Hard News: What about that Welfare Working Group, then?
177 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
The poll did seem to honour the spirit of the working group, yes.
And they only needed to add "youngest on solids" and "youngest in second trimester" to get the Kiwiblog septella.
-
Aint political context interesting. The pale natives of Tamaki are restless over them Maaris grabbing the foreshore, National's Alan Peachey warns his electorate colleagues.
A draft report, obtained by the Herald and written by the Tamaki MP, warns that the Act Party's campaign against the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is "gaining traction".
Act MP John Boscawen has spent thousands of dollars of his own money printing 8000 letters and flyers and dropping them in letterboxes in the electorate, where he lives. He is printing another 7000.
...
"The Act Party is running a campaign based on misinformation and half-truths in this electorate [Tamaki], which is gaining some traction.
I am receiving a lot of communications from constituents ... who are really quite angry at what they are describing as a betrayal by the National Government.
"Many of the people in touch with me are threatening to resign from the party and to never vote for National again. We kid ourselves if we don't think we have a major issue on our hands among some of our core and loyal supporters."
I guess bashing some beneficiaries might reassure fearful voters that their traditional concerns are still reassuringly close to the party's heart. Or they could always have a go at the cyclists I guess.
-
So a single parent manages to find work when his/her child is one, and he/she is on a 90 day trial. During the 90 day trial, his/her child get's sick and s/he has to leave work to care for her (gonna use "her" 'cos it's easier to type and to read) wee 'un for 3 or 4 days. Upon her return to work, she is told that her job has gone because the company needs someone who they can absolutely count on to be more reliable (a sole parent's work reliability is completely dependant on the health of his/her child, which - especially when young - is often in flux).
The people that push for such draconian measures are often the same people who cry, when things go wrong with a child, "blame the parents!", "where were the parents?!", etc.
A woman is in an abusive marriage. Her husband beats her and her children whenever he gets ticked about something petty. She lives in fear for herself and her children, and wants to leave. But knows she cannot, because she can't afford to be a single mum. She must, if she and her children are to eat, stay.
These situations are all too real now, in some cases. They will be far more common under lean-mean, Bennett-in-the-US and Brash inspired, kick-'em-while-they're-down policies.
Anecdote:
I was helping my friend set up her market stall last weekend, and a couple came to browse. As the woman perused the clothing already on racks, I chatted with her hubby. He works as a "clean up" guy for Housing NZ. His job is to decontaminate houses that had been P houses, and he was doing great business. Currently he does 3 - 4 houses every week, just in the Auckland area, and just houses that are owned by Housing NZ. I was gobsmacked. That many? Just in one area, and not even counting privately owned rentals? That's scary! Penalise the poor any more and my guess is his business will really soar! The ruthless greedy will sell drugs and sex regardless. The desperate will do what they can to survive, and sometimes the only option in a ruthless world is to harden up and get yourself into the drugs and/or sex business.Politicians and focus groups spend far too much time devising "simple solutions" to complex problems, and forget to think about all those messy little unintended consequences. We don't need targeted simple "solutions", we need an holistic approach to community, society, citizenship, business, welfare, health, education, and people. Unfortunately, that's not simple, and doesn't make for easy bullet points and catchy headlines.
Also, I have to stop reading Yahoo comments. All my love becomes hate, and it's a poison! Gah! Save me from misogyny! :(
-
Let's hope we're not heading in this direction!
http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/woman_jailed_for_getting_pregnant_dies_from_medical_neglect
Thrown in jail for getting pregnant? That seems like a particularly absurd violation of women's reproductive rights. But it's actually an established policy in Allegheny County, PA. Cara reports at the Curvature that, for Amy Lynn Gillespie, becoming pregnant meant violating the terms of her work release under probation, and getting thrown in jail. Yet this story comes to an even more tragic ending, because Gillespie died while in custody from advanced pneumonia.
[...]
The crimes that got her in trouble with the law in the first place were minor shoplifting (when caught stealing food, she told the police officer she was hungry) and prostitution...
In the country whence Bennett gets her new founded inspiration...
-
I live in Allegheny County, and I did not know about that. Wow.
-
Petra, in reply to
Obscene, isn’t it?
A friend of mine, who is a violent crimes detective in Mississippi, says "Whatever happened to house arrest and GPS monitoring via ankle bracelet?
Dying
as a direct result of neglect in custody places culpability squarely in the
hands of those officers monitoring her. I'm not familiar with PA
statutes, but it would fit manslaughter in my view.In Mississippi it would be two counts.
I hope that more attention is given to this crime and that the family attains justice."
Don Brash would probably say: "Look, I'm not being mean or anything, but think of the positive impact this has on the budget".
Paula Bennett would probably say: "This woman made her own bed, and she should die in it. Hunger was too good for her!"
The Welfare Working Group would probably say: "What an excellent idea, and it's so heart warming to see this positive result. Two generations of petty crime, welfare dependency and poverty, nipped in the bud through the use of an efficient and cost effective prison policy".
Yahoo! commenters would probably say: "Serves the slut right. I hope her mother has to repay the money that was lost from the shop's profit when she stole that loaf of bread. And I bet the selfish bitch had her eyes on the chocolate, not the bread! This is proof that open cast mining is what this country needs!"
*sigh*
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Petra: in short, Lebensunwertes Leben by stealth.
I can see the headlines now...
"Barbed wire manufacturers and gated community developers are set to rejuvenate the ailing NZX following recent policy changes..."
"Bodyguards are set to displace plumbers and electricians as the most lucrative trade..."
-
High walls will keep our all-important building industry going after they've rebuilt Christchurch
-
Wellington people might be interested in a public seminar by the Alternative Welfare Working Group on Friday 26th (tomorrow) 12.30 -2.00 at the Old Government Building lecture theatre 2 (behind the law school).
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
And am I not the only one to detect a whiff of 'barefoot & pregnant' underpinning the working group's motivations?
-
I hadn't thought of it that way, DeepRed. You may be right.
My thoughts are more that the WWG's motivations are more "taxpaying and childless", than "barefoot and pregnant". In fact, I'd say that they think only the very well heeled should ever be pregnant. Children are a rich man's privilege, not a reproductive right.
-
So an Economist (Rebstock) has a better idea about what Doctors deem unfit for work because they are ill, invalid, or other? Y'know, Doctors who spend up to hundreds of thousands of dollars getting (what she must obviously think a waste), a Science degree. I mean why would a Doctor know better than her? Of course these people must just be bludgers right?. Unfuckingbelievable! That's what this lot are.
As for the example of the welfare system I witnessed many times in the States, women begging with babies in their arms . Child begging with sign saying "dreaming of a MacDonalds burger. Cardboard box homes lining streets. Is this what we have to look forward to?
Why am I constantly reaching for the bucket? -
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Petra: They've tried 'positive eugenics' in Singapore with the Graduate Mother Scheme. To little avail.
Sofie: Welcome to Forbes-Coates 2.0. Or worse still, tent cities on Parliament Grounds.
-
“Long-term benefit dependency for the able-bodied is very destructive at every level: it destroys initiative and drive, cripples the future opportunities of children, encourages family breakdown, fuels intergenerational dependency and the growth of the underclass, and is an enormous cost burden on society that the country cannot afford.”
I don't know about most of the posters here but that is a no brainer to me
Almost most of the people I know who are on a benefit would rather not be except for a rather small number who have made a life style choice
I think the statistics prove that is quite small number of citizens
I also don't think having a great brood of kids while on the benefit is a good idea for either the children or society
But penalizing the mothers or the children is the wrong thing to do, just stupid, again a no brainer -
And from my own personal XP, being on the dole is far more like house arrest minus the handcuffs, rather than a hammock. Can't socialise with friends, get looked down upon by family, and so forth. It's like unemployment is seen as a de facto felony.
A generation ago, the 'long-term dependent' would have been staffing the meatworks, the railways, the post office, and the car plants. For all their inefficency, these outlets at least motivated people to upskill and get stuff done. And then came mechanisation, rationalisation, and offshoring.
-
Deep Red:
The Irish are starting to think outside the square.
You mean thinking inside the boxers.
-
8. If current trends in benefit receipt continue 16% of the working age population could be on a benefit by 2050.
Blatant scare-mongering. How relevant is this to their mandate?The report apparently says that "If changes were not made, the 356,000 working-age adults [currently] on a benefit would eventually cost the country $50 billion." Well if you gave each of them a very generous 50,000 per annum it would only tally 17.8 billion. How do they account for the other 31 billion?
-
Indeed, being on the dole is the most soul-destroying experience of my life. Standing in the queue listening to Manic Street Preachers singing "if you tolerate this, then your children will be next", only to be told a few minutes later, "You're overqualified, we can't help you find a job" [and that anecdote is an amalgam of real events] is not a lifestyle choice anybody would make. Of course I'm bloody overqualified for the dole! Everybody is! I just want out of this office, off this queue, and to be doing something useful!
Could somebody please tell our government and business "leaders" (because they never listen to me) to cut the bollocks and create the jobs?
-
The other 31 billion, I guess, is in management and administration of the welfare system, plus staffing WINZ centres.. Which is still ridiculous.
They could scrap the welfare system altogether, and then there'll be thousands more newly unemployed right across the country as those who work for WINZ, and some directly from the Ministry of Social Development, would no longer be required. -
Blatant scare-mongering
The $50b figure is simply a lie, fisked in several places including other threads here when they first pulled it out of their arses a few months ago.
-
vangam, in reply to
The $50b figure is simply a lie,...
It is a pretty basic fact to "get right" if their report seeks to have any credibility. Statistical data is one area we could expect a reasonable amount of accuracy from a government-sponsored report. If they are prepared to lie about this, what else are they prepared to lie about, or fabricate, or evade?
-
vangam, in reply to
he other 31 billion, I guess, is in management and administration of the welfare system, plus staffing WINZ centres.. Which is still ridiculous.
Do you think the govt would concede that the administration of welfare actually costs more than the benefits themselves? So the 50 billion is a fabrication, but even if it is somewhere in the vicinity of that figure - like for example 35billion - it would still be preposterous.
-
Petra, in reply to
Do you think the govt would concede that the administration of welfare actually costs more than the benefits themselves?
Whether they will or won't concede this fact is almost moot, imo, because in the end it's almost completely circular. Do wish they'd be more honest, though. But what are the odds of that?
I tried to find some facts on the number of employees WINZ had, but no luck. Wish these things were more readily available to the Googley challenged, like me.
Transparency: it's a good thing.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
A very Big Lie (TM) indeed.
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
It’s like unemployment is seen as a de facto felony.
A lot of companies in America (the ones who are hiring) are not accepting applications from the unemployed, on the grounds that they must be inherently incompetent if they're out of work, and that it wastes their time having to look at CVs from the desperate. It's pretty ugly.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.