Posts by Marc C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Polity: Unity, success: Chicken, egg?, in reply to Pharmachick,
Labour have a number of problems, and besides of the perception in the public that they have been too divided, they also have a credibility problem.
We only need to look at the social security policy area to find hypocrisy. What Labour MPs say during debates and question time in Parliament, and also during election campaigns, does often not match with what they did when last in government.
There was criticism directed at welfare reforms, e.g. the rather radical, draconian measures introduced in July 2013 (under the ‘Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Act’). Some Members criticised these reforms brought in by National, but the criticism was rather limited and did not last for long.
Perhaps this was, because Labour was planning something similar, when they were still in government in 2006 to 2008. They were then going to follow earlier UK reforms, and bring in more measures to “support” sick, injured and disabled into work. At that time only some measures with increased “work ability” expectations and so were introduced, but they did already create internal Regional Health Advisors and Regional Disability Advisors, who would re-assess many on the then sickness benefit, and eventually also those on the invalid’s benefit. They involved their “designated doctors”, and even started training them (!!) under the newly created position of Principal Health Advisor, one Dr David Bratt, was responsible for that. He is known as a hard line supporter of the failed UK approaches.
His position was created in 2007, and he is still in his job, feeling more audacious under National led governments, even likening benefit dependence to “drug dependence”. Here is one of his many presentations, doing just that (see pages 13, 20, 21 and 35):
http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/GP%20CME/Friday/C1%201515%20Bratt-Hawker.pdfHis employer seems to support such a position he has taken, having also adopted the UK “findings” coming from such “experts” like Mansel Aylward, who was known for making claims that much sickness is just “illness belief” (in the mind of the affected).
This OAG report reveals what already happened under Labour, when last in government, and what they were planning:
http://www.oag.govt.nz/2009/social-development/docs/social-development.pdfThey were clearly going down the same kind of road that the Nats have gone. Perhaps Labour was not going to go as far, and try to implement such new policies more gradually, more gently, but they have indeed actually similar ideas, it seems, as the Nats do. When I heard Annette King criticise new measures the Nats want to bring in like “social bonds”, to basically experiment with mentally ill they want to shift into work, it sounded “hollow” to me, and not convincing. There are sadly too many skeletons in the closet that Labour still have.
You find such hypocrisy in other policy areas, and perhaps many voters see it, thus thinking, what difference would it make to vote Labour, and then vote National, who are at least considered more “stable” and being better “managers” of the economy (which I have my doubts about). Hearing Phil Twyford raise issues with the housing policy of the Nats, he keeps quiet on what Labour would offer. They have also neglected state homes, and have things to answer for.
I was struck by the lack of comments from Labour on social security matters, throughout recent years, and in the election they did not even talk about beneficiaries, as even under Labour, the media and public moved further to the right re social security or benefit support, wanting less of this.
All this tells me that Labour have again shifted to the right, and this new “think tank” or what they call it, is a sign of more to come. It is not good news, and it will not help Labour, with the perception people have of the party.
-
Access: Disability as a wicked policy problem, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
If you choose poverty and a very low level of "choices" you may in their eyes be "well served". Sick really, what comes from those quarters.
-
Speaker: SIBs: The reality of…, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
Yes, but to get "justice", we need money, or pro bono favourable lawyers:
http://eveningreport.nz/2015/03/24/frances-joychild-qc-on-the-fading-star-of-the-rule-of-law/The battle has never been harder for decades now, to get any justice, any justice at all, in little ol NZ.
-
Speaker: SIBs: The reality of…, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
That code pretty much stands on paper, the HDC only investigates a very few complaints they get, and often they only offer a wet busticket on the wrist kind of recommendations. I know of doctors getting away with things they should not get away with, and one of them is a Dr David Bratt, the Pincipal Health Advisor of MSD and WINZ:
http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/GP%20CME/Friday/C1%201515%20Bratt-Hawker.pdf
Read his snide comments about the HDC further towards the end of this presentation just above.
Read also this post:
https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/designated-doctors-used-by-work-and-income-some-also-used-by-acc-the-truth-about-them/And I know of people who complained about misconduct and bias by such "designated doctors" to the HDC, same as about ACC assessors, and the HDC wants nothing to do with the issue and concerns that some affected persons have.
The HDC is a sick joke, in some ways:
https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/health-and-disability-commissioner-can-we-trust-in-hdc-independence/So what does the Code really mean, when we have this situation?
-
Envirologue: Choose Wisely, Grasshopper:…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
As far as I know the German air force was not involved in the bombings of Serbia, perhaps surveillance and support though.
Where is your evidence the Luftwaffe participated in bombings as part of Nato or so, of Serbia?
-
Speaker: SIBs: The reality of…, in reply to Angela Hart,
I dare ask the question; who is the victim in all this? I cannot fight the impression that one sick Mr Tully was a victim of the system, who though overstepped the line and did some terrible things.
I have seen WINZ take action with my own eyes, being there once, and they called police right after someone left, just saying something nasty, not necessarily criminal, to a case manager.
That is where we are now, we will soon have full US American conditions, and that means possible armed guards, and armed police and dissenters turning criminal, as we also seem to have nothing much of a political opposition that people relate to and have any hope in. Prepare for the law of the jungle.
