Google news has 1.5 pages of articles mentioning David Shearer to John Key’s 13 in the past week. The only ones directly about Shearer or Labour are saying ‘where’s Shearer? He’s wasting his honeymoon’. I wondered what his strategists are thinking. Then I saw they’re all the same people who just led Labour to 27% and I realised the scary part – they’re trying their best.
The superannuation problem isn’t going away. The Nats will be fuming that Treasury have just dropped in their laps again.
Headline – PM to Ratana: National has made a difference
Are Maori looking forward to another three years of Key’s ‘difference’?
Other day, Curran asked what they should do with Red Alert. Now, Mallard’s again using it, in conjunction with Pagani on his blog, to try to do an end run around his own party to promote benefit ‘reform’. Leaving aside the fact it’s the employment system, not the backstop, that’s broken, this is more strategic idiocy.
An earlier post by Mike Smith on inequality referred to a claim by Geoff Vincent that 12% of the taxpayers were paying 49% […]
Checking out data matches that show beneficiaries may have moved overseas and stopping their benefit if they have. That’s back-office work, eh? Exactly the kind of ‘unsexy’ jobs National has been cutting. Well, MSD stopped data matching because its resource were stretched too thin – and overpayments doubled to $19m. Heck of a job, National.
How many children is 200,000 in the context of New Zealand’s population? Statistics New Zealand says between June 2008-2011 around 62-64,000 children were born each year. So 200,000 amounts to every single child born in this country since National came to power three years ago, plus another 10,000 or so.
Nothing separates the political Right and Left like their attitude to welfare. The difference is very starkly highlighted in the recent policies from National and Labour. Which approach better serves the children of New Zealand? How much do we care?
National says it’ll get 57,000 more people off benefits and into work over 4 years. That would require 50% more job creation than Treasury projects. Unless you do something about the lack of jobs, you won’t get benefit numbers down. Promising the latter without doing the former is a fraud on New Zealand. Just another broken Nat promise waiting to happen.
National’s got 60,000 more on benefits after 3 years. Nats’ plan: get 46,000 off in 4 years (only 11,000 into work, the rest?)
So, National’s welfare plan = 14,000 more on benefits 7 years after coming to power. Ambitious for New Zealand?
Where’s National plan to reduce corporate welfare? Like the $400m free irrigation they want to give farmers and keeping them out of the ETS.
Amidst growing evidence of yet another broken 2008 election promise, John Key has nothing to offer except tired excuses and attacks on the poor.
The other day, Irish covered the odious comments from liquidator/columnist Damien Grant calling unskilled people ‘commodities’. That was in the context of a pretty flimsy attack on Gareth Morgan and Susan Guthrie’s ‘Big Kahuna’ tax plan. Yesterday, Morgan and Guthrie responded to Grant’s attacks. The Jackal says Morgan and Guthrie have it right.
The Child Poverty Action Group has released yet another shaming report on child poverty in NZ. The Nats’ cuts to Working for Families are making matters worse. If the election doesn’t return a Labour government, then we’re going to have three more years of inaction punctuated by brief ritual hand-wringing over each new report.
I/S at NoRightTurn on the Gisborne mother and baby who were turned away by three government agencies when she sought help: “People who go to WINZ needing help should get it. Instead, this woman was told to fuck off, thanks to service cuts and a deliberate policy of limiting costs by imposing bureaucratic barriers to access.”
Once again recent headlines prompt me to ask if in 2008 we really chose a brighter future after all.
Bennett and Key are divided in their opinions and their stats, but at least they’re united in their state of denial.
Who said: a payment card for people on a benefit that forbade alcohol and tobacco purchases would require moral judgments by the Crown, would be highly intrusive, would rob individuals of freedom of choice, and would impose an enormous administrative burden on Work and Income, and there was no need to change the way in which welfare is paid or assessed?
Or how the food card will inevitably push beneficiaries into all types of deeper strife.
The cartoon (since it doesn’t show up clearly and you might be wondering) is a lifebelt being thrown in the “Welfare” cell and a book titled “Learn to swim” being thrown in the second “Welfare Reform” cell.
Like most of us, Fran O’Sullivan was expecting so much more from the Nats at their conference…
National aim to score political points by attacking a small number of 16 and 17 year-olds, and taking away their autonomy. But they’re missing the real-world point – of the tens of thousands of young unemployed who need the jobs that National aren’t providing. That’s the real crisis.
Like the UK, we have a crisis in youth poverty. We don’t have riots, yet, because we lack the population density. There’s no jobs. Increasingly, no hope. Key’s solution? Tinkering. A bureaucratic, easily beatable system where young people on benefits get food stamps and basic costs paid directly. Where are the jobs, Key? Or have you given up?
Fran O’Sullivan reveals her softer side today. No, she’s not against National’s benefit cuts for the unemployed, the sick, and invalids. Nor against cutting the wages of the 103,000 working 15-19 year olds on the half-baked premise that will create more jobs. But leave single mums alone, she says, because she had one. It reminds me of something I saw on the Daily Show.
National will keep demonising the most vulnerable members of society for electoral gain, while turning a blind eye to much bigger problems.
Nats are skiting at getting some people off the dole. But what really happened. How much was really saved?
A typical shock horror headline on Stuff in the weekend – “Pre-teens dream of kids and dole”. So what’s going on here, and is it an argument for “welfare reform”?
Making sure that children don’t go hungry is not the responsibility of charity, it is the responsibility of all of us, of society. It is the responsibility of government. The National government is failing.
If you’re a blogosphere regular, you’ll have noticed that recently every monkey with a copy of the Fountainhead and a crush on John Key has been spouting the line that the top 10% of taxpayers pay 71% of net tax. Sounds incredible, eh? That’s because it’s not credible. It’s more cheap tricks from the Nats.
Paediatrician Professor Innes Asher has written an open letter to the Welfare Working Group lauding their aims, but warning that their recommendations will […]
More incisive hilarity from Danyl: “It works like this: Paul Holmes gets to live in a state house for a year with a one year old baby, surviving on only the $288 dollars/week allocated to beneficiaries on the DPB, and at the end of the year Paul gets to decide whether he chooses to ‘breed for cash’….”
Is it just me, or is Sue Bradford working harder, and getting more media coverage than all of the Greens put together? She’s not just campaigning for beneficiaries. Yesterday Bradford came out with a strongly worded attack on the Greens’ positioning for the November election.
John Key “thinks” that parents on the DPB are “breeding for a business”. Now his government is testing the waters for a eugenics program, to single out these undesirables and forcibly control their fertility.
Good old fashioned benefit bashing. Another electoral battle line has been drawn – arm yourself with the facts!
Elect a Labour-led government. Create 100K jobs.
