The price of National’s politicking

Written By: - Date published: 7:07 am, July 1st, 2012 - 81 comments
Categories: abortion, benefits, child welfare - Tags:

In a desperate effort to hang on to a few red-neck votes, National keeps on ramping up rhetoric against solo mums. There was talk of compulsory contraception or sterilisation. National played up those ideas, even though it hasn’t followed through. Is it any surprise, then, that poor mums, who don’t follow the news closely, just hear the rumours, are being scared into abortions?

They think they’ll lose their DPB or be sterilised if they have another kid. So, if they fall pregnant, they get an abortion,or they try to hide the birth.

It’s not just misunderstanding. At least one woman has been advised by WINZ to get an abortion.

Is this the result we want from National’s politicking? That women are scared out of having children and forced to get abortions? Sure, Paula Bennett isn’t herding women up and taking them to the clinic, but the effect is the same.

Here’s National’s pollster, David Farrar, on the topic:

Tough welfare reforms now going through Parliament may deter some women from seeing the sole parent benefit as a viable lifestyle – but at the risk of long-term harm to their children.

As with almost all policies, there is a trade-off. The reforms should deter some women from having multiple children while remaining on the DPB, but they may cause some hardship for some families. I don’t think the status quo was working or acceptable, so support the reforms.

Now she is pregnant again to a man she met only once.

“It was just a silly thing one night, I got drunk one night in town,” she says. “I was alone by myself that weekend, Antonio had gone to his family. I decided to go into Auckland City with friends and they showed me a whole life that I didn’t know.”

She considered an abortion but rejected it: “It’s a Maori belief, it’s a gift from God.”

A good example of the problem with the status quo.

Doesn’t it make you fucken sick to your stomach. This fat elitist fuck talking about a poor woman not being willing to get an abortion as a “problem with the status quo” and damning children to a life of poverty as a “trade-off” for trying to scare women into not getting pregnant.

This is the disgusting bowl of lard that told us he and his ilk needed a big fat tax cut, paid for with service cuts and borrowing, because it was for our own good – pontificating to the poor, made poor by the policies of the Right while the Rightwingers get fatter.

I can’t wait until we vote these elitist scum out. And once we do, we better make sure there is payback for the looting and the exploitation of the poor and powerless that they have inflicted in these two terms.

81 comments on “The price of National’s politicking ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Carol 1
    1 July 2012 at 7:54 am

    So Key and Cameron are working in unison, then, with just another chapter in the war on the poor, with pregnant poor women being treated with a special mix of punitive hatred:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/26/feckless-poor-cameron-long-history

    As part of the alternating process throughout our history of severity and leniency, towards the end of the 18th century, a more humanitarian spirit prevailed, and out-relief was more usual. In fact, topping up wages became the norm in the counties of the south of England, a system whereby the parish made up the wages of labourers according to the size of the family and the price of bread. This meant that, no matter how little work was done, income was assured, and however little a farmer paid his labourers, the deficit would always be made good by the parish. This gave rise to what can only be described, in Cameron’s words as “a culture of entitlement”; at the same time, women were blamed for giving birth to bastards, for the maintenance of each of whom the parish rewarded her with 1s 6d a week. Observers continued to fulminate against the poor, claiming that hunger was the best goad to make them work.

    • Murray Olsen 1.1
      1 July 2012 at 7:57 pm

      The only entitlement I can see in that is that the farmers felt they were entitled to pay starvation wages and keeping the workers alive was someone else’s problem. Not a lot has changed.

  2. mike e 2
    1 July 2012 at 9:13 am

    Dog whistling to cover failure and broken promises Hitler had the Jews Torys have solo mums.
    Misogynists abusing and demonizing women and their children while the men get of scot free.
    The average length of the DPB recipient is just 3 years.

  3. Psycho Milt 3
    1 July 2012 at 9:35 am

    Actually, it’s the men and women involved in creating the children who are “condemning them to a life of poverty,” but go ahead and blame bloggers for it if it’ll make you feel better.

