Posts by Marc C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Saying what we actually mean on…, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
Unbelievable, is there a media report on that? I am sure such cases are still the odd shocking one out there, but given the situation we have, they must be increasing.
One man we can thank is this one, I suppose:
http://fitforwork.co.nz/dr-david-beaumont-inducted-as-afoem-presidentFormer ATOS man, managed to get a “reputation” with ACC, and advised MSD on welfare reforms, and brought UK “experts” here to change the tunes. “Fit notes” replacing “sick notes” is the next agenda, loyally following the “positivity” from the UK:
https://www.rnzcgp.org.nz/assets/Submissions/Submission-Widening-who-can-sign-Work-Capacity-Medical-Certificates.pdfhttp://fitforwork.co.nz/dr-david-beaumont-and-dame-carol-black-advocate-for-work-and-health
“Sickness” will be a thing and concept of the past, as the UK “successes” show, all “fit” and “healthy”, like a miracle, just change the talk, the message, the expecations, and they can walk, on water, on air, on anything anywhere, just have faith, and bear that bit of pain, it is not really pain, it is all simply some “negative” thinking, it is nothing but “illness belief”.
Yours sincerely Master Aylward
(brought to you by David the Beaumont)
-
"The political right have a fairly consistent ecosystem of language to articulate their worldview on these concepts. They know what they want and can communicate it, and this is not by accident. It comes from the robust American research, where think tanks have been using focus groups, surveys and endless testing to perfect it since the 60’s. And since the 80’s that language has found its way into New Zealand’s political discourse."
Talking about metaphors and language being used, this government likes to talk a lot about "evidence based" findings and approaches, about "wrap around services" and about "support". That sounds rather convincing and sensible to many listeners, but when examining policies and references they use and promote, it is often hardly as convincing as it may seem.
Doing some research, and some digging, and using the Official Information Act to obtain information can expose that much of what the government does and claims is simply baseless BS or nonsense.
The following post found via this link does reveal how shallow and hollow many claims by MSD, their 'Principal Health Advisor' Dr Bratt and government ministers are, when it comes to "evidence based" research justifying "welfare reform" measures:
https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2015/08/09/msd-and-dr-david-bratt-present-misleading-evidence-claiming-worklessness-causes-poor-health/"THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (MSD) AND DR DAVID BRATT PRESENT MISLEADING “EVIDENCE”, CLAIMING “WORKLESSNESS” CAUSES POOR HEALTH"
"Medical scientific evidence is at best inconclusive, on the supposed “health benefits” of open employment"
And this post shows how they only release OIA requested information rather selectively and withhold much that would possibly reveal how little "success" the reforms really bring:
https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/mental-health-and-sole-parent-employment-services-msd-withholds-o-i-a-information-that-may-prove-their-trials-a-failure/And this one shows, how forms of work can actually be rather harmful to persons' health, being especially precarious and underpaid work:
http://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2014/10/05/work-has-fewer-health-benefits-than-mansel-aylward-and-other-experts-claim-it-can-cause-serious-harm/But by using certain phrases and language, our dear government demagogues manage to mislead the wider public, most of whom will never bother examining the many bold claims that are presented to them.
Propaganda works, as we can see.
-
Access: Disability as a wicked policy problem, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
Ah, yeah, the HDC, yet again, they deliver nothing much more than “wet bus ticket slaps on the wrist” kind of recommendations, like additional “training”, further “checks” and what else may come to mind. Very rarely is a complaint passed on the Director of Proceedings, who (like the Commissioner generally) has very much “discretion” as to whether to refer the matter to a Tribunal, for a proper hearing, or not so.
I lost faith in the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) a very long time ago.
They have over recent times published more decisions on more complaints, but as a percentage of all the ever increasing numbers of complaints, it is still minimal, what actually gets “investigated”.
Some insight into their workings, and the legal frame work that offers them endless discretion, to do basically little to next to nothing, can be found here:
http://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/health-and-disability-commissioner-can-we-trust-in-hdc-independence/ -
I take note that this discussion thread is still active. There is some information available, that shows how poor the actual “evidence” is, that we get presented by such “experts” like the Ministry of Social Development’s Principal Health Advisor Dr David Bratt, who seems to be picking whatever statistics and quotes by other “experts”, that suit his and the Ministry’s agenda, to try to prove and justify their new policy approaches for sick, injured and disabled on WINZ benefits:
While not all the references he may at times use can be dismissed, there appears to be a reliance on “evidence” that is not quite what it seems, which raises further questions about the whole agenda MSD now follow, trying to get sick and disabled into work.
That new publication also reveals how little commitment one of our dear Ombudsmen appears to have, when trying to “investigate” matters, which raise very serious questions about public record maintenance and other issues.
So how “independent” is our Ombudsman, how “independent” are the Health and Disability Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, and some other ones?
