Nats bashing on solo mums

Written By: Steve Pierson - Date published: 4:28 pm, August 11th, 2008 - 110 comments
Categories: benefits, national, same old national - Tags:

Wonder of wonders, the Nats’ benefits policy has an 11 page document attached to it. Oh, wait, it’s mostly just stats ripped from the MSD website and long-winded rewordings of the bullet-points, not actual detail of the Nats’ policy.

So, what have we got from the party that proclaims it wants more disciplined spending, less red-tape, and fewer bureaucrats? More spending, including an increase of more than 1% on the cost of the DPB from the higher start off point for abatements*. More red-tape with more assessments needed for Sickness Beneficiaries and greater oversight from MSD of doctors who provide medical certifies for those benefits, budget training for certain beneficiaries, new work requirements in certain circumstances for DPB, Sickness, and Invalids’ beneficiaries (which will, in turn, need exceptions in certain circumstances), and a more complex sanction process for unemployment beneficiaries who fail to look for work. More public servants to administer all of this; easily hundreds more. Most of this is tired old ideas that failed in the 1990s. So much for the public service cap. So much for National’s ambitious new vision.

All of this is silly solutions in search of a problem. Beneficiary numbers are falling, the cost of the system is falling, and the number of long-term beneficiaries is falling even faster. The DPB work requirements would not apply to the 60% of recipients caring for a child under 6, or the 20% already earning an income, or the 22% who state their child’s health is a barrier to work. The 29% who state their own health is a barrier to work might simply be shifted to the invalids’ benefit. And what of the few it does apply to? What if they can’t find work that neatly fits within school hours? Should they leave their children home alone or just keep attending taxpayer-funded training? There is no long-term DPB dependency problem: 64% of DPB recipients have been getting it less than four years and only 11% (that’s 10,000 parents) have had it for longer than 10 years (many of them will have children with severe health issues). This is not about solutions; it’s just beneficiary bashing to grab a few votes.

*(I’m in favour of that, but the issue is National’s inconsistency).

110 comments on “Nats bashing on solo mums ”

Comments are now closed

Patrick 1

11 August 2008 at 4:44 pm

The thing that has really struck me about this policy is how it looks like it’s going to put a lot more burden on an already overworked bureaucracy. Now if National do really “cap their numbers” (and I don’t doubt their intentions, I’m just not too sure how they’re going to do it) you are going to see a lot of stressed and angry public servants.

You know what that’s going to lead to? Strikes? Yeah, probably; but what National should be more concerned about is what Mr. Rudd is experiencing at the moment, serious leaks of confidential government docs due to the fact they simply piss off the public service.

Another moronic policy announcement proudly brought to you by Mr Keys.
Patrick 2

11 August 2008 at 4:47 pm

And of course, I don’t think policy should be decided by how the public service would feel about it. My point is simply to illustrate how, lacking in vision, their multiple scraps of angry policy reacting to grumpy focus groups simply serve to contradict each other. Not a good look.
maria von trapp 3

11 August 2008 at 5:18 pm

What about rural parents, who don’t have access to neat 15-hour-jobs that fit in nice little boxes?

I remember a friend of mine who was given the benefit to look after his children after a pretty distressing change in circumstances. Might just post about that tonight.

The saddest thing is that if you apply these strict policies, it’s children who miss out – our most vulnerable.
ants 4

11 August 2008 at 5:22 pm

So Patrick, a better approach would to be to pretend that the problem doesn’t exist? Or should we take the Labour government’s approach and exasperate the problem by making half the country dependent on the government through schemes like WFF?

Its pretty clear the status quo isn’t working, otherwise benefit spending wouldn’t have steeply risen in the last 9 years.

Key comes out with a positive action and you jump on him, but you have no better approaches? Ever heard of a stereotype?
TomS 5

11 August 2008 at 5:23 pm

Why are National bothering? Given the low numbers of people on the DPB this will affect why would National want to reinforce with female voters their image as a bunch of lecturing, middle class misogynist white men?

All I can conclude is the clear evidence of sexually active women making independent choices in the absence of an authoritarian alpha male touches something pretty deep in the Tory psyche.
Matthew Pilott 6

11 August 2008 at 5:37 pm

ants, I didn’t realise benefit spending had risen steeply in the last nine years – can you show me some detail? I’d assume it must have risen far faster than inflation and this would, of course, have to factor in population growth.

I sure hope you don’t try to include WfF in there, since that’s paid to people out of their own tax take – i.e. it’s not a benefit because they’re getting their own money back (the clue is in the first word of the title).

I can only assume Patrick isn’t buying into the stereotypes you were presumably alluding to (that NZ is overrun by beneficiaries, breeding for a business and being too lazy to work) and thinks, as I do, that Key is simply doing a Winston Peters.

Peters bashes immigrants, Key is bashing beneficiaries. It’s all to appeal to the same sad bunch who are unfortunately prone to believing stereotypes bandied about.

It’s also fair enough to point out the Key has been telling porkies – he has no plans to cut the core public service – he’s just appealing to yet another stereotye that the same people believe in.

In this case, it’s our wasteful, inefficient and bloated public service that will save us from the blugding, lazy over-bred beneficiaries! What’s a simple-minded fool to believe?
higherstandard 7

11 August 2008 at 5:51 pm

MP

“What’s a simple-minded fool to believe?”

That’s the question that all political parties strategise upon every three years or so.
Idiot/Savant 8

11 August 2008 at 5:53 pm

What about rural parents, who don’t have access to neat 15-hour-jobs that fit in nice little boxes?

Screw that – what about the fact that the obligation is at least 15 hours – but even at the minimum wage, working 15 hours puts you right on the cusp of the threshold for punitive 100%+ maginal clawbacks – or, in other words, the level at which they think you can take care of yourself without needing stae assistance. In other words, their policy is effectively to kick people off the DPB and force them into the casual workforce the moment their kids are in school.

This isn’t a welfare policy; it’s a labour market policy aimed at increasing the supply of minimum wage workers. Lovely.
Matthew Pilott 9

11 August 2008 at 5:54 pm

higherstandard – you never used to be that cynical! Maybe it comes out more in election year… (I still laughed at it though)
RedLogix 10

11 August 2008 at 5:57 pm

Listening to Mary Bloody Wilson on Checkpoint tonight. Key was exceedingly evasive while she drilled down to the actual numbers of Sickness and Invalid Beneficiaries involved. All he could quote was about 5600 of the 130,000 odd who MAY be targetted for re-evaluation. When she challenged Key three times to clarify the actual numbers of people who might actually finish up getting a job as a result of this, we got two answers, “a few around the margins” and “hard to know” (twice.)

In other words this policy at least around SB’s, has nothing to do with reducing their numbers. The Nats know that perfectly well.

It is all about dog-whistling to red-neck voters who will hear “bash the bludgers”…. while the actual policy means nothing in terms of positive outcomes.
roger nome 11

11 August 2008 at 6:00 pm

I’ve posted on my blog about the Nat’s plans to deal with the mentally ill. It’s actually a bit of a worry when you look at what they’re proposing.

http://rogernome.blogspot.com/2008/08/nats-benefits-policies.html
Monty 12

11 August 2008 at 6:04 pm

Excellent – National have got previous stories off the front pages and have released a policy that is supported by 90% in the Herald poll and 87 % in the Stuff poll.

Yet again National are leading the debate on a popular and well thought out policy with massive support. I expect this will help them after a crap story about deciet last week.

The left do not understand that they are constantly being outflanked.

