Labour desperate with diametrically opposed positions

Today Labour released its welfare policy, now named ' child policy'.

According to the NZ Herald:

"We consider that the ways the In Work Tax Credit stigmatises beneficiary families, undervalues care, and keeps poor families income unnecessarily low outweigh any remaining issues about work incentives," the policy says.

It was Labour that introduced the In Work Tax Credit because they believed that the best way out of poverty was work.

This is a major turn around. It betrays their earlier position, arrived at under better intellects than Annette King's.

The Social Security Amendment Bill 2006, passed under Labour revolved around the principle:

"Work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being."

This policy reneges on that position. Implementation of it would drive up beneficiary numbers as the financial incentive to work is destroyed.

Observation about competition

Watching TV these days nobody can not notice just how much competition shapes what's on offer. Constant Master Chefs, survival shows, talent shows like X Factor, American Idol and whatever-countries Got Talent, home development shows like The Block, Dancing With The Stars and so on.

Radical feminists, and their co-opts, tried to shape a modern culture that largely obliterated competiton. Because competition means winners and losers; competition means hurt feelings; competition challenges equality of outcomes.

What a bitch. They lost.

National's welfare reforms - lots of smoke but not much fire

My column about National's welfare reform proposals has just been published over at The NZ Centre for Political Research.

4 in 5 reject Gareth Morgan's plan

Three NZ Herald reporters took to the road and interviewed 522 people about the upcoming election and their reponse to policies. They call it their Mood of the Nation Survey and it will no doubt provide a number of articles over the next week or so.

Today they detail how most are apparently still against sole parents being work-tested because it would hurt the children. I have to do better on getting across the other side of the coin; that the DPB hurts the children more by often depriving them of fathers, and keeping them poor environments where the risk of neglect and abuse is higher. At least the government is well aware of the reality.

But some good news:

And 79 per cent reject Dr Morgan's proposed $11,000 basic income for everyone, because it would encourage some not to work and because it would be too harsh for sole parents, who now get at least $19,600 including family tax credits, and superannuitants, who get $17,700 if living alone.

Only 15 per cent support the idea and 5 per cent agree in part. "You'd be taking from people what they are entitled to, to give to other people who might not need it," says Devonport doctor Amanda Jones.

So the general noise Morgan says shows New Zealanders want a new way and all the favourable response by way of comment to his series of articles in the NZ Herald isn't reflected amongst the broader community.

Announcing...WELFAREREFORM.CO.NZ

For some time I have been working on a new website called Welfare Reform. This has only been possible because of the generous help of Linda Reid who encouraged me to create a more comprehensive site than just my blog. Linda has done all the technical work involved in building the site unpaid. And I am indebted to her.

With the election less than three weeks away it is ready to officially launch.

The site is intended to be a resource for anyone interested in welfare reform. It contains most of the information I have obtained from the Ministry of Social Development under the Official Information Act since 2001. It has links to overseas sites, recommended books, press releases, interviews etc.

Because it has taken me so long to put together given my changed 'occupational' circumstances this year, there is a possibility some of the information or a link may have already become obsolete. If you find anything that doesn't work please let me know.

And if any fellow bloggers want to link to the site that would be much appreciated.

National's welfare policies - time to bring out the accusations of "misogyny"

I was just listening to political commentator Linda Clark on TV3 saying she thinks there is a gender split in the response to National's welfare policy. That even well-paid, well-educated women like her (and she included the interviewer) have trouble juggling children and work and affording quality childcare so (by inference) they empathise with the plight of poorer women. The males she has heard commenting On the policy seem on the other hand to think people will like it.

This is the slant the left are putting on the proposals. That they are misogynistic.

Shallow. Do they really believe that the way the DPB has undermined family and harmed children means more of it is needed? That when all is said and done the DPB has been good for women?

Apart from which, the women I speak to feel somewhat aggrieved that they work, get maligned for putting their kids in childcare and pay the taxes that fund others who get praised for staying home. One, reacting to the idea that a child added to a benefit should get one year of state assistance in line with parental leave said to me, nobody with a job gets a year of paid parental leave.

Also I hear plenty of female callers to talkback supporting a toughening up on welfare.

Clark went on to say she didn't even think Paula Bennett was comfortable with the policy watching her body language. I saw an interview with John Campbell and Bennett didn't look comfortable to be honest. She needs to spend more time enunciating what the problems are instead of defending the details of the policy. She needs to come out and attack the people who would preserve the status quo or extend welfare. Their's - and Linda Clark's - is that 'soft bigotry of low expectations.'

Thanks

Many thanks to all of you who sent birthday wishes yesterday via Facebook and e-mail. Much appreciated. Sorry I haven't sent personal thanks. Have been frantically busy. National's release of its welfare policy meant I had a number of calls for a response. I did a couple of radio interviews but turned down TVNZ. I just couldn't face the sleepless night that typically precedes an early morning slot. A full column about the reforms has just been completed and I will post it soon. Have quite a bit of artwork queued up and kids have assignments and end-of-year exams which they need help with. So I better get on!

Blog stats

Don't know if Tumeke is still collecting these but as I have nothing else to say today....yet..... I thought I'd post my stats. Next month will be the blog's 6th birthday. Golly how time flies.

Welfare policy: Lots of name-changing hides lack of substance

I don't like all the name changes. What will the IT implementation and printing costs be? The problems of dependency aren't going to be changed by re-naming benefits. I have always opposed name changes, as did National when Labour looked like doing it. Ironically now Labour opposes what National looks like doing.

The part-time work-testing on the DPB drops from youngest child aged 6 to 5. However if another child is added the work-testing rules are suspended for one year. Because a lot of people transit on and off the DPB it'll be interesting to see if the same rule applies to a new benefit spell. Unhappily there is still room for someone to keep adding a children to avoid work-testing.

Between one third and a half of current DPB recipients started on welfare as teenagers. If a teenager can still get 5 years on the DPB without work-testing (and at 16 or 17, five years into the future is a very long time away) is that going to be a big enough discouragement to stop this continuing to happen? Many countries - US, some Canadian provinces and Sweden is thereabouts - expect parents to be in work from when the youngest is one. Norway at three.
The WWG recommended dropping the age to three. Which is when free early childhood education kicks in.

The sickness benefit is already work-tested so no change there.

Reduction goals. They are talking about 66,000 in the next 4 years. In the 4 years running up to 2008, a strong economic growth period, the Unemployment Benefit alone dropped by 52,000. So if the economy improves the goal doesn't look particularly ambitious.

National's leaked welfare policy

NewstalkZB has me saying that National's leaked goal of moving 46,000 off a benefit is "unambitious". I suggested they could double that target. Not sure if they are using other soundbites from the comments I made on request (with very limited information) but here is my reasoning.

People will naturally leave the unemployment benefit as the economy improves. They already are. That's what happened between 2004 and 2007 when the total on the dole dropped by 45,000. So National could meet their three year target without any focus or improvement on the other benefits.

I also said that at $9000 a job, that's very expensive from the taxpayer's point of view. Especially if an improving economy can achieve the same reduction without the extra expenditure.

And it's all very well to talk about moving people off welfare but the arguably more important goal is to stop them moving on. For example of all the babies born in 2010 23 percent were relying on welfare by the end of the year. People going on the DPB with a newborn will frequently stay there for many years - unlike those who typically have a much shorter stay on the unemployment benefit.