Sunday, August 14, 2011

Key on a new approach to youth welfare

John Key has just delivered the keynote (no pun intended) speech at the National Party conference. The full text of the speech is here.

We haven't had time to read the full speech yet, so we won't make any comment on it. We've seen one extract though, and we doubt that anyone will find argument with these words from John Key:

The fundamental question you have to ask yourself is, “Is this what the architects of the welfare state had in mind”?

I don’t think it is.

I’ve often said that you measure a society by how it looks after its most vulnerable.

But you also measure a society by how many vulnerable people it creates.

At the moment it is creating too many, so we are going to make changes.


Key is quite right; New Zealand has been creating far too many vulnerable people for far too long. It's a huge dilemma for any government to contemplate, and the solution is not just simply throwing vast sums of money at the problem. National seems intent on taking a different approach.

We're off out for a few hours, and hoping that the rain and snow stays away. We'll read the full speech, and what National is proposing, and we'll comment further later this afternoon.



49 comments:

Anonymous said...

It goes without saying that you'll love it.

pdm said...

anon - as would most thinking people!!

Anonymous said...

And you?

Key said "We believe in personal responsibility, individual freedom and choice.'

He went on to say "We simply cannot continue to give them money and trust they will do the right things with it."

Can you explain that apparent contradiction pdm?

Seems to me that Key is very confused.

Inventory2 said...

There's no contradiction at all Anon; doubtless you're looking at the words "individual freedom and choice" having glossed over the two important words that precede them - personal responsibility. People are quick to forget that rights are always balanced by responsibilities.

Anonymous said...

Key proposes to TAKE AWAY personal responsibility from young people.

"We simply cannot continue to give them money and trust they will do the right things with it."

You MUST be able to see that. You can't be so smitten with Key that you can't see that he's saying HE PLANS TO REMOVE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FROM THOSE NEW ZEALANDERS. He is saying that THE STATE will decide for them. NANNY STATE remember that dreadful NANNY LABOUR GOVERNMENT? We have a new one now, only it's one you support because it's heaaded by a DADDY.

Read what he said.

jabba said...

a fantastic start to try and get control of the social spend .. Anon is unhappy so I am happy

Anonymous said...

You're happy Mr Jabba? With State control. Nice. You and the blogger and Mr Key loving that NANNY STATISM. Can't have people CHOOSING for them selves, no MR ClarKEY will CHOOSE FOR YOU.
Your turn will come Mr Jabba.

"If all this sounds a bit hands-on, I make no apologies."

A bit hands-on. Helen Key speaks from her heart.

"We believe in personal responsibility, individual freedom and choice."

4 Shame.

pdm said...

anon - if people want to receive taxpayers money through the Government Welfare system they have an obligation to spend it on necessities - not squander it on booze, drugs and gambling.

This is an action that is well overdue and one which should be applied to all recipients of taxpayer money.

jabba said...

"We believe in personal responsibility, individual freedom and choice."
So you seem to want to give anybody who doesn’t want to work a sum of free money every week to do what they want with it .. Is that what you stand for Anon?
The likes of you use the true vulnerable as a tool to justify your socialist agenda. National will not desert the needy and that pisses you off. Being asked to justify the need for free money is not unfair and insisting the free money is spent wisely is the proper way to administer this drain on our tax revenue.

Anonymous said...

Personal responsibility.
This goes AGAINST the concept of personal responsibility. It STEALS their chance to develop personal responsibility.
Individual freedom.
This goes AGAINST the concept of Individual freedom. It STEALS their chance to have individual freedom.
Choice. Gone STOLEN.
This 'new approach to youth welfare' is the complete denial and reversal of the very core of National Party philosophy.

Key said "We believe in personal responsibility, individual freedom and choice.'

His 'youth plan' makes an absolute mockery of that. And you here support it without a twinge of self doubt.

NANNY STATE LOVERS all of you. Aunty Helen would be proud of you!
Good little Uncle John loving Commies!

Anonymous said...

Young, unemployed person: Dear John Key. I am a young person on a benefit. Can I please choose what I spend my money on?