And this newly found post also shows, what is happening behind the scenes, that is, which is NOT even reported on by the useless media we have. Dr Bratt has been commissioned by his MSD superiors, to find ways of widening the scope of persons (health practitioners and professionals of various professions) that WINZ may in future use to present ‘Work Capacity Medical Certificates’, with a stronger focus on what they have done already in the UK, by introducing “fit notes” (to replace “sick notes”) for assessing persons for work capability.I fear the day will come, that we will get our version of ATOS or MAXIMUS, and of the WCA that have scared many disabled in the UK, and sadly even pushed some to commit suicide, as they could not cope with expectations and pressures put upon them.
Have a study of this one also, to enlighten yourselves, those who may care:
https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/msd-are-planning-to-widen-the-scope-for-who-can-sign-work-capacity-medical-certificates/ -
I regret to read that this debate continues. Fact is that New Zealand seems to be a very divided society, as a whole, for this to take place. While Salmond and Labour could have done better in presenting the "data" they obtained, I think the reaction is way beyond reason, it is over-sensitivity, and even in some cases nothing but reverse racism. I would have thought better of some commenting here.
I have been spending a lot of thought on this issue, and on other matters, and what I have now come to, is my conclusion, that I cannot and do not any longer wish to be part of this supposedly "progressive" or "left" movement, it is in my view a totally divided, discredited environment we have, it is not worth even discussing serious matters anymore, as debate and discussion are instantly silenced by PC mad marginal players, who want a totally neutered society, based on law and values, that are just abstract and allow no more true freedom to dissent or debate issues.
To interpret what Phil Twyford released a week or two ago as "xenophobic" or even "racist" is bizarre, to put it mildly. New Zealand has had a troubled history, but has moved far from the past, but now we have some jump at every opportunity, to silence and attack persons who may simply point out some factual data or correlations.
Labour has in my eyes died long ago, as they themselves signed up to neoliberal policy, and never turned away from it, they introduced also welfare reforms the Nats and ACT have pushed further, following the UK way. It is not really science based, but they follow the same agenda, to save government cost by whatever means. They do not care about the poorest in society, as all they do offer is lip service, none else. The flag debate by Little, raised again today, showed how out of touch and redundant Labour have become.
As for the alternatives, I see damned little, the Greens are stuck in their niche policies, and others here are fighting each other, about petty politics, about what some names data may or should mean.
FFS, I am truly through with all this nonsense, I am OUT, I am no longer bothered or supportive of Labour, Greens, certainly NOT National or ACT, or the rest of this screwed political elitarian establishment. It is full of lies, hypocrisy and idiotic behavior. Sorry to get so blunt, I had the guts full of what some comment here, yet again. You cannot even see the light at the end of the tunnel, as over principled wannabe moralists hold high their supposed personal views or values, putting themselves above the rest of people.
I think you have totally lost it, multiculturalism, diversity and all else, it seems to have resulted in nothing but endless division and NOT in a progressive society we wanted to expect. Every one to their own, the consumer, the competitor, the non unionised workers, the mammon followers, the various groups we have, based on culture, ethnic, income, employment and other criteria, are NOT united, they rather follow the agenda of divide and rule, that keeps this shit government in place.
You all better sit down and do some really hard thinking, dear friends.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Danielle,
“2. NO ONE is saying that collecting demographic data about this issue is a Bad Thing, per se.”
So how is that “demographic data” then supposed to look like? Maybe not even the Real Estate agencies have data on persons’ residency status? There have been ample comments by many people going to auctions, even by some working as real estate agents, that there is a large number of persons belonging to one demographic group. As that is so, how would you describe such a group then, by not naming it?
“3. What people who object to this move by Labour ARE saying is that:
a) The data is suggestive but inconclusive, particularly as the government isn’t really doing diddly to collect *actual* data;
b) Labour has framed the suggestive data in a really racist dogwhistley way. Not the Nats. Not the Crazed Social Justice Warriors of the Left. Not the sheeple. LABOUR.”How are we supposed to get better than “suggestive” data, when the government does not even want to gather data, has no reliable data, when even the IRD has inconclusive data on the wider situation?
While I would have preferred a different way for the problem with Auckland house price inflation, with speculation and with buyer groups from off-shore to be presented, yes, Labour’s Phil Twyford did this, after receiving lists of data from an apparently leading Auckland real estate firm.
The person who leaked it will have risked her or his job doing this, and if we had not got it, we would never get any suggested idea about who the likely off-shore buyers may be, apart from anecdotal evidence.
And we know that the government and vested interest parties rubbish anecdotal evidence. Phil Twyford has in my view not put all Chinese into the same drawer, he merely pointed out, that it appears to be mainly Chinese buyers from off-shore who help push up prices for real estate here in Auckland. He further clarified this with comments on Monday.
I am afraid that your over-reaction just shows your own personal oversensitivity, which is fair enough, and thus a warning voice, but I still do not get it, why people cannot accept that it seems quite logical, that of the many new rich Mainland Chinese, and some perhaps from Hong Kong, Singapore and other places, take opportunities to invest in Auckland housing, some simply to make gains, even leaving homes stand empty for periods.
