Grant Robertson: Future of Work

10 comments on “Grant Robertson: Future of Work ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bill 1

   9 November 2016 at 2:16 pm

   It’s been said before, but it bears repeating.

   The basic premise of this guff is based on a ridiculous piece of study that wouldn’t look out of place in a compendium of late 19th C predictive techno utopias.

   Back on planet earth, we need a huge amount of hands on, low skilled labour to do all the stuff we need to do in terms of upgrading, safeguarding and sometimes relocating our infrastructure if we want to ameliorate at least some of the likely effects of climate change that will be biting down hard in the upcoming decades.
2. Richard Rawshark 2

   9 November 2016 at 2:27 pm

   It took 2 years and involved MP’s from all parties, mayors and businesses.

   Far longer than it took you to write that twaddle you researched for .1 of a second.

   and that is you served.
   • Bill 2.1

     9 November 2016 at 3:12 pm

     1. Use reply buttons.

     2. Have you read the fucking research that provided the premise for two years worth of work? I did. I suspect you haven’t. If you had, you’d know it’s complete fucking tosh.

     3. Every climate scientist I’ve come across (either in person or through their writing) and who has considered the impact of climate change on infrastructure is saying the same thing – we need to embark on a massive programme of rebuilding, relocating and variously safeguarding our water networks, power networks, transport networks and (short handing it) our “factories and buildings”.

     4. If your idea of debate is to simply kiss the arse of those you hold up as your betters and then throw your sycophancy into the mix as though it might finally amount to some valid point, then just keep the fuck away from any comments I make. It’s a type of time wasting I can’t be bothered with.
     • Richard Rawshark 2.1.1

       9 November 2016 at 4:17 pm

       If you want to debate it, then ok.

       guff, harsh mate 2 year study like I said originally.
       I read both and watched the video.

       Not an environmental policy, and he often refers to sustainable industries.

       I understand your concerns for the environment me too.. I am of the opinion Grants was about the future of work and there will be policy announcements from the greens in the future and due to the memorandum of understanding i’d bet a dollar Labours keeping away so as not to confuse the voters.

       that’s my take.

       Your fucking this and fucking that though, like what the fuck was that for? twaddle..?
       • Bill 2.1.1.1

         9 November 2016 at 6:59 pm

         There was no two year study providing the premise for what Robertson has based his ‘Future of Work’ stuff on. There was a piece of research that was dubious at best and, on a neutral or rational take, just downright bullshit. Nevertheless, Labour picked it up and ran with it.

         Then, on top of that (but completely beside the point as far as Labour’s ‘Future of Work’ stuff goes) there is the real world situation of climate change and how that will impact on society, the economy and the material basis of our way of living a short time from now.

         You thinking you can run a sustainable industry (or any kind of industry at scale) when the grid that delivers power is constantly going down, when the road and rail networks are increasingly fragmented, when even the assumption of running tap water is gone – all because of ‘extra’ energy falling out of the climate system by way of increasingly frequent, yet to our current experience, atypical weather – ie, heavier rains, longer, hotter dry spells and higher winds that our infrastructure will not withstand? (Not to mention the general swamping of coastal areas and all they contain by rising sea levels)

         How? Explain how you think that one will be pulled off. Magic?
3. Richard Rawshark 3

   9 November 2016 at 3:04 pm

   It’s nice to see the whole interviews with my leaders, all I have ever seen of them, is Parliamentary TV or clips on the news. helps to get more insight into the face behind the message.

   Grant, you have good speaking skills, but lacked passion.., Andrews nearly had me marching to Wellington, but I doubt your allowed to speak like a leader so meh, you did what you could with a lot of stuff to get out.

   Unsure of these business hubs, i’ll have to look that up at the labour site, it seems a 2 word solution to a big problem and I thought that in your speech, lacked a little detail on what that actually involved and why it would be good for these area’s.

   Everything else was brilliant. things I had not thought about at all.

   National or any other party’s have nothing at all to compare with this.. nothing..

   I could only comment on improvements positives would have gone on too long. But it was comprehensive and not ..like most party policies empty words and simplistic solutions.

   This was a properly thought out path forward.

   I also note you slipped in a basic income transition was going to be carefully investigated, nice one but ,,you could have worked that up a little more, meh being too picky. sorry.
4. Richard Rawshark 4

   9 November 2016 at 3:51 pm

   To Bill.

   Don’t ever tell me what to do. Typical superiority of the Nats attitude.

   the rest is just a tirade, of no real substance. Obviously your not a Labour supporter, so meh.. Better things to do.

   [using the reply buttons is something that makes the site more functional (and people get told this fairly regularly). Bill is an author at The Standard, not a National party supporter. There is enough in the politics to argue over, how about you both dial back the personal stuff? – weka]
   • weka 4.1

     9 November 2016 at 4:06 pm

     with regards to Labour, I also have some substantial critique of the way Labour are going about this, some of it makes me cringe tbh. I’m still trying to get my head around it, but some of it looks alarming (the youth work scheme thing). Critiquing Labour is an entirely appropriate thing to do here.
   • Richard Rawshark 4.2

     9 November 2016 at 4:10 pm

     Tis ok Weka I just disapprove of the wording.

     so the antisocial in me rebels and didn’t hit reply.

     actually I probably meant to but clicked reply to the wrong thing as there were so few posts here.
5. Wainwright 5

   9 November 2016 at 7:21 pm

   Wouldn’t be surprised if people were saying much the same stuff about the industrial revolution, buthere we still are working sixty-hour-weeks for a pittance. Where’s the will to lead the change instead of waiting for the machines to come for us all?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS