About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

November 2, 2009 9:03am by David Farrar

General Debate 2 November 2009

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment112

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (112)

Login to comment or vote

Luc Hansen

Jack5

Seems logical to me. Law of unintended consequences strikes again.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 2, 2009 10:22pm
Luc Hansen

getstaffed, that’s a wimpy response.

Surely the first requirement of a government is to address need. Ameliorating that need by long term policies should follow.

But you can’t just stick a flag in the dirt and say we will always spend this much on welfare, this much on education, this much on the armed services etc etc because you don’t know what’s around the corner.

And speaking of education, in light of the fact that our education outcomes, according to the OECD, are far in excess of what could be expected in view of our actual spending, should we reduce that spending and lower our outcomes to an average?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 2, 2009 10:30pm
getstaffed

Sorry Luc. It’s not a wimpy response, just not the response you wanted. You asked for a details analysis of social implications of changes to public spending. I’m not in a position to give you that, neither are you in a position to furnish me/us with such details. I am in a position of offer opinion on principles, and I did that.

As for educational outcomes [odd that you’d dive into one area of detail, while demanding that others offer holistic analysis], if you’re happy with average achievement, and by inference are happy to let the ‘long tail’ (yes, that’s what it’s called!) wallow in underachievement then your brand of humanity needs some work.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 2, 2009 10:44pm
OECD rank 22 kiwi

Prince William is coming to New Zealand in January 2010 for an Official visit because of an invite from the New Zealand Government.

Interest.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 2, 2009 10:49pm
Luc Hansen

Hurf’s been busy. I just noticed his 9:26pm message.

I did respond to that letter.

First, let’s look at this statement of Dr Brooks:

“I spend so much time on this point because the acceptance of the partition by the Jews and its rejection by the Arabs is the fundamental cause of the conflict even today. If the Arabs had accepted the UN plan as did the Jews, there would be a Palestinian state today.”

Why would Palestinians accept a takeover of their land by Europeans fleeing European persecution? The whole idea is nonsensical. But, of course, it’s what has happened. And if Israel is so keen on UNGA resolutions, what about 194, 273, recommending return of Palestinian refugees and UNSC 242 ordering a return to the pre-June 1967 armistice lines? And the hundreds of UNGA resolutions since recommending Israel stops oppressing Palestinians, and the many, many Security Council resolutions which would have been passed except for the US veto.

My view is the world’s majority view, Hurf.

Then look at the earlier statement, that historic Palestine was split into Transjordan and Palestine. The fact that Britain was granted the mandate over both lands and chose to split the mandate does not mean that historic Palestine was ever unified with Transjordan. Zwartz and Brooks very cleverly insert this into the Question of Palestine to muddy the waters.

The Jordan River was only ever an unofficial border until the British imposed one there to reserve historic Palestine for the European Jews. Under the Ottoman Empire, Tranjordan and Palestine were provinces, each with their own representation in the eventual Ottoman parliament.

As for Dr Brooks rebuttal that he was comfortable using the term Palestinian, well, I had not seen any evidence of that until I raised the issue. I’m quite proud of that 🙂

These days, since the 2002 Arab League offer that assured Israel of peace with the Arab world, and the efective abandonment of Palestine by the Arab states, the Question of Palestine is now truly a conflict between Palestinians and Israel.

Finally, who started the war in 1948? We know now that the Jews in Palestine were ethnically cleansing Palestinians from around Nov 1947 (Morris, Pappe, Segev etc). We also know that the Arab states did not want a confrontation with the west. But the unrest on the streets was such that a virtual mercenary force (except for the Jordanian army, which had prior agreement with Israel to take the West Bank and East Jerusalem) was sent to protect the Palestinians.

This is a fact. By May 1948, Israel had already expelled Palestinians even from areas which were intended by UNGA 181 to form part of the proposed Palestinian state.

And this is another fact. UNGA 181 did not envisage any population movements. Palestinians were to stay where they lived, and choose whether to become Israeli or Palestinian citizens. That’s how stupid 181 was. If you don’t believe me, just read the resolution!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 2, 2009 11:10pm
Luc Hansen

I think you should be conversant with social implications of policies you advocate. I gave you a hint in my earlier post. It’s all very well to talk principles but you must be aware of facts on the ground.

It was always to Bolger’s credit that he kneecapped Richardson and Shipley when he saw the dreadful social havoc they were causing: do you remember the cash registers in our emergency rooms? That was before Eftpos!

I pick on education because it is topical right now and both you and I have an interest in that area. It’s interesting to see how you twisted my post. New Zealand should be proud that it punches above its weight in the achievement rankings in the OECD, but if you determine, for example, that a certain percentage of GDP be fixed for education, then you are in danger of lowering that ranking. I was being facetious with my suggestion of lowering achievement levels, as I suspect you well know.

Our so-called long tail is only relative to our three companion top ranking nations and they all have one thing in common – a lower wealth gap between the rich and the poor. This is achieved by directing more resources to the poor. And the OECD recommends that we do this specifically in education to reduce the tail. Note, not take from the achievers, but put EXTRA resources into the non-achievers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 2, 2009 11:26pm
Luc Hansen

the above is for getstaffed
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 2, 2009 11:30pm
getstaffed

Well knock me over with a feather… here’s something we agree on Luc: Give more resources to education and work to lift the bar.

The issue is, sadly, that the social and economic payback period for any genuine initiatives in this area is way beyond the aspirational lifespan of politicians (of all shades) whose most pressing need is to buy their way back into office every three years.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 2, 2009 11:32pm
Luc Hansen

Yes, we are as one on this!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 2, 2009 11:53pm
Hurf Durf

Just as well the world “majority” view is worthless then. If it wasn’t, everywhere would be socialist and 90% of my money would’ve flowed into the third world.

Awesome revisionism by the way, 10/10. Keep feeling the need to fight the power just because of your ancestry.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 3, 2009 12:03am
Luc Hansen

Maybe its escaped you, Hurf, but I do have a sense of justice as well.

But by all means, just keep living up to your pseudonym.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 3, 2009 12:44am
Hurf Durf

That’s nice. “Social” justice? Redistribution of wealth? How is that sense? Tingly? Or is it more of a throb?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 3, 2009 12:46am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Bell Gully on Search and Surveillance Bill

Superannuation Options »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Breaking Views Update: Week of 10.11.24
Breaking Views
More & higher taxes not answer
Hompaddock
More lawlessness from National
No Right Turn
Political Caption Competition
The Daily Blog
Open mike 16/11/2024
The Standard
TARGETED BEIRUT: THE 1983 MARINE BARRACKS BOMBING AND THE UNTOLD ORIGIN STORY OF THE WAR ON TERROR by Jack Carr and James M. Scott
Utopia
Shock & Surprise: Lawyers oppose removal of lawyers' gravy train
Not PC
Seymour’s bill split the House – but (as is shown by the 68-54 vote after an ill-tempered debate) not “down the middle”
Point of Order
Thankfully we said nope to dope
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Government only partially adheres to Waitangi Tribunal order, as tensions heat up
No Minister
A NEW DEGREE COURSE FOR MASSEY
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d