Island Life: Good on ya, Paula
491 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 20 Newer→ Last
-
AFAIK the only change is globally replacing "Ministers" with "ministers",
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0907/S00319.htmI've sent an email to the contact address asking about it but I imagine they're not taking many calls.
-
... a change they seem to have been making throughout the site. In this case the page address also contained "minisiters" which might contribute to the change there (?).
-
I've sent an email to the contact address asking about it
Ditto.
-
Which says there is no difference between the two.
I only compared the header and main body of text, not menus etc around the outside.
-
Paul Graham's Why Nerds Are Unpopular seems to explain the outpouring of public bile nicely:
Another reason kids persecute nerds is to make themselves feel better. When you tread water, you lift yourself up by pushing water down. Likewise, in any social hierarchy, people unsure of their own position will try to emphasize it by maltreating those they think rank below. I've read that this is why poor whites in the United States are the group most hostile to blacks.
-
I am beginning to think Parliament TV Question Time should transfer to the Comedy channel, actually no, it would ruin a fine (now) viewing, so should that be Disney? Yes I think more Mickey Mouse House.
-
Tony Kennedy raises a point that drives me a little nuts.
"Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is measured by how fervently they believe it."
"The media" spends an awful lot of time and effort reporting on what people believe to be true. Example, a recent headline in the UK stating that 58% of the population "believe" UK troops are dieing because they are ill-equiped.
No attempt to report on whether this "belief" actually bares any relation to the state of affairs on the groud. It is more a measure of whether someone's message is making it into the public conciousness.
That is why the Republicans are currently running a campaign questioning Obama's citizenship. I doubt any of them believe it themselves but they know that it will become true in the minds of many so long as they keep repeating the lie.
The shame of it is this, the very journalists who are crying into their beers about the death of their profession and evil bloggers leaching their livelihoods are, and have been for far too long, buying into this MO and making it easy for liars to perpetuate these lies.
-
Chris Trotter's final point - that there is strong class element in the right wing attacks on these women - is 100% true.
I've long felt that many of the "isms" that various government bodies are set up to protect us against - racism, sexism, even ageism to some extent - are, in the majority of cases, just the "acceptable" face of classism (because in supposedly egalitarian NZ it's more acceptable to admit racial prejudice, say, than to hint that you think you belong to a better class of person).
Having been a dirt poor middle(ish) aged white male on many occasions I can attest that there's no apparent advantage in it, compared to being, say, a dirt poor middle aged Maori male... no old boy's network came and gave me the secret handshake and lifted me out of poverty. Instead I, and my family, were treated as though we really ought to take a good hard look at whether we had a reason to exist.
Meanwhile the fawning that goes on over the likes of Ron Mark in some circles, despite his detestable views, suggest race etc is no barrier if you elevate yourself to the right class, or do enough to mimic and amplify their prejudices.
At least English class is based on centuries of who one's pater was, what school they went to, etc. In NZ it's based on nothing more than "I've got a big income", which is often as much about luck as it is hard work and intelligence. And knowing that, people seem to think the only way they can maintain their place in the sun is standing on the heads of others.
-
At least English class is based on centuries of who one's pater was, what school they went to, etc. In NZ it's based on nothing more than "I've got a big income", which is often as much about luck as it is hard work and intelligence.
That's an interest contrast you're drawing there.
So, is having the right parents a matter of luck, or hard work and intelligence?
-
Guts of reply from privacy commission:
The technology is playing tricks I'm afraid. There have not been changes in the content of the checklist today.
We simply moved the location of the checklist from its incorrect spot under "speeches", to the correct place under "guidance material".
The capitalisation issue that you raise is some sort of website glitch that has occurred automatically. I noticed a similar thing on one of our other website documents today. Thanks for drawing it to our attention.
Our website also automatically changes the "last updated" date shown by each document any time they are moved. That is all that happened today. We simply moved it so that it was easier to find - and was stored in the correct spot.
-
At least English class is based on centuries of who one's pater was, what school they went to, etc. In NZ it's based on nothing more than "I've got a big income", which is often as much about luck as it is hard work and intelligence. And knowing that, people seem to think the only way they can maintain their place in the sun is standing on the heads of others.
There's definitely a class divide in NZ, just not in the British sense. What's emerged in NZ is a privatised class divide not unlike that of other Anglo New World settler nations, and in post-Thatcher Britain. You can easily come across millionaire yobbos, as well as cosmopolitan bohemians living on an oily rag.
-
Audrey Young puts it perfectly:
What is clear is that despite the supposedly newer, softer, gentler face of National on welfare, nothing can mask the seething resentment that remains skin-deep among the public against beneficiaries.
It was less obvious in the period of near full-employment that accompanied sustained economic growth of recent years.
But it remains almost as palpably ugly as it was in the 90s when Bennett was on a benefit - and the sense of insecurity engendered by the today's economic recession appears to have fuelled it.
She also writes that it appears from her answers to Annette King that Bennett has a computer in her office from which her welfare officials can access beneficiary files, thus enabling her to get the information without going through the chief executive.
-
After hearing John Key referring to student loans, I did a bit of digging.
