The Dim-Post

September 13, 2009

More on the Labour Conference

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 7:19 am

From Matt McCarten’s HoS column:

You can already see the priorities of the new leadership. Social liberalism, it seems, has been shunted to the back burner and replaced with working-class bread and butter economic issues. Clearly, it is going after the traditional Labour constituency that Clark lost to National.

Someone forgot to tell Lianne Dalziel, who wrote on Red Alert yesterday about her excitement at the idea of a new Commission for Social Inclusion (I am not making this up!):

here are some themes that emerged for me…a new form of engagement with citizens; consultation replaced with active listening; consensus building; seeking solutions from those directly involved, not restatement of the problem; collection of data (independent analysis undertaken); world-wide network of researchers and policy makers informing thinking;  recommendations based on evidence-based research; plans developed & costed; accountability for delivery; ongoing monitoring, auditing and evaulation…and this all leads to joined up solutions that are effective.

Finally! Joined up effective solutions to – I’m sorry, what was the problem? I think it was Ramsey McDonald who said he became a democratic socialist after he realised that the workers didn’t want a revolution, they just wanted a decent salary and a good life for their kids. You know what would be truly revolutionary? If Labour MPs realised that workers want hundreds of pointless taxpayer funded commissions even less than they want a permanent revolution.

About these ads

50 Comments »

  1. Sigh.

    I know that many of the followers of Red Alert would automatically say – oh no not another Commission – but think again.

    Well I’ve thought again, and it sounds even more like electoral poison than it did before. In fact, thinking on it one more time, I’d have to say even the name “Commissioner for Social Inclusion” screams “If you’re a taxpayer, you’d be stupid to vote for us!”

    Comment by Psycho.Milt — September 13, 2009 @ 8:06 am

  2. They could share offices with the Department of Putting a Sweater on if You’re Cold.

    Comment by danylmc — September 13, 2009 @ 9:09 am

  3. I think this was what Phil was apologising for.. in advance.

    JC

    Comment by JC — September 13, 2009 @ 9:57 am

  4. CSI: Town Belt. Uncovering crimes against walking sensibly.

    Comment by Richard — September 13, 2009 @ 9:59 am

  5. Commision of Social Inclusion . . . Honestly. Dalziel is like a convicted killer who shows up to her parole board hearing with a hockey mask and chainsaw.

    Comment by danylmc — September 13, 2009 @ 10:10 am

  6. I going to assume that commentators here don’t actually have a problem with the idea – after all, social inclusion leads to great things, and has to be a hell of alot better than the alternative individualistic universe on offer, – and that the problem is with the process…

    So my question is, given the idea, what’s the best way forward with it? Do nothing? Something? Is there an alternative?

    And really, Labour movements tend to be concerned with social inclusion and all sorts of goody touchy feely stuff like that, so they will come out with something like a Social Inclusion Commission. Yet I don’t see anyone poking fun at the Mactional universe of rampant individualism and every man for himself.

    Comment by Christopher — September 13, 2009 @ 10:46 am

  7. The conference hasn’t been a complete waste of time though. The most recent Redalert post reveals –

    “Phil Goff – a Labour man”

    and they didn’t even need a commission to come to that conclusion.

    Altough I’m disappointed there will be no inquiry with full public consultation leading to a referendum on this issue.

    Comment by Neil — September 13, 2009 @ 11:13 am

  8. Yet I don’t see anyone poking fun at the Mactional universe of rampant individualism and every man for himself.

    Clearly you’re not a regular reader of this blog, given the many painful satirical ass-whippings it’s delivered to the “there is no such thing as society” crowd.

    Comment by Psycho.Milt — September 13, 2009 @ 12:06 pm

  9. [...] I am not making this up. The only comment on Red Alert is a trackback ping from the Dim-Post where Danyl can’t believe his luck at being given such material. No else has managed to find the strength to comment on the idea, [...]

