Posts by Hilary Stace
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Thanks, Russell. What a pity he's not coming to Wellington. We ethics-nerds would love to hear him.
Interesting what he says about the anti-vaxxers. I think Wakefield is still very much alive for many people and not talking about him becomes another conspiracy.
-
I'm afraid the seclusion story gets worse. Ashley one of the lucky ones because he has advocates. More from Kirsty Johnston today
(and Minister subtly blames family for Ashley as if they are not cooperating with the DHB)
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11652421 -
Updated during the day. Opposition parties now involved and the Minister being asked questions.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11651932 -
Access: The Universal Basic Income and…, in reply to Marc C,
Maybe they already have a good welfare system and healthy employment levels so people don't yet see the need there. But I still think it is a good result, considering people tend to be very conservative. People wouldn't even vote for a teeny little capital gains tax last election in NZ!
-
If anyone needs an example of a disability wicked policy problem, with very serious and negative human consequences, there is one on the front page of the Herald today and on-line (and yay for the new generation of investigative journalists like Kirsty Johnston). I'm writing a separate Access post about Ashley and his situation (as I have had a small involvement), but in the meantime here is the shocking story.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11650165
-
Hard News: Ali, in reply to Russell Brown,
So that's where the George Foreman grill comes from!
-
A quarter of the Swiss who voted thought it was a great idea. A very good start. Wonder how NZ would vote?
-
Wonder if it was a gender thing? Nobody I knew (girls, sisters, women) was the least bit interested in the boxing and most mothers actively opposed it. For me Mohammed Ali's anti-war stand and friendship with Malcolm X were defining.
-
The outgoing Children's Commissioner advocates for a UBI for children up to three. It wouldn't be a true UBI because it wouldn't be universal across the population, but he called it that in a talk I attended last week. The reason is that is the most important time for investment in people for good long term outcomes - when they are babies and toddlers. That good start makes a huge difference to their life path. That is backed up by the findings of the Dunedin Longitudinal Survey whose participants are now in their 40s.
Interestingly, when we had the Family Benefit (abolished by Ruth Richardson in 1991) it was worth a third of the pension and usually went to the mother. So with three children a mother was getting the equivalent of a pension to spend on her children. No surprise that after it was abolished inequality started to rise steadily.
-
Longish Australian article asks whether it could happen there https://theconversation.com/could-the-idea-of-a-universal-basic-income-work-in-australia-59811