Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I don't think they're widow dressing - and I had another look at the list myself after my earlier comment and now think the Standard piece was a little overstated, not entirely but somewhat. Two quick things. First, I don't think ethnicity ought to be the definitive characteristic in candidate selection (and I don't know the personal details of all of the people you've listed). Secondly, you're only going to get the diversity that's in fact within your membership. Labour's membership has always seemed more diverse to me, I don't think that's changed either, perhaps I'm wrong.
-
I think that's a long-bow.
-
Commenting on the homogenity of the National Party list is not ok Craig? Why?
You mightn't like the writing, but it's an entirely reasonable topic - I thought National were trying to broaden their base also. Sure they're policies are an attempt to emulate Labour's, but their candidates do still look like they always have... I assume it's deliberate; that they know where they want to try to win and have selected candidates accordingly. Maori haven't historically voted for National, nor have PIPs. Your reaction to the criticism is more a suprise than the criticism itself.
-
Your "IMO" is prudent but sadly not necessary. If you require proof, witness this exchange on Whaleoil's report on the death.
My comments were about David Farrar but there's no doubt they apply to Whaleoil; the guy is a stupid, petty thug.
-
It's easy enough to sanitise the post; the real test of character is publicly eating crow with a side of humble pie.
Craig, there's no real test, particularly not for anonymous blogging. I'd say the closest to a real test is simply to behave as you would if you'd mis-spoken in public, in which case I think a speedy retraction and, depending on what in fact was said, an apology is fine (though I agree, it will taint how others view any future comments). Also, I've now realised what was said; it was stupid and gratuitous and I hope that the author is sensible enough to apologise.
-
I fear I've made him sound like some globetrotting backpacker. He was a psych nurse, often on crisis intervention, which is a whole other sort of adventure.
I know a couple of psychiatrist who deal with crisis - shitty job. One ended up fearing she'd contracted HIV when a patient attacked her (although the attack was very minor, it was very calculated... that is for someone who was quite insane). Fortunately she wasn't infected. And in case I create the wrong impression, I don't think for a second that everyone with mental health issues is violent or malevolent.
Check out how the boys at "The Standard" handle the same theme, slightly better but it just proves that an election can bring out the worst in some
I see there was a deletion of some sort made to the piece in question, it reads fine now so I guess at least they've acknowledged the transgression (not that I saw what it was).
-
My condolences to you and your friends family Russell. Your friend sounds like he had a fascinating life.
Legbreak said:
But, like Russell, I can’t understand why he doesn’t just ban people for dragging it into the gutter.
'Cause he needs them and, IMO, doesn't always mind their gutter commentary, particularly if it saves him from saying it. His commentariat are so predictable, he can't be surprised that the bile flows almost irrespective of his introduction. Either he wants them or doesn't mind them; either way, pretending he's got no responsibility is ridiculous.
I noticed his commentary on Georgina Beyer also. It's typically tactless. I find it remarkable that a woman such as Georgina isn't in demand in the public and private sector. Labour has dolled out some prizes to total hacks, but I read Georgina's comments as a pretty genuine offer to continue to provide a public service, not a special plea for a sinecure.
-
Joe said:
I'm genuinely interested to know whether, along with the cost of that scheme, you paid any attention to measuring its success rate in placing those people in genuine, sustainable, gainful employment.
The study, here, has been somewhat superceded by Commonwealth reforms and what's known as the Productivity Places Program (warning; it's very dry in an economic sense that is).
But no, it wasn't part of the the Cmwth government's job network reforms - it was for the NSW government.
Your question is difficult to answer however, we've got lots of targets for increasing training participation rates for broadly defined "disadvantaged" people/communities and we're developing "wrap-around-services" that improve employment outcomes however, like too many things in Australia IMHO, the federal system is an impediment as the Cmwth leads employment policy but not training... I'd need to have a look at the data to answer your question (and I'll get back to you).
I/S said:
Sure, but that's not what this policy is about. instead, its about expanding the labour supply, by forcing people doing a valuable job (parenting) into the workforce.
The fact that when they do do, they'll face effective marginal tax rates of 91% just makes it sadistic.
You'll get no disagreement from me on that. I think National's missed an opportunity in preference for stupid politics. It's like the ghost of Peter McArdle...
-
Which is, I suspect, the real point. This isn't a welfare policy - it's a labour market policy designed to benefit employers. Again.
There's room for both however. Some work I was involved in a few years back in NSW estimated the costs of training long-term unemployed and people with disabilities to a sufficient level for them to be employable. The costs were significantly higher than training school leavers but not prohibitively so. If welfare, labour market and education policies can be clustered to enable disadvantaged people to obtain/retain meaningful employment, there's nothing wrong with that surely? It's far from clear that National's policy will do that however which is why I challenged Danyl's comment earlier about work in the retail sector.
-
Retailers are still desperately screaming out for more staff; a 30-something relative of mine who suffers from a severe mental illness has a job for the first time in her life because of the dire shortage of workers in the retail sector. There's plenty of jobs out there for people with no skills who want to work.
I"m not surprised to hear this, the same is true in Sydney and other parts of Australia. It's a mixed blessing but. These are precarious jobs not least of all because, as you note, they're low-skilled. If this is the high-water mark then, they're the first to go when things adjust back to normal levels. I'm not saying having the opportunity of work is not good, just that it might not be much of a long-term prospect unless there's training aligned with it.