Hard News: Deja Vu
239 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
Back to Holmes. Does he write well sometimes? If not, how did he win the Qantas Award for best columnist when there are brilliant writers out there who are so very much better than he is. He seems to have one main subject - himself.
I recall the gasp in the awards audience when he won it the first time. I think he can write well, but a good deal of the time he is, as you say, focusing on his favourite subject.
This might (okay, will) horrify people, but I've learned a lot from him about TV presenting. When he got on TV, he demystified a lot of what doing TV was about. When most other hosts were stuffed shirts, he'd talk to his floor manager or producer offscreen; he'd do things you weren't supposed to do. For all that he might annoy us, he is talented and original.
I see him occasionally, usually when he's flogging his olive oil, and I personally like him. But ...
As someone said before, he has this image of himself as a little kiwi battler - like Paula ...
I think he identifies with people who he perceives as being, like himself, in the spotlight and under fire, and perhaps a little narcissistic.
But he habitually flatters his own judgement. I interviewed him once for a Listener feature and he told me how he'd spoken to then-Cambridge High School principal Alison Annan in the green room before she appeared on his show, and caught a glimpse of her good soul. Or something.
But by any rational assessment of the facts, she was out of control and self-obsessed, she'd fiddled the school's NCEA results, and she'd really hurt some of the families she'd taken against (including that of one autistic boy). His Paula Bennett column is the same thing.
I had to stop watching his recent methamphetamine documentary (I'll get back to it).
The scene where he sat weeping angrily over harm minimisation advice in some CADS literature was not only dishonest (He quoted the part that said: "Speed can be the ultimate party drug. You’ll fly through the night with the greatest of ease," and not the next sentence, which said "While you’re having a great time, your body will be drained of vital ingredients, which could turn out to be the least of your problems," and the harm minimisation part was from a completely different document.), it was anecdotal, it was emotional, and it was mostly about Paul.
-
Mark, as desirable as it might be for extended family to pick up where parents fail/struggle, it's not always possible. I don't know about your circumstances, but I'd have trouble taking in my teenage nephew should I need too; my house would be too small and my kids are very young.
I was involved in student politics when student allowances were cut back and loans introduced and I remember the debate about the availability independent circumstances benefit (or whatever they were called). By reducing its availability, I'm pretty sure the trauma of a dysfunctional family would have been compounded by exclusion from university...
Implicit in your comments is a view about extended families that sort of appeals to me; that we ought to be helping out our kith and kin. Perhaps we've gotten use to the kind of wealth that is attainable when you have one kid and two incomes. Still, they'll likely always be a number of young people who need to escape home and denying them support could well lead to far worse.
-
Ohh ... Julian Robbins just explained the significance of Bill English withdrawing as a beneficiary of the family trust which owns his house -- after the election last year.
Had he remained a beneficiary of the trust, he would not have been eligible for much or all of the money he's getting.
Wow. Even if there's an innocent explanation, that's not a good look.
-
Mark, in which utopia do you reside where young people have convenient relatives who can take them in?
Pretty much most countries excluding the new world.
Hell, maybe the nearest family members are no better than the parents from whom they are so eager to escape.
seems you have a problem.
To give you a succinct, and I suspect fairly widely-held within this forum, response to your position: fuck that shit!
Bill English is the man you need to speak to.
So what you're saying Mark is that...
If I had kids (which I don't) and if those non-existent kids had to stop living with me for whatever reason, you'd ship them back to the UK - cos that's where my nearest rellies live...
I don't think anyone's saying that, that would be something you'd need to take up with the immigration dept.
ww, that's certainly how it read to me. His position is consistent with an abolition of the welfare state, relying on familial charity to support those who are unable to support themselves.
Not at all. I'm a fan of the welfare state. I have no issue with the state intervening in cases where minors face hardship. I just find their intervention amounts to little more than some cash to cover food and board and little if anything is done to eradicate the underlying issues. I'd like to hear some significant arguments against Mr English's wish to scrap this benefit beyond the mandatory site 'fuck that shit', because frankly 'fuck that shit' wouldn't have that much resonance in a serious debate around the issue. I think it's no secret that the family unit has broken down in New Zealand, and the current solution while adequate is far from making inroads into curbing the larger issue.
One factor seems to be that in New Zealand a 16 year old in the 21st century is being considered mature enough to take care of themselves. I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing kids, given a check and told to sort their lives out. It's all very well for people to get high and mighty about being able to "afford to feed another mouth", but essentially if Aunty can't afford to feed inconvenient neice, then how is Government feeding inconvenient niece going to make food any more affordable for aunty. it's not. It's just a bandage of tide me overs till New Zealand hits the wall.
