Posts by Marc C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Further to my comment above, re Charles Finny, he was also chief negotiator for the NZ China FTA (2004 to 2005), so when we discuss sales of land to Mainland Chinese companies and investors, perhaps remember what was also the result of those negotiations:
http://www.chinafta.govt.nz/1-The-agreement/2-Text-of-the-agreement/12-Chapt-11-Investment/index.php
Look at articles 138 and 139 perhaps.
Mr Finny as a supposed impartial "speed reader" and reviewer of Hagar's book on the Paul Henry Show last night must really be very "expert" and qualified for giving such book reviews.
The politically right leaning spin masters are already working overtime to discredit Hagar's book!
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Dylan Reeve,
Hah, I was just going to post the same:
http://www.sul.co.nz/page/charles-finny.aspx
NO "king hit" in the book, nothing much worth taking note of, and it would not change one vote in the coming election, Mr Charles Finny commented.
Paul Henry does of course always choose "independent" and "neutral" experts and commenters to appear on his show, does he not???
From the 'Saunders Unsworth' (Government Relations Consultants) website:
"Charles joined the team at Saunders Unsworth in 2010 after five and half years as CEO of the Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce. Prior to that Charles had a wide range of experience in government working for the Prime Ministers Department, Department of Trade and Industry and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. His particular areas of expertise are China, US politics and trade policy, Australia, Asia and international trade."
Maybe Nicky Hager can start right away on the next book, called "Dirty Media", I may suggest?!
-
Speaker: Why you should vote, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
Both ACC and MOH disabled have received a hammering from National….and the document I posted before( https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/hcss-implementation-guide-mar09.pdf) was produced under a Labour administration.
Yes, I understand your outrage and concerns.
That HCSS Implementation Guide or plan is as hollow as a Swiss cheese, when reading it. I only read just over a third so far, and I can clearly see the flaws in it.
Whenever I read such guides, plans or policies, where the words "flexibility", "choice", "goals" and "plans", and "support" are repeated, I jump up and dissect them. And then it usually shows, that these are hardly worth the paper they are written on.
Sadly we get more and more of this kind of stuff, and it is all part of the corporatisation and privatisation agendas, and the language they use to justify "reforms".
You will not be surprised to find the same words and phrases in much of what was used to bring in the new welfare reforms.
When you look at it closely, from a legal perspective, you can drive a truck through it all, that means, the government commits to as little as possible, or necessary, in order to not spend too much, and to not taken on new responsibilities.
Down the road people are left to fend for themselves, to pay and do extra, and the supposed "benefits" are hardly noticeable.
I understand that you carers and supporters have been shafted extremely badly by the government.
Re politics and parties, yes, it is a major worry, that they do ALL these days tend to hire consultants and outsourced "experts", to deliver them advice and plans to form new policy, which then of course turns out to be "glossy" mag style corporate and consultant stuff, more "fluff" really, without much substance and even evidence.
So yes, voting is not made any easier with all this endless BS going on.
As for Labour, I was thinking today, their great new policy to offer free doctors visits and prescriptions to all over 65, same as other policies, that cost a lot, they have now developed their policies on the costings and available funds, based on the returns from the partial asset sales by the present government, which Labour so vehemently opposed. That is why they say we can "afford" all the nice extra services, otherwise it would be impossible, unless they would increase taxes more than so far indicated.
So discretely the criticised asset sales returns are now acceptable to use by the future Labour led government, which tells us something about any "commitment" to perhaps buy back the half of energy companies now in private shareholder hands.
Politics is indeed dirty, and having heard Nicki Hager made that the title of his latest book, it will also be interesting to read what that contains.
-
From Russell's post, quote:
"Don’t these experienced journalists get that they’re being fed this stuff in a deliberate fashion? More to the point, don’t they read my blog? At any rate, Harre tore strips off Christie, who, as someone observed on Twitter, looked like he might cry."With Twitter tweets now being a regular form of "communication", I fear that too many are simply too busy tweeting each other, which limits the amount of information that is being shared.
Also is the modern "journalism" dictated by lots of time and cost pressures, and so much has to be squeezed into a few lines, it is disturbing, but perhaps not surprising that fewer bother to double check, research information, or even spend hours reading this and other blogs.
I am waiting to see how low standards will continue to drop, as we need a bottoming out of this, and move upwards again. But also too few out in the watching and listening public notice incorrect, contradictory information, as they themselves have rather superficial information and knowledge.
For politicians life may become easier in future, as it will increasingly all be about spinning and hammering out one sided information, no matter what, people are kept so busy with day to day survival, they have less and less time to dissect truth from propaganda.
And anyway, more and more information on the internet may only confuse some, so they rather choose to not inquire, and wear blinkers and dig heads in the sand. There are so many "nice" distractions, why bother with painful efforts of researching complex stuff.
Study and knowledge require work and can bring rewards, but the less informed may be happier, as visits to poorer parts of the globe can show.
Sigh, bring us the "brighter future" now, ahem, what was that again? It does not look all that "bright" after all.
-
Speaker: Why you should vote, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
Quote:
"No solidarity. No cohesion. So called advocates and representatives of disabled and family carers too busy snuffling in the trough to show real leadership and actually listen to those disabled and family carers affected by that policy.Labour held non ACC disabled in as much disdain as National do."
Rosemary, my comment was by no way intended to create any feelings of guilt for not voting, I only commented on your reservations re parties and how much we may be able to rely on stated or unstated policy they may have.
So I just added one line re what Labour have (without much detail) commented re ACC.
You will be much better informed on matters relating to caring for disabled, whether this is by family members caring for a disabled and injured person under the ACC legislation, or in such other cases as you mention.
Re your criticism of lack of loyalty by certain advocates and interest groups, I am sure this is a wider problem we have. I was also very disappointed about how limited the support was for those affected by the rather harsh benefit reforms of this government. But in that case it has a lot to do with the media, portraying people relying on social security support payments as potential "bludgers".
Also the issues about unfair treatment of carers is one that affects a minority in society, and perhaps that is the reason that such issues are not frequently and much reported on in the media, which still is the prime source of information of the wider public. Most people only think about matters affecting them personally directly, and otherwise form rather superficial views on other matters the media report on. We know how sorry a state much of that mainstream media is in.
Despite of hesitations to vote, and justified criticism, and I admit having been little motivated myself rather often, I for myself will vote, as stated above, at least for a party and policies that do at least in part concern me.
Thanks for the information you provided, as I am happy to learn more about the concerns you raise here.
-
Speaker: Why you should vote, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
So far I have a message via Mojo that they will aim to repeal the PHDAct(2)…I replied that I was looking forward to actually reading that in their policy statement.Methinks there is a little bet hedging going on here.Jesus wept….these politicians a wriggly arsed bunch.
Yes, and that bothers me too. Labour have been too silent on too many things, I fear, and hence I do not sufficiently trust them. The Greens I do trust a bit more, but given the fact that they are likely to only support a Labour led government, which will only be formed after some negotiations, and where some sacrifices and compromises will have to be made, we cannot fully rely on anything happening that may concern us.
My major concern with Labour is about their social security ("welfare") policy, which is all about nice slogans about wanting to get rid of child poverty and narrowing the income gaps. They seem to be more concerned with middle class welfare, as that is where the votes are.
Their criticism of the draconian welfare reforms brought in a year ago was a bit shallow and half hearted. Since the Social Security Act was changed, bringing in draconian sanctions, social obligations, drug testing provisions, outsourcing of services to private, fee earning providers, allowing new medical and work capability assessments under questionable terms, there has been almost no clear criticism coming from Labour.
They are not stating that they would reverse any of the "reforms" that this government brought in, nor are they saying they will abolish the so-called "investment approach".
But I think they have at least stated they will bring back more justice and fairness in the way ACC claimants will be treated.
So on all that, I mean Labour's lack of clear "welfare" policy, how can one trust them? For some they may even seem a bit like "National Light".
In such situations it forces us to simply vote for the "lesser evil", or for a party that may be closest to what we may expect.
