yes, it is. It is the way people live…that’s a lifestyle.

                      Well, if it’s slowly alienating them and making them ill and clinically depressed, it’s not really a way to live, is it? More a way for them to slowly die.

                      “Removing state support isn’t the same as removing the need for state support.”
                      There is state support. It comes with conditions, as it should.

                      The state support does not satisfy the need for state support, otherwise it wouldn’t let them slowly debilitate.

                      “It’s only demoralising because people like you and winz treat beneficiaries like shit.”
                      No, it’s demoralising full stop. It saps individual enterprise. It steals people of energy and motivation.

                      No, it’s treating them like shit that does that.

                      “No it wasn’t”.
                      Read it, McFlock.

                      It’s there at the top for everyone to see. I would quote it, but you’d just complain about word length again.

                      “Right, so in this entire discussion you’ve only raised the definition issue in relation to increasing numbers of homelessness (completely unsolicited, btw), and none of those “deeper” reasons.”
                      It’s you who has been obsessing about my very first comment, and gradually your posts have become longer and longer as your obsession grows. If you want to discuss the reasons, I’ll happily join in. But you’ll need to give up your mind reading sideline first.

                      So once again, you will only mention “deeper” reasons for homelessness if you are explicitly asked. But shallow, minimising reasons you’ll offer without invitation.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      21 July 2017 at 1:12 pm

                      I can see you failed to grasp my meaning, which is this:

                      The link demonstrates that welfare dependency was a myth seven years ago. If you are alleging it now exists it must have arisen in the last seven years.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      21 July 2017 at 1:17 pm

                      “The link demonstrates that welfare dependency was a myth seven years ago.”
                      No, it doesn’t. It tries, but fails.
                      “If you are alleging it now exists it must have arisen in the last seven years.”
                      What I am pointing out to you is that their very first argument fails because it is no longer valid.
                      Other data used goes back even further than 2010. It’s a poor attempt to deny the obvious.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      21 July 2017 at 1:20 pm

                      No, it doesn’t. It tries, but fails.

                      We are intolerant of people starting or continuing flamewars where there is little discussion or debate. This includes making assertions that you are unable to substantiate with some proof (and that doesn’t mean endless links to unsubstantial authorities) or even argue when requested to do so.

                      Put up or shut up.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      21 July 2017 at 1:25 pm

                      “And still choose to mention no others”
                      Again…your obsessed.

                      “Takes two to tango. And you still keep dancing around all of these “deeper” reasons for increasing poverty that you consider.”
                      I’ve mentioned it once, in response to your question. No dancing here.

                      “You are asking me to put forward numbers based on woefully inadequate information.”
                      I’ve proven you wrong there. There is ample information. But hey, maybe Metiria will show some integrity and reveal the numbers herself.

                      “Boom, there it is, another bingo card. Just because some people have needs within a certain level, it doesn’t mean everybody does. And that’s giving you a generous pass on the term “plenty of people”, too.”
                      It’s not hard to ascertain what it takes to live. She rorted the system. The vast majority don’t. She’s a disgrace to the very people she says she represents.

                      “Really? Did they tell you the benefit wasn’t enough to pay all your necessary needs, i.e. “live on”? Because that happened to “plenty of people” during the 1990s. And today.”
                      It’s often a matter of priorities. Some people genuinely can’t make ends meet, and that’s when the government is able to help. I’ve never walked away from a person I cannot help.

                      “Well, if it’s slowly alienating them and making them ill and clinically depressed, it’s not really a way to live, is it? More a way for them to slowly die.”
                      Yes it is a way to live. Nota healthy way, but a way none the less. And for all your handwringing, you’re the one who seems to be arguing we should be encouraging people to live that way.

                      “The state support does not satisfy the need for state support, otherwise it wouldn’t let them slowly debilitate.”
                      It doesn’t. State support should help able bodied people get back on their feet. It does.

                      “No, it’s treating them like shit that does that.”
                      You’re making this up. What you call ‘treating them like shit’ is actually making people accountable. Just like anyone who gets money should be.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      21 July 2017 at 1:31 pm

                      “encouraging”

                      What idiocy.

                      As though calling attention to the various ways in which Tories strangle social mobility and attack the poor is an encouragement.

                      The unemployment rate after eight years of Lab5 demonstrates the cynicism of these facile right wing lies. No wonder people think Tories are trash.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      21 July 2017 at 1:46 pm

                      “encouraging”
                      Well what are the Green’s are proposing would do exactly that. No more work testing, no more income testing on live ins, no need to report to WINZ, no need to budget, no need to verify sickness, no need to name the father of your child so they can contribute….

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      21 July 2017 at 1:54 pm

                      Where do you get these stupid ideas from? All UBI experience demonstrates that this is yet another myth. Stop projecting your nasty fantasies onto poor people.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 July 2017 at 2:12 pm

                      “And still choose to mention no others”
                      Again…your obsessed.

                      No. Just giving you many opportunities to mention the “deeper” reasons in the same way you devoted the bulk of you commentto a shallow one. Opportunities you’ve consistently failed to take advantage of.

                      “Takes two to tango. And you still keep dancing around all of these “deeper” reasons for increasing poverty that you consider.”
                      I’ve mentioned it once, in response to your question. No dancing here.

                      So there’s only one deeper reason for increasing homelessness, and one shallow one?

                      “You are asking me to put forward numbers based on woefully inadequate information.”
                      I’ve proven you wrong there. There is ample information.

                      Only in your own fantasies and assumptions.

                      “Boom, there it is, another bingo card. Just because some people have needs within a certain level, it doesn’t mean everybody does. And that’s giving you a generous pass on the term “plenty of people”, too.”
                      It’s not hard to ascertain what it takes to live. She rorted the system. The vast majority don’t. She’s a disgrace to the very people she says she represents.

                      No, she’s the first politician to admit that the current “safety net” turns poor people into criminals because it doesn’t give them enough to live.

                      “Really? Did they tell you the benefit wasn’t enough to pay all your necessary needs, i.e. “live on”? Because that happened to “plenty of people” during the 1990s. And today.”
                      It’s often a matter of priorities. Some people genuinely can’t make ends meet, and that’s when the government is able to help.

                      That help is frequently inadequate. That’s why some beneficiaries need to “rort” the system to feed their kids.

                      I’ve never walked away from a person I cannot help.

                      Shame you weren’t around to help Turei then when she needed it, ain’t it.

                      “Well, if it’s slowly alienating them and making them ill and clinically depressed, it’s not really a way to live, is it? More a way for them to slowly die.”
                      Yes it is a way to live. Nota healthy way, but a way none the less. And for all your handwringing, you’re the one who seems to be arguing we should be encouraging people to live that way.

                      If it’s slowly killing them, it’s not a way to live.
                      I’m arguing that people should be able to live healthily and with dignity on a benefit.

                      “The state support does not satisfy the need for state support, otherwise it wouldn’t let them slowly debilitate.”
                      It doesn’t. State support should help able bodied people get back on their feet. It does.

                      It has negative effects on the kids, and increases the risks of poverty, social disclocation and deteriorating overall health of beneficiaries. So yeah, slow debilitation.

                      “No, it’s treating them like shit that does that.”
                      You’re making this up. What you call ‘treating them like shit’ is actually making people accountable. Just like anyone who gets money should be.

                      Fuck off, I dealt with WINZ in the 1990s. My flatmates dealt with them. My family meambers dealt with them. Case managers who gave a shit about you were few and far between. Friends and colleagues were advocates who accompanied people to see WINZ and had to show case workers WINZ manuals, chapter and verse, in order to get their clients the things they were entitled to under law. Five people in a small meeting room standing over a solo mother and one support person, trying to get the beneficiary to agree to less than what she and her child were entitled to. Some individuals were excellent, but the system and their processes were set up to demoralise and destroy beneficiaries. All to get an amount that was frequently below what you needed to live on. If you never encountered that side of winz, you’re lucky, but it’s why the kids get the saveloys for tea and the mum drinks the water they were boiled in as her dinner. And the research on food insecurity in NZ today suggests that fuckall has changed.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      21 July 2017 at 3:04 pm

                      “UBI experience demonstrates that this is yet another myth.”
                      From a libertarian perspective, I have some sympathy for a UBI, but it’s cost means compromising on other social services, or tax rates that would destroy an economy. But I’m interested to read more, if you have reliable sources.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      21 July 2017 at 3:13 pm

                      Your nuts McFlock, so I’ll be selective in answering you and try to get you back on track.

                      “So there’s only one deeper reason for increasing homelessness, and one shallow one?”
                      No, there can be a number of contributors to homelessness. I’ll quote some – mental illness, inter-generational/long term welfare dependency, lack of mobility (as in ability to relocate for work or living), lack of education…

                      “That help is frequently inadequate. That’s why some beneficiaries need to “rort” the system to feed their kids.”
                      Some, but actually very few. You’re typical of the sort of ill-informed hand wringing that comes from some on the left who are quite happy to consign a significant proportion of the population to state dependency. Here’s something you might learn from http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2017/07/ranting_rather_than_analysis.html.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 July 2017 at 3:45 pm

                      Your nuts McFlock, so I’ll be selective in answering you and try to get you back on track.

                      Yeah, you’re selectivity is part of your malfunction. Another part is you’re inability to use an apostrophe. Then there’s all the minimisation…

                      “So there’s only one deeper reason for increasing homelessness, and one shallow one?”
                      No, there can be a number of contributors to homelessness. I’ll quote some – mental illness, inter-generational/long term welfare dependency, lack of mobility (as in ability to relocate for work or living), lack of education…

                      Well, you listed rather than quoted, but you get a slow clap for finally offering some real reasons for the increasing numbers (very important, that bit – it explains Keith’s passion) of homeless people on our streets. I mean, you even provided a fucking citation for your “sidebar”, but whatever.

                      Long term welfare doesn’t cause homelessness. Getting kicked off benefits does, though.

                      Not being able to relocate for work shouldn’t cause homelessness – the government should either provide relocation assistance or enough money for food and shelter.

                      Lack of education can be resolved by community based training or more accessible (i.e. taxpayer-funded) education. In the meantime, a benefit should keep them off the streets.

                      Mental illness causes homelessnes? Our failure to provide adequate support to people causes homelessness, not the illness itself.

                      So, basically, of your list of four “causes” of homelessness, one is completely wrong and the other three have a common cause of societal and particularly government inability to provide support for people to address their issues or simply provide them homes suitable for their issues.

                      Every single thing you listed is a government failure.

                      “That help is frequently inadequate. That’s why some beneficiaries need to “rort” the system to feed their kids.”
                      Some, but actually very few.

                      Lol oh ok, that’s alright then. Only a few people need to commit welfare fraud to feed their kids. 🙄

                      You’re typical of the sort of ill-informed hand wringing that comes from some on the left who are quite happy to consign a significant proportion of the population to state dependency. Here’s something you might learn from http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2017/07/ranting_rather_than_analysis.html.

                      lol calls me nuts, then directs me to kiwiblog.
                      Even if farrar’s math is fine (doubtful), that budget’s still fucking tight and that’s for someone with a job. So yeah, $5 cucumbers are bloody stupid.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      21 July 2017 at 5:29 pm

                      “Well, you listed rather than quoted…”
                      Because you asked for my opinion, not someone else’s.

                      “Long term welfare doesn’t cause homelessness.”
                      I said “inter-generational/long term welfare dependency”. That absolutely can cause homelessness. It consigns people to a lower income level, and therefore makes securing any place to live potentially more difficult.

                      “Not being able to relocate for work shouldn’t cause homelessness – the government should either provide relocation assistance…”
                      They do.
                      “…or enough money for food and shelter.”
                      They do. But not in the most expensive parts of the country, and neither should they.

                      “Lack of education can be resolved by community based training or more accessible (i.e. taxpayer-funded) education.”
                      Yes, which is all accessible. Yet people don’t take it up.

                      “Mental illness causes homelessnes? Our failure to provide adequate support to people causes homelessness, not the illness itself.”
                      You don’t understand mental illness. I have known people who have been offered assistance for years, and yet refused that assistance and chosen to live on the streets.

                      “Every single thing you listed is a government failure.”
                      You want to blame the government for everything. That’s part of the problem with your worldview…it’s warped.

                      “Lol oh ok, that’s alright then. Only a few people need to commit welfare fraud to feed their kids.”
                      But the point is, none need to.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      21 July 2017 at 6:46 pm

                      “inter-generational”.

                      Ah, so data from seven years ago must be relevant after all 🙄

                      Where poverty persists, we (not you, I don’t want to be associated with your cruel dishonesty in any way whatsoever – as Lew said it’s fighting talk) are obliged to alleviate it: our relative privilege demands it.

                      That’s why the NZ Left has a long-term record of reducing unemployment and raising wages, and you have Ayn The Crackhead and Jordan “Section 128A(7) of the Crimes Act” Williams.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 July 2017 at 6:51 pm

                      “Well, you listed rather than quoted…”
                      Because you asked for my opinion, not someone else’s.