I am sick to death of suporting parasites on the benefits who are capable of work. I am heartened to see the vast majority agree (and the other 10% are no doubt the parasites who suck on th eblood of the hard working taxpayer that has been robbed for the past 10 years.

[lprent: Online polls are useless and totally irrelevant…

The results are just a question of who can be bothered running javascript and/or whoever isn’t working. I’m afraid that I see them as being even more pointless that published political polls (which I have little time for as well).

Please don’t bring them into debate here. I don’t want this site used for promoting such ridiculous advertising drawcards to other sites. I will treat it as being simple link-whoring or spam.

Maybe I should start writing code in public to trash online polls? Anyone care to clarify the legal position?]
dad4justice 13

11 August 2008 at 6:08 pm

What about SOLO DAD’S you miserable unlawful gender discrimination creeps !!!The feminist agenda has destroyed the family, and BOTH National and Labour are too BLAME !!!!
A man can’t be a parent eh Sue B !!!!
Monty 14

11 August 2008 at 6:09 pm

Of course Maria the parents could set a good example to their children by actually working and instilling in them the importance of self responsibility and self determination. Most families I know have both parents working and paying a truckload of tax – I cannot see why a solo parent cannot work if most families I know have both partners working. Good sensible well thought out policy from the Natsa that will infuriate the left. I expect a lift in Nationals polling as a result.
CMR 15

11 August 2008 at 6:15 pm

Benefits are tools to aid the needy, they were not conceived to create lifestyle choices! I pay for my children with good grace and a sense of enduring responsibilty.This is emotionally rewarding.

What message is delivered to a child in a family which is entirely dependent on the state for its survival? Take! Don’t earn,take!

If it is purgatory to survive on a benefit then why is National being bashed for attempting to end this hellish existence?

Anyway, the policy will never be invoked as National will continue to be the weak gaggle of pragmatists they always have been. The policy will be quickly subsumed in the swamp of the Wellington bureaucracy.
Matthew Pilott 16

11 August 2008 at 6:17 pm

dad4justice, if you genuinely gave a toss about solo dads you wouldn’t be making that a partisan attack at Ms Bradford. The nat policy was about ‘solo mums’ – aren’t you going to have a rant to them about it?

Ants – monty is a perfect example of one of the people I was talking about, if you wanted one. Monty – thanks. Timing as impeccable as always. Why is it that whenever we need such an example you’re there? If you’re a leftie trying to be one of those righties us lefties like because they make righties look bad, you’re almost too obvious.
roger nome 17

11 August 2008 at 6:22 pm

I’ve posted on my blog about the Nat’s plans to deal with the mentally ill. It’s a bit of a worry when you look at what they’re proposing.

http://rogernome.blogspot.com/2008/08/nats-benefits-policies.html
RedLogix 18

11 August 2008 at 6:33 pm

CMR

What message is delivered to a child in a family which is entirely dependent on the state for its survival?

And what message is delivered to a child in a family that has NO means for it’s survival? Or one in which one partner endures endless brutality for lack of choice.

Your putative three degrees sure didn’t bestow on you much in the way of simple humanity.
Inventory2 19

11 August 2008 at 7:31 pm

lprent said “[lprent: Online polls are useless and totally irrelevant…

The results are just a question of who can be bothered running javascript and/or whoever isn’t working. I’m afraid that I see them as being even more pointless that published political polls (which I have little time for as well).”

Um, ah, ‘scuse me lprent, but if online polls are influenced by “whoever isn’t working”, why is this one so strongly tilted in favour of National’s policy proposal. After all, you’d think that “whoever isn’t working” would vote “no” – wouldn’t you?

[lprent: Ever listened to talkback. That is who I’m picking for the non-programmer portion of online polls. Usually I have too much work to do, but the few times I’ve heard it it sounded like the bottom end of kiwiblog comments (ie the whale end). ]
Monty 20

11 August 2008 at 7:35 pm

Lynn, i agree that the online polls are not scientific, but they certainly are a gauge of opinion, and I think John Key has neatly read the mood of NZers. Labour of course are well supported by the benefit class, so they will find it difficult to make them responsible for their own life and when a party is so far behind in polls then Labour would not want to bleed more support to the Greenies.

National can and should and has the space to open a welll deserved assult on the parasites who make a career decision to live off the hard work of wage earners.

My point is that John Key once again reads the electorate well and has a policy that finds wide spread support – and even better Labour hate it and will be loath to discuss it. 90% support is good – it would be interesting to see what a scientific poll result would be. Eitherway this is a winner for National and I totally support welfare bashing – afterall – I support self responsibility.

[lprent: I suspect that they have read the mood of the talkback culture accurately. But it is a minority interest.]
Brett Dale 21

11 August 2008 at 7:38 pm

How the heck is it solo mum bashing? if I was a solo mum I would welcome it, imagine being out of work for so long, then your kids are off to school, and you have an opportunity for a work esperience programme, it will make it a heck of a lot easier to get into the work force.

Its also a great lesson for kiddies, “Stand on your own two feet” of course Aunty Helen wants people to stay poor, she gets more votes that way.
vto 22

11 August 2008 at 7:47 pm

Got to agree with monty’s first post re the knocking off the tapergate headlines of last week with this announcement. Brilliant politics. Monty’s suggestion that the nats are constantly outflanking labour is right. This is the new headline – welfare abuse / bashing, call it what you will.

Just like last week re tapergate the headline was more about the dog going through Key’s rubbish and scurrilous behaviour (except on places like this)

Putting aside any rights or wrongs, the nats are without doubt one hell of a lot smarter this time around. The poker game continues – sharpen up Helen..
mike 23

11 August 2008 at 7:58 pm

Great move Nats.Typical response from the left to this well balanced proposal.

Helen is in a very tight space now and she must the sense the mood out there in voter land is behind Key on this one.

It also shores up the right vote who thought Key was going a bit soft.

I’m rapped with these type of policies as I would much rather keep my hard earned tax $ for my kids not have it spent on other peoples.
RedLogix 24

11 August 2008 at 8:12 pm

Wow… this really brings out the ugly in them doesn’t it?
CMR 25

11 August 2008 at 8:23 pm

Red Logix refers to something he entitles “simple humanity.” He is mistaken in his definitions…what he champions is “blatant inhumanity!”

Is it simple humanity to perpetrate a system that is premised on the needs of one being an automatic claim on the assets of another? That is parasitism endorsed by the state. Does the state have a 100% mandate on societal benevolence such that it is entitled to plunder the producer for the alleged benefit of the inept? No it does not.

I challenge Red Logix to stand before any of the commendable charities in this country and assert that the state has such a full grip on benevolence that it is warranted in its sucking wealth from the producers of this land!

The core difficulty with all leftie policies is its ongoing focus on distribution rather than production. There is nothing more chilling than the arbitrary mechanics of distribution.
Pascal's bookie 26

11 August 2008 at 8:32 pm

Gawd.

Anyone else noticed how there is, on the blogs, a popular strain of right wing rhetoric that is virtually indistinguishable from the sort of absolutist marxist stuff from the early to mid twentieth century? Running dogs and come the glorious day.

I’m waiting for one of them to pipe up with the idea that in Nov the Fascist octopus will sing its swan song, and the jackboot will be thrown into the melting pot.
RedLogix 27

11 August 2008 at 8:48 pm

CMR,

I challenge Red Logix to stand before any of the commendable charities in this country and assert that the state has such a full grip on benevolence that it is warranted in its sucking wealth from the producers of this land!

I refer you to the following statements from this very thread:

I’m rapped with these type of policies as I would much rather keep my hard earned tax $ for my kids not have it spent on other peoples.

