Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Taking a very big gamble, in reply to Matthew Poole,
They didn’t compete.
And even if the Sallies did put in a competitive bid, why is that a problem? If they believe they can provide a better service for the same money, that's good for society, no? Or is your disdain for them sufficient that you don't think they should take part in tender processes for provision of addiction treatment services? Because that's how our health system works, for better or worse.
Of course, in this case there was no tender process, there was no competitive bidding, there was just a decision based on an application for continuation of existing funding that the PGF is no longer welcome in the tent. It stinks of being political.
-
Hard News: Taking a very big gamble, in reply to Chris Waugh,
The money involved in this issue is supposed to be coming from the state, isn’t it?
Nope. Dedicated levy on gambling providers to provide gambling addiction treatment services. It's in the law, even.
-
Hard News: Taking a very big gamble, in reply to ,
So why did [the Sallies] just compleat for the funding to provide gambling addiction treatment?
They didn't compete. They just got anointed as national provider of gambling addiction treatment services. Your ire is misplaced.
-
DPF makes the valid point that the Sallies aren't exactly silent on the harm caused by problem gambling. Shame the terms of the contract will, of course, be "commercially sensitive" and thus not available for examination by the public.
-
Hard News: Inside the Shrine, in reply to Paul Williams,
Surely, finally, Key’s faulty memory line will not be believed?
But he's got such a nice smile.
-
Given that political parties cannot be charities, it's quite naff to call a party fund-raising event a charity fund-raiser.
-
Hard News: Taking a very big gamble, in reply to Hamish,
Setting aside the separate funding streams, that’s just fucking vile. It’s entirely legitimate for a group that engages people with problems to also seek to address the causes of those problems. When those problems can only, ultimately, be addressed through government policy, well, lobbying is all that’s left.
ETA: This is not a good turn of events. We've already seen Key threaten the Human Rights Commission's funding over the GCSB bills. Now we have an apparently an actual case/effect relationship between criticism of policy and defunding.
-
Busytown: School bully, in reply to Ross Mason,
Someone mentioned pensioners are subsidised to the hilt.
Pensioners vote. Some of them also have a real sense of "I've paid taxes all my life" entitlement, and that's only going to get worse as the number of Boomers receiving National Super increases.
-
Busytown: School bully, in reply to BenWilson,
If the biggest problem in our schooling is identified as the long tail, then focusing on child poverty and how it can be alleviated at school can stand up as a far more practical solution
If Labour can coalesce their policy platforms around tackling child poverty (which is looking like something of a major theme for the election generally), the educational benefits are easily spelled out and cannot be dismissed: children who go to school healthy, not hungry, and dressed properly, will learn better. They sound-bite nicely, the evidence is unequivocal, and National cannot claim to have been doing anything to address child poverty because they clearly haven't when the numbers are, at best, static.
Many different policy areas can be built around the central theme of child poverty, and some others can be tied to educational and health improvement too, like changing transport policies and priorities so that active transport is both safe and encouraged, because children who walk/bicycle to and from school are also set up for better learning through both being healthier and also the exercise ahead of learning.These are easily-communicated points of difference, and they're not just about calling National a bunch of malicious incompetents who are governing solely for the benefit of themselves (hi, Adams and Carter) and their wealthy mates.
-
Hard News: What Hekia Parata actually said, in reply to TracyMac,
fixed-term leases, with little discernable benefit to lessees.
By law they cannot increase the rent for the term of the lease. Given current crazy rent prices in some markets that may be a good thing, if the term is actually of such length as to buffer against the "It's been ages since I last increased your rent, here have a 50% hike" effect.