Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
you CAN'T increase productivity in the health sector by getting to work harder or longer.
I understand that. The problem is that Bill English doesn't, and thinks you can keep squeezing blood out of that stone.
All i can say is that he better get used to wiping his own arse when he's old - because no-one is going to want to do it for him.
-
Will someone please tell me what increased productivity means? For Nurses, teachers, doctors, scientists, Members of Parliament?
Someone has already pointed out that it is output over input. In the manufacturing sector, this is primarily governed by technology - factories can produce more with better plant, construction workers can build more with a bigger digger etc. In the services sector, some of that can be achieved by training - people can learn to be a better techer or doctor. But the mathematics of the chosen measure mean that in practice it turns into a push to either do more work for the same amount of money, or do the same amount for less - i.e. an effective pay cut. In addition, it may mean an actual degradation in performance due to larger class sizes or less time per patient (something which isn't part of the headline stat, and so not taken into account).
When in opposition, the present government made a lot of noise about how pay increases for doctors and nurses had led to decreased productivity (in their narrow mathematical sense) in the health sector. And its pretty obvious how they'll be trying to "increase" it - by freezing pay and speeding up the line. The result will be strikes across the health sector, and likely a further outflow of scarce medical professionals to Australia and Europe.
-
After umpteen years of individualism being pushed by the state, I fail to see why I should now heed calls that my country needs me to mess up my life to earn the country some export dollars that I suddenly owe it.
Hoist with their own petard.
-
It's about protecting the process from potential abuse, when it's all happening behind closed doors.
That's the real problem: secrecy automatically begats suspicion, and deservedly so. Just look at what the Australians got away with before someone leaked their list.
Oh, and speaking of the Australians, their scheme seems to be attracting opposition...
-
Unfortunately, if its all done in secret, we never know whether there is mission creep or not, until its too late.
-
I think the decision to withhold the blacklist has a credible foundation (basically, that releasing the information would enable criminal activity), but it is worth a shot.
Definitely. And if it fails, that's what WikiLeaks is for.
And yes, the response then was timely, thorough and generally excellent. It's the request to the Ombudsman, and the response from the DIA to the Ombudsman, that seems to be taking time, but who knows where the delay is.
Appeals to the Ombudsmen always take time. Even the most uncontroversial cases (double extensions - illegal and cause for a nastygram) take a month - 6 weeks. Substantive appeals where they actually have to look at things and make a judgement take much longer.
In Australia, every time someone objects to the filter, Conroy accuses them of being in favour of child pornography. They're protecting children - how could you possibly object?
And then they quietly add gay porn, straight porn, internet gambling, euthanasia, spotty teen-Satanists, loony Christians, dentists, and people criticising them. Then they wonder why no-one trusts them.
-
please note that in this context 'quick' may mean 'delayed as long as judiciously possible'
Request filed: April 13.
Response sent: April 24.
Total time: 9 working days.
OIA time limit: 20 working days.That's good service. I'd also note that the response was complete and generally helpful, and that the decision to withhold the blocklist is at least credible, unlike some of the bullshit I see from Ministers.
It will be interesting to see what the Ombudsman says about that. But if they don't release it, ther's always wikileaks.
-
What if Labour were to pick this up and rabble rouse for all its worth? And why shouldn't they?
Common decency?
OK, so maybe that's a bit much to expect from politicians, so we'll try something else: any hope of a future confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party?
Doing a Brash and pandering to the racists is taking a tremendous gamble. So is not doing it - Winston could motivate those rednecks and get back into Parliament. But Turia is the devil they know...
-
Does this, er, sound a bit like the Foreshore and Seabed Act, at least in principle?
Yes - but note that they later say that the judicial remedy should always be available. What they're proposing is repeal, legislation to provide a framework for the recognition and exercise of customary rights (which will look a lot like the existing provisions), and then short-circuiting the judicial pathway through a series of settlements. Those who choose not to settle can always go to court, but if the settlement is done right, no-one will want to waste time on that avenue pursuing what the government will give them much cheaper.
-
I'd love a frock coat.
Ditto.
Can anyone see a market here?