National can and should and has the space to open a well deserved assult on the parasites who make a career decision to live off the hard work of wage earners.

Its also a great lesson for kiddies, “Stand on your own two feet’ of course (while ignoring your empty stomach I presume)

What message is delivered to a child in a family which is entirely dependent on the state for its survival? Take! Don’t earn,take!

I am sick to death of suporting parasites on the benefits who are capable of work. I am heartened to see the vast majority agree (and the other 10% are no doubt the parasites who suck on th eblood of the hard working taxpayer that has been robbed for the past 10 years.

This small selection of candid opinion tells me that relying on the charity of these individuals would be a meagre thing indeed.
Quoth the Raven 28

11 August 2008 at 8:56 pm

Aunty Helen wants people to stay poor, she gets more votes that way.

How many time does it have to be poitned out to you righties that benefit numbers are way down under this government and were way higher under National. If anyone wants to keep people poor it is those on the right. It is cardinal to their whole way of thinking. Remeber what John Key said “We would love to see wages drop.” John Key has already said that there is not enough “spare capacity” in the labour market. Meaning there are too many people in employment. Do you actually believe that this is about getting people into work Brett? This government beleives in a full employment economy. National simply don’t. They never have. Look what happened last time.
GPT 29

11 August 2008 at 9:17 pm

Your analogy with a police sting is ridiculous. Any evidence obtained by police involving obvious entrapment would be inadmissible. Any “evidence’ as flimsy as that which you try to claim is proof of some sort of secret agenda wouldn’t even make a jury.

[lprent: I’d suggest that you avoid a few of the more excitable sites (both right and left) in that case. They really go to town on developing theories out of nothing. This tape is *far* more than some sites would consider was sufficient to charge, convict, and hang people.

This isn’t a court – it is the blogosphere. What is interesting is the inferences you can draw from chewing over the available material. ]
Better Dead Than Red 30

11 August 2008 at 9:21 pm

“This small selection of candid opinion tells me that relying on the charity of these individuals would be a meagre thing indeed.”

Wrong. The reason that taxpayers are pissed off is because of the compulsion involved. While they have plans for looking after their own family, often these plans must be put on hold while they are forced to provide money for a bunch of losers who are predominantly Labour voters and who only vote Labour becasue they know they will be given money if they do. People have a right to be pissed off at this injustice.
Better Dead Than Red 31

11 August 2008 at 9:28 pm

“Anyone else noticed how there is, on the blogs, a popular strain of right wing rhetoric”

Seeing it are you? The middle class has had it up to here with being squeezed by you commies and then denied any say in the matter. We’re coming after you Soviets- get used to it.

“I’m waiting for one of them to pipe up with the idea that in Nov the Fascist octopus will sing its swan song, and the jackboot will be thrown into the melting pot.”

Wow, you’re really upset about it aren’t you?
lemsip 32

11 August 2008 at 9:31 pm

“How many time does it have to be poitned out to you righties that benefit numbers are way down under this government and were way higher under National.”

Leaving aside caustive factors other than government policy, you seem to be suggesting we should just accept the status quo. How forward thinking of you. Have you stopped to think that other forms of intervention might be needed to reduce numbers further?

“ohn Key has already said that there is not enough “spare capacity’ in the labour market. Meaning there are too many people in employment.”

You’re either stupid or paranoid – perhaps both. Key meant there needs to be more people willing to supply their labour to increase capacity in the labour market. This policy aims at just that i.e. increasing participation.

“This government beleives in a full employment economy.”

If this is the yard stick then the labour government has failed every year it has been in office. Ha Ha Ha
ak 33

11 August 2008 at 9:36 pm

CMR: There is nothing more chilling than the arbitrary mechanics of distribution.

Oh yes there is CMR: it’s the grotesque sight of naked, unmitigated selfishness and greed manifesting in vicious attacks on the most vulnerable among us for pure political gain.

It’s the sight of puerile, “unhip”, sons of the wealthy and privileged smearing and demonising an entire sector of society – a sector charged with the essential and demanding full-time task of raising our future citizens on the most meagre incomes.

It’s the sight of semi-literate, manic and rabid purveyors of hate who lash out at the underdog to obtain a fleeting lift in their own flaccid self-esteem.

It’s the sight of a prolonged media bias that has legitimised a concerted campaign of hate against a successful and purely-motivated government.

It’s the sight of a venal, cunning, pretender to government openly refusing to confirm its true intentions – with utter impunity – and lashing out when exposed.

It’s the sight of that same pretender promulgating and inciting the same irrational division, hatred, and fear that we see in the comments above.

It’s the sight of naive middle voters bending in the wind of the media and lending succour to the aspirations of hate and greed.

And most chilling of all: the prospect of all of the above leading to the unimaginable wailing and gnashing of teeth that swept our land in the nineties, from which we have only recently begun to recover.

Chilling, CMR? Oh yes. Last time I felt this cold it was another nice money trader, a mild-mannered bank clerk. From Austria.
QoT 34

11 August 2008 at 9:40 pm

So … what about parents on the DPB because they’re going to university in order to better themselves to provide for their kids? They could certainly be working 15 hours a week instead of lazing around getting higher education. Why should my tax dollars pay for silly girls who couldn’t use condoms to put themselves in a better position and potentially in a higher tax bracket thus giving more back to the Government that supported them and offer more opportunities for their kids? HUH? Answer me THAT, fellow-lefties!
RedLogix 35

11 August 2008 at 9:47 pm

If this is the yard stick then the labour government has failed every year it has been in office. Ha Ha Ha

Really you have no connection to reality do you? Are you capable of reading simple numbers?

Are you aware that Unemployment is at a record low, down from in excess of 130,000 in the 90’s to about 17,000 today? That is getting down to a level that is commonly regarded at pretty much an irreducible minimum in today’s economies. The sad fact is that there are some people (often the victims of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or a mental illness, or a genetic disorder) who really cannot find useful employment.

Are you aware that when pressed Key himself admitted on Checkpoint tonight that only about 5600 of those on a Sickness Benefit MIGHT be targetted by this policy, and that the number who MIGHT be moved into the workforce would be quote “on the margins”. When pressed again, all he could repeat was quote “hard to tell”.

Even you great god Key admits the policy means stuff all in reality.

Key meant there needs to be more people willing to supply their labour to increase capacity in the labour market.

What Key really means is that with effective unemployment more or less at zero already, the problem is that his support base,the employers, don’t have the leverage they like to have in the job marketplace and are telling him he needs to lower the PRICE at which people will work.

The best way to do this is debase the welfare system and the minimum wage.
Savage 36

11 August 2008 at 9:47 pm

There is a section of NZ society that is poor and becoming poorer. The lack of well paid manual labour jobs due to a decline in manufacturing coupled with rising living costs is a real problem for all New Zealanders.

I see a lot of finger pointing but no solutions from the National supporters in this thread. It makes me feel abjectly hopeless when the partisan politics being played out between our two main political parties infects the collective minds of citizens.

I have spent time collecting the dole and it isn’t really fun at all. People want hope not charity. People want real jobs that pay real wages rather than going cap in hand to paper-shuffling social service bureaucrats to receive little more than a pittance.
dad4justice 37

11 August 2008 at 9:54 pm

Didn’t Sue Bradford advocate the removal of the biological fathers’ names on birth certificates?

