Choice from government: work or pregnancy

Sense from The Spectator:

Few could doubt that welfare reform is most urgently needed. The British welfare state is now incubating the very poverty it was designed to eradicate, creating what Beveridge called the ‘giant evil’ of idleness. The welfare state, in effect, ‘employs’ the people who would otherwise be part of the economy. Women suffer most. Girls leaving British schools without decent qualifications are given a choice by the government: work or pregnancy. A lone parent with two children in Britain is assured more disposable income than a hairdresser, post office worker or clerk. Only those both living and working in Westminster could fail to see why this is a problem.

(Hat-tip, The Welfare State We're In)

Roger Douglas - political swansong that needs urgent attention

Roger Douglas speech to the House on the Budget Policy Statement 2011:

On the 28th May 2009 I said in this House that “this is a budget of deficits. A deficit of spending, a deficit of the current account, a deficit of courage, but most importantly, a deficit of imagination”.

I realise that I got it wrong – I was being far too generous to the Government. This country is up the proverbial creek, not only without a paddle, but in a boat that is quickly sinking. We are running a cash deficit of $300 million a week (which is about to get much larger) and the Government’s response has been to act like cowards.

They have refused to do the right thing. They want to fund reports, hold press conferences, give speeches – do everything humanly possible to avoid making any decisions that might be unpopular. I am sick of it. We are in a state of financial ruin and the Government wants to sit on its hands. I am disgusted and have had enough.

New Zealand faces problems that are of a long standing nature. If we look around the world we can see inspiring examples of countries that have had the guts to do what is right, made the tough decisions, and are now enjoying tremendous success.

Their economic prosperity has meant that the vulnerable and old in society are looked after, the physically able have access to productive jobs, the sick have access to healthcare and their children are well-educated. These are the hallmarks of a functioning society. For many politicians in this House a vision of a prosperous society is just too difficult for them to fathom. Steve Chadwick made this clear when she said that her children had already resigned themselves to earning less in New Zealand than they would overseas. Is this the vision and inspiration we see coming out of the Labour Party.

What a great future and vision she has instilled in her children for New Zealand. Instead of looking for reforms that could see us pass Australia many politicians in this House have given up! It is a disgrace and unacceptable from a politician in this House. If this is what you are selling to New Zealand as their future you should give up.

In this speech I do not want to focus on a comparison with Australia, the National Party by rejecting the 2025 taskforce report shows that they do not want to catch Australia. This was too ambitious for them. I want to look at a country that we should be outperforming almost in every respect – Singapore. Singapore has everything against it, it has roughly the same sized population as New Zealand, it has absolutely no mineral wealth, and it could easily fit into Lake Taupō. In almost every respect we should outperform them, however the reality is that we do not even come close.

Let us draw comparisons between the two countries. First, New Zealand GDP growth in 2010 was under 1 percent. Singapore grew at a whopping 14 percent. In 1960, our GDP value was almost 3 times that of Singapore. In the last 20 years, Singapore has raced ahead. In 2015, Singapore will have a GDP value that is 3 times that of New Zealand. If we are to look at labour productivity per capita in New Zealand dollars – Singapore labour productivity in 2010 was $182,546 per person, that is almost twice New Zealand’s $93,365.

Why have they been able to achieve such prosperity with no minerals, no land and a relatively small population? They certainly did not do it by giving $43 million loans to private televisions channels. It is because they were willing to make tough decisions.

Government expenditure accounts for only 17% of GDP, that compares to New Zealand’s 43%. Their tax rates are also low, the top take rate being on 20 cents in every dollar kicking in at around $320,000 New Zealand dollars rather than the 33 cents which kicks in at $70,000 in New Zealand. Most importantly, their politicians had a vision for the future, they put aside short-term political gains and focused on the future – in short they had the guts to do what was right. They outlined a blueprint of where they want to go and they moved swiftly to achieve it. In doing so, they have left New Zealand in the dust.

But that is enough of that. What vision should we lay for New Zealand’s future? The first point should be to not accept apathy and poverty. We need new leaders that are inspired and inspiring. They need to implement quality reform. I want to outline what will be needed to leap over Australia and catch Singapore.

