- Date published:
7:00 am, July 29th, 2019 - 249 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
"The world fertility rate has halved in half a century to 2.4 children per woman. That is approaching stable replacement levels. We have already reached “peak child”, and peak population will follow. Even consumption may have its limits. Many Western economies have reached “peak stuff”. We no longer consume more and more basic resources each year. We pollute less, too."
Some good news to start the day. Fred Pearce has long been an excellent environmental writer, better than Monbiot and all his books I've acquired have been very timely. He's a perceptive person. I'm quoting from his review here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2127929-a-population-paradox-could-help-us-outrun-our-doom/
"A British-born particle physicist, West came to public attention a couple of decades ago when he introduced power laws to biology. He showed how, despite hundreds of millions of years of evolution that ought to have maximised complexity, all life seemed spookily similar. The “most complex and diverse phenomenon in the universe” obeyed a series of simple rules predictable from network theory."
"The first part of this book is a brilliant exposition of those intellectual forays into biology and urban metabolisms. The second part digs in deeper, by asking what all this surprising order amid complexity means for humanity and the planet in the Anthropocene. Do West’s scale laws doom us, or might there be a path to a “sustainable future”?"
"I headed breathlessly for the final pages – reading ever faster, as seemed appropriate – to see how he would resolve the cliffhanger. The final chapter offers the “vision of a grand unified theory of sustainability”. It asks the right question: “Can we return to an analog of a more ‘ecological’ phase from which we evolved… a no-growth, stable configuration?” In other words, can cities, as the great centres of “exponential innovation”, deliver the eco-sustainability changes that are our only way out? Can cities become not the problem but the solution?"
Fred is disappointed at the conclusion, but at least the scientist is trying to achieve big-picture relevance. A sign of the times. Scientific culture has been ivory-tower elitism combined with tunnel-vision focus on specialisation. Good to see a scientist venturing toward relevance – we need all the help we can get.
Yes, that's very good, Dennis. Fred Pearce wrote "The New Wild: Why Invasive Species Will Be Nature's Salvation", one of my favourite books to cite when talking plants, especially with friends who work for DoC, regional councils or iwi
Oh god its been a long time coming, but hallelujah , the ideology is shifting…incrementally , but getting there.
Thanks for the New Wild book ..on my list
Yes Robert "Weeds" may be our salvation. After all, for many years herbs were the realm witches.
"Or perhaps the defusing of the population bomb and our changing sensibilities about the idea of unending economic growth will alter societies in ways that transcend his power laws. "
I think it already is and will be the critical factor. Once a significant percentage of humanity "gets" that, the rest will feel the change and effortlessly ease the rate of population increase, the imperative will come through our hive mind, rather than the media, imo.
But Robert. What will happen to our livelihood should economic growth be stopped or even reversed? We must grow. We must at all cost!
Unlimited growth, eh! Forests have unlimited growth, don't they? That's a good thing, right? Well, at least, the limits of growth are natural ones; if only we could model our economy on forests. If our wastes could feed our neighbours and their us, we'd be sweet. Given that "livelihood" means, "means of support", perhaps we could be as vines and use forests that way.
Have you read Phillip Mann? In one of his books his loved female partner evolved into a tree, and he climbed up and lived in her branches, acting as concierge for her, tidying her leaves and brushing her bark and keeping her healthy. A real tree-hugger.
Hi Grey – I haven't but would like to: what's that particular title, do you know? He sounds very interesting.
I can't put my hand on the particular book at present. I have to sort out my books, partly through them. But he writes about change and alien beings and though I am not too sure i like fantasy yet he stretches my mind. And I was impressed that he lives in NZ and writes from here, though he does have a place in France I think.
Amazing what some people will do for…brush.
Discussion on forestry,the wastelands forced in deforested areas of europe and the
middle east.The ramifications for climate in NZ and the creation of conservation lands on various scales 150 years ago.
A sisterine of mine once had the T-shirt. Emblazoned on the front was:
OMG! I forgot to have kids!
Quite progressive I thought – at the time (3 decades or more ago). As things have come to pass, moi kuds a her kuds and it's one of those 'win-win' situations.
She didn't have the pain of childbirth; or the inconvenience of stirrups or banana milkshake cravings at 3am in the morning; or all that inconvenient bonding shit the likes of OT are now disrupting. Strangely enough, I think she still feels like she's a full woman. And I had the benefit of knowing that if shit came to shove, they'd be well looked after, as well as not having to treat them as possessions beolonging to the great "I"
Looks like a forced confession. I wonder if there was a lamp shining in her eyes?
Any particular evidence that it was a "forced confession", as after reading a few other articles on it, it looks like she just lied.
People do this some times
Even some women
While I don't disagree…
… when a journalist writes "voluntarily recanted during questioning just after midnight" I begin to wonder what the journalist was meaning to convey.
The facts are the woman recanted – what additional meaning are they alluding to by adding "voluntarily", "during questioning" and "after midnight".
The just after midnight bit is a bit dodge.
Didn't involve a 'prominent New Zealander' with a 'glittering future' did it?
what about it looks like a forced confession? There’s nothing in the article which would lead anyone to that conclusion.
Muttonbird would not have said that except the teens were Israeli.
what did you bring up kids and Israel for ….. they kill kids
Would that be the Apartheid state of Israel displaying its racism?
…. Sabine has addressed your other creepy attitudes very well, and to which I can only add ….. you were not there.
Your racism is showing again.
Read on the subject and there is plenty including photographic evidence that her side of the store was a lie.
Hope she she goes to jail for the same period a rapist would. Or in this case 12 x what a rapist would – since she is happy to lie and try and ruin lives.
well according to this rapist…..nothing
or this reduce sentence?
or this guy? He served 11 years of a 35-year sentence and was deported when released on bail last year, with Australian authorities arresting him when he returned to Brisbane.
or this guy here who raped a 5 year old and is now out on parole 🙂
what should she get? Cause non of these guys got enough. Because a lot of rapists the world over get nothing.
it sounds like as if she agreed to have sex with a few of the guys (or was loaned out by her 'boyfriend') consentually, and then more joined ….and all that fun stopped being fun.
This case would fall under the category of 'can one rescind consent'? And sadly, as she learned, that no you can't.
Maybe if we would actually learn to differentiate as to what rape is as per the law book – aka forced penetration of any of the orifices with the use of a penis or any other tool vs sexual assault – which is a bit broader.
But yes i would assume that she was told that if she consented to have sex with three guys surely she would not have mind if they suddenly started running a train on her. Cause after all its all the same, right. and surely she would have known what to expect?
But yeah, i like the voluntarily…..after midnight.
what about the guy who has photographic evidence he was elsewhere ?
Hope this woman is held accountable for her actions of false claims
80 years ago today
I remember some doozies growing up in Southland in the 1970-80's. Snow falling on already frozen ground was not much fun at all. The car park at my primary school was like a skating rink.
And this very warm and dry winter in the south may be about to change
Heavy snow warning for Wednesday, we'll see what happens, it was supposed to be pissing down today but nothing happened
“Over in the Primary Production breakout, Muller's political mettle was being put to the test by full blown climate change denial from certain party members.
Muller deftly empathised with the members' challenge, while subtly distancing himself from their denialist position.
It's understood many members were rankled with the platform given to climate change denial, but the episode underlined the challenges within National on the issue.”
This one cracked me up:
Yes they are conservative, but the main thing they want to conserve is the raping of the environment for economic gain.
So cynical, solkta
I think what many from the Right want to conserve is the status quo where they maintain their position in the world, one they and their parents and grandparents (possibly) forged by hard work). How that was done and why they were able to do it is where we "non-conservatives" differ in opinion.
Typo. They believe in conversation.
Oh. Conversation = Conservatism = Conservation (Or fancy words for stalling.)
Conservation = Conservatism. Wow!
Stretch the word further? Conswervatism path signpost pointing off-centre and far to the right.
OOOOHHHH I just saw the photo of Paula Bennett in that Stuff article above
Head to toe leopard skin
I was wondering if anybody had noticed 😉
Don’t worry, it is not real leopard skin and just for (the) show.
worse not good
Stephen Fry explains some important points about health and what it will mean if the Far-Age (latest version of the New Age ie more far-out) get Britain into the USA health system domination, with whips. Boris and Trump's Deadliest Trick.
Crikey Grey. Incredible USA blindness re Universal Healthcare. And in NZ do you think that it was possible that National had been squeezing our Healthcare System which would boost the attractiveness of Private Insurance?
Policy steering mass market purchasing. The cash cow lobbyists ride. I wrestle with feeling like a hypocrite. It's great to see our cig smoking tumble, largely driven by a year on year hefty escalating tax. My Mum used to pick up a carton of Cameo with the weekly groceries, these days it would add $300 to the bill.
I wonder if NZ would buy into an escalating rise in the cost to register an oil burning vehicle? The "No" side seems to be fueled by "You'll make it tough on those with little money, tradesmen and farmers."
I think we'd see people making money by reconditioning the batteries in high mileage Leafs and flogging them on Trademe for $3000. We'll see electric 4WD utes getting sold to farmers by not waking the family, birds and dog and silently driving over an oil burner Hi Lux.
Well people can get to work without cigarettes.
Well it was a leaky situation, we have always found it efficient and useful to get some of the procedures done through using private providers, and some people like the better service and quicker access of their private medical insurance. But it seems that government still are trying to run health on an efficiency drive, with an austerity view, and bringing it into the same line of a profit-driven model.
Private enterprise was blatant here and there. The CEO of one DHB was part of/had set up, a business that was supplying goods and/or services to the horspital.
It seems an expected behaviour that private enterprise afficionados try to scam the stupid, slothful, wasteful government, thus proving that it can and is being done. A real vicious circle that afficionados of good government need to be aware of.
Can't give you sources to the above – but they happened. As for the austerity drive I think Southland is an example. It's unreasonable funding on a population basis is totally unfitted for a big sparsely populated area that is prone to harsh weather, making travelling long distances hazardous.
@ianmac. Respectfully, have you been living in a cave?
And you'd be surprised at how many Public Servants working for the Ministry of Health transition with surprising ease into the private health and disability services sector. Worse still, some of them transition back into the Ministry. I think the term is 'revolving door'.
@greywarshark I enjoyed watching that. Beggars belief that any elected representative of one country would even flirt with the notion of allowing another country to dictate terms on such a fundamental issue. Great to see some fake news headlines debunked with such authority.
Following Bridges' latest pitch to the faithful I googled John Key/herceptin and came across this very interesting article from an NBR publication. Unfortunately I couldn't find the date but it is clear from the article that Andrew Little was still leader of the opposition.
