Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: SpinCity, in reply to Russell Brown,
Ministers can’t legally just tell it what to do.
Fixed
-
Hard News: SpinCity, in reply to Russell Brown,
they presented a bill within six months of the CCA decision
Which was a good thing. It would have been better if they had acted to force the authority to delay the decision until it could be reconsidered by government, but they didn't. As a result that decision was made on their watch and they should simply own up to that fact. It's called being responsible for what happens under your management. No amount of tweets now changes the responsibility and no amount of leglsation to prevent it happening again removes the responsibility.
I totally get that leaning on the authority would have been an uncomfortable thing for a government to do but not at all without precendent.
What bugs me about Labours commentary today is that they are avoiding accepting the simple fact that they failed to stop it happening while they were in government. Their legislation afterwards was good but FFS person-up and shoulder the responsibility even if you don't believe it was your fault. That is the job.
And of course nothing about Labour's actions 10 years ago makes this government's actions any less reprehensible, and we now have data on just how bad the 230 pokies at Skycity are so you could argue this decision is even worse.
-
Hard News: SpinCity, in reply to Richard Aston,
the conference organizers had to accept their price
And this new facility helps how?
-
The truly sad thing about this whole sordid story - from the original deal to the unabashed spin being delivered now - is that it was all entirely predictable.
For this particular government nothing matters but doing the big deal. That isn't a comment about The National Party it's about this particular team they have representing them. For these guys it really doesn't matter what long-term harm might be done nor that the deal might not be the best deal, nor that the deal might not be needed at all, just so long as they get to make the deal. They are "the men", yes even the women involved. They close the deal.
Sadly the people who will suffer from the damage that gambling (particularly pokies) does to families will get no consideration. It will just be a problem for some later government to clean up, or as is more likely to dismiss.
-
Up Front: Another Brick in the Wall, in reply to Emma Hart,
it was easier for my mother to ... survive financially under Muldoon
There would be a large group of people, including me, who would argue that NZ was fundamentally richer at that time. We still benefited from guaranteed markets for primary produce and had built up a lot of credit from feeding post war Europe. I tend to think as a country what we produce is harder to sell to the world now and we haven't been very good at producing the most valuable things in the world (and there is huge variability, some businesses have done very well).
I guess I'd say overall we have less to to spend now in NZ. However I'd also say we have chosen to give more of what we have to those who least need it - tax cuts were a terrible idea that did nothing for the economy and just made the gap between rich and poor bigger. Why National isn't excoriated daily for those cuts I don't understand.
But as well as choosing to gather less revenue from those who can afford it this govt has chosen to spend the money in places where they say it induces economic growth (it hasn't) as well as cutting funding from those who need it most. That is the place this thread started, a decision to save money by reducing the assistance the least advantaged in our society rely on to get education. I'd be surprised if the decision resulted in saving more than a couple of million dollars at the cost of tremendous social harm.
And not even a publically stated decision that people could debate, instead it seems like it has just been a quiet word in the ear of administrators to change "quotas".
-
Up Front: Another Brick in the Wall, in reply to giovanni tiso,
pretty crude economism
Yeah it's an ugly way of presenting what is a genuine desire to do "what is right".
My personal economic benefit is actually NOT the reason I want inclusive quality education, even if I have to pay more for it. But I also recognise that some folks find it difficult to believe I would want to reduce my own wealth for the benefit of someone else without some ulterior selfish motive. Ben's flippant comment is a pretty standard dismissal, as if being a lefty is so wierd that it can and should be ignored. I know he didn't mean it that way but it is the political equivalent of the blonde joke.
Blame my ugly economic argument on having spent the last 3 months writing grants, where I'm asked to justify doing (pretty damn exciting) science in purely immediate economic gains. It leaves one with a jaded view of those in power.
You are right though the purely moral argument can sway political opinion, but as you say it needs significant effort by a group of advocates who can shift public opinion.
-
Up Front: Another Brick in the Wall, in reply to BenWilson,
I don’t actually think that kind of reasoning is “like most kiwis”.
If you want you can reason it this way. I'm being selfish because I want NZ to have a better economy and social structure - I will benefit from that as much as every one else will benefit. I believe education of our children to as high a standard as possible is the best path to that. It costs me less to educate the children than to pay for security cameras etc etc.
As for acting against my self interest on the GMO issue - well it's unlikely that The Green policies on GMOs could make research any worse in NZ. They have the power to change their policies based on 20+ years of evidence and I hope they do that but the actual cost to me is low.
-
The point is, like most kiwis, paying tax for education of our children is something I actively want to do. Despite having none of my own.
I perhaps go further than most in that I'd vote for any party (yes even the greens with their stupid GE policy) if they promised to increase taxes, some of which would go into inclusive evidence based education policies.
-
Up Front: Another Brick in the Wall, in reply to George Darroch,
We might just pay an extra cent in the dollar in tax
I'm happy to pay more tax to educate Gio's children!
-
Up Front: Another Brick in the Wall, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Are you suggesting they would benefit from having a teacher aide?
Seriously what I was boggling at was the idea that people who are inclined to cheat and lie for gain (which appears to be the assumption of the ministry) are more likely to be involved in some actual, ya know, money making scam rather than trying to get their child extra help at school.