    Pingback by The Labour Conference | Kiwiblog — September 13, 2009 @ 2:54 pm

  10. It’s like Lianne ate a whole bag of 1990’s management cliche’s and threw up over her blog.

    Comment by Phil (not Goff) — September 13, 2009 @ 3:30 pm

  11. That’s a bloody brilliant plan that. I’d say the first task of that commission should be to research the free condom idea and set up an equitable way distributing these little rubber items. This could be a research based approach, finding that a good way of doing it would be to attach packets of prophylactics to the weekly advertising materials distributed by the Warehouse, Harvey Norman, Foodtown, Noel Leeming etc. In that way, every household would have a continuous ready supply available, without having to travel to the corner dairy.

    Comment by dimmocrazy — September 13, 2009 @ 4:33 pm

  12. I thought the plan of the socialist gaia conspiracy was to put contraceptives in the water supply? This seems a little too obvious.

    Comment by North — September 13, 2009 @ 5:56 pm

  13. Hey Dimmocrazy;
    I would have to remove the “No Junk Mail” sticker from my letterbox.
    That is unfair.
    It is a hugely flagrant breach of democratic rights.

    Comment by Tauhei Notts — September 13, 2009 @ 6:40 pm

  14. Danyl,

    I’ve been enjoying your blog so far – but your penchant to buy in to the spin and shine of politics rather than the substantive is beginning to really grate.

    If you’ve actually done your fucking research you would know that the Commission for Social Inclusion in Australia has been highly effective in reducing crime, reducing homelessness and reducing unemployment.

    But it’s always easier to take potshots rather than do substantive research.

    Alternative media leading to higher quality independent journalism?

    LOL

    Comment by francoisbagkus — September 14, 2009 @ 3:46 am

  15. If you’ve actually done your fucking research you would know that the Commission for Social Inclusion in Australia has been highly effective in reducing crime, reducing homelessness and reducing unemployment.

    But it’s always easier to take potshots rather than do substantive research.

    Having done some ‘substantive research’ (twenty seconds on google) I’ve learned that the Australian Commission was only set up a year ago and that their mandate has nothing to do with crime or homelessness. There’s no indication on their website, or in the Aussie news media that they’ve achieved any of the claims you’ve made about them.

    Comment by danylmc — September 14, 2009 @ 6:01 am

  16. [...] Even worse, Lianne Dalziel is excited about a Commission for Social Inclusion about which Dim Post says: [...]

    Pingback by Moving on to more of the same « Homepaddock — September 14, 2009 @ 6:08 am

  17. I gave them a Google too. Couldn’t find anything to suggest it’s not another example of a govt hiring people to lobby it at taxpayers’ expense.

    Comment by Psycho.Milt — September 14, 2009 @ 6:55 am

  18. Ah, the smell of napalm and commies roasting. Nothing like it aye comrade francois.

    Comment by dontknowthat — September 14, 2009 @ 6:58 am

  19. Couldn’t find anything to suggest it’s not another example of a govt hiring people to lobby it at taxpayers’ expense.

    I guess all those in favor of a social inculsion commission would be thrilled to see National and ACT set up a ‘Freedom Commission’ staffed with psychopaths from Treasury, the BRT and CIS to provide independent analysis and advice on how best to ‘maximise indivudual and economic freedom’? After all, who could be opposed to freedom?

    Comment by danylmc — September 14, 2009 @ 7:11 am

  20. Social inclusion – what the fuck is wrong with that you idiot? Jesus man we live in a country that blindly sweeps along hoping everyone will just get along.What is wrong with community building dipshit?

    When kiwiblog thinks your making sense its really time to give up.

    Comment by x — September 14, 2009 @ 10:57 am

  21. Way to completely miss the point of Danyl’s last comment, x.

    Of course there’s nothing wrong with ‘social inclusion’ and ‘community building’ – there’s nothing wrong with ‘freedom’ either. But it’s reasonable to ask what a government commission dedicated to those things will actually accomplish, and whether the money can be spent directly towards those objectives, instead of funding a committee when the government in power already knows what it’d like to do.