    • Zetetic 3.1
      1 July 2012 at 10:02 am

      Whatever the rights or wrongs of the parents, the child is a real, living human being.

      National’s policies are about punishing those children for the ‘sins’ of the parents. All that does is condemn them to poverty and the same life as their parents.

      If you think it’s cool to deprive a child and leave them in poverty to try to send some kind of message to their parents, then we know all we need to know about you.

      Not only are you missing basic humanity, you’re a dumbarse because you’re for the kind of policies that reinforce the cycle of poverty that you purport to want to end.

      • Psycho Milt 3.1.1
        1 July 2012 at 11:29 am

        Like I said, the people condemning these children to a life of poverty are the people creating them. That was as true under the previous govt as it is under the current one, and will remain true under the next one. We do what we can to alleviate the poverty those children suffer, but in the long run policies that might discourage the creation of children under those circumstances are more likely to help than policies that encourage their creation.

        What you call “missing basic humanity,” I call “doing other people the respect of assuming they’re adult men and women, not overgrown children who can’t be expected to work out the likely consequences of their actions.”

        • mike e 3.1.1.1
          1 July 2012 at 11:49 am

          Psycho babbler Research has shown that the best long term solution to immunise the next generation is to make sure these children have a good education so the cycle is not repeated.
          Good Housing and being well fed and clothed are needed for these children to succeed.
          Redneck banter yeah like these people think and behave like you shows how little knowledge you have in this area people who are seriously psychologically damaged are unable to control their behaviour.
          You should read wider instead of being a narcissistic bully.

          • Psycho Milt 3.1.1.1.1
            1 July 2012 at 12:00 pm

            Research has shown that the best long term solution to immunise the next generation is to make sure these children have a good education so the cycle is not repeated.

            You mean, we could do something like provide one of the best free public education systems on the planet, for example?

            • mike e 3.1.1.1.1.1
              1 July 2012 at 12:37 pm

              Thats a start but with out good housing food and clothing the large majority are failing only 5% of children in poverty are making it out more needs to be done across the board not in one area
              Simple minded redneck.

              • Psycho Milt …
                1 July 2012 at 1:10 pm

                Simple-minded redneck, narcissistic bully, idiot male misogynist – you make me sound a much more multi-faceted character than I am in reality, so perhaps I should thank you.

                You do know this isn’t an either/or situation, right? That we can help existing children while at the same time attempting to lower production of the ones needing assistance? That the one doesn’t rule out the other? I know, these will be difficult concepts to grasp for someone who’s brought only a burning sense of outrage, spluttering incoherence and a kind of insult-based Tourette’s syndrome to the debate, but it ought to be possible if you try.

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.2
          1 July 2012 at 12:00 pm

          What you call “missing basic humanity,” I call “doing other people the respect of assuming they’re adult men and women, not overgrown children who can’t be expected to work out the likely consequences of their actions.”

          As long as you can work out that people, families, children have to operate in a wider societal and economic environment.

          And that we need to make sure that environment is safe and supportive, not dangerous and destructive.

          • Psycho Milt 3.1.1.2.1
            1 July 2012 at 12:35 pm

            Absolutely right. And given we know that being fathered by a waster to a young single mother is the biggest risk factor for not having a safe, supportive environment, we’re irresponsible fuckwits for implementing policies that encourage that.

            • mike e 3.1.1.2.1.1
              1 July 2012 at 12:41 pm

              PM so just leaving these kids in an abusive situation is your solution where are these mothers going to go .
              No doubt to your doorstep to receive another round of abuse by another idiot male misogynist.

            • tracey 3.1.1.2.1.2
              2 July 2012 at 5:56 am

              can anyyone point me to the policies aimed at addressing the problem of men in this equation. Nats wld have more credibility if they also attacked the male side of this equation. I know all the old chestnuts but feel free to roll them all out to defend the indefensible. For example middle and upper income men who choose to stat a second family while filing to financially provovide for the first one. There will be at least as many in this category as teenagers allegedly getting pregnant for the dpb lifestyle.

