Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The wonderful Jackson Wood has helpfully obtained a partial copy of a document which explains some of the Government's thinking.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Sorry guys, I’ve been snatching posting moments in a very full, complicated day and clearly doing a terrible job of it. Feel embarrassed
Nah, you're good. This is an excellent discussion, and I think it has legs. And thanks for the compliment; I wish I didn't have to state these things.
-
Hilary, thanks. I’ve had a few discussions with my Uncle on this matter (who I’m sure you know). Disability absolutely shouldn’t be a party-political issue, but when one party firmly has
a deep-seated belief that its not the state’s job to make sure that everyone gets a fair go
as I/S so succinctly put it, then it will have to be.
At least until a subsequent administration, under which these are considered rights, rather than obligations – which can then be abrogated. Giovanni Tiso has written compellingly of how a ‘needs’ approach which allowed for shut doors was perpetuated under Labour, and elsewhere that they’re not sufficiently understanding the need or how to address it. Nevertheless, I think there’s room to move, and that a combined front that worked deeply with King, Mathers, Hague, and others, could make for a potent force.
I understand that this would be hard; it means giving up the ability to influence the ear of Government. No matter how closed, some input ability is preferable to none. However, the environmental movement had to make this choice several years ago, and is now in an open war with this Government. The merits of this choice for disability are not mine to evaluate.
However (again as an outsider, with all the caveats that entails) I think there’s a place for Big Disability, and that getting together as a political force (no matter what that political force decided on) would be quite useful.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Seriously, what can be done? Pretty much fucking nothing, as best I can tell, because these fuckers sure don’t give a fuck about public opinion.
If they know they're losing votes, quite a bit. It depends on how organised sectors who are able to sway voters are. That, in this case, is the disability sector. In others, it might be the people of Canterbury, or any other affected population. We cannot rely on the media to facilitate any of this movement, we must do it ourselves.
(Most things that are important are scarcely reported in this country.)
-
Hilary, how large (roughly) is the disability 'community', and how political are they?
[Asking from ignorance.]
-
Dunne: "I saw all the Cabinet papers". There is presumably an unredacted version of this document that went to cabinet. Which was then censored before being given to Members of Parliament to vote on.
I wish Patrick Gower would report shit like this, instead of literally making up leadership coups within the Labour Party. (He was today speculating that Andrew Little doing a lot of tweeting meant that he might be tilting for the leader's office. I wish I was making this up.)
-
National then realised someone had labelled the vivids as highlighters
A friend of mine's quip on Facebook. In two senses, he's absolutely right. The first is that anything that is being redacted is almost certainly something that should have been highlighted, and the second is that by redacting the entire thing they've highlighted just what they've done.
The only way this will have an impact is if it loses them votes. And the only way I can see it will lose them sufficient votes is if the disability sector organises politically over this issue, and brings their constituency and others in and makes it an electoral liability.
(A constitutionally fixated 'community; is exists in a minor sense, but its members are unlikely to change votes. It's not going to trouble the Government.)
-
awkward layout and deafening rock PA.
That's something to note. A venue set up for loud guitars and sloppy drumming isn't going to do well when you want crisp notes across the spectrum and clear sound at lower volumes.
-
“Fixed repayment obligations and higher repayment thresholds for overseas-based borrowers” (I think they mean lower thresholds though. I think.)
“[Extending] the child support border arrest system for the most non-compliant overseas-based borrowers”
“Ongoing information-sharing agreement between IRD and Internal Affairs to collect contact details from passport applications”If I'm reading this correctly, ugh. I've been paying back close to my obligations, as I can. Fixed repayments could easily force me choose to between country and career.
(Given that the NZ Government has chosen to neglect public health entirely, meaning ever fewer jobs for early-career professionals).
-
Notes & Queries: In The Face of Global…, in reply to Jolisa,
I wonder at the casual dehumanisation on display here. Only number 9 seems to engage with the event with any genuine humanity; the fact that the project traumatised its creator to the point where he was physically unable to work on it for a long while is pretty eloquent. And strangely reassuring.
Likewise. My referential image for this tragedy isn't the crash or the collapse, it's the image of a man falling to his death. There's room for replication, and exploration of the event. But I don't think there's a place for things which seek to create joy and humour. That requires a degree of either distancing; in the case of societies which identify themselves with the victims, or of justification; in the case of those who identify with the protagonists (of which there were many, for quite some time).
And I feel the same about wars. There's plenty of rationalisation and justification for those. But in the end, they're just objects of preventable tragedy and horror, and artworks which find entertainment or celebration in them leave me with the same hollow feeling inside. 'Do these people lack humanity?', I think.