NZ needs a new direction...

[C_T_Russell]

Labour and National have both failed us.
Seems the public is too dumb to remember each parties mistakes and we just flip-flop between red and blue and its got us nowhere.

Matt King from the National party has created his own party called Democracy NZ, i think his goal is to address the root of the problems we faced in the wake of the COVID pandemic and intends to write the bill of rights into law.
I think everyone here can agree thats a good thing.
https://democracynz.org/our-policy/

[Praktica]

I agree - we need to take far more notice of environmental problems, and far less notice of ignorant internet commenters who demonstrate the depths of their ignorance with every word. I doubt that any failed national party MP pushing populist bullshit has the answer.

[king1]

to some extent I agree with you on the flip flopping of left/right...

However - they are completely wrong

Democracy means always saying no to the mandates
https://democracynz.org/news/8/11/Democr...-mandates/

Democracy means a few members of society are (typically) voted for to represent the interests of the majority... and if the majorities interests require mandates, so be it...

Tiny itty bitty newborn political parties with fluffy ideals and narrow agendas do not represent the majority, regardless of how much puff and bluster they verbalise

[Oldfellah]

Yes National and Labour are flip flopping so how about we all vote Yellow? 
I certainly wont be voting for any party/individuals that have fallen down a rabbit hole or think they are the only ones that can get us out of the situation that we are in, its not only us in this situation its the whole world what with the virus and the stupid Russian war of course we are in the crap.

[Lilith7]

I agree - we need to take far more notice of environmental problems, and far less notice of ignorant internet commenters who demonstrate the depths of their ignorance with every word. I doubt that any failed national party MP pushing populist bullshit has the answer.

It does seem highly unlikely; the right aren't exactly well known for their great concern for the environment.

[C_T_Russell]

to some extent I agree with you on the flip flopping of left/right...

However - they are completely wrong

Democracy means always saying no to the mandates
https://democracynz.org/news/8/11/Democr...-mandates/

Democracy means a few members of society are (typically) voted for to represent the interests of the majority... and if the majorities interests require mandates, so be it...

Tiny itty bitty newborn political parties with fluffy ideals and narrow agendas do not represent the majority, regardless of how much puff and bluster they verbalise

Well how many people would have voted if they knew about the mandates?
Same thing goes for 3 waters, it was never advertised as a policy, but is thrown on us by surprise.
Politicians often do things they dont inform voters about.

[king1]

to some extent I agree with you on the flip flopping of left/right...

However - they are completely wrong


Democracy means a few members of society are (typically) voted for to represent the interests of the majority... and if the majorities interests require mandates, so be it...

Tiny itty bitty newborn political parties with fluffy ideals and narrow agendas do not represent the majority, regardless of how much puff and bluster they verbalise

Well how many people would have voted if they knew about the mandates?

probably the same number that would have voted for them had they known a covid epidemic was just around the corner, maybe a few more...

[harm_less]

to some extent I agree with you on the flip flopping of left/right...

However - they are completely wrong


Democracy means a few members of society are (typically) voted for to represent the interests of the majority... and if the majorities interests require mandates, so be it...

Tiny itty bitty newborn political parties with fluffy ideals and narrow agendas do not represent the majority, regardless of how much puff and bluster they verbalise

Well how many people would have voted if they knew about the mandates?
Same thing goes for 3 waters, it was never advertised as a policy, but is thrown on us by surprise.
Politicians often do things they dont inform voters about.

There has been a good chance of global epidemics forecasted for at least the last 30 years by those with the intelligence to interpret the science regarding biological and human activities. The same applies for those that are aware of the dire state of many of New Zealand's local authority controlled public infrastructures.

There's nothing "surprising" about being proactive in regard to public health. To not do so is to put lives in harm's way. This government has had to make some tough decisions during its current leadership period and we should be grateful for the strong and empathetic measures they have implemented. You only have to look to what should be regarded as 'world leading' nations' woeful handling of COVID to see how lightly NZ has been struck by this epidemic. As a result our pandemic response measures and political leadership is regarded as one of the world's best, despite what a few sniveling 'idealists' seem to think is the case in their own country stoked by international conspirators with some very dark intents.