        • Puddleglum 3.1.1.3
          1 July 2012 at 9:12 pm

          “Like I said, the people condemning these children to a life of poverty are the people creating them.”

          Quite obviously, ‘no’. At least that would have to be the answer for anyone who inhabits the mental world view of the right.

          To the extent that they are being ‘condemned to a life of poverty’ that is clearly a reflection of the society into which they are being born. After all, isn’t it part of the right wing catechism that individuals can transcend the circumstances (e.g., family background) into which they are born (by ‘force of will’ and ‘making good choices’)? If so, then we are left with either the blame attaching to the individiual (i.e., to the children once they become adults) or to the social system.

          Since you don’t wish to blame the children (quite rightly) you have to blame the social system for ‘condemning them to a life of poverty’. Parents don’t feature in this framework.

          I think it is also odd to blame ‘parents’ for ‘condemning children to a lifetime of poverty’ (and, presumably, the consequences of that, including having children without thinking) given that those parents were – once again, as part of the right wing catechism –   once, themselves, children whose parents, presumably, were ‘sentencing them to a lifetime of poverty’. Hence creating the ‘intergenerational welfare dependency, etc. that right wingers seem to chant with every slip of their ideological rosary beads through their fingers.

          To put it bluntly, that whole ‘blame the parents’ view is completely incoherent. How can anyone who thinks believe it? Our world is not nurturing of people. That’s the problem.

          • Psycho Milt 3.1.1.3.1
            2 July 2012 at 6:59 am

            Quite obviously, ‘no’. At least that would have to be the answer for anyone who inhabits the mental world view of the right.

            Well, that rules out both of us, so not obviously ‘no’ at all.

            To put it bluntly, that whole ‘blame the parents’ view is completely incoherent.

            It’s not a matter of blame, it’s a matter of cause and effect. Children aren’t randomly and spontaneously generated, they’re created by people who’ve either chosen to create them or chosen to take actions that will likely result in their creation. If you’re unemployed and fucking people without using contraception, sooner or later you will quite literally condemn a child to live in poverty. Neither society nor the govt makes that happen or has a means of preventing it happening.

  4. mike e 4
    1 July 2012 at 10:04 am

    pm the children are here condemning them to a life of poverty when we are facing a future of a rapidly ageing population means that we will be paying for them while we are in retirement.I would rather pay now to have those children well educated fed clothed an adequate housing So they can contribute.Redneck Bullies just add insult to injury alot of solo parents and their children are victims of spousal abuse.
    Your Misogynistic name says it all.

  5. burt 5
    1 July 2012 at 10:24 am

    In a desperate effort to hang on to a few red-neck solo mum votes, National Labour keeps on ramping up rhetoric against solo mums National welfare reforms.

    There – fixed the starting paragraph for you.

    • mike e 5.1
      1 July 2012 at 10:40 am

      bullyingBurt stigmatizing the weakest to cover up Nactionals broken promises and failures.

  6. mike e 6
    1 July 2012 at 10:42 am

    Burt numbers on DPB have sky rocketed under National.
    up from 80 odd thousand to 115,00 is hypocritical and another broken promise.

    • BM 6.1
      1 July 2012 at 10:49 am

      That’s because they get more money on the DPB, then the dole.

      • Kotahi Tane Huna 6.1.1
        1 July 2012 at 10:58 am

        No, it’s because someone who has kids and loses their job is eligible for the dpb, so that’s what they get.

        • BM 6.1.1.1
          1 July 2012 at 11:10 am

          Yeah, that’s the one,lol

          • Zorr 6.1.1.1.1
            1 July 2012 at 11:48 am

            It’s also someone who has children with their partner but then harder economic times hit so their partner leaves them due to the increasing stress of household life and is, literally, left holding the baby.

