Hard News: "Evil called: Can you make a meeting at 11?"
319 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 Newer→ Last
-
For me: a complete revamp of education, it is not delivering in so many ways.
One thing Key mentioned,when Havoc asked why he thought our young people were moving to Oz,(when the "everyone is leaving for Oz "was being bandied around that week), was , because "we were well educated".So with the other education policy that Nats say they have,(more funding for private schools),I can't imagine much change.I am no expert,and I have no idea how long it takes to measure effect of change, but, if we went back over the last 9 years, I suspect there has been quite a large revamp of the previous system
When a friend recently said (regarding voting) "Oh,it's time for a change" and when asked why, he responded he didn't really know why,(his funding was secure, thanks to Labour) just thought National should probably be given a chance! Probably, maybe..
I still get the feeling... If it ain't broke... -
Just a reminder that benefit levels are currently (in dollar terms) still lower than they were before Richardson's 1991 budget; by my reckoning about 15%. In real terms, of course, it's much more than that.
Also, not really keeping up with (relevant) inflation, so in fact still going down.
3410, aren't you ignoring Working for Families in this analysis? Do you mean unemployment, disability etc? I understood that, as a result of increased employment and wages, improved housing and WfF, income levels for low- to middle-income individuals and families were better?
-
Well for most students including as measured by progress in reading literacy for Year 5, senior secondary literacy and NCEA progress.
Surely the dirty word here is measurable. Speaking as broad consumer of secondary product the students I see have a limited skill set at which they are very good push many outside of this envelope and the cracks show quite quickly. My point is that schools teach to the exam (measurable) portion of the syllabus. In doing this many broader issues which we have taken for granted are being missed.
-
My point is that schools teach to the exam (measurable) portion of the syllabus.
You may well be right on this, however we can't ignore measures in this discussion can we? Kerry feels schools are failing, perhaps s/he is focused on factors currently not measured, I can't comment on this.
Somewhat sadly, we've arrived a point where apparently endless measurement is needed to assess the impact increased funding etc. I don't particularly like it, neither do teachers, but consumers generally do (or at least politicians around the world believe they do).
I understand it's a deisre for even more accountability that's behind ACT ill-conceived and under-developed proposal for a voucher scheme (imported direct without any sensible analysis from Sweden including, remarkably, no answer to how they'll improve educational outcomes).
-
3410,
3410, aren't you ignoring Working for Families in this analysis?
Yes, that's right. I'm talking about people who aren't working.
Do you mean unemployment, disability etc? I understood that, as a result of increased employment and wages, improved housing and WfF, income levels for low- to middle-income individuals and families were better?
Yes, I do. Your point is basically correct, on average, but only relevant to working people. I'm sorry, I don't quite know what you mean by "improved housing".
-
And yes, I remember the Fourth Labour government, and I remember what they did. I also remember the National governments which came afterwards.
Curious that in 1990 National positioned themselves as the anti-Labour, then went full steam ahead with the revolution that Douglas et al started. This time, they are positioning themselves as Labour-lite, but the suspicion is that they'll try to restart the revolution. My suspicion anyway. They proved to be lying bastards then, and I expect the worst this time too.
-
Paul -Thanks for the link, I read the follow up comments with interest. In my eyes accountability by measurement is the root of many evils; not least the way it has given politicians and media the whip.
-
Housing NZ and state housing income related rents for beneficiaries make a hell of a difference to their benefit and along with cheap doc visits (or no doc visit expenses) for all and assistance if you own your home and special assistance if you need it and kiwisaver and assistance for basics like washing machines/beds, then there is education with basic skills like computer studies and more if you ask.So in relative terms, Unemployed and sick are not ignored or worse off.
-
Labour did pull a swifty when WFF came in - they cut the base benefit rate of the DPB, which used to be $20 a week more than UB etc - I guess that was our reward for being stay at home parents gone. That little fact was largely missed by analysts at the time. Neither can DPBers get the $60 a week in work payment, which is why the Child Poverty Action Group have taken the government to court - a sad irony for a Labour govt, I feel.