                      🙄
                      Then you shouldn’t have said you’d “quote some”. A trivial point, but illustrates how you can’t recall what you wrote in your previous comment.

                      “Long term welfare doesn’t cause homelessness.”
                      I said “inter-generational/long term welfare dependency”. That absolutely can cause homelessness. It consigns people to a lower income level, and therefore makes securing any place to live potentially more difficult.

                      Oh, now you’re memory has returned. Yay. Maybe we should give people enough for a home, then.

                      “Not being able to relocate for work shouldn’t cause homelessness – the government should either provide relocation assistance…”
                      They do.

                      obviously not enough, if in your opinion some people are homeless because they cannot relocate.

                      “…or enough money for food and shelter.”
                      They do. But not in the most expensive parts of the country, and neither should they.

                      So not enough support to relocate, and not enough to live in the location. These are government policy decisions.

                      “Lack of education can be resolved by community based training or more accessible (i.e. taxpayer-funded) education.”
                      Yes, which is all accessible. Yet people don’t take it up.

                      Those two sentences do not go together.

                      “Mental illness causes homelessnes? Our failure to provide adequate support to people causes homelessness, not the illness itself.”
                      You don’t understand mental illness. I have known people who have been offered assistance for years, and yet refused that assistance and chosen to live on the streets.

                      Then obviously you’re not offering appropriate assistance. Which frequently happens.

                      “Every single thing you listed is a government failure.”
                      You want to blame the government for everything. That’s part of the problem with your worldview…it’s warped.

                      Nah. Just social and economic policy.

                      “Lol oh ok, that’s alright then. Only a few people need to commit welfare fraud to feed their kids.”
                      But the point is, none need to.

                      whoops, you’re memory’s faded out again. I said “That’s why some beneficiaries need to “rort” the system to feed their kids” and you replied “Some, but actually very few.” Now you say none need to. You’re contradicting yourself.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      21 July 2017 at 7:07 pm

                      “Ah, so data from seven years ago must be relevant after all 🙄”
                      No, That data wads a ‘snapshot’, a moment in time. It is no longer relevant.

                      “Where poverty persists, we (not you, I don’t want to be associated with your cruel dishonesty in any way whatsoever – as Lew said it’s fighting talk) are obliged to alleviate it: our relative privilege demands it.”
                      Indeed. But I favour real solutions that deliver long term. Not the sort of solutions that just throw money at the problem.

                      “That’s why the NZ Left has a long-term record of reducing unemployment and raising wages, and you have Ayn The Crackhead and Jordan “Section 128A(7) of the Crimes Act” Williams.”
                      Give an example of a time when the ‘left’ actually ran NZ. Then I can assess whether you really are delusional.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      21 July 2017 at 7:14 pm

                      “Then you shouldn’t have said you’d “quote some”.”
                      Why? I did quote some.

                      “Maybe we should give people enough for a home, then.”
                      ‘Give’? Who is the we? And who isn’t getting enough and why aren’t they?

                      “obviously not enough, if in your opinion some people are homeless because they cannot relocate.”
                      No government should be expected to house people who will not relocate.

                      “So not enough support to relocate, and not enough to live in the location. These are government policy decisions.”
                      No government should be expected to house people anywhere they want to live.

                      “Those two sentences do not go together.”
                      Yes, they do.

                      “Then obviously you’re not offering appropriate assistance.”
                      People with a mental illness have the freedom to make bad choices.

                      “whoops, you’re memory’s faded out again. I said “That’s why some beneficiaries need to “rort” the system to feed their kids” and you replied “Some, but actually very few.” Now you say none need to. You’re contradicting yourself.”
                      No. The very few are those who do, not those who need to.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      21 July 2017 at 7:16 pm

                      More idiocy: good luck measuring the dependency you’ve been spoonfed to believe in without taking a time series of “snapshots”.

                      Real solutions include reducing unemployment and lifting wages. Maninthemiddle and his various other sockpuppets are just as shit at English comprehension as you are.

                      PS: you aren’t competent to assess your shoelaces.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 July 2017 at 7:47 pm

                      “Then you shouldn’t have said you’d “quote some”.”
                      Why? I did quote some.

                      lol you’re memory’s gone again.

                      “Maybe we should give people enough for a home, then.”
                      ‘Give’? Who is the we?

                      We. Us. Society. Via the government. And yes, “give”.

                      And who isn’t getting enough and why aren’t they?

                      Some people without homes, and the why is what we’re discussing now. Are your memory issues being monitored and managed by trained health professionals?

                      “obviously not enough, if in your opinion some people are homeless because they cannot relocate.”
                      No government should be expected to house people who will not relocate.

                      Cannot, not will not. Take your time.

                      “So not enough support to relocate, and not enough to live in the location. These are government policy decisions.”
                      No government should be expected to house people anywhere they want to live.

                      Jesus, if there are any MSD officials or ministers like you, I can see why so many people fall through the cracks. If the government doesn’t give them support to live there or support to leave, what do you think happens?

                      “Those two sentences do not go together.”
                      Yes, they do.

                      If people need it, and it’s accessible, they tend to use it. If they need it but don’t use it, chances are it’s because it’s not actually accessible to them. It’s not whether you think it’s needed, accessible and appropriate, it’s whether they know what it is, why they need it, why it’s appropriate, and whether it’s accessible to them.

                      “Then obviously you’re not offering appropriate assistance.”
                      People with a mental illness have the freedom to make bad choices.

                      That’s another bingo, by the way.
                      It’s funny how more people seem to be making bad choices, especially under a national government. Try pushing that correlation!=causation barrow, some fool might believe it.
                      Besides, if people are making bad choices, give them better options.

                      “whoops, you’re memory’s faded out again. I said “That’s why some beneficiaries need to “rort” the system to feed their kids” and you replied “Some, but actually very few.” Now you say none need to. You’re contradicting yourself.”
                      No. The very few are those who do, not those who need to.

                      But that’s not how the english language works. If you wanted to say “the very few who rort the system do not need to do so to feed their kids”, you should have written it. That would have saved time, because yes, some of them do. Turei was one, and I know others today. And they need the cash because benefits are inadequate to meet their circumstances.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      21 July 2017 at 7:56 pm

                      “Real solutions include reducing unemployment and lifting wages. ”
                      Indeed. Employment in NZ is rising, as are wages. So you’d agree that’s progress?

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      21 July 2017 at 8:03 pm

                      Again, McFlock, you’re rambling, so I’ll try to keep you on task.

                      “We. Us. Society. Via the government. And yes, “give”.”
                      ‘We’ should help people to support themselves to achieve a place to live. It is not unconditional, however. If I don’t have anywhere to live, but can afford a home and can access a job in another city, it is not unreasonable that I move.

                      “If the government doesn’t give them support to live there or support to leave, what do you think happens?”
                      As we’ve already concluded, there is assistance to relocate, so you logic is flawed.

                      “If people need it, and it’s accessible, they tend to use it.”
                      Actually that shows how disconnected from reality you really are. Those with mental health and other issues frequently have need, and have access to solutions, but refuse help. Here’s a classic example:
                      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/94570247/homeless-man-died-on-the-bench-he-called-home
                      “Allan said many of the homeless in Onehunga chose to live on the streets, but he constantly checked on them and encouraged them to seek housing. Johnson was also regularly monitored by other community members and was often taken into Auckland City Hospital due to is poor health. “Keith being Keith would often discharge himself from hospital and make his way back to Onehunga where he obviously felt a sense of family with some of the other homeless people in Onehunga,” Allan said.”

                      “It’s funny how more people seem to be making bad choices, especially under a national government.”
                      I didn’t say they did.

                      “If you wanted to say “the very few who rort the system do not need to do so to feed their kids”, you should have written it.”
                      Why? It was obvious what I meant, except to you, clearly.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 July 2017 at 8:23 pm

                      “We. Us. Society. Via the government. And yes, “give”.”
                      ‘We’ should help people to support themselves to achieve a place to live. It is not unconditional, however. If I don’t have anywhere to live, but can afford a home and can access a job in another city, it is not unreasonable that I move.

                      Yes, with all those ifs and another of “if there are no other compelling reasons to stay” (such as split custody childcare), then you might have a point, if the person fit snugly into your little box.

                      “If the government doesn’t give them support to live there or support to leave, what do you think happens?”
                      As we’ve already concluded, there is assistance to relocate, so you logic is flawed.

                      You forgot the bit where you said that one reason people are homeless, in your opinion, is an inability to relocate. So obviously any assistance that exists is insufficient.

                      “If people need it, and it’s accessible, they tend to use it.”
                      Actually that shows how disconnected from reality you really are. Those with mental health issues frequently have need, and have access to solutions, but refuse help.

                      Actually, I’ve found that many people who offer “help” to people in need, including those with mental issues, fail to recognise that the “help” needs to be appropriate for the person in need.

                      “It’s funny how more people seem to be making bad choices, especially under a national government.”
                      I didn’t say they did.

                      Well, if they don’t then we can ignore “poor choices” by anybody, including the mentally ill, as a reason for the serious and growing problem of homelessness.

                      “If you wanted to say “the very few who rort the system do not need to do so to feed their kids”, you should have written it.”
                      Why? It was obvious what I meant, except to you, clearly.

                      Obvious only to you:

                      Some beneficiaries need to “rort” the system to feed their kids
                      Some, but actually very few.

                      I can’t seem to shake the nagging worry that I’m just cruelly batting around a victim of early onset dementia (rather than just a stupid tory with little conscience, less brains but some astronomical self-esteem).

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      21 July 2017 at 8:52 pm

                      “Yes, with all those ifs…”
                      There has to be conditions. Split custody involves child support and other benefits. There still has to be conditions.

                      “You forgot the bit where you said that one reason people are homeless, in your opinion, is an inability to relocate. So obviously any assistance that exists is insufficient.”
                      Not true. You forget that I said assistance does not necessarily mean being able to live in the most expensive city in the country on the taxpayer.
                      “Well, if they don’t then we can ignore “poor choices” by anybody, including the mentally ill, as a reason for the serious and growingproblem of homelessness.”
                      No, we can’t. You said “It’s funny how more people…”.. MORE. I didn’t say MORE people make bad choices under any shade of government.

                      “Some beneficiaries need to “rort” the system to feed their kids. Some, but actually very few.”
                      No beneficiaries NEED to rort the system. The ones that do no doubt are now justifying their theft and fraud based on taking inspiration from Metiria.

                      McFlock I’m not responsible for your lack of comprehension, or for your inability to understand simple and sensible concepts. Welfarism is a complex issue, as is homelessness. I’m also not responsible for you stalking me on this thread, although I am enjoying our dialogue.

                      We live in a country that spends generously on social welfare considering our size, and yet we still experience social problems that none of us want. I support successive governments who are trying to relieve people of dependence on long term welfare (http://www.ssc.govt.nz/bps-reducing-dependence), but part of that is all of us taking responsibility for our own actions, so that there is enough money to help those who genuinely need it.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 July 2017 at 9:13 pm

                      There has to be conditions. Split custody involves child support and other benefits. There still has to be conditions.

                      Ok, why? Beyond the most basic “do you have enough cash to live in dignity?”

                      “You forgot the bit where you said that one reason people are homeless, in your opinion, is an inability to relocate. So obviously any assistance that exists is insufficient.”
                      Not true. You forget that I said assistance does not necessarily mean being able to live in the most expensive city in the country on the taxpayer.

                      We’re talking about relocation. i.e. wanting to move away from that city, but being unable to afford it. You said that lack of mobility, in your opinion, was one reason behind the increasing levels of homelessness. In that case there’s not enough support to enable relocation.

                      “Well, if they don’t then we can ignore “poor choices” by anybody, including the mentally ill, as a reason for the serious and growingproblem of homelessness.”
                      No, we can’t. You said “It’s funny how more people…”.. MORE. I didn’t say MORE people make bad choices under any shade of government.

                      But there are MORE homeless people. If there’s no increase in people making bad choices, then that can’t be the reason behind there being MORE homeless people, can it?

                      “Some beneficiaries need to “rort” the system to feed their kids. Some, but actually very few.”
                      No beneficiaries NEED to rort the system. The ones that do no doubt are now justifying their theft and fraud based on taking inspiration from Metiria.

                      No, they’re just happy somebody’s finally said in public what they already knew: if a budget advisor says you don’t have enough cash to live on, and winz will cut your income if you declare your incremental revenue, the only way to make ends meet is to commit a crime.

                      McFlock I’m not responsible for your lack of comprehension, or for your inability to understand simple and sensible concepts. Welfarism is a complex issue, as is homelessness. I’m also not responsible for you stalking me on this thread, although I am enjoying our dialogue.

                      🙄 I really hope you’re not actually involved with MSD or social services in real life. If you are, then it’s obviously too fucking difficult for you to address homelessness, so get out of the way and let someone competent take over.