            There are many ways that someone might end up on the DPB and to attack the recipients of welfare based on an elitist, misogynistic stereotype of what the “average DPB mum” is, is to ignore all the incredibly valid reasons why someone may end up on it. How about, instead of attacking them for receiving welfare payments, praise them for raising their children and increase the support to allow them to be/become better parents (it helps us all).

            And, with regards this whole idea of only stupid/selfish people having children and relying on the benefit, the best contraception is effective and honest sex education. Let them know how it works, what they can use and what to do if it fails – because empowering women with education over their own sexual health is one of the surest ways to prevent pregnancies because then they will be armed with the skills to choose when to have one, rather than just letting life happen to them. However, this seems to be the antithesis of the right wing philosophy because “empowering women” and “educating the populace” are the last of their considerations except where to find funding for tax cuts.

            • mike e 6.1.1.1.1.1
              1 July 2012 at 11:59 am

              its all very well empowering women but men are 50% responsible .
              The rednecks tend to be men picking on the women who at least hang around to bring up the Children .
              So the rednecks are perpetuating the Abuse and neglect of the Fathers.

            • BM 6.1.1.1.1.2
              1 July 2012 at 12:08 pm

              None ones saying can the DPB and it’s a valid backstop for a lot of situations.
              But there are a lot of women who do pop out kids due to the fact they receive more money than what they would get on the dole.
              If you have no education and maybe the best you could probably achieve is being a cleaner, then the DPB looks pretty good.
              Basically the same amount of money for no effort, then if you can pick up a few cashies on the side for a lot of these girls things start looking pretty good, ok pay, cruisey lifestyle.

              • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                1 July 2012 at 12:21 pm

                lol you just can’t help demonstrating your ignorance and prejudice, can you?

                Get a friggin’ clue.

              • Chris …
                1 July 2012 at 12:25 pm

                How many women do YOU actually know who have “popped out” babies for the benefit? Just curious?

                • BM …
                  1 July 2012 at 12:31 pm

                  Pretty popular within Maoridom.

                  • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                    1 July 2012 at 12:53 pm

                    Ignorance and racism. You just tick all the right-wing boxes don’t you?

                  • Adele …
                    1 July 2012 at 1:21 pm

                    BM

                    Show me the evidence to support your contention that Māori women are popping out babies for the benefit. That Māori women feature disproportionately in DPB numbers does not necessarily infer a deliberate choice to be on the benefit.

                    To follow your implication further – while 20-23% of people on the DPB are Māori, 77 – 80% are non-Māori. But you reckon it’s only Māori women who are deliberately choosing to be on the benefit – while the rest are women receiving the DPB because of crap life circumstances. Pukana to that.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 July 2012 at 3:17 pm

                      Maybe Maori girls are just better at having babies…

                    • Zorr …
                      1 July 2012 at 3:33 pm

                      Or, maybe, the state that our society leaves young Maori in could be partly to blame for those statistics? It’s not like we just abandon them, right?

                      FFS @ BM

                    • BM …
                      1 July 2012 at 3:41 pm

                      @Zorr
                      Yeah, it’s everyone else’s fault.
                      What a load of privileged white liberal shit.

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      1 July 2012 at 4:01 pm

                      No, it isn’t “everyone else’s fault” – it’s the fault of ignorant, prejudiced, low-IQ dupes just like you.

                    • mike e …
                      1 July 2012 at 8:03 pm

                      BM more racism the average age of the Maori population is much younger so therefore they have more children.
                      I hope when your in the old people home and your espousing those racist ignorant views the care giver will be most likely Polynesian as Europeans are having smaller families and quite often no families.
                      And quite possibly paying for your pension through their taxes.

                    • Akldnut …
                      1 July 2012 at 8:36 pm

                      mike e – That would hilarious when or if it happens.

                      My ex-wife had the exact experience while she was a rest home care giver.
                      A couple of them even called her a black bitch and told her to fuck off.

                      They were invariably treated with less respect and quite often their concerns were ignored or put to the bottom of the list of things to do. And yet they were really nice to me and always wanted to talk, I’m white – go figure.