So: people on a benefit (looks like anything that isn't Unemployment benefit) can apply for a student loan to cover fees and course costs. This still applies if they're studying part-time.
If they get a TIA, the amount they're allowed to borrow is reduced by the amount of TIA they get, except for TIA that covers such expenses as transport, child care and disability-related costs.
I assume, given they and others have invested time, effort & organisation into petitioning the minister, that they're not short of a few braincells, and had already filled out the loan application forms. I also imagine, given the TIA figure I saw mentioned was a grand total of $28/week, that they're relying on TIA for exactly the aforementioned expenses.
Here's the relevant studylink page.*
* Disclaimer: This post utilised the Bennett research method. Treat accuracy of information with some caution.
-
I assume, given they and others
..that is, the two women at the heart of the controversy.
-
She also writes that it appears from her answers to Annette King that Bennett has a computer in her office from which her welfare officials can access beneficiary files, thus enabling her to get the information without going through the chief executive.
Why on earth would she want/need this? Why on earth would the agency agree? It seems to transgress the normal separation of responsibilites and unduly exposes the private information to political misuse... kinda like what's happened...
-
Why on earth would she want/need this?
To deal with frequent requests from other MPs that they investigate the case of some constituent or another.
There's a legitimate purpose for MSD staffers in her office having access. The problem is that when the Minister demands information, it may not always be clear what it is to be used for, and it may be very difficult for a seconded public servant to refuse an improper and abusive request.
-
To deal with frequent requests from other MPs that they investigate the case of some constituent or another.
Ok I/S, I can see something in that and I've not worked in a Minister's Office. I will say however, that I work for an public training provider supporting 500,000 enrolments per annum (that's not a typo) and MPs requests regarding why this, that an the other student hasn't got her certificate, log book, access to the library are handled by the Department, not the Minister's Office. I think the separation between operational responsibilities and policy ones is important.
-
The problem is that when the Minister demands information, it may not always be clear what it is to be used for, and it may be very difficult for a seconded public servant to refuse an improper and abusive request.
It'd be one ballsy private secretary who refused to provide a Minister information when s/he demanded it, regardless of the propriety of the request or end purposes for which that information was requested. And I imagine any refusal by the staffer would no doubt result in being sent back to the Department forthwith.
It will be interesting to see what course of action Peter Hughes takes here. Surely he'll have to investigate whether the staffer broke the rules around accessing confidential information.
-
Example, a recent headline in the UK stating that 58% of the population "believe" UK troops are dieing because they are ill-equiped.
I take your point, but this is not a good example. The generally shitty state of equipment and the equipment procurement processes in the UK armed forces has been a scandal for decades.
It's only an issue now because larger numbers of squaddies than normal are in a combat environment (in the public eye), and therefore inevitably, larger numbers than normal are dying.
-
I think the separation between operational responsibilities and policy ones is important.
As do I. And we might just get such a system as a result of Bennett's abuse.
(The other alternative is to keep access within the office, but impose a reporting requirement, requiring the Minister to say in each case why she needed information and what would be done with it; that way there is an audit trail nd abusive Ministers can be held to account).
-
Another little dagger in the Budget (like the TIA) that hasn't really been picked up till now are the cuts to some special education services. Campbell Live featured two mothers upset at the cutbacks to the educational support their disabled children receive. Then the Minister came on to say that as some other children weren't getting the help it had to be cut from everyone.
The item didn't mention whether the women were solo mothers but as having a disabled child is a huge risk factor for marriage breakdown, it is possible.
So will these mothers now have their financial status revealed with the ministerial expectation they pay for the educational support themselves?
-
nothing can mask the seething resentment that remains skin-deep among the public against beneficiaries.
Interesting..
Somehow I dont think this is any kind of unique phenomenon.
Lets play...Nothing can mask the seething resentment that remains skin-deep among the citizens against the indigenous.
or (think back in time, or different countries)
among the whites against the blacks.
or the healthy against the sick.
or men against women.
or Palestinians against the Israelis, and visaversa
or the Afghans against the English, Russians, Americans.I could go on for a while, suffice to say.
The problems as always is in our own minds.There is a way to address this but it will never been taken up 'cause it involves conscious effort, and going against our inherited and possibly genetic makeup and thinking before speaking.
And as the popular alternative blame or direct enmity toward someone else is so much easier.
I dont see much changing anytime soon. -
So will these mothers now have their financial status revealed with the ministerial expectation they pay for the educational support themselves?
Yes I saw that too.I am glad JC said it was stingy in light of the private schools getting 35 mil, and this was only 2.5 to keep the status quo and only 33 mil to bring all other schools in line with these about to be cut.This is truly cruel. WTF! Good on ya Tolley .
-
Could some kind mathematical soul please calculate the % of the total tax tax that is apportioned to people on the DPB, including any other benefits those people are getting. Work it out then how many dollars/cents this costs each individual taxpayer.
We could let Hotten et al know exactly how much of a tax cut they would get, when their dream of cutting the DPB entirely comes true. -
This government is getting pretty skilled at encouraging that seething resentment you mention, Andin. It's not always as blatant as group against different group, its also within groups. So the parent of the disabled child is encouraged to resent the imagined extra support her neighbour's child gets.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.