Nats’ dismal record on jobs and benefits

20 comments on “Nats’ dismal record on jobs and benefits ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Kruk 1

   29 November 2009 at 2:07 pm

   I was in my late teens, and just starting to take notice of politics when National was last in power. I remember the benefit cuts that were aimed at taking money away from those who had very little to begin with, and the people who were labelled as bludgers when they asked for help from the system they had paid into. I pretty much decided then and there I was never voting for any party that had such mean-spiritedness in it. So far, the Nats have done nothing to win back my vote.
2. JD 2

   29 November 2009 at 3:07 pm

   “Over all beneficiary numbers have increased over 19% in just one year under National.”

   I was under the impression that there was a global recession going on. Could that have something to do with the increase in unemployed?

   “If they were serious about reducing benefit numbers they would be pursuing a full employment policy”

   Correct, they could increase the bicycle track to four lanes and then force the unemployed to construct it with their bare hands thereby ’employing’ them. Is that the kind of solution you’d want.

   This post is idiotic really. I expect more from the standard in terms of writing quality of its contributors.
   • Akldnut 2.1

     29 November 2009 at 3:27 pm

     JD you clown, the recession wouldn’t explain 13% growth in sickness beneficiaries
   • Marty G 2.2

     29 November 2009 at 4:58 pm

     “Correct, they could increase the bicycle track to four lanes and then force the unemployed to construct it with their bare hands thereby ‘employing’ them. Is that the kind of solution you’d want. ”

     jd. you need to learn some history. FDR is the States and the first Labour government here undertook a number number of public works programmes that created good work for the unemployed and infrastructure that we still benefit from today.

     Today, we need a Green New Deal – government-led construction of green infrastructure using workers that capitalism has suddenly found surplus to requirements.
3. Tim Ellis 3

   29 November 2009 at 4:35 pm

   There must be a reason for this, other than Mrs Bennett wanting to put more people on welfare. Let’s see. I wonder what that might be.

   Global recession, anyone?
   • Marty G 3.1

     29 November 2009 at 4:55 pm

     Of course there’s a global recession Tim. But how does that explain the number of people on sickness benefits going up over 13% in a year of National government?

     And the point on unemployment is that National has done nothing to protect jobs. There was always going to be an increase in unemployment but the government ought to act to minimise it. Instead they’ve done nothing.

     captcha: blame
   • BLiP 3.2

     29 November 2009 at 4:58 pm

     There must be a reason for this . . . I wonder what that might be

     Wonder no more.
   • Craig Glen Eden 3.3

     29 November 2009 at 5:04 pm

     Oh yes Tim “global recession” that National have done nothing to address here in NZ, face it this lot has no bloody clue, no recession in Australia Buddy.

     What is the big difference Tim? I will tell you because you probably wont be able to work it out, and it is not minerals TIM, Labour in Australia had a stimulus package, mean while Nat MPS in NZ are busy working on their trusts and preparing for sale anything they think they can get away with selling.

     Oh and the sickness benefit numbers why are they going up under National TIM.
     Let me guess the recession. National are are a do nothing Government when it comes to doing any thing to help its people (the tax payer ) to busy passing on frebbies to its mates. But its all good the clown continues with clown shit and his mates prepare to move in,National are a disgrace. Bennett continues to straight out lie about creating 4000 jobs for you people, but not to worry lets not let the facts get in the way of a PR story aye.
   • sk 3.4

     29 November 2009 at 6:54 pm

     So Tim, what happens of the global market sell-off last week is signalling the start of a double-dip recession? National and JK could blame 2009 on the global recession, but what about 2010? If slump extends, then it is up to the Government to respond. But from what I hear, all they are thinking of is a tightening in fiscal policy in 2010.

