She's a bit of a heifer - But I think I love Paula Bennett

[Tank]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10633815

The Government has announced it will toughen criteria for people to receive a benefit.

Prime Minister John Key announced today that the Government would try to encourage beneficiaries to work with making policy changes to start in October.

The key changes are:

* Expectations of part-time work for single parents on the domestic purposes benefit when their child reaches six and for people on the sickness benefit deemed capable of part-time work.

* Allowing Work and Income case managers to cut benefits by half as a sanction, followed by a full suspension then a cancellation.

* Employment benefits limited to a year. Beneficiaries must reapply after a year with a comprehensive work assessment.

* More frequent assessments of people on a sickness benefit, with the first two medical assessments only good for four weeks each, and a compulsory reassessment after 12 months.

[Tank]

And the bludgers who dont like it will probably fuck off to Australia - even better!

[scumdog]

And the bludgers who dont like it will probably fuck off to Australia - even better!

That we should be to lucky!

We can only live in hope, live in hope....

[Tank]

That we should be to lucky!

We can only live in hope, live in hope....


<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?f=q&amp;source=s_q&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=hope&amp;sll=-41.244772,172.617188&amp;sspn=44.475865,93.076172&amp;ie=U TF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Hope,+Tasman&amp;t=h&amp;ll=-41.32217,173.17543&amp;spn=0.090243,0.145912&amp;z=12&amp;iwlo c=A&amp;output=embed"></iframe><br /><small><a href="http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?f=q&amp;source=embed&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=hope&amp;sll=-41.244772,172.617188&amp;sspn=44.475865,93.076172&amp;ie=U TF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Hope,+Tasman&amp;t=h&amp;ll=-41.32217,173.17543&amp;spn=0.090243,0.145912&amp;z=12&amp;iwlo c=A" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a></small>


Hope????????

[Mully]

No complaints here.

*waits for Labour voters to come along and explain how this is a plot*

[Swoop]

About fucking time.

Go Paula!!

[Ronin]

No complaints here.

*waits for Labour voters to come along and explain how this is a plot*

you must spread some more etc etc etc.

[MisterD]

No complaints here.

*waits for Labour voters to come along and explain how this is a plot*

Where have they gone? I was expecting lots of foaming at the mouth about mining but.....silence.

[Ixion]

Window dressing. It will make no difference whatsoever.

So, DPB recipients are going to have to 'look' for *part time* work once sprog is six. There's bugger all part time work available, and 'look for' is easily satisifed - just pick half a dozen local businesses that definately dont have part time jobs "hi - me again, any part time jobs? yeah I know I asked last week. No. Thanks, I'll just put my call on my looking for work list. Now, next door".

Ditto 'reapply for dole after a year". So, what are they going to do when Bert reapplies? Why, put him on the dole of course. If he's been on the dole fo a year either (a) he's over 50 and has no chance of finding work ;(b) has special needs or such like, ditto ; (c) is a tattooed neanderthal who will make sure no-one will ever offer him work, ditto ;or (d) is in a recession hit industry where there simply are no jobs going, ditto

The only effect will be to harrass sickness beneficiaries regularly. Some of them are druggies who could do with harrassing (though it will serve no purpose), but some of thema re dying of cancer or such like. Way to go, make a dying mans last months miserable.

[dogsnbikes]

Of course this all done on a case by case and needs Basis,but why shouldn't people be out making an effort,rather than sitting at home drinking piss etc etc its the long termers that have made a career out of getting the benefit that has the working class getting their back's up...

biggest problem is that its not wether there is part-time work its the fact that many of them on benefits want the $20/hr pay packet for a $10/hr experience,they simply just dont want too work,

I say Fuck them if they dont want too work why should we feed them

New Zealand is just too soft and too PC its time to harden up folks and lets go minning

Just my thought's

[centaurus]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10633815

The Government has announced it will toughen criteria for people to receive a benefit.

Prime Minister John Key announced today that the Government would try to encourage beneficiaries to work with making policy changes to start in October.

The key changes are:

* Expectations of part-time work for single parents on the domestic purposes benefit when their child reaches six and for people on the sickness benefit deemed capable of part-time work.

* Allowing Work and Income case managers to cut benefits by half as a sanction, followed by a full suspension then a cancellation.

* Employment benefits limited to a year. Beneficiaries must reapply after a year with a comprehensive work assessment.

* More frequent assessments of people on a sickness benefit, with the first two medical assessments only good for four weeks each, and a compulsory reassessment after 12 months.

Remember this is the goverment version. Don't forget that the nats have always been about cutting social welfare funds and helping businesses (especially big ones). I'm not saying it's a bad thing they're doing (I don't have enough information to make a decision yet) but you have to remember that the ACC entitlement cut-off for rape victims was dressed in very nice words and for the joe-public without other info to rely on it seemed very sound and of common sense.

It is very possible that under this "help people find jobs" umbrella there are much darker agendas - slashing wellfare budgets no matter the costs, even if it ends up sending some people in poverty.

[scumdog]

Hope????????

Use to live not THAT far away from there in the 60's.....a bit of a ride on me pushbike !

But never lived there.

[scumdog]

Way to go, make a dying mans last months miserable.

Hell, death will fix all that.

[Mully]

The only effect will be to harrass sickness beneficiaries regularly. Some of them are druggies who could do with harrassing (though it will serve no purpose), but some of thema re dying of cancer or such like. Way to go, make a dying mans last months miserable.

Annually is not exceptionally regularly. Plus I would suggest that "dying of cancer" would have you on an invalids benefit anyway. Or, they would be visiting a Doctor at least annually.

Compulsory reassessment of Mrs Mully's mother (who falls into this category) is as simple as a "Doc, can you please renew the letter for WINZ" and it's done.

The difference is, of course, that Mrs Mully's mother wants to work and has been forbidden - unlike some of the losers who are "addicted to pot, bro, and can't work, eh?"

I'm not saying this new idea is perfect, but it's nice to have a Govt who makes noises about getting long-term unemployed off the dole and possibly contributing to the country, rather than shuffling unemployed onto the sickness benefit

[Ixion]

Every month for sickness beneficiaries. One suspects that the "assessments" will not be able to be made by the sick person's regular doctor - if they are, then that also is mere window dressing. It will never be possible to effectively control benefit abuse so long as an inflated level of unemployment is used by the government as a mechansim to hold down wages. So long as there are more workers than jobs, someone has to be unemployed.
, with three medical assessments during the first twelve weeks, a further assessment every twelve weeks thereafter, and a more comprehensive reassessment after 12 months.

[avgas]

I'm sorry but when has Paula Bennet worked a normal job?Wasn't she a "young Nazi" from graduation.

They should just stop the benefit, and give it only to those who complain the most.

[Swoop]

I say Fuck them if they dont want too work why should we feed them.
But, but, but... that means taking away the hammock that they are reclining in and replacing it with a safety net for genuine cases.
How un-PC can you get!:shit:

[SPman]

Aaaahhhh....good old Bennie bashing

Egotistical wankers favourite pastime!

When you haven't got a clue what to do and want to stir up the rabble and divert attention!

Another broken record using a minority to "punish" the majority

Fucking wankers!

[Tank]

Aaaahhhh....good old Bennie bashing

Egotistical wankers favourite pastime!

If you call hard working people who pay tons of tax who are sick of bludgers Egotistical wankers - then yep - you got that 100%



edit SPMan - awesome avatar (hope the guy walked away OK)

[spajohn]

When you've got wankers like that guy in Manners Mall who quit a job he was perfectly capable of, so he could go on the dole and become a social activist, I say get the bastards by the balls. Sure some people have circumstances that need a benefit, but there are always the others that spoil it so they have to suffer to get the bludgers sorted. Don't blame the "egotistical wankers"...blame the sack's of shit that don't want to work for a living.

[slofox]

Well...all these case reviews should add to the vacancies for govt employees shouldn't it..? Maybe even I could get a job there...

[MIXONE]

Aaaahhhh....good old Bennie bashing

Egotistical wankers favourite pastime!

When you haven't got a clue what to do and want to stir up the rabble and divert attention!

Another broken record using a minority to "punish" the majority

Fucking wankers!

When a full third of our tax dollars goes out on benefits I say we have the right to "bene bash".
Not on the dole by chance are you?

[peasea]

Hope????????

It's just up the road from here and I know people who live there, you'd better not hassle them.
Oh, hang on, one's a sickness benny, bugger.

[SMOKEU]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10633815


* Expectations of part-time work for single parents on the domestic purposes benefit when their child reaches six




Great idea, then all the sluts can start breeding again when their oldest kid turns 5, that gives them enough time to have another kid before the oldest one turns 6, meaning that they get another 6 years off work. I can imagine that cycle repeating itself many times over, until they are too old to have more kids. Then they will say that they are sick and unable to work for all those years of alcohol/drug abuse meaning they will be on the sickness benefit for the rest of their lives. It seems that nothing really changes for the people who gain the most from this system.

[Mully]

Great idea, then all the sluts can start breeding again when their oldest kid turns 5, that gives them enough time to have another kid before the oldest one turns 6, meaning that they get another 6 years off work. I can imagine that cycle repeating itself many times over, until they are too old to have more kids. Then they will say that they are sick and unable to work for all those years of alcohol/drug abuse meaning they will be on the sickness benefit for the rest of their lives. It seems that nothing really changes for the people who gain the most from this system.

Pfft, no.

The more sprogs they have, the higher the benefit payment.

They won't wait till the first one is 5.

[Skyryder]

Heifer????????? more like a cow.

Anything to take the media off the mining in the National Parks. Still the Nats and rednecks will love it. Go bash a benifiary much easier than Keys Job summit. The country won't fall for that bullshit again. Just watch the crime rate soar.


Skyryder


Skyryder

[JimO]

Heifer????????? more like a cow.

Anything to take the media off the mining in the National Parks. Still the Nats and rednecks will love it. Go bash a benifiary much easier than Keys Job summit. The country won't fall for that bullshit again. Just watch the crime rate soar.


Skyryder


Skyryder

blablabla comrade

[BMWST?]

Well...all these case reviews should add to the vacancies for govt employees shouldn't it..? Maybe even I could get a job there...

you are right i wonder if the extra costs will be offset by the savings...

[Tank]

you are right i wonder if the extra costs will be offset by the savings...

Regardless of the cost - the long term benefits to the individuals and the country, getting them off their arse is got to be a good thing.

[rainman]

The Government has announced it will toughen criteria for people to receive a benefit.


Mr Tank

Have you ever had the misfortune to have to apply for an unemployment benefit? (I'm guessing not, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). If you believe that it is easy, or that the amount of money paid out enables one to live a life of comfortable indulgence, then you are plainly speaking out of your arse. I have been there and can tell you they're not handing out cash to anyone who walks in off the street.

These reforms will do SFA to get more people into work, they'll just add extra process and bureaucracy. And where this fucking useless government thinks the part-time work is that these bad bennies will be doing, I have no idea. Maybe the cycleway?

[SPman]

When a full third of our tax dollars goes out on benefits I say we have the right to "bene bash".
Not on the dole by chance are you?Have been when the work evaporated...like 1991...when 50% of the tradesmen on the North Shore were on the dole..guys who hadn't been out of work for 20 yrs or more...so they could actually eat!
And where, pray tell, are all these jobs going to miraculously appear from, in the midst of a recession? John Keys cycleway? Gerry Brownlees gravel pit in a conservation area?


It seems that nothing really changes for the people who gain the most from this system. And it never will, regardless of who's in charge, but, hey, never let facts get in the way of perceived realities - let's just tar everyone with the same brush dipped in the foulest crap we can find! The people who gain most are those who need a tide over when hard times hit until they can get back to normal life - which is the majority on various benefits. The abusers are people who will abuse anything offered or put in front of them - it's a mindset! When I was at my lowest, I was just "temporarily broke". They are "poor" and it's a mindset that seems to permeate through every aspect of their life - they have a loser/victim mentality and demand everything given to them...because they are poor disadvantaged souls.........yeah right - changing rules just means they will find a way around them, while those that can't work the system and genuinely need tiding over are the ones that get affected the most! People like that have always been and always will be around, and it takes more than brain dead, morally and intellectually bankrupt, previously tried and failed policies to get around the problem. If there is a solution to the problem, which there probably isn't!
Still, if it makes people feel good, to assert their perceived moral superiority over those at the bottom of the pile, then the current mob in power are certainly not averse to whipping it up! It just says a lot about those doing the stirring and those baying and frothing at their behest!

[pete376403]

Bennett herself having been a beneficiary, took all the incentive payments available so she could get qualifications and get a job. Now she is in charge of welfare, the educational incentives are among the cuts she has introduced. I guess it takes a special sort of cynic to be Minister of Social Welfare in a National government.

[Mudfart]

national party lovers, or muppets. Firstly there are only so many jobs out there. There will always be an unemployment line for as we saw in the "recession", the situations vacant in the papers shrunk- a lot. You can never have everyone employed unless you run a fascist totalitarialist? govt aka Adolf Hitler, and press everyone into the armed services.
Not a bad idea if you ask me! However you run the risk of being called a fascist.
The national party claims they promote small business startups- I notice I haven't seen fuck all of this since the election, so no new job positions are being created.
Secondly, there is about to be a huge boom in you losing your fulltime job, in favour of your boss deciding, "why do I pay this monkey to give him all his holidays, sick days, penal rates, when I can employ several monkeys, part time and take all those expensive perks away from them, and make all those smelly monkeys part timers?".
Put your money where your mouth is, go apply for a job in the new mines. Monkey boy.

[Mudfart]

lol i hope bennett has paid off her student loan, oh wait we paid it!
She owes me sex.

[Ixion]

Firstly there are only so many jobs out there. There will always be an unemployment line for as we saw in the "recession", the situations vacant in the papers shrunk- a lot. You can never have everyone employed unless you run a fascist totalitarialist? govt aka Adolf Hitler, and press everyone into the armed services.


Well, this country got damn close in the '50s. At one point there were I think 26 people unemloyed, and the Prime Minister Keith Holyoake knew the name of every one of them. Seriously.

A job for every person who wants one. *Then* you can crack down on the bludgers. Requires making full employment the priority instead of corporate profits. And going for a high wage economy not a low wage one. Won't happen. Too many vested interests in keeping unemployment high and wages low.

[Quasievil]

YAY to the National Government, a Government with Actual BALLS who is willing to approach the unsustainable issue

[davereid]

You can never have everyone employed unless you run a fascist totalitarialist? govt aka Adolf Hitler, and press everyone into the armed services.


Thats not really correct. From a pure economics point of view, we choose our level of unemployment.

The tools are the minimum wage, and border tariffs.

They are used to protect the incomes of our unskilled workers, who otherwise, would earn the world rate for their jobs.

Tariffs work by (effectively) taxing consumers who buy the product, to maintain the incomes of the workers in the industry that the tariff applies to.

So, you could tariff T-shirts at say $50. So while you can now buy a chinese T shirt for $10, it would if tariffed cost you $60. This would make it economic for a NZ manufacturer to make T-shirts, even though his raw labour cost is $12.50/hr + ACC, safe working conditions etc etc, when his chinese competitor pays $.50 with no minimum standards.

This breaches many free trade agreements, so has been dropped.

At a minimum wage of $12.50, the NZ tee shirt manufacturer is out of business. But on average (economists claim) that the tax you payn tp provide the dole as an alternative, is less than the cost of buying the T shirts at the tariffed rate.