                  • prism …
                    1 July 2012 at 2:03 pm

                    BM I think sex is pretty popular with pakeha and Maori. Having babies is not usually the reason for having sex and preventing pregnancy is often more difficult than is presented. So unplanned babies happen along.

                    I presume you take a male sperm damaging pill – if they have got on the market yet – and always wear a condom. Or are you safe from the role of unwanted fatherhood because no-one ever fancies you enough and your criticism of mothers is based on envy?

          • Kotahi Tane Huna 6.1.1.1.2
            1 July 2012 at 11:55 am

            BM: did it register with you that they don’t get any more money (Mike e at 11:02)?

            My question is: where did you come by your ignorance? Did you make it up or has someone just found you easy to lie to? Not much fun being a dupe.

            • BM 6.1.1.1.2.1
              1 July 2012 at 12:13 pm

              I’m guessing you live a pretty sheltered life style.

              • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                1 July 2012 at 12:30 pm

                I’m guessing nothing you believe is based on anything other than witless right wing bullshit.

                • BM …
                  1 July 2012 at 12:34 pm

                  You mght want to go have a cup of tea and a lie down deary.
                  You’re starting to get a bit hysterical.

                  • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                    1 July 2012 at 3:59 pm

                    And back to my question, dupe: where did you come by your ignorance?

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 July 2012 at 4:25 pm

                      Frankly KTH I admire your restraint.

                      Personally I find the ear-bleedingly stupid arguments that BM is witlessly flailing about with… both viscerally vile and depressing at the same time.

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      1 July 2012 at 4:47 pm

                      Have some sympathy for BM – just another witless dupe without a single fact to call their own. Look how quickly the poor sap’s beliefs were shown to be utterly hollow and without foundation. What’s worse, these delusions, far from being discarded, will now be grasped even harder. A genuinely sad case.

                    • BM …
                      1 July 2012 at 6:52 pm

                      “NO DIFFERING VIEW POINT WILL BE TOLERATED”
                      Oh noes looks like it’s the gulags for me, for re-education.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 July 2012 at 7:17 pm

                      What …got an clue what it’s like not to be ‘tolerated’ all of a sudden?

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      1 July 2012 at 7:30 pm

                      Differing “views” are fine with me, but fact-free bullshit based on nothing but your silly prejudicial notions? Tell me why anyone should pay them the slightest attention. Not just a dupe, but a dreamer too.

                      PS: Do you get Red Logix point? Don’t like being discriminated against do you, cry-baby dupe?

                    • BM …
                      1 July 2012 at 7:58 pm

                      Pal, I really don’t give a fuck if you think my view point is valid or not.
                      I base what I think,on what I see, hear and read.
                      And that tells me that there’s heaps of chicks out there that breed for the money and couldn’t give a fuck about the kids they poke out.
                      Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass and actually mingled with someone other than middle class whities you may see where I’m coming from.

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      1 July 2012 at 8:08 pm

                      You see? Having had his silly fantasies thoroughly debunked he falls back on the stock-in-trade of the bigot – “I seen it!” Facts can’t enter this person’s world-view, and when they do they get rejected in favour of the familiar ol’ security blankie of prejudice.

                      What a sad excuse for a citizen, but what a perfect tool.

      • mike e 6.1.2
        1 July 2012 at 11:02 am

        it would be that economic pressures are causing marriages to fail and that mysogynist men are beating their partners and childdren.
        thats not true as the dpb rate is exactly the same with the children benefit added

  7. mike e 7
    1 July 2012 at 11:20 am

    BM I work in the front-line and see what’s happening every day.
    An example all to common here for you.
    One of the workers we have working for us mother has just kicked her logterm looser husband out after 10 years of him abusing her and the children taking money out of the family budget for drugs and booze then intimidating every body.
    Your going to deny her access to the DPB.
    Its the Man child syndrome I call it where the misogynistic narcissistic type men put their selfish habits ahead of their families and RWNJ’s that perpetuate their abuse are part of the problem not the solution.
    Remember that the average stay on the DPB is less than 3 years it was less than 2 years under the last labour govt.
    when you look at the figures closer and take out long-term recipients that figure means that most are receiving the benefit for little more than a year.
    Then when you look at long term recipients these people have been abused sexually and violently most of their lives by men.
    Rednecks are simple minded people looking for simple minded solutions.