Doing things for people's own good is often not taken well by those who would sooner be allowed to do whatever they think is 'their right' but in civilised countries to allow that to happen is to deny the rights of the less well off and risk the collapse of public support structures such as the health sector, environmental integrity and access to potable water.

[Lilith7]

Well, if we need a new direction - 'we can choose to rewrite the rules again.'

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/chloe-swar...sHagv6P_O0


"Who is the economy for?

The economy is all of us and the things we create. It's not a God that we need to sacrifice to or suffer for. It's a set of rules that governs and prioritises the things we value, to produce the outcomes we want.

As election year looms and conversations around the economy percolate, it's worth asking what kind of economy we want. Do we value a healthy natural environment, strong mental and physical wellbeing and community connection?

Wellbeing of people and the planet has, in fact, long been cashed in for GDP growth. Yet half a century deep into the failure of trickle-down economics, some political players are still trying to tell us we can't "afford" decent lives and a liveable planet. The Greens ÔÇô and a whole lot of evidence ÔÇô reckon it's actually greed we can't afford.

Earlier this year, ground-breaking longitudinal economic research out of London's Kings College found tax cuts for the rich lead to higher income inequality both in the short and medium term. These trickle-down tax cuts also have no significant effect on economic growth or unemployment.


Half a century ago the rules were rewritten in favour of the wealthy, at the cost of our collective wellbeing. The post-war social contract consensus was shredded in favour of individual competition over collaborative progress.

Amidst a global pandemic, climate emergency and escalating inequality, we can choose to rewrite those rules."

[SueDonim]

"Half a century ago the rules were rewritten in favour of the wealthy, at the cost of our collective wellbeing."

Was that when the benefits became available? Instead of people having to look after themselves and their families, the government now gives them what should be a helping hand up, but has become for many just a universal income forever. And now many people have totally lost sight of the responsibility they have to society and appreciation to those who have to foot the bill - the much maligned "rich" - whoever they are.

[Lilith7]

"Half a century ago the rules were rewritten in favour of the wealthy, at the cost of our collective wellbeing."

Was that when the benefits became available? Instead of people having to look after themselves and their families, the government now gives them what should be a helping hand up, but has become for many just a universal income forever. And now many people have totally lost sight of the responsibility they have to society and appreciation to those who have to foot the bill - the much maligned "rich" - whoever they are.

I'm sure you understand that prior to benefits being available, the situation was far worse with starvation being a distinct possibility for some. There are actually some people who'd prefer that to still be the case.

People do still need to look after themselves - a far as I understand it, WINZ doesn't offer any cleaning, washing, lawnmowing, gardening, parenting services. 

And if people don't meet the requirements then they won't get a benefit; no benefit is 'forever'.




Interestingly, I've just stumbled across this - nice easy life on a benefit for this woman. Not.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/bay-of-plenty/30...ommodation

[SueDonim]

"Half a century ago the rules were rewritten in favour of the wealthy, at the cost of our collective wellbeing."

Was that when the benefits became available? Instead of people having to look after themselves and their families, the government now gives them what should be a helping hand up, but has become for many just a universal income forever. And now many people have totally lost sight of the responsibility they have to society and appreciation to those who have to foot the bill - the much maligned "rich" - whoever they are.

I'm sure you understand that prior to benefits being available, the situation was far worse with starvation being a distinct possibility for some. There are actually some people who'd prefer that to still be the case.

People do still need to look after themselves - a far as I understand it, WINZ doesn't offer any cleaning, washing, lawnmowing, gardening, parenting services. 

And if people don't meet the requirements then they won't get a benefit; no benefit is 'forever'.




Interestingly, I've just stumbled across this - nice easy life on a benefit for this woman. Not.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/bay-of-plenty/30...ommodation

Yes I saw that too. WINZ let her down big time. Usually those "woe is me" stories have another side - like people who can't get a house because they've destroyed the last one. Or kept on having kids after being on the benefit. This one looks genuine and didn't deserve what she got.