                      We live in a country that spends generously on social welfare considering our size, and yet we still experience social problems that none of us want. I support successive governments who are trying to relieve people of dependence on long term welfare (http://www.ssc.govt.nz/bps-reducing-dependence), but part of that is all of us taking responsibility for our own actions, so that there is enough money to help those who genuinely need it.

                      You might live in NZ, but you don’t live on this planet. There is enough money, we just give it to the people who already have it.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      21 July 2017 at 10:11 pm

                      “Ok, why?”
                      Because the state is redistributing other people’s money. Because it is immoral to lock people into state dependency.

                      “We’re talking about relocation. i.e. wanting to move away from that city, but being unable to afford it. You said that lack of mobility, in your opinion, was one reason behind the increasing levels of homelessness. In that case there’s not enough support to enable relocation.”
                      No, there IS money available to relocate. Whether or not people take up that option is another matter.

                      “If there’s no increase in people making bad choices, then that can’t be the reason behind there being MORE homeless people, can it?”
                      I can only requote what I said…”I didn’t say MORE people make bad choices under any shade of government.”. Your confusion is evidently the result of comprehension inadequacies.

                      “No, they’re just happy somebody’s finally said in public what they already knew:”
                      You mean beneficiaries are happy another beneficiary committed fraud, and hid it for years?
                      “I really hope you’re not actually involved with MSD or social services in real life.”
                      Actively. And with considerable success at getting people back on their OWN feet.

                      “There is enough money, we just give it to the people who already have it.”
                      Indeed, such as your fraudster friend, who earns close to $200k each year and is making no effort to pay back what she stole.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 July 2017 at 11:33 pm

                      “Ok, why?”
                      Because the state is redistributing other people’s money.

                      No it’s not. Whose picture is on the coinage? Whose signature is on the bills?
                      The state is spending its own money, a means of exchange being one of many things the state provides to the populace in return for a service fee we call “tax”.

                      Because it is immoral to lock people into state dependency.

                      It’s also immoral to kick a unicorn in the nuts, but those are as imaginary as “locking people into state dependency”. Well, except prison, but you weren’t referring to literal locks, were you?

                      “We’re talking about relocation. i.e. wanting to move away from that city, but being unable to afford it. You said that lack of mobility, in your opinion, was one reason behind the increasing levels of homelessness. In that case there’s not enough support to enable relocation.”
                      No, there IS money available to relocate. Whether or not people take up that option is another matter.

                      No, you said “lack of mobility (as in ability to relocate for work or living)”. Lack of ability, not lack of will.

                      “If there’s no increase in people making bad choices, then that can’t be the reason behind there being MORE homeless people, can it?”
                      I can only requote what I said…”I didn’t say MORE people make bad choices under any shade of government.”. Your confusion is evidently the result of comprehension inadequacies.

                      Nah, it’s another one of your convenient omissions. If you commit to saying more people make bad choices under the nats, it’s a government issue. If you say there’s no increase in poor choices under the nats, then you can’t blame the increased number of homeless people for their own homelessness. But if you just refuse to commit, you can blame poor people without blaming government policy. But only one of those options can be true – bad choices either go up under the nats, or they do not.

                      “No, they’re just happy somebody’s finally said in public what they already knew:”
                      You mean beneficiaries are happy another beneficiary committed fraud, and hid it for years?

                      Nah, happy reality entered the political sphere for once.

                      “I really hope you’re not actually involved with MSD or social services in real life.”
                      Actively. And with considerable success at getting people back on their OWN feet.

                      Trouble is, when you say it that might just mean you kicked them off a benefit.

                      The thought does occur that this is the problem with the welfare system in one very long snapshot: many of the people working in the system and many of the people who have been subjected to the system have a completely different impression of the system.

                      “There is enough money, we just give it to the people who already have it.”
                      Indeed, such as your fraudster friend, who earns close to $200k each year and is making no effort to pay back what she stole.

                      Well, apparently she will, but she didn’t have it when she needed it. Even if your invented sums are accurate, it’s still a good investment for the country, taking a beneficiary and turning her into a lawyer and successful politician. But she’s also willing to pay more tax to help others they way she should have been helped, unlike bennett who kicked the ladder away, cancelling programs that she used to get of benefits.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 July 2017 at 6:44 am

                      progress

                      The bottom 20% are going backwards, but you already knew that.

                      Calling it “progress” says something about your character, and it isn’t very flattering.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      22 July 2017 at 4:49 pm

                      “The bottom 20% are going backwards, ”
                      Thanks for the opinion piece using A Little as the source.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      22 July 2017 at 4:54 pm

                      “No it’s not.”
                      Yes, it is. It is taking money from person a, and giving it to person b. In fact the system is so stupid it sometimes takes from person a and returns that same money to person a. In any event, there is a responsibility to spend taxpayers money prudently.

                      “No, you said “lack of mobility (as in ability to relocate for work or living)”. Lack of ability, not lack of will.”:
                      A lack of will can cause of lack of mobility.
                      “If you commit to saying more people make bad choices under the nats, it’s a government issue. If you say there’s no increase in poor choices under the nats, then you can’t blame the increased number of homeless people for their own homelessness.”
                      You see this is where you’re confused. I haven’t once said there are more people making bad choices now.

                      “Well, apparently she will, but she didn’t have it when she needed it.”
                      I call bs on that. She has admitted receiving financial help from all and sundry, having borders, illegally procuring benefits….

                      “Even if your invented sums are accurate, it’s still a good investment for the country, taking a beneficiary and turning her into a lawyer and successful politician.”
                      Successful? Ok, now I know you’re taking the proverbial.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 July 2017 at 5:27 pm

                      Shooting the messenger again? You should probably Google “logical fallacy”.

                      One article out of many reporting exactly the same phenomenon, and you knew that too. I think I’ve established to my own satisfaction that you are commenting in bad faith.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      22 July 2017 at 5:37 pm

                      “Shooting the messenger again?”
                      Let’s lay it on the line.
                      Your source was a man who supported the Pike River Mine Company.
                      Your source was a man who ran a union who were utterly derelict in their job to protect workers at the mine, despite warnings.
                      Your source was a man who has since shown his utter hypocrisy by calling for a removal of liability for people to renter the mine, thereby putting more lives at risk.
                      Your source was a man who made disgraceful comments about a man without doing his homework.
                      Your source is a man who has told lies about alleged health ‘cuts’.
                      Your course is a man who is currently one of the least popular Opposition Leaders in history.
                      Well done you.

                    • McFlock …
                      23 July 2017 at 12:55 am

                      “No it’s not.”
                      Yes, it is. It is taking money from person a, and giving it to person b. In fact the system is so stupid it sometimes takes from person a and returns that same money to person a. In any event, there is a responsibility to spend taxpayers money prudently.

                      Well, besides the innate fungibility of money making a mockery of your argument, “prudence” would dictate giving people enough cash and resources so that they can better themselves and embark on careers in whichever location is suitable to them, rather than not paying them enough to stay and not paying them enough to leave for decades on end.

                      “No, you said “lack of mobility (as in ability to relocate for work or living)”. Lack of ability, not lack of will.”:
                      A lack of will can cause of lack of mobility.

                      No, it can’t. They would still have the ability. It’s the difference between a lazy person in a wheelchair and a paraplegic in a wheelchair.

                      “If you commit to saying more people make bad choices under the nats, it’s a government issue. If you say there’s no increase in poor choices under the nats, then you can’t blame the increased number of homeless people for their own homelessness.”
                      You see this is where you’re confused. I haven’t once said there are more people making bad choices now.

                      No, that’s my exact point. You’ve refused to commit on whether more people make bad choices now than they did under a Labour government. But it doesn’t matter, because either way your position is fucked. If bad choices contributed to the increase in homelessness, then more people make bad choices under national than Labour and it’s a government problem. If the number of people making bad choices in the last 9 years stayed constant or decreased, then “bad choices” did not contribute to the increase in homelessness.

                      “Well, apparently she will, but she didn’t have it when she needed it.”
                      I call bs on that. She has admitted receiving financial help from all and sundry, having borders, illegally procuring benefits….

                      You can’t even get the facts straight in that sentence, so your call of “BS” is doubtful.

                      “Even if your invented sums are accurate, it’s still a good investment for the country, taking a beneficiary and turning her into a lawyer and successful politician.”
                      Successful? Ok, now I know you’re taking the proverbial.

                      Don’t be a chickenshit. She’s coleader of a parliamentary party that’s held it’s own for 20 years. She was a lawyer before going into parliament. Not a bad investment, benefit-wise.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      23 July 2017 at 8:35 am

                      The source is Auckland Council’s Homelessness Policy Project. Also cf: Stats NZ. Defaming Andrew Little isn’t going to change that.

                      Yet another Crackhead worshipper paying lip-service to rational debate.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      23 July 2017 at 4:20 pm

                      “The source is Auckland Council’s Homelessness Policy Project. ”
                      Your ‘source’ was an article with quotes from A Little. He is dishonest and unreliable. Come back with something better and you’ll be taken more seriously.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      23 July 2017 at 4:42 pm

                      ““prudence” would dictate giving people enough cash and resources so that they can better themselves and embark on careers in whichever location is suitable to them,”
                      Prudence would dictate any cash ‘given‘ to people has conditions. Prudence would dictate that any money given to people was a hand-up not a hand out. Prudence would dictate that people are expected to follow the example of many thousands of NZ’ers, who have pulled themselves up and made good by honestly availing themselves of the generous provisions of the society we live in, rather than stealing and committing fraud.

                      “No, it can’t.
                      Of course it can. I’ve met many people who could and should relocate but won’t.

                      “If bad choices contributed to the increase in homelessness…”
                      Did I say that? When? Under what context?

                      “You can’t even get the facts straight in that sentence, so your call of “BS” is doubtful.”
                      What facts?

                      “She’s coleader of a parliamentary party that’s held it’s own for 20 years. She was a lawyer before going into parliament. Not a bad investment, benefit-wise.”
                      Actually she was a lawyer for only 2 years (2000-2002). While fraudulently claiming benefits from the taxpayer, Metiria found time to stand for the McGillicuddy Serious Party in 1993, and the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party in 1996, rather than actually work for a living. She has been in Parliament with the Greens for 15 years and never once held a position of any power. So Metiria’s life experience is kitchen hand, performance artist, beneficiary, lawyer (for a whopping 2 years), politician and fraudster. And you call that a good investment?

                      Metiria’s own dishonesty will bury her career, of that I have no doubt. It is the brazen lack of remorse that has got up most people’s noses, and the Greens will be punished. Which is actually regrettable.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      23 July 2017 at 4:55 pm

                      Thanks for illustrating your bad faith and dishonest approach to commenting.

                      …homelessness statistics are showing a worsening position…

                      …unless Andrew Little says so.

                      QED.

                    • McFlock …
                      23 July 2017 at 6:33 pm

                      Prudence would dictate any cash ‘given‘ to people has conditions. Prudence would dictate that any money given to people was a hand-up not a hand out. Prudence would dictate that people are expected to follow the example of many thousands of NZ’ers, who have pulled themselves up and made good by honestly availing themselves of the generous provisions of the society we live in, rather than stealing and committing fraud.

                      They’re not generous if staying on them increases your chances of poverty and illness.

                      We’re talking about a system that’s been trying to follow your model of “prudence” for thirty-odd years, and yet by your own assessment we have growing numbers of homeless and generations of families constantly on a benefit. Your idea of “prudence” is a classic false economy – yes, many find work/whatever under the current system, but Turei is one who needed more than the benefit would give her legitimately in order to make that leap.

                      “No, it can’t.
                      Of course it can. I’ve met many people who could and should relocate but won’t.

                      Then they had the ability to relocate. Why didn’t they want to, by the way?

                      “If bad choices contributed to the increase in homelessness…”
                      Did I say that? When? Under what context?

                      Ok, let’s draw a line right here: Do you think that bad choices by homeless individuals has contributed to the increase in homelessness? Simple question. No need for complications, just give us the gist of your extensive experience watching the level of homelessness increase.

                      “You can’t even get the facts straight in that sentence, so your call of “BS” is doubtful.”
                      What facts?

                      memory gone again, has it?

                      “She’s coleader of a parliamentary party that’s held it’s own for 20 years. She was a lawyer before going into parliament. Not a bad investment, benefit-wise.”
                      Actually she was a lawyer for only 2 years (2000-2002). While fraudulently claiming benefits from the taxpayer, Metiria found time to stand for the McGillicuddy Serious Party in 1993, and the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party in 1996, rather than actually work for a living. She has been in Parliament with the Greens for 15 years and never once held a position of any power. So Metiria’s life experience is kitchen hand, performance artist, beneficiary, lawyer (for a whopping 2 years), politician and fraudster. And you call that a good investment?

                      Better than twenty years on a benefit.

