Posts by Angela Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
That word is anathema to the Misery. No-one is entitled to any support. This philosophy is deeply embedded and unlikely to change without serious effort. The worst of it is that they see no flaws in this philosophy, no need for real change. Which is why it's hard to take the nice words in policy and strategy documents at face value.
-
Rosemary's Workwise piece reads well though the evidence base referred to is not referenced and there is no verifiable evidence provided. I don't doubt that, for many people, having regular, satisfying work with decent pay supports their mental health. The proposed SIB is unlikely to provide that.
In fact the Workwise piece sounds like another employer subsidy scheme. -
and the what is being achieved is measured in terms of easy numbers like how many are now employed, rather than in qualitative terms more appropriate to the lives of human beings. This initiative looks like a work scheme. One definition of work used by this government has been an hour of paid employment per week, so numbers relating to getting people into work are not necessarily meaningful in terms of actual benefit to the people concerned, or even to the taxpayer. Additionally, in the case of people with mental illness, there is a risk that the existing legal capability to pay some disabled people a couple of dollars an hour because of their assessed lower productivity may be applied here too. Arbeit macht frei is the real catchphrase for this government. Never mind whether you need treatment or support, just get a job and all will be well. Magical thinking indeed.
-
Speaker: SIBs: The reality of…, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Whatever happens, I hope it doesn’t take a David Malcolm Gray or James Eagan Holmes to force a rethink when the SIB model goes pear-shaped.
There, I fixed it.
We've already had attacks on WINZ offices, with the response being to increase security rather than countenance addressing the reasons. -
We have a long history of slavishly copying the U.K.'s mistakes, usually after they've been recognised as mistakes in the U.K. Here we go again. Unless it can be stopped. I won't hold my breath.
On another tack, I miss our poetic wordsmith and hope he's okay. -
Access: Disability as a wicked policy problem, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
the low number of people who made complaints to the HRC (before May 2013) despite all the publicity around the Atkinson case.
Some of us niaively thought that the right thing would be done and the decision would be extended to all those in similar circumstances. Hah!
Some of us had our hands rather full just trying to keep ourselves and our loved ones alive.
Investing all my resources to that end left nothing over for battles other people were already fighting on behalf of all of us. A pity perhaps, but there it is. -
They are not at all happy, from a quick skim. The Sallies concern me because they are a provider of choice for the government but their religious basis means a lot of people are not comfortable going to them for help.
-
I think the most remarkable thing about these submissions is the good faith and the hope being demonstrated by the submitters.
-
Access: Disability as a wicked policy problem, in reply to Hilary Stace,
All the right noises are being made but there's a history of making the right noises and still doing the wrong things and in a wrong way. Is there any reason for the behaviour to change at this point in time? I don't see one. What I see is a need to appear in surplus next time and to look good in 2017, prior to the election.
-
Access: Disability as a wicked policy problem, in reply to Hilary Stace,
The proof is in the pudding.