Benefits are often forever. There are plenty of multi-generational households where everyone is on benefits and will continue that way. For those who are disabled that's fine. For those who are (or should be) fit and healthy, that's a HUGE problem.

[Praktica]

I'm sure you understand that prior to benefits being available, the situation was far worse with starvation being a distinct possibility for some. There are actually some people who'd prefer that to still be the case.

People do still need to look after themselves - a far as I understand it, WINZ doesn't offer any cleaning, washing, lawnmowing, gardening, parenting services. 

And if people don't meet the requirements then they won't get a benefit; no benefit is 'forever'.




Interestingly, I've just stumbled across this - nice easy life on a benefit for this woman. Not.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/bay-of-plenty/30...ommodation

 For those who are (or should be) fit and healthy, that's a HUGE problem.

Why?

[king1]

Interestingly, I've just stumbled across this - nice easy life on a benefit for this woman. Not.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/bay-of-plenty/30...ommodation

Did I read that correctly, 7 Kids?  The cancer is terrible for her but was she ever planning on getting back to work ...

[king1]

Interestingly, I've just stumbled across this - nice easy life on a benefit for this woman. Not.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/bay-of-plenty/30...ommodation

Did I read that correctly, 7 Kids?  The cancer is terrible for her but was she ever planning on going back to work?

[Oldfellah]

Interestingly, I've just stumbled across this - nice easy life on a benefit for this woman. Not.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/bay-of-plenty/30...ommodation

Did I read that correctly, 7 Kids?  The cancer is terrible for her but was she ever planning on getting back to work ...

Perhaps getting pregnant WAS her job so she could remain on the benefit?

[Lilith7]

I'm sure you understand that prior to benefits being available, the situation was far worse with starvation being a distinct possibility for some. There are actually some people who'd prefer that to still be the case.

People do still need to look after themselves - a far as I understand it, WINZ doesn't offer any cleaning, washing, lawnmowing, gardening, parenting services. 

And if people don't meet the requirements then they won't get a benefit; no benefit is 'forever'.




Interestingly, I've just stumbled across this - nice easy life on a benefit for this woman. Not.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/bay-of-plenty/30...ommodation

Yes I saw that too. WINZ let her down big time. Usually those "woe is me" stories have another side - like people who can't get a house because they've destroyed the last one. Or kept on having kids after being on the benefit. This one looks genuine and didn't deserve what she got.

Benefits are often forever. There are plenty of multi-generational households where everyone is on benefits and will continue that way. For those who are disabled that's fine. For those who are (or should be) fit and healthy, that's a HUGE problem.

Hang on though - that's not altogether fair. Health isn't always a matter of choice is it; regardless of however virtuously someone lives they may very well still get ill. Or be involved in an accident.

---

Did I read that correctly, 7 Kids?  The cancer is terrible for her but was she ever planning on getting back to work ...

Perhaps getting pregnant WAS her job so she could remain on the benefit?

You may have missed the part in the article where it was made clear that she & her partner had only recently split up.

[king1]

Perhaps getting pregnant WAS her job so she could remain on the benefit?

You may have missed the part in the article where it was made clear that she & her partner had only recently split up.

giving the benefit of the doubt, a lot of stuff must have gone wrong for her in the last few weeks - no other family? no rainy day fund? the ex hubby isn't helping out financially? due to give birth any day... these are the very reasons we have a social welfare system.   

The other point of view...  Is it conceivable these are seven kids from multiple fathers - the most recent ex seems to have found it easy to leave, I would suspect that would not be the case if they were a good catholic family...

[Oldfellah]

I must admit I just skimmed over it and didnt read it properly, shame on me, my fault for putting her down.

[C_T_Russell]

Interestingly, I've just stumbled across this - nice easy life on a benefit for this woman. Not.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/bay-of-plenty/30...ommodation

Did I read that correctly, 7 Kids?  The cancer is terrible for her but was she ever planning on getting back to work ...

Its sad to hear about her situation, but 7 kids is alot to have.
Perhaps she is genuine and we shouldnt judge her, but I know there are cases where parents abuse this system to get the support payments.

This also makes me wonder how much gloriavale is using their large number of babies to exploit the system?