Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The public's visceral response to criminal offending, especially violent criminal offending, is wholly understandable, even if it is sometimes misdirected.
I think the UK public is onto something with the parenting thing. Parenting classes should be either state funded and compulsory for first time parents and/or introduced into the school cirriculum.
• 55% of the public say crime is the most important issue facing Britain today.
• Only 33% of the public are confident that the Criminal Justice System meets the needs of victims, but 79% agree it respects the rights of offenders.
• 73% of the public say that hearing about someone being a victim of crime in their local area affects their feelings of safety and makes them cautious, angry and sad.
• 91% of the public think the basic approaches and standards of service delivered by the police should be the same wherever they live.
• Better parenting is the top thing (58%) the public say would do most to reduce crime and 58% of the public think that Friday night is the most important time for youth facilities to be available.
• 90% of respondents to the review think the public are not told enough about what happens to those who have committed crime.
• When asked what is the most important issue facing Britain on crime, the top answer from the public (29%) is that sentences are too lenient.
• 90% of the public agree that community punishments for crime
should involve some form of payback to the community.• When asked who they would trust as a source for national statistics on crime, the top answer from the public (48%)
was an independent watchdog. -
Informed debate about immigration would be welcome. That's a challenge I'm sure others here are more than happy to take on.
Unfortunately Clydesdale's paper is not a worthwhile starting point for such a discussion. While Kim Hill's tone and overtly hostile questioning no doubt flustered Clydesdale, she showed that he does not appear to have fully developed his ideas. While I am not sure I would call the responses of Hansen or Callister full peer review, they contain some important criticisms:
It is revealing of the paper’s true intentions that the seven positive aspects of immigration are dealt with in a little more than a page. The rest of the paper is concerned with the negative aspects. Related to this, I found the paper’s title to be confusing. I appreciate the reference to “Growing pains”, but I do not think “The valuation and cost of human capital” is illuminating. Perhaps a better title might be something along the lines of: “The costs of immigration to New Zealand.” (Hansen, p2)
Overall, I found the paper interesting. Clearly, parts of it are provocative, and it has stirred up lots of debate (see footnote 1). To me, though, the paper reads like an early draft, as it is full of typos and stylistic errors. Perhaps the author will fix these and also maybe consider strengthening some of the paper’s content, including the parts commented on below. (Hansen, p1)
Clydesdale's decision to emphasise the costs of immigration (and the associated population increase) rather than methods of improving migrant outcomes is suggestive of an agenda that people were always going to respond to in strong terms. The fact that, on average, Pacific peoples are relatively disadvantaged and have lower average levels of education (and perhaps some other types of human capital) is not really at issue. But if you want to start a national discussion on something as sensitive as immigration, its incumbent on you to write something that's really good. Clydesdale's paper is not really good.
But, in particular, the [Clydesale discussion paper] does not refer to the important recent work de Raad, J-P. and Walton, M. (2007) Pacific People in the New Zealand Economy: Understanding linkages
and trends. NZIER Report, November 2007. link is hereThe NZEIR report received media attention last year and is easily accessible via the internet. The report included a careful analysis of the current place of Pacific people in New Zealand followed by some modelling to see if there was convergence in both incomes and wealth for Pacific people, a modelling exercise Dr Clydesdale did not do.
The NZIER report shares some concerns that Dr Clydesdale has in that low skills hold back Pacific people. But the authors of the NZEIR report tried to understand the barriers and, more importantly, explored ways of improving outcomes. (Callister, p3)
I agree with the basic proposition that immigration policy should be set with a view towards maximising the benefits and minimising the costs (both social and economic) of net migration. I imagine that we would first target people who have skills policy makers believe New Zealand needs, as we appear to in broad terms. We would then ensure that the people who move to New Zealand have every chance to succeed.
Labour market economists and other migration policy specialists should be writing about how we might optimise our immigration policy. However, I am not certain that the media is likely to provide a worthwhile forum for the mainstream continuation of that discussion. First, the entire topic risks alienating people who accepted our government's invitation to settle in New Zealand, as well as their New Zealand citizen descendants. Second, New Zealand has problems with prejudice that poorly contextualised headlines and soundbites risk reinforcing. Third, its not clear that the statistics and detailed analysis the topic demands can be properly canvassed except by way of a well-researched feature length piece. Certainly the responses of Woodham and Kightley ('I have not read the report, but...') don't really help to advance the debate.
Clydesdale might conceivably have written something good enough to reshape the national discussion, but he did not. It is unfortunate that he has made himself such an easy target.
-
-
Having access to actual interviews with candidates and either the full text, audio or video of speeches is one of the great things about the internet.
I suppose the clamour for policy detail stems from the fear that National's populism (elimination of waste, a tougher law and order posture, tax cuts) is masking its true intentions (asset sales, employment law reform, general rollback of regulation).
After making some stunningly unpopular decisions itself, I wonder whether there is much fertile ground left for Labour to exploit on this theme. I suppose employment law is one of the few areas that the public care about, still trust Labour on, and that National can be trusted to do something hostile to large sections of the electorate. Maybe National will just promise a 'review' - but with the right research and (some quotes from Richardson on lowering wages under the ECA and Brash on the minimum wage) maybe something good could be thrown together. It might not work, but at least it might constrain National when it tries to implement its policies.
-
-
Yeah Carter was awful in the first half.... but surely Carlos Spencer had worst periods than that (the most inconsistant All Black ever? ...don't kill me yee Aucklanders, you know he was arse).
I was very pleased with the entire forward pack, and in the wet that is all one can judge a team on really.
I was just wondering what, if anything, can be done to help Carter rediscover his best. I agree its a little rough to judge a number 10 on a performance during the middle of a storm.
I was just joking about Spencer, although I did enjoy watching him play. Whatever else he may have been (mercurial seemed to be the favourite word to describe his unpredictable changes in form) he was very entertaining. The few English, Australian and South African supporters I have spoken to about it seem to rate him as a exceptionally dangerous playmaking first five. I thought he was singled out for strident criticism at home throughout the Spencer/Mehrtens/Carter debate.
If New Zealand has had a problem in the forwards, its at lock, where we are unquestionably weaker than South Africa and probably weaker than Australia. Its good to see Williams play so well and defy some of his critics.
-
I'm glad Hillary and Barack are friends again. The concession speech was good.
Russell, the first twenty minutes of the AB test saw arguably the worst twenty minutes in AB first five history played out by one Dan Carter.
I couldn't say whether it was the worst twenty of all time (it must have been up there), but Carter has not been at his Lions' series vintage for a couple of seasons now. Obviously he is very talented but something is not quite clicking. Maybe the guy needs to have the pressure of living up to his own reputation lifted off his shoulders. (By bringing back King Carlos...)
Richie McCaw had another conspicuously brilliant game. He should get some sort of bonus payment just for being so awesome.
The fact that Rattue spouts constant bullshit is clearly not lost on the many Herald readers who tore strips off him in the comments section (the Welsh are the village idiots of world rugby, France pose absolutely no threat to the All Blacks, I hate sport and my life etc.). I hate to think what he would say about our cricketers.
-
I shouldn't be so flippant. Apologies to those who made more worthwhile contributions.
-
Cherry picking crazy remarks of a candidate's supporters is a straw man fallacy exhibiting confirmation bias behaviours.
-
That RCP link says it as clearly as it can be said. As you say, the race is over now and its time to put our efforts into getting Obama elected.
Back to the Friday theme - a book called 'I Was Told There'd Be Cake' has got to be good, right?