Island Life: Good on ya, Paula
491 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 20 Newer→ Last
-
A couple of questions
Did the Labour MPs use these two womens cases as a way to score political points rather than just two women criticising the system then being outed by a Minister
Could have anyone with an undertstanding of the present system and a calculator work out the afore mentioned womens incomeJust asking?
-
What difference would it make?
-
A couple of questions
Did the Labour MPs use these two womens cases as a way to score political points rather than just two women criticising the system then being outed by a Minister
They were part of a group of women affected by the withdrawal of the TIA, who got together via a Trade Me group. They wrote to the minister and at some point spoke to the Opposition -- an entirely rational thing to do in the circumstances.
Could have anyone with an undertstanding of the present system and a calculator work out the afore mentioned womens income
From the original story they'd have been able to guess, yes. That's VERY different from having a minister of the Crown use her privileged position to retrieve their personal information publish it.
-
One good thing to come out of this is the focus of the cutting of the TIA for tertiary study in the Budget. This is an incredibly sad and shortsighted policy as anyone who has lived on a benefit and tried to access tertiary education would know. Student loans are very restrictive and are not possible for people who are also doing that very hard job of also feeding and housing children. Beneficiaries have not been able to access WWF etc and the TIA was specifically designed for beneficiaries to access education and eventually get off the benefit.
There is some speculation that Paula Bennett just misread or misunderstood the budget paper suggestion cutting it just for post graduate study and instead cut it from all tertiary study.
If there is a real intention to keep beneficiaries from retraining then that is giving serious political messages about the low citizenship status of those who do single parenting, or who live with disability etc, and all they can ever expect is the unskilled work that no one else wants.
-
Matthew Hooton just said on the radio that the women weren't "telling the truth" about their circumstances.
Motherfucker.
-
Yes, I am listening to Hooten - what a nasty little fucker he is.
I assume next time he criticises a Labour government on climate change he will be happy for the minister to release all his emails over the previous twenty years in relation to his role as a lobbyist for the tree growing people, whatever name they give themselves.
-
Just in case my position was not obvious
I don't think it is right that a minister should release personal details or leak them even
To stifle debate -
Paula Bennett, on close-up last night, spent considerable time trying to justify her actions, denying it was "simply a case of a Minister releasing private information improperly to silence critics.".... she was almost convincing.
And then used the words "teach them a lesson"....
Tell me that's not vindictive and inappropriate
Whoops!
-
Yes, I am listening to Hooten - what a nasty little fucker he is.
I think he's up to half a dozen baseless accusations of lying now.
Nice to hear Kathryn Ryan tearing into him though. She said "bloody"!
-
Listening to Hooten just now, I have ask - when did being a bully become a compulsory character trait in the right in this country? Hooten was disgraceful, shouting down and interrupting anyone who questions him.
Chris Trotter's final point - that there is strong class element in the right wing attacks on these women - is 100% true. Hooten, Bennett, and the rest of the right can barely disguise their contempt of beneficiaries.
-
Russell, actually, Hooten might be helping their cause. For a political commentator to use this information on Radio NZ, National, in the way he has will strengthen their complaint about the impact of this breach of privacy on their lives.
So, I am sure his intentions are good, what do you think, Craig?
-
Hooten, Bennett, and the rest of the right can barely disguise their contempt of beneficiaries.
I know the amount they're receiving isn't completely germane, but I do have to wonder why some people seem to think that $715 a week to feed, clothe and house a woman and three children is some horrifyingly large payout. Because it really isn't. What would they prefer, that those three children live in abject poverty so these smug pricks can feel better about 'their tax dollars'?
-
Some tangential points:
1. It was nice to hear some opposition MPs calling for an apology, rather than the sack. When you call for the sacking of a minister too often people start turning a deaf ear.
2. It's also been nice to hear balance from journalists. "Bennett did this, however, when Labour was in power their practice was to have ministerial staff leak the information instead of doing it openly." etc.
We could do with more of both of these.
-
What would they prefer, that those three children live in abject poverty so these smug pricks can feel better about 'their tax dollars'?
Welcome to the new Victorian class war, complete with their deserving and undeserving poor as defined by them.
I think they would prefer the smug joy of walking along a row of dirt floored hovels, with filthy and snivelling urchins tugging the threadbare petticoats of downtrodden and beaten mothers, until they find a hovel where the dirt floor is swept and there are neither to many (slut!) or to few (unnatural!) children playing in the well tended vegetable patch.
Then they can declare that in the opinion of right thinking people like them this family - but just this one - is deserving of the state's charity.
The rest have, by there own slovenly and lazy habits, made themselves less deserving and possessing fewer rights than cattle.