Pharmacy does brilliant service to this country – it is a pity to see it being politicised yet again. Of course the counter argument to Bridges is to ask why his suggestions did not happen when he was in power and several commentators have already seized on this. If he was hoping to get some "bounce" out of the announcement then I think he has "shot his bolt" far too early. Key's trump card was played very shortly before the 2008 election.
Here's the date Marcus 🙂
Sat, 05 Mar 2016
Can I say something about Simon's speech
'You may have heard the incredible story of Tracey Elliott. Tracey is well known to some of you here today. Tracey was diagnosed with stage four breast cancer in April 2014. The doctors told her she had 12 days to live. She did everything she could to fight it.
She started on Herceptin, had 60 rounds of chemotherapy and over 20 radiation treatments.
She defied the odds and won. But then it came back. She then went on a drug called Tykerb, which cost her $2300 every month she was on it.
It worked – and the cancer disappeared. But just this year, the tumours came back. This time though it was in her brain and surgery wasn’t an option. Her entire frontal lobe was a tumour.
She was told there was only one drug that would work. It’s called Kadcyla and it costs her and her family $9000 every three weeks. It’s fully funded in the UK and Australia. Over the past five years her treatment has cost her and her husband Troy over $500,000"
So in 4 years she has had 3 "wonder drugs" none of which got rid of the cancer all while she was undergoing additional radiation and standard chemotherapy. None of the super expensive drugs got rid of the cancer and she still underwent standard radiotherapy so how can she be the poster girl for expensive drugs working? Because she has taken new therapy’s alongside existing therapy’s it is not possible to prove which was responsible for shrinking the tumour. The cancer has now gone to her brain and her husband is a full time care person. I know the human instinct is to survive and so there are millions of snake oil salesmen in the cancer treatment business. These drugs have failed her and her quest to keep taking the drug that obviously isn't working is not a failure of our health system it's a failure of her doctors to give her proper care.
maybe he considers her a 'poster child' because of this
I would be very wary of drawing conclusions from a single case – which is why the industry's tactic of using them is so harmful to public understanding.
As far as I can tell from the comment, the drugs did not fail her; she did show an initial response that was not durable and she relapsed. I wrote about this yesterday, i.e. that progression-free survival does not always mean overall survival.
There are a number of possible reason for this but one of the most likely ones is tumour heterogeneity that can lead to treatment resistance.
I also disagree that her doctors had failed to give her proper care. Doctors do what they can with the tools they have available. Again, it seems that they did the right things but for a number of reasons it did not lead to a cure.
As I wrote yesterday, the model is wrong to administer enormously expensive drugs to patients when there is only a chance of a durable clinical outcome. Nobody wants to buy a product that has a small chance of fully working or working at all, for example, although it can be caveat emptor. I don’t think it is good enough!
Simon Bridges repeating history with the same discredited crap Key talked about ten years ago.
These promises stand out with their audacity
In 2008, John Key said;
“We will be unrelenting in our quest to lift our economic growth rate and raise wage rates”
Simon Bridges said;
“A strong economy means confident thriving businesses that create more jobs and increase incomes.”
In 2008, John Key said;
“Why can’t our hardworking kids afford to buy their own house?”
Simon Bridges said;
“A housing market that builds houses.
The alternative reality of the National party and its donors.
Richard Kempthorne announced recently that he is not standing again for mayor of Tasman District – he was a staunch advocate for the Waimea dam scheme which eventually got the go ahead despite stanch opposition.
Guess what he's going to be doing now? CEO of the Waimea dam company. I'm sure it's all a big coincidence.
Thanks for that information, Matiri.
Any links for that claim. Its often one of those things they do , but no evidence that that has happened. Yes the Council sometimes appoints members as directors, but only when they are still on Council
As far as I can see they have a recent CEO , someone with building experience
Fork… no bloody wonder.
Glad we will be getting a new mayor this year, however dodgy Tim King is standing, he's part of the problem, been on the council for 18 years and is/was Kempthornes right hand man.
Any comment about the mayoral fund Tim? I didn't think so…. dodgy dealings.
Someone has to keep council's end of the deal going..
More like to keep his end of the deal lucrative…shocking state of affairs that situation is, will be glad when the light of day shines upon it for all to see.
It's been interesting this dam.
Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones has called Tasman District councillors who voted down the $100 million Waimea Dam "political mannequins" and said ratepayers will be under "enormous stress" to fund future water supplies.
The $105.9 million Waimea dam project is go.
After a lively six-hour meeting on Friday, Tasman district councillors voted 9-5 to proceed with the controversial proposal to construct a 53m concrete-faced rockfill dam in the Lee Valley, near Nelson. The council will have a joint-venture partner in the project – Waimea Irrigators Ltd (WIL). A council-controlled organisation, Waimea Water Ltd, will deliver it. Five of Waimea Water's seven directors have already been appointed.
Mayor Richard Kempthorne, deputy mayor Tim King along with Crs Sue Brown, Stuart Bryant, Paul Hawkes, Kit Maling, David Ogilvie, Paul Sangster and Trevor Tuffnell voted yes while Crs Peter Canton, Mark Greening, Dean McNamara, Anne Turley and Dana Wensley voted against.
The decision came after an extended public forum where 17 people presented their views either for or against the project. A discussion lasting almost three hours followed between the councillors.
27/7/2019 https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/local-body-elections/114190173/key-issues-facing-the-next-tasman-district-council – Details about rates, finance.
Richard Kempthorne at work on important future stuff:
Liam Hehir explains why the Nats are ok: "Jacinda Ardern is very good at what the historian Daniel J Boorstin called “psuedo-events”. These are happenings that generally lack real news value but which are designed to be dramatic looking and to catch the government’s attention."
Uh, she stages them to capture the govt's attention?? Sorry, I shouldn't be expecting rightists to make sense. Not when they are also lawyers.
"The concept has been around since the 1960s but, in the age of social media vitality, they’ve come to dominate how political news is covered. No amount of artifice, however, can cover up for a lack of substance forever. This government came into the world as an incoherent amalgam of social democrats, nationalist, eco-socialists, reactionaries and the super-woke. Those contradictions aren’t going anywhere."
"For a time, these cracks could be papered over by reference to innumerable working groups. But as working group after working group reports back with policy prescriptions that are just non-starters, the government’s essential paralysis only becomes more apparent." https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/29-07-2019/nationals-path-to-victory-in-2020/
Strangely, the govt doesn't actually seem paralyzed. Somewhat stop-start, like an auto that jerks when back-firing, is the general impression I get. And that's the worst of it, balanced by periods of delivery of policies and legislation. Can't really see Liam's wishful thinking being much help to the Nats at this stage.
The irony of former /current National party activist Hehir saying all that after 8 years of the 'performance politician ' Key is noted.
Nationals first 3 years , had a a mad Act caucus with Hide to Roger Douglas and Garrett , the Maori party which included Hone Harawira and bow tied serial party hopper Dunne.
Yet Hehir says now about the current Government -"Those contradictions aren’t going anywhere."
Welcome to MMP Hehir, and Key government lasted 9 years
"Somewhat stop-start, like an auto that jerks when back-firing, is the general impression I get…" "…balanced by periods of delivery of policies and legislation".
That's a very good description IMHO, Dennis. The problem is that much of that policy was/is ill conceived and failing. Some of the most important indicators of well-being in our country are getting worse under this government, and when economists such as Cameron Bagrie start talking openly about recession ("The Government's got to tidy their act up and really start to show the ability to execute. This is the 'year of delivery' – well, the year of delivery is not going too well." https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2019/07/economist-warns-we-re-driving-towards-a-recession.html) there really is cause for concern.
Dunno Shadrach, seems to me that's all about perception rather than reality. My comment on the Embark 2019 page was to his subtext. I don't get why economists expect govt to be the nursemaid of business. What happened to the idea that business just needs govt to get out of the way??
"The number one thing to blame is a lack of capacity – businesses just "cannot get the skilled staff"." And why is that govt's fault? Report doesn't explain. Logic missing. What happened to the notion of supply & demand? Pay enough, people apply for jobs. Where I would agree with the right is that we keep getting evidence that unemployed people refuse to travel to the available jobs.
But skills? Nah, can't blame the govt for that. I got trained on plenty of jobs in my working life, employed on attitude despite lack of relevant skills. Whinging employers too lazy to do the right thing don't impress me!
I hear where you're coming from however we have had interventionist governments who have, to a large extent, created that environment. For example, your point about skills training. The tertiary education sector is heavily invested with government intervention, yet fails to meet the needs of the market. Government investment in tertiary education should be directly to vocational training only, because it is government who benefits most (by lower benefit payments and higher taxation receipts) when skills and jobs are adequately matched. I also agree with you about the unemployed and mobility. This is a real issue that has changed significantly in the past generation. My parents travelled across the world for greater opportunities, and certainly were prepared to relocate within NZ for work when things got tough.
The tertiary education sector is heavily invested with government intervention, yet fails to meet the needs of the market.
That has puzzled me for some years now. Key's lot didn't solve the problem. Current lot show no sign of doing so. I don't get the point of taxpayer money funding educational orgs that ain't fit for purpose…
It isn't always the organisations themselves. The organisations will offer what government funds. At a tertiary level, that funding should be vocationally targeted, and the work around establishing those targets that should be a joint venture between business and government. We do this well in some areas, not so well in others.
Makes sense to me. Have you had any active experience in politics? I found that my views shifted considerably during & after I did it. One learns to see things from the point of view of other stakeholders plenty more than as an observer/commentator.
I take a significant interest in politics, but only as an observer. I am more active when I see a worthwhile cause.
What is the purpose of educational orgs?
Fishing for a lengthy philosophical dissertation, huh?
Okay, I'll bite, & try to be brief! Shortest answer: to service the economy. That seems to be the one rightists are most likely to default to. I prefer preparing children for adult life, but I was born with a natural default to idealism. I'm well aware the system just pretends to do that.
So the real answer, incorporating the 19th century design of the system, is to serve the interests of the establishment. As in vested interests, powers that be, residual patriarchy, & its class system & cadre of judges & lawyers that defend it, etc…
Depends on the level of education.
Up to secondary level, education should be about establishing the fundamentals of learning and enquiry, and developing an understanding of our responsibilities to one another. In some places this is done well, in others, it is abysmal.
At tertiary level, government funded education should only be vocational. It should be seen as an investment by government, business and individuals.
Vocational? Which courses would you invest in then, given that most future jobs will involve creativity like fashion, research, design, storytelling, business innovation, etc. Most lawyers and accountants and commerce drones are replaceable by AI.