-
Speaker: SIBs: The reality of…, in reply to Russell Brown,
A good piece by Dita, and I suppose, we have to be grateful for the few "Ditas" there still are, writing more sensibly and openly for media. Mihi Forbes is leaving Maori TV I hear, and after John Campbell being forced out from TV3, it looks damned grim, where we are heading.
-
Thanks for this critical post, Dave, it is necessary to raise the questions and issues you mentioned. But to be honest, it was not the "Luftwaffe" that bombarded Serb forces and caused collateral damage, that force had seized to exist since the defeat of the Nazis. And after all, German involvement in the Serbia campaign, of course led by the US again, was rather minimal.
But you hit it on the nail with the troubles the German Greens encountered, after going into government with the SPD under Schroeder.
I dare say, they have not recovered since, and are now only the fourth party by size and MPs in the German Bundestag, behind even the Left Party.
The MSM is always playing games with politicians and politics, and many journalists (I do not even call them that anymore) are just out for opportune stories and hyped up momentum. They no longer report objectively and about bare facts, they like to attract ratings, so they constantly distort, manipulate, exaggerate and pump up little stories and try to make them headlines.
It is the main problem for Labour also, to give too much credit to the MSM, who play games with politicians, report them out of context and try to expose stuff that may be irrelevant. Labour fell into that trap for three elections now.
So the Greens are well advised, so is Mr Shaw, to stay on line, to not let themselves be used and manipulated, to not get tempted, and to present themselves as a truly independent party, no matter the polls and stay within their convincing policy and general direction.
Stuff the media, stuff the ones that are largely employed by private vested interests, that cater to consumerism, the commercial sector and the status quo, and once you take them too seriously, you will be fodder for them and lost.
James Shaw should learn other aspects and perspectives to add to his business knowledge, and become a co leader that is inclusive and stays on line, and not listen to these spin masters there are.
It was a serious mistake already, to offer to talk to the PM about climate change targets, and he got the answer one had to expect. Do not even talk or negotiate with the devil, stay well clear, stay on Green Party course, and also stay loyal to a progressive alternative, alongside Labour, the only option I see sensible at this time, despite of their problems.
-
The ideology behind all this drive to get disabled into work is based on a twisted interpretation of the so-called “bio psychosocial model”, which such “experts” as Mansel Aylward and others in the UK interpreted and tried to apply in a rather “perverted” way:
What they tried there, and are increasingly trying to do here, is to “support” mentally ill and others by applying more “pressure” in the form of expectations, that they are not as sick and disabled, as they may see themselves, or as others may see the sick, injured and impaired, on benefits, on ACC or whatever unfortunate living and income situations.
They like to discredit or reduce the “medical” in the equation, and like to stress the “psycho” aspect, and we have read reports from Aylward about “malingering” and “illness belief”, which betrays where his thinking was heading.
The “social” aspect has been thrown over board, it seems, or has at least been reduced to be hardly noticeable in their approach. Most persons with mental illness, or with certain physical and psychological impairments, would love to participate more in societty, and many would also like to work, be more independent and live more fulfilling lives.
But the biggest hurdles they face are not “benefit dependency”, or “poor attitude” or a “mental addiction to dependency on welfare” (see Dr Bratt, the PHA for WINZ), the biggest obstacles are the wider society itself, the employers and perhaps workmates. And such are major barriers for disabled to access and perform types of work, in safe, secure environments.
That though does not seem to be the main focus by MSD and our “wonderful” Mr Jonathan Coleman with his health portfolio.
I hear and see little more treatment being offered for sick and disabled, as many mental health services have been cut, or have too limited funding made available. I see insufficient measures put in place to provide people with support equipment and suitably adjusted work-places, I see little pressure or expectations placed on employers, on society as a whole, to change attitudes, and be more respectful and also more informed and enlightened.
And we have a general work environment that is in itself in many ways not that healthy at all, given so many jobs are marginal, part time, casual or simply “precarious”. We have one of the worst safety records in some industries in the OECD too.
Major changes are needed in workplaces, in society as a whole, in labour laws and social support, to enable more to get access to jobs, and to stay in work. WINZ should start themselves, by getting rid of the counter productive, punitive, sanctions driven system they implemented, and give disabled assurances that they can fall back on benefit support if a job does not work out. Perhaps a UBI may offer a safety net, where there is not this excessive scrutiny placed on people, who end up without jobs.
Simply pressuring people, simply trying to “psych” them up into artificial, temporary positivity, and simply creating a profit incentive for referral agencies and so, that will NOT bring the outcomes that are needed.
I call all this an own goal by the government, but as we know, they will not admit to it, until they lose the next election, as losing face is the last thing that this lot will allow to happen. They will rather stick to their ideologically driven approach, run these trials, no matter what, and put others at risk, and under a lot of stress, and I just dread what collateral damage there may eventually be with all these experiments.
-
Access: It’s just a bout of Chronic Sorrow, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
You are not alone with those experiences, Rosemary. And re "keeping copies", you are also not alone. Much seems to vanish from certain websites, particularly such as WINZ and ACC, over time, and that is for reasons we know.
I know of persons having been sent OIA replies, by Ministries, referring the requester to the website, where the asked for info was supposed to be found. Once it may have been, yes in some cases it once was, but it is NO MORE.
So I and some others I know are as careful and mindful, but also as determined, as you are.
Best wishes, and take care!