Posts by A S
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
At this point in our national life, it appears that everyone's 'entitled' and no one's empathetic.
Quite possibly. That is a point that runs multiple ways, with the majority of our society appearing to be fixated on their 'entitlements'.
Perhaps the surprise is that it took so long for the latte-sippers to get to that point too....
I am definitely a fully paid up member of the latte set but removing GST from food would help the poorest sections of society, no question.
Wouldn't the logical end point to this argument be to get rid of GST altogether? That would go a significant way to addressing the issues identified via reduced costs.
Looking at the global food situation and food price inflation, I thnk that removing GST now, will have no impact on prices in the medium/long term. All it will do is reduce government revenue, which may or may not be a good thing.
From where I'm sitting, if we take the long term view, food costs are going to keep going up, and things are going to get considerably worse before they get better.
We are all going to have to get used to the idea that food is going to be a problem for quite a few years to come....
-
As I understand it, the 1990's introduced 'beneficiary bashing' to NZs political discourse - the idea that a person on the benefit was basically a waste of space... My parents were beneficiaries during the 90's (and I was experiencing childhood). I don't know if there was a total change of attitude to beneficiaries in the '90s as opposed to 70's and early 80's, but my shallow reading on this suggests that this might be true. In anycase, the anti beneficiary message got through - for example the question: 'what do your parents do for a living?' inevitably induced a cringe. What A.S. sees in his dealings with the 'working class' is the continuation of the shame associated with receiving a benefit.
If you look back through NZ's history, there has always been a stigma attached to receipt of benefit. Lets not try to characterise this as anything new. The 90s attitudes to 'dole bludgers' etc. were simply the extension of a fairly generic point of view that has been present throughout the history of this country.
...... If you're in the top tax bracket surely you're winning?
Winning what? The right to pay more tax, and get sweet FA in return?
The top bracket starts at $60k. Try paying a mortgage and living a normal life with/without kids on this sort of salary (then for kicks add student loan repayments into the mix) without receiving much in the way of assistance because you're "rich". Then wonder why National and co are having such a resurgence in the polls.
Being nice to those less fortunate and not complaining about paying a lot of tax is admirable and desirable, just don't expect people to keep doing it when they start hurting financially.
-
Of course, the fact that ordinary middle-class people see themselves as apart from 'people who use benefits', rather than potential beneficiaries of these social services can be construed as evidence that the key messages of the 1990s were fairly successful.
Que? I'd always been of the view that the welfare system was only ever set up as a safety net, not as a universal income top up. I'm relatively confident that is fairly commonly held view. From my interactions with an awful lot of working class people, they also see themselves as apart from 'people who use benefits'. I struggle to see what the 1990's has to do with people seeing their situation as different to others. I also have no desire to be a 'potential beneficiary', I'm quite happy to take care of me and mine through my own efforts.
If you mean the meme that beneficiaries are already catered for and don't need assistance a la WFF, then I would have to agree that this has rightish connotations.
Like it or not, beneficiaries are already catered for via the benefit system, to the tune of somewhere in the region of $11 Billion per year.
WFF was set up to do something quite different, that is, to encourage people to return to work, and to make it viable for those in work to remain in work. Remember the angst at the time of all those working poor who worked even though they probably would have been better off on a benefit etc. etc. WFF was set up to take care of that issue, and to emphasise that work was preferable to welfare.
Child poverty amongst those on benefits is a completely separate issue from WFF, which should be dealt with via the benefit system.
-
Biggest issue for me on this one is the conversation Innes Ashe had with Sean on Morning Report this morning about the Working for Families programme not working for the 180,000 kids living in poverty. If your parents aren't working you don't get access to these extra funds.
My understanding of WFF is the reason people on benefits can't get WFF is because WFF is targeted at those in work. WFF is supposed to act as an incentive for people to re-enter the workforce.
The child poverty lobbists are being a little bit unfair with their critique of WFF, it was never designed to work for those on benefits, that is why there is a benefit system.
At the end of the day, CPAG & co are upset that those they see as being most disavantaged are not getting enough. But it is important to remember that this is not what WFF was designed to do.
-
The fact that Labour has done little (but not nothing) to increase direct targeted benefits probably has less to do with the "entrenched new right establishment" lurking under their beds in Wellington and more to do with the fact that beneficiaries aren't swing voters and increasing benefits isn't a popular policy with the middle class. It certainly doesn't resonate in election-year the way "interest-free student loans" does.
I suspect that both Labour and National's focus groups are telling them quite loudly that after almost 10 years of doing the right thing and paying for those less well off via their taxes, the middle classes are beginning to ask what is in it for them. The recent nasty price spikes and mortgage grimness will be focusing an awful lot of potentially swinging voters very much on what is in it for them.
I can't blame them either. After ten years, the middle classes and the rest of the "rich pricks" in the top tax brackets are quite entitled to ask when they get treated as something other than a group to be exploited.
-
But we need to know how the money will actually be spent, and whether (despite his protests to the contrary) it really will end up lining the pockets of incumbents.
That is a very fair question. By the same token, it would be interesting to see how much of the money spent over the last few years to establish KAREN and the government shared network ended up lining the pockets of the incumbents.
-
I'm still a little unsure about why this is such a big deal?
Without wanting to sound like a cracked record, we have an almost miraculously low level of corruption in our public service and I for one, would like to see that continue.
Using the apparatus of government agencies to promote policies makes those departments look like they are no longer apolitical.
A public service that is seen as partisan undermines the neutrality that enables the public sector to endure through changes of government, different ideologies, and times of significant change, and to be able to provide advice that is neutral and independent for the elected government of the day.
A partisan public sector opens the door to favours, corruption and the world of the banana republic.
Hence why I think it is a big deal, and why I think the prime minister made the right call in kicking a pretty idiotic idea for touch.
-
Kyle
Well, the original question was who are civil servants likely to vote for this year to be the government of the next three years. So I don't think they're saying history changes, just that unless you're either 1. still bitter at the 4th labour government, or 2. don't believe their disavowing (of which the past three terms is a reasonable follow through of), then the 4th Labour government really is just history.
The context of the question widened in the next paragraph of the post I was discussing, to talk about reluctance to vote national because of the public sector being historically disemboweled by National in the 90's, which is a fair point. My response was to point out, in an earlier post, and in the one you quote, that Labour also put the public sector to the sword in pretty robust fashion.
Those events took place, and promising not to do it again doesn't alter that.
-
With 60 or so government MPs (some of whom are bound to be incompetent or criminal) plus a budget for maybe the same number of party advisers, that isn't very many people to supervise and make the decisions.
Don't forget an Audit Office full of auditors, a Crown Law Office full of lawyers, a Cabinet Office full of expert advice on procedures and appropriate behaviour for MPs and Ministers of the crown, Treasury and SSC oversight of agency activities, not to mention the common or garden variety officials whose agencies offer a multitude of perspectives and advice on any topic. Decisions get made by the 20 or so who end up in Cabinet, based on the advice they get from any of the above fonts of (supposed) wisdom.
The rest of parliament plays a role in keeping Cabinet honest via the select committee process. If they find incompetence, dodgy goings on or anything like that, they are not backwards in coming forwards to let the populace know. Parliament can debate anything that looks dodgy, and Parliament can get rid of incompetent or crooked administrations through a confidence motion, or through making laws off their own bat to stop whatever it is that is dodgy, and then every few years the people get to choose the next bunch of crooks, rogues and charlatans to represent them.
All in all, we probably have the checks and balances about right, and adding more public servants probably won't help much except to confuse things even further.
-
The difference being that Labour has publicly disavowed the actions of the Fourth Labour Government and did so a while ago.
Yep. That doesn't change the fact that those cuts of the 80s still took place. History doesn't change just because someone promises not to do it again.
And do you seriously think that a round of 'cuts' and downsizing won't require a large cadre of managers and consultants to oversee and administer? I think that managerialism and compliance costs are big problems. I have absolutely no confidence that downsizing is the solution. In fact, the downsizing mentality and its associated languages of efficiency and cost-effectiveness are the primary generators of managerialism.
Downsizing isn't the solution. Invariably what happens is that the monkeys are given the key to banana plantation and idiotic layers of management emerge. Perhaps a better way to do things would be to look at how to establish the frontline staffing needs for departments, and only when those are established should consideration be given to establishing the number of support staff (i.e. managers, comms, policy, research, HR etc.), rather than expanding your head office workforce to meet your annual appropriation or creating new initiatives to keep your newly expanded workforce looking like they're doing something.....
Sadly, the likelihood of that ever happening is somewhere between zero and none.
Hmmm... The discussion has deviated quite substantially from my original quibble about the politicisation of the public sector. But perhaps these various issues are all linked in many ways....