We need to decide to switch from government delivery, to private sector delivery like Singapore did in a whole range of industries. I have an 11 point action plan to get this country back on track:

1. Tax Choice

1. Introduce a $35,000 dollar tax free threshold.
2. Right to stay on current system for over 30s if they so choose.
3. Allow the poorest in society to keep their money – compassionate.
4. Singapore has a tax free threshold of around $21,000 NZD, and only taxes at 2% up to around $35,000 NZD.



2. Flat tax rate beyond $35,000.

1. Singapore have significantly flattened their tax rate. There top tax bracket is 20%, kicks in at around $320,000 NZD.



3. Replace company tax with an asset tax

1. 1.2 cents in the dollar (not available to fee based industries i.e. lawyers and engineers).



4. Healthcare –

1. Singapore 1 – 3 percent GDP v 9% in NZ.



5. Education

1. Māori – underachievement For Maori, 56 percent will not gain NCEA level 1 or above before they leave school.
2. More generallya third of school leavers fail to achieve NCEA Level 2 or higher.
3. Singapore – education is seen to be a great source of social mobility. Singapore has released statistics recently that show that children from disadvantaged backgrounds continue to achieve academically. Of students in the bottom third socio-economic bracket, about half score within the top two-thirds of their Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). This is cannot be said about New Zealand.



6. Welfare

1. Minimum income.
2. Time limit.
3. Re-education.



7. Government expenditure

1. Goal to get total government expenditure under 20 percent – ideally get it to 17% like Singapore.



8. Regulations

1. Get rid of remaining tariffs.
2. Cut through red tape.



9. Immigration

1. Open up immigration – get skilled people in.



10. Reform Government assets



I want to provide a future where my grandchildren live in New Zealand and can earn wages that are competitive with the world. I have a vision. I know how to get there. I refuse to be like Steve Chadwick and let my grandchildren accept that we will always be poorer than everyone else. It is disgusting. It is time to wake up – it is time to lay the groundwork for our children, make the tough decisions, rather than sit back and give in to apathy and poverty.

Willie Jackson at ACT conference

Listening to Radio Live yesterday I heard John Tamihere make mention that Willie Jackson is speaking at the ACT conference this weekend. First I had heard of it."You would speak to a hole in the wall if you were paid to, " Tamihere observed.

What would Willie Jackson have to say to an ACT audience?

Willie Jackson, Broadcaster: Why Maori should be given
special treatment in New Zealand today

First he will have to define what special treatment is, which will at least include having reserved seats on the Auckland council. Hide is completely opposed to that and I can't imagine any ACT member supporting them. Remember ACT is going to heavily campaign on 'One Law For All' this year.

No doubt it will include the recognition of Maori customary title. ACT is ambivalent on that but against the Seabed and Foreshore Bill. So that'll be a red rag to a bull to at least some audience members, Coastal Coalition types perhaps.

He is there because Willie courts any attention, and because ACT are courting media attention. Silly Willie.

No reasoning person can argue with one law for all. But I don't want to be involved with the anti-Maori sentiment it seeks and succeeds in provoking for the purposes of vote-buying. There will be racists in that audience and Willie himself is racist. Result? They will simply reinforce each others views which will only become further entrenched in the process.

Or no. Silly me actually. This is the enlightened, progressive, big-hearted ACT that engages and listens. Humble apologies. We'll have a little less cynicism from you young lady. Yes Mum.

Then and now

It is a shock to me that 1981 is 30 years ago. Yesterday, looking for a incident I want to research, I looked through all of the Evening Post for January 1981. Fascinating but tiresome when on microfilm. Scanning through all the sport and classified and supplementary advertising is hard on the eyes and neck.

What were the issues of the day?

Violent crime was at unacceptable levels and birching was the proposed solution. Birching. Yes. A serious debate was being had by the public and in parliament and penal reforms groups were enacting such a practice publicly by way of protest.

Child abuse was on the rise.

Red tape was crippling business.

Road deaths were out of control and young drivers were the worst culprits.

Unemployment among young Maori was estimated at around 50 percent. But benefits to 16 and 17 year-olds shouldn't be scrapped because the education system couldn't cope with them staying on at school.

And women should stay out of the workforce, stay at home and be mothers, as a solution to generally rising unemployment.

I was 21. That was NZ then and not much progress has been made on many of these issues. The red tape is different, violence is worse but perhaps more localised, child abuse is arguably worse, unemployment is higher than it was then. The best improvement would be in the reduction in road deaths - although you wouldn't know it listening to the media.

Trying to resurrect the debate over the WWG report

I said that the opponents of the report would lose more by being denied the debate triggered by the WWG report. Accordingly, today a number, probably working in cahoots, have issued releases or made blog posts in an attempt to reignite the issue.

Time to dismiss Welfare Working Group report, The Greens

Welfare Working Group recommendations flawed without investment, COMVOICES

Wrong-headed Welfare Working Group miss the point,NZCTU

If only those poor people would stop breeding, The Hand Mirror

A beneficiary advocate says proposals to contract out welfare services will create an industry out of misery, Sue Bradford

The only one I have a reaction to is Meteria Turei's, on behalf of the Greens;

“The earthquake in Christchurch has shown the compassionate and supportive power of communities. In that context the Welfare Working Group’s report looks incredibly harsh and inappropriate.”

My feeling is that most New Zealanders can differentiate between emergency aid and lifestyle welfare. The WWG report is an attempt to deal with the latter.

By the end of December 2009 14,394 babies born that year were being supported by a main benefit. A big chunk of the ensuing dependency must have been preventable. The earthquake was not.

US job figures disappoint?

That's the headline. The question mark is mine.

The keenly awaited jobs figures have been released in the US and experts are disappointed.

Unemployment has dropped just below nine percent, and more than 190 thousand new jobs were created.

Government employee numbers dropped because of cutbacks but hiring in manufacturing, health care, construction and transportation numbers increased.

Experts say the 8.9% unemployment rate is still too high to consider the US economic recovery strong.

They say around 250,000 new jobs were needed at this time.

It is disappointing for those unemployed at this time but the really good news is the rebalancing.

There is the essential movement out of the public sector and into the private. Any recovery without that is artificial. It is the private sector that provides the jobs that create wealth directly or indirectly.

Sunday morning rave

Usually people label me as right-wing. Yet I have never been a National member, never voted for National and generally take so little interest in their party politics that I didn't even know whether Jami-lee Ross was a bloke or a girl until I googled the name and image after misinterpreting the opening line from a Standard post.

I was firmly in the ACT camp when it was classical liberal, which is not right-wing.

Classical liberal philosophy promotes above all else individual rights. It opposes the power of the state over individual rights.

On the other side are collective rights. These are pushed by left-wingers. They love the state because it promotes the interests of groups to the detriment of individuals.

But true right wingers are collectivists too. They want the state to promote the rights of groups they belong to. National has a few of those.

A lot of nonsense is talked about left and right in this country. And from time to time I even indulge in it myself for the simple reason that most people are too poorly educated to understand anything else.

There is no classical liberal party in this country currently. Some talk about National having a classical liberal wing but that's a joke. Especially when people regret Simon Power's resignation because he led their more liberal team. Power? He steered through many pieces of legislation that offended against individual rights. And plans to ram through more before November.

Some people just can't grasp the importance of individual rights. People like Sean Plunket who last week took a very illiberal position on his talkshow. He was aghast at the judge's decision about the Wanganui gang patch ban. He believes the wearing of the patch should be illegal across the country. So should gang membership and the very gangs themselves. He says that to get a patch someone has to commit a crime therefore all patch wearers are criminals.

It was gratifying to hear some people challenge him saying, punish the crime, not the process of association or expression of it. I put it to him that some gang leaders are trying to turn their gangs around, recalling an interview he did when he was still at Radio NZ. He interviewed a Sally Army rep and a gang leader over the matter of a group attending rehab at a location in Turangi. Plunket was hostile towards the gang member and seemed to be trying to stir up community unrest about the rehab activity. My point to Plunket was that some gang members do turn their backs on criminal activity but not on the gang. The gang is more than just men. It is their women and children. It is entirely possible that someone sports a patch when they are not currently criminal or have already served time for past misdeeds. I acknowledged it would be naive to believe many fitted the description. But tried to get him to see that the regalia itself should not be illegal. Still he insists that in the matter of gangs like the Mongrel Mob and Black Power there is no room for 'niceties' like freedom of expression, freedom of association, etc. On this matter he would sit quite comfortably in the ACT party.

Relating the exchange to my husband he broke into the famous passage, "First they came for ...

That is exactly why individual rights must be preserved at all cost, even when we don't like the individuals who rights we uphold.

And it is a sobering thought that there isn't a party in our parliament that bases its philosophy and actions on this idea.

