At which point they get round both by doing what they do now- funding patient advocacy groups to call for funding.
We're talking about me being King here so basically I'd just rule that treason and chop their heads off - I did mention me being king was a really bad idea.
Which is what we see when drug companies push for Pharmac funding by taking those cases to a willing media.
If I was king (a really bad idea) drug companies would be banned from making any media statement or advertising at all.
My fear is that too often one pretty, stricken figure gets the media attention so the easy political solution is to let 100 poor, elderly people freeze to death away from the media eye so that the politician can fund treatment for that one person.
That was the reason Pharmac was kept outside the political system. Up until the point that National decided to buy a voting group by selling a Pharmac decision down the river.
These decisions are one of the reasons I work on plants. I'm just not emotionally equipped to make those calls, even though you can argue that improving the food supply is important it just isn't that immediate.
It's also the reason I defend so strongly those people who are willing to sit in a committee and try and make those very calls. Yes they will get it wrong sometimes but shit that job is a tough one and anyone willing to take it on deserves respect for their effort.
You know those friends you have, that move away and it's like years between the times you see them, neither of you are the daily writing to each other types so you have no contact.
And then you are in the same town and you meet up for coffee and the conversations just pick up where you left off as if there was no gap in the friendship at all.
Your writing is like that. So don't sweat the gaps, do what you need to do and when you write again I will read it with just as much joy, no matter how long the gap between.
we do see that type of capture everywhere from policing to politics, but it’s still a bad thing
My experience with them has been different.
But either way the solution is to increase funding to allow them to operate independently and not to simply accuse them of being corrupt.
And just as an aside MPI is way way overworked and underfunded. Going after MPI is just attacking the lone policeman on the block.
The problem is this government has decided that funding MPI will limit their ability to make tax cuts next year.
MPI is full of good dedicated hard working folks who believe their job is worthwhile. I'm sure there will be the odd bad one in MPI but that's true of any organisation. To go after MPI when the problem is the government is just picking on the easy target.
No matter what access MPI has to what would ultimately be many terabytes of footage, if an industry is responsible for reviewing, analysing and reporting on itself, there is a risk of abuse,
This is bollocks. You just said those same cameras showed dumping and illegal activities that were not prosecuted.
So IF there was abuse of the cameras then either it was really incompetent abuse and failed to delete the illegal activities
There was no abuse of the cameras.
That our fisheries are a huge problem is no secret. That this government has no will to limit commercial fisheries is no secret.
To pretend there is some grand conspiracy over the cameras when the cameras show damning evidence of fish dumping is just stupid grandstanding by Greenpeace and a ridiculous distraction from the very real problem of over-fishing and fish dumping confirmed by those cameras.
I’m really looking forward to seeing Kevin Hague as a Minister of Health and Julie Anne Genter as a Minister of Transport
... and Steffan Browning as minister of science?????
Sorry but it had to be said.
There are significant issues in this coalition. I agree with the two you proposed, There are very few anywhere in the house who have been able to speak with more knowledge and authority about her portfolio than Julie Anne Genter.
But that expertise is not present in all the portfolios.
his redirection of the science budget to multinationals
That isn't true of this budget.
Marsden (pure science) got +12 million per year (added to the current 53 million they have). So that's quite a big step up.
MBIE bidding is influenced by "benefit to NZ" but they have taken a much stronger "science first" position this year. That of course is subject to change at any time.
So much as I'm quick to criticize the paucity of science funding I can't in all fairness do that for this budget - well except to say they should have tripled the Marsden fund.
Except that for the last three elections it has always been clear that Labour couldn't govern without The Greens.
Everyone knew this.
Yet despite everyone knowing it was Labour/Green vs National the public still voted National ... Or more accurately the Labour/Green voters chose not to vote leaving the National voters to elect the government.
This MOU changes nothing.
Unless Labour and The Greens can get together and and take best from each party and create a manifesto from that and ditch the least appealing parts from each party, then there is still nothing for the non-National voters to love.
Show me joint policy.
Show me that both parties understand that the public have real problems with some of the elements in both parties and move to limit those negative elements.
Show me that both parties are capable of learning and are not stuck in ideological backwaters.
Otherwise Winston is right.