                      Metiria’s own dishonesty will bury her career, of that I have no doubt. It is the brazen lack of remorse that has got up most people’s noses, and the Greens will be punished. Which is actually regrettable

                      Well, that’s yet to be shown at the polling booths. I reckon enough people have been fucked over by winz in the last 25 years to be relieved that she had the guts to state the truth about a rotten, contemptible husk of what was once a world-leading system.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      24 July 2017 at 10:56 am

                      “They’re not generous if staying on them increases your chances of poverty and illness.”
                      What an incredibly naive comment. Benefits are not designed to be an income for life, unless the person is less than able bodied.

                      “We’re talking about a system that’s been trying to follow your model of “prudence” for thirty-odd years, and yet by your own assessment we have growing numbers of homeless and generations of families constantly on a benefit.”
                      Actually long term welfare dependency is declining.

                      “Then they had the ability to relocate. Why didn’t they want to, by the way?”
                      Often it was as simple as a lack of motivation. Sometimes they used family ties as an excuse…family who were abusive, or they never saw.

                      “Ok, let’s draw a line right here: Do you think that bad choices by homeless individuals has contributed to the increase in homelessness?”
                      I’ve already answered that. I believe bad choices contribute to all manner of social problems, homelessness included. I’m not convinced the % of people making bad choices has changed, and I’ve never claimed that. I see an increasing incidence of mental illness, which absolutely has impacted homelessness. I see an increasing abandonment of people by their own families. And it is a fact that historical comparisons of homelessness figures have been affected by changes in definitions. As I have said repeatedly, homeless is complex. Blaming the government of the day (whatever colour) is just shallow thinking, convenient for those who actually don’t want to face up to their responsibilities.

                      “Better than twenty years on a benefit.”
                      Better than 20 years lying you mean?

                    • McFlock …
                      24 July 2017 at 12:39 pm

                      “They’re not generous if staying on them increases your chances of poverty and illness.”
                      What an incredibly naive comment. Benefits are not designed to be an income for life, unless the person is less than able bodied.

                      Then they’re not fit for purpose, are they. People these days need government assistance for sustained periods of time.

                      “We’re talking about a system that’s been trying to follow your model of “prudence” for thirty-odd years, and yet by your own assessment we have growing numbers of homeless and generations of families constantly on a benefit.”
                      Actually long term welfare dependency is declining.

                      And homelessness is increasing. Funny, that.

                      “Then they had the ability to relocate. Why didn’t they want to, by the way?”
                      Often it was as simple as a lack of motivation. Sometimes they used family ties as an excuse…family who were abusive, or they never saw.

                      Family ties are never an “excuse”, no matter how little you understand their nuances. Either way, maybe you need to figure out how to make being unemployed in a strange location more attractive to your clients.

                      “Ok, let’s draw a line right here: Do you think that bad choices by homeless individuals has contributed to the increase in homelessness?”
                      I’ve already answered that. I believe bad choices contribute to all manner of social problems, homelessness included. I’m not convinced the % of people making bad choices has changed, and I’ve never claimed that.

                      So you do not believe that bad choices contribute to the rise in homelessness. At best you’re somewhat agnostic about it. Glad we finally got that out of the way.

                      I see an increasing incidence of mental illness, which absolutely has impacted homelessness. I see an increasing abandonment of people by their own families.

                      The first is interesting. The second is why we are supposed to have a welfare state.

                      And it is a fact that historical comparisons of homelessness figures have been affected by changes in definitions.

                      Yes, but the definitional changes alone do not account for the increase in homelessness. There has been an increase in real homelessness, not just semantic expansion.

                      As I have said repeatedly, homeless is complex. Blaming the government of the day (whatever colour) is just shallow thinking, convenient for those who actually don’t want to face up to their responsibilities.

                      Our responsibilities are exercised through our government. That’s why we pay taxes. Government policy sets benefit rates, benefit conditions, benefit accessibility, the number of state houses, the accessibility of state houses, and affects the economic conditions that increase or decrease the likelihood that people will find work. To pretend that government has no responsibility regarding homelessness is delusional.

                      “Better than twenty years on a benefit.”
                      Better than 20 years lying you mean?

                      🙄
                      She wouldn’t have had to “lie” even once if the benefit was going to help her become a productive member of society.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      24 July 2017 at 1:14 pm

                      “Then they’re not fit for purpose, are they.”
                      Yes, they are.

                      “People these days need government assistance for sustained periods of time.”
                      I said ‘for life’. ‘Sustained period of time’ can mean anything.

                      “And homelessness is increasing. Funny, that.”
                      I’m more concerned about what we do about it. You’re more concerned about feeling less guilty you’re doing nothing about it.

                      “Either way, maybe you need to figure out how to make being unemployed in a strange location more attractive to your clients.”
                      Pardon? I don’t want to make being unemployed attractive in any location.

                      “So you do not believe that bad choices contribute to the rise in homelessness. At best you’re somewhat agnostic about it. Glad we finally got that out of the way.”
                      Actually that’s not what I said. The population in NZ is growing. If the % of people making bad decisions is the same, that issue will still contribute to a rise.

                      “The first is interesting. The second is why we are supposed to have a welfare state.”
                      We do.

                      “Yes, but the definitional changes alone do not account for the increase in homelessness. “
                      They are significant.

                      “Our responsibilities are exercised through our government.”
                      And that is the difference between us. I take responsibility and act accordingly. You palm this off onto the government.

                      “Government policy…”
                      …is generous. Our social welfare is paid for from the proceeds of a strong economy, and any policy setting has to take into account that actions have consequences. Lifting taxes to pay for unconditional benefits, for example, would damage the economy, and therefore make funding existing services problematic.

                      “She wouldn’t have had to “lie” even once if the benefit was going to help her become a productive member of society.”
                      Metiria had support from family, the child’s father and his family, and the state. She chose to campaign for a general election rather than work to feed her own child. Her actions, and your support of her actions, is hypocritical, and an insult to the vast majority of beneficiaries who rise up and defeat the challenges life throws their way. That’s why her actions have gone down so badly with the bulk of NZ’ers.

                    • McFlock …
                      24 July 2017 at 1:36 pm

                      “Then they’re not fit for purpose, are they.”
                      Yes, they are.

                      Nope. Some people are reliant on benefits for life. Benefits are not intended for this. Benefits do not meet the required need, then.

                      “People these days need government assistance for sustained periods of time.”
                      I said ‘for life’. ‘Sustained period of time’ can mean anything.

                      Including life, let’s go with “life” then. Although I’m not sure the unemployment benefit was intended to be used for a decade or two at a time, either.

                      “And homelessness is increasing. Funny, that.”
                      I’m more concerned about what we do about it. You’re more concerned about feeling less guilty you’re doing nothing about it.

                      The best thing I can do about it is to lobby for a government that will implement policies to fix the problem. I’m not a social worker, I’m not a millionaire, my options for housing even the homeless people in Dunedin are limited. I try to help out the more needy people I know, but shit is tough all over.

                      “Either way, maybe you need to figure out how to make being unemployed in a strange location more attractive to your clients.”
                      Pardon? I don’t want to make being unemployed attractive in any location.

                      Relocation does not guarantee work. That’s the risk you’re asking people to take.

                      “So you do not believe that bad choices contribute to the rise in homelessness. At best you’re somewhat agnostic about it. Glad we finally got that out of the way.”
                      Actually that’s not what I said. The population in NZ is growing. If the % of people making bad decisions is the same, that issue will still contribute to a rise.

                      The rate of homelessness is increasing, no?

                      “The first is interesting. The second is why we are supposed to have a welfare state.”
                      We do.

                      Not one that does its job, if “family abandonment” has anything to do with “homelessness”.

                      “Yes, but the definitional changes alone do not account for the increase in homelessness. “
                      They are significant.

                      But that is not what I said, is it. Stop minimising.

                      “Our responsibilities are exercised through our government.”
                      And that is the difference between us. I take responsibility and act accordingly. You palm this off onto the government.

                      What, you’re going to fix homelessness by yourself? It’s a systemic social problem, it needs a systemic social solution. The best organisation to manage that is the government.

                      “Government policy…”
                      …is generous. Our social welfare is paid for from the proceeds of a strong economy, and any policy setting has to take into account that actions have consequences. Lifting taxes to pay for unconditional benefits, for example, would damage the economy, and therefore make funding existing services problematic.

                      Bull. Shit. Your entire paragraph is a catechism of futility. Hell, even some economists argue for a UBI – the epitome of an unconditional benefit. Bullshit, but with one exception: I agree with you that our “strong economy” is built on the backs of our homeless and long-term unemployed, people deliberately underpaid and undervalued to finance lower taxes for people who have homes and food.

                      “She wouldn’t have had to “lie” even once if the benefit was going to help her become a productive member of society.”
                      Metiria had support from family, the child’s father and his family, and the state. She chose to campaign for a general election rather than work to feed her own child. Her actions, and your support of her actions, is hypocritical, and an insult to the vast majority of beneficiaries who rise up and defeat the challenges life throws their way. That’s why her actions have gone down so badly with the bulk of NZ’ers.

                      Again, how the bulk of NZers feel about it will be revealed in September. Frankly, your comments here are an insult to anyone who’s been humiliated or left hungry by a representative of our ailing welfare state. Much more than a politician finally stating that many people need a side-gig of undeclared income to get by on the pittance dished out by a government that you think bears no responsibility for the hardship it causes. Hell, that politician should be applauded for pointing out the reality of what our nation has become: one that criminalises poverty.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      24 July 2017 at 8:29 pm

                      “Some people are reliant on benefits for life. Benefits are not intended for this. Benefits do not meet the required need, then.”
                      There will always be people reliant on benefits for life. These include people with lifetime sicknesses, mental illness etc. Besides, benefits are not intended specifically to get people off benefits; they are designed as a hand up while people get THEMSELVES off benefits.

                      “Although I’m not sure the unemployment benefit was intended to be used for a decade or two at a time, either.”
                      Can you give an example of someone who has been on the unemployment benefit for ‘a decade or two’?

                      “The best thing I can do about it is to lobby for a government that will implement policies to fix the problem.”
                      No government can ‘fix the problem. You are simply not connected to the issues that cause homelessness.

                      “Relocation does not guarantee work. That’s the risk you’re asking people to take.”
                      You have a terrific habit of putting words in my mouth. I would expect people to relocate for a job, not without one.

                      “Not one that does its job, if “family abandonment” has anything to do with “homelessness”.”
                      The welfare system is not a remedy for human behaviour, it is a safety net for the various circumstances that result for the crap life throws at us.

                      “But that is not what I said, is it…”
                      No, it’s what I said.

                      “What, you’re going to fix homelessness by yourself?”
                      No, But I’m determined to be part of the solution, not pretend any government can fix every problem.

                      “It’s a systemic social problem, it needs a systemic social solution. The best organisation to manage that is the government.”
                      Define ‘manage’. The delivery of social services is actually performed far more effectively through community groups.

                      “Bull. Shit.”
                      Not at all. And who on earth mentioned a UBI?

                      “Frankly, your comments …”
                      Reflect the views of the majority of NZ’ers towards welfare. That’s precisely the reason the current welfare reforms (with an emphasis on reducing long term dependence) are so popular. It’s precisely the reason Metiria’s remorseless admission of fraud and subsequent public contortions have been received as a slap in the face for most NZ’ers. She’s toast, and good riddance.

                    • McFlock …
                      24 July 2017 at 9:21 pm

                      “Some people are reliant on benefits for life. Benefits are not intended for this. Benefits do not meet the required need, then.”
                      There will always be people reliant on benefits for life. These include people with lifetime sicknesses, mental illness etc. Besides, benefits are not intended specifically to get people off benefits; they are designed as a hand up while people get THEMSELVES off benefits.

                      And yet, despite your cliches, the actual experience of people subjected to the system, especially under the nats, is that your “hand up” is more like a boot grinding one’s face.

                      “Although I’m not sure the unemployment benefit was intended to be used for a decade or two at a time, either.”
                      Can you give an example of someone who has been on the unemployment benefit for ‘a decade or two’?

                      Off and on, with occasional redirections to education or short term jobs that led nowhere, I know a couple. I won’t give their names for the same reason we use pseudonyms: some fucker will stalk and dox ’em. Not much a hand up, though.

                      “The best thing I can do about it is to lobby for a government that will implement policies to fix the problem.”
                      No government can ‘fix the problem. You are simply not connected to the issues that cause homelessness.

                      No, but I’ve been on the receiving end of your “generous” system. I can see how some people lose their homes.

                      “Relocation does not guarantee work. That’s the risk you’re asking people to take.”
                      You have a terrific habit of putting words in my mouth. I would expect people to relocate for a job, not without one.

                      Aye, and I’ve temporarily relocated for work that didn’t pan out. One of the few times winz were useful, though – they threw money at me because I had an offer. Transport, work clothes, cash for incidentals… fuck, if they’d been that helpful initially, I wouldn’t have needed to relocate.

                      “Not one that does its job, if “family abandonment” has anything to do with “homelessness”.”
                      The welfare system is not a remedy for human behaviour, it is a safety net for the various circumstances that result for the crap life throws at us.