I agree. Vocational means relating to an occupation or employment. There is some very clever work being done on the future of work (and not by Grant Robertson and his drones).
Lord save us from jerks who think education needs to reflect what employers think they'll want tomorrow. All to often it's based on what they want today.
Private education is like private healthcare: the objective isn't to educate (or heal), the objective is to make as much money from the process as possible.
Additionally, the idea of projecting employment needs is bloody stupid. We need the few percent of random specialisations in case that random requirement eventuates. And if it doesn't, a degree that doesn't suck up to current employers actually teaches people how to apply their skills laterally, anyway. Diversity encourages success by defeating groupthink and, frankly, unoriginality. The team's understanding of the situation is more broad.
Diversity encourages success by defeating groupthink and, frankly, unoriginality. The team's understanding of the situation is more broad.
Yeah, let's have lots more of that mix.
I'm referring to tertiary education, as I made clear. Tertiary education is incredibly expensive. If you want diversity, let the people taking non vocational training at a tertiary level pay for it themselves.
I also made it clear this is not about what business thinks they want. Decisions around what is offered and to whom needs to be a joint effort between government and business, because both benefit from getting it right.
Nah, bollocks to that. Making "non vocational" education 100% user pays restricts it to the upper classes, and we end up with entitled fucks like bojo or dolt45 in charge.
And the entire point of the few-percent specialisations (maybe that one person in the country who read Ancient Greek, Māori, and economics as part of their degree, or physicists with engineering qualifications specialising in niche power generation) is that while the chances are that their skillset helps their employer in a more abstract manner (which is in itself an economic benefit to the country), if there happens to be a need for that particular mix in a direct manner then we can satisfy it immediately.
And that's ignoring the idea of whether the non-capitalist community and personal benefits of an education should be restricted to the upper classes. Which is the inevitable outcome of the vacuously-titled "user pays" system.
Funding non-vocational tertiary education diverts funds from investment in vocational education. That is just one reason it should be entirely user pays.
Some would argue that the industries that require these future workers should invest in the training of said workers. That is perhaps, a more accurate user-pays system.
No, vocational education is underfunded because the government refuses to fund it (and every other damned thing) adequately. Because taxing the people who benefit most from the systemic inequality of capitalism is not acceptable to those who benefit most from the systemic inequality of capitalism, and so they fund "think tanks" and media campaigns in order to persuade the rest of the population that being more poor is a good thing.
"Some would argue that the industries that require these future workers should invest in the training of said workers. That is perhaps, a more accurate user-pays system."
They do now, either directly or via taxes. But the government, and society broadly, benefits from a trained workforce, with less call on benefits, higher tax take and a generally higher standard of living.
"No, vocational education is underfunded… "
That is a totally subjective view. The reality is there are many different ways of allocating the tax take, but if you give more to one source, you take from another. There is a way to live within the current allocation. Make non-vocational courses user pays.
I absolutely don't trust you, anyone else, to know what is vocational and what isn't. So please eff off and leave the young to rummage freely in the treasure trove of their history and culture. And pay your taxes on the way out.
"I absolutely don't trust you, anyone else, to know what is vocational and what isn't."
I really don't give a toss. But you can look it up in the dictionary of you like.
"So please eff off and leave the young to rummage freely in the treasure trove of their history and culture."
Happy to…providing they’re paying.
If you mean underfunding is subjective, then so is whether funding one thing does "take from" vocational funding. You wouldn't want to overfund anything, either. That would be inefficient.
If you mean that the underfunding being the result of refusing to tax the beneficiaries of capitalism in proportion to the benefit they receive from that unequal system, what rate do millionaires pay tax at compared to people on say twice the average (mean) wage? That isn’t subjective, it’s math.
And your assertion "There is a way to live within the current allocation." is baseless. It's just a repetition of your neoliberal catechism.
I seem to have mnissed the bit where you also demonstrated that "user pays" doesn't restrict the benefits of higher education to those who can afford to pay.
"If you mean underfunding is subjective, then so is whether funding one thing does "take from" vocational funding. "
Rubbish. Asserting that education is underfunded is simply your opinion about competing interests. But the idea that spending more of a scare resource on one thing leads to spending less on another is an objective reality.
"And your assertion "There is a way to live within the current allocation." is baseless."
That's your opinion. But you'd be wrong. Living within budget parameters is a part of everyday life. Or did you not pick up that particular gem of learning?
"I seem to have mnissed the bit where you also demonstrated that "user pays" doesn't restrict the benefits of higher education to those who can afford to pay."
Vocational education is being funded now. Nothing changes. User pays would only apply to non-vocational education, so that the rest of us don't pay for someone else's pet hobby. Of course those people could always convince someone to sponsor their pet project. In the meantime, the money saved could be diverted to more investment in vocational education.
No, that's a slide. You're talking about spending less on another specific thing (vocational training), If that specific thing is already being adequately funded, any extra funding allegedly freed up by user pays would be wasteful.
But you haven't based that assertion on anything. It's just a profession of faith.
The credit indurty and bankruptcies suggest your opinion is overly optimistic. Not to mention benefit rates and the minimum wage being less than a living wage.
Then it doesn't need extra funding from your system, does it.
Unless that hobby is carpentry. Or masonry. Or flying. Or electrical engineering.
In fact, if I get laid off at my profession, my backup plan is to go to polytech to study my current evening class hobby, using my hobby outputs as the basis of my portfolio for an apprenticeship.
And if I pick up another job in my current field (having studied for the quals for my current role while working in my previous industry), so what. The other will stay as my hobby, not my new career.
That's the other stupid thing about your hand-wavy solutions: you have no idea what subjects are "hobbies" for some people and "vocational training" for others. Are most pols degrees hobbies? What about for politicians or comms people – those used their pols degrees as vocational training. Law students: vocational. Except someone who just wanted to do legal history for fun. What if someone wanted to be a lawyer when they left school, but discovered a love of English Lit or Pacific studies, so changed their major? The law was vocational, but turned out to be a hobby?
You really have no idea.
"No, that's a slide. "
No, it's reality. Which you were never closely connected to.
"If that specific thing is already being adequately funded, any extra funding allegedly freed up by user pays would be wasteful."
Why? Why couldn't we apply that to other forms of education?
"Then it doesn't need extra funding from your system, does it."
It may not 'need' it, but why not invest anyway?
"In fact, if I get laid off at my profession, my backup plan is to go to polytech to study my current evening class hobby, using my hobby outputs as the basis of my portfolio for an apprenticeship."
If you pursue your hobby with the intention of it becoming your vocation, then that is vocational. In fact that happens with many people. My son's hobby was cooking. He became a chef.
If something is already funded adequately (not "underfunded"), then additional funding is just wasteful.
Why would you throw more money at it? It has adequate funding to do the job.
And your idea that people should pay for "hobby" courses but not "vocational" courses is impractical – if I train with the intent of it being a vocation, fine. What if I take the same course with the intent of it being a hobby? Should I pay if I tick the "hobby" box but not the "vocational" box? What if I tick the "vocational" box but don't get a job in the industry – do I get a bill? what if I take it as a hobby but end up employed in the industry – do I get a refund?
"If something is already funded adequately (not "underfunded"), then additional funding is just wasteful."
You forget that we could invest the additional funding into other education. We could, for example, fund more private providers, who do a far better job.
"Why would you throw more money at it? It has adequate funding to do the job."
Who's suggesting we 'throw money' at anything?
"What if I take the same course with the intent of it being a hobby?"
Then it isn't a vocation, is it? It's actually quite simple. When my son decided to make his hobby a vocation, the funding of his education could simply have been related to the need to train more Chef's. If, on the other hand, his hobby had been badgering journalists into not asking awkward questions, he would have had to convince the funders that at the end of his education he would get a job with Jacinda Ardern.
…at taking money off people and providing little in return. But of course you're sliding, because you wanted to throw more money at vocational education but now you just want to throw it at PTEs.
You are, given the fact that you're flailing around with what to do with money allegedly freed up by "user pays".
So now govt funding is dependent on whether the prospective student ticks the "I want a job from this" box rather than the "I'm just looking for a hobby" box? Well, that system can't be gamed at all, lol
“…at taking money off people and providing little in return.”
No, at actually educating people.
Nope. Never even hinted at it.
“So now govt funding is dependent on whether the prospective student ticks the "I want a job from this" box rather than the "I'm just looking for a hobby" box? “
Government funding is dependent on whether or not the hobby will actually lead to a real job. In the vast majority of cases that will be easy to determine. And given that you are a Green supporter, I just love the reference to ‘gaming’ the system. MT anyone?
I guess you got your vocational training from Trump University 🙄
We've gone from "user pays frees up money for vocational training" through "vocational training is adequately funded" into "we should take money from public institutions and give it to PTEs because PTEs are better at providing vocational education even though it's already adequately funded at the moment", and now you're hand-waving about how the government will know who is taking a course to get a career and who is taking the same course out of interest's sake.
And you've consistently ignored any suggestion that education might have a public worth beyond any economic benefit to the individual concerned or their eventual employer.
"And you've consistently ignored any suggestion that education might have a public worth beyond any economic benefit to the individual concerned or their eventual employer."
No I haven't. Government already hugely subsidises tertiary education for that very reason. I haven't argued at any time for that to change when it comes to education up to tertiary level, or to vocational training. What I have said is that if people want to engage their particular hobbies, let them pay for it. Or they can find someone else to. Just not on my dime.
So you don't want the government to pay for what you regard as "hobby" courses, but you don't want to change the current funding structure.
You're a moron.
"So you don't want the government to pay for what you regard as "hobby" courses, but you don't want to change the current funding structure."
Eyesight issues? Or comprehension issues?
I'm all in favour of making changes. I wouldn't fund tertiary hobby courses, for example. Havn't you been following?
So you ARE arguing that government funding to what you call "hobby" courses should be cut, despite that they might have a public worth beyond any economic benefit to the individual concerned or their eventual employer.
"So you ARE arguing that government funding to what you call "hobby" courses should be cut…"
Yes. We could discus reducing the subsidy from around 70% to 30%, perhaps not require hobby courses to be fully user pays…I'd be open to compromise, although my first instincts is towards user pays.
"…despite that they might have a public worth beyond any economic benefit to the individual concerned or their eventual employer."
If that exists, that could be recognised via a lower subsidy…as above. I would need to see the so called 'public worth' demonstrated in some tangible way. But I'm not beyond persuading to some limited funding.
My point is that government funding of tertiary education should be focused on vocational pathways. The planning for vocational learning should be a joint venture between government (and it's various offshoots) and private enterprise (both as employers and education providers).