    Comment by marks the spot — September 14, 2009 @ 11:53 am

  22. Sorry, that was me before – spared you a boring copy+edit satire job, x :)

    Comment by Sam Finnemore — September 14, 2009 @ 11:54 am

  23. “Of course there’s nothing wrong with ’social inclusion’ and ‘community building’ – there’s nothing wrong with ‘freedom’ either.”

    Mark I agree – They are all tied together. We live together and will stay so unless you want to go back to a nomadic lifestyle.It’s reasonable to ask things as you say but it’s not reasonable to jump frenzily on dalziels back as if she is insane.

    In fact that’s insane. I don’t want insanity in political discussion. It’s disturbing.

    Comment by x — September 14, 2009 @ 12:49 pm

  24. Although its probably quite urgent to introduce some form of taxation on housing to close loopholes and quiet down our fascination with this largely non productive activity.. there’s a need for caution.

    I remember when house sales were taxed back in the 70s.. all it did was redirect activity into other non productive activity and pissed people off.

    Rather, something like a CGT needs to be part of overall tax package that doesn’t create other anomalies, and concurrently there needs to be something done about our cavalier company directors, finance houses and so on.. not much point in closing down housing investments and throwing investors to the wolves in other areas of the economy.

    JC

    Comment by JC — September 14, 2009 @ 1:16 pm

  25. JC, be careful you sound to rational for this thread.I agree.

    Comment by x — September 14, 2009 @ 1:26 pm

  26. @ 20 “hoping everyone will just get along”

    Not me, I tend to not get along with excessively abrasive people.

    Not only that but I also do not blindly hope that we will get along either.

    Comment by cj_nza — September 14, 2009 @ 2:03 pm

  27. Government mandated inclusiveness infringes the rights of hermits.

    I’m glad they are worrying about inclusiveness: that thing with blood and stool testing going tits-up in Auckland is just a side show.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — September 14, 2009 @ 2:27 pm

  28. “Not me, I tend to not get along with excessively abrasive people.

    Not only that but I also do not blindly hope that we will get along either.

    So back to wandering the land for your food.Also no one is advocating blindness as a solution other than the host of this thread.

    Excessively abrasive people ….dear, dear if only everyone went back to tipping their hat eh.New ideas are abrasive…live a new life my friend, the old one is fatally flawed.

    Comment by x — September 15, 2009 @ 9:06 am

  29. And when one considers that the cost of said Commish would have to be added to our net borrowing, and thus have to be explained to the gimlet-eyed creditors who we would be asking politely to stump up with the renminbi, the whole enterprise sounds a bit like a Ministry for Silly Walks….

    Comment by waymad — September 15, 2009 @ 9:52 am

  30. @ 28

    Some things that struck me,

    1) The language that Dalziel use as rationale for her inspiration is offered sounding hollow, it reads; “we should replace cliché with better sounding cliché. I am convinced it can work!”

    Our host’s response “I am not making this up!” seems a reasonable comment to make.

    2) You seem to advocate Social Inclusion but go about it in a way that seemed to be abrasive and divisive rather than attempting an engagement that is “social” or “inclusive”. I simply remarked on the irony.

    3) Change does not equate to improvement is spite if your optimism. Even if the old life is fatally flawed (What does it make you or any of us as a product of it?) it does not mean that any change will be an improvement.

    Few people are opposed to change if the benefit to the affected is obvious most people are opposed to change if being worse of is a likely outcome. New ideas are not abrasive simply by virtue of being new ideas.

    Comment by cj_nza — September 15, 2009 @ 10:28 am

  31. “it does not mean that any change will be an improvement.”

    Oh jesus, now your advocating a fear of looking for solution.

    O.k i’m going to walk you slowly through this one.We have been changing ever since you were a single cell lifeform. Change is usually poor when the purpose of the change is illogical. “Can we smack our kids John?” “No, because now i’m Prime Minister and have the police, welfare agencies and social workers pointing out the benefits and social science studies of not re-introducing violence back to childcare I think it’s a poor change on every rational point. ” Thanks Mr Key for actually giving a shit.

