Posts by Sacha
-
Hard News: "Because we can", in reply to Russell Brown,
But I presume the minister and Ms Rebstock haven't thought it through like that. It would require more empathy than they typically display.
It would also require them sourcing better advice. One member of the Welfare Working Group and the subsequent Work and Income oversight Board has only a 'rehabilitation' focus which is why their report talks exclusively about getting disabled beneficiaries "back to" work. The other members know the stereotypes, the same as the rest of us.
-
Hard News: "Because we can", in reply to Sacha,
Expect wholesale reclassification as in the UK. That does have some upsides, to be fair. Many people currently receiving the Invalid Benefit would welcome access to support to get some part-time work (see Greens income support spokesperson Jan Logie discussing her conversations with People First).
However the solution to that lies mainly in the hands of employers and society. To proceed otherwise is just ignorant victim-blaming. Ladling on sanctions is not a sign of faith in people's strengths and desire to contribute.
-
Hard News: "Because we can", in reply to Russell Brown,
half or more of the people in question are on invalids benefits and aren’t subject to the measures Bennett says will fix the problem.
Yet.
-
Hard News: "Because we can", in reply to Russell Brown,
But that's not how the average person would have heard it -- and it completely defeats the claim about people being intractably on benefits.
Doing the numbers this way supports the ideological decision to frame the core issue as 'dependence'. Watch those nutbar WWG terms of reference produce their natural outcomes..
-
Hard News: Tired and emotional, for reals, in reply to Felix Marwick,
happily use huge tracts of reporter’s work on their blogs, chuck in one line of comment, and pass it off as insight
cough Farrar cough
-
Hard News: "Because we can", in reply to Richard Aston,
it's all relative
-
Cracker: Bloggers: Pr*cks, Ars*holes,…, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
You know you posted that on a blog right?
You should hear what he says about builders.
-
Hard News: "Because we can", in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
where the ones with 14 year olds are categorized
I suspect beneficiaries with children over that age will be moved onto the Job-Seeker benefit.
-
Hard News: "Because we can", in reply to Sacha,
For instance, this from p5 of the 'Key findings and background facts' doc might be relevant - sounds a bit like cumes:
Taylor Fry uses a sum of all beneficiaries within a benefit quarter instead of the numbers at a point time within the quarter
-
For someone with more time than me: the MSD media release about the Taylor-Fry report has downloadable documents that may have some of the answers about numbers.
Or Richard, the answers should be easier for you to get than the rest of us. :)