Posts by Joe Wylie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
So the National govt of the 90's is the light that makes labour look mean and punitive?
Take it that way if you wish. It's a very indirect reference to a line from Gilbert & Sullivan, that's all.
__Then again, the kinder 'n gentler initiatives from Bolger's time could be seen as token palliatives for the Ruth Richardson - Bill Birch-driven benefit slashing of the time.__
These were at pretty much the same time.
What I said.
-
A S:
When I look at what this govt has done to beneficiaries, I think the nats might actually have more to offer beneficiaries than the incumbents.
OK, having been out of NZ for all but the first couple of years of Jim 'n Jenny, I had to do a quick Google to discover that the "motivational programmes" you mentioned - hikoi ki paerangi, wahine ahuru, compass - were initiatives of the Bolger era. Thank you, v. interesting.
With Bolger now something of a pariah in Nat circles, thanks to his involvement with Kiwibank & resurgent rail, it seems that the more 'progressive' initiatives of his time as PM are now seen by his party as the fag end of discredited Muldoon socialism. You're right, in the dark with the light behind them the present government can appear comparatively mean and punitive. Then again, the kinder 'n gentler initiatives from Bolger's time could be seen as token palliatives for the Ruth Richardson - Bill Birch-driven benefit slashing of the time.
-
Thanks for that link Paul - it's certainly a visionary document compared to the spiteful and punitive policies that were implemented by the federal government of the time.
Unfortunately National appear to have next to no interest in investigating "how vocational education and training can help overcome skill shortages, improve labour market outcomes and raise economic growth." With Katherine Rich out of the picture the "dob in a solo mum" mentality seems unchanged since the Muldoon era.
-
Some work I was involved in a few years back in NSW estimated the costs of training long-term unemployed and people with disabilities to a sufficient level for them to be employable. The costs were significantly higher than training school leavers but not prohibitively so.
I'm genuinely interested to know whether, along with the cost of that scheme, you paid any attention to measuring its success rate in placing those people in genuine, sustainable, gainful employment. It's something we hear next to nothing about. Hopefully your project wasn't part of the Howard-era 'job network', where privatised 'providers' pointlessly churned the unemployed through spurious short-term 'training schemes'.
-
They'd be well advised to start arranging giant holograms of The Gorillaz now.
Please, not The Gorillaz - the execrable Noodle bears more than a passing resemblance to the current gaggle of twee olympic mascots.
-
. . . get a clue about what Stalin actually did . . .
Like, faced with the reality of all that blood, snot and offal on the permafrost, your dreams of a private gulag for your political enemies evaporated, along with your case of Stalin-envy? Good on you.
-
Joe: here's a primary source! From a University of Auckland faculty member, no less.
Oh far out! Pity I can't see the pictures though.
I did check out Peter Gutmann's CV (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/), but there's no mention of his ever having worked for Look and Learn,. -
It seems to me people who are recruited into politics from autocratic or technocratic backgrounds underrate the skill set of the politician. They are not used to having their word or their agenda questioned, and beneath the smooth exterior seems to lurk a corporate authoritarian, who gets angry when impertinent peons go off the coporate message.
This technocratic 'professionalisation' of politics, with its slick contempt for those outside of the tightly-managed party structure, seems to have been around since at least the time of Harold Wilson. Hilary Clinton would be a prime example. As the BBC's Bea Campbell once observed about Tony Blair, he doesn't like it when 'amateurs' attempt to make their political voice heard.
-
I still remember at that age reading in the British "Look and Learn" magazine that Maori had used kiwi skins for shields. That was news to me, since I'd never seen these shields in the museum or even in pictures. More surprising was the next bit, which said that nowdays (1970's) kiwi skins were used to make shoes and bags...
The smart bastard who wrote that - or a close relative - is probably still active. About a year ago the Wikipedia page on wetas claimed that the Maori made a form of container or carry-bag from the skin of the giant weta. There was even a special hot pool at Whakarewarewa where the skins were boiled and cured. It was up for at least a few weeks before the Wikiweta squad dealt to it.
-
And I don't know about you, Joe, but Michael Laws is a fatuous fuckwit with or without a photo by-line.
Y'know, I used to think that NZ-style demagogue-puffery hadn't descended to the depths of tackiness evident in Australia, but at least the terminally self-important Alan Jones has the decency not to affect drag-queen-heavy eyeliner.