Uncle John ClarKey - No.

Anonymous said...

Where are the jobs for young people Key?

nigel ng. said...

Dear young / unemployed person,

NO - because it's NOT your money. You are not at freedom to spend someone's else money on unnecessary stuff: i.e. alcohol and tobacco.

Tax payer.

PS: In order to get YOUR own money to spend it YOUR way, please stand up for the youth rate so that you can easily get a job, hence the money.

homepaddock said...

Dear YUP,

You are free to what you want with money you earn but if you are getting taxpayers' money you'll be expected to do something in return.

Hal Incandenza said...

Go the nanny state! How much is this going to cost to administer? And when's the dress code coming in? I don't like the way young people wear their trousers. The government should do something about that. You guys agree eh?

Inventory2 said...

@ nigel.ng; got it, in a nutshell. Benefits are not an entitlement; they are a short-term expression of the duty of the state to protect its most vulnerable.

Benefits are there to enable those who need them to cover their essentials; food, accomodation, power, clothing and medical care. Benefits are not there to give people, the young especially, a lifestyle centred on booze, smokes and drugs.

I'm still to read the full text of Key's speech as I've been otherwise engaged, but the idea of portions of young people's being paid directly to landlords, and grocery cards being issued has appeal. If that is wha is required to teach these people some basic money management skills, so be it.

Anonymous said...

Control freaks.
You are all excited over being able to dictate what young people can and can't do. You're in the wrong party! You should be on Helen's team. You LOVE controlling others.
"Benefits are not an entitlement"
This blogger is deluded. He'll believe anything in order to justify the actions of his Saviour John ClarKey.
If Labour said, no you cannot chose what you do with your money, he'd be screaming blue murder, but when Aunty John ClarKey says it, he's panting with anticipation for the rod to fall on the backs of those young people.
WE WILL TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR MONEY AND YOU WILL THANK US FOR IT!!!
You are a disgrace to the National Party. Those who forged the ideals
"We believe in personal responsibility, individual freedom and choice"
would be DISGUSTED with you all.

Tinman said...

Anonymous (various times) you're a liar!

Not even a good liar.

Personal responsibility is saying "NZ taxpayer, I will support myself by my own (legal) endeavours".

Not one of your comments have been correct nor honest.

Anonymous said...

Nigel Ng - you are an example of the very worst right-wing hypocrite. You bay 'choice', you bay 'personal responsibility', you bay 'individual freedom' but you steal if away from those YOU don't believe 'deserve' it - the young, the unemployed, the poor. You demand that they DO AS YOU SAY, eat what YOU want them to eat, BEHAVE the way YOU want them to behave.
Scum.

Inventory2 said...

Quite so Tinman; and it's also personal responsibility by the NZ taxpayer to say "I will help you out when you're down, but in return, I expect you to use my money wisely, not frivolously".

Anonymous said...

Tinman
You are dangerously deluded.
Personal responsibility means TAKING RESPONSIBILITY PERSONALLY. It does NOT mean someone else will do it for you.

Anonymous said...

Tweet of the Week: It’s unbelievable that the National government would focus on the 1500 on the independent youth benefit instead of job creation for the 58,000 young ppl who are now unemployed.

Red Alert

Nigel Ng said...

Hi Anon @7:57 PM,

Yeah right ...

In your righteous thought: it would be okay for the State to tell the tax-payer how to spend THEIR hard-earn money, how to save it, and how to bring up the kids. Yet it is NOT okay, to tell the young dudes (who start entering the wrong track) how to spend people's money responsibly.

Sigh ...

Would you give money to the kids without telling them be careful with it ? and they weren't then you just keep giving them more to them and HOPE thing would be alright ... Seriously if there are a lot of you out there, then we are in serious social problem.

Inventory2 said...

Excellent comeback Nigel. Our anonymous friend has been indoctrinated into a world where everyone else owes him/her a living. "Personal responsibility" includes providing for one's own needs wherever possible, and if Other people's Money is given to you, using it for the purposes for which it was intended.

Anonymous said...