                      So your opinion is that if a family abandons its needy to the streets, the government should abandon those needy people, too? Sucks to be them, I guess.

                      “But that is not what I said, is it…”
                      No, it’s what I said.

                      Indeed. You said it right from the start. It still doesn’t mean they have a fucking thing to do with the serious and growing levels of homelessness.

                      “What, you’re going to fix homelessness by yourself?”
                      No, But I’m determined to be part of the solution, not pretend any government can fix every problem.

                      “Any” government? No. Not this one. It doesn’t want to.

                      “It’s a systemic social problem, it needs a systemic social solution. The best organisation to manage that is the government.”
                      Define ‘manage’. The delivery of social services is actually performed far more effectively through community groups.

                      Community groups have their place. But the reason we have a social welfare system in the first place is that community groups by themselves barely scratch the surface of social need.

                      “Bull. Shit.”
                      Not at all. And who on earth mentioned a UBI?

                      You did when you said benefits had to be conditional upon peril of… peril.

                      “Frankly, your comments …”
                      Reflect the views of the majority of NZ’ers towards welfare.

                      Again, that’s why we have elections.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      26 July 2017 at 1:09 pm

                      “And yet, despite your cliches, the actual experience of people subjected to the system, especially under the nats, is that your “hand up” is more like a boot grinding one’s face.”
                      Based on your anecdotes?

                      “Off and on…”
                      So that’s a no.

                      “No, but I’ve been on the receiving end of your “generous” system. I can see how some people lose their homes.”
                      More anecdotes.

                      “So your opinion is that if a family abandons its needy to the streets, the government should abandon those needy people, too?”
                      No.

                      “Community groups have their place. But the reason we have a social welfare system in the first place is that community groups by themselves barely scratch the surface of social need.”
                      Rubbish. Community groups should be the backbone of delivering social services. They have for decades been far closer to the real issues, and far more efficient at delivering solutions.

                      “You did when you said benefits had to be conditional upon peril of… peril.”
                      So I didn’t, did I?

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2017 at 2:50 pm

                      “And yet, despite your cliches, the actual experience of people subjected to the system, especially under the nats, is that your “hand up” is more like a boot grinding one’s face.”
                      Based on your anecdotes?

                      My experience, the experience of my friends and flatmates, questions in parliament, people who came into an advocacy service I worked at, yes. As opposed you your adamant assurance that our benefits our generous, my direct experience tells me you’re wrong.
                      Not to mention current events.

                      “Off and on…”
                      So that’s a no.

                      It’s a “yes, I know people whose primary source of income for decades was unemployment benefit”.
                      Interesting how another article makes a mockery of your ‘hand up’ cliche:”only a third of those who came off welfare benefits during the year to June, 2011, were in employment two years later”

                      “No, but I’ve been on the receiving end of your “generous” system. I can see how some people lose their homes.”
                      More anecdotes.

                      Direct experience from someone who lived it. Not all anecdotes are worthless if you’re talking aboutt the quality of something.

                      “So your opinion is that if a family abandons its needy to the streets, the government should abandon those needy people, too?”
                      No.

                      So the welfare system is a remedy for human behaviour, i.e. families who abandon relatives to homelessness.

                      “Community groups have their place. But the reason we have a social welfare system in the first place is that community groups by themselves barely scratch the surface of social need.”
                      Rubbish. Community groups should be the backbone of delivering social services. They have for decades been far closer to the real issues, and far more efficient at delivering solutions.

                      Read your Dickens. Community groups by themselves cannot help nearly as many people as a centralised, integrated government service.

                      “You did when you said benefits had to be conditional upon peril of… peril.”
                      So I didn’t, did I?

                      Yep, you brought it in to the discussion. The UBI is the epitome of an unconditional benefit. I’m not a complete convert, but experiments in it have worked well enough to call into doubt that your catechism that unconditional benefits would damage the economy and its ability to fund existing services.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      26 July 2017 at 11:18 pm

                      My experience, the experience of my friends….
                      Yes, anecdotes.

                      “Interesting how another article makes a mockery of your ‘hand up’ cliche:”only a third of those who came off welfare benefits during the year to June, 2011, were in employment two years later””
                      One third…that’s pretty damn good.

                      “Direct experience from someone who lived it…”
                      Yes, anecdotes.

                      “So the welfare system is a remedy for human behaviour, i.e. families who abandon relatives to homelessness.”
                      No, it isn’t. Families who abandon their relatives are rotten, welfare isn’t going to change that. Metiria Turei’s extended family were very good to her, I believe. I wonder if she will be declaring to WINZ any financial contribution they may have made?

                      “Community groups by themselves cannot help nearly as many people as a centralised, integrated government service.”
                      Community groups are the best at delivering the services. Read what I write.

                      “Yep, you brought it in to the discussion.”
                      No, I didn’t. I’m agnostic about a UBI.

                      Meanwhile, have a look at the latest MSD 2016 Household Incomes Report. It really will open your eyes, in fact it will seriously challenge the narrative of what many posters here believe.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 July 2017 at 11:50 pm

                      My experience, the experience of my friends….
                      Yes, anecdotes.

                      That doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. All you have against Turei is an “anecdote”.

                      “Interesting how another article makes a mockery of your ‘hand up’ cliche:”only a third of those who came off welfare benefits during the year to June, 2011, were in employment two years later””
                      One third…that’s pretty damn good.

                      You have really low expectations if you think that 1/3 getting a successful “hand up” is good. No wonder homelessness is increasing if you think that’s “pretty damn good”. “Good” would be 90% still in employment (after excluding demographic transitions to pensions, sickness, childcare, and other exclusions of people no longer able to participate in the workforce). That means people are either able to hold a job or able to operate effectively in an employment environment. These are people who are off benefits, mind. Probably includes people folk like you have kicked off a benefit.

                      “Direct experience from someone who lived it…”
                      Yes, anecdotes.

                      of things that actually happened in your “generous” system.

                      “So the welfare system is a remedy for human behaviour, i.e. families who abandon relatives to homelessness.”
                      No, it isn’t. Families who abandon their relatives are rotten, welfare isn’t going to change that.

                      Actually, it does change that. If someone is abandoned by their relatives and there is a truly generous welfare system, the individual is not being abandoned to homelessness. They’re being abandoned to a generous welfare system, and there’s a mite less dickishness in the world.

                      Metiria Turei’s extended family were very good to her, I believe. I wonder if she will be declaring to WINZ any financial contribution they may have made?

                      You believe that, eh? That’s less than anecdata, that’s your fantasy.

                      “Community groups by themselves cannot help nearly as many people as a centralised, integrated government service.”
                      Community groups are the best at delivering the services. Read what I write.

                      What you write is an article of faith with no supporting information, be it anecdata or wet dream.
                      As evidence that ngos cannot help as many people as a centralised, integrated government service I present:
                      all human history before the welfare state;
                      the decades after the welfare state was created and before c1987;
                      and our grasping, alienating, small-minded, bitter, illness-causing, inadequate and unsuccessful system that currently bullies old ladies with shopping carts.

                      “Yep, you brought it in to the discussion.”
                      No, I didn’t. I’m agnostic about a UBI.

                      How can you agnostic about a universal benefit if you believe that benefits need to be conditional?

                      Meanwhile, have a look at the latest MSD 2016 Household Incomes Report. It really will open your eyes, in fact it will seriously challenge the narrative of what many posters here believe.

                      Households. That would be measuring the people with homes, right? How is that relevant to homelessness?

                      Even if it says that children aren’t disproportionately in poor households with material hardship of half a dozen financially-enforced lacks (like wet weather gear) and things are improving across the board, what does it say about the increasing number of homeless people?

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      27 July 2017 at 9:12 am

                      “All you have against Turei is an “anecdote”.”
                      An admission of guilt is not an anecdote.

                      “You have really low expectations if you think that 1/3 getting a successful “hand up” is good.”
                      Yes, I do. Unless you can inform us exactly what happened to the other 2/3rds. They may have gone to study, set up their own business…who knows?

                      “…of things that actually happened in your “generous” system.”
                      According to you.

                      “Actually, it does change that. If someone is abandoned by their relatives and there is a truly generous welfare system, the individual is not being abandoned to homelessness.”
                      That doesn’t change human behaviour, it compensates for it.

                      “You believe that, eh? That’s less than anecdata, that’s your fantasy.”
                      No, it’s what she admitted.

                      “As evidence that ngos cannot help as many people as a centralised, integrated government service I present:”
                      Evidence?

                      “How can you agnostic about a universal benefit if you believe that benefits need to be conditional?”
                      Because my understanding is that a UBI would replace all existing benefits. I am agnostic about a UBI on the basis that it may become inevitable if, as some predict, technology replaces many, many more jobs.

                      “Households. That would be measuring the people with homes, right? How is that relevant to homelessness?”
                      It is relevant because it measures income growth and inequality. If incomes are growing, it helps mitigate against future homelessness.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 July 2017 at 12:34 pm

                      “All you have against Turei is an “anecdote”.”
                      An admission of guilt is not an anecdote.

                      Yeah, it is.

                      “You have really low expectations if you think that 1/3 getting a successful “hand up” is good.”
                      Yes, I do. Unless you can inform us exactly what happened to the other 2/3rds. They may have gone to study, set up their own business…who knows?

                      🙄
                      you keep grasping at those straws – the employment rate for NZ is 67%. The employment rate for beneficiaries 2 years after they’re off a benefit is 33%.

                      “…of things that actually happened in your “generous” system.”
                      According to you.

                      Indeed. But it’s just me. Not just me at all. People should be treated better than this.

                      “Actually, it does change that. If someone is abandoned by their relatives and there is a truly generous welfare system, the individual is not being abandoned to homelessness.”
                      That doesn’t change human behaviour, it compensates for it.

                      Well, either way that’s why we need a better welfare system: so that people aren’t abandoned to the street.

                      “You believe that, eh? That’s less than anecdata, that’s your fantasy.”
                      No, it’s what she admitted.

                      In your wet dreams, maybe. You’d be able to link to the quotes that justify you believing they “were very good to her”, then.

                      “As evidence that ngos cannot help as many people as a centralised, integrated government service I present:”
                      Evidence?

                      Poverty before the welfare state. Poverty during the welfare state up to lab4/ruthenasia. Poverty since 1991.

                      “How can you agnostic about a universal benefit if you believe that benefits need to be conditional?”
                      Because my understanding is that a UBI would replace all existing benefits. I am agnostic about a UBI on the basis that it may become inevitable if, as some predict, technology replaces many, many more jobs.

                      So you think that the benefits that must be conditional might possibly (but not committing to a position) be replaced by an unconditional benefit.

                      “Households. That would be measuring the people with homes, right? How is that relevant to homelessness?”
                      It is relevant because it measures income growth and inequality. If incomes are growing, it helps mitigate against future homelessness.

                      Not if incomes are growing at the expense of the poor. It’s not just the 1% who can parasite off the hardships of people less fortunate, the middle class can do it too if the government is shit. and this government is shit. So do try to stick to the growing and serious problem of homelessness.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      27 July 2017 at 4:01 pm

                      “Indeed. But it’s just me. Not just me at all. People should be treated better than this.”
                      So, we’ve established you believe personal anecdotes without question. Fine.

                      “You’d be able to link to the quotes that justify you believing they “were very good to her”, then.”
                      Sure.
                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=2197711
                      “Grandma, a former Mayor of Birkenhead and then of North Shore City, said there would be plenty of whanau to look after Piupiu.”
                      https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2017/jul/20/lie-claim-benefits-mp-tell-you-why-new-zealand
                      “Over five years, I received a training incentive allowance (a benefit that has since been ditched by our current government), as well as a payment for single parents. I also had help from my family, and my daughter’s father’s family.”

                      “Poverty before the welfare state. Poverty during the welfare state up to lab4/ruthenasia. Poverty since 1991.”
                      You’re comprehension of what constitutes ‘evidence’ is clearly sub-standard.

                      “So you think that the benefits that must be conditional might possibly (but not committing to a position) be replaced by an unconditional benefit.”
                      No. Even a UBI would only be ‘Universal’ subject to conditions.

                      “Not if incomes are growing at the expense of the poor.”
                      But they’re not.
                      “There is no evidence of any sustained rising or falling trend in BHC household income inequality over the last two decades using the Gini and top 1% share measures”
                      “The share of income received by the top 1% of tax-payers has been steady in the 8-9%
                      range since the early 1990s, up from 5% in the late 1980s.”
                      https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-income-report/2017/c6-headline-findings-final-21-july-2017.pdf

                    • McFlock …
                      27 July 2017 at 4:15 pm

                      [yawn]

                      So, basically, you disbelieve everything anyone says, except when it suits you. And when it suits you, you’ll pretend that helping with kids translates into cash gifts that need to be declared.

                      You claim household incomes are somehow relevant to people without houses to hold (as long as you squint so you don’t see the “After Housing costs” tables).