The earthquake bill

An interview with Mike Hoskings, NewstalkZB, Thursday morning, about whether or not trimming Working For Families would go any way towards meeting the earthquake bill (starts at 20:41). Pieces were spliced into subsequent news bulletins and (to my frustration) I am still being described as a 'former ACT candidate'. It'll probably get carved into my gravestone.

ACT on message

Brief and simple so re-produced in full;

Hide - Vaulting Matilda March 4
Friday, 4 March 2011, 7:53 pm
Press Release: ACT New Zealand


ISSUE 15, March 4 2011
REPRIORITISE, REBUILD

These are grim times for Canterbury, and indeed for New Zealand. Our second largest city is devastated and the people of Christchurch are enduring the hardest of times.

We are now forced to make hard choices, to focus intensely on only the highest priorities – we need to face reality.

Our starting point is not good. Our government has been borrowing a massive $300 million per week simply to keep afloat. That’s almost $200 per week for each and every Kiwi household.

And now we have Christchurch to rebuild.

However it’s not just government that overspends – as a nation we have built up overseas debt of $162 billion, 85% of GDP.

We have seen the economic and social turmoil in the most highly indebted European countries. The future has arrived for them. Those in deep trouble were the countries with the highest current account deficits, the highest levels of overseas debt and the highest levels of government debt. If you need to know what the future holds on our present track, just look at the so-called PIIGS: Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain.

The reason we have so much wasteful, pointless and counterproductive government spending is that politicians have every incentive to spend more, and promise too much. As voters we encourage them.

The middle class want free childcare. Students want interest-free loans. Pensioners want pensions and gold cards. On and on it goes. Every interest group wants their own government department or agency. Helen Clark’s Labour government perfected the art of spending money on key interest groups to hold on to power at all cost.

We couldn’t afford that before the earthquakes and we absolutely cannot now. Government capital spending is going to increase as we rebuild Christchurch.

We must ensure now that the general good prevails over narrower self-interest. Government must live within a budget as tight as the budgets that ordinary households face.

Rodney Hide

Leader, ACT Party

New blog

A new blog coming in from Christchurch with an interesting take on the refugee exodus.

WFF - changes at the top-end won't cut it

Because the PM has suggested making Working For Families less generous in an attempt to find the money needed to pay for the Christchurch recovery the Labour vote-buyer is once again in the news.

Earthquake or no earthquake many economists regard these sorts of family spending programmes as highly ineffective and inefficient. As a vehicle to reduce child poverty they often result in more workless homes. Yes, the In Work tax credit (one of four WFF tax credits) was intended to get more beneficiaries into the workforce but at the same time an evaluation showed more partnered mothers left the work force. ( And then the recession wiped out the increase in single parent employment too.) At the very low income end Family Tax Credits to benefit-dependent families tend to keep people on benefits because of the high marginal tax rates they produce and the incentive that higher benefit-packages bring.

When Labour widened the scope of eligibility for family assistance and re-named it WFF they virtually doubled the cost in the interim period. In 2005, as the opposition leader John Key called WFF "a giant welfare package". And at some point "communism by stealth". That is still true but in order to win the 2008 election he decided he could not risk undoing the scheme. There are over 400,000 families with dependent children - nearly four in five - receiving an average annual entitlement of between $6 and 7,000. Obviously, however the higher up the income scale we go, the lower the payments are. So cutting them back at the top end isn't going to save the government very much money. Not when they are talking about a $5 billion drop in tax revenue due to the loss of economic activity in Christchurch.

Other reasons why WFF is a bad business include the privilege/ penalty process. Childless individuals and couples resent having to pay for other people's choices. No wonder so many migrate. Some research shows that families with children actually accumulate more wealth over a lifetime though larger homes and more constrained life styles. So why is the taxpayer expected to add to that wealth?

Churning significant amounts of income involves dead-weight loss. It is inefficient. The bureaucracy wouldn't be needed if the money was left in someone's pocket in the first instance, rather than taking it and giving it back.

Some people believe that family assistance programmes increase fertility rates but any correlation is uneven across various countries. In fact groups like the Child Poverty Action Group claim NZ puts a shockingly small amount of GDP into family assistance yet we have one of the highest fertility rates in the developed world. Many European countries they admire - Sweden, Denmark and Norway for instance - all have lower rates than NZ.

