Here's the thing. Sue Bradford has a very dim view of the human nature. Every beneficiary is a blameless victim and their capacity to be anything else is limited. People are "forced" into the benefit system.Theodore Dalrymple sees human beings as people with a capacity to make choices, to adapt, to be resourceful. He is not advocating abolishing the welfare state overnight but calling a halt to the future availability of benefits.
WELFARE CONDEMNS MORE KIDS THAN IT SAVES. Dalrymple argued for the statement and easily, gently and humourously, carried the day.
I asked a question. There had been a brief discussion of the welfare reforms in the US which Dalrymple admitted he wasn't an expert on but understood that they had been instigated with the weight of public opinion on board. Where, then, is British public opinion, (given NZ is more likely to be influenced by their government's actions?)
Mr Dalrymple responded that they weren't even having the debate. And that NZ shouldn't follow anything the UK does.
10 comments:
I think we was going into an arse-kicking competition with a one-legged opponent...
I think HE was going into an arse-kicking competition with a one-legged opponent...
Is there a video of this possible for those who couldn't see it in person? This sounds great.
It was a great "debate". In it, Bradford admitted that she thought Dalrymple was going to argue from a different angle, but none the less stuck to her pre-written speech.
I enjoyed Dr Dalrymple's delivery, his practical experience was obviously the key-factor in my mind. His humour helped to facilitate his delivery of some pretty heady stats.
Bradford listed people selling their bodies if there were no benefits. If that is the case how does her Political party justify supporting a Government that brought the Prositution law reform Act into being. An act that greatly encourages people of limited means (and beneficiaries) to sell bodoes.
There was a vocal valkrie beside me that was getting wound up to deliver a "what about me" type of question (she came in after the formal debate had finished and didn't even know who was debating). I took my girlfriend's advice and bowed out, but part of me would have liked to listen to Dalrymple's replies to further audience questions.
Jason, what did you make of Deborah Coddington's question - did we made a mistake when we privatised the railways???
I think I heard her right given Sue Bradford's retort - that's an interesting question given your ex-leader sold them off.
Hi Linsay,
Yes, I heard that too (although she didn't use Debrorah's last name, I assumed it was Coddington).
I can see the benefits of keeping the Railways in Government ownership, but like most things the Government gets involved with it was critically bloated and attracted a rather "lowest common denominator workforce"
My opinion is that Bradford was just using the age-old technique of trying to dominate the conversation. Bradford had a point, but only as much as is convenient.
I just read in "Out of the Red" that NZ Railways was considered to be worse than All India Railway or something like that.
It's probably a bit late for my comment but I didn't say it was a mistake privatising the railways (and it wasn't Richard Prebble, it was Ruth Richardson) I said there was some disquiet that we had not replaced it with anything better. It was privatised primarily for economic reasons, not philosophical, and I agreed that we had wasted millions of taxpayers' money propping up a state owned business which the state couldn't run. However, in that the railways catered for the lowest skilled and least educated (unlike, for instance, telecommunications, banking, or printing), we had not replaced it with anything better. Now we spend $6B a year of taxpayer money on welfare beneficiaries. At least when we spent it on shovel-leaners in the railways, they got up and went to work so their kids were brought up with at least one parent who went to work each day. Now we spend it on successive generations who will never know what it's like to get up, go to work, be on time, take some sort of responsibility for your life. I don't know what the answer is, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't ask the question. Interestingly, Dalrymple, excellent though he is, did not have any solutions either apart from the usual one of reduce entitlements in the future, something a conservative govt could do but which would just as easily be undone by a socialist government. Where's the solution in that?
Deborah:
I feel that perhaps we would be better off with a Government owned railway provided it has a really strong culture of advancement/education in it. You know, the "learn while you work" thing, encouraging lowly skilled workers to get promoted. Some shovel-leaners will only ever want to be shovel-leaners but at least there would be room for advancement.
Hi Deborah, When the unemployment was necessarily created we should have, counter-intuitively, tightened welfare. I believe the unemployment drove many families onto not just the dole but the dole and the DPB as couples broke up (sometimes intentionally). Through the nineties, onto the sickness and invalid's benefit as people failed to recover from the shock of being jobless and longterm unemployed. We let the situtation become far worse than it needed to be. Now we actually spend less than $1 billion on the unemployment benefit and the rest is on other benefits.
I think Dalrymple sees his role as one of changing ideas and public opinion. Practical solutions are of no use until the politicians have public support for them. But I have seen a mdeia report he advocated scrapping the DPB which would be a good place to start.
Post a Comment