"Vulnerable kiwis used to be looked after without major stigma attached. Until the early 80s really, co-inciding with the return of high unemployment levels. Bennies are now demonised and hunted down like rogue beasts at every turn - childcare obligations a reasonably paid person would have trouble meeting with travel involved, dodgy over priced drug testing, pointless work ready seminars–transport needed, constant time wasting ‘jolly up’ meetings with case workers-transport needed. “Pass Cards” for certain young bennies to be able to spend their miserable entitlement."
"Wedged into all the yapping about that imaginary construct “personal responsibility”, I’ve recently heard that the basis for “welfare reform” is The Social Contract. Which social contract they mean hasn’t been explained. I think it must be a new definition, made for media soundbites, that stops just short of examining the division between inalienable or natural rights and political or legal rights.
What National are doing is saying that the citizen’s social contract to give up some freedoms to the ruler is all there is to the social contract; a distorted interpretation to support authoritarian or control fantasies. It’s short hand for, “Do what I say, because I have power”. The bit they’ve conveniently left out, is that citizens give up some freedoms, to be protected.
Would someone in parliament ask Bennett and Key which rights, under the concept of a Social Contract, are beneficiaries being protected?
Of course they can’t answer that without exposing that it is they who are breaking the social contract. What they’d say, is that they are “freeing the beneficiary”. Missing out, as they like to do, an acknowledgement of the reality they are “freeing the beneficiary” into: they aren’t going back home to the farm where they can persue their own ends, they’re out on the street with nothing. The state is no longer protecting the citizen. The citizen becomes, stateless. You cannot, as a ruler, refuse a person their inaliable rights and think you’re taking the high moral ground or supporting a social contract.
But money, yes money, and power. It’s all anyone wants these days. Manipulation, control, hatred, all so easily accepted. It’s quite the country were making here."
What National are doing is saying that the citizen’s social contract to give up some freedoms to the ruler is all there is to the social contract; a distorted interpretation to support authoritarian or control fantasies. It’s short hand for, “Do what I say, because I have power”. The bit they’ve conveniently left out, is that citizens give up some freedoms, to be protected.
Would someone in parliament ask Bennett and Key which rights, under the concept of a Social Contract, are beneficiaries being protected?
Of course they can’t answer that without exposing that it is they who are breaking the social contract. What they’d say, is that they are “freeing the beneficiary”. Missing out, as they like to do, an acknowledgement of the reality they are “freeing the beneficiary” into: they aren’t going back home to the farm where they can persue their own ends, they’re out on the street with nothing. The state is no longer protecting the citizen. The citizen becomes, stateless. You cannot, as a ruler, refuse a person their inaliable rights and think you’re taking the high moral ground or supporting a social contract.
But money, yes money, and power. It’s all anyone wants these days. Manipulation, control, hatred, all so easily accepted. It’s quite the country were making here."
26 comments:
Feels a bit like a farm management plan to me. Only the social contract has less "control".
Mr E
And yet people who are receiving benefits are not animals...
But yes, Mr E, the thought occurred to me also. I do maintain though, that there's a difference, an important one, and that's described by my first sentence.
Various commenters have their say?
Mr E
Two. I intended to add others, but had to attend to some tasks off-line (in the real world).
What are your thoughts about the requirement for parents of 3 year olds to enrol their child or have their benefit cut in half? How practical will that be? I imagine there are any number of circumstances in the world's of parents of young children that would make that very difficult. Threatening them with having their benefit cut will only add to their stress and create misery, in my opinion.
Having lived among people on welfare for the last 13 years, I have noticed a distinct improvement in our neighborhood recently as several long term beneficiaries have been 'pushed' into work. These individuals finally have a sense of purpose.
The welfare system needed reforming, it was not working and was causing huge damage to lower socio economic areas.
I think some of the people you quoted sound exactly like the Christians that think the world will end if gay marriage is passed.
Some people that receive benefits may not be animals Robert, but they sure as hell like to act like them.
I would like to know how these anti National people would solve the problems with our welfare system.
I think the issue there is that they probably can't see any problem with it, and that is a very big problem!!.
Welfare should not be a lifestyle choice, my wife and I have seen a lot of people that treat it this way and it is destructive for all involved, especially their children.
I guessing National could potentially go too far, but then again, it's not as if they are going to force people into the streets, is it?
Those jobs, Shunda, into which these reluctant beneficiaries are to be encouraged - where are they? If there is a shortage of jobs, and National has made no effort to increase the number of jobs available, what's with this push? Perhaps the commenters are correct and it's simply a party that thrills to authoritarianism, playing out its fantasy - that it can control the world by dominating and forcing the more vulnerable (bennies) to comply with its directions. No great gain will be made anywhere as a result, aside from the sense of power that the Government MPs seem to thrill to and many members of our NZ community admire. All the while, the beneficiaries 'profile' becomes more and more sullied - these are people who need to be told what to do and forced to comply through the use of sanctions, we come to accept. Your anecdotal 'I know some lazy bennies' story is, I'm sorry to say, a typical 'play' of a social conservative and the source of much concern to me - extrapolations from personal stories like that result in terrible prejudices, from what I've observed on the inter web. I try to keep a clear head by looking at the broad picture and not colouring it by 'what happened to my friend's sister'. I see this unfortunate (and dangerous) behaviour most during discussions about education, where 'my child had a terrible teacher and all teachers are terrible' is the signature call of the socially conservative, narrow minded curmudgeon, the kind of person who cheers Tolley and Parata on. Anyone who gets excited by Bennett's bullish behaviour, btw, is a sad puppy indeed. I'm not referring to you there, Shunda, just getting a bit hot under the collar. I watched her on telly yesterday and was disgusted by her.
Exactly.... why should people be expected to work, We dont need PAYE tax money for health and education and R and D
We can just continue to borrow money,, its free you know .
We can all live on cabbages ,knit our own under ware and meditate,
im looking forward to a more care free life ..
oooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
How trite, Anonymouse, and how shallow your views.
Perhaps you have a real thought or two in your head about this issue, who knows?
Robert,
I am reluctant to wade in here because politics are not my thing. But you have asked for an opinion so why not. I will point out I believe my opinion is free from political agenda on this is issue. The opinion is based on observations and my interpretation of impacts of such laws. I write such a disclaimer due to your scathing and in my opinion unfair assessment of other comments.
My first observation is that 4 requirements have been made.
Attending ECE 3 years up
Attending school 5-6 upwards
Enrolled in primary health care
Completing well child checks
I think 3 of those things are fine. There are perhaps some exceptions that will need to be made but the concept is fine. Every law has practical considerations.
Attending ECE I am not so sure about. I understand there are positve and negatives for doing this. And I also understand there could be significant pracitcal issues to contend with. The list of exceptions requiring consideration would be too high for me to consider it a practical law. I would need to understand better how the government would implement this before I considered it further. Perhaps they have a clever plan. I dont know.
Mr E
Mr E
Thanks for your views. If I might respond (in italics)
Robert,
I am reluctant to wade in here because politics are not my thing. But you have asked for an opinion so why not. I will point out I believe my opinion is free from political agenda on this is issue. The opinion is based on observations and my interpretation of impacts of such laws. I write such a disclaimer due to your scathing and in my opinion unfair assessment of other comments.
Well, yes, Mr E, but like attracts like, is my rule of thumb.
My first observation is that 4 requirements have been made.
Attending ECE 3 years up
Attending school 5-6 upwards
Enrolled in primary health care
Completing well child checks
I think 3 of those things are fine.
They are indeed, fine, Mr E. That's not in dispute. What is though, is National's threat to half a parents benefit should they fail to comply. There are better, less baldly authoritarian measures that could be taken to ensure greater involvement but National has chosen instead to use threats and threats that could harm, not just the parent, but the wellbeing of the children. Imagine if a benefit was cut in half for any of the reasons cited. What would become of the children in that situation? The likelihood that such a parent would have to turn to crime or other insalubrious activity to make up for the loss of income is something Bennett and National have not discussed - I wonder why not?
There are perhaps some exceptions that will need to be made but the concept is fine. Every law has practical considerations.
As I said, the involvement in those things is not the key issue, it's the process being proposed - authoritarian, blunt, punitive, National
Attending ECE I am not so sure about. I understand there are positve and negatives for doing this. And I also understand there could be significant pracitcal issues to contend with.
Correct
The list of exceptions requiring consideration would be too high for me to consider it a practical law. I would need to understand better how the government would implement this before I considered it further. Perhaps they have a clever plan. I dont know.
Clever plan? I doubt it. They are well known for throwing half-baked ideas out there and having them thrown back at them by an intelligent public that knows the reality - take for example, the proposal to reduce teacher numbers and increase class sizes. That debacle typifies National's approach and it's what makes professionals in various fields throw up their hands in horror and National fails to learn, fails to consult and fails to consider the reality of people who are in vulnerable positions in society. I don't believe the National Party MPs will ever 'get' this. They certainly are showing no signs of it this time around. I see it clearly in all of the education initiatives, having worked in the field myself, and I see it in environmental issues, as I have a keen interest in most things that go on out there. The heads of the Nat MPs are not in the space that allows them to see or care about the things that ordinary people hold as important. This 'social contract' crap is one blatant example of that. The well to do, dictating to the not so fortunate. Typical Tory sociopathy.
:-)
Mr E
I dont see your opinions as neutral politically atall actually,
Its interesting that your call for a view of the big picture .. is opposite to mine ,
There in is the stuff of world view , back ground , life experience etc etc ,, im sure we would never agree,
I see these proposals in the positive and your the negative ,
is there not some middle ground here ,
Do you think that is " trite and shallow "?
Anonymouse - I'm not pretending that my views are politically neutral - they certainly are not!
Your 8:44 comments were, imo, trite. However, I donm't doubt that you can put a good argument forward on the issue. Let's see it!
There will doubtless be some 'middle ground' - areas we agree on, but you've not said what you believe, only made ad hom attacks , eg: "We can all live on cabbages ,knit our own under ware and meditate"
Were you expecting to be respected for that? Ha! Not here, you won't.
"under ware"
You could at least attend to the details of your slurs!
:-)
At least in ECE the children would be fed and educated. Probably more than would happen if left in the hands of most 'Bennies'?
This is not about beneficiaries , it is about children,, none of those initiatives are anything but positive for the developing child ,
Shouldnt you be asking , why does it take a punitive policy to encourage parents already subsidiied by all tax payers to do what is best for the children?
those are positive things any child would be better off having access to> Your comments are more about criticism of a political party,
Anonymous - trite.
a
This is not about beneficiaries , it is about children,, none of those initiatives are anything but positive for the developing child
No one is seriously arguing that those things don't in most cases, help children, a, but it's the force National is employing to get the parent to comply that is the issue.There are better ways. Bennett is advocating compulsion where other ways will be just as effective. By way of example, have you considered that the threat of drug testing beneficiary job seekers, which I'm going to assume you support, has unintended consequences in that it's encouraging 'weekend, recreational drug-takers to move away from the detectable cannabis to the hard to detect or short-term in the body, harder drugs, like P and Ecstasy. Clever, eh!
,
Shouldnt you be asking , why does it take a punitive policy to encourage parents already subsidiied by all tax payers to do what is best for the children?
It doesn't 'take' that, Anonymous. It's simply what Bennett is proposing. She and National believe it 'takes' that, but they are narrow, reactionary, authoritarian thinkers, lacking subtelty and favouring the use of compulsion/force over the weaker members of society. And you are cheering them on. Bullies.
those are positive things any child would be better off having access to.
As I've said, several times now, those things are not the issue. They are generally good things. It's the manner (forced/punitive/choice-stealing) approach that is the issue.
Your comments are more about criticism of a political party.
Whichever political party was proposing this threatening programme doesn't matter to me - I'd criticise whoever proposed it. It's true however, that I believe this is typical of National and very regretable.
Interesting ,,, does your self rightous indignation extend to rate payers who ES threatens with financial penalties?...
Probably not as they could mainly be national voters and after all business people only create wealth that drives the ecconomy!
they are not in a strong position,, is there a better way than that? .. or should our bleeding heart liberal attitude only be reserved for those who might vote green?
Now i have to say . that is " trite" but never the less on the money,, or in this case on the benefit !
O dear .. looks like your advocating marijuana as the drug of choice if your on a benefit .