In the final analysis WFF was a vote-buyer. With NZ's current somewhat dire situation National has to persuade people of the right course of action. What is needed is not necessarily what they want. People do understand this. Key has to convince then to vote using their heads and hearts, and not through their pockets. The programme Labour introduced in 2005 should go.

(The likes of Lianne Dalziel will protest that cuts to spending are the last thing Christchurch needs. So make a temporary exception for Christchurch. The precedent is already set with special spending packages and, last year, the DPB reforms were deferred for Christchurch beneficiaries.)

Stigmatising drink-drivers

Here's a new idea, to me anyway. Various states of America require first time drink drivers to display what are called 'whiskey-plates' on their vehicles. This marks them for the police to pay special attention to and identifies them for the purposes of public reprobation I suppose. I can empathise with the arguments both for and against;

Washington has become the latest state to see a push for a so-called whiskey-plate law to combat drunk driving, a move defense lawyers and civil libertarians say can unfairly stigmatize offenders, and sometimes their families as well, reports the Wall Street Journal.

* The law would require first-time drunk drivers to replace their license plates with easy-to-spot tags that end with the uppercase letter "Z," a signal to police to pay close attention to the car.
* Minnesota, an early adopter of such a law, uses the letter "W" -- hence the term "whiskey plate" -- on a plain white background.
* Offenders in Washington would be required to display the special plates for three years after their driving privileges are restored.

Vanita Gupta, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said whiskey plates were part of a "trend of overcriminalization" in the United States. "These sorts of laws just create obstacles to offenders getting fresh starts and moving forward with their lives," she said.

A handful of other states have adopted similar laws.

* In Minnesota, certain drunk-driving offenders are required to attach special plates to their car for a year after their driving privileges are restored.
* An earlier version of the Minnesota law was enacted in 1988.
* Drunk-driving-related fatalities have fallen steadily since.

Cactus on capitalism, caring and Canterbury

I doubt this blog can add to Cactus' traffic but I must link to her latest piece if only to recognise and acknowledge its worth.

The Left's Deluded Monopoly on Caring


...Capitalism seeks to create wealth. Socialism seeks to buy votes by spending it. For years leftist tilting welfarism has destroyed New Zealand's chance of a nest-egg for this rainiest of days. Over-generous dollops of welfarism has spent up the nations inheritance for moments like these...

Blow out in long-term unemployed - Australia

The Age reports a "blow out in the long-term unemployed".

THE number of people on welfare benefits for more than a year has hit its highest since early 2002, with long-term recipients swelling by nearly 40 per cent since the global financial crisis.

Despite claims of skills and labour shortages, 349,806 people have been on Newstart Allowance for more than a year, according to Centrelink data for January, published by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

I stand to be corrected but surely this was to be expected after people who had been or would have been on the Parenting Payment - DPB equivalent - were required to either go onto or move to the Newstart Allowance.

Imagine if we did the same. Those parents with children 6 or older were moved onto the Unemployment Benefit. The long-term unemployed would increase.

But the journalist makes no mention of this. It seems a shallow analysis. Hence the conundrum of rising long-term unemployment set against falling unemployment.

The response to that welfare report

As the days past last week I became less and less inclined to enter the welfare report debate. Primarily because of the timing, but running a close second to that, the quality of the debate. Here is just one example;

MEDIA RELEASE

Friday 22 February 2011

Celebrate Beneficiaries - The Heroes of the Recession


It is the government who is making bad life choices, not beneficiaries! In fact, Trevor McGlinchey from the NZ Council of Christian Social Services (NZCCSS) says beneficiaries are the heroes who are carrying the country through the recession.

NZCCSS Executive officer McGlinchey was speaking in response to today’s release of the third and final report from the government Welfare Working Group Report.

...“Last year’s Budget offered millions in tax assistance to those on mid to high incomes, many of whom pay relatively minimal tax because they know how to work the system. That leaves low income earners and beneficiaries to pay off the nation’s debts!”

So I apologise for encouraging people to get in and show support for reform and then failing to do so myself.

As it happens the report was overtaken by events and its opponents will be more frustrated about that than the group itself. There is good and bad in it. Now it awaits National to pick up the best and make it policy.

Sneaking into the supermarket to buy my porn... er sorry...wine.

Oswald blogs on the demands of the anti-alcohol apparatchiks;

"...Displaying alcohol in supermarkets should be treated in the same way as dirty movies are displayed in a video store, the Alcohol Reform Bill select committee was told yesterday.