                      Whatever.

                      The funniest bit of your latest bullshit is when you wrote “Even a UBI would only be ‘Universal’ subject to conditions”. But then it wouldn’t be universal. Do you not know what the word means?

                      I mean, I get that you’ll ignore inconvenient facts, but seriously – a conditional universal?

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      27 July 2017 at 4:23 pm

                      “You claim household incomes are somehow relevant to people without houses to hold”
                      Of course they are. If household incomes are rising, that impacts on those who may be struggling and therefore be at risk of being homeless in the future.

                      “The funniest bit of your latest bullshit is when you wrote “Even a UBI would only be ‘Universal’ subject to conditions”. But then it wouldn’t be universal. Do you not know what the word means?”
                      Yes I suspected you wouldn’t understand. Let me explain. The term ‘UBI’ is used to describe a potential situation in which citizens received a minimum sum on which to live. A UBI is currently being debated, and the meaning of ‘universal’ is very much part of that debate. One example is the eligibility of children. Another is the eligibility of the very wealthy. You really fell into that one.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 July 2017 at 5:21 pm

                      “You claim household incomes are somehow relevant to people without houses to hold”
                      Of course they are. If household incomes are rising, that impacts on those who may be struggling and therefore be at risk of being homeless in the future.

                      If household incomes are rising and homelessness is rising, what does that tell you?

                      “The funniest bit of your latest bullshit is when you wrote “Even a UBI would only be ‘Universal’ subject to conditions”. But then it wouldn’t be universal. Do you not know what the word means?”
                      Yes I suspected you wouldn’t understand. Let me explain. The term ‘UBI’ is used to describe a potential situation in which citizens received a minimum sum on which to live.

                      All citizens. Universal. Basic. Income.

                      A UBI is currently being debated, and the meaning of ‘universal’ is very much part of that debate. One example is the eligibility of children. Another is the eligibility of the very wealthy.

                      No, the meaning of “universal” is pretty stable. Just like the meaning of “generous”. The debate you describe is whether any eventual basic income will actually be “universal”.

                      You really fell into that one.

                      Only if “universal” doesn’t mean “universal”.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      27 July 2017 at 5:30 pm

                      “If household incomes are rising and homelessness is rising, what does that tell you?”
                      That household incomes are not the only reason for homelessness.

                      “All citizens. Universal. Basic. Income.”
                      You clearly don;t understand the debate that is going on around the UBI. Part of that debate is, in fact, whether or not a UBI will be a UBI or a ‘BI’ (my abbreviation). But even a UBI won’t include children, so it isn’t universal, by the terms you are trying to extricate yourself with.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 July 2017 at 5:54 pm

                      “If household incomes are rising and homelessness is rising, what does that tell you?”
                      That household incomes are not the only reason for homelessness.

                      Or any reason. Irrelevant, in fact.

                      “All citizens. Universal. Basic. Income.”
                      You clearly don;t understand the debate that is going on around the UBI. Part of that debate is, in fact, whether or not a UBI will be a UBI or a ‘BI’ (my abbreviation). But even a UBI won’t include children, so it isn’t universal, by the terms you are trying to extricate yourself with.

                      Actually, some suggestions for a basic income do include children, and are genuinely universal.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      27 July 2017 at 10:57 pm

                      “Or any reason. Irrelevant, in fact.”
                      You’ve shown a remarkable lack of intellect in this discussion, but that comment takes the cake. One’s income today surely determines, at least to some degree, their ability to avoid homelessness tomorrow.

                      “Actually, some suggestions for a basic income do include children, and are genuinely universal.”
                      Some. Indeed. Thanks for making my point.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 July 2017 at 11:09 pm

                      One’s income today surely determines, at least to some degree, their ability to avoid homelessness tomorrow.

                      On an individual level? Maybe, sure.
                      On an aggregate level? Feel free to show a relationship between household incomes and contemporary levels of homelessness. Because at the moment homelessness in increasing, so not enough of your brighter future is trickling down to have much of an effect, is it.

                      “Actually, some suggestions for a basic income do include children, and are genuinely universal.”
                      Some. Indeed. Thanks for making my point.

                      Read it again. I said “some suggestions for basic income“. Not Universal Basic Income. Obviously, suggestions that everyone receive a basic income would be suggestions for a universal income. But suggestions for conditions or exclusions from a basic income would not be universal.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      27 July 2017 at 11:17 pm

                      “On an individual level? Maybe, sure.”
                      Indeed.

                      “On an aggregate level? Feel free to show a relationship between household incomes and contemporary levels of homelessness. ”
                      If it works on an individual level, then it will work on an aggregate level. It’s simple logic.

                      “Because at the moment homelessness in increasing…”
                      For reasons other than changes to household income.

                      “Read it again. I said “some suggestions for basic income“. Not Universal Basic Income. Obviously, suggestions that everyone receive a basic income would be suggestions for a universal income. But suggestions for conditions or exclusions from a basic income would not be universal.”
                      You didn’t understand what I wrote. Part of the discussion around a UBI is whether or not it even SHOULD be universal.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 July 2017 at 12:11 am

                      “On an aggregate level? Feel free to show a relationship between household incomes and contemporary levels of homelessness. ”
                      If it works on an individual level, then it will work on an aggregate level. It’s simple logic.

                      Well, simple, anyway. Even naive. But logical? It’s amazing how many “maybe, sure” things are shown by multivariate analyses to be “nah, fuckall over the entire population, indistinguishable from pure chance”.

                      “Because at the moment homelessness in increasing…”
                      For reasons other than changes to household income.

                      Yup. Like I said, it’s irrelevant. The discussion is about thunder, and you’re producing documented evidence about your most recent fart. Maybe, on an individual level, the two were related. But maybe, across the population, there’s no discernible relationship whatsoever.

                      “Read it again. I said “some suggestions for basic income“. Not Universal Basic Income. Obviously, suggestions that everyone receive a basic income would be suggestions for a universal income. But suggestions for conditions or exclusions from a basic income would not be universal.”
                      You didn’t understand what I wrote. Part of the discussion around a UBI is whether or not it even SHOULD be universal.

                      And next you’ll argue that part of the discussion about biology is whether it even SHOULD involve the study of living organisms

                      But just to be completely clear on your position, when you said you were agnostic about a universal basic income, you’re actually against a universal universal basic income, but currently agnostic about a non-universal universal basic income?

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      28 July 2017 at 2:35 pm

                      “Well, simple, anyway. Even naive. But logical?”
                      Yes. You’re inability to understand it notwithstanding.

                      “Yup. Like I said, it’s irrelevant.”
                      Not to homelessness, no. Household incomes, but natural extension, must effect future homelessness.

                      “And next you’ll argue that part of the discussion about biology is whether it even SHOULD involve the study of living organisms”
                      No.

                      “But just to be completely clear on your position, when you said you were agnostic about a universal basic income, you’re actually against a universal universal basic income, but currently agnostic about a non-universal universal basic income?”
                      I’m agnostic about a universal basic income. That’s what I said.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 July 2017 at 2:59 pm

                      Household incomes, but natural extension, must effect future homelessness.

                      Not really, on an aggregate level. Savings from previous incomes can compensate for lower present incomes, and near future incomes can forestall bankruptcy and even enable access to credit today. Then, if household incomes affect home affordability, the other key aspect of affordability is cost. Then, after affordability, we have the income after housing costs – does the AHC enable the individual to purchase those needs that are higher up the hierarchy of need than shelter?
                      So for pure economics to be a factor, you raised a possible single-of-several contributor to a part-contributor to a possible cause of homelessness in some individual cases, when our serious and growing problem of homelessness (as you yourself have argued) has many and varied direct contributing factors.

                      You’re expecting a possible trace-level cause to be demonstrable in aggregate analyses of homelessness? If we have another nine years of national, we might have enough of a homeless sample size to detect any influence of household incomes against statistical noise.

                      “But just to be completely clear on your position, when you said you were agnostic about a universal basic income, you’re actually against a universal universal basic income, but currently agnostic about a non-universal universal basic income?”
                      I’m agnostic about a universal basic income. That’s what I said.

                      Yes, but when you use the word “universal”, do you mean the word “universal”, or are you referring to one of your non-universal universal basic incomes?

                      Because I’m agnostic about a genuinely universal basic income. Are you?

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      28 July 2017 at 3:12 pm

                      “Savings from previous incomes can compensate for lower present incomes, and near future incomes can forestall bankruptcy and even enable access to credit today.”
                      Not if there aren’t any savings! You’re position that an individual example cannot extend to the aggregate level is simply unsustainable, so much so that you have missed the irony of you using an individual level example in your own answer.

                      “does the AHC enable the individual to purchase those needs that are higher up the hierarchy of need than shelter?”
                      You’re asking me an individual level question while arguing that is irrelevant at an aggregate level. Do you see the contradiction in your logic here?

                      “Yes, but when you use the word “universal”, do you mean the word “universal”…”
                      Yes. And the UBI concept is very much open for debate, including the concept of universality.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 July 2017 at 3:49 pm

                      You’re position that an individual example cannot extend to the aggregate level is simply unsustainable, so much so that you have missed the irony of you using an individual level example in your own answer.

                      .
                      Firstly, I never said observations about an individual case “cannot” be similar to the aggregate level, I merely said you can feel free to show that relationship on the aggregate level. There are many cases where a chance or biased observation of an individual does not translate into the aggregate level (e.g. homeopathic ‘remedies’), and even paradoxes where smaller aggregate samples show trends contrary to the overall trend (Simpson’s Paradox).
                      Secondly, my answer was designed to show all the opportunities for divergence in results between the individual and the aggregate levels. So yes, that involves starting at the individual level and proceeding to the aggregate level.

                      “does the AHC enable the individual to purchase those needs that are higher up the hierarchy of need than shelter?”
                      You’re asking me an individual level question while arguing that is irrelevant at an aggregate level. Do you see the contradiction in your logic here?

                      A person in Dunedin gets on a road heading north. You argue that they’re going to christchurch. I point out all the opportunities to travel to other destinations via that road, like queenstown or waikouaiti, or dunback, oamaru, timaru, ashburton, instead of going to christchurch on that road. You argue that it’s illogical to mention christchurch in that sentence. 🙄

                      Just because you might be able to get the same relationship from an individual’s income to aggregate levels of homelessness, it doesn’t mean that you will. As I said, you’re free to demonstrate this aggregate relationship between aggregate household income and aggregate homelessness. The fact that you prefer to play stupid rather than doing so was predictable.

                      “Yes, but when you use the word “universal”, do you mean the word “universal”…”
                      Yes. And the UBI concept is very much open for debate, including the concept of universality.

                      Universality is not a semantic continuum with degrees of universality. It is an absolute.
                      To illustrate my meaning, a semantic continuum in the case of the instruction “suck my salty balls” would be “salty”: how salty? Just a little bit salty, or a full brine caressing your lips?
                      An absolute in that instruction is my. If you’re debating the concept of which balls are mine, only one set of those balls you’re considering sucking is mine. And if you suck any other salty balls, you are not, by definition, sucking my salty balls.

                      So to argue that a “UBI” is being debated with conditions that exclude some people from it, you’re not talking about a Universal BI. In the same way that talking about you sucking other people’s salty balls is not talking about you sucking my salty balls.

                      Is that more clear for you?

                      What are your thoughts on a genuinely universal, unconditional basic income to everyone without exception?

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      28 July 2017 at 4:14 pm

                      “Firstly, I never said observations about an individual case “cannot” be similar to the aggregate level, I merely said you can feel free to show that relationship on the aggregate level.”
                      Your wrong. In response to my comment “Household incomes, but natural extension, must effect future homelessness.”, you said this “Not really, on an aggregate level.”

                      “You argue that it’s illogical to mention christchurch in that sentence.”
                      No, I argue that it’s illogical to argue from an individual to an aggregate level while denying the validity of that transition.

                      “Universality is not a semantic continuum with degrees of universality. It is an absolute.”
                      Indeed. An absolute that can be included in the concept of a basic income or not. But even discussion around a UBI excludes true universality in many cases (eg children).

                      “What are your thoughts on a genuinely universal, unconditional basic income to everyone without exception?”
                      I’m currently agnostic, as I have said. There is some very good material both pro and con. My view is that technological advance is going to make some form of ‘social dividend’ (in my view a far better term) likely in the future.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 July 2017 at 4:55 pm

                      In response to my comment “Household incomes, but natural extension, must effect future homelessness.”, you said this “Not really, on an aggregate level.”

                      Exactly. On an aggregate level, I thought your “must” was actually a “might”, but now I’m beginning to suspect that your “must effect” is actually “is some shit norfolk traveller is religiously convinced effects future homelessness, but hasn’t and probably cannot supply any aggregate data, research, or analyses to support that extrapolation to infer any effect on”.