It might be green ,, but im sure you didnt actually mean it as it read ?
anonymouse - you might ask yourself this - what is it Robert is trying to convey here? Is he saying that beneficiaries should have no obligation to act in the best interests of their children? Is he saying that beneficiaries should disregard the society/tax-payers who are helping them to get by when things are tough for one reason or another? Is he advocating a responsibility-free contract with beneficiaries?
You seem to be arguing that I am, but do you really think that?
And do you really think I'm advocating for cannabis use?
No , i doubt your advocating cannabis use
But i do think your using the beneficiary situation to attack government because u have a different political agenda ,
I believe social welfare spending should be targeted and directed to a degree,I dont believe this is unreasonable , The proposals, as i consider them are for the benefit of the developing child, If parents are doing what would be considered usual and advantageous in todays society i see no issue ,, To compel beneficiary parents to ensure they do likewise , i see as no burden or imposition , nor do i consider it discriminatory,
Perhaps, anonymouse, you might consider this - National's efforts to deliver a promised 'brighter future' has failed. Unemployment is high, the number of young New Zealanders leaving for Australia is high, the disparity between rich and poor in NZ is higher than ever, the manufacturing sector is suffering badly, the Government's flagship 'solution' to their woes, asset sales, is floundering, borrowing by the Government is at an all-time high - the list of failures by National is long and damning - their promises of prosperity have become hollow echoes, John Key and his ministers are dodging accusations of impropriety constantly (John Banks, anyone?) and incompetence (Hekia Parata's 'education reforms' went well, didn't they!), and all the while, to keep themselves 'up' with their followers, they drip-feed these punitive proposals (drug-test beneficiaries, require mothers to work when their children are one year old etc.) on a regular basis, to inflame and distract the public from the failure that is National's second term. The charge from national's opponents, so clearly seen in the education debacles of national standards and larger class sizes, of the Government's disregard for expert advice and their willingness to float untested, inflamatory ideas to the public, give the thinking, politically-interested New Zealander like myself no reason to expect that these ideas from Bennett are any different or any more likely to produce good results. They lack depth and rigour. Your own reaction to criticism of them reflects nationals - you just revert to your prejudice about those who are expressing concern, and don't address the questions being asked or the objections made. You champion any and every proposal National come out with, unthinkingly it seems, and seem to have no critical facility what so ever. To the observer, that seems curious and more than a little disturbing.
Can you really not see what the critics of these 'aimed at the poorer New Zealanders' proposals are concerned about?
Seems you are oblivious.
And you have demonstrated why i dont vote green,
nothing but criticism and finger pointing
The only way for nz to prosper is to produce and export .
Continue to dumb down agriculture on the alter of environmental extremism and there will be no fat in the system for an adequate social welfare system.
anonymouse said:
"And you have demonstrated why i dont vote green,
nothing but criticism and finger pointing
I've not demonstrated that at all, anonymouse, you've decided that, based on one comment. It's what you want to believe, already believed and are determined to believe. If it were true, there would be no positive material from the Greens, no programmes for prosperity, greater fairness in society etc to be found, but the truth is, the Green Party has positive policy after policy displayed on it's website - clearly you haven't investigated the reality, prefering to hold to your prejudice.
The only way for nz to prosper is to produce and export .
It's not the only way, but it is a good and vital way.
Continue to dumb down agriculture on the alter of environmental extremism and there will be no fat in the system for an adequate social welfare system"
The Greens always talk about 'smartening' agricultural practices, not dumbing down. You are displaying you prejudice again. I'm a supporter of the Greens and am always looking for, talking about, asking about, more efficient, more suitable, more sustainable, more biologically diverse ideas for agriculture and horticulture. I hear those from conventional farmers and growers, I hear them from the Green equivalents, I hear them from old farmers and from young people just beginning their interactions with food production, I hear them from all over the place. Your use of the phrase 'altar of environmental extremism' reveals your disconnect from reality and your relience on trire, glib prejudicial lables. That's not a point of discussion, that's an ideological block right there, anonymouse. If that's where you are really coming from,there's precious little I can help you with.
It's like me saying, based on your support for bennet's proposals, that people like you are sociopaths who love to see others suffer. Bet that makes you feel that my other views on that issue are worth listening to.
My comments about agriculture are based on a lifetime of experience , as well as academic rigor
As a green supporter you might term that " prejudice" I call it knowledge
Post a Comment