I have no issue with that benefit as it stands. But Bill wants to scrap it, and so we want to argue in its favour by offering little more than 'we'll pay the kids so and so amount and our hands be clean'.
-
Tautoko Matthew Poole
I've been searching for the spelling of that word on and off for a while. I learned it, to the extent that you understand a concept from a language you don't speak, when studying and I often think it's precisely the word/concept I most want to use when commenting here...
I'm thinking it means "agree, support, affirm, appreciate", that about right?
Thanks Islander.
-
Had he remained a beneficiary of the trust, he would not have been eligible for much or all of the money he's getting.
I understand it's gone from $400 p.w. to $900-$1000 p.w. since the change of circumstances, that'd be while we're to tighten our belts...
-
Indeed it does Paul Williams-
-
@ Russell
All this "trust" business (isn't "trust" an odd term for something which often seems to come down to tax avoidance?) is confusing (as intended?), but, can Bill English at some time in the future become a beneficiary of the trust once more?
And at that point does something happen to get back the money he's currently taking due to the shenanigans being uncovered?
And if not, why hot?
-
ww, that's certainly how it read to me. His position is consistent with an abolition of the welfare state, relying on familial charity to support those who are unable to support themselves.
Plus he seems to have made the assumption that the relie would be happy to take on this responsibility. Having said that, you're being generous to grant him a consistent position from his statements. Earlier, when asked "You cannot possibly think that it's better for a teen to stay in an abusive home than live by themselves" he responded "Of course not never implied it". I suspect he's lost track of what he started out saying on this matter.
...'fuck that shit' wouldn't have that much resonance in a serious debate around the issue.
Why focus on an offhand comment and ignore the substantive points Matthew made in the previous paragraph?
-
...or indeed "why not?"
-
Even if there's an innocent explanation
I look forward to hearing it.
-
that's not a good look.
Sometimes you are too polite Mr Brown.
-
Implicit in your comments is a view about extended families that sort of appeals to me; that we ought to be helping out our kith and kin. Perhaps we've gotten use to the kind of wealth that is attainable when you have one kid and two incomes. Still, they'll likely always be a number of young people who need to escape home and denying them support could well lead to far worse.
Thanks Paul, that's pretty much what I'm gunning for, In some cases that benefit is an absolute necessity, in other cases alternatives could be reached. It'd be nice to see if either Mr English or the opposition have some significant thoughts on the issue in terms of alleviating these kinds of problems in the long term.
-
Plus he seems to have made the assumption that the relie would be happy to take on this responsibility.
Of course not no. Sorry. Expecting a family member to be happy or even ok to take care of another family member? In New Zealand? What was I thinking?
"Of course not never implied it". I suspect he's lost track of what he started out saying on this matter.
Sorry I'm marking. it's contagious.
Why focus on an offhand comment and ignore the substantive points Matthew made in the previous paragraph?
He wasn't addressing the cause of the problem, which is the weakness with the benefit itself.
-
Essentially Steve, BEnglish wants to scrap it, Others were saying it's fine- we shouldn't scrap it 'what would we do without it' etc, and I'm personally saying its flawed and needs some work.
-
"Of course not no. Sorry. Expecting a family member to be happy or even ok to take care of another family member? In New Zealand? What was I thinking?"
O nothing. Or you werent thinking. Those comments are on a par with your earlier one apropos (precis) "it's accepted that the NZ family unit has broken down."
No, it hasnt, mate. For every dysfunctional family you read/hear about via the media, there are 50 taking care of their own. Your patronising
scorn is rooted in ignorance - which does not obviate "he seems to have made the assumption that the rel(l)ie would be happy to take on this responsibility." You did make that assumption (as I read your words.) And there are many reasons why some members of a whanau may not be able to help: distance, as webweaver pointed out. Age. Poverty. Illhealth. Or just being a very small whanau... -
…or indeed "why not?"
Sorry, not sure what you mean, Steve.
-
Of course not no. Sorry. Expecting a family member to be happy or even ok to take care of another family member? In New Zealand? What was I thinking?
Because of course it’s easy to just take on the care of another person’s teenager, who may live in another city and have a network of friends there. Seriously, go back and read Matthew's points again and respond if you can.
Anyway, we don’t live in an authoritarian state where someone can be obliged to take on care of a person just because they‘re related. It’s great if extended family can help out in these situations, but for various reasons it doesn’t always work that way - hence the need for the benefit.
He wasn't addressing the cause of the problem, which is the weakness with the benefit itself.
He was refuting a point you made earlier, and what he said is directly related to the issue of the need for the benefit.
-
ah the wrath... it's up above Islander. I'm not patronizing you or anyone, I just think you're good at finding excuses not to put family first.