                      “You argue that it’s illogical to mention christchurch in that sentence.”
                      No, I argue that it’s illogical to argue from an individual to an aggregate level while denying the validity of that transition.

                      lucky I’m not doing that. I’m pointing out the opportunities for divergence between the two, not making aggregate inferences from assumptions about individuals.

                      “Universality is not a semantic continuum with degrees of universality. It is an absolute.”
                      Indeed. An absolute that can be included in the concept of a basic income or not. But even discussion around a UBI excludes true universality in many cases (eg children).

                      “What are your thoughts on a genuinely universal, unconditional basic income to everyone without exception?”
                      I’m currently agnostic, as I have said. […]

                      Which takes us back to …here: “So you think that the benefits that must be conditional might possibly (but not committing to a position) be replaced by an unconditional benefit. “

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      28 July 2017 at 5:03 pm

                      “Exactly.”
                      Mmmm…sounds like a backtrack to me. I’ll let it slide, I’m in a charitable mood.

                      “lucky I’m not doing that.”
                      That’s exactly what you’re doing.

                      “So you think that the benefits that must be conditional might possibly (but not committing to a position) be replaced by an unconditional benefit. “”
                      Are you asking whether I think its possible, or whether I support it? Look anything’s possible, especially when left wing politicians can promise to implement a policy that would cost 100million pounds and not even know the cost!

                    • McFlock …
                      28 July 2017 at 5:24 pm

                      “Exactly.”
                      Mmmm…sounds like a backtrack to me. I’ll let it slide, I’m in a charitable mood.

                      That would be the echoes in your empty skull again

                      “lucky I’m not doing that.”
                      That’s exactly what you’re doing.

                      in your dreams

                      “So you think that the benefits that must be conditional might possibly (but not committing to a position) be replaced by an unconditional benefit. “”
                      Are you asking whether I think its possible, or whether I support it? Look anything’s possible, especially when left wing politicians can promise to implement a policy that would cost 100million pounds and not even know the cost!

                      Even that chickenshit version is still inconsistent with your comments that benefits must be conditional.

                      oh, and… pounds? Remember which country’s homeless you’re pretending to be caring about, fucko.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      28 July 2017 at 5:29 pm

                      “Even that chickenshit version is still inconsistent with your comments that benefits must be conditional.”
                      No, but I’m not surprised you don;t understand the argument.

                      “oh, and… pounds? Remember which country’s homeless you’re pretending to be caring about, fucko.”
                      Are you saying you didn’t support Corbyn? You see my point was simply to highlight that sillyness follows along a certain path. And you’re on it.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 July 2017 at 6:22 pm

                      No, but I’m not surprised you don;t understand the argument.

                      The argument that you think I did not understand is not the argument that you actually managed to write down.

                      You’re agnostic on unconditional benefits, but you think benefits must be conditional. Now, a disingenuos trool with half a brain would then argue that you actually meant that benefits now must be conditional but that this might not be the case in the distant future, but of course the UBI debate is about a UBI being introduced now.

                      And meanwhile, your “scratching deeper” about the causes of the growing and serious problem of homelessness in NZ includes throwaway lines about british politicians. 🙄

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      28 July 2017 at 6:41 pm

                      “The argument that you think I did not understand is not the argument that you actually managed to write down.”
                      Yes, it is.

                      “but of course the UBI debate is about…”
                      …defining elements of a basic income. Including universality. Or not.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 July 2017 at 7:01 pm

                      “The argument that you think I did not understand is not the argument that you actually managed to write down.”
                      Yes, it is.

                      No, it’s not. For a fresh example:

                      “but of course the UBI debate is about…”
                      …defining elements of a basic income. Including universality. Or not.

                      A discussion about “defining elements of a basic income” is a discussion about a basic income, not a discussion about a UBI. Otherwise it’d be “defining elements of a universal basic income”.

                      In the UBI debates of your fantasies, do they also define elements of a “universal income” that’s luxurious, or maybe one that merely satisfies atypical needs but is given to everyone?

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      28 July 2017 at 7:10 pm

                      “No, it’s not.”
                      Yes it is. Virtually all UBI discussion takes some constitutionality as a given (in the form of the exclusion of children).

                      “A discussion about “defining elements of a basic income” is a discussion about a basic income, not a discussion about a UBI. ”
                      That isn’t a given. We could discuss National Super for seniors (a universal benefit) and discuss universality.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 July 2017 at 7:18 pm

                      Yes it is. Virtually all UBI discussion takes some constitutionality as a given (in the form of the exclusion of children).

                      Then they’re not fucking universal, are they. The ones who aren’t part of mthe “virtually all” are the universal basic incomes.

                      “A discussion about “defining elements of a basic income” is a discussion about a basic income, not a discussion about a UBI. ”
                      That isn’t a given. We could discuss National Super for seniors (a universal benefit) and discuss universality.

                      lol “universal for seniors” is not “universal”. It’s actually in the title: superannuation (“a monthly payment made to someone who is retired from work”).

                      If we then decided to extend superannuation to the entire population, it wouldn’t be superannuation because superannuation is paid to a retiree. It would be a universal income, though. Maybe even a UBI.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      31 July 2017 at 1:50 pm

                      “Then they’re not fucking universal, are they.”

                      Yet they are called ‘Universal’.
                      Meaning there needs to be a discussion about what ‘Universal’ actually means.
                      Meaning that discussion is what I’ve been referring to.
                      Meaning you are resorting to foul language because you’ve twisted yourself in knots until you admitted you have been wrong.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 July 2017 at 2:11 pm

                      Oh. You’re back. Yay.

                      “Then they’re not fucking universal, are they.”
                      Yet they are called ‘Universal’.

                      By you.

                      Meaning there needs to be a discussion about what ‘Universal’ actually means.

                      It’s called a “dictionary”…

                      Geez, that was a quick discussion.

                      Meaning that discussion is what I’ve been referring to.

                      Well, no, because you’ve repeatedly said that you’re “agnostic” about actually universal basic incomes, not just the basic income ideas that you think are “universal” because you don’t understand the word “universal”. All of this is just you trying to pretend that your rejection of unconditional benefits doesn’t conflict with your agnosticism about an explicitly unconditional benefit.

                      Meaning you are resorting to foul language because you’ve twisted yourself in knots until you admitted you have been wrong.

                      And if you weren’t a lying, self-contradictory piece of shit, you wouldn’t need to use a tone argument.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      31 July 2017 at 2:25 pm

                      “It’s called a “dictionary”…”
                      Again, you flounder. Some refer to a UBI yet exclude children. ‘Universal’ can mean ‘for everyone’, yet still maintain exceptions.

                      “Well, no, because you’ve repeatedly said that you’re “agnostic” about actually universal basic incomes…”
                      Yes, and I’m particularly interested in how people define ‘universal’. For example, should tax payers money be taken off the wealthy and then redistributed back to them?

                      “And if you weren’t a lying, self-contradictory piece of shit, you wouldn’t need to use a tone argument.”
                      And if you thought through the argument fully before writing and posting, you would not be made to look such an imbecile.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 July 2017 at 2:45 pm

                      “It’s called a “dictionary”…”
                      Again, you flounder. Some refer to a UBI yet exclude children. ‘Universal’ can mean ‘for everyone’, yet still maintain exceptions.

                      Not according to the OED. What dictionary do you use?

                      “Well, no, because you’ve repeatedly said that you’re “agnostic” about actually universal basic incomes…”
                      Yes, and I’m particularly interested in how people define ‘universal’.

                      No, fuck you, fucko, I’m not letting you away with that one.
                      I asked “What are your thoughts on a genuinely universal, unconditional basic income to everyone without exception?” and you replied “I’m currently agnostic, as I have said.”.

                      If you think “to everyone without exception” means that it still maintains exceptions, you’re a moron. But I suspect that it’s much more likely that you’re a lying piece of shit trying to weasel out of his web of lies.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      31 July 2017 at 6:14 pm

                      “Not according to the OED. What dictionary do you use?”
                      It’s not about a dictionary definition, it’s about what the expression ‘universal basic income means’.

                      “If you think “to everyone without exception” means that it still maintains exceptions, you’re a moron.”
                      You really don’t understand do you? It’s astonishing. I am agnostic about a UBI. I am agnostic about a UBI because the details still have to be talked out. I struggle to justify taking money from a wealthy person and returning it to them as part of a UBI. But I’m open to the debate. You, clearly, lack the intellect to even participate.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 July 2017 at 6:43 pm

                      It’s pretty simple. You said that you were agnostic about a UBI that was applied without exception. That’s inconsistent with your statements that benefits can’t be unconditional, so now you’re trying to backtrack, distract, and deflect.

                      And the only way you can think of to do that is to pretend that “universal” doesn’t mean “universal”.

                      This is all getting a bit repetitive, because you can’t actually support your semantic evasion. Got anything new?

                  • Norfolk Traveller …
                    24 July 2017 at 10:42 am

                    “Thanks for illustrating your bad faith and dishonest approach to commenting.”
                    Actually that shows your own lack of comprehension. My original post on this thread mentioned one of the reasons the statistics are worsening. The very dishonest Mr Little is not a reliable source.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      24 July 2017 at 11:00 am

                      He’s certainly more reliable than you.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      24 July 2017 at 11:55 am

                      Stop lying. Little isn’t the source. He’s one of the messengers you’re trying to discredit.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      24 July 2017 at 1:01 pm

                      “He’s one of the messengers…”
                      Who is being less than honest.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      28 July 2017 at 6:31 pm

                      My original post on this thread mentioned one of the reasons the statistics are worsening. The very dishonest Mr Little is not a reliable source.

                      non-sequitur:

                      A non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow”), in formal logic, is an invalid argument.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument nonetheless asserts the conclusion to be true and is thus fallacious. While a logical argument is a non sequitur if, and only if, it is invalid, the word ‘non sequitur’ typically refers to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute logical fallacies covered by particular terms (e.g. affirming the consequent). In other words, in practice, ‘non sequitur’ refers to an unnamed logical fallacy. Often, in fact, ‘non sequitur’ is used when an irrelevancy is showing up in the conclusion.

                      Really, you’re probably the worst RWNJ on here for trying to argue your point using logical fallacies.

                      Everything you post is illogical and thus false.

                    • Norfolk Traveller …
                      28 July 2017 at 6:44 pm

                      You’ve confused two separate sentences as being one. No wonder you’re confused.

              • North …
                19 July 2017 at 8:02 pm

                NT @ 1.1.1.1.1.1…..prideful semanticist you. I nominate In Vino to take you on if you’re such a number in the readin’ an’ writin’ department. Be very afraid ! Muttering about redefinition or expansion is (truly) ridiculous. It comes across as cover for a pathological right wing bias firing the need to paint homelessness minimally. That’s a not uncommon imperative amongst the shit people of course.

                Hey NT…….have you come across that fascinatingly obssessive bunch of motoring enthusiasts ? …….yeah, whole families living in their cars. True ! Top Gear pales.

                • Norfolk Traveller …
                  19 July 2017 at 8:24 pm

                  North. You need to get a grip. I challenged an entirely false narrative. If that doesn’t matter to you, then why are even commenting?

      • Johnr 1.1.2
        19 July 2017 at 3:41 pm

        How many homeless people fill out census forms. I’m not homeless but haven’t filled a census form for at least 20 years. Not from deliberate avoidance but have lived in my factory then latterly on my boat. If someone had presented me with the forms I’d have filled them out, but I’m not going hunting for them

        • Norfolk Traveller 1.1.2.1
          19 July 2017 at 4:02 pm

          Good point, but just to clarify, the issue I was responding to was the claim that “Since his government eliminated all ability to measure this bad news statistic how could this Nat sympathiser ever officially know?” That is false.
          The Census has been used for decades to measure homelessness, in fact the definition of homelessness has widened in recent years. There are also a number of other non-Government studies that measure homelessness, so there is independent research to work with. This is a real issue confronting our nation – homelessness alongside plenty – and I will support real solutions, but I will also call out misinformation.

          • Stuart Munro 1.1.2.1.1
            23 July 2017 at 4:36 am

            The 41 000 that Wayne rubbishes is the 2013 census data. So call out his disinformation, if you want to pretend to any kind of intellectual integrity.

            • Norfolk Traveller 1.1.2.1.1.1
              23 July 2017 at 4:18 pm

              “The 41 000 that Wayne rubbishes is the 2013 census data.”
              You haven’t understood a single word have you? Go bask and look up the definition of homeless, and the change in measurement from 2009. That would be a start.

              • Stuart Munro …
                27 July 2017 at 2:24 am

                It always makes my day to be told I don’t understand by a malicious troll.

                You are the lying denying assholes trying to juke that stats – claiming that the OECD figures are somehow not real.

                And claiming that if “only the census figures were used” the numbers would be Wayne’s outrageous lie of 4000 or so.

                But the census figures were the basis of the OECD numbers, and the definition of homelessness was necessarily from the census too.

                So there is no basis whatsoever for the lie you have been trying so desperately to promulgate.

                Try again – or better yet don’t try – toodle off to Whaleoil where your bovine malevolence is closer to the norm.