Alcohol Action said the proposals adapted by the Government from a Law Commission report into alcohol reform did not go far enough.

Alcohol should not be easily accessible and should not be displayed at the front of stores or with other products such as fruit and vegetables, the group said yesterday.

"Supermarkets are treating alcohol like it's a commodity rather than a drug," spokeswoman Professor Jennie Connor said.

"It should be treated like dirty movies, they should be in one corner of the supermarket at the back..."

Utter unadulterated hysteria.

Have these cheerless naysayers ever taken a trip to a vineyard to observe the work, the craft and the dedication that goes onto producing wine? Have they no regard for the talent brought to the label design and marketing? The jobs provided to thousands of harvesters, bottlers, distributors, and on-sellers? Have they ever entered a really first class cellar and felt the romance of wine bottled and aged for many years?

How dreadfully insulting to compare wine to "dirty movies" (and even dirty movies have a place, like them or not.)

Painting and making sense of stuff

It's been a shit week. I have nothing to say about the heartache that many people have been condemned to live with. We say, life goes on. But for them, it hasn't and won't. All our moods are affected even if we are only observers. In our own ways we look for things that balance the deficit.

Here's something I have been working on for a while. This character always lifts me up. A life turned around; turning around. Certainly the proof that hope springs eternal both within, and for, seemingly hopeless cases.

DPB work-testing when youngest child turns three

According to the NZ Herald;

It is understood the group will tomorrow recommend solo parents get work from when the child is three years old, One News reported.

This will cause an unholy outcry.

But the recommendation is not radical by international standards.

The following table is now out-of-date but I can tell you that the trend is lowering the age of youngest child. Not lifting it. The UK and Australia have moved to 6 as has NZ. The US and Canada have a range of ages according to the state or province, with the US maximum of 1 year. Norway, France, Germany and Switzerland were work-testing at 3 when this table was published.



The Herald's Simon Collins has found a trier who can't get work, or much of it.

But this individual is not what the reforms are about. The reforms are aimed at reducing the sort of long term dependence that persists throughout periods of low unemployment. That's why the focus is on the DPB, the sickness and invalid's benefits.

Also some media commentators yesterday started talking up "benefit cuts". That is scaremongering and unnecessarily worrying those on benefits. The level of payments was outside of the scope of this report. Key has confirmed there will not be cuts.

Maxim - a National Party caucus takeover??

Whale has this extraordinary claim on his blog.

The fun­da­men­tal­ist Maxim Insti­tute have been pointed to as behind this selec­tion jack up, as the first stage for the takeover of the National Party by fundies. Brent is appar­ently one of 37 can­di­dates they have primed around the coun­try to take over cau­cus between now and 2017.

The Maxim Institute seems to have abundant money and was very politically active organising debates around the country prior to the last election. I have regarded them generally as a transparent outfit which produces quite a bit of good, balanced, politically centre-right stuff. Their Real Issues weekly e-mail is usually worth a read. CEO Greg Fleming is a man I like and respect notwithstanding there are issues we would disagree on because I am not a conservative or Christian.

Fundamentalists? A caucus takeover?? Seems fanciful. But its a free country. People are free to organise and free to oppose. Any input or views people have on this matter would be welcome.

Welfare recommendations out tomorrow - pitch in

Two reports herald the publication of the Welfare Working Group's final report tomorrow. Campbell Roberts of the Salvation Army says radical new welfare proposals are set to become a defining moment in New Zealand's history. If only.

And, despite not knowing what is in the report, Sue Bradford is already planning her protest outside Work and Income in Henderson tomorrow.

National is taking the right line on this. Key has repeatedly identified the most important goal over the past few weeks. That is getting children off welfare. It isn't about persecuting or punishing people. And he needs to hold that line because he is in for a barrage of angry, often misguided, and often personal abuse.

What I want to see is more people actually pitching in behind Key. Because when it gets ugly those people who support reform mysteriously clam up and are happy for someone else to take the flack. If we want to see the recommendations become election policy, and in turn actual policy more people need to state the case for them. Write a letter to the editor; make a comment in a newspaper forum; make a comment on talkback; write to John Key. But don't let it look like the reforms are too unpopular to implement just because the very active and very loud left win the day.

Remember the end goal. Better futures for everyone. But especially the child who will be born into a welfare home today, and without change, will spend years living with disadvantage and dysfunction and dwindling chance of breaking the mould.