Quite obviously, they want mums out working - free childcare etc. But what is always missed is the real life effects. Number one - some kids don't like and won't go to daycare. Alot of kids get sick and often - if you have two or more, double the sick leave you need to take. Number two - school holidays use up well over three months a year. Oh right, hiff the kids into daycare. Number three - why did you have children, again? To spend time with them, love and care for them yourself? Number four - many single parents don't have support networks of family & friends to fall back on. They're all too busy or have buggered off to Aussie.The message to the single parent is - get remarried quick, so you can have the required two incomes to live on. Grow a thick skin so you can't hear all the derogatory abuse thrown at you from all quarters.
-
Yesterday the Christchurch City Council put rents up 25%.
CCC are the second biggest housing provider behind Housing NZ.Sideshow Bob - welldone :(
-
3410,
Sofie, state housing income-related rents apply to only a small proportion of beneficiaries. Your other points are well made, but as someone who was a beneficiary in 1990 and is again now, I'm telling ya, overall, it's certainly harder now. I'm not here to apportion blame or credit; just trying to get the frame right.
(BTW, 15% down on 1990 levels overstates it a bit; more like 10, I think. To clarify: all of the drop occured in 1991, but has come back silghty, on occasion, since.)
-
as someone who was a beneficiary in 1990 and is again now, I'm telling ya, overall, it's certainly harder now. I'm not here to apportion blame or credit; just trying to get the frame right.
which I tried also, but one thing I learnt with these govt depts is that you ask straightforward questions and I have always been well informed. I haven't expected any assistance and appreciated it when I have received it but maybe I'm just lucky (although I suspect not). Lets just hope that Labours (or Greens or any other) new policies for this year are in consideration of those in Kerry's shoes or yours 3410. I'd be happy to hear it.
-
3410 said:
Yes, I do. Your point is basically correct, on average, but only relevant to working people. I'm sorry, I don't quite know what you mean by "improved housing".
Fair enough, I was thinking about all low-income people however I see now that you were talking about people out of work.
I'm telling ya, overall, it's certainly harder now. I'm not here to apportion blame or credit; just trying to get the frame right.
I'd thought benefit levels had improved overall a little more than this but I'm not across the data and, ultimately, it's people's experience that matters. The balance has to be between creating an incentive for people to find meaningful work and not condemning them to some form of subsistence existence. Getting it wrong risks creating not relieving disadvantage.
-
Craig, dude, I love you, but you base so many of your arguments on false equivalences.
Danielle: The love is entirely mutual, but I've lived on a fixed and not exactly generous income on both sides of the 1990 election -- and have more experience that I like to think about of occasions where pride was an unaffordable luxury.
You know something, whoever thinks poverty and/or mental illness is enobling needs a good hard thump with the reality stick. And in my experience, the rosette the Prime Minister of the day was wearing was not particularly relevant.
-
Now, folks, how are we going to blame National and Crosby/Textor for this little Rovian smear (made under parliamentary privilege, naturally)?
Prime Minister Helen Clark led a blistering attack on National leader John Key yesterday in a bid to link him to a privatisation agenda in stark contrast to the Government's buy-back of the railways, but she got a key fact wrong.
The Opposition counter-attacked over her evident lack of knowledge of financial details of the $690 million deal and an error she made over spending advice on rolling stock, in the absence of her details man, Finance Minister Michael Cullen.
Helen Clark revealed that Mr Key was a director of Bankers Trust, a firm that helped the sale of New Zealand Rail in 1993, and made $39 million profit that year. "Members should ask themselves the questions: who benefited from the sale of TranzRail? Mr Key and his friends."
Mr Key said later he had played no part in the deal and that the profits had been largely generated by his own trading operations section of the firm, not from mergers and acquisitions.
The sharper end of Helen Clark's attack was a claim that Mr Key had an undisclosed conflict of interest because his family trust had 30,000 shares in TranzRail in 2003 when he was making comments about a privatised rail company.
Her attack was blunted by Mr Key's assurance to Parliament that the shares had been sold by then.