What a thicko bunch the kiwi’s are , eats – roots and leaves !!!
Quoth the Raven 38

11 August 2008 at 9:56 pm

lemsip – You don’t know what you’re talking about. I was talking about something Key said last year. It wasn’t in relation to this policy.
RedLogix 39

11 August 2008 at 10:00 pm

BDTR,

Oh yes, the old, ‘let the families look after them’ misdirection.

In fact almost all functional families who have sick or disabled members provide the very best they can OUT OF LOVE AND COMPASSION. It’s not especially germane to a blog discussion, but let me assure you that my own experience of this is both intimate and profound. It is an ongoing reality in my life that is one of the reasons why I am a socialist.

But not all the sick or disabled, or plain unemployable have families who can assist them. I can do my best for my child and my brother, but tax or no tax, there are those who cannot do the same for theirs. If your before tax income is around the median, no amount of tax cutting will make any difference in that respect.

But I don’t know why I bother BDTR, your final characterisation of everyone who is on some form of benefit as ‘loosers’ is despicable. I know that word is bandied around blogs a lot and has lost much of it’s meaning, but I have until just now refrained from using it.
Better Dead Than Red 40

11 August 2008 at 10:02 pm

“Chilling, CMR? Oh yes. Last time I felt this cold it was another nice money trader, a mild-mannered bank clerk. From Austria.”

Hah hah- National Socialist Worker’s Party- see anything close to home there sonny?

Another socialist who became another totalitarian murderer- they have done it throughout history and they do it all over the world today- Castro, Chavez, Adolf, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot- all your boys AK. Around 100 million deaths by some estimates. Stop trying to stiff people with your pathetic tired old commie rhetoric. The game was up on that kind of hollow bullshit five years ago.
dad4justice 41

11 August 2008 at 10:03 pm

Maybe some solo mums can’t remember the dad’s name ?
Multiple unknown fathers = mum rolling in the cash.

Edit – Better Dead Than Red , I do like that name , do keep up the splendid work.
RedLogix 42

11 August 2008 at 10:06 pm

BDTR,

Despicable. You have just employed the oldest and most morally bankrupt argument that has been routinely used by ignoramus’s and trolls on thousands of usenet and blog threads since the day the internet was born. (And I’ve been on it since 1994.)
lemsip 43

11 August 2008 at 10:09 pm

“Are you aware that Unemployment is at a record low, down from in “excess of 130,000 in the 90’s to about 17,000 today? That is getting down to a level that is commonly regarded at pretty much an irreducible minimum in today’s economies. The sad fact is that there are some people (often the victims of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or a mental illness, or a genetic disorder) who really cannot find useful employment.”

Are you retarded Red Logix? Full employment means just that – no unemployment. Your reference to “some people” as you like to call them is disingenuous. If they are unemployable for mental or physical health reasons they should be on a sickness or invalids benefit. The government has failed. Boo freaking hoo. Its just political spin anyway.

“You don’t know what you’re talking about. I was talking about something Key said last year.”

What a comeback Raven. You out flanked me there. Go have a Red Bull Ha Ha Ha
Better Dead Than Red 44

11 August 2008 at 10:10 pm

“But I don’t know why I bother BDTR, your final characterisation of everyone who is on some form of benefit as â€˜loosers’ is despicable.”

Singapore gets by just fine without it. (and its “losers”- only one o) Nobody up there needs to create that sort of mentality in the citizenry. They have enough foresight to know that it is a process that will eventually bring poverty to all.
dad4justice 45

11 August 2008 at 10:12 pm

Froth the Avon – No, have a blue bottle and wash it down with a Red Bull and caustic acid.

Edit – please spell erectly – thunk pooh.
Bat Cave shut down.
Better Dead Than Red 46

11 August 2008 at 10:14 pm

“Despicable. You have just employed the oldest and most morally bankrupt argument that has been routinely used by ignoramus’s and trolls on thousands of usenet and blog threads since the day the internet was born.”

Nope. That was AK with his infantile reference to JK as AH.
lemsip 47

11 August 2008 at 10:15 pm

Come on REd invoke the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment – that nice neoliberal slogan of the 1990’s. You know the dim dark days when the High Priests of Neoliberalism ruled New Zealand. They had the gall to suggest there would always be some level of unemployment. Of course the lefties just said that was right wing spin designed to keep people poor…
Savage 48

11 August 2008 at 10:17 pm

Better Dead Than Red. That’s just boring. Tired. Pointless.

Try having an original thought. Repeating other peoples thoughts and turning them into personal attacks makes you look silly and childish.

Be original. Do you really have an understanding of the political and social relevance of the names you mentioned?
killinginthenameof 49

11 August 2008 at 10:18 pm

dad4justice
August 11, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Didn’t Sue Bradford advocate the removal of the biological fathers’ names on birth certificates?

What a thicko bunch the kiwi’s are , eats – roots and leaves !!!

How about you post up a link to a reliable source to prove it or we will start making allegations about your possible night time barn yard exploits.
RedLogix 50

11 August 2008 at 10:19 pm

lemsip,

Quoting you above:

“This government beleives in a full employment economy.’

If this is the yard stick then the labour government has failed every year it has been in office. Ha Ha Ha

It is manifestly impossible in the modern economy to have absolutely zero unemployment. For two reasons:

1. Jobs tend to be more short term than in previous generations; which inevitably means a certain level of people ‘in between jobs’ ie short-term unemployed.. regardless of any other policy settings.

2. Employers require higher levels of literacy and numeracy than in previous generations. It is a simple hard reality in life that ‘some people’ will fall between the cracks, they are not readily employable, and do not readily fall into the sickness category either.

At about 3-4% unemployment NZ sits at almost the very top of the OECD ladder by this measure. This level of unemployment is generally regarded as pretty much an irreducible minimum.

Effectively full employment.
dad4justice 51

11 August 2008 at 10:21 pm

Goodnight and don’t let the red bed bugs bite.
Better Dead Than Red 52

11 August 2008 at 10:23 pm

“That’s just boring. Tired. Pointless.”

..and this is what??

“Last time I felt this cold it was another nice money trader, a mild-mannered bank clerk. From Austria.”

Get some objectivity pal.
Better Dead Than Red 53

11 August 2008 at 10:31 pm

“At about 3-4% unemployment NZ sits at almost the very top of the OECD ladder by this measure.”

Unless those workers are actually producing something, it’s a meaningless statistic. Stuffing government with regulators is hardly going to make NZ a productive country. Ask yourself why our standard of living is in steady decline. I’ll tell you. Because you, in your lust for power, have ripped the heart from this country. You have raised a generation or two who are good little lemming like socialists, but have no real idea of how important it is to be productive and globally competitive.
RedLogix 54

11 August 2008 at 10:31 pm

Singapore gets by just fine without it.

Two seconds googling: Singapore poverty

http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/poverty.html

THERE IS THIS MYTH THAT Singapore is a rich country and its citizens are well-taken care of. Nothing could be further from the truth. The 1998 United Nations Human Development Index showed that Singapore ranked 28 on the list behind countries like Barbados and Malta.

Sure the place looks clean and tidy on the surface. When I was there I for three months I took the time to poke around the back streets, the shabby tenemants and most repellent of all the conditions in which the ‘immigrant labour’, mostly single men from India, lived and worked.

In fact they go to considerable trouble to keep this side of Singapore from the view of the casual tourist.
Savage 55

11 August 2008 at 10:32 pm

Objectivity. I’m objective. Convince me of your point of view. Please link Pol Pot , Stalin and Hitler to the argument at hand.

How do I obtain objectivity? Are you objective? Can you please explain how you became so?
RedLogix 56

11 August 2008 at 10:33 pm

BDTR

Ask yourself why our standard of living is in steady decline. I’ll tell you.

