Comments on: State House Leopards Do Change Their Spots

By: PJR

PJR — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:26:18 +0000

Absolutely agree with your summation. But after kicking most of us soundly in the guts he continues to enjoy almost unprecedented popularity are we all this stupid or is there something else going on here.

By: BE

BE — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:05:29 +0000

Agree with all of that untile your last sentence. “ONe term PM, no statesmanship, smiling fool’” I very much doubt that Key will be a one-term PM. My view is that he will take a hit in the polls from this and that the gap between National and Labour will narrow. But I expect to see him still there after the 2011 election.

By: paulscott

paulscott — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:44:16 +0000

Brian says :
”
On last night’s Campbell Live, the Prime Minister gave Campbell a guarantee that lower income earners or beneficiaries would be no worse off after the changes in the budget. ‘No worse off’, but not necessarily ‘any better off’. Middle and higher income earners, on the other hand, will of course be better off as a result of any decrease in income tax, since that is an economic truism. So, in a nutshell, the rich will get richer and the poor stay where they are, which in real terms means ‘go backwards’.”

In other words those with income less than say $35,000 , and the poor, will be worse off.
PM NAT John Key has committed a cardinal error which is to renege on a manifesto promise.
This means John Keys word means nothing. He has proven that.

New Zealand is a high cost, low dollar, low wage, impoverished country, but the PM NZ man still disputes Alan Bollard’s comment that we are lost behind Australia.

One term PM, no statesmanship, smiling fool.

By: BE

BE — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:10:10 +0000

Off topic. Interested in what you think about Brooke V Opening of parliament and the Prime Ministers agenda for the next year,
See latest post!

By: David

David — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:29:31 +0000

Off topic. Interested in what you think about Brooke V Opening of parliament and the Prime Ministers agenda for the next year, I know you probably dont agree with it but dont TVNZ see the potential in taking advantage of people who earn lots of money and are intelligent and want NEWS not puff pieces from the exceptionally beautiful Amy Kelly (journalist). There was a bit more than an increase in GST but even if there wasnt dont we need some analysis on why he is changing the tax system to encourage a change in consumption etc.
Sainsbury is clearly not the right person to ask these questions, Henry or Hoskins would be better but surely close up hasnt become beholden to your sort (purveyours of the dark art of spin).
Regards

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:37:35 +0000

ConorJoe, I agree with you but if one is faced with a government intent on handing out money to the rich at the expense of the poor, then some form of direct action is warranted. Rather than complain about the tax cuts and just pocket the money, one can try and do something useful with the money. And incidentally the work of organisations like the City Missions is focussed on supporting people so that they do not end up on the streets. They also support those already on the streets ,an underclass totally forgotten by any government.

I also sometimes think that NGOs are rather better at dealing with poverty and inequality than are goverments and bureaucracies like MSD.

You may have read the comments of Peter Singer and the difference that could be made if everyone gave just 1% of their income and if there were some attempts to rein in the conspicuous consumption of which most of us are guilty.

In essence we can fulminate about the injustices perpetrated by a National government but it is sheer hypocricy unless we are prepared to do something ourselves.

By: Maggie

Maggie — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:29:14 +0000

You raise some interesting points, Brian. I found myself justifying my “pull yourself together” attitude because I’d come from a single parent home and had been a single parent myself. – O and I was raised as a Scots Presbyterian. – Protestant work ethic and all that. My conscious thought was – “If I can do it, so can anyone else.” But in my current role I come across a lot of people who don’t have the skills to deal with the bureaucracy that rules their lives, and I’ve had to realise that there is more to self-improvement than merely having the will to do it.
Social welfare is a necessary part of any mature society and we will always need it to be part of the scheme of things. People do fall on hard times, not always through their own doing, and not everyone is articulate, confident or assertive enough to “better” themselves without some help. If we as a society cannot find it within ourselves to help and support those who do require help, what sort of society is this?
I’m not talking about those who exploit ACC and welfare. Nor should the policy makers and the media assume that because of a few well publicised cases, that everyone on welfare shouldn’t be.
As for forcing single parents of primary school children out to work the minute the youngest gets to 6 years, aren’t we forgetting why we have DPB in the first place? Surely it was to ensure that children didn’t starve and suffer for the sake of their parents’ misfortunes and short-comings? Let’s encourage parents to spend after school time with their children – especially in the first few years of primary school when a child’s progress depends so much on parental support.

By: BE

BE — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:44:23 +0000

When you talk of “changing spots” you are really talking – particularly, I suspect, in Bennett’s case – of people for whom the resentment at and memory of the sting and humiliation of being on the receiving end of middle class snobbery and moralising has become the organising principle of their lives.

I think I’m really saying that when your personal situation improves and you start to realise that those higher taxes you’re paying are in part going to subsidise the incomes of the less fortunate, you may start to lose sympathy for their plight. There may also be an element of snobbery, as you suggest, of wanting to fit in with the social or moneyed class you’ve just joined. It’ s not that you’ve become a bad person, it’s just that you now have a different perspective on things.

By: Don

Don — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:42:46 +0000

Agreed. I still consider myself “working class” in that those were the values I grew up with. However, it’s one thing having a mindset and quite another to want to drag yourself out of the economic nuisance pits as soon as possible. The mindset I retain encourages me to be generous and never begrudge hospitality to others. Interestingly, I don’t always find that reciprocated among people who grew up comfortably. That said (as I’m veering off topic somewhat) I am eternally grateful that I am no longer economically “working class” even if I still am psychologically. I have a mortal fear of returning to destitution that makes sure I husband my savings and maximise my income where possible. But having money doesn’t necessarily equate with being a tight-arse, which may be the point I am trying to make (eventually). I think there’s a case to be made that people who came from nothing tend to share more freely.

By: BE

BE — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:34:59 +0000

The “working classes” are not content to simply remain “working class”; to be the noble worker of Marx and Engels. The “working class” on the whole, from my experience, wants to stop being “working class” as soon as possible.

Interesting point. At the same time, many ‘working class’ people have a pride in being ‘working class’ even after they have climbed either the social or the money ladders. I still describe myself as ‘working class’, though quite clearly the work that I do is not manual work and I am reasonably well off. I’m occasionally accused of being ‘pretentious’ because of this or of engaging in a form of reverse snobbery. But I’m genuinely proud of my background. ‘Working class’ is really a matter of identity and has very little to do with one’s job or position in society.