You could fix it overnight, by dumping the minimum adult wage. Then, full employment, albeit at $5 an hour would result.

Is that the NZ we want ?

IMHO we need to find a compromise.

Their has to be a system to ensure that unskilled kiwis gain skills, or even if they don't, they don't end up on the world rate for unskilled workers.

But that system cant become a resting ground for the lazy or unmotivated, as it (at least in my experience) has become.

No easy solution here.

If it were up to me, Id have only one benefit, which expected work if you were capable. It would have no cash component, being an EFTPOS type card which managed expenditure, and didn't allow excessive grog/smokes/pokies.

And its rate would depend on how long you were in the workforce, and how long you ad been on welfare. So the long term employed, knocked over by a recession, would fare better than those who left school, expecting the DPB.

[pete376403]

You will recall that a previous national govt tried more or less this exact same thing when Shipley was minister of social welfare. Didn't do a damn thing then either.
Incidentally my daughter is on the DPB after being dumped by her loser partner. She lost track of the number of part time jobs she has applied for. About the only places hiring are brothels - I'd rather she didn't have to resort to that.

[mrchips]

Expectations of part-time work for single parents on the domestic purposes benefit when their child reaches six

Unfortunately it's just an incentive for those less motivated to have #2 before junior hits the big 6.

I'd like to see how the govt creates all this 'part-time work'

[Robert Taylor]

Bennett herself having been a beneficiary, took all the incentive payments available so she could get qualifications and get a job. Now she is in charge of welfare, the educational incentives are among the cuts she has introduced. I guess it takes a special sort of cynic to be Minister of Social Welfare in a National government.

Well, far better to have a National Government that is doing at least something to face the problem, albeit in a minor way. Rather than living the lie that Labour administrations are best at. ''Keep dishing out the benefits and theyll vote for us''

[pete376403]

Well, far better to have a National Government that is doing at least something to face the problem, albeit in a minor way. Rather than living the lie that Labour administrations are best at. ''Keep dishing out the benefits and theyll vote for us''

very good, how many part time workers do you plan on taking on?

[oldrider]

Incidentally my daughter is on the DPB after being dumped by her loser partner. She lost track of the number of part time jobs she has applied for. About the only places hiring are brothels - I'd rather she didn't have to resort to that.

That is exactly what the DPB was introduced for, at least it is working for her, it was bloody tough before DPB was here but they still managed, how I don't know!

Nobody minds paying tax to help the real needy but to make a career choice of the DPB is criminal abuse of the system! IMHO

Free simply means "someone else" is paying! :yes:

[Robert Taylor]

very good, how many part time workers do you plan on taking on?

We rescued a British national recently as his country is now an economic basket case due in part to 12 years of a spendthrift Labour administration. Hopefully Botchup Brown will be comprehensively annihilated in a Tory landslide in early May. We advertised the job description nationally and recieved no takers, and its a well paid position. Unlike many immigrants who were cynically selected on their political preferences our resident Pom will likely be far more predisposed to favouring the current Government.
Within the next 5 to 6 months we intend to take on a long term trainee.

[oldrider]

Mr Tank

Have you ever had the misfortune to have to apply for an unemployment benefit? (I'm guessing not, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). If you believe that it is easy, or that the amount of money paid out enables one to live a life of comfortable indulgence, then you are plainly speaking out of your arse. I have been there and can tell you they're not handing out cash to anyone who walks in off the street.

These reforms will do SFA to get more people into work, they'll just add extra process and bureaucracy. And where this fucking useless government thinks the part-time work is that these bad bennies will be doing, I have no idea. Maybe the cycleway?

They will all be joining the public service as "inspectors" employed to police that the benifits are being administered correctly, it will be that big a job! IMHO

[pete376403]

That is exactly what the DPB was introduced for, at least it is working for her, it was bloody tough before DPB was here but they still managed, how I don't know!

Nobody minds paying tax to help the real needy but to make a career choice of the DPB is criminal abuse of the system! IMHO

Free simply means "someone else" is paying! :yes:
Quite right but few bennie-bashers are able to make the distinction. To them, anyone drawing any form of assistance is a welfare cheat, stealing money from the taxpayers. And the DPB does not pay particularly well, I think I subsidise my grandkids as much as the government does.

[Winston001]

You will recall that a previous national govt tried more or less this exact same thing when Shipley was minister of social welfare. Didn't do a damn thing then either.


Exactly. I'm fairly right-wing but can't get into blaming beneficiaries for our economic problems. The dole and the DPB etc are not big payments. I know I could not pay all my bills on a benefit.

Yes there are complete losers out there, people who have made a lifestyle of being beneficiaries but I don't know how you'd ever catch them and what the solution would be. We do not want to become a fascist state where everyone is investigated and controlled.

[PrincessBandit]

Article on stuff this morning about single mum beneficiary who is $10 a week worse off by having a part time job. What on earth incentive is there for them to look for/get a job when financially they're going to be worse off? I know that there's the "pride in having work" thing, but when you've got a child/children to look after (not to mention surviving yourself) who would want to work but be worse off financially?

(and yes, I know some people in paid work probably don't get as much as the benefit; my question relates more to someone who has been receiving the benefit then taking a cut in $ by getting a job).

[Deano]

Lack of jobs to meet demand - not really an issue it it ?

As long as you're doing your best to get a job, making enquiries and going to interviews you should be sweet. No one says you have to try hard. I know someone who is playing their game - goes to a few job interviews for jobs which he doesn't want - dresses in black, doesn't shave, doesn't seem to interested = no job.

But he still meets the criteria. So it perhaps won't make a lot of difference.

I have no sympathy for the lifers that see the dole or sickness benefit as a lifestyle option - and in many cases are out doing crime as well.

If you're well enough to climb in through someones window and steal their tv, you can work.

Those are the people I want to see taken to task.

[Genestho]

My Mum was on DPB and it was hard yakker, we didn't have an extravagant life, infact we could count the last few cents for milk and bread, living week to week.

The good thing, or the good thing used to be, is that you would get help to start a business - upto $10k? (not sure if this was required to be paid back) and mentoring, (provided you did the footwork prior, feasible business plan etc) or you could get study paid for.

As long as those options are still available when the job market is scarse for unskilled and low paid workers, I don't see the problem.
Being a Mum, it's important to be on hand for your kids, particularly if you're on your own. You may only have 30 hours per week (calculate that on an average unskilled wage!) when the kids are in school, and evenings to work.

I have seen MANY women continuously rort the system, and it surprises and frustrates me, that they can continue to get back in!!

[riffer]

One thing missing so far is the effect of this on mental health. While it's a good idea to try and get many on benefits for non-genuine reasons back into some form of employment, without the necessary support for businesses you're going to have a number of people fighting for the few jobs around. Many women on DPB struggle with self-esteem and depression issues (it's really not easy solo parenting) and a lot of them can't handle rejection well - add to this that many employers are reluctant to take on solo female parents due to the inevitable unreliability (in the employer's mind) due to kids health coming first. I predict this crackdown may very well increase the workload on mental health providers and child advocacy agencies. Not to mention health services.

[JimO]

Article on stuff this morning about single mum beneficiary who is $10 a week worse off by having a part time job. What on earth incentive is there for them to look for/get a job when financially they're going to be worse off? I know that there's the "pride in having work" thing, but when you've got a child/children to look after (not to mention surviving yourself) who would want to work but be worse off financially?

(and yes, I know some people in paid work probably don't get as much as the benefit; my question relates more to someone who has been receiving the benefit then taking a cut in $ by getting a job).

the benefit should be lowered so its not a attractive lifestyle choice then

[oldrider]

I think I subsidise my grandkids as much as the government does.

True!

Unfortunately (or fortunately) I don't think that ever changes, good circumstances or bad, it's what we do as grandparents! :lol:

[rainman]

Yes there are complete losers out there, people who have made a lifestyle of being beneficiaries but I don't know how you'd ever catch them and what the solution would be.

There is already the function within WINZ to assess people's work readiness and encourage them back into work. If this is not performing well perhaps there are options to improve it, these should be pursued. But more likely the problem is just really hard to fix:
- If Good Bennie is trying hard to find work and can't (bad market), then kicking them further isn't going to help anything. I'm not on a benefit but I'm sympathetic to this problem - work is a bit hard to come by at the moment. (Thanks, Global Financial Capitalism!)
- If Bad Bennie couldn't give a shit and won't work, kicking them will also probably have no effect (if they're determined and passive-aggressive enough). Taking away their benefit just lifts the crime rate, which causes problems for the rest of us, and an increase in police costs.

Far easier just to have another round of populist bennie-bashing than actually try to improve things.


The good thing, or the good thing used to be, is that you would get help to start a business - upto $10k? (not sure if this was required to be paid back) and mentoring, (provided you did the footwork prior, feasible business plan etc) or you could get study paid for.

Mate of mine has just gone through the "start a business" thing with WINZ. They paid for all of the process but at the end decided that he couldn't get any assistance because the enterprise allowance is now asset tested (this may be a new cost-cutting measure from the current bunch of idiots in govt, not sure). He's in his 50's, well behaved, happy to work. No-one will employ him - that ain't going to change this side of retirement, to be honest. WINZ won't help him to get off the dole. His excess of cash assets might disqualify him for an enterprise allowance, but it won't feed him until retirement, and probably isn't enough to start a business on his own. Long term he will just get more dependent on the state, not less.

WINZ has little interest in training people - I know, I've had the discussion with them - and Paula pulled up the ladder for the tertiary allowance thingy for DPBers (which she herself used when she was in the same circumstances).

What we need is a policy of full employment and a plan to get there - not a cycleway. You won't get that from a Nat government in a global market.


the benefit should be lowered so its not a attractive lifestyle choice then

You are an idiot. I'm assuming you've never had to apply for a benefit either?

[scumdog]

Do as some States in the US do.

A place to stay
Food vouchers.

No Cash


oh, and not licence in some states where it is mandatory to have car insurance

i.e. unemployed = no cash income
no cash income = cannot pay for insurance
ergo shouldn't be driving
hence no licence.

Get a job and you get your licence back.

[oldrider]

One thing missing so far is the effect of this on mental health. While it's a good idea to try and get many on benefits for non-genuine reasons back into some form of employment, without the necessary support for businesses you're going to have a number of people fighting for the few jobs around. Many women on DPB struggle with self-esteem and depression issues (it's really not easy solo parenting) and a lot of them can't handle rejection well - add to this that many employers are reluctant to take on solo female parents due to the inevitable unreliability (in the employer's mind) due to kids health coming first. I predict this crackdown may very well increase the workload on mental health providers and child advocacy agencies. Not to mention health services.

True!

Also people such as IHC clients who love to work and contribute to society used to have piecework job lots provided for them at their sheltered workshops!

I say "used to" because the stupid Labour coalition forced minimum wage onto them and now all the work has dried up and they sit around doing fuck all useful!

Any small jobs that employers were able to give them away from their sheltered workshops have now been stopped because they have to pay them minimum wages too!

Most of these jobs actually cost the employers but they didn't mind subsidising them and tried to help the clients gain some work experience and self esteem!

ACT tried to bring in youth rates etc to help get employers past the minimum wage barrier but Key in his "wisdom" wouldn't support it, so a lot of youth will miss out on starter jobs now.

I offered to drive a digger for a guy starting out to help him get going but he was unable to take up the offer because he would have to pay me the minimum wage FFS!

All is not as it seems and it's usually the honest trustworthy people that end up getting it in the neck!

The country can throw this government out and the next lot wont be any better!

MMP will only give us another motley crew hell bent on pleasing each other rather than solving our problems effectively! :brick:

[Mully]

The country can throw this government out and the next lot wont be any better!

MMP will only give us another motley crew hell bent on pleasing each other rather than solving our problems effectively!

And that is one of the most accurate things in this thread.

For some reason, people think any Government is better than any other Government.

People fail to recognise that Goverments (in fact, parties) of any colour (Red, Blue, Green, whatever) are not there for the people. They're in it for themselves (money and/or glory) and their mates/whanau.

They'd be estatic if we'd just vote for them every three years, and then shut the fuck up. None of them give a rat's arse about the populace.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure some of them start out all bright-eyed and full of "do-good" vigour, but they all end up the same in the end.

And that goes for every level of the scum sucking bastards - not just Central Government.

[mashman]

To me, these are the real bastards... those that have $$$ to burn and still structure their affairs so that they get more from the govt... our more in fact... greedy greedy greedy fuckers... NO social conscience... granted some of the great unwashed are playing the system... but I would have a guess that they're trying to get more $$$ for food, booze etc... the simple, cheap pleasures in life... these wealthy cunts just want MORE money...

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/6973277/wealthy-families-not-paying-fair-tax-english/

[scumdog]

To me, these are the real bastards... those that have $$$ to burn and still structure their affairs so that they get more from the govt... our more in fact... greedy greedy greedy fuckers... NO social conscience... granted some of the great unwashed are playing the system... but I would have a guess that they're trying to get more $$$ for food, booze etc... the simple, cheap pleasures in life... these wealthy cunts just want MORE money...



Well SOMEBODY has got to be at the bottom of the dung-heap....shagging and smoking and drinking..

[rainman]

Thats not really correct. From a pure economics point of view, we choose our level of unemployment.

The tools are the minimum wage, and border tariffs.
...

So, you could tariff T-shirts at say $50. ...

This breaches many free trade agreements, so has been dropped.

At a minimum wage of $12.50, the NZ tee shirt manufacturer is out of business. But on average (economists claim) that the tax you payn tp provide the dole as an alternative, is less than the cost of buying the T shirts at the tariffed rate.

You could fix it overnight, by dumping the minimum adult wage. Then, full employment, albeit at $5 an hour would result.

Is that the NZ we want ?


A thoughtful comment: problem is, as you point out, there are no easy options. Trade tariffs are unpopular or not allowed by FTAs, high minimum wage (by third world standards) makes us uncompetitive globally, but dropping it or removing it will absolutely lead to hordes of people heading down the standard of living ladder in the direction of poverty. Greater inequality, higher crime, worse health outcomes... and all the rest. I don't think we will willingly accept that, or vote to keep in a government that initiates it.

Seems to me the only sane solution if you want local prosperity is to put up the walls, ditch the FTAs, and focus on more local manufacture and employment. You can tell I'm no fan of Ricardo. (Some implications for immigration here too, of course - somewhat ironically). But whether that's long-term sustainable or even do-able for a small, highly indebted, undefended island nation is another question entirely.

Chuck in the fact that oil supplies are declining and the world is likely to bounce in and out of recession for a long while (yes, it's a complicated issue, but still a fact), and our prospects for prosperity on this little island nation do not look good, particularly if we continue to focus on growing things for export, or even digging stuff up and selling it for (more questionable) profit.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a government that understood the issues, or even better, had the stones to start a dialogue with us about the hard work we need to put in to deal with the future?


Get a job and you get your licence back.

Might make that job-getting a bit more difficult, doncha think?

[mashman]

Do as some States in the US do.

A place to stay
Food vouchers.

No Cash


oh, and not licence in some states where it is mandatory to have car insurance

i.e. unemployed = no cash income
no cash income = cannot pay for insurance
ergo shouldn't be driving
hence no licence.

Get a job and you get your licence back.

Sounds very communistic to me. Work or have food stamps etc... if the distribution of wealth was even (ha ha ha ha) then I wouldn't have a problem with it, but it's not... the poor tread water whilst the rich get richer (their money earns interest)... How can you force someone into a job, let's say a bin person, and then pay them a pittance... now pit that against say a politician... there are huge differences in salary... can someone explain to me why the salary's are different, because I'm still looki9ng for someone to answer that particular question for me... who's more valuable to the community and that's the people community, not the business community?

[scumdog]

Sounds very communistic to me. Work or have food stamps etc... if the distribution of wealth was even (ha ha ha ha) then I wouldn't have a problem with it, but it's not... the poor tread water whilst the rich get richer (their money earns interest)... How can you force someone into a job, let's say a bin person, and then pay them a pittance... now pit that against say a politician... there are huge differences in salary... can someone explain to me why the salary's are different, because I'm still looki9ng for someone to answer that particular question for me... who's more valuable to the community and that's the people community, not the business community?

It's the way of the world.

Why can Rossi ride like he does?
Whereas I am condemned to forever ride like a nana?

[mashman]

It's the way of the world.

Why can Rossi ride like he does?
Whereas I am condemned to forever ride like a nana?

I agree. But why do we allow the govt to perpetuate that way (of the world)? there are alternatives...

[avgas]

Aaaahhhh....good old Bennie bashing
lets just say its very hard to point out flaws when there aren't any

[Skyryder]

lets just say its very hard to point out flaws when there aren't any

Riseing unemplyment........................good enough.

Skyryder

[Tank]

Riseing unemplyment........................good enough.

Skyryder

and there in-lies the issue.

As long as they are trying (properly) to get jobs then there wont be an issue. The only ones that WILL have a problem are the ones not willing (or wanting) to try.

So this really only encourages people to look and only punishes those who do not. And remember - its part of the requirements that people DO look and make themselves available for work - all they are really doing is making sure that the bene fulfills their commitments also. (not talking DPB changes there obv)

So where is the issue again?

Or do you think it should all be based on a honesty scheme?

[rainman]

As long as they are trying (properly) to get jobs then there wont be an issue. The only ones that WILL have a problem are the ones not willing (or wanting) to try.

Bollocks.

I am actively looking for work on an ongoing basis - I'm happy to take perm employment, contract employment, I'm GST registered so can do outcomes-based bill for results arrangements, whatever. Mr Labour Force Flexibility, that's me. (Can't do any heavy physical jobs as my back is buggered, but apart from that I'm good to go). My wife is also not permanently employed. I'm not on a benefit, although very nearly was, but then we both got short term contracts. Mine for about 3 weeks effort over 2 months, hers more full time for 8 weeks, but on a lower rate. We have both continued looking for other work. Properly, that is: we present well, are articulate, skilled, professional, good references, and can take full time work - don't have to do part-time (although can if it's available), etc. We've applied for heaps of roles.

There is not a lot out there, owing to the collapse of global capitalism, in case you hadn't noticed.

Where do fools like you and your babe Paula think more marginal candidates (ex-druggies, no refs, long term bennies, big health problems, and the like) will get jobs from in today's market? Go on, I'm sure you have a good answer...

[riffer]

Bollocks.

I am actively looking for work on an ongoing basis - I'm happy to take perm employment, contract employment, I'm GST registered so can do outcomes-based bill for results arrangements, whatever. Mr Labour Force Flexibility, that's me. (Can't do any heavy physical jobs as my back is buggered, but apart from that I'm good to go). My wife is also not permanently employed. I'm not on a benefit, although very nearly was, but then we both got short term contracts. Mine for about 3 weeks effort over 2 months, hers more full time for 8 weeks, but on a lower rate. We have both continued looking for other work. Properly, that is: we present well, are articulate, skilled, professional, good references, and can take full time work - don't have to do part-time (although can if it's available), etc. We've applied for heaps of roles.

There is not a lot out there, owing to the collapse of global capitalism, in case you hadn't noticed.

Where do fools like you and your babe Paula think more marginal candidates (ex-druggies, no refs, long term bennies, big health problems, and the like) will get jobs from in today's market? Go on, I'm sure you have a good answer...

I'm not sure.... maybe they're hoping a number of them will suicide. With the changes to ACC regarding payments in the event of suicide, it could be a pretty cheap option for the government.

[Tank]

Bollocks.

I am actively looking for work on an ongoing basis - I'm happy to take perm employment, contract employment, I'm GST registered so can do outcomes-based bill for results arrangements, whatever. Mr Labour Force Flexibility, that's me.

So no problems with the changes for you then. You can easily show that you have been looking for work. So - you wont be having any difficulty keeping benefit etc.

Unless you have some strange aversion to proving what you are saying to WINZ. Im guessing you dont - but there are lots that do - and they are the fuckers that should be worried.

[Scorp]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10633815

The Government has announced it will toughen criteria for people to receive a benefit.

Prime Minister John Key announced today that the Government would try to encourage beneficiaries to work with making policy changes to start in October.
Yeah, that looks like a really good financial deal for the taxpayer doesn't it. According to the article you linked, this will cost the taxpayer $88 million, and will save us all... about $10 million a year. Woo-hoo!

Meanwhile... the country is losing over $300 million a year to tax defrauders.

I guess the moral of the story is: it's okay for taxpaying workers to cheat other taxpayers out of $300 mill a year, but it's not okay for (a small minority of) taxpaying benes to cheat other taxpayers out of $10 mill a year.

Makes perfect financial and logical sense really.

[scumdog]

SOME people here thinks the country owes them......they have a right.....<_<:rolleyes:

[SPman]

To me, these are the real bastards... those that have $$$ to burn and still structure their affairs so that they get more from the govt... our more in fact... greedy greedy greedy fuckers... NO social conscience... granted some of the great unwashed are playing the system... but I would have a guess that they're trying to get more $$$ for food, booze etc... the simple, cheap pleasures in life... these wealthy cunts just want MORE money...

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/6973277/wealthy-families-not-paying-fair-tax-english/

You talking about John and Paula's mates?

[Quasievil]

If you have money and have earnt it you are entitled to it and its bennifits, if you dont and dont work you deserve fuck all from anyone including the government.

If you have bad luck loose your job, sure get a welfare payment for 3 months then it STOPS !!
Have more than one kid, NO INCREASE in DPB


This National iinitiative is awesome, but Im sure it will be abolished if and when the Labour government gets back in, labour need to offer handouts to the needy and the lazy to get into power, always have and always will, they are blind to economic reality in favour of their own misguided socialist attitudes that have and no doubt will continue to keep this country over populated with lazy arse bludgers with an attitude.

Work and money makes the world go round, not bludgers and handouts

[rainman]

So no problems with the changes for you then. You can easily show that you have been looking for work. So - you wont be having any difficulty keeping benefit etc.

So that's a no to actually answering the question, then? (And, as I pointed out, I'm not on a benefit).


If you have bad luck loose your job, sure get a welfare payment for 3 months then it STOPS !!

And then what? Deal P from your back room to pay the mortgage? Rob little old ladies to feed the kids? Steal bread from the local supermarket?

It must be nice (in a way) to live in a cartoon world and have so little apprehension of reality.

[mashman]

If you have money and have earnt it you are entitled to it and its bennifits, if you dont and dont work you deserve fuck all from anyone including the government.


I find that argument hard to swallow when the government bail out banks, financial institutions and businesses... surely, using your logic, they should have gone to the wall... because life is life... but why didn't the govt let them fold?

[Scorp]

It's always interesting when these populist measures are introduced by governments (goes for both sides), that so few of the people they are trying to impress actually pause to think through the economic implications.

The fact is that zero (or even low) unemployment is very bad for free-market economies. If low unemployment comes about naturally and gradually, you end up with a seller’s market. Workers demand more and more money, causing rising wages, rising retail prices and spiraling inflation. The net result of which is that everyone suffers and nobody gains.

If benefits were scrapped altogether, and everyone currently claiming them instead got a job earning through work the money they are currently getting in handouts, they would suck $4.8 billion out of the wage market. Taxpayers would be saved $4.8 billion in tax revenue, but as wage earners, we’d all be collectively $4.8 billion worse off. Unless of course you expect people to work for next to nothing.

And if you do, the result of the above will be a sudden influx of 345,000 people into the job market who are prepared to work for peanuts. That would force the market price of labour down, meaning we’d all get paid less, eventually (market forces being what they are) to the tune of around $4.8 billion.

So whether we:

a). continue paying benefits to people who don’t/can’t work
b). force people off benefits and into equivalent paying jobs
c). force people off benefits and into crappy jobs
d). gradually build a zero/low unemployment economy

We’ll all still pay, and all still be, relatively speaking, in much the same boat.

a). is actually the most stable and sustainable route. That $4.8 billion is the price we have to pay for a healthy free-market economy. And John Key knows that. That’s why he’s put in place a measure that will simultaneously please his voters, cost relatively little, and substantively change less.

[SPman]

......but why didn't the govt let them fold Because there's one law for them, and one for us. As George Carlin said ..it's a private club and you and I ain't in it!
Amazing how "socialist", right wing govs are when it comes to saving their own...socialise their losses and privatise their profits!

These "new" laws are exactly the same old laws they brought in last time they were in power - they didn't work then, so what makes people think they will work now! In fact, they caused more harm than good!
But...what do you expect from hypocritical cynical bozo's like Bennett?

[saxet]

The Nats do this every time but it never works or saves money due to the cost of implementation and monitoring.
This is a government that said it would increase jobs but obviously can't so will resort to kicking the people it failed

Remember a few months ago a supermarket was opening in the far north, I think it was, they had 120 jobs available and over 2000 applicants.... makes a mockery of the ünwilling to work theory.

But this is UNZUD the country where it's fun to kick the unlucky and claim they're all bludgers.

[mashman]

But...what do you expect from hypocritical cynical bozo's like Bennett?

If that's a real question... :laugh: ... all I have to do is turn around and talk to the guy behind me (National supporter)... they can see what's happening, yet refuse to suggest any alternatives and file it in the too hard basket, because it's someone else's job to deal with these things... Personally i'd like to see the govt try something new. Going after the great unwashed is a futile gesture... looks like post 75, nice, outlines just how futile it is... we all know nothing changes, "but we're alright jack"...

[Quasievil]

And then what? Deal P from your back room to pay the mortgage? Rob little old ladies to feed the kids? Steal bread from the local supermarket?

Rely on your family or get off ya arse and get a job or invent one or be proactive.


must be nice (in a way) to live in a cartoon world and have so little apprehension of reality.

Cartoon reality is the welfare system we have now, time to face up and sort it asap

[Quasievil]

But...what do you expect from hypocritical cynical bozo's like Bennett?

And of course the socialist left i.e you have the answers........not in the 9 year rule I lived through recently, or is constant feeding of the gravy train the answer, and thats clearly not the case.

so whats your position on income earning mining, cant have that either I suspect.

[Mully]

a). is actually the most stable and sustainable route. That $4.8 billion is the price we have to pay for a healthy free-market economy. And John Key knows that. That’s why he’s put in place a measure that will simultaneously please his voters, cost relatively little, and substantively change less.

I read a report recently (can't find it now) that hypothesised that zero unemployment is extremely unefficient - the economy has to find jobs for people who are simply not capable of working. Apaprently, 6% is near the golden point.

Must go an google for a while to see if I can find it.

[duckonin]

Rely on your family or get off ya arse and get a job or invent one or be proactive.



Cartoon reality is the welfare system we have now, time to face up and sort it asap

So Quasievil, How would you go about sorting the welfare system that we have now ?

[Mully]

hypothesised that zero unemployment is extremely unefficient -.

Unefficient... Jesus.

Me fail English? That's unpossible

[Winston001]

Wouldn't it be nice to have a government that understood the issues, or even better, had the stones to start a dialogue with us about the hard work we need to put in to deal with the future?




I have long thought the same. One of the downsides of social democracy is the population becomes reliant upon government to solve all problems. The "cradle to the grave support" we all now expect is a worthy policy. The trouble is that it shifts responsibility from the individual to the state. My problem of day to day survival becomes yours to support me. Regrettably there is no concomitant awareness that I should be doing all I can to support myself. The lack of savings for old age with the expectation of a pension is clear evidence of how we think.

I'd like to see a government which plainly said - We cannot afford the current level of healthcare, education, infrastructure and social welfare support (including pensions). We need to talk about this and what we as a people can do to improve our lot.

Politicians are just people at the end of the day. They try policies which they hope will work but are susceptible to media noise and voter pressure. They have more information on the big picture than most of us but to get anywhere we all need some of that big picture too. That is the only way we will ever get broad agreement.

[Scorp]

so whats your position on income earning mining, cant have that either I suspect.
Income for whom? The foreign consortiums that do the mining, their foreign shareholders, or the foreign governments that get all tax revenue from those corps repatriated profits.

Mining accounts for 3% of NZ GDP and employs about 6,000 people. Tourism accounts for 20% of GDP and employs about 110,000. Don't you think tourism might be a better generator of income for Kiwis than mining?

[SPman]

so whats your position on income earning mining, cant have that either I suspect.
I'm not against mining, but not at the expense of pristine, wildlife schedule 4 heritage land. FFS, it only makes up a tiny proportion of the total landmass - .2% or something - can't they find anything in the rest?
How the figures stack up (from the Standard)
$194 billion: The supposed total value (http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/71967/Schedule%204%20stocktake%20-%20Discussion%20paper%20_with%20maps_.pdf) of all the minerals in New Zealand excluding coal, oil, and gas. Mostly, this is silica, ironsand, clay, feldspar, and other stuff of low value that is spread throughout the country in large quantities. This $194 billion figure (which is about one year’s GDP) comes from one man, Richard Baker, who just so happens to be a member of a couple of mining lobby groups. We could never dig it all up, that would be strip-mining the country – like tearing down your house to sell the scrap for a year’s income – and much of it would be uneconomic to extract anyway.
$80 billion: The value of the minerals Baker says are in the conservation estate. This is the amount in the total conservation estate, not the smaller area that is protected from mining by Schedule 4. Again, it’s mainly low-value, bulky stuff that wouldn’t be economical for the most part (after all, most of it is in areas where mining permits can be sought). A lot of it is dirty coal.
$60 billion: The potential value of the minerals on conservation land that Baker says could be economically extracted. This is not the amount that is in Schedule 4 land, and certainly not the amount in the areas of Schedule 4 land the Government wants to open to mining (which is why I cringed when I saw Guyon Espiner had written (http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/mining-political-divide-3428940) “Brownlee estimates that there could be as much as $60 billion worth of minerals in the tiny amount of turf to be prospected.” Just keeping up the Espiner tradition, I guess).
$54 billion: The supposed mineral wealth in the Coromandel. Remember that is a total, not the amount that is economically accessible or the amount in the areas of Schedule 4 land the Nats want to open up. Denis Tegg of Coromandel Watchdog tells me that amount equates to 500 underground mines or 27 more Waihi-style open-cast mines.
$18 billion: the estimated value of the minerals in the areas of Schedule 4 land the government wants to open up. That’s three years of current mining production, hardly enough to make a significant impact on the economy when extracted over several decades.
$6.8 billion: revenue of the mining industry (including oil and gas) in 2008. It paid just $500 million in wages and salaries and only $70 million in royalties. Even if it doubled in size, mining would be an insignificant contributor to government revenue and the country’s wages. Mining companies made a $2 billion pre-tax profit in 2008, most of the big miners are foreign-owned and exported their profits.* (http://www.stats.govt.nz/%7E/media/Statistics/Browse%20for%20stats/Annual-Enterprise-Survey/HOTP08provisional/aes-2008-all-tables.ashx)
$4 billion: The amount being bandied about as the value of gold and silver deposits in the area on Great Barrier Island the Government is threatening to remove from Schedule 4. I don’t know where this number comes from but the geological report (http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/71519/Assessment-of-the-Te-Ahumata-area.pdf) accompanying the minerals stocktake puts the figure at only $1 billion.
$1-$2 billion: The possible value (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/politics/3488437/Mining-in-conservation-land-proposal) of the dirty coal under the 8% of Paparoa National Park that National wants to open to mining. This coal could be used to power coal power plants. We’re meant to be stopping using coal at Huntly because of its contribution to climate change, the ETS is meant to price coal out of electricity generation. Maybe National wants to export the coal for someone else to burn.
A few tens of millions: The value of aggregate identified in the Ecological (http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/71519/Assessment-of-the-Otahu-Ecological-Area.pdf) Areas (http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/71519/Assessment-of-the-Parakawai-Geological-Area.pdf) near Whangamata that National wants to allow mining of, according to the geological report. That report didn’t have access to the latest data from mineral prospecting company Glass Earth, which makes me think they and National know something no-one else does.
40 million: the number of tonnes of tailings left by the Waihi gold/silver mine so far.
24 million: tonnes of carbon dioxide that would be emitted by burning the 16 million tonnes of coal in the are of Paparoa National Park. That’s $30 million worth of carbon credits even with the low cap set by the ETS.
23 million: the area in hectares of New Zealand not covered by Schedule 4.
6,100: the number of people employed in the mining sector currently on a median wage of $57,700. Mining companies made an average pre-tax profit of $386,800 in 2008.
140: grammes of silver and 3.6 grammes of gold per tonne in the main seam on Great Barrier (http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/71519/Assessment-of-the-Te-Ahumata-area.pdf). 4.1 million tonnes of earth would need to be dug up and treated in cyanide then decontaminated and dumped to get the 600 tonnes of valuable metals.
82: mining concessions currently on the conservation estate. None of which are on Schedule 4 land.
5: years before any mine would start producing. By that time Treasury expects the budget deficit will be all but gone, so the argument that we need mining to pay for public services is wrong. And it’s doubly wrong when you consider the small income the government would get from this mining.
less than 2%: Mining’s contribution to GDP. Even if the mining industry were somehow doubled (and it couldn’t get near that on current plans) it would be an insignificant increase to GDP and government revenue. Remember, this is the Government’s one big economic idea.
Less than 1%: The royalty the government gets for letting foreign companies dig up and take away our minerals on our land.
Zero: the likelihood of mining on Great Barrier. It’s classic bait and switch. Aucklanders get all upset about Great Barrier. The government ‘listens’ and decides to let foreign companies dig up more of our wealth for themselves in places like Stewart Island and Kahurangi instead.

[SPman]

The "cradle to the grave support" we all now expect is a worthy policy.
Fuck the cradle to grave policy.....lets have an "erection to resurrection " policy!

[Mudfart]

Well, this country got damn close in the '50s. At one point there were I think 26 people unemloyed, and the Prime Minister Keith Holyoake knew the name of every one of them. Seriously.

A.ahhh the 50's. wasn't there also compulsory military service back then?. It was for the school leavers wasn't it?

[rwh]

Rely on your family or get off ya arse and get a job or invent one or be proactive.

Oh, nice. You obviously run your own business, so you presumably have the skills to do so. Not everyone does, and many of them probably have families who are themselves struggling to get by.

Richard

[Quasievil]

So Quasievil, How would you go about sorting the welfare system that we have now ?

I did , I voted National


Income for whom? The foreign consortiums that do the mining, their foreign shareholders, or the foreign governments that get all tax revenue from those corps repatriated profits.

Mining accounts for 3% of NZ GDP and employs about 6,000 people. Tourism accounts for 20% of GDP and employs about 110,000. Don't you think tourism might be a better generator of income for Kiwis than mining?

I would be disappointed if all the revenue goes over seas, but Im not going to assume it is (as you seem to have done??) I believe Mr Key would have a bit more business acumen than that.

and We already invest in Tourisim and we have a whole industry promoting it, we need more than one string to our bow.............especially with the gravy train the Socialists have encouraged in the last 9 years

[MisterD]

but why didn't the govt let them fold?

Because the knock-on effects would have made the party of government that did so, unelectable for at least a generation.
Because it's easier to make it look like they've saved us the pain, when in reality it's a smoke-and-mirrors deal where they print the money to "save" them and we all suffer as the value of our savings devalues due to the inflation they've caused.

The fuckers should have gone to the wall, and the 'tards (yes that's you Clinton and you Obama) that created the legislative playing field that forced lending to bad risks, should have carried the electoral can for it.

[Smifffy]

http://www.immigration.govt.nz/migrant/stream/work/skilledmigrant/LinkAdministration/ToolboxLinks/essentialskills.htm?level=1

This is where I believe the bulk of training efforts/schemes/funding should be directed. Any students of school leaving age that want to go into any of these occupations should not be prevented from attending a class, because it isn't being offered, such as I recently heard of a young lass who wants to go into catering, but there is no class for her at the NCEA level she is now at.

Immigrants that came here on work permits and then found that the kiwi electric puha is too much for them, and subsequently end up on a sickness benefit (don't laugh, they are among us) should be returned from whence they came at the soonest opportunity.

Yes immigration is good for this country in so many ways. Using immigration to fill long term skill shortages without offering the opportunities to our own children is consigning them to the ranks of the unemployed.

[Robert Taylor]

ahhh the 50's. wasn't there also compulsory military service back then?. It was for the school leavers wasn't it?

Yep and bring it back! It would certainly correct a lot of attitude problems.

[Robert Taylor]

Rely on your family or get off ya arse and get a job or invent one or be proactive.



Cartoon reality is the welfare system we have now, time to face up and sort it asap

Im with you Quasi!

Its amazing how many people look to the Government. where does all the flipping money come from in the first place and which political party has the worst record of spending beyond our means???? We must have one of the worst ratios of dependents against taxpayers.
I hope one day that Paula Bennett is priminister, that woman has got balls.

[Smifffy]

Just look what the last PM with balls did to the country....

http://wmmbb.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/clarke-and-bush.jpg

[cindymay]

I did , I voted National

I would be disappointed if all the revenue goes over seas, but Im not going to assume it is (as you seem to have done??) I believe Mr Key would have a bit more business acumen than that.

and We already invest in Tourisim and we have a whole industry promoting it, we need more than one string to our bow.............especially with the gravy train the Socialists have encouraged in the last 9 years

Socialists can only practice being socialists while there is a reasonable proportion of the population with the balls to risk their own money and effort to generate wealth - for the socialists to spend. NZ is now at the start of wealth generation for the next unfortunate wave of lying left wingers to waste.

Im with you Quasi!

Its amazing how many people look to the Government. where does all the flipping money come from in the first place and which political party has the worst record of spending beyond our means???? We must have one of the worst ratios of dependents against taxpayers.
I hope one day that Paula Bennett is priminister, that woman has got balls.

Spot on.

[rainman]

It's always interesting when these populist measures are introduced by governments (goes for both sides), that so few of the people they are trying to impress actually pause to think through the economic implications.
...
And if you do, the result of the above will be a sudden influx of 345,000 people into the job market who are prepared to work for peanuts
....
a). is actually the most stable and sustainable route. That $4.8 billion is the price we have to pay for a healthy free-market economy. And John Key knows that. That’s why he’s put in place a measure that will simultaneously please his voters, cost relatively little, and substantively change less.

Good comment. Where do you get 345,000 from though? Total benefits rather than just UB?.


Rely on your family or get off ya arse and get a job or invent one or be proactive.

How old are you, Quasi? Take it from me, good fortune does not last forever. What happens if you take a business risk and it doesn't work, and you get cleaned out? What happens if you get cheated by a business partner? Or any of the other circumstances that cause people to fall on hard times? Or get old? Or sick?

I'm lucky in that I have some skills, and am smart enough not to have excessive debt, but it's still pretty tough out there in today's market. And for the record, my family is dead (older generation; my siblings are not in a position to support me and they're not here anyway), I've applied for a metric gazillion jobs since I was screwed over by my previous employer (I mean made redundant after a due process, whatever), and I have a small business doing what I can. So far I have managed to stay off a benefit by chewing through my retirement savings but it's a close thing. Not even thinking abut the long term at the moment... and there are a lot of people worse off than me too. If you'd happily throw them under a bus you're both ethically bankrupt and an idiot.

And the cause of the great global collapse that caused (or at least contributed) to my current lack of employment - a bunch of greedy bankers on the other side of the world. Feel free to explain how I should be responsible for myself in an economy so vulnerable to wankers from far away.


The lack of savings for old age with the expectation of a pension is clear evidence of how we think.

Not only that, our poor wages are a big contributor. Not a lot being done to fix that at the moment.


I believe Mr Key would have a bit more business acumen than that.

Bwahahahahaha!

[duckonin]

Im with you Quasi!

Its amazing how many people look to the Government. where does all the flipping money come from in the first place and which political party has the worst record of spending beyond our means???? We must have one of the worst ratios of dependents against taxpayers.
I hope one day that Paula Bennett is priminister, that woman has got balls.

Paula Bennett !..FFS..RT...

[Scorp]

I would be disappointed if all the revenue goes over seas, but Im not going to assume it is (as you seem to have done??) I believe Mr Key would have a bit more business acumen than that.
Now who's assuming? Perhaps you should delve a little deeper into where the money will really end up. Simply trusting a Key because he made money on the stockmarket is a big assumption.


and We already invest in Tourisim and we have a whole industry promoting it, we need more than one string to our bow
Tourism is many bows, not one. But will as many tourists want to come to a New Zealand happy to mine in it's most beautiful places? This tiny industry (mining) could damage a huge one (tourism). Where's the business acumen in that?

[Deano]

What happens if you take a business risk and it doesn't work, and you get cleaned out? What happens if you get cheated by a business partner? Or any of the other circumstances that cause people to fall on hard times? Or get old? Or sick?



Then you sign up for the dole, apply for jobs, go to interviews and you fulfil the criteria to continue receiving a benefit.

WTF is the problem ?

I see on 10.30 Nightline news that Paula's proposals apparently breach the bill of rights.

If it's someone's right to say - FTW, I choose not to work but bludge of others who pay taxes - then the bill of rights needs amending.

[Robert Taylor]

Just look what the last PM with balls did to the country....

http://wmmbb.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/clarke-and-bush.jpg

Heck I forgot about that thing in the photo, something from the Adams family, only worse.

I can only imagine that right wing female politicians look better with their kit off than left wing female poloticians. As a matter of course.

[Scorp]

Good comment. Where do you get 345,000 from though? Total benefits rather than just UB?
Yes, total benefits. Based on the figure quoted by Paula Bennett in the article Tank linked. Her implied point being that they are all a drain on society to the tune of $4.8 billion. I didn't have the corresponding figures for UB only, but they would, of course be more relevant.

[frogfeaturesFZR]

I think the point the govt is trying to make is that along with a benefit of whatever type comes obligations to the state/taxpayers. And first of those is standing on your own 2 feet as soon as you can. It's meant as a short term help, not a lifestyle choice. Of course if you're on an Invalids Benefit, for a permanent or terminal disability, and you have no other means of support, then I would hope we'd agree that as a society we have a duty of care to look after our most vulnerable members. Common sense no ?

[rainman]

Then you sign up for the dole, apply for jobs, go to interviews and you fulfil the criteria to continue receiving a benefit.

WTF is the problem ?

Try to keep up. My response was to Quasi's idiotic blathering:


If you have bad luck loose your job, sure get a welfare payment for 3 months then it STOPS !!

[Smifffy]

Of course if you're on an Invalids Benefit, for a permanent or terminal disability, and you have no other means of support, then I would hope we'd agree that as a society we have a duty of care to look after our most vulnerable members. Common sense no ?

Provided of course that the disability is not "addiction to a recreational drug". Or mood/psych disorders caused/exacerbated by substances covered under the misuse of drugs act. It does happen.

[Quasievil]

How old are you, Quasi? Take it from me, good fortune does not last forever. What happens if you take a business risk and it doesn't work, and you get cleaned out? What happens if you get cheated by a business partner? Or any of the other circumstances that cause people to fall on hard times? Or get old? Or sick?



45 and I havent been on the welfare yet, I have always found a job when needed and I will do anything if needed, in the last 10 years I have been in corporate management roles, I have been a Yardman for Holcim and a line haul truck driver, now Im a BDM for Mobil.
If I cant get a job, I will exhaust everything first.......years n years ago, when I left the army, I picked blueberries got sick of that and made a killing going door to door cleaning ovens for $20.

If I had to go on the dole I can guarantee it would be a leg up for a short term until I found something.

[Tank]

45 and I havent been on the welfare yet, I have always found a job when needed and I will do anything if needed, in the last 10 years I have been in corporate management roles, I have been a Yardman for Holcim and a line haul truck driver, now Im a BDM for Mobil.
If I cant get a job, I will exhaust everything first.......years n years ago, when I left the army, I picked blueberries got sick of that and made a killing going door to door cleaning ovens for $20.

If I had to go on the dole I can guarantee it would be a leg up for a short term until I found something.

Thats the attitude Quasi - if only more were like that.

[frogfeaturesFZR]

Agree completely Mr Smith. However the criteria for Invalids has become rather more 'robust' of late. And a good thing too. No policy can be 100% right for all people, and all circumstances, best we can hope for to get as close to that ideal as we can. I think these moves are a step in the right direction.

[Smifffy]

Agree completely Mr Smith. However the criteria for Invalids has become rather more 'robust' of late. And a good thing too. No policy can be 100% right for all people, and all circumstances, best we can hope for to get as close to that ideal as we can. I think these moves are a step in the right direction.

Can only have happened within the last 6 months.

[mashman]

I can only imagine that right wing female politicians look better with their kit off than left wing female poloticians. As a matter of course.

They called her the Iron Lady.

http://www.morethings.com/images/margaret_thatcher/margaret-thatcher-2000.jpg

[frogfeaturesFZR]

Certainly has, and to be honest I'm not sure if all offices maintain the same standards. There is a policy which is supposed to be followed, but I think it's interpreted a little elastically some places ....Every Invalids should be signed off by the MSD Regional Health team, composed of health professionals, unless it's Downs Syndrome etc....However ???

[Tank]

They called her the Iron Lady.



Id tap it - even now.

[pete376403]

To me, these are the real bastards... those that have $$$ to burn and still structure their affairs so that they get more from the govt... our more in fact... greedy greedy greedy fuckers... NO social conscience... granted some of the great unwashed are playing the system... but I would have a guess that they're trying to get more $$$ for food, booze etc... the simple, cheap pleasures in life... these wealthy cunts just want MORE money...

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/6973277/wealthy-families-not-paying-fair-tax-english/


Bill English lost what little credibility he had when he was exposed as a ripoff merchant, little better than the ones he talks out in this article
- claiming housing allowances for the Wellington house he (alright his "family trust") owned, then trying to get additional cleaning allowances. So he paid it back - but only because he was caught out.

[98tls]

More promises with nothing to back it up methinks,plenty of bludgers in small town NZ as well as the big smokes,thing is that in the hundreds of small towns across NZ reside some of the worst cases of bludging your likely to find,welfare offices are generally staffed by losers that other than welfare offices would have little chance of employment anywhere else and in small towns the hangers on survive by being on good terms with said welfare employee and year in year out easily abuse the system.I a few weeks back atternded the March Hare rally and had the mis-fortune to come across a group of "havent done a days work in years but still have bikes and plenty to chuck across the bar" folk on a bender with there local Welfare computer expert.

[MIXONE]

Id tap it - even now.

And she would still crush your balls.

[Genestho]

I see on 10.30 Nightline news that Paula's proposals apparently breach the bill of rights.

If it's someone's right to say - FTW, I choose not to work but bludge of others who pay taxes - then the bill of rights needs amending.

Hangon, wasn't that in regards to widows benefits? I thought I read this somewhere today... Do you have a link to the news, please good sir? :D

EDIT: Please carry on you lot :bleh:

[Forest]

It's all very well picking on the unemployed, but I'd like to see a government take on the real bludgers in our society.

The elderly!

The cost of servicing superannuation is considerably larger than all other social welfare benefits put together.

So why the fuck am I paying for greedy old cunts who no longer want to work?

Oh. That's right. It's because they vote.

[Deano]

Try to keep up. My response was to Quasi's idiotic blathering:

Admittedly I did not follow your argument with Quasi in context - It's hard to keep up when you spend more time in the real world than cyber space. Oh well. :)

[Deano]

Hangon, wasn't that in regards to widows benefits? I thought I read this somewhere today... Do you have a link to the news, please good sir? :D

EDIT: Please carry on you lot :bleh:

It was a headline news bulletin. They didn't specify widows, just that some of the cuts breach the bill of rights.

[Genestho]

It's all very well picking on the unemployed, but I'd like to see a government take on the real bludgers in our society.

The elderly!

The cost of servicing superannuation is considerably larger than all other social welfare benefits put together.

So why the fuck am I paying for greedy old cunts who no longer want to work?

Oh. That's right. It's because they vote.
Er, surely that's a troll??? What about the taxes they've paid?

[Genestho]

It was a headline news bulletin. They didn't specify widows, just that some of the cuts breach the bill of rights.

Sorry my bad, I skim read it earlier :doh: googled and found..


Work testing sole parents on the domestic purposes benefit (DPB) is an unjustifiable breach of human rights, Attorney-General Chris Finlayson advised Parliament today.

"It was against the Bill of Rights Act that a woman on the DPB with a child aged over six would face work testing, while women on the widow's benefit or the woman alone benefit would not, he said."

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/6976148/welfare-changes-breach-human-rights-finlayson/

[Forest]

Er, surely that's a troll??? What about the taxes they've paid?

No it is not a troll.

National superannuation is paid out of the current tax account i.e. the scheme is financed by the current generation of tax-payers, not by previously collected tax payments.

My taxes pay for the current generation of superannuitants. A generation not yet born would pay for mine (if I were unprincipled enough to accept it).

[pete376403]

It's all very well picking on the unemployed, but I'd like to see a government take on the real bludgers in our society.

The elderly!

The cost of servicing superannuation is considerably larger than all other social welfare benefits put together.

So why the fuck am I paying for greedy old cunts who no longer want to work?

Oh. That's right. It's because they vote.

So your parents had the good grace to die the day after they stopped working?

[98tls]

Er, surely that's a troll??? What about the taxes they've paid?

Indeed most of them would have as opposed to the fact that a huge % of immigrants to this country are still on the bludge 5 years after arrivel,Still until the seafood runs out theres not much chance of anything changing.

[Forest]

So your parents had the good grace to die the day after they stopped working?

My parents worked hard, built a successful business, and are now travelling the world.

To the best of my knowledge they do not, and have not, drawn payments from the national superannuation scheme.

[rwh]

No it is not a troll.

National superannuation is paid out of the current tax account i.e. the scheme is financed by the current generation of tax-payers, not by previously collected tax payments.

My taxes pay for the current generation of superannuitants. A generation not yet born would pay for mine (if I were unprincipled enough to accept it).

You don't work for ACC, by any chance? Fully funded, preferably private superannuation is the only way?

Richard

[Robert Taylor]

So your parents had the good grace to die the day after they stopped working?

I dont begrudge the elderly for one moment and those who fought in world wars to save us all from tyrrany deserve comfort in their final years.

[davereid]

My parents worked hard, built a successful business, and are now travelling the world.

To the best of my knowledge they do not, and have not, drawn payments from the national superannuation scheme.

Don't worry about it. It wont be available to anyone with a kiwisaver scheme, and if you don't have one yet, no need to panic, it will soon be compulsory.

The current generation of superannuitants had their own kiwisaver scheme.

It was nationalised (political word for stolen) in the 70's. They kept having to pay the "sixpence in the pound" for it though. The promise was, they would still get their old age pension, even though the money had vanished.

My bet ?

Kiwisaver will vanish too. In fact, I simply cant think of a single government scheme involving large amounts of money that has lasted 40 years. Actually, I cant think of any government scheme that has lasted 40 years.

Except tax, that has lasted 10,000 years.

[Tank]

In fact, I simply cant think of a single government scheme involving large amounts of money that has lasted 40 years. Actually, I cant think of any government scheme that has lasted 40 years.

Except tax, that has lasted 10,000 years.

Fuck you're old.

[Robert Taylor]

They called her the Iron Lady.

http://www.morethings.com/images/margaret_thatcher/margaret-thatcher-2000.jpg

Now you are talking!!! And heck if she were young and fit that country needs her again to sort out another Labour Government mess.

[Quasievil]

Work testing sole parents on the domestic purposes benefit (DPB) is an unjustifiable breach of human rights, Attorney-General Chris Finlayson advised Parliament today.

"It was against the Bill of Rights Act that a woman on the DPB with a child aged over six would face work testing, while women on the widow's benefit or the woman alone benefit would not, he said."

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/6976148/welfare-changes-breach-human-rights-finlayson/

Wonder how that works for the blokes asking for a reduction in child support payments only to have to go through an admin review, open to the ex wife as well ???

[davereid]

"It was against the Bill of Rights Act that a woman on the DPB with a child aged over six would face work testing, while women on the widow's benefit or the woman alone benefit would not, he said."

The solution therefore, would seem to be to work test ALL benefits....

And of course a benefit available only to women like widows or woman alone does not breach any human rights...

[Swoop]

Unefficient... Jesus.

Me fail English? That's unpossible
Aha! An obvious liarbour voter!

45 and I havent been on the welfare yet, I have always found a job when needed and I will do anything if needed, in the last 10 years I have been in corporate management roles, I have been a Yardman for Holcim and a line haul truck driver, now Im a BDM for Mobil.
If I cant get a job, I will exhaust everything first.......years n years ago, when I left the army, I picked blueberries got sick of that and made a killing going door to door cleaning ovens for $20.

If I had to go on the dole I can guarantee it would be a leg up for a short term until I found something.
With that attitude you will never be a parasite on the state! Well done that man!

It's all very well picking on the unemployed, but I'd like to see a government take on the real bludgers in our society.

The elderly!

So why the fuck am I paying for greedy old cunts who no longer want to work?

Oh. That's right. It's because they vote.
Fuck me. I hope some doddery old bugger runs you down as you cross the road. "Greedy old cunts"??? FFS!

[98tls]

My parents worked hard, built a successful business, and are now travelling the world.

To the best of my knowledge they do not, and have not, drawn payments from the national superannuation scheme.

Good for them,when dementia or something else kicks in and one of them has to be housed seperately at $1200 a week all that money will come in handy not to mention there will be no burden on the taxpayer.

[Skyryder]

It was a headline news bulletin. They didn't specify widows, just that some of the cuts breach the bill of rights.

Word is that Bennet also breached the the Privacy Act as well when she released the details of two woman on the benefit.

That report is due out shortly.

Skyryder

[Scorp]

Now you are talking!!! And heck if she [Thatcher] were young and fit that country needs her again to sort out another Labour Government mess.
She was a loathsome bitch and she fucked Britain up. I'll never forget the bleak fog of despair that hung over Britain during her time. Makes what the UK is going through now seem a doddle in comparison. (Yep, I'm a POM).

[Scorp]

The solution therefore, would seem to be to work test ALL benefits....
Which would probably cost much more than it would save. Clever.

[mashman]

She was a loathsome bitch and she fucked Britain up. I'll never forget the bleak fog of despair that hung over Britain during her time. Makes what the UK is going through now seem a doddle in comparison. (Yep, I'm a POM).

She started off by dealing with the unions... she put her finger to the lips of the unions, the people, told them change was coming, don't panic... and then sold off publicly owned assets to whoever wanted it for some investiture capital and most likely some favours. Is that the one we're talking about... Worse was it was 10 years after we had gone through decimalisation. The house we lived in in 1970 cost 11,000 pounds, 28,000 bucks (give or take)... that's the price of an ok car today... do ya think it went wrong somewhere and a real gap started to increase between rich and poor? and for what?

[scracha]

She started off by dealing with the unions... she put her finger to the lips of the unions, the people, told them change was coming, don't panic... and then sold off publicly owned assets to whoever wanted it for some investiture capital and most likely some favours. Is that the one we're talking about... Worse was it was 10 years after we had gone through decimalisation. The house we lived in in 1970 cost 11,000 pounds, 28,000 bucks (give or take)... that's the price of an ok car today... do ya think it went wrong somewhere and a real gap started to increase between rich and poor? and for what?

Indeed she was truly a cunt. I can't understand why RT idolises her. If there's a hell then she'll surely be burning in it soon enough.

[MisterD]

Indeed she was truly a cunt. I can't understand why RT idolises her. If there's a hell then she'll surely be burning in it soon enough.

There's alot of our generation that didn't survive the "alternative comedy" brainwashing...I'm glad I grew out of it. Thatcher is still vilified because people didn't like the taste of the medicine she had to dispense to the country - don't be fooled, it had to happen and the money that Tony B.Liar had to splash around was there because of her.

She still ranks as one of the most thoughtful and intelligent PMs that the UK has been lucky enough to have.

[Tank]

Word is that Bennet also breached the the Privacy Act as well when she released the details of two woman on the benefit.

That report is due out shortly.

Skyryder

Who gives a fuck about a report??

Fuck - they were advertising on Trademe telling people how to 'max' there benefits to get over 1k per week. Bennet did a public service.

labour lefties - who happily ignore reports, police, and courts and still wont say anything bad about a MP who abused his position and is now in jail (Field) - yet are up in arms about this.

Same lefties ignore the report that Bill English was cleared - yet still go on re Double Dipton.

Cant have it both ways - it just makes you look like fools.

ps - you want a fun report - just wait to you see what comes out of the Credit card OIA request - word on the grapevine is that there are a lot of very unhappy labour members. Shades of the UK scandal coming me thinks.

[davereid]

She still ranks as one of the most thoughtful and intelligent PMs that the UK has been lucky enough to have.

Britan had virtually destroyed its economy when Thatcher was elected. It was financially in a worse state than Eastern Block countries. Britan re-emerged as a major economy, although its has been working on getting back to its former misery.

[Indiana_Jones]

New Zealand is just too soft and too PC its time to harden up folks and lets go minning



Agreed.

-Indy

[Scorp]

Thatcher is still vilified because people didn't like the taste of the medicine she had to dispense to the country - don't be fooled, it had to happen and the money that Tony B.Liar had to splash around was there because of her.
That's fine to say. But not actually factually correct. The Tories had had a small recession after Thatcher's big one, and handed the country over to Labour in rag order. The Tories handed the country over to Labour in 1997 with a larger deficit than they actually declared pre-election, they fudged the figures, lost, then said: "oops, sorry!" and let Labour sort it out.

As for Thatcher's recession - 3 million unemployed, 18% inflation, 35% drop in business revenue, that's not medicine - it's gross mismanagement.


Britan had virtually destroyed its economy when Thatcher was elected. It was financially in a worse state than Eastern Block countries. Britan re-emerged as a major economy, although its has been working on getting back to its former misery.
Simply not true. Britain had recovered from the 1973 Oil Crisis recession by 1976 and the economy was growing. Go check out the actual figures. Here's a snapshot for starters » (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth-economy)

Thatcher came to power in '79 and immediately threw the country back into a worse recession. It went on for a full 4 years. By 1982 she was the most unpopular PM in history, and was only saved by the Falkland's jingo-fest.

It's interesting to note that both the 1979-83 Thatcher recession, and the 1990-93 Major recession, were caused by Tory monetary policies and mismanagement, while the 1973-76 recession and the current UK recession were caused by external factors. The former was the 1973 Oil Crisis, and the current one the Global Financial Crisis.

Not that I'm a fan of New Labour. Tony Blair pursued economic policies that were more Thatcherite in substance than anything since Thatcher herself. It's one of the great ironies of the last 12 years, that Labour has presided over a deeper widening of the gap between rich and poor, than Thatcher did herself. Why do you think the Tories hated him so much? Cos he was a virtual Tory in Red clothing, and they had no answer to that.

[Scorp]

I think it's really funny when people blame everything they don't like on the demon PC. It's like they're wearing a badge that says: "Hi, I can think for myself, but I've decided not to."

Unemployment Benefit has nothing to do with PC, it is a basic necessity for the smooth running of a capitalist free-market economy.

For anyone out there who truly thinks of themselves as a free-market capitalist, you should be embracing the idea of unemployment benefit. Because it keeps the free-market system you purport to like stable, and it subsidizes local business.

National, and all other free-market, capitalist political parties need unemployed people. And they need to pay them benefits. Here's why...

1. Without approx 4% to 6% unemployment, you end up with runaway inflation and an overheated, uncontrollable economy. So for free-market capitalists, unemployment is a necessary evil.

2. What do people on benefits spend their benefit money on? Food, drink, rent, utility bills, a small car, petrol, some modest local retail shopping. But not a lot more. Not enough to save, or to spend abroad in foreign markets. Point being, they don't actually keep their money - it goes from the government, through benefit claimants, and straight back into the NZ economy. Effectively, UB is a government subsidy for local business.

If you pulled the entire plug on UB, which I think accounts for about $1.6 billion a year, then there would be a corresponding drop in nationwide retail spending of $1.6 billion a year. New Zealand cannot afford for $1.6 billion to be sucked out of the retail economy - not without widespread retail redundancies.

And if you work in retail, and get made redundant, just remember, the above scenario means you've got no UB to fall back on.

[MisterD]

That's fine to say. But not actually factually correct.

You cannot argue that the reforms in terms of lowering the level of state-intervention and breaking the unions were not absolutely neccessary to restore the UK's fortunes.

A small example - the British car industry had been effectively destroyed by the combination of state ownership and union militancy and idiocy. British Leyland was, and remains to this day, an international laughing-stock.

Thanks to Thatcher the conditions were set that Nissan were able to build a factory in Sunderland which is now world-leading in its productivity.

[Scorp]

You cannot argue that the reforms in terms of lowering the level of state-intervention and breaking the unions were not absolutely neccessary to restore the UK's fortunes.
Yes I can. The unions were smashed, not reformed. Fleet Street was decimated to the detriment of UK journalism. The miners were kicked in the nuts, ass-raped, and mugged for the change in their pockets. British mineral resources were privatized and sold to foreign interests for quick cash and party coffer funds, but no long term benefit to the country whatsoever. International business won - the ordinary Briton lost.


A small example - the British car industry had been effectively destroyed by the combination of state ownership and union militancy and idiocy. British Leyland was, and remains to this day, an international laughing-stock.
I think that's probably the only example. But BL was a joke before Thatcher, and remained a joke after Thatcher, she didn't solve that problem.