But they're already adequately funded, so even if a course doesn't meet that criteria as defined and audited by you, why not fund it to the same level? The same course can be vocational for one person and a hobby for another. You want to introduce a whole level of bureaucracy to assess each individual claim of "vocational study"? How is that cheaper than just funding it without the rigamarole?
And so what if it's a "hobby" course? Doesn't that add to the cultural depth and diversity of our nation? Or do you want us all to wear blue overalls and serve only as "productive economic units" in a grey, industrialist dystopia?
Society is better off for having unemployed artists, and warehouse managers who have degrees in poetry. Existence isn't about production, it's about growing. The public good of public education is having an educated public, not just having a growth-maximising workforce.
"But they're already adequately funded, so even if a course doesn't meet that criteria as defined and audited by you, why not fund it to the same level?"
Because it is a waste of money.
"The same course can be vocational for one person and a hobby for another."
That won't be difficult to verify.
"Society is better off for having unemployed artists…"
If you really believe that, and there are enough of you who do, then those budding artists and poets wont have any difficulty finding benefactors.
Effective policy implementation takes more than vague handwaving like you just did.Let's say I study towards a design degree. I tick "vocational training" instead of "hobby". After my degree, I apply for a few designer jobs, but sadly don't get any, and I end up back as a pub bouncer. However, my home and the homes of my friends gradually become effortless blends of form and function. How would your system determine that I genuinely took vocational training and it didn't pan out, as opposed to I was perfectly happy as a bouncer and just wanted to work on my design hobby?
Found millions of them. It's called "people who voted for government-funded education", rather than "people who voted to reinvent the 16th-19th century system of patronage by a parasitical elite".
"Effective policy implementation takes blah blah blah…"
It is not difficult to determine whether someone has genuine vocational prospects from a course of study.
"Found millions of them. It's called "people who voted for government-funded education", rather than "people who voted to reinvent the 16th-19th century system of patronage by a parasitical elite"."
Millions of people voted on the basis of a single policy of government funding hobby courses? Chuckle.
If it's not difficult, how would your system do it?
You can't even focus on a sentence after five words if it mentions policy implementation.
"If it's not difficult, how would your system do it?"
The 'system' already has mechanisms for selection of qualifying courses for funding. These could easily be extended by consideration of future vocational needs of an economy (already a factor in some cases), the aptitude of the applicant (already a factor in some cases) etc etc. It is actually not that complicated.
Funding courses has nothing to do with the motivations of the students. No matter what course you choose to approve, some people will do it as a hobby, government funded.
You think waving your hands and saying it's not difficult is some way of avoiding the basic impracticality of your bullshit ideas. Well hey, it would be great to give everyone a mansion, it's not difficult, we already do state houses and accommodation supplements etc etc, there I just solved homelessness using the Shadrach Method of policy development.
"Funding courses has nothing to do with the motivations of the students."
What rubbish. If students didn't want to be mechanics, the government wouldn't partially fund mechanics courses.
"No matter what course you choose to approve, some people will do it as a hobby, government funded."
It would be far more difficult, particularly if the person was trying to take a course of study with no vocational prospects, or for which they were unsuited. As I said, most courses have entry criteria now, all I'm proposing is to add to those. Not a big deal at all.
But they also fund students who secretly just want to fix their car and don't care if they become a mechanic. Every course has someone who wants a career out of it (even the courses you'd love to defund because you're a fool). Napoleon had a saying that every private has a field marshal's baton in his backpack, well every art student wants to be the next Rodin, or every theatre major wants to star on Broadway.
You, and no bureaucracy, can tell the difference between them and someone who is just mucking around for fun.
Have you seen the entry criteria for most courses? NZ citizen (for funding). Age (contract validity). Heartbeat, and the literacy ability to fill in a student loan form.
Most that bring in competency restrictions do so only to progress within the course (mostly to keep dropkicks out), rather than stopping entry. I think Midwifery had an interview and essay (friend did it), but that's about the only one that had entry requirements at the start of the course. Pre-med and first year law were open entry.
Mechanic? How about automotive engineering. Looks interesting. Bugger all requirements.
More handwaving. What, exactly, are you proposing to add to "10 NCEA Level 1 literacy credits (reading and writing) and 10 NCEA Level 1 numeracy credits OR be able to demonstrate suitable knowledge and skills" that would stop the government paying for teaching me my new hobby of fixing up rusting cars in my front yard?
“But they also fund students who secretly just want to fix their car and don't care if they become a mechanic.”
For which they will incur a sizable student loan. I’m ok with that.
“You, and no bureaucracy, can tell the difference between them and someone who is just mucking around for fun.”
Well we do that now, so you don’t know what you’re talking about. And someone ‘mucking around for fun’ is going to have to complete the work, commit to attend the courses, incur the student loan, complete the paperwork….you get the idea.
“Have you seen the entry criteria for most courses?"
Yep. It can be quote demanding. So can the student loan.
“Mechanic? How about automotive engineering. Looks interesting. Bugger all requirements.”
You've only mentioned the academic requirements. Take a look at the skill requirements, the risks, the work commitment and the costs. To say nothing of the fact that it’s in Otago! I have a family member doing a mechanics apprenticeship and associated study…it’s not a hobby course. But hey it’s a good example of how criteria can be set for vocationally targeted funding. Well done!
Keep up. The student loan doesn't cover the full cost of the course. The government subsidises it.
No we don't.
So? People put a lot of work into their hobbies.
If the loan is large, the government funding is also large. But "can be quote demanding" is matched by "can be a complete joke". The course with the least demanding entry requirements was one I took from a PTE, funnily enough.
Nope. I mentioned the bit under "entry requirements". The projected skills one would need to complete the course were not part of the entry requirements. And I'm sure otago polytech isn't the only polytech to offer a level 3 automotive engineering qual, so you probably don't need to travel here. Which is good for Otago's average IQ.
And you still haven’t said how you want entry requirements to change to restrict funding from people who are just doing a course as a hobby.
“Keep up. The student loan doesn't cover the full cost of the course. The government subsidises it.”
By heaps. But keep up. It still costs the student something. In some cases, a lot.
“No we don't.”
Yep, we do. We have entry criteria now.
“So? People put a lot of work into their hobbies.”
Sure, and if we charge full cost, they’ll put even more in.
“If the loan is large, the government funding is also large.”
And so the loan is still large. Thanks.
“Nope. I mentioned the bit under "entry requirements". The projected skills one would need to complete the course were not part of the entry requirements.”
But they are, unless the person wants to waste their own time and money. And the cost is a direct requirement. And the paperwork. You seem to be making every effort to prove my point. There are already entry criteria to courses.
Regardless of whether they are doing it as a vocation or a hobby.
Which is irrelevant to the bureaucracy not currently identifying someone doing a course as a vocation or just as a hobby. You're not just sliding, you're deliberately pretending that the subject of the exchange was is different from what it actually was. For context:
You're making shit up.
And your idea that increased cost means increased effort is just another neoliberal article of faith.
And you still haven't explained how the government will determine which students will get even larger loans than their vocational classmates.
the very definition of a hobby, from the point of view of people who cannot see the appeal of that hobby. Time and money wasted for fun and interest's sake.
You seem to be making every effort to avoiding stating how your policy of identifying hobbyists would work in practise. It's almost as if you have no idea what you're talking about.
“Regardless of whether they are doing it as a vocation or a hobby.”
Yes but if it’s a hobby, the cost will be a greater impediment. When there is an income stream at the end of the study, well you know the rest, right?
“Which is irrelevant to the bureaucracy not currently identifying someone doing a course as a vocation or just as a hobby.”
That’s why the bureaucracy will.
Well, that’s what we’re discussing.
“And your idea that increased cost means increased effort is just another neoliberal article of faith”
When someone has paid their hard earned money for a course of study, it is simple human nature that they are likely to put more effort in to make the cost worthwhile. I completely understand why a socialist wouldn't be able to grasp that.
“And you still haven't explained how the government will determine which students will get even larger loans than their vocational classmates.”
The same way they determine qualifying/entry criteria now. This isn’t something new.
“You seem to be making every effort to avoiding stating how your policy of identifying hobbyists would work in practise.”
As an extension of existing criteria. We have set entry criteria in courses for a long time. It is strange you don’t know that.
You're fucking hilarious. And now you're arguing that the current government funding scheme discourages people from taking courses for fun… which is utter bullshit. Rich fucks might pay off their loans. For the alienated poor, it's just 10% tax hike for the rest of your life with a lotto-odds chance that you'll move up the socioeconomic ladder more than a rung or two.
How?! You refuse to answer in anything other than wavy hands.
It's a big if.
You do realise that for many people a student loan is just an abstract number with no practical meaning?
How? Different criteria are assessed in different ways. NCEA quals are easily verified via data matching. Same with citizenship. What government document declares that I'm wanting to study Classical Greece as a hobby rather than in the hope of getting a museum job in the future?
I think I have heard of one course that restricted entry from the start to committed, vocational students. It involved an extended student interview with an admissions panel.
I suspect that the government applying this methodology to 65,000 prospective tertiary students applying for their first year of education (not including people changing courses or enrolling for additional qualifications) would be considerably more expensive than just funding their courses.
At worst, you are suggesting pre-enrolment interviews for 400,000 students a year. Please explain how your real option would work. Without hand-waving.
"And now you're arguing that the current government funding scheme discourages people from taking courses for fun… "
Nope. Never argued that.
The rest of what you wrote is a rant. When you start arguing in circles, and your language deteriorates, I know you're scrambling.
The emphasis of tertiary education should be vocational. That should be reflected in what is funded, and that planning should be developed jointly by government and private enterprise. This is already somewhat developed in the current funding model, it would be relatively easy to implement.
So rather than simply explain how your system would identify hobbyists from vocational students, you retreat back into your ideological declamations.
Good job. That'll convince everyone you've thought this through /sarc
"The changes we are making will give industry greater control over all aspects of vocational education and training, making the system more responsive to employers' needs and to the changing world of work," Hipkins said.
"Industry and employers will identify skills needs, set standards and approve qualifications and credentials, and influence funding decisions."
Whatever the merits of Chris Hipkins' centralised model of delivery, he seems to have no problem conceiving of a system that specifically addresses vocational training and it's funding, and involves a joint venture between government and industry/employers. Now you were saying…
Ah, all your previous references to "vocation" dealt solely with polytech courses, so your plan to distinguish vocational students from hobbyists is to just defund the universities and leave polytech courses with partial government funding.
So if I just want to fix up the cars in my yard, I'll take a "vocational" polytech course, but if I want to take up law as a profession I'd enriol in a "hobby" university degree and pay for it all myself.
I mean, there is the possibility that you're just a lying shitgibbon who is using the fact that the same word has a different meaning when used in a different context as a distraction from the fact that you have no fucking idea about how to distinguish a hobbyist from someone taking thew same course as preparation for a career. But that would mean that you're as morally bankrupt as you are stupid.
What about the ones who make a career out of their hobby? They’ll receive funding retrospectively or do they have to pay it back? I can’t quite follow the ‘logic’ …
I was about to ban your sparring partner the other day but I saw how much fun you were having and I couldn’t bring myself to be a party pooper 😉
lol don't hesitate on my account.
The moment has passed now but I have a suspicion there will be another opportunity. I keep telling myself I have to become more decisive.
"What about the ones who make a career out of their hobby? "
If they completed the study years earlier, then no, no funding. You see these questions are easy to answer.
It was a rhetorical question to McFlock who got it but you apparently did not.
AB you put it all so well. I would give you a bouquet but I don't think there is an icon for that.
(AB at 29/7 6.54?)
"It was a rhetorical question…"
Yes but then you mentioned how you couldn't follow the logic. I thought I'd help.
Uhm, I did not mention logic but I did use ‘logic’.
You don’t seem to be perceptive to subtlety and nuance. Why is that, I may ask.
"Uhm, I did not mention logic but I did use ‘logic’."
Yes, I know. I took 'Logic' to mean in the sense you didn't agree it was logic. A form of sarcasm, perhaps. So you see I am quite perceptive. And helpful.
When I wrote, “I may ask”, that was rhetorical too; I really don’t need (your) help. You continue answering (my) rhetorical questions, which kinda shows that you talk past other commenters. Those long exchanges between McFlock and you are a case in point.
"Depending on what your definition of the word is this precise second. You keep changing it."
"Can you post a link to where I have defined 'vocational'?"
Stop slithering. Post a link to where I defined vocational, or we can simply assume you lied.
"Ah, all your previous references to "vocation" dealt solely with polytech courses…"
I haven't made any such distinction. Good attempt at deflection though.
“So if I just want to fix up the cars in my yard, I’ll take a “vocational” polytech course…”
…if it’s a hobby, you can pay for it.
“…but if I want to take up law as a profession I’d enriol in a “hobby” university degree and pay for it all myself.”
If it is a profession, then you will qualify for funding. It really isn’t complicated.
"…who is using the fact that the same word has a different meaning when used in a different context…"
That's your default when you're losing. (And deflection. And your language deteriorates). Nothing I have said is remotely ambiguous or difficult to understand.
And Christ Hipkins announcement has made you look a chump. He seems to have no problem with the distinction between vocational and non-vocational.
Is it possible that you are genuinely so ignorant of the education policy area that you have no idea about the traditional pedagogical distinction between universities and polytechnics, yet still remain convinced that you are qualified to propose radical changes to the education funding model?
That was a rhetorical question. Dunning-Kruger strikes again.
Oh dear, using big words you don't understand is not wise McFlock.
Both Universities and Polytech's offer vocational education. I have referred throughout this dialogue to 'tertiary' education. ‘Tertiary’ refers to both Universities and Polytech's. Surely you knew this?
The concept I am proposing is neither radical nor is it complicated. I simply don't believe the taxpayer should be funding tertiary education that is non-vocational. You are unable to understand how the education system could differentiate. Have another read of what Chris Hipkins had to say about his new proposals for Polytechs. Specifically “Industry and employers will identify skills needs, set standards and approve qualifications and credentials, and influence funding decisions.” That makes your objections look more than a little silly.
There you go, answering rhetorical questions again. Badly.
Just for future reference, someone saying that they want courses designed around the needs of employers in no way addresses what motivates specific students to study those courses.
For example, not everybody learning automotive engineering would want to become a professional mechanic. They might just want to help out at the demolition derby. Because they take the course as a hobby, you'd want them to pay full fees. But you still haven't addressed how you or anyone else would distinguish the hobbyist from someone who genuinely wants to become a paid mechanic.
The concept I am proposing is neither radical nor is it complicated. I simply don't believe the taxpayer should be funding tertiary education that is non-vocational.
If the destruction of the public higher education system is your idea of "neither radical nor complicated," I'd hate to see what your radical and complicated suggestions would look like…
"someone saying that they want courses designed around the needs of employers in no way addresses what motivates specific students to study those courses."
"…and influence funding decisions". No wonder that's the first time you tried to address Hipkin's comments.
"If the destruction of the public higher education system is your idea of "neither radical nor complicated,""
How many people doing 'hobby' courses do you think there are? I've heard of hyperbole, but your comment takes the cake.
Just as someone saying that they want courses designed around the needs of employers in no way addresses what motivates specific students to study those courses, someone saying they want to pay for courses employers want in no way addresses what motivates specific students to study those courses.
"Just as someone saying that they want courses designed around the needs of employers in no way addresses what motivates specific students to study those courses, someone saying they want to pay for courses employers want in no way addresses what motivates specific students to study those courses."
The 'funding' referred to is government funding, not the student's funding. But you knew that.
Allow me to be more explicit, just because you insist on being such a fucking moron:
someonethe government saying they want to pay for courses employers want in no way addresses what motivates specific students to study those courses.
“Industry and employers will identify skills needs, set standards and approve qualifications and credentials, and influence funding decisions.”
So, among other criteria, industry and employers will…
…determine which qualifications are offered based on the vocational needs of the market, and
…determine which courses are funded and by how much.
That sounds remarkably like what I was suggesting.
So the Minister of Education is proposing a policy that McFlock insists cannot be done. When will you contact him?
"the government saying they want to pay for courses employers want in no way addresses what motivates specific students to study those courses."
What motivates students is only one component (although you seem to be fixated on it). There is the persons aptitude, the ability to pay their student loan, whether they can demonstrate any experience or interest in the field…any number of different requirements to narrow down the number of 'tyre kickers'. It's really not that complicated. Chris Hipkins seems to understand. I should send him a bill.
Replacing ITOs with WDC is policy detail that is well beyond your sphere of competence when it comes to polytechs. But anyway… cf:
But what if someone's hobby corresponds to a course that meets the "vocational needs of the market"? That's another variation of the question you keep avoiding.
"Replacing ITOs with WDC is policy detail that is well beyond your sphere of competence when it comes to polytechs."
Chris Hipkins comments are absolutely consistent with something you say cannot be done. Whichever way you spin it.
"But what if someone's hobby corresponds to a course that meets the "vocational needs of the market"?
That's entirely possible. And if that person can squeeze through the obstacles I outlined (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-29-07-2019/#comment-1642425) then good luck to them.
Aptitude tests and required demonstrations of experience for all polytech applicants? Talk about a waste of cash.
Student loans aren't granted with any regard to one's ability to repay. This is just another example of your complete ignorance of the area. You are a buffoon.
lol "squeeze through". You fucking moron, you left the gate wide open. Your policy idea is unworkable.
This is why Hipkins never addressed the motivations of students, just described the principles under which courses should be designed.
“Aptitude tests and required demonstrations of experience for all polytech applicants? Talk about a waste of cash.”
Courses have entry criteria NOW. What Chris Hipkins is suggesting specifically dovetails into what I’m suggesting.
“Student loans aren’t granted with any regard to one's ability to repay."
But they are a consideration of the student. Because they have to pay them back. Which addresses your point specifically. Now of course if you don’t think students care about the size of their student loan, then let’s charge them more, eh?
“You fucking moron, you left the gate wide open. Your policy idea is unworkable.”
No, its just beyond your comprehension. That’s your problem.
“This is why Hipkins never addressed the motivations of students, just described the principles under which courses should be designed."
When you set entry criteria, target funding, impose a cost, you most certainly do ‘address’ the motivations of students. You place hurdles in the pathway that are precisely the reason the gate is not wide open. I know you don’t understand that, but again that is simply a deficit you have to bear.
Not to the level of aptitude tests for every single student for every single course. And no, Hipkins' comments have nothing to do with student selection.
Not all students, because many students recognise that they will die with their student loan still existing. You might want to increase the imaginary amount that will be written off after I die, feel free. I don't give a shit.
And again you confuse provider criteria with applicant motivation.
You said, after all this discussion about selecting people on the basis of their motivation, that your scheme would fail because some hobbyists would "squeeze" through. The only item up for discussion is the size of the holes you've left. Given your handwaving and refusal to state what your filters will actually be, the holes are going to be fucking enormous.
not mentioned by hipkins
nothing to do with student motivation
Not mentioned by Hipkins, but also would be on the basis of student motivation that you still haven't figured out how to assess
none of the above addresses student motivation
So, basically, you accept that Hipkins in no way said that entry would be restricted based on student motivation, but you do more hand-waving on the basis that you can't conceive that a course might be tailored to employer needs without actually restricting access to only those students who want employment.
“Not to the level of aptitude tests for every single student for every single course.”
You have no idea. Aptitude, for example, can be verified in a number of simple ways.
“And no, Hipkins' comments have nothing to do with student selection.”
Ultimately, they absolutely do. Vocational training as outlined by the new proposal will require students to be ‘qualified’ for entry. And indeed that is the case for many courses now.
“Not all students, because many students recognise that they will die with their student loan still existing.”
Geez you really are stretching. So students take out loans willy nilly because they think they’ll die without having to pay them back. I’m glad I didn’t pass that attitude on to my children.
“And again you confuse provider criteria with applicant motivation.”
Not at all. I’ve explained how applicant motivation is impacted by cost, entry criteria etc etc. You don't understand the human behaviour elements of this, but that's your shortcoming.
"You said, after all this discussion about selecting people on the basis of their motivation, that your scheme would fail because some hobbyists would "squeeze" through.”
That isn’t a fail, any more than Materia Turei rorting the welfare system was a failure of the welfare system.
“none of the above addresses student motivation”
If you think student motivation to study is not impacted by, eg, the cost of the study, then you don't understand economics or human behaviour.
"So, basically, you accept that Hipkins in no way said that entry would be restricted based on student motivation…”
Hipkins has set out a model that targets funding to a limited range of courses that are to be selected by a joint venture between industry etc etc. This is something you claim can’t be done. You claim the criteria can't be set to target only vocational training. You are a fool.
That's the core of one of your many comprehension fails.
The government can fund courses however it likes. What it can't do is read the hearts and minds of people applying for entry into those courses. That's what I claim can't be done – filter out hobbyist students from the entire polytech sector to any useful level
The very few courses that require aptitude tests for any decent number of students do so over several years of study, not from the first year. E.g. health sci or law. But for a level 3 or 4 certificate that can be completed in a year, you'd really involve Confucian-style state exams of aptitude and intelligence for entry into a beginners' mechanics course? And the tens of thousands of polytech students in similar courses?
You're a joke.
I'm still waiting for you to confirm you understand that 'tertiary' education includes University.
That's why I mention degrees like health sciences and law, fucko.
You do realise that Hipkins was referring to polytechs as vocational training institutions, but not universities?
"You "do realise that Hipkins was referring to polytechs as vocational training institutions, but not universities?
You do realise that Universities also deliver vocational training eh McFlock?
Not for almost all their courses, depending on how you're using the word at the moment.
Are you planning on defunding almost all university courses?
"Not for almost all their courses, depending on how you're using the word at the moment."
Almost all university courses are non-vocational? Seriously?
Depending on what your definition of the word is this precise second. You keep changing it.
If you mean "students study it in preparation to use those skills in employment", every course has some students to whome that would apply, and almost all would have some students to whom that did not apply. People filling in points, people who became students to get work and income off their backs, people who are simply interested in the topic with no specific career ambitions.
If you mean "designed partially in conjunction with employers to prepare students to meet the needs of those employers", most courses would not have much or any of that at all. Some commerce courses, some sciences (engineering, health sci), but more rounded courses aimed at general education or basic research would not be anywhere close to the level of a polytech. They're primarily about developing the student's understanding of the theory behind the practise as well as their independent research skills. Physics students don't learn Planck's Constant or Newton's Laws as part of an employer-stipulated basic skillset. Philosophy students don't read about Gettier or the Doctrine of Forms because their future boss needs that knowledge.
And if you mean "designed primarily to serve employers' requirements in new employees", like a polytech pre-apprenticeship course, that would apply to almost no papers at a university (not a unitech, a real university) let alone full qualifications.
"Depending on what your definition of the word is this precise second. You keep changing it."
Can you post a link to where I have defined 'vocational'?
That's the point. Every time you get challenged on your grand plan, you introduce the word in a different context with a subtly different meaning.
You don't just talk past other participants in a discussion, you talk past yourself. Which is quite an impressive feat of bullshittery.
"Depending on what your definition of the word is this precise second. You keep changing it."
"Can you post a link to where I have defined 'vocational'?"
Stop slithering. Post a link to where I defined vocational, or we can simply assume you lied.
You might also want to support you claim that "almost all university courses" or not vocational. https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-29-07-2019/#comment-1642460
Or were you just making shit up then as well?
Dude, I gave you a big list of options that incorporated the different meaniongs of the word "vocational" one can use relating to universities. As opposed to Hipkins, who was quite clearly talking about polytechs.
"Dude, I gave you …"
I'm not interested in what you gave me.
I'm interested in why you claimed:
1. I kept changing the definition of vocational, and
2. "almost all university courses" are not vocational.
No, I said that you used different definitions of the word. Some comments you use "vocational" from the perspective of student motivation (as opposed to "hobby"). Some comments revolved merely around the design of the course to meet employer needs from graduates, involving close iteraction between employers and course developers. E.G. polytechs.
Few if any university courses are developed with the close cooperation with employers that we see with polytechs and ITOs. As the definition of "vocational" slides, more and more university courses get included – degrees that involve a couple of papers that involve employers, or field work with private companies, and suchlike. Then when it slides all the way to student motivation, most students would think they'll get a job directly related to their degree. So it most definitely does involve whioch definition of "vocational" you're using at the moment.
"No, I said that you used different definitions of the word. "
Liar. "Depending on what your definition of the word is this precise second. You keep changing it." https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-29-07-2019/#comment-1642485
"Few if any university courses are developed with the close cooperation with employers that we see with polytechs and ITOs. "
That is irrelevant to what you claimed. You are slippery. You claimed that “almost all university courses” are not vocational. What evidence or supporting material do you have for that claim?
BTW … you are the one who introduced the idea of student motivation. That discussion didn’t impact one iota on how I define vocational. You’re just sliding all over the place.
McFlock I'm going to post a link that you will find educational.
This link is to study options in the Biological Sciences at Auckland University. The link includes a section titled "Where can Biological Sciences take you?". That section includes the following statement "Our graduates find employment in government, industries, Crown Research Institutes and the private sector. Areas of work include…"
Elsewhere you’ll find https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/study/study-options/find-a-study-option/computer-science.html.
And yet you claim that almost all university courses are not vocational.
You change which definition you are using. You don't change the definition of "vocational". You use the word with conventional meanings, but you change whicvh of those meanings you use.
So here, for example:
you quite clearly argue that you're using the term "vocational" from the motivation of students – taking the course as a vocation, vs studying up on a hobby.
whereas here you're linking to an article that exclusively deals with the design and administration of polytech courses to serve the needs of employers. Nothing at all about universities or student motivation.
As for what universities offer, I've worked in a university environment for over twenty years, in a variety of roles and departments. I've got a pretty good idea about what's on offer, and the lack of any aptitude tests or motivational assessment of admission requests before study. Progression and graduation, rarely. Entry… nope. Age, basic literacy, and if the cheque clears.
"you quite clearly argue that you're using the term "vocational" from the motivation of students – taking the course as a vocation, vs studying up on a hobby"
1. You claimed I changed the definition. Now you are backtracking.
2. The terms 'vocational' and 'vocation' are not assigning different meanings. Vocational means relating to an occupation. Vocation is a persons occupation. They are closely related and I have used them entirely consistently. And I’d point out again that it was YOU who raised the issue of student motivation. That wasn’t part of my original point at all. You are either having comprehension issues, or you were wrong and are being dishonest to hide it.
“I’ve got a pretty good idea about what’s on offer, and the lack of any aptitude tests or motivational assessment of admission requests before study. “.
Your claim wasn’t about aptitude tests or assessments. You claimed that almost all university courses are not vocational. You were wrong.
No, I claimed you changed which definition you used. And have repeateadedly explained why I said that.
A fairly simplistic definition there. They are closely related, but not interchangable, and you have repeatedly varied which meaning of the term you use.
A lucky person has their vocation as their occupation. Many people are employed outside their true vocation. So in that regard it relates to the person's desire or feeling towards the job. E.g. vocation vs hobby.
In regards to "vocational training", it involves training towards (and relevant to) a particular job. So in that Hipkins article, it was part of the polytech reforms and didn't mention universities.
Regardless of how you started, you still ended up using the word with different meanings.
Based on your links that e.g. an anthropology degree might help you get one of half a dozen completely different job types? How is that "vocational training"? As opposed to an electrical engineering pre-apprenticeship, which will help you get an apprenticeship to become and electrical engineer. Pretty clear career track there.
And you still haven't explained how you'd make people studying anthropology without wanting to be anthropologists pay for it. I know an anth grad who works at a customer help desk. Should she repay her course fees?
“No, I claimed you changed which definition you used.”
Here is exactly what you said:
“Depending on what your definition of the word is this precise second. You keep changing it.”
“Definition”. “You keep changing it”. That’s what YOU said. So are you lying or were you wrong?
“And have repeateadedly explained why I said that.”
Only since I called you out on it! Explaining is definitely losing in your case.
“A fairly simplistic definition there.”
Yes, this is simple. The only reason you want to make it complicated is because you are trying to cover up your errors.
Here’s another example. In trying to explain how I allegedly used different definitions of vocational you said “Nothing at all about universities or student motivation.” But McFlock I didn’t differentiate between Universities and Polytechs. I didn’t raise student motivation. You did. On both counts.
This is very simple, if we cut through your lies and obfuscation.
You claimed that almost all university courses are not vocational. Almost all. Back it up. Stop slithering. After all your 20 years of experience must have taught you something. Right?
It taught me that engaging with fools can be entertaining, but not when they simply restate their idiotic assertions with no variation, like some soviet-era interrogator.
I've rephrased, simplified, and even demonstrated my position with different examples of papers that are not "vocational". Even your own link showed no connection between each course and a "vocation" (as opposed to merely listing possible "occupations"). Still, you remain wilfully ignorant of the basics of the english language (including the distinction between changing what definitions you use versus changing the definition of a word).
Now that you've reached peak stupidity, I'm a bit bored. Feel free to add something new.
"I've rephrased, simplified, and even demonstrated my position with different examples of papers that are not "vocational". "
No you haven't. Not once. You used the example (a single one) of anthropology, and that course specifically lists vocational pathways from the study.
And don't forget that your original claim was that not one but almost 'all' university courses are non-vocational. At the time you made that claim you must have known you were going to get called on it.
What you have done is lied and obfuscated your way through this discussion. Is that what you learned from your 20 years working in the University system? Or is that bs as well?
Physics and philosophy in this comment. Two examples.
No it doesn't. It lists some jobs the course might be useful for. These are not the same thing. A vocational pathway is a clear progression from the course material to acquiring the skills and certification to work in that profession.
And I have supported that assertion, even in very small words just for you.
What I learned is that you can lead an ass to information but you can't make it think.
They are examples of specific elements of course content. They are not examples of almost 'all' university courses are non-vocational. You do know the difference, right?
Here’s another illustration to show how stupid you are.
A BSc from The University of Auckland (https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/study/study-options/find-a-study-option/bachelor-of-science-bsc.html)
“Because science plays a vital role in addressing the key issues that confront us and future generations, studying the Sciences opens up a wide range of career opportunities. Students find employment in business, small industry, government, teaching and health sectors, as well as research and development.”
Students obtain a BSc and ‘find employment’. But that has nothing to do with the degree being vocational, does it MCFlock?
Why do I need to list every single course to demonstrate my point, when you're doing so well for me?
No, that has nothing to do with a vocational course. What is the "vocation"? What ITOs worked with the science division to determine a "vocational" BSc qualification?
Basically, in university courses you have the following "vocational" training: Law, health science specialisation, engineering, and maybe a couple of others (Accounting?).
The bulk of BA, BCom, and yes BSC courses are not based around future employment as a specific vocation, but a more general education that might help one adapt to whichever job they choose.
Unless you can find me the Classical Greek and Classical Roman ITOs that help design the courses for the Classical Studies Arts major?
Or maybe a different tack: if you want to defund non-vocational courses, which classes are on your hit list?
"No, that has nothing to do with a vocational course. What is the "vocation"? "
Well the UofA have no problem understanding.
"Whether your interests lie in Biomedicine, Mathematics, Software Engineering or another of our many subjects, we’ll help you to develop core transferable skills. Our cutting-edge technology will support your progress towards advanced study or employment. "
"As well as strongly emphasising transferable skills to improve your employment opportunities…"
"Students find employment in business, small industry, government, teaching and health sectors, as well as research and development. "
I'm in a generous mood, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you're not stupid, or dishonest. Perhaps you just really are out of touch.
I'd be especially interested in how you view an organisation such the Auckland University of Technology. Would you include them in your nonsensical claim?
None of your links seem to call their vague employment prospects "vocations".
Me, I'm old school. AUT is a jumped-up polytech. And Lincoln is full of sheepshaggers.
"None of your links seem to call their vague employment prospects "vocations"."
A vocation is a persons employment. These courses are promoted on the basis of their employment prospects. They are vocational.
"Me, I'm old school. AUT is a jumped-up polytech. And Lincoln is full of sheepshaggers."
I think you've said it all right there. Out of touch it is.
No, the terms are not as interchangeable as you suggest. As explained several times above.
Partially. But they are not designed, nor even necessarily studied, with particular employment in mind.
Keep telling yourself that.
And which university courses would you defund on the basis that they are not "vocational"?
“No, the terms are not as interchangeable as you suggest.”
I didn’t say they were necessarily interchangeable. But a persons vocation can be defined as that persons employment, their occupation.
“But they are not designed, nor even necessarily studied, with particular employment in mind.”
Now you’re entering the realm of the surreal.
At AUT my son completed a Diploma in Culinary Arts. The introductory page for that Diploma states (https://www.aut.ac.nz/study/study-options/hospitality-tourism-and-events/courses/diploma-in-culinary-arts) “Do you love working with food and want to become a creative professional in this field? The Diploma in Culinary Arts is an advanced professional cookery qualification that covers the theoretical and practical skills to work in a professional culinary environment.”
The University of Auckland offers a Bachelor of Property degree (https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/study/study-options/find-a-study-option/bachelor-of-property-bprop.html). The introduction to that Degree states “Gain the knowledge and skills to enter the property profession in New Zealand or internationally with this specialist undergraduate degree.”
Yes, you’re out of touch.
Self-contradiction in consecutive sentences. Impressive.
Your catering son went to a jumped up polytech. Hate to break it to you. AUT is a polytech with additions. Your son didn't do the additions.
And wtf is the "property profession"? I know what the legal profession does. And the medical profession.
Look at the differences in the descriptions: cookery (specific skill) to work in a culinery environment. Clear. As opposed to whatever the "property profession" is.
Let's say all AUT courses are vocational. That's 1/8th of the universities. And all the polytech courses are vocational, so you won't cut any of those. Which courses will you cut? I mean, if you're challenging my claim that the vast majority are "vocational" (whichever definition you are currently using), fair call – but you want to maintain government funding for vocational courses, so aren't you also arguing that you don't want to change polytech course funding (unlike Hipkins) or the funding of most university courses? So which courses do you want to cut, and how much will it save the country?
"Your catering son went to a jumped up polytech."
Called the Auckland University of Technology. And you spent how long working at a University?
"And wtf is the "property profession"? I know what the legal profession does. And the medical profession."
In the same way the legal profession has several different aspects (commercial law, property law, criminal law etc), so does the property profession. If you need to know more, contact Auckland University. They are the ones who used the terminology.
Every post you make now shows just how out of touch you are. When did you finish your 20 years at the University? 1958?
lol I'm sure he learned how to cook at this "university".
But you are actually bringing me around to your side. Any course that can lead to employment is vocational. I had a bit of a look at the university of auckland link you gave earlier, and it seems that every course they offer has a "Jobs related to this programme" section.
So if UofA is typical, then every university course in the country is a vocational course. And all polytech courses.
But hang on, a week or so ago you were saying "Funding non-vocational tertiary education diverts funds from investment in vocational education." Obviously this doesn't happen, though, because all education is vocational. If all courses are vocational, no funding is diverted to non-vocational study.
Unless you know of specific courses that are not vocational – which ones are those?
"…and it seems that every course they offer has a "Jobs related to this programme" section."
Nope. This one doesn't https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/study/study-options/find-a-study-option/master-of-community-dance-mcommdance.html equip for employment.
"The Master of Community Dance activates the role of dance in interrogating local and international societal concerns. As identified by UNESCO, such concerns may include sustainability, cultural diversity, equity and peace. "
Looks like the MCommDance course is vocational training, too.
Government funding tick for that from shadders…
And why not? I might think it's complete bollocks, but if employers affirm they are looking for those skills, and there are jobs, then why not? Those may be criteria this particular course may not meet, however. Hahaha…what were we saying about criteria…
So when you wrote:
… that doesn't actually apply to anyone, because every course provided at tertiary level is vocational training.
While what you wrote sounds good, it actually involves zero change to current government funding.
"… that doesn't actually apply to anyone, because every course provided at tertiary level is vocational training."
Hell no. It would be relatively simple to introduce criteria that more tightly determined whether a course was vocational or not. You've been obsessing over people's personal motivations; my view has always been to start with each course itself, and determine it's merits. which takes us back to Chris Hipkins plans…
More handwaving. Like your criteria to " narrow down the number of 'tyre kickers'".
So what criteria will make a BSc in physics "vocational" and a MCommDance "non-vocational"?
The tertiary education sector is heavily invested with government intervention, yet fails to meet the needs of the market.
Universities don't exist to "meet the needs of the market," so unless you're conflating polytechs with tertiary education that sentence makes no sense.
Universities are contracted by government to educate people. Some (most) of that education is vocational. For that component, Universities precisely exist to meet the market.
Universities are contracted by government to educate people.
Among many other things, yes.
Some (most) of that education is vocational.
Some of it is, but that isn't the university's purpose. The purpose of a university is higher education and research. That's why there's a whole other category of tertiary education for vocational training.
Higher education is tertiary education leading to an academic degree. Vocational training is a component of this, not a whole other category.
Good luck convincing either universities or polytechs that one is merely a "component" of the other. Vocational training is a component of tertiary education, yes. That doesn't alter the fact that universities don't exist to "meet the needs of the market."
I believe that according to some everything exists or should exist to “meet the needs of the market”.
Alwyn said it well tonight in Daily review and he’s an unwitting expert in making up things because he thinks they are true. One day, he’ll get into trouble for that …
Universities require funding. A significant part of their funding comes from the provision of vocational training. So yes, at least in part, they do have to meet the needs of the market. Or find other sources of funding.
It's something they take into account, yes. That doesn't alter the fact that universities don't exist to "meet the needs of the market," no matter what delusions Stephen Joyce was suffering from as Minister of Tertiary Education.
"That doesn't alter the fact that universities don't exist to "meet the needs of the market,"…"
If they don't meet the needs of the market, they don't survive. So in that sense, you are wrong.
You're straying into a very broad definition of "market" there that goes way beyond your original comment. If universities don't meet the higher education and research needs of their societies, indeed they don't survive – however, the description of that social good as a "market" is a big stretch.
"…however, the description of that social good as a "market" is a big stretch."
But it is a market. Tertiary providers deliver a service to customers (students) for which they are paid. To survive, they have to 'meet the market', by delivering what the market demands, and for the price the market will pay.
Some of our students seem to labour under that delusion, certainly. It doesn't help them any.
Workers not travelling to available jobs – cleaners on the moon for instance! On the low wages most get, and the fact that the nano-bean counters will adjust your benefit down taking into account each gross dollar that you earn, without even looking at what you spend getting there and back, if there is public transport, and you wouldn't ride a bike on account of fearing injury, and the tyres are flat and you have no toolkit or pump, and the kids have to have a skooter or no-one will talk to them or you would use that etc. The thousand small problems to do anything under this discouraging unpleasant poverty-loving economic system of neo liberalism>> – that's the snakes tail.
It has nothing to do with neo-liberalism. Relocating for employment is hardly a recent thing.
It has everything to do with neoliberalism. You used to be paid to relocate. Housed sometimes too. Neoliberalism shifted all the costs onto working people on the principal that, given more financial freedom the business owners would be more entrepreneurial. They chose not to be.
"You used to be paid to relocate."
Only if you relocated with the same employer. Plenty of people have moved for work using their own resources. People need to toughen up.
Since the round-heeled Key government allowed unlimited foreign speculation in our housing market the costs of relocation have increased out of all proportion. 'Toughening up' won't pay those exorbitant rents.
It will if you relocate out of Auckland. Plenty of jobs going in places with cheaper housing costs. Of course that may change depending on how long this mob stay in government. They're doing a good job of sending the economy into recession.
Meh – it's cyclic – and, were you not utterly ignorant of economics you'd've noticed "this mob" consistently outperform the Gnats on every economic indicator. Peddle your ridiculous bias on kiwiblog where the punters are dumb enough to swallow your lies – you'll find no sympathy here.
Cyclical? Rubbish. When you load cost into an economy, create uncertainty for business, and generally mismanage everything you touch, an economy tanks. By virtually every measure, this government is screwing up badly.
Clearly you know even less about economics than the brain dead morons you shill for.
Screwing up badly – how about you produce some figures to back that frankly absurd conjecture?
The whining of second rate business folk denied yet another undeserved tax cut doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Ok kiwibuild – yeah it sure ain't a success.
But you never said a word about Nick Smith's infinitely worse performance. So really you've got nothing – and no credibility either.
You're just partisan – you don't give a toss about the public good, which is why you belong on kiwiblog with the rest of the nodding dogs.
I didn't comment on Nick Smith. Good attempt at deflection though. Also describing Kiwibuild as 'aint a success' surely has to qualify as one of the greatest understatements of the 21st century.
No you didn't comment on Nick Smith, because you're a towering hypocrite.
You, Shadrach the second-rate troll, are on the spot here, to validate your assertion that "By virtually every measure, this government is screwing up badly."
Ok – let's see some of those "virtually every" measures. Because your unsupported opinion, as shown by your anomalous take on housing – excluding the worst result in decades (Nick Smith) – simply shows that you're not to be trusted, you are lying through your crooked teeth – I imagine that's the only way an argument can be made that supports the previous government.
I didn't mention Nick Smith because I wasn't talking about Nick Smith.
I have given you an accepted example of this governments failure, and you describe it as if it was some minor slip up. If I thought you would actually accept the evidence for the incompetence of this government I would give you more to contemplate.
Rubbish – you've merely been caught in yet another lie.
Kiwibuild was indeed bad – so you don't want to talk about Nick Smith because it puts it in context – a context that makes it absolutely clear that even this government's worst failings are a vast improvement on their predecessors.
Now – you have two options – run away from this unwinnable argument you've built by habitually lying, or cough up some of these "virtually every measures" you claim to have. I think we know what you'll do 😀
I'm not running away at all. My point was about THIS government. If you want to talk about Nick Smith’s shortcoming’s, go for gold.
Meanwhile, I've given you a one word piece of evidence for this governments own incompetence. Kiwibuild. I'm happy to start giving you more- can you cope?
Although you could just read this:
“This is the weakest leadership on policy of any government since the last term of Holyoake, 60 years ago. That’s on Ardern.” https://thestandard.org.nz/jacindamania/
"You're not playing this game to evaluate the competence of government…"
Of course I am. You're challenging my assessment, and good on you. But your own comment caught you out.
"This entire conversation has been about your pathologically dishonest and hypocritical effort to frame this government as incompetent, when it outperforms the opposition on every significant metric."
I have given you numerous examples. But your description of any critique of this government is revealing of a very strange mindset.
"Cheerfully – they fall well short of my expectations of government. Yet they are lightyears ahead of Simon's Stumblebums; manifestly superior in every respect to the flailing squalor, ineptitude and corruption that characterizes contemporary National. "
National is NOT the government. Your argument seems to be that an inept and failing government is ok because it is better than the opposition, who aren't even in power. That is pathetic.
"Your desperation to impugn the government sees you repeatedly muster arguments that cannot withstand even cursory scrutiny…"
And yet you have been unable to refute any of those examples. They are real examples of the incompetence of this government. I can't remember any government in my life-time as bad. Perhaps Muldoon from 78?
I realize you're pretty hard of thinking Shad – but one word hardly constitutes "virtually every measure"
Make your case – you claim you've no shortage of material but getting anything out of you is like pulling teeth. You love to slag the government – so show us the figures.
Your stance is based objectively right? Not just crap you invented out of spite? So show us. Can't wait.
There is no shortage of material.
#2. Loading costs onto landlords while there is a housing shortage and not realising it will drive up rent.
#3 Getting even the most basic information wrong about the gun laws.
This would appear to be the operation of a poorly regulated market.
I'm curious to know, since you're a rightwinger, just what suite of regulations you think were necessary to constrain the forces of incontinent greed in this instance, and what, apart from wishful thinking, leads you to suppose the Gnats would have done anything to contain these rises?
One might almost think you had cherrypicked a random statistic and, without troubling to inform yourself on the issue, fitted the Coalition up to wear the blame for it. Unless you can produce evidence beyond the insincere promises that characterize the Gnats in opposition that they were addressing the issues, fairness would compel you to criticize both them and the coalition equally for this failing.
You really ought to take ACT press releases with a pinch of salt – a party that lies outside three standard deviations of the mean does not do so because they have smart well-reasoned policies.
Seymore opines "“The Prime Minister has now claimed that nine per cent of crime committed with firearms is committed by people with a firearms licence. But Police data show the figure is closer to just one per cent."
I wonder if Seymore has performed even a rough calculation as to how fifty murders by a licensed gun owner might affect those statistics – I would expect that for 2019 licensed gun owners feature rather strongly among serious offenders, in fact amounting to the majority of serious gun crime. Acting swiftly to curtail this disturbing trend is what a competent government would do, which is why the Coalition was able to make changes without appreciable opposition.
"#2 This would appear to be the operation of a poorly regulated market."
Focus. The issue is government incompetence. If the market is 'broken', then why make changes that were obviously going to drive up rents before fixing it? The governments incompetence is hurting the very people they claim to represent.
"#3 I wonder if Seymore has performed even a rough calculation as to how fifty murders by a licensed gun owner might affect those statistics…"
And Jacinda Ardern knew those statistics when making her claims? No, I didn't think so. Two claims, two mistakes.
Shall we move on to Clare Curran?
Or the PM’s stuff ups on our relations with Australia (eg https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/395585/australia-looks-to-further-tighten-visa-requirements)?
Or her trying to direct the media not to ask questions about Ihumatao? (https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/07/prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-tried-to-prevent-media-asking-about-ihuma-tao.html)
Or should I just point you back to this:
Or perhaps you'd like the views of a 30 year veteran of the Doctors Union, who described health Minister David Clark as 'fiscally irresponsible', and his leadership as 'rambling, confused and nonsensical'. The full article outlines all of the criticism, but a warning – if you are a sensitive supporter of this government, it isn't for the faint hearted.
Or…the PM wrongly claiming the issue of compensation for businesses effected by the Auckland City Rail Link was a matter for NZTA. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12252839
How about these gems:
“Figures last week show unemployment benefit numbers have surged by more than 15,500 since the change of government. The numbers shot up by more than 11 per cent in the year to June.”
“When the Government changed, the median rent in the country was $400 a week. Now, it’s $450.”
As I said earlier…there is no shortage of material.
"And Jacinda Ardern knew those statistics when making her claims?"
Of course. Our gun murders per year are not so high that fifty won't skew them. You're flogging a dead horse here: Seymore was wrong as usual and the Coalition made the right call on this.
ACT is merely desperate enough to be looking for the same funding source as Pauline Hanson.
So – two allegations, two fails.
What other nonsense have you swallowed.
"The issue is government incompetence."
Only down your particular fucked up rabbit hole.
"If the market is 'broken', then why make changes that were obviously going to drive up rents before fixing it?"
For the same reason the Gnats put that one in the too hard basket. If you can't be even-handed when both sides of the house fail there's not much point in talking to you. Let's hear you rant on Gnat incompetence here – or accept the label "pathetically biased braindead far-right shill". You've earned it.
"Of course. Our gun murders per year are not so high that fifty won't skew them. "
Got you. Jacinda Ardern specified a number – 9%. She can't have done the maths by then.
"Only down your particular fucked up rabbit hole."
This entire conversation has been about government incompetence. You're just trying to run away in a different direction.
"For the same reason the Gnats put that one in the too hard basket."
What reason? This government introduced new regulations either knowing they would drive up rents, or not knowing. Which is it?
"If you can't be even-handed when both sides of the house fail …"
So you admit Labour have failed?
That's a confession. You're not playing this game to evaluate the competence of government – you're just trying (and failing) to score cheap points. Who do you think you are, Duncan Garner?
This entire conversation has been about your pathologically dishonest and hypocritical effort to frame this government as incompetent, when it outperforms the opposition on every significant metric.
"So you admit Labour have failed"
Cheerfully – they fall well short of my expectations of government. Yet they are lightyears ahead of Simon's Stumblebums; manifestly superior in every respect to the flailing squalor, ineptitude and corruption that characterizes contemporary National.
Your desperation to impugn the government sees you repeatedly muster arguments that cannot withstand even cursory scrutiny, which are then defeated in detail. Spamming us with more of them does not make you more persuasive.
I'd also noticed Limp Heehaw's lack of substance.
Alien invasion alert!! I posted a comment & it went into moderation. Perhaps because I quoted a known rightist. Not to support him though…
Way too late for that
A particular word in the comment triggered Auto-Moderation. No panic!
Cool thanks. If you are able to tell me which word, I'll try to avoid it in future. If not, no worries.
I might as well: woke.
Interesting. Not a word I have chosen, so far as I can recall, due to my perception that it originated in a much younger generation. I suppose it achieved currency as a term of abuse and therefore understand the editorial decision. Liam has invented the super- category as well, I see…
Just avoid writing about falling asleep. 🙂
Weird. Must have a look and see what it was there for…
Seems a sound candidate for abusive usage of late.
Maybe to help filter one particularly incoherent and abusive commenter that was quite disrespectful of this site's ethos and policies? Who has thankfully gone quiet in the last few days.
See my comment # 40 in the Moderation Post.
Prolly praxis franko.
It's dinosaur vs dinosaur at the Nats conference. Todd Muller: “The previous National government was quite comfortable that the science expressed by the global scientists in the IPCC reports were valid.” “Rubbish,” interjected one audience member.
"Muller offered praise for Climate Change Minister James Shaw’s professionalism in working with National on the Zero Carbon Bill, as well as his and Jacinda Ardern’s “genuine willingness” to set the commission up in a bipartisan manner. But the devil is in the detail, and Muller made plain there was a number of areas where the Government would need to change its approach for National’s support to hold. “It is important that you get New Zealand’s response broadly calibrated with the rest of the world.
Important to a conservative, but not to anyone who knows delay is irresponsible. Slow learning is okay for National as long as they are content to drift along in the backwash of the tide of history…
… Muller made plain there was a number of areas where the Government would need to change its approach for National’s support to hold.
Those areas being: any that might affect National voters' BAU. Given the range of areas included in that definition, it would be more sensible for Muller to list the areas in which National will cooperate with the government.
Gosh, imagine if there was some sort of international climate action process we could be part of?
Feel the angst! Poor Todd; Paula was so much better at this!
“Climate change is a conundrum for National, with the party’s rural base fearing the economic impact of the sharp reductions that some of its urban, more liberal supporters may want to see.”
“The climate change sceptics may have been the loudest voices in the room, but they “certainly weren’t the majority” among National’s membership – although the turnout, the largest Muller had seen for a primary sector side-event in 30 party conferences, could not be cast aside.”
It should be fully bipartisan like NZSuper fund and NZSuper Guardians. This has to last 100 years.
Shaw will compromise to achieve full House by-in.
The Simpsons – Lisa tries out public transport.
Jacinda Ardern's speech where she admits that because of "union concerns" the charter schools had to go.
Never mind that they were doing a *great* job, especially for the Maori and Pasifika children that they aimed at helping.
Never mind that Chris Hipkins said in parliament that "one size does not fit all" when it comes to education.
Never mind that the children *and* the parents loved the schools.
They *had* to go as a sacrifice to the unions.
[Can you chose which alter ego you are going to use? And, silly suggestion I know, that you actually put some thought into what you are commenting on instead of just attacking? Letting this through on probation – MS]
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/394240/large-decrease-in-men-enrolling-in-polytechs-and-universities 12 Jul 2019
Large decrease in men enrolling in polytechs and universities
Male enrolments at New Zealand polytechs have dropped 41 percent in 10 years.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/394522/david-cohen-the-fall-of-higher-education David Cohen: The fall of 'higher' education? 16/7/2019
By David Cohen *
Opinion – We live in memorable academic times. Higher education in New Zealand is on a definite downward roll.
And why not? A report commissioned last year by the Industry Training Federation showed apprentices earn more, buy houses and contribute to KiwiSaver earlier than their peers with bachelor's degrees.
What's more, according to the research from Business and Economic Research Limited, or BERL, those who enter the trades are, on average, in a better financial position for most of their lives.
Another survey conducted seven years ago suggested New Zealand degrees were among the most valueless in the OECD – a reckoning that would particularly apply, one assumes, to qualifications in many of the social sciences and media-related courses.