Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Metiria's Problem, in reply to Emma Hart,
Yeah. It's a strange mix of social liberal 'evidence-based' and radical market. I like some of it, but other bits are ultra-dry market economics.
-
Hard News: Metiria's Problem, in reply to ,
. sorry .
-
Hard News: Metiria's Problem, in reply to ,
In the mid nineties, it was possible to rent heathy accommodation in Auckland, and have a healthy diet, and do tertiary education whilst on a benefit. Needing to commit benefit fraud to “feed a baby”, is complete bullshit.
What you seem to be saying is the ’91 benefit cuts had no impact on poverty. That’s a big claim that needs a bit more than anecdote to back it up. Runs counter to eg research cited in this Brian Easton paper.
It’s also hard to remember now how high unemployment was in the early nineties. Close to 12% – it really wasn’t that easy to find a job, and if you did there was someone else not getting it.
It wasn't an easy time. -
Hard News: Metiria's Problem, in reply to Alfie,
Espiner demanding a simplistic yes/no answer from Shaw while continually talking over him was just plain rude.
He seems to keep missing the point by miles. Moral decisions are seldom clear black and white.
Is ‘lying to a public official’ generally a good thing? Probably not – IF you live in a fair and honest society. (To make the point in a highly exaggerated, but hopefully clear way, in Nazi Germany, if the public official is asking where your Jewish neighbours are, it’s likely we’d call lying heroic.)
We need to ask: do we live in a fair and honest society, where public officials are there to help? And: is it possible that not reporting honestly to WINZ is wrong, but also on at least some occasions the lesser of two evils (the larger and more looming evil being unable to pay the rent, and thus not having a home?)
Can public debate right now even begin to engage with this level of moral complexity? When the big question is simply ‘do you condone benefit fraud?’ and/or the assumption is ‘the Greens condone benefit fraud’ we’re shouting past each other, and no one is listening. -
"economy's good" That rather depends on where you're sitting. Or maybe where you sleep.
-
I like the car, but mostly, on my own, tend to listen to the RNZ. So handing the ‘aux’ cable to the teenagers has been fun – and a great way to hear new stuff. Thankfully they are done with K pop. At the moment, some lovely 60s tinged pop (eg summer salt ) and Billy Eilish
and much more but that's what I can remember. They find playlists on spotify, get recommendations and follow people whose taste they like - so new music is always popping up. -
Hard News: That escalated quickly ..., in reply to Sacha,
That has been debunked here many times over. Culturally-insecure white middle class voters backed him, and a broken electoral system did the rest.
True overall. But. The 100,000 or so votes in specifically Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan that pushed him over the line and into the white house were 'rust belt' if not working class (in the US the term 'middle class' covers anyone with a half-decent job - and many in the precariat now - and very few seem to describe themselves as 'working class'.)
-
Hard News: That escalated quickly ..., in reply to Doug Hood,
The best case is that this becomes a turn to Labour’s strongest suit – its women'
Not sure if it's exactly gendered, but what Jacinta projects is a clear moral purpose - and that's what Labour desperately needs. 40,000 people without homes. Far too many people living in poverty. Massive yachts in the Viaduct basin.
It demands an emotional response as well as a clear-headed set of solutions. Labour have some of the latter; let's hope Jacinta can engender a fire to start putting them in place. -
Good to hear Dunne clearly name the two biggest problems to sensible drug law reform: National and Labour. Let's all keep saying it.
-
Hard News: Our own fake news, in reply to Russell Brown,
The most ridiculous thing about the taxwhinger's union is how successful they are at getting their propaganda and spin taken up by the msm. They're not in opposition to our media; they're using it, parasitic, as a host for their nasty ideology. And way too often our media mates swallow the parasite whole, and excrete the poison.