    • burt 7.1
      1 July 2012 at 11:57 am

      BM I work in the front-line and see what’s happening every day.

      Right, so your best interests are also served by expanding welfare….

      • prism 7.1.1
        1 July 2012 at 12:07 pm

        Burt
        Your comments show that you are a sick sour old person even if you are young – in your mind you are as wrinkled as a dried pea.

    • prism 7.2
      1 July 2012 at 12:06 pm

      I make the point that bringing up children well to be happy, balanced adults doing good things in society is the most important job of all. Just think what a different world we would have if Hi…r, Sta…n and a multitude of vicious stirrers had received better child-raising techniques and also those who followed so eagerly.

      Being able to find part-time work and carrying some subsidy to an employer to maintain work skills and when able to do full-time, (which I think in stats is now 30 hours) for training and work experience would aid parents with children and the country best. Not just adopting the attitude that they should be whipped through the streets and have their heads shaved for not being in paid work, which some callous, stupid RWNJs would like to do.

      Having respect for the parental job by government, then assisting them to do it right with stated expectations and education NCEA credits for doing parental studies, and on the way covering basic reading and maths skills with a credit for being able to help kids with homework and that is the way to a fair and intelligent societal approach to families and parents.

      Of course this requires thought,tax money and a positive attitude by government to parents and their jobs. If not we will continue with this disgraceful parody of social welfare constantly being rerun at the first opportunity by the RW.

  8. mike e 8
    1 July 2012 at 12:11 pm

    Burt your a simple minded redneck.
    You want to come down off your high narcissistic misogynist horse .
    Its just one area I work in I Don’t get paid for this work I would rather it would all go away but its not going to sitting on the sidelines and complaining is not solving anything but reinforcing redneck prejudices.
    Misogynistic narcissistic Men are largely responsible for the problem.
    Some examples
    Dirty old Don brash Philanderer
    David Garrett wife beater
    Yeah aren’t those holier than though your Heroes Burt
    Your part of the problem Burt

  9. Lindsay 9
    1 July 2012 at 2:42 pm

    Some DPB facts:

    On average, sole parents receiving main benefits had more disadvantaged backgrounds than might have been expected:

    • just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period observed (the previous 10 years in most cases) supported by main benefits
    • a third appeared to have become parents in their teenage years (December 2005)

    http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/sole-parenting/understanding-sub-groups-of-sole-parents-receiving-main-benefits.doc

    43 percent of DPB recipients are Maori (March 2012)

    http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/benefit/2012-national-benefit-factsheets.html

    45 percent of Maori females aged 20-29 rely on welfare (October 2011)

    http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.co.nz/2011/10/what-if-all-women-relied-on-welfare.html

    • millsy 9.1
      1 July 2012 at 2:57 pm

      Piss off Lindsay. We all know that you wont be happy until women and their babies are sleeping on the streets, under bridges or in their cars. Why dont you admit that is what you want?

      • Psycho Milt 9.1.1
        1 July 2012 at 3:40 pm

        Millsy, we all know that you won’t be happy until cute little puppies are being skinned alive. Why don’t you admit that is what you want?

  10. prism 10
    1 July 2012 at 3:10 pm

    So 57% of domestic purposes beneficiaries are non-Maori at March 2012.

    45% of Maori females 20-29 are on some sort of benefit – unemployment, sickness, DPB etc.
    at October 2011. But the majority are not. A lot of young people couldn’t get jobs in 2011 and are continuing so in 2012.

    The proportion of Maori to non Maori population in the 2006 census – approximately 14.6% Maori, 67.6% European, 9% Asian and 7% Pacific – to get population proportions.