    Is inclusion a problem in this country? fuck yes.
    Is a simple whackdown of the idea pathetic because according to your cosy views “change is bad ya know” incredibly frustrating? Hell yes.

    You will have to accept a ceratin amount of abrasiveness when you yourself haven’t the decency to research or hear the idea out. If you feel included in this society then good for you but don’t except your cosy,singular views to be the norm. We have problems in this society and just sitting in your little world grumbling about the manners of posters who disagree with you is lame.

    Please grow up.

    Comment by x — September 15, 2009 @ 7:14 pm

  32. “it does not mean that any change will be an improvement.”

    Oh jesus, now your advocating a fear of looking for solution.

    O.k i’m going to walk you slowly through this one.We have been changing ever since you were a single cell lifeform. Change is usually poor when the purpose of the change is illogical. “Can we smack our kids John?” “No, because now i’m Prime Minister and have the police, welfare agencies and social workers pointing out the benefits and social science studies of not re-introducing violence back to childcare I think it’s a poor change on every rational point. ” Thanks Mr Key for actually giving a shit.

    Is inclusion a problem in this country? fuck yes.
    Is a simple whackdown of the idea pathetic because according to your cosy views “change is bad ya know” incredibly frustrating? Hell yes.

    You will have to accept a ceratin amount of abrasiveness when you yourself haven’t the decency to research or hear the idea out. If you feel included in this society then good for you but don’t except your cosy,singular views to be the norm. We have problems in this society and just sitting in your little world grumbling about the manners of posters who disagree with you is lame.

    Please grow up.Debate is good in a democracy.

    Comment by x — September 15, 2009 @ 7:15 pm

  33. “Can we smack our kids John?” “No, because now i’m Prime Minister and have the police, [so I may initiate violence against you and your kind, but it's "never okay" for you, not even to defend yourself and family against crims]”

    Dude, you’re funny! :^)

    “Is inclusion a problem in this country? fuck yes.”
    Not really, I already have a drug addict solo-mum and her brood living off my earnings. They’ve been “included” into my budgetary considerations.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — September 15, 2009 @ 8:06 pm

  34. “Dude, you’re funny! :^)”

    dude, you’re impossible to understand.

    Comment by x — September 15, 2009 @ 8:38 pm

  35. “I already have a drug addict solo-mum and her brood living off my earnings.”

    Well maybe hanging out with you requires drugs.

    Comment by x — September 15, 2009 @ 8:39 pm

  36. I’m assuming you’re trying to be funny, but just in case you’re stupid: over one third of earnings go in income tax to pay DPB to women with live-in men friends who may end up abusing their kids. I only know 5 women getting the DPB. 3 of them appear (IMHO but I’m no “expert”) to not qualify.

    What I pay in GST I probably get back in 20 free-ECE hours and silly Kiwisaver subsidies.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — September 16, 2009 @ 7:13 am

  37. oops that’s one third of “my” earnings. And my wife’s.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — September 16, 2009 @ 7:14 am

  38. “over one third of earnings go in income tax to pay DPB to women with live-in men friends who may end up abusing their kids.”

    Mate, you are very, very sick.

    Comment by x — September 16, 2009 @ 12:25 pm

  39. Thankfully not, but I AM a teensy bit angry.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — September 16, 2009 @ 1:09 pm

  40. anger sickness

    Comment by x — September 23, 2009 @ 1:03 pm

  41. Actually, x, you are right: sick and tired I am.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — September 23, 2009 @ 1:54 pm

  42. over one third of earnings go in income tax to pay DPB to women with live-in men friends who may end up abusing their kids

    The DPB is about five percent of the social welfare budget which is about 30% of the total budget . . .

    Comment by danylmc — September 23, 2009 @ 3:58 pm

  43. “I only know 5 women getting the DPB. 3 of them appear (IMHO but I’m no “expert”) to not qualify.”

