Russel’s response to Helen Clark
Here’s Russel again, this time responding to the Prime Minister’s speech this morning.
And Frog’s got a few questions for the Prime Minister:
If the problem is the poverty caused by the 1991 Mother of All Budget cuts, why is the solution keeping young people in schools (or other forms of education) and a $9 million programme to check on 4 and 5 year olds (But no mention of money to do anything if we do identify conduct problems or anti social behaviour)? $9 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the 1991 benefits cuts. Labour has had 8 budgets to amend the wrongs of 1991 and create a welfare system that allows people enough money to support a family in dignity.
If this is the ‘sustainability government’ why is the biggest spending item in Clark’s speech today the Western Ring Route in Auckland, rather than much needed investment in public transport?What exactly does Clark mean when she announces policy for ‘all young people should be in or some other form of education or training until they reach the age of eighteen‘? Does this mean that young people who want to go out into the workforce will not be allowed to? Is this a new compulsory leaving age, a de facto compulsory leaving age, or further tough talking about the symptom of youth crime rather than the cause; poverty?
Why the need for this snarky attack on MMP:
‘Under proportional representation Italy has had sixty governments since the end of World War Two. In New Zealand the Fifth Labour Government is in its ninth year.’
Actually there was a Labour-Alliance government from 1999-2002, a Labour-Progressive government with the confidence and supply of United Future from 2002-2005, and from 2005 to today we’ve had a Labour-Progressive government with the confidence and supply of both United Future and New Zealand First. It’s not Labour that’s made MMP work but the voters who have keep the two old parties honest by forcing them to consult and cooperate pragmatically.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
this is great - I really like both these clips - thanks russel
molly
January 30th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Russel said: Labour has had 8 budgets to amend the wrongs of 1991 and create a welfare system that allows people enough money to support a family in dignity.
Yep, they sure have, and have failed the poor because the Labour showpiece Working for Families has done almost nothing to alleviate the poverty of those on benefits, and the move from the discretionary Special Benefit programme to the highly regulated Temporary Additional Support programme has seriously exacerbated the poverty of the really poor.
Interestingly, Labour campaigned in 1993 and 1996 to reverse the benefit cuts, but strangely, including and since their 1999 campaign, it has slipped below the radar. So nothing has been done to restore the living standards of beneficiaries to a level above mere survival.
Shame on them, and we’re now seeing the second generation “Children of the Benefit Cuts” engaging in seriously antisocial behaviour as a consequence of their economic deprivation.
[BB, you need not bother replying - everyone who reads this blog will know what your response is already.]
January 30th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Rodney Hide’s response to Clark’s speech sums it up well.
You can read it at http://www.nzdebate.blogspot.com
January 30th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I asked this question elsewhere and I will ask it here.
Given that Clark has decided (stupidly as it happens) to keep kids in school until they are 18 does this mean that DPB beneficiaries can now expect handouts for 18 years?
January 30th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
guess so..bro..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 30th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Then thank god she will not be leading the next government.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
ah..but there’s the rub..bb..
she has a better than 50% chance of doing just that..
coalition partners for national..?
dear me..!..
a bit thin on the ground..eh..?
you’ll be really ‘gutted’ with a lab/grn/mp govt..
eh..?
heh-heh..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 30th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Will not happen Phil, having said that it would be fascinating to see how long it would last and the very real problems it would cause.
The public want change, if the left do not allow that change then we will see real displays of public annoyance.
It would be the end of MMP and a return to the days of 81, that is almost a price I would be willing to pay.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
BTW
There is no chance that the Maori party will go with Labour, John Key will sell us all out and do a deal on the foreshore and seabed.
You under estimate the real dislike many inside the Maori party have for this govt.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:12 am
Russell responded “The Government is still living in fear of the roading lobby” Hardly surprising - 3 million drivers = 3 million voters.
This is all Clark actually said about Land Transport in her speech this morning:
“Here in Auckland the openings of new transport initiatives are coming thick and fast - with next weekend seeing the celebration of the completion of the North Shore busway.
And watch for an important announcement soon about progress on the Waterview Connection - a critical part of the Western Ring Route.”
January 31st, 2008 at 9:20 am
‘The roading lobby’ is probably more like the AA and possibly the petrol companies.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:48 am
the public never want change big bro. one thing this government has done is to deliver a slower rate of change than previous governments. some people are champing at the bit to have the ’80’s & ’90’s reforms reversed, as you can see in this thread, & also evident in this thread are those who call this a left wing government & want further ’80’s & ’90’s style reform.
if one of these groups has their way the other lot will suddenly discover how much they enjoyed muddling down the middle of the road.
don’t blame the government for fearing the roading & other right-wing lobbies until they have beaten national at the next election. if you can’t deliver the voting support for left-wing ideas, don’t criticize the government for failing to go more left-wing.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:55 am
When I went with my “the only solutions are education and social programmes” mantra, I certainly didn’t expect school leaving age up to 18.
Several decades ago, I was a 15 year old kid in a fairly rough school in the UK, when the government of the day introduced a programme that became known as ROSLA - the Raising of the School Leaving Age, from 15 to 16. The school was a “comprehensive” school, meaning it had pupils of all abilities, many from poor and disadvantaged social backgrounds, thugs and yobbos.
The result of the ROSLA program meant that a whole bunch of kids who were supposed to depart school at 15 with no qualifications and enter the workforce were suddenly obligated to stay for another year. The problem for the school was what to do with the rozzlers (or rozzles) as they were known. Best as I can remember the rozzles were shoved into a classroom with the teacher who did remedial studies and career guidance (I hope he was better at remedial teaching than he was at career guidance, at which he sucked), and threw paper planes about. The rozzles hung around for a year, and then left, aged 16, still with no qualifications.
Given that Helen has bit between teeth on this one, I hope that something useful is done with this generation of kids so there extra jail time (which for many kids is exactly what it is like) is not wasted.
Far from convinced this is a good idea. However, looking back, in the UK ROSLA was a good thing, once the dust settled and stuff worked out, but being stuck in school till 18…
January 31st, 2008 at 8:55 pm
If public transport is so good and so important - and I agree that it is - then why are the Greens so opposed to making it free? Is this another case of the Green Party being very keen on market mechanisms? Or have I got this wrong?
Bryce
January 31st, 2008 at 10:12 pm
yes, you’ve got it wrong, we are not opposed to free public transport, and definitely not so opposed. Absence of a policy is not proof of opposition to a policy.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:17 am
StephenR, I think the AA has been too busy selling car insurance to have any time for lobbying government. And the government’s actions over this decade suggest the roading lobby consists solely of the RTF, Bus & Coach Assn and the Auckland Mayoral Forum. Everybody else has ended up paying more and getting less.
All to keep Labour’s dominant constituincies happy (Auckland and Wellington and Peter’s Tauraunga).
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Stuey - I’m not convinced that the Green Party aren’t opposed to free public transport. Have you guys ever put out serious documents or a policy manifesto that supports free public transport? This seems like quite a bit policy issue, so it would be odd for the Greens to just mistakenly forget to have a position on public transport. Either you’re in favour of free public transport or you’re not. Any other statement would just be incredible for a party that ostensibly cares about the environment and issues of public transport. Surely the Greens aren’t that hollow?
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz