Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | ... | 268

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2002540 25-Apr-2018 21:45

Rikkitic:
You yourself have said more than once that the government should be an enabler, if I recall correctly. Ours clearly has not been.

It can and it has.

It isn't responsible for example for people having children they can't afford to feed or not paying attention at school and making the most of the educational opportunities available to ensure they earn good salaries.

There is no shortage of opportunities in NZ to do well. It requires an attitude shift and I don't really see quite how that can be achieved by the government alone.

Enabling is great, however you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2002541 25-Apr-2018 21:54

Geektastic: It can and it has.

It isn't responsible for example for people having children they can't afford to feed or not paying attention at school and making the most of the educational opportunities available to ensure they earn good salaries.

There is no shortage of opportunities in NZ to do well. It requires an attitude shift and I don't really see quite how that can be achieved by the government alone.

Enabling is great, however you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

You cannot blame children for being born or having bad parents or not being able to recognise or take advantage of opportunities offered to them. A good enabler provides special resources to rescue children in such unfortunate circumstances so the cycle of poverty can be broken. This is where our governments have failed.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2002547 25-Apr-2018 22:05

Rikkitic:
Geektastic: It can and it has.

It isn't responsible for example for people having children they can't afford to feed or not paying attention at school and making the most of the educational opportunities available to ensure they earn good salaries.

There is no shortage of opportunities in NZ to do well. It requires an attitude shift and I don't really see quite how that can be achieved by the government alone.

Enabling is great, however you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

You cannot blame children for being born or having bad parents or not being able to recognise or take advantage of opportunities offered to them. A good enabler provides special resources to rescue children in such unfortunate circumstances so the cycle of poverty can be broken. This is where our governments have failed.

Then does giving money to the parents instead of to the children fix the problem? Probably not.

I'm not suggesting that is a good idea, but if the parents haven't made the right choice the first time, giving to them a wad of cash is hardly likely to resolve the issue. Even if the child is technically out of 'poverty'.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2002551 25-Apr-2018 22:10

Rikkitic:
Geektastic: It can and it has.

It isn't responsible for example for people having children they can't afford to feed or not paying attention at school and making the most of the educational opportunities available to ensure they earn good salaries.

There is no shortage of opportunities in NZ to do well. It requires an attitude shift and I don't really see quite how that can be achieved by the government alone.

Enabling is great, however you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

You cannot blame children for being born or having bad parents or not being able to recognise or take advantage of opportunities offered to them. A good enabler provides special resources to rescue children in such unfortunate circumstances so the cycle of poverty can be broken. This is where our governments have failed.

It is just as likely to create welfare dependency as break the cycle of poverty.

That's what it's done so far for the most part.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2002552 25-Apr-2018 22:13

That is because it has been done badly, not because it is a bad idea.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2002554 25-Apr-2018 22:19

Rikkitic:
That is because it has been done badly, not because it is a bad idea.

And it continues with labour, albeit under a glorious title of "working for families".

What I am totally convinced would have actually achieved success was English's 'social investment' policy. Admittedly they should have done more sooner, but this was a genuinely good approach that actually helps the family.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2002556 25-Apr-2018 22:33

It may well have been, but now we have this government so what can we do to help it move along?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2002588 26-Apr-2018 06:23

Rikkitic:

It may well have been, but now we have this government so what can we do to help it move along?

My obligations to the state extend to paying tax and not committing acts of treason. The State has far more of an ability to impact my life (financially or otherwise); it doesn't need my help beyond that.

In fact, I'd go further and say I have an obligation to be open with dissent when the Govt acts in a manner that is inappropriate e.g. interfering with the state broadcaster.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#2002646 26-Apr-2018 09:48

rjt123:
What I am totally convinced would have actually achieved success was English's 'social investment' policy. Admittedly they should have done more sooner, but this was a genuinely good approach that actually helps the family.

I'm not sure that I agree. IMHO, they needed to get their house in order first. (ie. Deal with the fiscal mess (aka. Decade of Deficits) left for them by Michael Cullen, deal with the fallout of the GFC, and the impact of the Canturbury earthquakes.)

When you're borrowing money just to pay the bills from week to week, it's not the time to be splashing the cash around. Once you're back "in the black" again, then you can start to look at remediating some of the issues that were "parked" while you went through lean times.

And hopefully, when you get elected to office with a surplus for the first time in a decade, you don't blow your entire load* in the first month on a free giveaway to kids fresh out of school an families who have had more kids than they could afford to care for. #facepalm

(* Not just what you have now, but everything that you're forecast to earn over the next 3 years too!)

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2002659 26-Apr-2018 09:59

6FIEND:

rjt123:
What I am totally convinced would have actually achieved success was English's 'social investment' policy. Admittedly they should have done more sooner, but this was a genuinely good approach that actually helps the family.

I'm not sure that I agree. IMHO, they needed to get their house in order first. (ie. Deal with the fiscal mess (aka. Decade of Deficits) left for them by Michael Cullen, deal with the fallout of the GFC, and the impact of the Canturbury earthquakes.)

When you're borrowing money just to pay the bills from week to week, it's not the time to be splashing the cash around. Once you're back "in the black" again, then you can start to look at remediating some of the issues that were "parked" while you went through lean times.

And hopefully, when you get elected to office with a surplus for the first time in a decade, you don't blow your entire load* in the first month on a free giveaway to kids fresh out of school an families who have had more kids than they could afford to care for. #facepalm

(* Not just what you have now, but everything that you're forecast to earn over the next 3 years too!)

I entirely agree.

People criticizing National for not spending more on social matters were clearly not paying attention during elections. National were *very* clear about what they felt was required and what the plan was. Not only were they clear and get votes around this, but they *delivered* what they said they would, which is pretty amazing considering everything they have had to deal with in their 9 years. The only disasters Labour have had to "deal" with are the ones their own lack of planning, and lack of leadership, and their own goals around discipline and mouth opening and foot inserting have created.

Despite this, health spending increased, and children were better off under National than they had been under the prior years of the Clark Government.

National campaigned that they had the books in a reasonable state, and were set to spend on social issues this term, and I firmly believe they would have done it smarter and fairer than the current Government is capable of.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2002716 26-Apr-2018 11:25

Rikkitic:

You yourself have said more than once that the government should be an enabler, if I recall correctly. Ours clearly has not been.

In line with every other Labour Government, I agree, our current Government isn't enabling anything, except a lack of personal responsibility. They are just giving money out hoping to fix a long term issue without a change in attitude.

There is a relatively small number of people in situations which are genuinely only solvable through external support in the medium term. I've said this before, "poverty" in NZ is the bottom 10% of income earners rather than a particular test hard test, so pretty much there is no solving "poverty" in NZ.

Financial support should a short-term thing to help people get back on their feet in the event of a mishap or misstep and I fully support that assistance in the short term. Beyond that, I support initiatives that insist that people make an effort to help themselves.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2002722 26-Apr-2018 11:37

I wouldn't argue with that.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2002755 26-Apr-2018 12:41

Rikkitic:

I wouldn't argue with that.

I mean this in the nice way, but I am very surprised to hear you say that.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2002788 26-Apr-2018 13:21

networkn:

I mean this in the nice way, but I am very surprised to hear you say that.

Why? Your first sentence was just another dig at Labour but the rest makes sense. People who need help should be supported. We agree on that. I think the poverty definition is quibbling but it doesn't really matter here. I believe financial support should last as long as it is needed, but I don't think it should be a lifetime given. I think welfare dependency is a bad thing except in cases where people really don't have another option. It is soul-destroying and undermines self-worth and it costs a lot. Of course people should be encouraged in every way possible to look after themselves. They should be given every opportunity to be enabled to earn a decent living.

People who really just don't want to work, and there are some, though I don't think as many as some believe, shouldn't get anything after they have been through the system. I believe there should be a requirement to work for a benefit unless there is a truly good reason not to. The problem as I see it is that governments, regardless of their politics, have not been prepared to pay what it really costs to do this properly. Parents who use their children as an excuse to do nothing should be placed into some kind of regimented day care facility so the children can be properly looked after while the parents are subjected to intensive re-education. When the kids are old enough, the parents should be made to work or study like everyone else.

Those who really can't find other jobs should be placed on government work schemes picking fruit or labouring on roads, or sorting recyclables or anything that can be created for them. As an absolute last resort for the truly hopeless, they should at the least be required to show up on time every day and sit in a room being lectured at if they want their money. They should not get it for nothing. But all of this costs, and no government has been willing to spend the money to do it properly, so instead at best they just give lip services and those gaming the system merrily carry on. That does no-one any good. It just creates a generational problem. You should not be surprised that I can see this.

I am against the punishment mentality that has permeated WINZ, as evidenced by the lady who had her benefit cut off for going on a Tinder date. People receiving a benefit for any reason deserve to be treated with respect. They are not criminals or bludgers unless shown to be so. But they should also carry their own weight to the extent they are able. If we could ever get a government that would spend money in the right places, and I include National governments in this, then things might finally improve.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#2002870 26-Apr-2018 15:48

Rikkitic:

That is because it has been done badly, not because it is a bad idea.

As biologist I look at niche theory.

If you provide welfare, you create a niche. If you create a niche, someone will fill it.

I have read that Ta Apirana Ngata had grave concerns about the potential for welfare dependency among Maori. He has been proven correct. Possibly because welfare provided successive govts an alternative to tackling the real issues. For example providing unemployment benefits instead of employment.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have welfare, we clearly need it. But we should acknowledge that a consequence of having it is a minimum level of dependency.

Mike

1 | ... | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | ... | 268