Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Welfare: Back to the Future?, in reply to Tristan,
I’m pretty sure Craig would have wanted better than that from Key
I want better from this government on all kinds of scores, and I don’t think I’ve been a shrinking violet about saying so here or anywhere else. But on the specific matter this thread is about, I might get my rage on when I’ve read and properly digested the actual report.
Oh, but having tried (and failed) to repress my memories of being on wefare under the previous two governments take it as read that I’m seriously underwhelmed that beneficiaries are still being dicked around, often (as Russell points out) in breech of the law and WINZ’s own rules.
Being on a benefit is never going to be anything less than humiliating and painful for most people. I’ve been there, darling, and you’ve got nothing to tell me about how degrading it is being asked intrusive questions about your mental health just to pay the rent. Or being an alcoholic hanging on to your sobriety by your finger nails and trying to get through to your case worker that going to a job interview in a liquor store sounds like a really bad idea. How soul-destroying it is feeling like shit on the bottom of someone’s shoe as you put another fuck-off letter in the file.
But putting the goalposts on rollerblades just makes it worse. And it doesn’t have to be that way if Bennett (and her .Labour shadow) would put some practical measures and accountabilities in place. Finally.
-
Hard News: Welfare: Back to the Future?, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,
Whatevers, Danyl. {Lengthy rant redacted} ETA: I’m starting early on giving up troll-bait for Lent.
-
Hard News: Welfare: Back to the Future?, in reply to Russell Brown,
So he’s appointed a working group whose recommendations are “extreme” and make him “queasy”. Righto.
Well, to be fair Russell, I don’t think Helen Clark was given to rubber stamping every politically untenable recommendation that crossed her desk. And despite what some folks will assert, I don’t think you could fairly say the Fifth Labour Government appointed nothing more than cronies and sycophantic arse-lickers who were handed a script and told any ideological deviationism would be looked upon most unkindly.
A competent Labour response would absolutely hammer that suggestion and the people who have made it.
After a slightly bewildering performance from Goff on Morning Report, I'd like to know where Labour's magical job creating policies are beyond... um, tinkering with monetary policy. Or something we will told about in the fullness of time.
-
Hard News: Welfare: Back to the Future?, in reply to Russell Brown,
I’ve been quite shocked at the way the goalposts have moved at WINZ without the bother of formally changing the rules.
And that’s something Bennett could actually do a real public service by sorting. I didn’t want to be on a benefit, and it was profoundly unhelpful (to put it mildly) when you acted in good faith only to be told that the goalposts hadn’t moved – you were now stuck playing table tennis with a hockey stick.
It’s not a precise analogy, but it’s not entirely dissimilar to dealing with the IRD. Pretty hard to engage in any mid- to long-term financial planning when you can’t get the same straight answer to a straight question twice in a row, while the consequencces of getting it wrong are potentially horrific.
-
Hard News: Welfare: Back to the Future?, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Tickety-boo. The endorphins and serotonin released during multiple Morning Report-induced screaming fits haven't worn off yet.
-
Might break with tradition and comment on the report itself once I've read the damn thing, rather than the pre-emptive spin and counter-spin.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to BenWilson,
The thing about the religious ceremony, and the reason why so many secular people (like myself) still submit to it, is that it’s all about making a big fuss of the day.
Quite -- I know people I've never seen in a church beyond weddings, funerals and christenings (but only if there's an open bar afterwards) but judging people's motivations for having a religious wedding would not only be massively impertinent on my part, but is most definitely not a legitimate interest of the state.
But, yeah, you've nicely pointed out another hypocrisy of the "the fags are threatening my marriage" crowd. One of the most rancid specimens of my acquaintance is a serial divorcee (due to his compulsive and flagrant adultery) who makes Newt Gingrich look like the paragon of uxorious virtue. I don't know who he's blackmailed to be allowed to re-marry (more than once) in a Catholic Church, since my understanding of Catholic canon law is that his string of civil divorces would render all the rest invalid.
-
Outrageous Boobies? I'm wondering if Dean O'Gorman has a stunt arse -- it's certainly turning into the Nikki Watson of New Zealand television. :)
-
Up Front: Say When, in reply to Megan Clayton,
I am not a frequent commenter as PAS because I favour the long-form in writing and don't wish to clog up the columnage unduly.
Don't be silly. There's a delightful doo-dad on the mouse called a scroll wheel, and I'll use it if you're being tiresomely verbose.
-
Fun fact: I toyed with the headline CHRISTOLOGICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD, but anything that sounds like a cancerous growth is probably more of a liability.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 342 343 344 345 346 … 1235 Older→ First