The Sunderland Nissan factory is another issue altogether. A very good deal for the people of the NE of England, and a straw in Thatcher's cap. She didn't need to smash the entire UK union movement to sign that deal. All she had to do was get one union to agree to a single-union deal for that plant. Which she did.

[Ixion]

1. Without approx 4% to 6% unemployment, you end up with runaway inflation and an overheated, uncontrollable economy. So for free-market capitalists, unemployment is a necessary evil. So, how come during the 50s 60s and most of the 70s we had insignificant unemployment (averaging < 1%), stable wages, low inflation (2-3%) and living standards among the best in the world?

[MisterD]

Yes I can. The unions were smashed, not reformed.

The word I used was "broken" but "smashed" I like...



I think that's probably the only example.

Nonsense. Even just sticking with cars, there's Toyota in Derby. If you think that the Steel industry would still be a major employer had it not been privatised, your're dreaming and the high-tech investments in Livingston, South Wales and Northern Ireland were down to the investment climate that she allowed to exist.



But BL was a joke before Thatcher, and remained a joke after Thatcher, she didn't solve that problem.


Ya reckon? Want to comment on the success of Land-Rover and the Mini brand since the death of BL? Care to think about the paralles with the problems GM and Ford have in the US now?

[Skyryder]

Who gives a fuck about a report??

Fuck - they were advertising on Trademe telling people how to 'max' there benefits to get over 1k per week. Bennet did a public service.

labour lefties - who happily ignore reports, police, and courts and still wont say anything bad about a MP who abused his position and is now in jail (Field) - yet are up in arms about this.

Same lefties ignore the report that Bill English was cleared - yet still go on re Double Dipton.

Cant have it both ways - it just makes you look like fools.

ps - you want a fun report - just wait to you see what comes out of the Credit card OIA request - word on the grapevine is that there are a lot of very unhappy labour members. Shades of the UK scandal coming me thinks.

And if Labour MP's have been rorting the system then I for one will not be condoning this any more than I have condoned Nat MP's for this.

As for the Privacy Commisioner's report............................I expect MP's no matter what political persuasion to comply with the law. It is pretty obvouse fropm your posts that you only expect Labour MP's to honour the law but if it is the Nats who break it then it's ok.


Skyryder

[Tank]

.....I expect MP's no matter what political persuasion to comply with the law. It is pretty obvouse fropm your posts that you only expect Labour MP's to honour the law but if it is the Nats who break it then it's ok.


So who is the Nat that has broken the law?

[Scorp]

So, how come during the 50s 60s and most of the 70s we had insignificant unemployment (averaging < 1%), stable wages, low inflation (2-3%) and living standards among the best in the world?
There were three important factors at play back then that don't apply now.

Firstly, the words "full employment" meant full employment for men. Today, it means for men and women. Very different ball game.

Secondly, most world economies experienced similar high/full employment in the 50's as a result of post-war regeneration. NZ had massive demand for goods and very low supply. That's the perfect conditions for high employment with low inflation. Because manufacturing needs workers to produce things people have a lack of. Once supply and demand balance out, however, full employment leads to a Phillips-Like Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve) of runaway inflation.

Thirdly, NZ maintained highly protectionist import controls throughout the 50's, 60's and 70's. These shielded NZ, allowing a more self-sustaining economy.

The point I'm making is about the current free-market, capitalist system. One which is quite different from the more social policy days of the 50's and 60's. Today - money comes first. The dollar has rights to travel freely all over the globe, that people do not.

And under the present form of free-market capitalism being practiced in most western democracies, and which most right-wing voters profess to love - the fact remains that full employment is undesirable because it causes runaway inflation.

In short - National are duping their own voters with a policy they know will be a). popular, and b). won't actually change anything.

For National, this is a win win situation. Nothing changes - but their voters love them for it.

[Tank]

And if Labour MP's have been rorting the system then I for one will not be condoning this any more than I have condoned Nat MP's for this.

and while we are at it - remember Field - try and find a single comment from labour saying that what he did was bad - they stood by him even when he was in jail.

[Skyryder]

So who is the Nat that has broken the law?



Re-read my post. ..............from you posts you only expect Labour MP's to honour the law this is 'my ' interpretaion of your bias. .............................but if the Nats break it then it's ok. Another interpretion on my part.............from the tone and excuses that you make for the Nats.

You have misinterpreted my post as claiming that I knew of Nat MP who had broken the law .



Thought you had me there didn't you????? Better luck in the future.


Skyryder

[Ixion]

Thirdly, NZ maintained highly protectionist import controls throughout the 50's, 60's and 70's. These shielded NZ, allowing a more self-sustaining economy.

The point I'm making is about the current free-market, capitalist system. One which is quite different from the more social policy days of the 50's and 60's. Today - money comes first. The dollar has rights to travel freely all over the globe, that people do not.

And under the present form of free-market capitalism being practiced in most western democracies, and which most right-wing voters profess to love - the fact remains that full employment is undesirable because it causes runaway inflation.



Sounds like a pretty good reason to dump free-market capitalism, then .

[MisterD]

Re-read my post.

Ok done.



You have misinterpreted my post as claiming that I knew of Nat MP who had broken the law .



Nah, you're quite clearly accusing Tank of turning a blind eye to law-breaking by Nat MPs, when such does not actually exist.

[Indiana_Jones]

Unemployment Benefit has nothing to do with PC, it is a basic necessity for the smooth running of a capitalist free-market economy.



I don't think anyone belives the benefit is PC, just the touchy touchy approach they have when dealing who people who are clearly milking the system for all they can.

The idea of the benefit is great, a safety net incase you lose your job, but it's not a fucking lifestyle choice as some see it as....

-Indy

[Scorp]

Sounds like a pretty good reason to dump free-market capitalism, then .
:yes:

One among many.

[Swoop]

and while we are at it - remember Field - try and find a single comment from labour saying that what he did was bad - they stood by him even when he was in jail.
There is a picture I would love to see! All of liarbour's caucus in a jail-cell with their friend Phillip!

[scracha]

I
2. What do people on benefits spend their benefit money on? Food, drink, rent, utility bills, a small car, petrol, some modest local retail shopping. But not a lot more. Not enough to save, or to spend abroad in foreign markets. Point being, they don't actually keep their money - it goes from the government, through benefit claimants, and straight back into the NZ economy. Effectively, UB is a government subsidy for local business.

Spend abroad in foreign markers? Who do ya think owns our supermarkets, power companies and petrol stations?

And Thatcher was a cunt...end of.

[Scorp]

I don't think anyone belives the benefit is PC, just the touchy touchy approach they have when dealing who people who are clearly milking the system for all they can.

The idea of the benefit is great, a safety net incase you lose your job, but it's not a fucking lifestyle choice as some see it as....

-Indy
But what sort of lifestyle choice is it? Do you think people choose dole over status, wealth and fulfillment? Or dole over a soul destroying, crappy, dead end job that pays the same as the dole but takes 8 hours out of every precious day of your life?

And anyway, the average taxpayer is still better off footing the welfare bill, because it makes more economic (and personal) sense to give a bludger money he'll then return to the national pool of wealth, than to make him compete for someone else's job. You can't make people have jobs, without actually creating more of them. And currently I've heard there's a shortage.

[Scorp]

Spend abroad in foreign markers? Who do ya think owns our supermarkets, power companies and petrol stations?
True. But they do pay taxes here. And so the dole money comes back to the govt/the taxpayer in the end.


And Thatcher was a cunt...end of.
True. Just true.

[Skyryder]

and while we are at it - remember Field - try and find a single comment from labour saying that what he did was bad - they stood by him even when he was in jail.

No the Labour Party did not. Some electorate members did but that is not the same thing.
While we are on the subject of standing by people Clarke to her credit stood by Field untill such time where it was no longer possible. Key on the other hand dumped Worth (edited)before establishing his guilt. As it turned out Worth was innocent and no charges were laid.


There is an integrity question here. Do you support a collegue untill guilt has been establised or do you dump them for political expedediancy?

Skyryder

Skyryder

[Robert Taylor]

She was a loathsome bitch and she fucked Britain up. I'll never forget the bleak fog of despair that hung over Britain during her time. Makes what the UK is going through now seem a doddle in comparison. (Yep, I'm a POM).

Having lived and WORKED in the UK for five years in the early 80s I feel I may just be a little bit qualified to comment...

Lets not forget the reasons dear old Maggie was elected back in 79, James Callaghans disastrous Labour administration had all but bankrupted the country and they had to go cap in hand to the IMF. The unions were all dictating to the Government and remember the 3 day weeks etc? Tough medicine was neccessary and in the space of 10 years ( while not perfect ) she turned Britain around into a country that could be proud of itself again, and after several decades was starting to re-develop a work ethic.

I landed there in 81 and got a job straight away despite 3 million unemployed, one reason for that is back then Kiwis were known for a work ethic, believe me it wasnt too difficult to show up my pommy workmates as being a bunch of lazy bastards. There are good English people also of course and I say that tongue in cheek because my grandfather was English and fought as a sniper at the Somme. Im proud of my English heritage and also immensely proud that the Union Jack is part of our flag, where it should firmly remain.

The Falklands war was another one of Maggies succcesses, Galtieris timing was bad in picking an adversary like her. Had it been a blithering Michael Foot ( deceased 2 weeks ago ) Labour Government ( or perhaps Neil Kinnock the Welsh windbag ) they would have given it away despite the inhabitants being British subjects. The success of that war restored British military pride and international standing long since dented since the 56 Suez crisis where Anthony Eden ( a superb guy if ever there was ) got sold out by the Yanks.
But also thank god Ronald Reagan and Caspar Weinberger were helping out the Poms behind the scenes during the Falklands war.
Fast forward to 2010 and Britain is again an economic basket case after 13 years of another spendthrift Labour administration living a lie. ( Parallells here in NZ ) I am hoping that David Camerons Conservative party annihilate the Labour party with a landslide in the general election due within 2 months.

[MisterD]

No the Labour Party did not.

Oh come off it, Clark did everything she could to fudge the issue and set up the Ingram enquiry with limited terms of reference to try to clear him. Since he was convicted about as close as you get to admitting his corruption is "acknowledging" the verdict and "no further comment".

What was it Cullen said..."only guilty of helping his constituents" or whatever?

BC was "dumped" by John Key? What are you going on about? Clarkson was a controversy magnet unsuited for life as an MP...he was well advised by whoever hepled him decide to leave it at one term.

[avgas]

Burn em all!!

[Scorp]

Having lived and WORKED in the UK for five years in the early 80s I feel I may just be a little bit qualified to comment...
Well I was born there, raised there by true blue Tory die hards, lived there and worked there for most of my life. So I guess that makes me qualified to comment too. Everything you've written above (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/120779-She-s-a-bit-of-a-heifer-But-I-think-I-love-Paula-Bennett?p=1129696203#post1129696203) is like the Sky News sound bite version of what actually happened.

I'm sure you genuinely believe what you've written, but the truth is considerably more subtle. For a start, the myth that one party presides over catastrophe, while another saves civilization (a view held by both left and right) is oversimplified, kindergarten grade nonsense. The kind of lie 60% of the public buy into and then go out and vote on.

Makes me laugh really. All that wind and fury and conviction, as though Labour and National are opposites, when they're really just two quite similar groups of lying bastards playing I'm the king of the castle.

[mashman]

Makes me laugh really. All that wind and fury and conviction, as though Labour and National are opposites, when they're really just two quite similar groups of lying bastards playing I'm the king of the castle.

Hey, it's tough at the top and many try to get their rest when there's nothing important to listen too

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3217/2747026039_c0bc1a1014.jpg

[MisterD]

For a start, the myth that one party presides over catastrophe, while another saves civilization (a view held by both left and right) is oversimplified, kindergarten grade nonsense.

Which is kind of where we came in with the whole "Maggie is the most evil witch ever to be born in an English-speaking country" thing...which is pretty much the orthodoxy hammered into my generation by lefty teachers and "alternative" comedians.

She became a larger than life hate caricature and that's why I still remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when she resigned...it was one of those moments.

As I said before, most of my generation never stopped to re-appraise what they had been taught and filter them according to the mouthpiece.

[Scorp]

Which is kind of where we came in with the whole "Maggie is the most evil witch ever to be born in an English-speaking country" thing...which is pretty much the orthodoxy hammered into my generation by lefty teachers and "alternative" comedians.
Not quite. It is one thing to believe that Labour are Britain's saviours and the Tories it's demons: which I don't.

And quite another to believe that Thatcher was an egotistical bitch who was bad for Britain and presided over a departure from traditional social and community values for which Britain is still paying today: which I do.

For what it's worth I also loathe Tony Blair, who, for any true capitalist has been Britain's best neo-con leader since Thatcher herself.

P.S. No one disliked Thatcher because of what alternative comedians said about her. They just enjoyed what those comedians were saying about her because they thought she was a bitch.

[Skyryder]

Thatcher was the closest that Britain came to electing a dictator. This woman is on record as claiming that Pinochet saved democracy in Chile. If that is not enough to convince anyone how fucked up this woman was I don't know of anything else that would suffice. Other that she reared a son who was as dodgy as she was. Mark Thacher was investigated in 1988 for loan sharking, a racketeering case in Texas was settle out of court. In 2004 the Cape town High court sentanced Thatcher to a four year suspended jail sentance.

Perhaps mum should have bought him up with some traditional values. I could go on with this but suffice to say it was under Pinochet that the Milton Friedman free market, that we know today and the Chicago school of econmics were first put into practice.

So much for Thatcher and her ideas on democracy. And they gave her Baronet..................no wonder the Brits are doing away with the House of Lords.


Skyryder.

[Scorp]

Perhaps mum should have bought him up with some traditional values.
Heh-heh... someone should put Family First on her case.

[Robert Taylor]

Thatcher was the closest that Britain came to electing a dictator. This woman is on record as claiming that Pinochet saved democracy in Chile. If that is not enough to convince anyone how fucked up this woman was I don't know of anything else that would suffice. Other that she reared a son who was as dodgy as she was. Mark Thacher was investigated in 1988 for loan sharking, a racketeering case in Texas was settle out of court. In 2004 the Cape town High court sentanced Thatcher to a four year suspended jail sentance.

Perhaps mum should have bought him up with some traditional values. I could go on with this but suffice to say it was under Pinochet that the Milton Friedman free market, that we know today and the Chicago school of econmics were first put into practice.

So much for Thatcher and her ideas on democracy. And they gave her Baronet..................no wonder the Brits are doing away with the House of Lords.


Skyryder.

For a new upperchamber top heavy with Labour party sympathisers, no no no. David Cameron will put a stop to that.

Im totally unrepentant in my praise for Maggie and totally reject your sanctimoious left wing crap. Lets go a stage further, the rot in Britain could have been arrested some 15 or so years earlier if Enoch Powell had become Priminister.

[Robert Taylor]

Well I was born there, raised there by true blue Tory die hards, lived there and worked there for most of my life. So I guess that makes me qualified to comment too. Everything you've written above (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/120779-She-s-a-bit-of-a-heifer-But-I-think-I-love-Paula-Bennett?p=1129696203#post1129696203) is like the Sky News sound bite version of what actually happened.

I'm sure you genuinely believe what you've written, but the truth is considerably more subtle. For a start, the myth that one party presides over catastrophe, while another saves civilization (a view held by both left and right) is oversimplified, kindergarten grade nonsense. The kind of lie 60% of the public buy into and then go out and vote on.

Makes me laugh really. All that wind and fury and conviction, as though Labour and National are opposites, when they're really just two quite similar groups of lying bastards playing I'm the king of the castle.

Well Im unashamedly hoping that the National party is in power for a good number of years, at least theyve got more business sense.

[Smifffy]

And anyway, the average taxpayer is still better off footing the welfare bill, because it makes more economic (and personal) sense to give a bludger money he'll then return to the national pool of wealth, than to make him compete for someone else's job. You can't make people have jobs, without actually creating more of them. And currently I've heard there's a shortage.

Here's your shortage of jobs right here

http://www.immigration.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/063ECB35-F5D5-44D8-8325-7041A727A9D5/0/1093.pdf

Many of these jobs have been in shortage mode thru a succession of governments, and what have any of them done about it?

"Oh we can get a fully qualified one of them from [insert favourite immigrant group homeland here], meanwhile the kiddies should be happy with a level 2 certificate in hairdresser floor sweeping, and maybe a concert in the newly created youth park. Maybe we should also introduce a level 1 skateboard repair course too, because there might be a future in that one day. Half of those other ones we'll send to boot camp, and the rest can go on a twilight golf which will instill in them leadership abilities and a strong work ethic.

Those students that manage to climb their way out of this mire of mediocrity and get themselves educated, trained and employed then realise that for a young kiwi with those skills the world truly is their oyster, and either head off overseas, or find themselves taxed into oblivion at an early age.

By this time the people imported to fill the skills gap have also realised that coming to NZ for a few years is a handy way to get into Australia, that you just don't read about on immigration NZ web site.

Or they say "Sod this for a game of soldiers" and get out of their high stress industry and become twilight golf instructors.

The govt changes, twilight golf is ridiculed by the media, is thrown out, and all of the unemployed skateboard techs, baristas and twilight golfers are put to work building cycle tracks so that the new wave of imported skills shortage employees have something to do on their days off.

[oldrider]

Makes me laugh really.
All that wind, fury and conviction, as though Labour and National are opposites, when they're really just two quite similar groups of lying bastards playing I'm the king of the castle.

True!

Like buying Matchless and A.J.S motorcycles in the old days and then arguing the merits of almost identical bikes (except for the name badge) made in the same bloody factory!

National and Labour are the same deal, you are only arguing semantics, there will be little (if any) change in the end result!

Well there has never been any difference in the 50 years that I have been voting, despite successive Labour - National governments!

The only significant change in that time has been the introduction of MMP, which enhanced the position of the politicians and introduced a few more flavours to argue over!

We will be voting in a "binding" referendum on MMP at the next election, ARE YOU READY FOR THIS! :mellow:

[Robert Taylor]

True!

Like buying Matchless and A.J.S motorcycles in the old days and then arguing the merits of almost identical bikes (except for the name badge) made in the same bloody factory!

National and Labour are the same deal, you are only arguing semantics, there will be little (if any) change in the end result!

Well there has never been any difference in the 50 years that I have been voting, despite successive Labour - National governments!

The only significant change in that time has been the introduction of MMP, which enhanced the position of the politicians and introduced a few more flavours to argue over!

We will be voting in a "binding" referendum on MMP at the next election, ARE YOU READY FOR THIS! :mellow:

And I will vote as I did at the last referendum, for FPP. If that is an option.

[Ixion]

For a new upperchamber top heavy with Labour party sympathisers, no no no. David Cameron will put a stop to that.

Im totally unrepentant in my praise for Maggie and totally reject your sanctimoious left wing crap. Lets go a stage further, the rot in Britain could have been arrested some 15 or so years earlier if Enoch Powell had become Priminister.

I am somewhat surprised you should say so, given that the two were such very different people and had such different political views. Both brilliant to be sure, but in very different ways, a sort of latter day Canning-Castlereagh contrast.

Mr Powell was a most interesting person.

[Skyryder]

Well Im unashamedly hoping that the National party is in power for a good number of years, at least theyve got more business sense.

Well that is debatable. Why on earth would we allow Chinese investors establish a dairy company in our own back yard to compete directly with a NZ owned company on the international market If this is your idea of Nationals better business sense then God help us.

But then it was not that long ago we sold kiwi fruit cuttings and stocks to the Chinese and looked what happened there. Oh that was the Nats business sense to if I remember correctly

To be fair Labour has to take some of the blame for this ‘dairy’ fiasco but Key is showing no sign of objection to this.

It is just plain stupid to allow overseas investors establish a competitive dairy company in our own country. Madness…………….


Skyryder

[Robert Taylor]

Well that is debatable. Why on earth would we allow Chinese investors establish a dairy company in our own back yard to compete directly with a NZ owned company on the international market If this is your idea of Nationals better business sense then God help us.

But then it was not that long ago we sold kiwi fruit cuttings and stocks to the Chinese and looked what happened there. Oh that was the Nats business sense to if I remember correctly

To be fair Labour has to take some of the blame for this ‘dairy’ fiasco but Key is showing no sign of objection to this.

It is just plain stupid to allow overseas investors establish a competitive dairy company in our own country. Madness…………….


Skyryder

To be fair I have to agree with you on that one and whilst being a diehard tory that is very definitely one of my conundrums.

[mashman]

Other that she reared a son who was as dodgy as she was. Mark Thacher was investigated in 1988 for loan sharking, a racketeering case in Texas was settle out of court. In 2004 the Cape town High court sentanced Thatcher to a four year suspended jail sentance.


Did you find out why? dodgy doesn't quite cover it if it's true... google "sir mark thatcher overthrow Equatorial Guinea", yes, Sir Mark Thatcher... go figure...

[Robert Taylor]

I am somewhat surprised you should say so, given that the two were such very different people and had such different political views. Both brilliant to be sure, but in very different ways, a sort of latter day Canning-Castlereagh contrast.

Mr Powell was a most interesting person.

And an extremely intelligent and highly educated man

[MadDuck]

It is just plain stupid to allow overseas investors establish a competitive dairy company in our own country. Madness…………….


Skyryder

Ok so I cant be bothered reading all the posts on this. But here we go. A Kiwi couldnt make it work - he got greedy and over stretched himself. Bled the farms dry. Went into receivership. So how many Kiwis out there could afford to keep these farms running as viable investments? So let the land die and rot? Give it back to the Maoris? Then we can farm gorse?

This situation has not come about because of the Gummint. It was mismanagement by the owners of the property. Now you want gummint intervention?

[Ixion]

And an extremely intelligent and highly educated man

Both insurmountable disqualifications for high political office

[Robert Taylor]

Both insurmountable disqualifications for high political office

I fear you are correct

[MisterD]

Well that is debatable. Why on earth would we allow Chinese investors establish a dairy company in our own back yard to compete directly with a NZ owned company on the international market If this is your idea of Nationals better business sense then God help us.

Property rights mate. They're privately owned entities and the Chinese have offered to buy - it's down to the overseas investment board to make the call from here unless the Governement trample over the top for political gain like Cullen did over Auckland airport - and there's your indication of Labour's lack of business nous.

[Scorp]

Here's your shortage of jobs right here

http://www.immigration.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/063ECB35-F5D5-44D8-8325-7041A727A9D5/0/1093.pdf

Many of these jobs have been in shortage mode thru a succession of governments, and what have any of them done about it?

"Oh we can get a fully qualified one of them from [insert favourite immigrant group homeland here], meanwhile the kiddies should be happy with a level 2 certificate in hairdresser floor sweeping, and maybe a concert in the newly created youth park. Maybe we should also introduce a level 1 skateboard repair course too, because there might be a future in that one day. Half of those other ones we'll send to boot camp, and the rest can go on a twilight golf which will instill in them leadership abilities and a strong work ethic.

Those students that manage to climb their way out of this mire of mediocrity and get themselves educated, trained and employed then realise that for a young kiwi with those skills the world truly is their oyster, and either head off overseas, or find themselves taxed into oblivion at an early age.

By this time the people imported to fill the skills gap have also realised that coming to NZ for a few years is a handy way to get into Australia, that you just don't read about on immigration NZ web site.

Or they say "Sod this for a game of soldiers" and get out of their high stress industry and become twilight golf instructors.

The govt changes, twilight golf is ridiculed by the media, is thrown out, and all of the unemployed skateboard techs, baristas and twilight golfers are put to work building cycle tracks so that the new wave of imported skills shortage employees have something to do on their days off.
Precisely. Just one more reason Paula Bennett's scheme should be seen by National voters for the smoke and mirrors trick it really is.

[Scorp]

Im totally unrepentant in my praise for Maggie and totally reject your sanctimoious left wing crap.
Who's? Not mine I hope. My sanctimonious crap is not left wing. It's trying to bail out of the plane altogether, but it can't find a parachute.


Lets go a stage further, the rot in Britain could have been arrested some 15 or so years earlier if Enoch Powell had become Priminister.
Highly unlikely. Rhetoric and made up stories may have attracted mindless voters to the stump, but they would not have been enough to actually get policy through Parliament. There's a big difference between being a good Parliamentarian and being a good PM.


Well Im unashamedly hoping that the National party is in power for a good number of years, at least theyve got more business sense.
A hope based on the assumption that 'business sense' makes a politician more able to run a country. I guess if you want New Zealand run in a way that benefits the shareholders with the greatest financial interests in NZ industry, then business sense matters. But if you want a New Zealand that's run in a way that benefits the actual NZ public, then there are other criteria much more important than business sense.


And I will vote as I did at the last referendum, for FPP. If that is an option.
Interesting. Is this because you actually like the way the country swings from right to left and left to right every few years?

FPP means that the balance of power is controlled by a vacillating minority of the population who can't make their mind up who they like most of the time then plump for the guy they think is edging it three weeks before election. It actually disenfranchises people like you who have genuine political convictions.

[avgas]

Precisely. Just one more reason Paula Bennett's scheme should be seen by National voters for the smoke and mirrors trick it really is.
Huh?
Explain that to me? Are you saying that there are smoke and mirrors due to being no work, then you have been shown a shortage list?
I don't vote national, but I am still confused but how you think Paula is trying to pull sheets over the publics eyes with this. What is she hiding?
It all seemed very clear cut to me.

[Smifffy]

Huh?
Explain that to me? Are you saying that there are smoke and mirrors due to being no work, then you have been shown a shortage list?
I don't vote national, but I am still confused but how you think Paula is trying to pull sheets over the publics eyes with this. What is she hiding?
It all seemed very clear cut to me.
It's called not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

[Scorp]

Huh?
Explain that to me? Are you saying that there are smoke and mirrors due to being no work, then you have been shown a shortage list?
I don't vote national, but I am still confused but how you think Paula is trying to pull sheets over the publics eyes with this. What is she hiding?
It all seemed very clear cut to me.
What Smiffy said.

NZ has a constant shortage of high level skills, and at the same time a large number of unemployed people who do not have those skills. It has been that way for a long time, and will likely continue that way for a long time. Nothing fundamental changes - despite National and/or Labour policy.

Paula Bennett's new proposal won't actually change anything either. She plans to spend $88 mill now to save a possible $10mill a year - if the scheme works. Which it most likely won't. It may catch a few bludgers out, but the admin costs of finding them is going to outweigh the financial benefits to the tax payer in stopping their dole. However, it gives National voters the impression that they're doing something about bludgers, because National voters hate bludgers.

[mashman]

I was plumping for: It's a vote pleaser and as it's the bludgers that suffer, who gives a shit... type of smoke and mirrors... they know this is a popularist policy, just look around KB. What's wrong with Leaving the bludgers to it and upping the Top Tax Levy threshold from $106,000 to just $1.70 for every dollar earned?... seems rediculous to have a Top band just stop... I thought we were collecting taxes for the benefit of us all? Sorry, that'd be taking money for taxation purposes from people who can actually afford it... Hence, yet another bullshit vote winner with no real outcome other than kickking mankind when it's down...

[Winston001]

Why on earth would we allow Chinese investors establish a dairy company in our own back yard to compete directly with a NZ owned company on the international market?

Agreed but we already have the 100% Russian owned NZ Dairies Ltd operating milk plants in New Zealand in competition with Fonterra. That was permitted under Labour to answer the objections of farmers to prevent Fonterra having a monopoly.

I too am uneasy at foreign ownership of our land but if NZers have the right to invest in other countries - which we do - then it's hard to argue against investors coming here. The thing with land is it can't be removed. Certainly the profits go overseas but the land always remains.

NZ has little to fear because our land is expensive internationally. What is happening is the Chinese, the Indians, the Saudis, and others are buying or leasing huge tracts of Africa for farming. Ethiopia with 80 million people, many currently starving, is exporting food to Saudi Arabia from a vast Saudi owned farm. Funny old world we live in......


But then it was not that long ago we sold kiwi fruit cuttings and stocks to the Chinese......

Skyryder

Yes and to Israel and other countries. Plus beef and dairy breeds. I could never figure that out. Why would you sell hard won advantages which took decades to breed or develop to......competitors??

[Winston001]

Paula Bennett's new proposal won't actually change anything either. She plans to spend $88 mill now to save a possible $10mill a year - if the scheme works. Which it most likely won't. It may catch a few bludgers out, but the admin costs of finding them is going to outweigh the financial benefits to the tax payer in stopping their dole. However, it gives National voters the impression that they're doing something about bludgers, because National voters hate bludgers.

I'm inclined to agree although I think Labour voters hate bludgers too. Are there really that many New Zealanders who deliberately subsist on welfare benefits? I think the problem really is that there is a cohort of people at the bottom of the social pyramid who don't know anything different. Third generation kids who have grown up in beneficiary families, low self esteem, school failures, and they can't see a place for themselves in our society. The work ethic has gone. If we could identify such families and help them, we'd all be better off.

[mashman]

I think the problem really is that there is a cohort of people at the bottom of the social pyramid who don't know anything different. Third generation kids who have grown up in beneficiary families, low self esteem, school failures, and they can't see a place for themselves in our society. The work ethic has gone. If we could identify such families and help them, we'd all be better off.

There is no such thing as a social pyramid. Unless of course you are really classifying and pyramidifying people against the amount of money they have? Oh and whilst we're at it. Did you ever stop to think that the people who aren't working are still happy people and are happy for their life to continue in such a way? It's not all doom and gloom when you have no money ya know... And as for identifying families... that's just patronising.

[avgas]

Paula Bennett's new proposal won't actually change anything either. She plans to spend $88 mill now to save a possible $10mill a year - if the scheme works. Which it most likely won't. It may catch a few bludgers out, but the admin costs of finding them is going to outweigh the financial benefits to the tax payer in stopping their dole. However, it gives National voters the impression that they're doing something about bludgers, because National voters hate bludgers.
Ah cool for clearing that up.
However to play a bit of devils advocate here - what if it worked.
If I told you I could design a motor that ran on water instead of gas, but it would cost you 10 times the amount it costs you for gas per year......for say 10 years.........but then you wouldn't have to pay anything......
would you do it?
FYI I think she is a fat cow - and as intelligent as one. But doesn't mean the idea is complete rubbish.

[saxet]

Who gives a fuck about a report??

Fuck - they were advertising on Trademe telling people how to 'max' there benefits to get over 1k per week. Bennet did a public service.

labour lefties - who happily ignore reports, police, and courts and still wont say anything bad about a MP who abused his position and is now in jail (Field) - yet are up in arms about this.

Same lefties ignore the report that Bill English was cleared - yet still go on re Double Dipton.

Cant have it both ways - it just makes you look like fools.

ps - you want a fun report - just wait to you see what comes out of the Credit card OIA request - word on the grapevine is that there are a lot of very unhappy labour members. Shades of the UK scandal coming me thinks.

That just highlights the fact that all sides are corrupt as hell and nothing in the world is going to change until people start to uphold the standards they expect others to uphold.

[mashman]

Sorry for jacking Mr Devil sir...


However to play a bit of devils advocate here - what if it worked.

Apart from checking the sky for flying pigs... seals being broken... and looking for the second coming... I'd applaud the government for knowing the people well enough to be able to get them into work.



If I told you I could design a motor that ran on water instead of gas, but it would cost you 10 times the amount it costs you for gas per year......for say 10 years.........but then you wouldn't have to pay anything......
would you do it?

Yes, i'd take it in a heartbeat. Someone has to cover the R & D costs... and at least it actually becomes free.

[Scorp]

I think the problem really is that there is a cohort of people at the bottom of the social pyramid who don't know anything different. Third generation kids who have grown up in beneficiary families, low self esteem, school failures, and they can't see a place for themselves in our society.
I think that's bang on. But very few voters are aware that pyramid even exists. A social and economic pyramid. And even fewer appreciate that it's mathematically impossible for those on the bottom tier to pull themselves up to the one above without even more people being pushed down to the bottom underneath them. For every one that climbs, two slip back down. You can rearrange the contents of the pyramid, but there will always be that bottom tier.

Unless of course, you flatten it until virtually everyone is on the same level... uh, oh! I hear the sound of marching boots. Better not go there!


The work ethic has gone.
The work ethic is quite possibly over-rated. Society is full of hard working wage slaves who hate their jobs, produce nothing but paperwork, and don't actually contribute very much to GDP or society.

Simply working nine-to-five because you get paid to sit in an office and shuffle paper is not in itself a particularly worthy social accomplishment. My apologies to anyone who does this for a living... been there myself.

In fact many people work in industries that import foreign goods and services thereby exporting GDP. In this regard, a life long bludger could be seen as less of a drain on the economy than someone who imports and distributes overseas manufactured products.

I'm not for a moment advocating that bludging is okay, just that valuing work simply for work's sake doesn't really add up either. The social value of the work in question should also be considered. For example, to my mind, a nurse should be paid more than an advertising executive. Builders should be paid more than stockbrokers. And people who grow food should be paid more than the supermarket buyers who squeeze a profit out of it.

Bludgers are certainly useless to society. But so are people who package, market and sell bottled water for a living.

[Scorp]

However to play a bit of devils advocate here - what if it worked.
As I said earlier. The last thing National want is for it to actually work. If it does, it will increase competition for lower paid jobs, which are currently in short supply anyway. The result would be a buyers' market in which wages will fall, and existing employees are let go in favour of cheaper ones. Without creating new jobs, this scheme will make low paid jobs even lower paid, and put currently employed people on the dole. Therefore the unemployment level would remain the same. This would not be very popular among voters. That's why I believe it's a scheme designed to appeal to prejudice, not one that's supposed to actually work. Although I'll happily post back here and admit I'm wrong if it does work.

[Winston001]

There is no such thing as a social pyramid. Unless of course you are really classifying and pyramidifying people against the amount of money they have?

Did you ever stop to think that the people who aren't working are still happy people and are happy for their life to continue in such a way? It's not all doom and gloom when you have no money ya know... And as for identifying families... that's just patronising.

Interesting post. To the extent that we are all born equal I agree there is no pyramid but I think most people accept it exists. You yourself have advocated taxing people with higher incomes "because they can afford it". So please don't pretend you don't care about the differing wealth strata of society.

I fully agree that money does not equal happiness. Indeed the happiest and most decent people I've met have been in third world countries. However in terms of the work ethic I'm thinking of Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs. Work provides self esteem in the sense of belonging to greater society as well as the social benefits of being with other people. We all need to feel useful, valued, and respected, work is not just about wages. Being on a benefit provides an income but none of the other needs.

As for being patronising - I volunteer with a charity which identifies families who want to own their own home. If that's patronising so be it. I think its a hand up instead of a handout. :D

[mashman]

You yourself have advocated taxing people with higher incomes "because they can afford it". So please don't pretend you don't care about the differing wealth strata of society.


I'm not pretending, but I am being proactive (in the context of a financial economy, I have to be a realist about life) in my approach to evening out the distribution of wealth and the attaining of more wealth through taxation, from those who can afford it, seems like a very sensible option to me... no?

We all pay tax, some of us pay less through structuring, to me morally immoral, but hey, they've earned it... all round pats on the backs for those profiteering off the backs of others!



I fully agree that money does not equal happiness. Indeed the happiest and most decent people I've met have been in third world countries. However in terms of the work ethic I'm thinking of Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs. Work provides self esteem in the sense of belonging to greater society as well as the social benefits of being with other people. We all need to feel useful, valued, and respected, work is not just about wages. Being on a benefit provides an income but none of the other needs.


No, that's what some people believe... Work does not provide me with self esteem... whereas advertising and marketing might... if I believed the hype... and the Maslow theory (flash back to behavioural science), for me, is a crock... it's upside down and I believe it works that way because money is the overriding influence in most people lives... and for me the FACT remains that money is the root cause of most problems these days, or the lack of it should I say... go as them boys at NASA, they've just had theirs taken away, so they can't innovate anymore in their area... who does that benefit? Why was the defence budget not slashed instead? Because they think they can make more money from war ha ha ha... money, it's a gas...



As for being patronising - I volunteer with a charity which identifies families who want to own their own home. If that's patronising so be it. I think its a hand up instead of a handout. :D

Good on ya man. nothing wrong with helping someone that wants to be helped... otherwise it's patronising as you're trying to tell people how to live their life...

[ynot slow]

As a been there done that(twice) it isn't much of a change.
First time I was on sickness then onto invalids due to the nice cancer bug.Back at work after chemo and radiation after 8 months,believe me I'd be better off having a car crash(no bike then)or break of leg from sport and enjoying ACC.
Last year my job was a maternity position and she came back to work(after I was told she was 80/20 to stay off for at least 12mths,then went onto unemployment and all the particular meetings with it,eye opener for sure,why employers would hire unkempt,unwashed people is beyond me,but also heaps who wanted work.
Each week I was to phone and explain my job hunting activities,and occasionally forget to do so,they called me no problems.Onto sickness(couldn't work out as I was on invalids previous for cancer why I wasn't on it instead of sickness this time,as my lung decided to befriend a couple of cancerous lumps)so that meant no use applying for work only to tell prospective boss I require 8-12 weeks off after surfery in 4-6 weeks time.Therefor I waited to return to work after doc was happy,and I could be confident of my ability to work.
Really nothing much has changed,I still required medicals every 12 weeks,changing it to monthly will put pressure on beneficiaries to visit the doc at $25-30 visit.But that's ok as long as the work brokers get their shit together,I lost count of the times I was given contacts and the job had been taken 4 weeks earlier and broker notified,or phoning the employer and my details weren't given,and I was perfect for the job(employers words).

[Robert Taylor]

Who's? Not mine I hope. My sanctimonious crap is not left wing. It's trying to bail out of the plane altogether, but it can't find a parachute.


Highly unlikely. Rhetoric and made up stories may have attracted mindless voters to the stump, but they would not have been enough to actually get policy through Parliament. There's a big difference between being a good Parliamentarian and being a good PM.


A hope based on the assumption that 'business sense' makes a politician more able to run a country. I guess if you want New Zealand run in a way that benefits the shareholders with the greatest financial interests in NZ industry, then business sense matters. But if you want a New Zealand that's run in a way that benefits the actual NZ public, then there are other criteria much more important than business sense.


Interesting. Is this because you actually like the way the country swings from right to left and left to right every few years?

FPP means that the balance of power is controlled by a vacillating minority of the population who can't make their mind up who they like most of the time then plump for the guy they think is edging it three weeks before election. It actually disenfranchises people like you who have genuine political convictions.

MMP aka Mickey Mouse Politics means that the main party of Government often has to cowtow to a minority holding the balance of power, or being returned favours by bigger parties for their occassional support. Bradfords anti smacking legislation being the most notorious example.
I didnt have a problem when it was more polarised, it was dead easy to intensely dislike Kirk, Rowling, and Lange.
I disagree that it disenfranchises, if you have genuine political convictions you are polarised and will NEVER EVER vote for the other side.

[Ender EnZed]

:Offtopic:


If I told you I could design a motor that ran on water instead of gas, but it would cost you 10 times the amount it costs you for gas per year......for say 10 years.........but then you wouldn't have to pay anything......
would you do it?

No. Water is not, and never will be, a fuel.

[Ender EnZed]

Magically doubled.

[Scorp]

MMP aka Mickey Mouse Politics means that the main party of Government often has to cowtow to a minority holding the balance of power, or being returned favours by bigger parties for their occassional support.
I'm no fan of MMP, it's a poor version of proportional representation. The Single Transferable Vote System is far and away the most accurately representative form of so-called democracy I've yet seen in operation.


I disagree that it disenfranchises, if you have genuine political convictions you are polarised and will NEVER EVER vote for the other side.
Er, yeah, that's kind of what I said. Those with convictions never change their mind, but because of that, they don't really matter come election time. The people who matter are the swing voters.

Swing voters decide who gets into power. They are people without political convictions - they vacillate from left to right and back again. They tend to say things like, "I'm not really interested in politics, and I don't really understand it, but that [insert name of popular politician] has a nice smile."

By willingly supporting a political system that hands the fate of your country to such people, you are effectively disenfranchising yourself.

It's really very sad that people can take part in this hollow charade and still actually believe that their interests are being well served.

[SS90]

:Offtopic:



No. Water is not, and never will be, a fuel.

No, but hydrogen is, and has been for decades.

And what is the chemical symbol for water.... or am I being pedantic, and you meant "a viable fuel source", because that certainly is true, water (H2o) will never be a viable fuel source.

Not as long as people dye of hunger and thirst that is.

[Mudfart]

paula bennetts daughter is defacto with a criminal who has just been deported back to tonga, after he served his prison sentence.
paula bennett apparently tried using her contacts in parliament to stop him being deported, but failed.
its in the herald on sunday.

[MisterD]

Honestly, you really need to apply some critical thinking of your own if you're going to read the HoS....MacDoctor (http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/2010/03/28/spam-journalism-70/) covers this ridiculous piece of spam journalism




Paula Bennett actually wrote a letter of reference for Halaholo in her capacity as a member of the public. She did mention she was a member of parliament, but in the same fashion as I would mention I am a doctor. She did not use official paper and was clearly not writing in her capacity as an MP. Most certainly, she was not writing in her capacity as a minister of the crown. She was certainly not “using her position to try to get her daughter’s boyfriend out of jail”. Her “apology” to John Key was to do with not warning him that a feral media might make this molehill into a politically hot mountain and not informing him that she had this skeleton in her cupboard.

i.e. There was no story before, but that doesn’t stop the HoS from reprinting it’s innuendo as the facts.

Now on to today’s embellishments. Of course the juxtaposition of the headline and the opening sentence deliberately gives you the erroneous impression that it is Bennett herself who wants Halaholo out of the country. This is deliberate sensationalism. Only near the end of the article do we find that , in fact, the Minister in question is Associate Immigration Minister Kate Wilkinson, who did not intervene with his routine deportation, even though Halaholo applied for ministerial consideration.

It is only at the very end of the article that we learn the real reason why Halaholo is being deported:

“Halaholo was removed from the country because he was an overstayer.”

So, is the journalist really suggesting that Kate Wilkinson should have let a Tongan overstayer who committed a violent crime in New Zealand stay on? I didn’t think so.

In fact, should Kate Wilkinson have allowed Halaholo to stay, I can state with great assurance that this same journalist would have splashed words like “favoritism” , “preferential treatment” and “abuse of position” all over the front page of the HoS. Such a story would have definitely made it to the 6 O’Clock news.

But there is no story here. That is why it is spam.

[Ender EnZed]

No, but hydrogen is, and has been for decades.

And what is the chemical symbol for water.... or am I being pedantic, and you meant "a viable fuel source", because that certainly is true, water (H2o) will never be a viable fuel source.

Not as long as people dye of hunger and thirst that is.

Hydrogen is a fuel. Water is ash. It's what you get burning hydrogen. Hunger and thirst don't come into it.

[Winston001]

Hydrogen is a fuel. Water is ash. It's what you get burning hydrogen. Hunger and thirst don't come into it.

Only if there is some oxygen around. Hydrogen is quite fond of sulphur too, not to mention carbon (organic chem anyone??) so its a bit harsh terming water as ash. :D

The problem with the water-powered engine ideas is they avoid or smeer over basic physics. Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. Water does not burn in any useful energy release sense. Oxygen is a strong atom and has a firm grip on 2 Hydrogens. Both atoms on their own are quite exciting and jolly good stuff for backyard explosions. Its the getting them on their own which is the trick.

The excitement over hydrogen power vehicles completely misses the point that the H has to be generated. Usually by electrolysis using electricity. That electricity is energy which has to be generated in the first place. Plus its not even a zero sum game. The energy delivered from hydrogen is slightly less than the electric energy used to make it.

The only way water can be used as a fuel is to disassociate the H and the O. That works but you need a battery or something to do it. There is a technology using a membrane which steal H atoms but I'm not sure how it is panning out.

[u4ea]

Great idea, then all the sluts can start breeding again when their oldest kid turns 5, that gives them enough time to have another kid before the oldest one turns 6, meaning that they get another 6 years off work. I can imagine that cycle repeating itself many times over, until they are too old to have more kids. Then they will say that they are sick and unable to work for all those years of alcohol/drug abuse meaning they will be on the sickness benefit for the rest of their lives. It seems that nothing really changes for the people who gain the most from this system.
This is nothing new PMSFL!!! I rekon cut the benne if the parent gets up the duff while on the benne..and take an audit on how many of "both" parents are actually claiming for a child each and possibly residing together..a farking good income!!! all the perks and ya never leave the house!!!


Well, this country got damn close in the '50s. At one point there were I think 26 people unemloyed, and the Prime Minister Keith Holyoake knew the name of every one of them. Seriously.

A job for every person who wants one. *Then* you can crack down on the bludgers. Requires making full employment the priority instead of corporate profits. And going for a high wage economy not a low wage one. Won't happen. Too many vested interests in keeping unemployment high and wages low.
Scary!


That is exactly what the DPB was introduced for, at least it is working for her, it was bloody tough before DPB was here but they still managed, how I don't know!

Nobody minds paying tax to help the real needy but to make a career choice of the DPB is criminal abuse of the system! IMHO

Free simply means "someone else" is paying! :yes:
They managed by growing food..washing nappies and working ...gee they have it tough now!I was on the dpb yrs ago..got sick of the bash too..but I worked in very non-glam jobs with no child care subsidies or working for families..wouldve been easier to get pregnant again but I kindov wanted more for my son..

[bluebird]

yeh, yeh, yeh...kill the poor, send the children back to the factories, and deport the crims to australia. and yes paula bennett is a heffer; strong, usefull, predictable but a 20W lightbulb shines out of the eyes.

[Robert Taylor]

yeh, yeh, yeh...kill the poor, send the children back to the factories, and deport the crims to australia. and yes paula bennett is a heffer; strong, usefull, predictable but a 20W lightbulb shines out of the eyes.

Shes definitely more appealing than all the dykes on the Labour benches. All Labour Governments do is saddle us with more taxes, more debt and stupid laws.