-
Between this and the policy of kicking out pregnant women on student visas, this is shaping up to be the most anti-women government we've seen in a while...
And Danielle, I don't think you need to apologise for the gender aspect of the Sarah Palin analogy (or was that on the other thread?). Because I think a huge part of the appeal of the Palins and Bennetts of the world is their exceptionalism. If they can do it on a benefit/with five kids/without actually being demonstrably good at the job in the first place, then why can't everyone else? Sorta thing.
-
Tom said it more eloquently. But yes; Victorian paternalism redux.
-
Don't forget scrapping pay equity! My ladybits and I, we feel extra valued under National. Oh yes.
I think a huge part of the appeal of the Palins and Bennetts of the world is their exceptionalism.
That is a really good point.
-
It's also been nice to hear balance from journalists. "Bennett did this, however, when Labour was in power their practice was to have ministerial staff leak the information instead of doing it openly." etc
That statement needs to be backed with some examples of this supposed leaking, otherwise it is no more than the sort of cheap slur one would expect on Kiwiblog.
Applauding Ms Bennett for her candour is hardly an appropriate response. What was obvious from her performance on Morning Report was that she revealed the information to stop the argument, which had been going on too long for her liking.
If such disclosure is a good thing, as the Herald editorial claims, then I hope IRD officials will leak details of the earnings and tax avoidance schemes of our political and media masters.
-
We could do with more of both of these.
With all due respect Graeme, aren't you a little tired of "After nine... long... years..." and "When Labour was in power..."? I mean, really how long is a year? Isn't it National who should be accountable for their own actions now?
-
No, the relevant Kiwiblog thread is much, much nastier than that. Post after post. I don't recommend reading it.
Wasn't planning to, but my poiint is that I don't bother participating in discussion there because when all you're going get is dismissed out of hand there's no point.
So, I am sure his intentions are good, what do you think, Craig?
I think I don't have opinions on things I've not heard. Wish there could have been the same outrage on Ryan's part when Lila Harre accused the Auditor General -- who happens to be an officer of Parliament -- of "colluding with National", but I've long been of the opinion that Hooters and Hairy aren't exactly adding value to National Rado.
Chris Trotter's final point - that there is strong class element in the right wing attacks on these women - is 100% true. Hooten, Bennett, and the rest of the right can barely disguise their contempt of beneficiaries.
Of course, this is the same Chris Trotter who compared critics of Winston Peters to pack rapists and thugs out to lynch them a nigra, and penned a somewhat creepy column opining that "courageous corruption" was perfectly justifiable if it keeps those evil Tories out of power. Pardon me if Trotter is taken about as seriously around these parts as Michael Laws.
-
I do have to wonder why some people seem to think that $715 a week to feed, clothe and house a woman and three children is some horrifyingly large payout
Two of whom apparently have serious medical conditions (from the HOS story). As I've said elsewhere, if everyone's benefit payments are enough to save up a pile of money for university study, well, aren't we overpaying benefits?
-
My ladybits and I, we feel extra valued under National. Oh yes.
And by "valued" you mean... yep, I know exactly what you mean.
I'd wager that another crucial part of the Palin/Bennett thing is their (conventional) attractiveness. A toothpaste beauty-queen smile can cover a multitude of sins. See also Phyllis Schafly and, er, I dunno, John Edwards, just to even things out?
-
I heard Danny Watson on Newstalk ZB yesterday wondering aloud why a solo mum with ONE child should get $715 a week from the government. He then asked the audience if he was correct that she had one child - he wasn't sure - and invited callers to phone in and correct him if he was wrong before launching into a Spot On black-belt right-wing fantasy of a sermon about beneficiaries ripping off the system. Lovely chap. No-one responded to correct him of course.
It's hard enough getting on a benefit in NZ. When you actually do need help WINZ do all that they can to not give you any. In my experience most people are between jobs for 1 to 4 weeks unless they are "long-term unemployed". This may of course change during the current recession (which must be verging on a depression BTW http://tinyurl.com/52wsao)
At the time when most hard-working taxpayers need help they will be given none by WINZ and instead be put on a stand-down period. Their philosophy is all wrong from my point of view. Hopefully said opinion isn't enough to see my name dragged through parliament by the thought police... -
Hooten and others say that the women could instead get a Tax free Student loan $150 per week, or a Student Allowance $175 pw. But I don't think you can be on a Benefit and the above at the same time. I think that the above Loan and allowance is only available for full time students. If I have that right then to get the alternatives, they would lose about $500 pw and have to sell their kids to survive.
-
I'm wondering what our new Productivity Tsar will say about removing support for tertiary education amongst otherwise "non-productive" citizens. Surely he'll be recommending an immediate change to upski... oh right.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.