Lyndon Hood - welfarist, Lower Hutt
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Any policy yet? You know who I'm talking about. No?
Of course, there's stuff from Labour to come too. Word is, we can expect tears before final historical Treaty grievance deadline.
Still no policy? Okay then, lets generalise.
It seems Don Brash isn't actually having that much influence over National policy, which will probably annoy all those former ACT voters no end if he actually gets to be PM. But I still get the idea that the general stance is more radical - at the very least more like the last National government - than they're trying to make out.
Cards on the table. I was born in the mid-70s and a lot of my political opinions were formed over the late 80s and the 90s. I'm inclined to accept that some kind of Rogeresque reforms were necessary; I'm entirely happy they stopped where they did and I think they could probably do with a touch more rolling back.
There's some real political philosophy I want to get to one day. You'll often find my responses to particular issues on Scoop. And then there's this:
I don't like the tone of National, or at least of some of the supporting comment I've seen. Tax rebates are reward for work. In the circumstances, this translates to "you get what you grab". Similarly incentives for beneficiaries amounts to being stopping being nice, or in some cases being actively nasty, to beneficiaries.
Faced with that kind of attitude, I have this thought, inspired I suppose by John A Lee, via Mervyn Thompson:
What about the children of the poor?
It's not my only argument, or even my first choice. It's certainly not a blanket justification for everything the Labour-Progessive government has done. But it's a goodie.
What about the children of the poor?
The position they are in is self-evidently not their fault. They need to live. And if you deny them what little nourishment, care, health, society and culture went can get them, that is simply a waste.
If you find the idea of wasted human potential too flaky, think of it as a waste of economic productivity.
Opinions on how to deal with this, naturally, differ.
Speaking as a white guy with at least indirect access to a good income that's already paid its loan, the declared National policies that I object to will only actually harm me indirectly. For example, by screwing up society.
If you ask, National probably say the poor will be better off their way. Well, actually, Brash, who seems to sometimes become honest when cornered, doesn't think he has has much control over child poverty.
Thing is, I don't get the feeling they actually care.
New-ish Hood: Clark Announces Election - Hundreds Flee To Australia
Of course, there's stuff from Labour to come too. Word is, we can expect tears before final historical Treaty grievance deadline.
Still no policy? Okay then, lets generalise.
It seems Don Brash isn't actually having that much influence over National policy, which will probably annoy all those former ACT voters no end if he actually gets to be PM. But I still get the idea that the general stance is more radical - at the very least more like the last National government - than they're trying to make out.
Cards on the table. I was born in the mid-70s and a lot of my political opinions were formed over the late 80s and the 90s. I'm inclined to accept that some kind of Rogeresque reforms were necessary; I'm entirely happy they stopped where they did and I think they could probably do with a touch more rolling back.
There's some real political philosophy I want to get to one day. You'll often find my responses to particular issues on Scoop. And then there's this:
I don't like the tone of National, or at least of some of the supporting comment I've seen. Tax rebates are reward for work. In the circumstances, this translates to "you get what you grab". Similarly incentives for beneficiaries amounts to being stopping being nice, or in some cases being actively nasty, to beneficiaries.
Faced with that kind of attitude, I have this thought, inspired I suppose by John A Lee, via Mervyn Thompson:
What about the children of the poor?
It's not my only argument, or even my first choice. It's certainly not a blanket justification for everything the Labour-Progessive government has done. But it's a goodie.
What about the children of the poor?
The position they are in is self-evidently not their fault. They need to live. And if you deny them what little nourishment, care, health, society and culture went can get them, that is simply a waste.
If you find the idea of wasted human potential too flaky, think of it as a waste of economic productivity.
Opinions on how to deal with this, naturally, differ.
Speaking as a white guy with at least indirect access to a good income that's already paid its loan, the declared National policies that I object to will only actually harm me indirectly. For example, by screwing up society.
If you ask, National probably say the poor will be better off their way. Well, actually, Brash, who seems to sometimes become honest when cornered, doesn't think he has has much control over child poverty.
Thing is, I don't get the feeling they actually care.
New-ish Hood: Clark Announces Election - Hundreds Flee To Australia