Sadly the truly “racist” will try to exploit the information that was presented, but I do not believe that Phil Twyford is one into “dog-whistle” politics, he has never given me nor many others I know that impression.
As the government does all to keep true figures away from the public, does not even make any effort to bring in a buyers’ register, there is NO other way to get and present some indicative data, than to do it as Phil Twyford did.
If you have any better ideas and solutions, perhaps present them to us.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Jim Cathcart,
Calling them "investor" or "potential speculator" is not wrong, as that is what local ones do, and what off-shore ones may do. Do not divert from the fact, that it is a bit odd, that about 40 percent of buyers are rather clearly identifiable with one group of people, who according to Census figures represents only about 9 percent of Auckland's population. While correlations and such may not lead to a cause and result conclusion, it is well justified to raise questions, which is what Twyford did, plus suggest, what a logical conclusion may be. He was not definite, nor did he label the people as a group of whatever "bad" people, he just pointed something out.
It is a bit like saying, many overweight people develop cardio vascular diseases, to deny this, saying it is "discriminatory" against overweight people, spells any attempt to make comparisons, scientific or lesser so, as a wasted time effort.
You may as well prohibit the data gathering on which ethnic group represents what proportion of prison inmates, what other groups may be representing whatever, as that would instantly be labeled as "discriminatory" or even "racist", which seems to be the "modern" fashion of dealing with any issue in NZ.
This is PC in overdrive, I fear, it makes the whole of our society, our state and any effort to gather any information a futile effort, as under your kind of approach or criteria, it should not be allowed, as it may be "racist".
Get a life, perhaps.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Jim Cathcart,
I thought I pointed that out. The government does ALL to prevent TRANSPARENCY, so how can you go around and challenge anybody presenting reliable data, when the government blocks ALL efforts to get it?
I think you have defeated yourself and your argument with your comment.
Bring in a national ownership and buyer register, and we will know, who owns what, and who has citizenship, residency and tax status, thank you.
-
Yes, I agree with Rob, although the data released by Phil Twyford leaves a lot of unanswered questions, and cannot be absolutely reliable, it does appear to show some kind of a trend, or suggests something, which deserves further examination.
What I believe Phil has done, is to challenge the useless government, to finally bring in some register of sorts, to get a reliable record on who buys homes in Auckland (ideally all of New Zealand), and thus offer us an instrument to use for making future policy.
The ball is really in the court of the useless government, on this, not Labour, who are denied much opportunity to argue and prove anything, as the government is blocking every effort to find transparency.
They do the same in other areas, such as welfare reforms, and it is highly worrying what is going on in that area, with people denied benefits, with sick and disabled pressured to look for work, and much worse happening, leading to 80 thousand sanctions, to even abuse, assaults and so forth.
This government’s record is one of endless shame, we will one day have the info to prove.
http://nzccss.org.nz/news/2015/07/sanctions-undermine-social-investment/
-
Polity: Unity, success: Chicken, egg?, in reply to Sam Bradford,
I want politicians who refuse to play that game; who make their principles clear and don’t contradict themselves trying to please the media or the clueless ‘floating voter’, who usually doesn’t vote anyway (or who, inevitably, decides to vote for Winston at the last moment).
Thanks for your refreshing comment here, Sam!
Yes, you are stating some sensible facts. One problem is the politicians are running around like opossums looking into the head-lights, when faced with the rotten media.
And for the problems this country faces, few are ready to speak out the truth as it is, all trying desperately to "please" as many people out there, as they can think (and fear) of.
One reason for the housing price increases is that we have basically unrestrained demand, from a "global" market, where many can buy residential real estate here, while either not even being a resident, or simply being a sufficiently well cashed up new migrant, besides of returning NZers who come back with some savings earned during years of doing well OEs.
The smart arses that preach about "hard work", about "saving", and about them having made it a few decades ago, they conveniently ignore, that we have a totally different situation on the real estate market. It was not that hard to climb the housing ladder in the 1960s, 1970s and even 1980s, as there was largely only LOCAL demand, by then less unequal working and earning New Zealanders and less migrants.
Now we have entered the global market, with the changes made in the late 1980s and during the 1990s, we have free migration, in and out, and we have massive interest from overseas, and returning residents, who have wallets and cheque books that can pay for the inflated prices here, that locals on limited and low income will never afford.
So it requires hard questions and answers, and both, National and Labour shy away from curtailing demand, by restricting home buying, for new migrants for a few years, definitely for overseas buyers who do not even live here.
A STOP is needed, to bring in controls, and because too many instantly fear the labeling of being xenophobic, "anti migrant" or even "racist", they all rather let things carry on as they are.
We need bolder politicians, who stick to principles, and who do not bend down due to stupid media pressure everytime a hard question is put to them. That is just one aspect, where Labour may start learning and improving. Stuff the media, and stuff the critics, stuff the government spin masters, just present some good, sound and solid policy, and damned well stick to it.
At present we do not get this, I am afraid.