It’s not. I’ve never been better off. Sorry if your experience is different. Are you some kind of looser?
Quoth the Raven 57

11 August 2008 at 10:38 pm

Froth the Avon – No, have a blue bottle and wash it down with a Red Bull and caustic acid.

You can keep your Rimbaud’s and Lautreamont’s we’ve got dad4justice. Brilliant.
dad4justice 58

11 August 2008 at 10:38 pm

I think the biggest losers are the kiwi children trapped in poverty.
Well done privileged politicians – give yourselves another pay rise you useless lumps of lard!

Shut down this time, and do listen to my broadcast too the world tomorrow on Dads on Air.

Over and out , off to bed with my solo blow up lady.
Better Dead Than Red 59

11 August 2008 at 10:39 pm

All completely off the point Redillogix. Who the hell cares about clean and tidy?? We’re talking about welfare for chrissake. What’s the Singapore gummint’s expenditure on welfare and how does it compare to NZ? What’s the average wage in Singapore and how does it compare with NZ? Whats the productivity of NZ and how does it compare to Singapore? Look at the CIA Fact Book and you’ll see. Singapore has generated a culture of independence and self sufficiency among its citizens, and this is a policy that has brought it from an insignificant small economy third world island to a global economic player. While NZ under the influence of the welfare addicted socialists, has gradually slipped back. Fact.
Better Dead Than Red 60

11 August 2008 at 10:42 pm

“Please link Pol Pot , Stalin and Hitler to the argument at hand.”

Why don’t you ask your mate AK that question? Are you retarded or what?
Quoth the Raven 61

11 August 2008 at 10:43 pm

What’s the Sweden gummit’s expenditure on welfare and how does it compare with NZ? What’s the average wage in Denmark and how does it compare with NZ? What’s the productivity of NZ and how does it compare with Norway?
Better Dead Than Red 62

11 August 2008 at 10:44 pm

“I’ve never been better off”

One of the nomenklatura no doubt. The real workers see it differently, as the polls show so clearly.
RedLogix 63

11 August 2008 at 10:45 pm

I think the biggest losers are the kiwi children trapped in poverty.

And almost ALL of them are the children of single parents on the DPB.

Mothers AND fathers.

The DPB is set a miserable and ungenerous level, that reflects the miserable and ungenerous attitudes displayed on this thread, the same streak of meanness that John Key was tapping into today.

The fact is that these kids are our future, the same kids who will be the taxpayers who support US in our old age. Some will escape their poverty, but the hard numbers tell us that many will not, that poverty in childhood is the single best predictor for underperformance as an adult.

Our failure to look after these kids will haunt us when we in OUR turn have become dependent on THEM.
Savage 64

11 August 2008 at 10:45 pm

Comparing a city state in the middle of Asia that sits upon one of the busiest trade routes in the world to New Zealand is really quite pointless.

What is the alternative to welfare? I’d like to hear some ideas. Let them starve? Put them in camps? Liquidate them?

Who is AK? No I’m not retarded but thanks for asking.
Better Dead Than Red 65

11 August 2008 at 10:47 pm

What?s the Sweden gummit?s expenditure on welfare and how does it compare with NZ? What?s the average wage in Denmark and how does it compare with NZ? What?s the productivity of NZ and how does it compare with Norway?

OK, so oyu can’t answer my question.

As for yours, only an idiot would try and pass off socialism as the reason for oil rich Norway’s wealth.
Quoth the Raven 66

11 August 2008 at 10:48 pm

Interesting that you’re talking about Stalin and Hitler etc and you want to compare NZ to a country without a functioning democracy and with compulsory military service.
Better Dead Than Red 67

11 August 2008 at 10:50 pm

“What is the alternative to welfare?”

Look, I don’t have all night to bandy words here with retards. The point is Singapore DOES NOT NEED WELFARE. Welfare is a mind set encouraged by socialism. That is my point. For chrissake.
RedLogix 68

11 August 2008 at 10:52 pm

One of the nomenklatura no doubt.

No. I have worked almost all my life in the private sector, either for one of two global corporates (hence my overseas work experience) or as a self-employed contractor.

Right now I am doing this thread in between coding automation logic and optimisation for a major water treatment system on a major city bulk water supply rebuild. For this I am well paid, and along my other sources of income puts my in the top 5% or so of taxpayers.

If there is one thing blogging should teach you BDTR, is that it is absolutely unsafe to make assumptions about who you are talking to.
Savage 69

11 August 2008 at 10:52 pm

Singapore – Where you receive a public beating for graffiti, $1,000 fines for littering and where the state employs people to check that that you flushed the toilet in public lavatories.

This is a country to aspire to? Sounds like you have a big boner for state control there buddy.

So no ideas there then BDTR. You could make it in the National Party.
Better Dead Than Red 70

11 August 2008 at 10:53 pm

“Who is AK? No I?m not retarded but thanks for asking”

You are retarded. Look back up the thread.
Better Dead Than Red 71

11 August 2008 at 10:57 pm

“If there is one thing blogging should teach you BDTR, is that it is absolutely unsafe to make assumptions about who you are talking to.”

I don’t see that you have at all disproved my “assumption”. You can still quite easily qualify as nomenklatura. Its all about state sponsored favouritism.
RedLogix 72

11 August 2008 at 10:58 pm

The point is Singapore DOES NOT NEED WELFARE.

Didn’t even look at the link I provided above did you? In absolute denial of the truth aren’t we. The fact is that appalling poverty DOES EXIST in Singapore, but it gets well hidden.

Besides, poverty and homelessness in a hot country is one thing… it is a wholly more brutal thing in a cold damp one.

Because without some form of safety net, that is the reality… people dying in the streets and back roads of cold, hunger and illness.
Quoth the Raven 73

11 August 2008 at 10:59 pm

I’ll just rip a bit from wikipedia:
Although Singapore’s laws are inherited from British and British Indian laws, including many elements of English common law, the PAP has also consistently rejected liberal democratic values, which it typifies as Western and states there should not be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution to a democracy. There are no jury trials. Laws restricting the freedom of speech are justified by claims that they are intended to prohibit speech that may breed ill will or cause disharmony within Singapore’s multiracial, multi-religious society. For example, in September 2005, three bloggers were convicted of sedition for posting racist remarks targeting minorities.[27] Some offences can lead to heavy fines or caning and there are laws which allow capital punishment in Singapore for first-degree murder and drug trafficking. Amnesty International has criticised Singapore for having “possibly the highest execution rate in the world” per capita.[28] The Singapore government argues that there is no international consensus on the appropriateness of the death penalty and that Singapore has the sovereign right to determine its own judicial system and impose capital punishment for the most serious crimes
Savage 74

11 August 2008 at 11:00 pm

Ah I see now. Sorry. I’m a late comer to this thread.

Calling people retarded is a bit schoolyard don’t you think?

What’s next – Dickhead? Loser? Tosser?

I’m trying to enrichen this debate BDTR – please work with me.

Lets see how many times you can say nomenklatura in a thread.
Better Dead Than Red 75

11 August 2008 at 11:07 pm

“I?m trying to enrichen this debate BDTR – please work with me.”

You’re just wasting my time. You haven’t even read the thread for chrissakes. You’re a retard. Go away.

As for all of the other fevered commentary on Singapore. Its off the point. We are talking welfare here, and my thesis is that Singapore does not need it because the mindset that creates that need does not exist there. Argue that point or STFU.
RedLogix 76

11 August 2008 at 11:09 pm

This is a country to aspire to? Sounds like you have a big boner for state control there buddy.