    Just the kind of forward-thinking, paradigm shifting statistical analysis this country needs!

    Comment by Sam Finnemore — September 23, 2009 @ 5:12 pm

  44. “The DPB is about five percent of the social welfare budget which is about 30% of the total budget . . .”

    True, the $1,646,835,000 earmarked for DPB in 2010 is only around 2.2% of the total 2010 appropriation of $74,240,137,000 (I do stand to be corrected on these googled numbers from Treasury).

    So the 4,173,460 inhabitants of NZ have to stump up $17,790 each to run the state, or $394.64 each to pay the DPB.
    I’m not sure how many people are too young or too old to work and therefore contribute to the tax take, but lets say 30%. That means we workers have to stump up $25,412 each. Now you see why “they” introduced GST and keep arguing about the need for excise on booze and fags.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — September 23, 2009 @ 6:01 pm

  45. Sam @ 43, I’m not quite sure what you are getting at. I do know that the small sample does not mean that 60% of ALL DPB recipients are not “entitled” to some of my earnings.
    But if you are so happy to give so much money away, when the libertarian “utopia” arrives, you can set up a charity to raise money to disperse to distressed single mums. I may even donate, but hospital & educational charities will prob be my first choice recipients.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — September 23, 2009 @ 6:11 pm

  46. “$394.64 each to pay the DPB.”

    sounds like a deal to me. Having been raised by solo mum I have some insight into what that world is like. I do know personally some solo mums who have abused the system which is annoying but the amount of money wasted on them is small so I don’t really care.

    You’re going to have to deal with the fact that many people support having a DPB and you are just going to have to suck it or fuck off to the liberian paradise of your choice.

    And by the way, my mother worked in factories and never got the DPB.

    Comment by Neil — September 23, 2009 @ 7:48 pm

  47. It would be nice to believe in a golden world of harmonious relationship but it’s not here yet, in fact mummy and daddy families have always had problems,..but hey mrs fist, someone has to look after our youngest citizens and to pay them to do that should be (is) the backbone of civilisation.

    Comment by x — September 24, 2009 @ 12:50 am

  48. “You’re going to have to deal with the fact that many people support having a DPB”
    Yep, evidenced by all of them phoning into talk back and stating how they didn’t mind these “solo” mums having more money than they themselves earned in a 37.5 hour week

    “And by the way, my mother worked in factories and never got the DPB.”
    Perhaps you are my Uncle Neil, Neil: you are describing my paternal Grandmother! Are you one of 10 siblings?
    My wife’s paternal grandmother was in a similar situation due to the untimely death of her husband. In her situation, extended family step up to the mark with childcare.

    “someone has to look after our youngest citizens” Yep, I’m looking after my two, plus some faceless other ones. It’s a shame their own parents don’t look after them and the rest of us are forced to. Lots of poor folk pull themselves up by their boot straps, I only need to look at Neil and within my own extended family.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — September 24, 2009 @ 7:33 am

  49. “Lots of poor folk pull themselves up by their boot straps”

    I agree with that and understand the trap of long-term welfare dependence but still consider the DPB to be necessary. As long as there are pathways for women to move into employment from the DPB I think that it’s a very good and necssary support for women bringing up children by themselves.

    Comment by Neil — September 24, 2009 @ 7:50 am

  50. “Yep, evidenced by all of them phoning into talk back and stating how they didn’t mind these “solo” mums having more money than they themselves earned in a 37.5 hour week.”

    o.k also, mummy is paying the rent, utilities , food, schooling, toys, books,
    all the shit that will make these kids be our greatest generation.I’ve seen DPB accounts. There’s no fat for a good mother or father and i believe the majority of them are. Marriage is a nightmare for half the population, let’s just admit it.

    Bringing up kids is mental work. Look at the strange generation around you, a generation who wore their families down simply by being allowed to talk earlier in life.

    Comment by x — September 24, 2009 @ 10:05 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 417 other followers

%d bloggers like this: