Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It is worth remembering that Labour went into the 1996 election promising a universal student living allowance, and that its education spokespeople in the late 1990s, Steve Maharey and Trevor Mallard, constantly talked about Labour returning to a universal allowance.
My number one reason to be pissed with NZ First going with National - I'd devoted the past three years of my life to get this that election, and we'd got both Labour and NZ First to commit to a universal allowance. We'd done everything a lobby organisation could successfully do and Labour didn't have enough seats and Winston went with National. Spewing.
-
I remember in the 1990s the uproar when Jim Bolger (I think) claimed that there was no link between unemployment and crime, which he was rightly flamed for.
But I think there are generalisations that can be made that are accurate, but generalisations about all people on a benefit and their families are too general to be much use.
Also a higher level of care might need to be made about generalisations from statistics in one area "XXXX people are more violent" than in another "XXXX people are more likely to be diabetic".
-
When I did my BA it was 3,000 for fees and I spent five times as much to just live (and it wasn't a lavish lifestyle).
The systems don't compare too well, but NZ used to have living support which wasn't income tested. With a bursary many students got by on it plus a summer job, though obviously some worked part time as well. Well gone by the time you got here.
Trumped by a student allowance scheme that financially ties you to your parents until your mid-20s, a rule so bizarre because it's simply a device to save the government money.
-
If that doesn't meet the definition of "silencing and patronising" (a tone Jeremy was accused of just one page ago) I don't know what does.
I think you've taken my comment about 10 times more seriously than it was meant. And I liked Danielle's quote being a t-shirt.
-
It actually cost quite a bit to attend university, mainly for books and sundry fees. I was a law student at Canterbury for 4 terms (1968/69)
It now costs anywhere between five and twelve times as much, depending on your course, in real terms. The transfer of wealth from the generation born in the 70s, 80s and 90s, to the generation born in the 60s and 70s who got their education before 1990 is massive - something in the region of over 20 billion dollars, over 10 billion of which we still owe. Compounded by taking tax cuts for themselves and then complaining that they can't afford to put further funds into tertiary education.
That's all true enough, Chris, but far fewer Boomers than Gen-Xers got to go to university at all.
Boomers were just as able to go to university as the current generation. Less finished high school to the required level, and many less needed to go to university because their future jobs required it, but they weren't deprived of access to tertiary education. The 1960s and 1970s required much less tertiary educated people.
a dearth of jobs for women that paid anything like reasonable wages
Only one of many reasons why we should fund tertiary education more. Under the old full interest scheme women were paid significantly less than similarly qualified males, but paid more for their tertiary education because it took them longer to pay back their loans (less income, time off for raising children) and they therefore paid more interest.
-
Moxy Fruvous singer Ghian Ghomeshi
I do not like them Sam I am....
So a generation of boomers grew up in a kind of golden age of endless childhood, the most indulged, least responsible generation in history.
Umm, challenge. This is the generation that came of age in the 60s. There was a tremendous challenge in that and the next decade to the lack of responsibility of the earlier generation. Baby boomers are probably the politically most active and internationally focused generation of the 20th century. They famously rebelled against the indulgence of their parents.
-
here we are in whatever this is.
+1
(The idea of stopping talking doesn't seem to have occured to Jeremy)
-
I was just thinking this morning that if I were a chick, I'd totally want Rachel Maddow to do me.
It might be easier to ask her to turn straight for you. Or, y'know, pretend or something.
-
Successive US governments have handed out so many gimmick tax cuts that their revenue base is completely twisted out of shape. It just doesn't work any more.
No doubt 'not working' won't be an impediment to more of it however.
-
Benazir Bhutto, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Angela Merkel, Aung San Suu Kyi - where do they fit in that theory?
Aung San Suu Kyi has spent most of the last 20 years locked up by a bunch of (military) men?