Duh!!!

How the hell did I miss it? The logical inconsistency of a ‘low tax, small govt, conservative’ like BDTR using a country like Singapore as some kind of an example is hilarious.

Let’s see if he switches over to Dubai as some kind of low tax nirvana next. I’ve never worked there, but one of my close colleauges has for many years.
Better Dead Than Red 77

11 August 2008 at 11:11 pm

“Didn?t even look at the link I provided above did you?”

Usually I don’t but I did this time. Its just partisan rubbish for chrissakes. Why would any intelligent person suggest such a politically biased link?? That’s why I hardly ever bother with the links of leftists. They’re mostly always worthless.
Better Dead Than Red 78

11 August 2008 at 11:13 pm

“How the hell did I miss it? ”

Maybe the same way you’re continually missing my main and only point. I can only guess at poor comprehension skills.

Oh hell, I’m bored with this shit. You people are utterly hopeless with your desperate obfuscation. Night night.

[lprent: Actually I’d say that you expressed my feelings about your contribution pretty precisely. It was boring reading that same old variation range of comments over and over again. But I’m sure you can do better…]
RedLogix 79

11 August 2008 at 11:14 pm

We are talking welfare here, and my thesis is that Singapore does not need it because the mindset that creates that need does not exist there. Argue that point or STFU.

I have. But you ignore the data I provided. Poverty DOES exist in Singapore. It’s just that their mindset prefers to ignore it. Maybe you would fit in very well there.

And of course arguing one aspect of a country in isolation, and out of context of the rest of their political/economic system is futile. You yourself linked the oil wealth of Norway into the welfare argument somewhere up above. Even you know this is true.
r0b 80

11 August 2008 at 11:21 pm

We are talking welfare here, and my thesis is that Singapore does not need it because the mindset that creates that need does not exist there. Argue that point or STFU.

http://yoursdp.org/index.php/truth-about/poverty-in-singapore

An elderly woman in her seventies was fatally run over by a hit-and-run driver as she was returning home at 6:40 am, working as a night-shift toilet cleaner. Not only did the elderly lady have to toil in the night shift, her pay was so meagre that she could not even afford to eat lunch. To top it off she had to save to help take care of her 50-year old mentally retarded daughter.

BDTR approves of this, because Singapore doesn’t need welfare.

Another septuagenarian woman worked as cleaner for a measly US$200 a month which she had to share with her 70-year-old sister. The sisters are so hard-up that even vegetables during meal-times are a luxury.

BDTR approves of this, because Singapore doesn’t need welfare.

A 77-year-old toilet cleaner was on his way home around midnight after work. He couldn’t afford the fare for a bus ride and had to walk home. He was hit and killed by a car.

BDTR approves of this, because Singapore doesn’t need welfare.

A 96-year-old woman has to go to the garbage dump to pick out odds and ends to sell to support herself.

BDTR approves of this, because Singapore doesn’t need welfare.

A 76-year-old man ran a little business selling household provisions. His paltry income had to support middle-aged daughters who are wheelchair bound and suffering from polio since birth, and a wife who is senile and incapable of looking after herself. His problems took a dramatic turn for the worse when the Government upped the rental of his shop from US$150 to US$450 a month.

BDTR approves of this, because Singapore doesn’t need welfare.

In 1999, nearly 2,000 children did not attend school because their parents could not afford it. Mohammad Hirwan is one such child. His parents earn about US $600 a month, hardly sufficient for a family in Singapore. As a result the boy’s parents had to take him out of school when he was nine. His siblings did not fare any better. All of them dropped out of school because of poverty.

BDTR approves of this, because Singapore doesn’t need welfare.

The reason why the poor in Singapore are not more visible is that the Ministry of Community Development and Sports conduct frequent raids through its Destitute Persons Service, looking for and picking up vagrants. If Singapore seems to have less destitute, it is not because the numbers are not present. The real reason is that the PAP Government is just much more efficient in clearing the streets of homeless people.

BDTR approves of this, because Singapore doesn’t need welfare.

Good night BDTR. Sleep well, if you can.
RedLogix 81

11 August 2008 at 11:23 pm

Maybe the same way you’re continually missing my main and only point.

What you really mean is that yes I got your one and only point about 20 posts ago, and disproved the basic idea that there was no poverty in Singapore in seconds.

As a rule most Asian countries have weak or non-existent welfare systems. This is not unique to Singapore. Whether they NEED a welfare system or not is a wholly unaswerable question in our terms. That is a question for them to answer.

The Western model is based on a rather different set of premises and values. Something around the inherent moral equality and dignity of all human life. Since I judge it wrong to have to dodge people dying of cold, hunger and illness in a bitter southerly while I drive home from work in my nice warm car… in my value system I determine that I do need a welfare system.

I note however that when Asians arrive in New Zealand and they find themselves eligble for welfare, they seem to have few inhibitions about availing themselves of it. So I guess even they can feel the NEED when it arises.
Savage 82

11 August 2008 at 11:25 pm

BDTR is like a blind man talking about colour.
killinginthenameof 83

12 August 2008 at 12:03 am

And oh what an embarrassment to him it is that Ayn Rand was a woman, its so ironic, of all the ideologies (sorry BDTR that’s what it is, don’t pull out the “logically consistent series of independent beliefs” line), that one of the most bigoted and misogynist, happened to have been kick started by a women.
Ari 84

12 August 2008 at 2:52 am

So what about parents on the DPB because they’re going to university in order to better themselves to provide for their kids? They could certainly be working 15 hours a week instead of lazing around getting higher education. Why should my tax dollars pay for silly girls who couldn’t use condoms to put themselves in a better position and potentially in a higher tax bracket thus giving more back to the Government that supported them and offer more opportunities for their kids? HUH? Answer me THAT, fellow-lefties!

Hey QoT- while I’m not exactly a fan of this policy, it bears pointing out that National does consider training or education to count towards its 15-hour work requirements.

(Personally speaking, I would’ve thought I better way to get people out of benefits would be to cut down the penalties for part-time or seasonal employment rather than simply cut off their benefits if they don’t. Carrot before the stick and all that)

What’s ridiculous is that even if this is a problem, it’s not a very big one. John Key is proposing to get something like a thousand people into paid employment, and in doing so is greatly increasing the load on government employees- who he isn’t going to hire any more of…

Yeah, I can see that going well 😛
dad4justice 85

12 August 2008 at 8:17 am

Ari – how many falsely accused fathers (solo dad) do you know on the invalids benefit due to the stress involved in 200 Court appearances?

What else would I expect from a dysfunctional – feminized – corrupt justice system. What about the children you bastard judges.

Proud to be a kiwi – yeah right !!!!
monkey-boy 86

12 August 2008 at 8:37 am

The left seem to think we are on the edge of civilisation’s decay, and that National will push us over. You have to have a heart of stone to hear their lamentations without smiling. (To paraphrase Oscar W.) This is about the kind of leadership we want from government.