P.S.: Let us not forget one Dr David Bratt, PHA for WINZ, who was brought in under the last Labour led government:
http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/GP%20CME/Friday/C1%201515%20Bratt-Hawker.pdf
(see pages 13, 20, 21 and 35)Also to look at:
http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/15463-designated-doctors-%e2%80%93-used-by-work-and-income-some-also-used-by-acc/"Google":
nzsocialjusticeblog2013 - Medical + Work Capability Assessments based on the BPS ModelDespite all, vote people, vote at least for a party that may meet at least some of your major concerns!
-
There is not one election I can think of, that I did not bother to vote.
Being able to vote is an important democratic right and should also be a kind of civic duty. We all have opinions, varying degrees of being informed about political and other matters, but by not bothering to vote, we do essentially leave it up to others to decide who may form a government and makes laws and regulations that affect us all.
Even if my vote will not result in my preferred candidate and party forming a government, I can at least say, I cast my vote, and with that presented my own political statement. I will have made an effort to have my preferences taken note of.
We have to respect the winners and that they will form the majority and determine the political, social and economic direction for the coming 3 years. But we will never know for sure, who will form the government, until all votes have been cast and counted, and until a new government is formed.
I simply cannot feel at ease if I would not vote, as I would not have done my bit to direct the country into the future. If all people would vote, we are likely to get the best voting outcome, if too many do not bother, we risk leaving things to "leaders" that we do not support and do not like.
But besides of realising the sense and purpose of simply voting, we must also strive to have more "informed democrats", as only well informed voters will likely make the right kinds of decisions for the whole of society.
On that latter bit I fear we still have a very, very long way to go. Re-establishing better funded and better quality public broadcasting may assist with achieving that.
-
Well, what a "performance" by Steven Joyce on 'The Nation', it was truly a "shocker". No wonder he is a List MP. It was indeed one of the worst "interviews" I have ever seen. He must have had a bad night, a terrible hangover or whatever, to lose control to such a degree.
But I put some blame also on Lisa Owen, who can at times conduct great interviews, but also does at times lose it. This time she was not able to keep two males in check, who were both clearly intent on exploiting every second for "electioneering". Lisa should have laid down the rules straight from the start, and she should perhaps have stopped the interview once Joyce endlessly interrupted Grant Robertson and her, with his incessant attempts to get attention and to push the National Party ideological line.
Grant Robertson sadly also got tempted, to snap back at Joyce at times, so all three looked like children arguing about who deserves to play with which toy in the sandpit.
Such TV performances will have turned many potential voters off right from the start, I fear, as even the informed and experienced will have thought, hey, is this the kind of politics and politicians we have and "work" for us?
As for the survey results on Key, I am not surprised that so many distrust him, as he has indeed been convenient with the truth repeatedly. Sadly some people get away with far too much, just because of appearance and their smart, at times charming mannerisms. David Cunliffe did certainly overdo it, when he apologised for his apologies, that was just ridiculous, I thought. I fear that it is the lack of firm support he gets from a fair few MPs in the Labour caucus, that is to blame for him having been worn down, tired and less convincing and clear. He seems to feel pressured by some to be mindful of what the public may think, and to also try and please every potential Labour voter there may be.
There is indeed a marked difference between David Cunliffe a few months ago, and how he talks and presents himself these days. The last few weeks up to the election will demand all from him, to finally show who he really is, and whether he has the determination, stamina and spirit to follow a clear line and be passionate, about what he and many that support him really stand for.
It is far too early to call in this election, and there are likely to be many surprises coming from small party players, as the recent announcements by Colin Craig has shown.
-
Just again, this night, traveling through the internet, I get concerned where we are going, and what NZ stilll stands for, at times:
Maybe some will relate, but we need to move on, and grow a united society, thanks.
-
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
Just a "tiny" hint on corporate advice on welfare reform in the UK, also now applied here, and do not forget the AFOEM, headed by former ATOS staffer, MR Dr David Beaumont, also know by many ACC clients, for "bizarre" reports and assessments:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/mar/17/epluribusunum
http://www.racp.org.nz/index.cfm?objectid=E1D5428F-B1BF-2C2F-7A247F80DC4F363C
http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/GP%20CME/Friday/C1%201515%20Bratt-Hawker.pdf
(see pages 13, 20, 21 and 35, please!)There is heaps more in the posts published under the links I already provided, and it is all NO coincidence, it is an AGENDA!