  11. Old Tony 11
    1 July 2012 at 4:54 pm

    Wonderful set of posts with the flavour determined by the original article. The depth of analysis, the coherent argument, and the ability of the Left to state and sustain its argument without descending to abuse all demonstrate why we love to have these people running our country!!!

    Here is my position for what it is worth:
    1. No woman should be directly or indirectly compelled to have an abortion.
    2. All welfare creates responsibilities on the part of the recipient (I know – anathema to the Left!).
    3. Behaving responsibly in the case of the DPB means managing one’s fertility to ensure that the stay on the benefit is minimised, as well as taking what reasonable opportunities there are to supplement the benefit, as well as getting off it as soon as possible.
    4. Where welfare recipients can’t be coaxed to be responsible the state is entitled to “penalise” the recipient in ways which do not unduly affect the children.
    5. Finding a way to achieve 4 is the single biggest challenge of the welfare state and one to which there are no easy answers. But work requirements and requirements to immunise the children are not beyond the pale. Requiring recipients to use contraception as a pre-requisite to welfare (as proposed a month or so back) is a step too far for me.

    Happy indignation!!

    • millsy 11.1
      1 July 2012 at 5:13 pm

      Do you want single mothers to live on the street?

      • Old Tony 11.1.1
        1 July 2012 at 5:31 pm

        “In ways which do not unduly affect the children”.

        • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.1
          1 July 2012 at 5:51 pm

          The bit you seem incapable of accepting is that you can’t do one (““penalise” the recipient”) without the other (“unduly affect the children”).

        • prism 11.1.1.2
          1 July 2012 at 9:11 pm

          Old Tony –
          Sounds like a man’s viewpooint. Always there is that objective judgment on pregnancies from the gender that is free of the whole monthly bleeding and then after conception the lengthy period carrying and then a man may leave much of the nurturing to females too.

          Why are you treating the solo mothers as if they are criminals? Penalties imposed that do not UNDULY affect the children indeed? What a kindly human being. It is a convention made up by a judgmental, perverse society that says that only women in relationships are correct to be mothers.

          • Old Tony 11.1.1.2.1
            1 July 2012 at 9:50 pm

            Hmm! Not sure about that. I’d suggest that the state is entitled to penalise any sort of beneficiary (whether male or female) who does not act responsibly. It’s just that we were discussing the DPB. And I’d be pretty harsh on blokes who don’t pay support as well. But that is a different debate.

            • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.2.1.1
              1 July 2012 at 10:24 pm

              I’d suggest that the state is entitled to penalise any sort of beneficiary (whether male or female) who does not act responsibly.

              What about rich people who do not act “responsibly”? Will they be held to account equally as well?

              Are you advocating a return to a paternal state?

            • prism 11.1.1.2.1.2
              1 July 2012 at 10:40 pm

              I was discussing behaviour that human beings are built for being regarded as illegal by a convention of po-faced people setting artificial standards for being human, of whom most are male.

    • RedLogix 11.2
      1 July 2012 at 5:33 pm

      OT,

      My position in reply is this:

      1) People have sex. Quite enthusiastically as a rule. All attempts in all of human history to suppress this urge have invariably backfired. Using the welfare system as a proxy to tell beneficiaries that they should not have sex will be no more successful than all other attempts.

      2) Young women have babies. Regardless of whether society says they ‘should’ or not. Again all attempts at suppressing this basic instinct have always ended in failure. Miserable, bitter failure.

      I see these two behaviours as something fundamentally good about humanity, I happily embrace our deeply sexual nature as a species. In many ways it defines our uniqueness and lays the foundation for our ability to live socially and co-operatively. I’d then go on to suggest:

      3) That most of the moral panic around the DPB stems from the fact that most of us treat our own children like property, and for this reason we twist ourselves into a state of unhappiness when we think of paying for ‘other people’s children’ via the tax system.

