Posts by David Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Corbyn wins in the first round with a clear 59.5% of the vote.
-
Well, the government do seem keen on paying someone else more money to do a worse job for things the government was doing badly to start with (even if governments of the past managed it well) possibly in order to have someone else to blame - prisons, schools, housing, etc. However, for the moment, refugees do tend to be in State Houses (they also tend to have larger family sizes that quite suit the size of state house of years past).
-
Polity: Refugees and aid - we’re laggards, in reply to Steve Barnes,
I agree ifitweremyhome is nifty, but I checked the gini figures in a few different places (NZ, UK, World Bank) and there result means they either have bad data on this, or they are misinterpreting a high GINI as more equal- either way the result for that aspect is screwy.
-
Polity: Refugees and aid - we’re laggards, in reply to Steve Barnes,
Refugees generally go into state houses, so I don't think that there is any ghettoing going on- the will (based on general New Zealand practice) be in mixed neighbourhoods, it is just there are a bunch of people from Syria in the Wellington area already which makes language/ culture easier to bridge.
-
Polity: Refugees and aid - we’re laggards, in reply to Daman Saini,
Here's the thing:
We know that poorer countries are taking more refugees than us.
We know that smaller countries are taking more refugees than us.
We know that countries that turn away migrants are taking more refugees than us.
We know denser populated countries are taking more refugees than us.
We know lighter populated countries are taking more refugees than us.
We know NZ (per head of population) took more refugees in the past when we were fewer.
We know NZ (per head of population) took more refugees in the past when we were poorer.From all of those things (true even after the government moved to be closer to mainstream opinion), as discussed in the initial post, New Zealand has the potential to take more refugees. It is a matter of political will.
As to how the particular Syrian refugees would do that choose to come here (and remember they are choosing) that is an unknowable because it is too specific and hasn't happened yet so it is hypothetical problems which could all have hypothetical solutions if the political will was present, for instance by settling them outside of Auckland- as it is the government is expecting Wellington to be the main destination due to the Syrian community so problems about Auckland housing are moot.
"Earlier this week, Mr Woodhouse's spokeswoman had said many of the extra refugees were expected to be transferred from Mangere to Wellington, because of the existing infrastructure and Syrian community in the capital."
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/355472/mayor-calls-refugee-centre-dunedin
but hypothetically if the government was interested it could settle people in other than Waikato, Wellington, Manawatu and Nelson.
What we do know, from refugees generally, and have no reason to believe it is the slightest different in this case is that the people consider themselves to have benefitted, and the state tends to "make" more in taxation from these motivated hard working refugees than the costs in resettlement. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730383-800-why-welcoming-more-refugees-makes-economic-sense-for-europe/ But reducing a moral issue to an economic one is a bit creepy.
-
Polity: Refugees and aid - we’re laggards, in reply to chris,
I think ifitweremyhome have a data error, the GINI coefficient for NZ is lower (lower is more equal) than the United Kingdom.
-
At least some of that is the Auckland regional settlement strategy a report on migration and Auckland housing.
http://www.immigration.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/6E7AFA93-442C-4A82-A9AC-50FC62C385DD/0/Goal6...
While it discusses both migrants and refugees, let's keep in mind that this thread is about refugees, and the report is treating those as separate categories- migrants have a problem with Auckland housing affordability (just like everyone else) but the only problem with regards to refugees in a quick skim of the report is that there may not be a state house available in the preferred part of Auckland.
-
Polity: Refugees and aid - we’re laggards, in reply to Daman Saini,
Why is it that everyone here is disputing my views and not going out there and helping ?
You are making an ad hominem attack by assuming we cannot do both.
It is very evident, that you older lot, are constantly hating on younger people and their education, it is evident on other blogs too
As someone who does enough guiding and advising of people that I am a google autocomplete for it (that would be a self referential appeal to authority, but you actually questioned people's credentials in that regard so it isn't) can I suggest you entertain the possibility that it might be issues with your own discourse that might be leaving you feeling like everyone is against you rather than inate characters of everyone else.
In particular, as a blog that the discussion tends to favour evidence based arguement, and has a lot of people familiar with rhetorical strategies and their misuse, the introduction of "but what if" hypothetical non-sequiturs tends to be met negatively, similarly rhetoric that makes the assumption that people can only do one thing/care about one thing is going to be seen as flawed because you are starting your arguement from false premises.
Even if you do bring genuine experience or context to the discussion and add to its overall worth, you should still expect people to disagree with you and add qualifiers, because they have different life experience and perspectives, and yours is no more privileged to be the sole source of opinion than theirs. For instance Bart chipped in with family history, contextualising and adding in one way, and TracyMac added a qualifier about ethnicity contextualising it in another way. In a community of knowledge never expect things to be unchallenged.
Looking back over the past couple of pages of postings, can I suggest that you in a "teachable moment" engage in some self reflective evaluation that if your goal was to somewhat derail the thread, then that was the temporary outcome. If your goal was to make the discussion about what you bring, that succeeded to the extent that weaknesses in what you were bringing got discussed and dismissed, and if your goal was to add depth and understanding then I would have to say that was not a success due to rhetorical and logical weaknesses.
For example, when you raise "old people picking on young people like yourself"- no one knew your age so all people had to go on we're your arguments. In order for that to be accepted as a valid viewpoint, there would need to be magic method that everyone knows your age but you don't know anyone's. So I suggest reflectively considering how what you have put out might have influenced what you got back. -
{oops see it was already posted in the thread admidst the comms? student(s)?}
-
If it would be useful for some around the Dunedin area, such as myself, to request access to the Hocken copy (even as an additional person) , I could make an enquiry tomorrow.