-
I'm thinking it means "agree, support, affirm, appreciate", that about right?
Thanks Islander.
Me too. I've known the word for a long time and always thought it was pretty handy, but this reminds me I should take advantage of its utility.
That would have been a good angle for last week's Media7 panel on te reo, as a next step beyond Maori as The Language of Saying Hello. What other words have a meaning that cuts to the quick of what we, people who live here, are trying to express? What a useful thing!
Although Maori is a magnificent language for saying hello. Mikaere and his dad wrote me my whaikorero for this year's Foo Camp, and I loved speaking the greeting part. Not least in that I think the idea of saying hello to people's local mountains is choice.
So yeah, I reckon "I tautoko that" is a very PAS thing to say.
-
mark taslov, I take that comment *extremely* personally on behalf of me, my own, and all my friends, and a *very* large number of people I am acquainted with- our families are paramount (but not your nasty little god)
what Matthew Poole said-
-
That would be, Mark, because some families are, to put it kindly, shit. And their children should never live with them. There are many wards of the state who are unable to live with their own families - and that means extended, not just immediate, because they are not healthy places for those kids to be. I teach in an area where, quite frankly, we would be buggered if it weren't for grandparents, for example. We have a few children who have been removed from their parents because of neglect/abuse/mental health issues. Those children will definitely, if they need to, be living with their families as teenagers because their parents will not be in the picture. There are however children who I teach who will probably end up living on that young persons' benefit because their entire family is toxic. Loving rellies aren't that easy to find. Ask CYFS.
-
mark taslov:
The mere existence of a benefit does not automatically mean that it's being thrown around willy-nilly at individuals in the absence of other avenues of support. Likewise, just because you heard of someone that's flagrantly abusing it, doesn't mean that every beneficiary is.
Obviously there are plenty more resources - financial & practical (as there is are every suboptimal circumstance) - that could be done to support those individuals financially, domestically, emotionally, whatever. However, I'm sure that most posters are expressing the opinion that eliminating a benefit entirely - essentially removing state-based support without offering any kind of substitute - is a pretty crap way of addressing the issue. Your point re: BEnglish not offering anything other than "fuck that shit" is bang on.
So... as per usual, you're starting with an inflammatory and ill-constructed point, and are back-engineering it into a very sensible point on the fly, to placate your opposition. It'd be great if you could start with the reasonable points & build on them instead.
-
isn't "trust" an odd term for something which often seems to come down to tax avoidance?
It's a very, very old term, possibly one of the oldest in "English language" legalese, given that it dates back to the Crusades. Back then, when the head of the household was heading off to claim glory, honour, and as many infidel Muslim scalps as possible, he had to do something with his property to keep it from being claimed back by the local lord. After all, with no laws of property succession and nobody but males allowed to own property, if the head of the household died or was otherwise incapacitated the land reverted to the nobility of the area. So, to avoid this, he'd pass the land to somebody he trusted to be run for the benefit of his family. The trust was that not only would it be run for the benefit of his family, but also that the land would, on his return, be transferred back into his possession. With, at the time, no law to require that this be done, it was very definitely a matter of trust.
From that basic concept we now have the modern trust structure, which is an entity that holds property on behalf of some set of persons for the benefit of another (possibly overlapping) set of persons. Tax avoidance is, as much as anything, an incidental benefit to a trust, since the IRD have fairly broad powers to go around and through trusts to ensure that tax is paid. They're more useful for stopping disgruntled creditors or former partners from getting at your assets, and even that protection is somewhat qualified.can Bill English at some time in the future become a beneficiary of the trust once more?
And at that point does something happen to get back the money he's currently taking due to the shenanigans being uncovered?
I would assume that he's actually ceased to be a trustee rather than a beneficiary, as it's the trustees who hold the title to the property. The Herald article refers to him having transferred full title to Mary, and that's something that trustees do. Trustees are the legal owners of all trust property, as the trust has no legal personality (that is, it's not recognised as an entity in its own right) and thus cannot own anything.
As for a claw-back, I doubt it. This is taxpayer money in the form of an allowance, and the pollie-grubbies are very unwilling to let anything as inconvenient as propriety get in the way of their snuffling at the trough. -
where someone can be obliged to take on care of a person just because they‘re related
Feeling the love.
He was refuting a point you made earlier, and what he said is directly related to the issue of the need for the benefit.
His point being he think's I'm saying abolish the welfare state because I think we should take a closer look at how and in what manner benefits are administered to under 18s.
Considering Matthew's first response was directly following;
this exchange.
Makes you wonder what's going to happen when they scrap it, eh?
Guess your mate would have to go live with a relie.
I mean IF Bill English scraps this, what do you think will happen Steve (advocate of Matthew?)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.