"Would you give money to the kids without telling them be careful with it ?"

Kids? Yeah right.

Key (with your backing) is only going to be 'telling them to be careful with it' is he?

Bullshit. He's going to be issuing them with an ORANGE CARD that will restrict what they can spend the money on. STATE CONTROL. You love it. You're sucking up to ClarKey's NANNY STATE like it's soul food to you. You socialists are a disgrace!
Where's the blogger here?
Run for cover?
Not surprised.

Anonymous said...

"In your righteous thought: it would be okay for the State to tell the tax-payer how to spend THEIR hard-earn money, how to save it,"

Key's about to make saving under Kiwisaver COMPULSORY Nigel. COMPULSORY SAVING under National.
You won't like that will you!

Nigel Ng said...

Hmmm Anon: not sure if you are the same person throughout. If so, how can I be right-wing hypocrite and later on a socialist ?

When did I tell you or even imply that: I'd support compulsory saving scheme or even National party (at its current form) ?

I think you are confused...

Inventory2 said...

You think he's confused Nigel? I have no doubt whatsoever!

Middle NZ will love this policy, even some from middle NZ who vote Labour. Unlike Goff's CGT, this policy and the roll-outs to follow really will be game-changers.

Tinman said...

No I2, Nigel, anonymous is not confused at all, he/she/it is simply dishonest.

I2, I do not object to taxpayer assistance for those who need a hand up but I strenuously object to giving to those who demand a hand out.

ALL benefit-type funding should be through targeted assistance, paying rent, power etc. (not telephone, tv rental, vehicle running costs, payments, sky TV etc which are luxuries) and food vouchers with NO discretionary income unless earned separately and independently.

Inventory2 said...

I don't for one moment disagree with you Tinman. Unfortunately, we are now reaping the consequences of the ease with which successive governments have allowed being a beneficiary to become a lifestyle choice. Those who are on benefits, many of whom have paid little if any tax in their lifetimes scream about their rights, but they forget their responsibilities. They also forget that those of us who pay taxes have rights too; we have the right to expect that the government will spend the money we pay in taxes wisely.

Anonymous said...

IV2. I cannot believe the belligerent ignorance of anon.

The thing most socialists seem to easily forget is that the state is merely a conduit between my pocket as a taxpayer and those who get to spend MY money. All Key is doing is ensuring that the money taken from me is applied in a manner which respects the fact (or purports to do so) that I have sacrificed this money for the NEEDS of others. I do not have freedom of choice whether I make this sacrifice, yet freedom of choice for the recipient is apparently paramount. It is a dirty mind that thinks it is entitled to squander other peoples' money.

Cadwallader.

Anonymous said...

Tinman you seek to deny your fellow New Zealanders choice because you believe you know better than they. You see yourself as a wise and fair uncle, just like Key does. You are paternalistic. Your world view leads to divisions in society and London's riots are where that leads. Your view sits easily here amongst a host of other paternalists and lovers of force and authority. Your hard-bitten world view is revealed by your description of snow as 'cold white crap'. It's those little slips of expression that reveal the quality of a Tinman's heart as if your assumed name wasn't enough.
Mr Cadwallader your comments are garbled nonsense.

Anonymous said...

IV2: Have I missed something? Is having your wallet raided really just "garbled nonsense" as anon suggests? It is clear we are tangling with a leftie, any element of debate having been subsumed by ad-hominem attacks.

Cadwallader.

Inventory2 said...

You haven't missed anything Cadwallader. The government is the custodian of the money that you and I (and pdm, and Tinman, and Nigel et al) pay as taxpayers, and whilst the government is on one hand responsible to give those in genuine need a hand up, the government is equally responsible to manage the public purse, well, responsibly.

On the other hand, I'd suggest that our anonymous friend is an expert in SOPM; Spending Other People's Money.

Anonymous said...

"It is clear we are tangling with a leftie, any element of debate having been subsumed by ad-hominem attacks."

I rest my case.

Inventory2 said...

And for that Anon, we will all be eternally grateful.

Anonymous said...

Thanks IV2. I love it when we both talk dirty! Enjoy the weather!