     Now, that will make 2010 interesting.
4. Macro 4

   29 November 2009 at 4:50 pm

   Have you ever wondered Tim what might be the cause for the global recession? And who might be responsible? I’ll give you a clue – most of the policies are now entrenched in NZ economics, and some of the the main actors are in NZ, and they are almost all unaffected by it. Indeed they scream for more of the same! Unthinking idiots.
   • Kruk 4.1

     29 November 2009 at 5:18 pm

     Actually, I don’t think they’re idiots at all. Recessions are great if you’re monied up. Property at knockdown prices, people desperate to hold on to work, lots of opportunities to cut “wastefull” spending lilke benefits, health services, legal aid (you just know that’s being set up to be cut down- don’t want the poor and the dark getting the idea they can have their day in court.)
5. JD 5

   29 November 2009 at 6:07 pm

   “Today, we need a Green New Deal government-led construction of green infrastructure using workers that capitalism has suddenly found surplus to requirements.”

   What is ‘green infrastructure’? Specifically.
6. Jared 6

   29 November 2009 at 6:34 pm

   How about a trend analysis for 2008 showing the increase in beneficiaries month by month. The government can only stem the flow so much, it can’t enact a foolproof system that heals the economy without having the money to do it, we just dont, as per any small country. An economic realignment in the job market due to a decrease in demand and sales as a part of recessionary behaviour can hardly be blamed on the government. The rhetoric for blaming Labour is running dry, but to be fair, in Labours nine years it didn’t experience a recession like we have/are experiencing now.

   It was just by chance that National was elected when the full brunt of the recession was bearing down on the country, and to be fair, the world. In that respect you cannot blame National. If employers aren’t hiring, apart from subsidising positions, what can you do? And even then, subsidising jobs in a labour market where normally their job wouldn’t be needed and demand isn’t around is inefficient and creates a glut of jobs and expectations of continued subsidies when the market does bounce back. A “full employment policy” is nice, but not when we can’t really afford it.
   • felix 6.1

     29 November 2009 at 7:45 pm

     All true but all avoiding the point – why have sickness and invalids benefit numbers increased so much under National?
     • fizzleplug 6.1.1

       30 November 2009 at 2:02 pm

       do they pay better than the dole? I know that a lot of people are moving onto ACC with “injuries” when their building work dries up as it pays better than the dole.
   • Marty G 6.2

     29 November 2009 at 8:48 pm

     “A “full employment policy’ is nice, but not when we can’t really afford it.”

     I don’t think we can afford to have people unemployed. Consider the tax paid by an ordinary person, (median wage is approx 41K, so tax paid is approx $7,500 per annum). That’s lost when they lose their jobs plus the fact that about 40% (off the top of my head) of unemployed people go on the dole at a cost of $12,000 a year.

     $7,500 + 0.4*12,000 = $12,300 – as a rought rule of thumb, when 1,000 people lose their jobs it costs the government $12.5 million. Since its low point about 20 months ago, joblessness has jumped by 100,000. That makes unemployment a billion dollar cost to the government.

     and that’s just the financial cost. How much does each additional crime cost the government and wider society? Crime moves in near on lock-step with unemployment. More police time, more court cases, more people locked up at a cost of $200 a day.

     Unemployment is expensive. It’s worth spending money to avoid it. And there are a massive range of things the government could be employing people to do – just check out the Green’s Green New Deal.
7. Akldnut 7

   29 November 2009 at 7:27 pm

   That’s a no-brainer Jared, STIMULUS PACKAGE not a cut back in services or creating more unemployed.

   For each person they make unemployed, they have another person in the dole queue that they are still paying, so the reported savings would be nowhere near what they claim.
   • Jared 7.1

     29 November 2009 at 8:28 pm

     I wasn’t insinuating a cutback in services, I was addressing the cost of a stimulus and its affordability. A stimulus package is all well and good if you can afford it, id like to see some potential costings, but I doubt we could afford it, even when you take into account the money spent on benefits. If the graphing is correct then the slide seems to have begun well before the election, hardly fair to make National shoulder all the blame.
8. A Nonny Moose 8

   30 November 2009 at 1:08 pm

   This is the type of policy making I’ve been trying to explain to conservative peers – long term Labour education and welfare policies should start seeing fruition now…if Nat didn’t start hacking at them the moment they step into office. Nat’s all very “shut the gate after the horse has bolted” throw money at the symptoms. I get very tired of the “but Labour did nothing in their time but make pansies out of our kids” – trying to explain the Long Term view gets tedious to the knee jerk conservative “easy fix its”.

Links to post

1. Daniel Arlt: posted on 29 November 2009 at 6:35 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS