Oddbean

It really pisses me off that David Seymour keep implicitly claiming kura kaupapa were created by their charter school policy. A US privatisation model shoehorned into the NZ education system in 2011. The first kura kaupapa was set up no later than 1985 (Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Hoani Waititi). By 2011 there were dozens. Since 1989, the Special Character Designation policy has allowed them to operate autonomously within the public education system, : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designated_Special_Character_schools (1/2) #KuraKaupapa

Seymour is either speaking about kura kaupapa without knowing this history, or he does know, and he's cynically co-opting other people's mahi to sell his party's neoliberal education policy. I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether he's ignorant or lying. It also pisses me off to hear him praising kura kaupapa out of one side of his mouth, while ranting about kaupapa Māori services being "separatism" and even "apartheid“ out the other side. Pick one. (2/2)

Another thing that pisses me off about NatACT is the rhetoric about cutting "government spending". What they actually mean is abolishing jobs in public services, and for every one of them, that's someone pushed onto a benefit and using other publicly-funded welfare services. The cost total of which could be as much or more than the cost of their salary, without the public service getting the benefit of their work. It's not good economics, it's small-minded, short-sighted and mean. (1/2)

Now before some apologist says oh but the people working in public services have skills, qualifications and contacts, they'll get another job straight away in the "private sector", ie a business or NGO. Even if that's true (and it's not a given) that's a job could have going to someone already on a benefit. Either way, someone is being kept in poverty and the public denied the benefit of their labour, for no good reason. ... except to get unemployment up, so wages can be screwed down. (2/2)

Also, as Winston points out in this debate (even a stopped clock is right twice a day), even if the NatACTs were successful in taking an axe to government spending, the most likely result would be to throw the economy into a depression. All to supposedly help with an inflation spike that a) has nothing to do with government spending and b) had already peaked and started dropping by April: https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2023-05/feu-28apr23.pdf These are the better managers of the economy ?!? (3/3)

@58db300d National have *never* been "better economic stewards" like they always try to argue. The economy is going to (by-and-large) do what it always does and governments can potter around the edges. The goal for Nats is to _sell the story_ that they're more qualified because it's the brain cycles spent on the talking points that matter. The attention economy doesn't have time for critical thinking.

@68e791ae > The economy is going to (by-and-large) do what it always does and governments can potter around the edges That's not true either. Gordon Campbell did a piece a few months back quoting figures showing that the economy has consistently been healthier at the end of a Labour-led govt than at the end of National-led one. It could just be a hell of a confidence, but...

@68e791ae ... it's not hard to see why it would be that way. Economic activity is, by definition, money moving via transactions. Nat govts move money from the majority to the wealthy ("trickle-down"), who hoard it. Labour govts move money from the wealthy to the majority, who spend it, producing economic activity ("inside-out", to borrow Nick Hanauer's phrase). Not only does more economic activity look better on paper, it also facilitates real works work getting done, infrastructure created etc.

Intriguing to see the Marama, Debbie and Winston agree on not raising the retirement age, while David makes a bean counter's argument for raising it. Ignoring that a far smaller proportion of Māori even make it to 65, and a disturbingly high number of our elders are already living in poverty. (1/2)