                • Norfolk Traveller …
                  27 July 2017 at 9:00 am

                  That just confirms you haven’t been following the discussion.

                • Stuart Munro …
                  27 July 2017 at 10:12 am

                  Here’s the thing you solopsistic cesspit of second rate spin – the issue is not defined by you. You are not important to it – and your opinion is not worth the pixels it is written in.

                  We understand the issue – you merely try to deny it.

                  Without facts. Without integrity. Without, in fact, a clue. As a result your views are not persuasive – however forcefully you try to insert them into an argument that goes over your head.

  2. WILD KATIPO 2
    19 July 2017 at 8:45 am

    Whew !

    ‘ Mr Flavell said he had “no idea” how homelessness got so bad ‘ …

    WHAT . A . DICK.

  3. tc 3
    19 July 2017 at 9:01 am

    Maori party better be careful or they’ll knock nact of the #1 hypocrite position.

    What an insult to the wider maori people these national light troughers are. Elite iwis little helpers and enablers of nacts gutting of nz social fabric.

    Flavell has always come across as not giving a f, theres proof.

    • garibaldi 3.1
      19 July 2017 at 10:30 am

      The whole National Party comes across as not giving a f…. when it comes to social problems. People who support them are basically the same.

  4. marty mars 4
    19 July 2017 at 9:05 am

    Shocking – tired and useless – go away flavell

  5. Psycho Milt 5
    19 July 2017 at 9:22 am

    Has he considered the possibility that people with “no idea” how things happen shouldn’t be running the country?

  6. Ffloyd 6
    19 July 2017 at 9:29 am

    Flavell has ‘no idea full stop. The man is a waffling idiot.

  7. David Mac 7
    19 July 2017 at 9:42 am

    In business when a new service is launched it is crucial to monitor the results very closely. Does it work? Is the packaging right? How can we improve it? What are the successful aspects and where are we struggling. Otherwise if the new venture was failing, with no measuring, there is no way to know. It trots on hobbled and blind.

    Whanau Ora is the flagship policy of the Maori Party, it’s been in place for some years now. Where are the statistics? Is it working? What are the good bits that we should be supercharging and the struggling bits we should be reviewing and altering? We don’t have a clue.

    This situation has come home to roost. The man at the helm has no idea where all the homelessness came from because nobody knows how the system in place to address matters like this is performing. The situation smacks of a party that want a big flash neon sign to hang over the door and don’t really care about what happens through that door.

    Some care providers will be kicking big goals, a few will struggle to justify our investment. Isn’t identifying which is which crucial? Why the hell aren’t we carefully measuring Whanau Ora outcomes? If we were, Flavell would be fully aware.

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1
      19 July 2017 at 10:30 am

      Does Whanau Ora have anything to do with measuring homelessness?

      And he’s an MP, he has many sources of information. He’s obviously not using any of them.

      • David Mac 7.1.1
        19 July 2017 at 10:49 am

        From what I can ascertain Whanau Ora have very little to do with measuring outcomes. They do have many people employed to assist homeless people into homes, measuring outcomes would guide policy direction. Maybe more Whanau Ora care-providers should be wearing builder’s aprons? Nobody knows, not even Flavell.

    • marty mars 7.2
      19 July 2017 at 10:35 am

      Business isn’t the template for everything.

      Why are you bringing up Whānau Ora? Isn’t this about homelessness – how do you see the intersections.

      • David Mac 7.2.1
        19 July 2017 at 10:56 am

        It’s an area I’m familiar with Marty. I talk with people looking to house people.

        Again, I know business, I used it for an analogy. It doesn’t matter what the endeavor is. Anything we want to get better at, if we don’t measure outcomes we’re guessing. An athlete trains with a stopwatch. A sales team work with targets.

    • savenz 7.3
      19 July 2017 at 12:45 pm

      Whanau Ora is the flagship policy of the Maori Party – yet has done very little to next to nothing to solve any problems. Lets call it for what it is, a bribe to the Maori party to support National making sure all other people including Maori are much worse off under the National party + Maori Party + ACT.

      Even better they can blame Whanau Ora while using it to further their own privatisation agenda for Serco. A few million tax payers dollars to Serco contracts, a few million tax payers dollars to Whanau Ora and a few million dollars of public assets like water to mates businesses…. Who can tell the difference….

  8. CLEANGREEN 8
    19 July 2017 at 10:10 am

    I agree with those comments here, as the Maori Party are blind to what is going on out in the real world.

    I sat in a hospital emergency room after travelling 80kms to an emergency knee injury.

    I waited 3 hours to be seen by a doctor, and the room was full of very sick Maori folk whom we discussed how bad the service was now, and all agreed tit is terrible now.

    Maori Party come out into the real light of day and see your people suffering alongside the rest of us now then will you go back to your mates in Government and criticize them as you are to labour &NZ First????

    If you are trying to wreck the possible coalition between Labour,greens,NZ First are you trying to help your Nactional party to win another term in September?

  9. Kevin 9
    19 July 2017 at 10:17 am

    No idea?

    Then its time for him to move on and elect someone who does have an idea.

  10. Cinny 10
    19 July 2017 at 10:21 am

    Shouldn’t the local MP be approachable to their constituents?

    Happy to help them if they are having issues?

    Have their finger on the pulse and know what is going on in their electorate?

    Flavell has failed on all three and failed his people if he has no idea how homelessness got so bad in his electorate.

  11. Draco T Bastard 11
    19 July 2017 at 10:25 am

    After 12 years as MP for Waiariki Flavell says on Marae that he has “no idea” how homelessness has got so bad in his own city

    Oh, that is bad.

    And isn’t he an electorate MP?

    If so he can kiss electorate goodbye.

  12. patricia bremner 12
    19 July 2017 at 10:51 am

    I have met Flavell’s replacement….. Labour Party Waiariki seat aspirant Tamati Coffey.
    Tamati lives in Rotorua, has relatives and friends in the whole Waiariki area. He is hard working caring and informed. He will be a huge addition to Labour’s work in turning things around.
    Tamati helped defeat the introduction of the Whenua land bill with his information meetings all round the district.
    He helped with the march of 300 to ask the local DHB why they were closing a help service to rural Maori… This is now being reviewed.
    His debate with Flavell has shown how out of touch Flavell is, and how Tamati Coffey is able to focus on current issues in a positive and inclusive way.
    He is an energetic mover and shaker on the side of social change who liaises well with his counterpart from the East Coast, Kiri.
    Enrol donate and Vote. From small beginnings…

  13. NZJester 13
    19 July 2017 at 11:23 am

    When you support a party that gives tax breaks to the rich and moves the tax burden onto the poor with a PAYE/GST tax swap that favors those on higher income and help them do it, you have to be either greedy or stupid not to see what that will do.

  14. David Mac 14
    19 July 2017 at 11:40 am

    I think the Maori Party are promoting the National line so hard that it indicates they’re sitting on a ‘Hey if we get in, you guys are in too.’ arrangement with Bill. They’ve become enveloped by the same status quo that forces us to reminisce about a time when we could all afford a family camping holiday.

    What started out with getting up with a few fleas has grown into an immunity they share with the dogs.

  15. Siobhan 15
    19 July 2017 at 11:47 am

    “But what we’re trying to do is allow people to move into ownership of their house, as opposed to just filling a space or social housing or just straight renting.” Flavell….ah, yes another politician pushing ‘The Kiwi Dream’ which they still think is home ownership. Ignoring the growing numbers of life time renters, and, apparently, the growing numbers living in their parents spare rooms and garages.

  16. Bill 16
    19 July 2017 at 11:55 am

    When Liberal dogma insisted that “equal opportunity” would replace “equity”and ‘all’ would be equal before a market that would deliver freedom and dreams…

    When both main political parties saw fit to be wings on that bird…

    When houses became retirement funds instead of homes…

    When successive governments sat back while housing bubbles inflated and portfolios were expanded….

    When subsidies were given to landlords who were charging rents designed to pay down mortgages and indirectly fund further house purchases…

    When 5% optimum level of unemployment were maintained to provide a ‘flexible’ labour market….

    When industry was shut down and shunted overseas…

    When cheap imports that mask a decline in living standards are celebrated and encouraged (free trade deals)…

    When employment law favours employers….

    When unions are variously neutered or destroyed….

    In short – when no-one gives a flying monkey’s about anyone else because “we all have the opportunity to make it” and “Kiwi dream” and “profit before people”.

    • Red 16.2
      19 July 2017 at 2:06 pm

      But we also have liberty, diversity, choice, freedom and not been told what to do, with that comes some personal responsibility, no one system is perfect but give me above over statism and big government any time

      • Bill 16.2.1
        19 July 2017 at 2:23 pm

        Does liberty and freedom only reside within the ideology of Liberalism? No. Is Liberalism’s concept of liberty and freedom even up to much? No.

        Diversity and choice insofar as….we get to choose between 60 shades of worthless shit sitting on a retail shelf?

        And where do you get this idea that the alternative to Liberalism is “big government” and “statism”? You definitely didn’t get that idea from anything I’ve said or written. Maybe you just lack imagination and so can only see the world in terms of what is and the simple opposite of what is?

        Hint. Alternative isn’t opposite.

        • adam 16.2.1.1
          19 July 2017 at 3:12 pm

          Poor Red is such a blinkered Ideologue, he can’t see he’s a blinkered ideologue.

          Small or no state socialism with enhance democratic frameworks, are functioning now in many countries in the world.

          Yet in NZ the bulk of kiwis are so bereft of the ability to think what freedom and liberty looks like – they mistakenly see the ability to buy a variety of cars, and voting once every three years, as choice and diversity. Sad.

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 16.2.2
        19 July 2017 at 8:07 pm

        Freedom for the pike is death to the minnow.

        Libertarian “freedom” most often means freedom for the rich and powerful to exploit and abuse the poor and powerless.

      • Richard Christie 16.2.3
        19 July 2017 at 9:25 pm

        But we also have liberty, diversity, choice, freedom and not been told what to do, with that comes some personal responsibility, no one system is perfect but give me above over statism and big government any time

        But we also have…

        Lotto (don’t tell me what not to do with a fifth of the weekly food budget),
        and reality TV (lots of choice, it’s educational, has quality discourse etc not)
        and casinos (freedom to lose everything)
        and dual-opoly print news services (hey, what was that about choice?)
        etc

        Ah, all these lovely improvements, the benefits opiates of the neolibtard economy.

      • Stuart Munro 16.2.4
        21 July 2017 at 7:20 pm

        Rubbish – you get spoonfed crap from the likes of Hosking because the government is too useless to address any real problems and doesn’t want to be called on it. Not much liberty for the homeless or the low or unwaged. No diversity in representation – parliament is almost wall-to-wall braindead neo-liberal morons who cannot manage their portfolios but are too fucking entitled to resign. It is not a case of minor imperfections but of gross, deliberate and unremitting failure, a damning indictment of a government so backward Somalia would be ashamed of it.

  17. savenz 17
    19 July 2017 at 12:48 pm

    BTW – at least two homeless people have now died in the last few weeks in Auckland while sleeping rough in the cold… has there been any mention of it in MSM?

  18. Nik Smythe 18
    19 July 2017 at 2:47 pm

    I’ve always been annoyed by the phrase ‘no idea’. Particularly being told by anyone that ‘you have no idea’, but the bugbear’s relevant in this instance also. Flavell may have limited data and a lack of conclusive proof or evidence, but at the very very least he must surely have some kind of idea, accurate or otherwise?!

  19. AsleepWhileWalking 19
    19 July 2017 at 4:39 pm

    Maybe he is just being honest. It’s not like it’s just one reason.

  20. greg 20
    19 July 2017 at 5:20 pm

    national and there cronies dont want to know same with every other issue arse up head in the sand
    https://youtu.be/UmzsWxPLIOo

  21. Gabby 21
    19 July 2017 at 10:20 pm

    Thought he was a bit of a dumbass.

  22. greywarshark 22
    28 July 2017 at 5:37 pm

    I hope other people have time to read your sterling educational effort McFlock.
    I have to work and Norfolk Trer won’t except to effectively wind up the tin god and get him marching off into chair legs etc.

  23. greywarshark 23
    29 July 2017 at 11:00 am

    This from NT to McFlock.

    “Again, I swallow it because I and my friends have lived it. “
    You swallow it because it suits your narrative, and because you are gullible. You swallow the ‘throw more money’ line, rather than dig deeper and try to find out why people are int he position they are in and teaching them to fish,.

    The superior didactic style is demeaning to those who present other views as automatically wrong, without bothering to look and listen to their truths and th experience and knowledge that they arise from. And being sure that the thinking is superior, then there is advice handed out which insults because it is offered to people who are well versed in the problems, and already know the dialogue of the problem and what does and doesn’t work.

    It’s autocratic, almost aristocratic thinking. And can’t learn, so can’t be educated then. And follows conformism to pre-enlightenment thinking.

Links to post