National is educating the electorate that alternatives can be discussed and even implemented. One of the central weaknesses of Labour’s policy is that it appears keen to rest on the status quo, and rely on peoples’ fear of change as their justification for doing so. This is not leadership, it is arrogance.
National on the other hand are content to chip away at the herd-like paranoia which so benefits Labour, and propose (here’s an idea!) that running the country can be achieved with an accountable set of ideas at the helm.
The knee-jerk response is typified by the phrase â€˜taking the stick’ to benficiaries, redolent of a mind-set that dogwhistles the idea of dawn raids on sleeping mothers, tearing them from the arms of their loved ones, and putting them on a chain gang, or something.
The reality of this kind of policy is that it will see a widening of the tertiary education provison as providers step into the gap provided, and parents are referred to literacy and in-work training to make them ready to join the workforce.
Like the ninety-day probationary period, which as DPF rightly points out, is common in developed nations, and is not, as the left would have us believe, an attempt to ‘steal workers rights’ from under them, this welfare policy will not be about â€˜chain-gangs’. Or, â€˜forcing people off the benefit’. Rather it will enable WINZ to effectively refer people into the workplace and into education, with the blessing of a leadership which is guided by an ethical principle, rather than a leadership which is guided by a desire to keep people frightened and suppressed in a low-espectation, low-ambition form of state-tyranny.
So, which kind of leadership would you prefer?
randal 87

12 August 2008 at 9:03 am

no moneky boy…the right just like to push people around for fun. you betcha. whats the point of being a politician? if the economy is at capacity then how will it accomodate solo mums and sickness beneficiarys. the best thing they could do is alter the 15 hours a week to 16 hours a week so then a beneficary could work two full days instead of 1 and 7/8ths of a day. at the moment for all the rhetoric it is just a system for bullying people around with no real goals or aims whatsoever and built in flagellation for those unfortunate enough to find themselves on the unemplyment roll or memebers of the reserve army of the unemployed.
dad4justice 88

12 August 2008 at 9:05 am

“whats the point of being a politician?”

So you can leech a living randal.
r0b 89

12 August 2008 at 9:13 am

National is educating the electorate

At least they’re putting some policy out there publicly, which is a good development. But it is the opposite of the “visionary” kind of spin you’re trying to put on it. In every case (except the poorly thought out boradband spend up) it is harking back to the past.

Liberal leftie governments are always the forces of change and progress in the world, and conservative right wing ones, by their very name, nature and tradition, are parties of the status quo.

So, which kind of leadership would you prefer?

The genuine forward looking kind. Planning decades ahead, socially reforming, environmentally aware. In short, Labour’s kind, thanks.
Matthew Pilott 90

12 August 2008 at 11:25 am

RedLogix, 12 points for persistence – most would have given up a long time ago!

Just like to point out that Key reckons we should be more like Singapore. Man, looks better ev’ry day, dunnit?

Monkey-boy: “One of the central weaknesses of Labour’s policy is that it appears keen to rest on the status quo,”

You’re forgetting that benefit numbers have dropped quite substantially as of late. Have you ever thought that such policies as subsidised doctors’ visits (healthy enough to learn, and to work), free childcare (time to learn and work), modern apprenticeships (training) and enhancements to WINZ (getting people into work where possible, without compulsion) actually do exactly what you want, without something such at the Nats policy?

I don’t think you see it, monkey-boy, that this policy is a sham to make National look tough, when all it will do is put a little compulsion and inflexibility in the system, add a layer of bureaucracy that National purports to detest, and provide very little in the way of benefit.

Labour’s way is actually working. You just don’t see it. Maybe their thinking is too lateral for you, but let me say this – to get people off benefits, you don’t change the benefit system – you change what gets people onto it, and what keeps people on it.

The ‘knee-jerk’ is exactly what National propose.

I certainly know what kind of leadership I prefer – one that works, and doesn’t seek to profit off the most ugly aspects of the NZ psyche.
monkey-boy 91

12 August 2008 at 12:34 pm

I think the last Labour election mantra was ‘Don’t put it all at risk’ if that isn’t a plea for the status quo then what is? Even the present campaign of fear which is being waged (here) about the mere thought of National getting elected, is a more polished version of that meme.
This is where you are showing your paranoias – Matthew when you say it’s a policy ‘designed to make National look tough’. That is predicated on the idea that now they have released a ‘policy’ it isn’t a real ‘policy’ just a pretend policy, perhaps.
I think that what you are failing to see is that, like the probationary period proposal, the National Party is actually leaking nay drip-feeding- the electorate ideas that for the present government are too heretical to even utter.
And the people’ are finding that they agree, by and large.
The thing is, that perhaps outside of the blog-environment, many people would see these proposals as just reasonable.
I honestly don’t expect you to see any merit in Key’s proposals, but I do invite yu to step outside of the paranoid-political mentality if you are to really give Key a run for his money, because he is starting to make Labour appear anachronisticps I don;t think he is particularly visionary, it is just that he is talking what many see as ‘common sense’ and it does tend to make even a dullard like Key appear like an intellectual with vision, when the rest of the pack are busily screeching yesterday’s mantras to an audience who are clearly tired of what they’ve been hearing.
Matthew Pilott 92

12 August 2008 at 1:03 pm

“I think the last Labour election mantra was â€˜Don’t put it all at risk’ if that isn’t a plea for the status quo then what is? ”

How simplistic. What if the status quo is an effective programme of change?

“This is where you are showing your paranoias – Matthew when you say it’s a policy â€˜designed to make National look tough’. That is predicated on the idea that now they have released a â€˜policy’ it isn’t a real â€˜policy’ just a pretend policy, perhaps.”

How is that so? I never said, nor do I suspect it’s a pretend policy. In what way would a policy that is not real (whatever that means) make National look any more tough than a real policy? As always, you’re going off into incomprehensible tangents that make any meaningful discourse difficult.

“I think that what you are failing to see is that, like the probationary period proposal, the National Party is actually leaking nay drip-feeding- the electorate ideas that for the present government are too heretical to even utter.”

I can see it, quite clearly. It’s also knows as dressing mutton like lamb, or a wolf in sheep’s clothing. As I explained above, I don’t think there is a need for such a policy, so why does it need to be uttered? The status quo, a policy platform that is working, and changing New Zealand for the better, is doing the job better than this policy could.

Heretical is the wrong word. You’re implying that they are inherently good ideas, that the current establishment is trying to suppress without just reason. That says to me that you can’t think for yourself and only like ideas because “that nice Mr Key” says them, or because other countries are doing it (as if that’s a good measure), or because the idea is popular. Either of the three is simply a crude mob-mentality reaction.

“I honestly don’t expect you to see any merit in Key’s proposals, ”

I suppose that’s because you think I will dismiss it out of hand, instead of making a considered judgement that the alternative is better? It is a possibility, you know. Please, try it.

“but I do invite you to step outside of the paranoid-political mentality if you are to really give Key a run for his money, because he is starting to make Labour appear anachronisticps I don;t think he is particularly visionary, it is just that he is talking what many see as â€˜common sense’ and it does tend to make even a dullard like Key appear like an intellectual with vision, when the rest of the pack are busily screeching yesterday’s mantras to an audience who are clearly tired of what they’ve been hearing.”

What paraniod political mentality – I just gave you quite a good reason above as to hy I don’t like the idea, and why I think that what we have is doing a better job. That’s not paranoid, you’re actually just making things up to sound clever.

You see, I don’t care if ‘many’ people see this as common sense, or if it makes Key seem an ‘intellectual with vision’. I’m not many people. I would not pride to be part of a knee-jerk reactionary mob mentality. I am fully capable of assessing the merits of different ideas presented to me and choosing one I see as best. People might like the idea of the “bludgers going back to work” but that doesn’t make this the best way by default as you are pretending.

You have failed to even attempt to show why this is better than the status quo, which is very telling… All you can muster is a pathetic ‘people seem to like it’. So what?!

I’m going to assume you have intact knee caps. Are you happy with the status quo of your knee caps? What if john Key said he wasn’t? And, say, people seemed to ‘like the idea’ of a change in your knee caps? Would you have to have a paranoid-political mentality to see the problem?