      4) If I handed you 2-3 young babies and asked you to raise them to adulthood, on the kind of income the DPB pays you’d most likely refuse. Who in their sane mind would undertake such an onerous task for such miserable pay. Other than their mother’s that is?

      I see these two false ideas as the root of the ignorance and prejudice around women who have children outside of the socialised property contract we call marriage. My response based on these observations is:

      5) Stop treating children like property. They are not yours to beat, indoctrinate, humiliate, abuse, ignore and generally treat like shit because the world treats you like shit. And while they are family they are not necessarily a vehicle for the family business to perpetuate itself into the future. This is an old bit of patriarchal make-do that has outlived any purpose in the modern world.

      6) A Universal Income and Child Allowance removes the stigma of the DPB in very practical way. All children and all mothers, regardless of whether they are in a relationship or not, are treated exactly the same by the State. All mothers perform a vital task, all should receive the same recognition for it.

      PS. Sorry this is a bit clunky… I want to say more but I don’t trust myself to say it coherently yet.

      • M 11.2.1
        1 July 2012 at 10:49 pm

        Good point on children being property. I get tired of children and parents on welfare being talked about as though they were rubbish to be discarded. What is the mother, and sometimes the father to do, re-insert them?

        A lot of the haters are men who have in all likelihood never taken a huge part in the raising of their own children and who have never known the fear of being pregnant and not wanted to be. I have a very Catholic aunt and even though she is steadfast in her beliefs will not hear a word against women who get caught out saying every time that the sin only ever shows on one person and upbraids those who criticise women doing their best on sod all money to raise children on the DPB.

    • Bill 11.3
      1 July 2012 at 6:26 pm

      What does it say of a society that claims it cannot afford to raise children and seeks to rob mothers of their dignity?

  12. Vicky32 12
    1 July 2012 at 5:58 pm

    “a small minority of parents having additional children to avoid work expectations”.

    Does Rebstock really believe that’s why people have children? Insane…
    When I was on DPB, the purpose of it was to enable parents to bring up their children without making said children into ‘latch-key kids’ as I believe the saying was. DPB wasn’t just some species of unemployment benefit! I am very thankful that when I was on DPB the idea that it was in fact a ‘job-seekers’ benefit to use the new phrase, didn’t come along until my son was in his teens. I was already job-hunting by then, and studying then working part-time anyway… IMO, children are much better off with their parents than being warehoused in ‘early education’ centres, most of which have nothing educational about them. (Especially if the child or one of them, has disabilities, as in the case of my nephew.)

  13. Treetop 13
    1 July 2012 at 8:22 pm

    I note in Simon Collin’s article “If they have another baby while on welfare their obligations will be deferred for a year, but they will then have to look for part – time work if their youngest previous child is then 5 or over.” This is different to what I thought was originally proposed, that you had to look for part – time work when the next child born while on the DPB is a year old.

    I saw last week that 80% of people kept their job after the 90 day trial employment period, sadly this will not be the case for single parents with a year old baby who have an older child/children. Employers are going to have to tread carefully to make sure that they are not taken to the employment tribunal.

    What does the government think that employers are going to do to accommodate the new DPB policy?

    1. Hours to suit?
    2. Unlimited/unexpected sick leave?
    3. Childcare on site?
    4. School holidays off?

  14. tracey 14
    2 July 2012 at 6:02 am

    Will i be banned if i use the same foul mouthed vitriol against a thread writer as this one has against someone else?

    • prism 14.1
      2 July 2012 at 2:11 pm

      David Farrer enjoys vitriol Tracey, uses it, finds it bracing like slapping on aftershave. Nice of you to worry about him.

  15. Kotahi Tane Huna 15
    2 July 2012 at 7:32 am

    Zetetic: “payback”.

    What form could this take? Obviously the top tax rate should be higher, but that is not a punitive measure – all but the lowest gutter National Party supporters scum should feel a sense of pride at being able to contribute their share.

    I would like to see cabinet ministers’ statements analysed for any factual distortions, and criminal charges brought against anyone who has proposed policy on the basis of lies.