A spokesman for Helen Clark said last night that she accepted Mr Key's word on the matter but said "the wider point is that he has privatisation in his blood".
Golly... Who needs to actually get your facts right when accusing your opponents of outright corruption, when you're breaking new frontiers in haematology?
-
Now, folks, how are we going to blame National and Crosby/Textor for this little Rovian smear (made under parliamentary privilege, naturally)?
Good grief Craig, you seem to be popping up all over the show with this comment. You really need to check out Rove and C/Ts track record before making such idiotic comparisons.
As far as I can see Clark was one year out on this and quite frankly, National have been hanging Government ministers out for far less than this over the last 3 years.
-
This is from yesterday which, is more accurate. It was a roudy day but I also note that John Key didn't respond regarding accusations and it was only after he left and returned some time later, he was able to claim ,he had sold his shares (I think he gave a time frame)
-
You really need to check out Rove and C/Ts track record before making such idiotic comparisons.
And, Don, you really need to try and mount a defence that hasn't been scripted by a surly teenager still using the moral reasoning skills of a toddler. Everybody does it... they did it first... it was only a little fib. I believe the next stage is to scream "YOU ALL HATE ME, I HATE YOU" and flounce out of the room, slamming the door behind you.
-
It was a roudy day but I also note that John Key didn't respond regarding accusations and it was only after he left and returned some time later, he was able to claim ,he had sold his shares (I think he gave a time frame)
And your point, Sofie? I actually think it was wise of Key to go away and be very sure that anything he said on the subject was absolutely clear and factually accurate, don't you? Or does that not fit the meme of Dubya Key the Textor/Crosby finger puppet who is so inept and dishonest he wouldn't think twice about misleading the House.
I'd also like to know whether you have instant and total recall of every financial transaction you made five years ago. I sure don't, and compared to Key and Clark (no family trust, for a start) my finances are relatively simple.
-
"Rovian" smear.
I hardly think this a 'Rovian' smear Craig. There might be a slight use of hyperbole.
-
Craig. Rove's classic "triumphs" are push-polling to tell voters that John McCain had an illegitimate black child (he had adopted a Bangladeshi girl from an orphanage), and paying law students to spread a rumour that an Alabama judge noted for his work with underprivileged children was actually a paedophile.
Given your frequently articulated disdain for moral equivalency I find your use of the word "Rovian"... surprising.
-
I hardly think this a 'Rovian' smear Craig. There might be a slight use of hyperbole.
OK, David, it's not as if she accused him of supporting third-trimester abortion, lying about his military record or fathering an illegitimate baby on a black protitue. Just insinuated that he used his position as an MP to "talk up" the share price of a company to line his own pockets and enrich the beneficiaries of a family trust.
Not 'Rovian' at all. Just another big dirty smear -- which is A-OK as long as Darth Rove and Daleks Crosby and Textor don't have anything to do with it. Move on - nothing to see here.
-
which is A-OK as long as Darth Rove and Daleks Crosby and Textor don't have anything to do with it
No, I didn't say it was ok, you're a better arguer than that. I just said that your use of 'Rovian' was hyperbole.
I personally find it hilarious that she's gone and made such a dick of herself. And I'm fairly confident there will be some researchers getting their asses tanned.
But we in NZ do not do Rovian (and this includes National) because there's just not enough controversy in this country.
-
Sofie, state housing income-related rents apply to only a small proportion of beneficiaries.
I'd hazard a guess that there are about 61,000 households paying income related rents (about 90% of HNZC's tenants). Assuming they're all on benefits & there are an average of 3 tenants per household ( let's make it 2 & assume there's 1 child), that's 122,000.
How many beneficiaries are there in total?
-
Craig, once again you completely miss the point. It is not that Clark's tactics were tasteful, clearly they were not. It was your immediate and rather lame attempts at equivalence to Rove that drew attention.
And, Don, you really need to try and mount a defence that hasn't been scripted by a surly teenager still using the moral reasoning skills of a toddler.
Try reading back through a day's worth of your language in PA before you dare start throwing that sort of garbage at people on this forum.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.