The only mantras of yesterday are coming from the national party – what is ‘new and visionary’ in this announcement? Either you’re making things up, or have limited participation in and knowledge of New Zealand political history.
Ben R 93

12 August 2008 at 3:27 pm

From macdoctor blog…

“Judith Collins has repeatedly claimed that people are moving off unemployment benefits onto sickness benefits, partially accounting for the drop in unemployment beneficiaries. In an excellent post today, Jafapete demonstrates that this does not appear to be happening. Sickness benefit statistics are doing what you would expect them to do – rise with the increase in population. I’m sure he is correct. I have never bought in to Judith’s argument. I suspect that unemployment closely follows our economic outlook and has little to do with our social policy.

Having said that, Judith is right that something is not right with the number and spread of people on sickness benefits.

…..

The real reason that all GPs blithely sign sickness benefit forms, even though we know they may not be genuine, is that we don’t know that they are not genuine, we only suspect. For most of the suspicious cases, you would need a number of investigations, or a specialist opinion to confirm your suspicion. Your patient will either refuse to go, or make appointments with the specialist and then simply not attend. And there is no way you can force them.

File under “too hard’. Sign the form.

The only way this can stop is if you compel sickness beneficiaries to have an annual (or six monthly) medical with an independent doctor, preferably a specialist. This is not only good politics, it is actually good medicine, as specialist review of long-term illness is good clinical practice. Frankly, I don’t see this as being unpopular with sickness beneficiaries, apart from the ones milking the system. The majority of them would love to get better and go back to work, if they could.”

http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/?p=84
Amnion 94

12 August 2008 at 10:33 pm

DPB mums are an easy target.

Neither party seems to want to taget young people “on a course”

The unemployed aren’t hidden on sickness benefits. They are hidden on low quality ‘courses’ up and down the country. We pay for their bums on seats and off the streets learning absolutely nothing.

Kids on ‘courses’ come into my office every day, wanting me to write some note of excuse about why they havent been turning up, but should keep getting the money. ‘Computer courses’ where they play cards all day and learn nothing at all.

Thats what both parties should address. But neither is interested in increasing the truly unemployed stats.
Amnion 95

12 August 2008 at 10:39 pm

As for sickness benefits, lots of people have obtained them for spurious reasons in the past and never got off of them. Many GPs inherit these people and take months or years working out there isnt really anything wrong with them. Especially when seen int he sharp relief of patients they do have missing limbs, or with cancer, or pralysis or needing wheelchairs who DO work.

They do have to see the GP every 3 months to have the form signed. I would have thought GPs should actually address their health or lack of it, at those meetings- rather than just signing the form.

What is MUCH harder is the unemployable, not really sick, but not actually employable and never likely to get any kind of job. So they say they have a sore shoulder or back and hide out on the SB rather than the dole, because the dole is a nuisance, makes you get up in the morning and do ‘courses’. And if you are 63, and cant work as a labourer anymore, or 55 an immigrant with no English and no skills and unlikely to get them, and no role in this society – well SB is easier than the alternatives.

In the end for some ‘sickness’ it is their word against your findings. Add to that the main part of GPs role is to make relationships with people, not accuse or medicalise them with certificates of unfitness when they really arent. Doctors arent detectives. They do get a feel for the real sick and the turn up every 3 months to sign the forms sick.

We need another benefit, the Unemployable Benefit.
Draco TB 96

12 August 2008 at 10:46 pm

Haven’t been following this thread so excuse me if this has been posted before:

http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com/2008/08/get-those-sole-parents-working.html

And the work will have to be just in term time. Kids do need to be supervised in school holidays, or otherwise, as Blogger on the Cast Iron Balcony Helen so fetchingly puts it, they will end up building meth-labs in the back yard. It will probably take a bit of legislation or maybe incentives for employers to make this happen too, so that might be another dead rat that National needs to swallow, given that traditionally, they’re all about “keeping government out of business” and “leaving people free to make their own decisions” and “cutting compliance costs for businesses.”
Draco TB 97

12 August 2008 at 10:47 pm

Take it I’m SPAM blocked.

[lprent: yep. Try a test for me – next time do it with the
<a href=’url’>My Title</a>
I believe that fixes the problem. If it does then I can probably do something about it (I hope).
I can’t test easily. For some reason the system never refuses me….]
burt 98

12 August 2008 at 11:29 pm

lprent

It works for me that way, every time.

[lprent: Yeah that is what I think happens. If you put a ‘raw’ link in, then you get the spam checker periodically and frequently. Link with a anchor and it works without problems. That is what Tev meant when she said ‘clean’ links – didn’t click.]
Draco TB 99

12 August 2008 at 11:33 pm

Is it simple humanity to perpetrate a system that is premised on the needs of one being an automatic claim on the assets of another?

No it’s not CMR but that’s why I support the elimination of capitalism.
Draco TB 100

13 August 2008 at 12:58 am

lprent: yep. Try a test for me – next time do it with the
My Title
I believe that fixes the problem.

I’ve done it that way and been caught as well. From my end it looks kinda random which probably means it has something to do with the algorithm.

I’ll try this one as a test.
Draco TB 101

13 August 2008 at 12:58 am

Not caught that time

[lprent: Try doing that way for a while. I’ll keep an eye on the queue between coding. If it is at that level I’ll find some time to put in a code fix. Otherwise try logging in. That is meant to get rid of the problem entirely. rOb is usually logged in (thats how he gets the grey eminence background) and he doesn’t get caught in that trap at all despite the numbers of links he posts. ]
r0b 102

13 August 2008 at 3:44 pm

rOb is usually logged in thats how he gets the grey eminence background) and he doesn’t get caught in that trap at all despite the numbers of links he posts.

I do get caught (when using links) in some kind of moderation occasionally Lynn, sometimes even for just one link. Not very often, but it does happen.

[lprent: I stand corrected. I wonder what it is deciding on. ]
r0b 103

13 August 2008 at 8:42 pm

Lynn

My statement above might not be correct. Are there two separate processes, moderation and spam trap?

(1) Earlier this evening I got caught in moderation (for quoting the word “M*u*ppet”) – after submission the comment appeared on the page with a yellow label “your comment is awaiting moderation”. That hasn’t happened to me for ages, in fact it had been so long I’d forgotten all about this process.

(2) The posts that I mentioned in my previous comment are ones that have simply disappeared without trace at the time of submission (no feedback of any kind), but appear on the page maybe 1/2 an hour later. So I’m guessing now that is a separate spam trap process?

Anyway, the occasions that I mentioned in my previous comment are examples of (2) not (1).
Matt Middleton 104

4 September 2008 at 6:32 pm

– you know how Cmr dosen’t like paying for the unemployed and mentally ill and stuff…well like…what else does his/her tax dollars go to…like those really useful frigates and stuff?? um..what is ‘corporate welfare?’ hey, you know politicians incomes,, how is that payed for again? Hey, you know how 1 in 3 people in NZ have some form of mental illness…thats their fault eh, like, everyone is completely rational and make cost/benefit decisions all the time and the market is how the world works eh
Matt Middleton 105

5 September 2008 at 7:28 am

you know corporations..like, the things they do, like,,to the environment and the people who work for them,,,they’re like much more worthy than those unemployed people eh. Those unemployed/sickness benefit people are really damaging the environment.
And – those people when they get the dole – they keep it all right?
Yeah, they buy assets with their savings. Or,, no, i heard it goes to the landlords and electricity compaines and supermsrket chains.