Cadwallader

Anonymous said...

Ad hominem attacks are shameful indeed.
Jesus though, did call people 'snakes' and 'vipers'. Confusing isn't it, seeing the world in black and white.

Anonymous said...

I'd take the previous version of 'nanny' over this FAKE-SMILE DODGY CONSERVATIVE NASTY UNCLE who creeps into teenagers private spaces.

It's not the welfare system that's fucked. It's the capitalist job market. How about DEMANDING business owners MUST hire the unemployed at a decent living wage? Then there'd be no unemployment and no need for the benefits.

Tinman said...

Anonymous, snow is cold white crap.

I plead guilty to the "hard heart" thing, in fact like my namesake I have no heart at all.

I seek to deny my fellow man as much of MY money as I possibly can unless they provide a product or service I require.

I also seek to deny my fellow man free use of MY money because he/she/it is too bone idle lazy to get a job or an education that will enable them to get a job.

What I don't do, unlike yourself, is tell lies expecting them to be taken as gospel.

Nigel Ng said...

@Anon 10.16am:

I think you are getting the capitalist market very wrong. It's simply a demand and supply. One doesn't have job simply because there is no such demand for the skills.

So instead of blaming the system, the capitalist market, the govt of the day, the responsible tax-payers, he/she who is unemployed should focus on re-training (re-packaging) then get the job.

I am for one that, glad to live in a capitalist country where people are being judged by their merits and skills not skin colors or ethnicity, else I don't have job.

Anyway I rest my case here as you don't get my simple messages.

Anonymous said...

TInman, by definition you have no 'Fellow' men.
You have only competitors.

You're about 50,000 years behind civilisation.
For your bleak way of life to become the norm we must regress to a world with no couples, no families, no communities, no shared purpose, no business, no money, no technology and no hope.

Would you like a cuddle from Uncle John and Aunty Paula? Or would you prefer to hide from life alone in your cave?

Anonymous said...

There are more than a few anons about today.
All are correct.
Tinhead (It's okay to use ad hom, Jesus did it) your thoughts must ping around inside your tinny head like a dried pea in an empty can.

Nigel Ning (it's okay, remember Jesus!), your capitalist market scheme is fine and dandy but falls short of what society needs. It requires there to be an unemployed underclass in order to function - Key knows this and keeps them in place. For all people to be gainfully 'employed' a government must some more than throw open the doors to capitalism and the market. It must use its power to accommodate every member of the society.You fail to see this. Key might but chooses instead to prop up his free market ideology at the expense of the 'tail' of our community. Tinhead can't see it at all. IV2, despite his claims to be Christian, supports the Sneering Assassin.

Tinman said...

Nigel, anon doesn't want to understand you, it would get in the way of his/her/it's lies.

Anon, incomprehensible rambling does nothing to hide the dishonesty of your statements.

jabba said...

more and more Anons are coming onto the scene .. Kiwiblog has a new one, facebook Govt MPs are being abused by "friends" and the politics site is full of this sites special one .. all abuse those who have a different view of their own .. maybe Eddie has released his/her hounds from the subStandard

Anonymous said...

Tinhead
That you find my comments incomprehensible is no surprise to anyone.
You find the whole world incomprehensible.

Jibber-jabber - oooooooh! Anons everywhere, even under the bed!
Sleep with your one eye open JJ!

jabba said...

come on Anon, it's nearly 8pm .. bed time.

Anonymous said...

I love the way you Tories babble on about the glories of Capitalism, but it has failed to create jobs. There are too many idle rich lining their pockets, shipping jobs overseas and failing to invest here.

Basically the system is buggered; this scheme will be as much of a success as boot camps - epic fail, all but two re-offended!

Anonymous said...

anon: If capitalism is so bad and you are concerned about too few jobs...fix it! Establish your own business and employ your disadvantaged comrades. You may find your own utopia is not what you are presently imagining it to be.
You have expressed your concern about a lack of choice for the recipients of MY money...how much choice do I have when being compelled to part with it through the tax system? The answer is, none.

Cadwallader