it's been a while since i've written. as you know, i've been a little busy with other things. that didn't work out, so i thought it must be time to get back into blogging again.
one thing i wanted to write about was an event i went to last week. it was a competition involving students from the school of management studies. there were 4 groups, and each group presented a media/public relations campaign on behalf of the same client. the client was poverty action waikato, and the campaigns centred around poverty.
i'd come across two of the groups as i was campaigning. the "step up, speak now" was campaigning for the living wage, and tied their campaign to the local body elections. hamilton city council failed to vote for a living wage for all it's employees earlier in the year, and this group based their strategy on a petition and a push for candidates to commit to a living wage. they had an online strategy that was reasonably successful, and they plan to present their petition at the first meeting of the new council. this group was really passionate, and they understand that decent wages are a critical part of poverty reduction.
the ten-17 group did a feasibility study around setting up a youth hub in hamilton. they presented the idea to a meeting a couple of weeks ago, and also used an online campaign. they want to focus on young people between the ages of 10 & 17 who are facing poverty, homeless or disadvantaged in other ways. it's a great initiative, & i really do hope they continue to work on it. they did a lot of work in engaging with these young people & collecting their stories. i felt like they really understood the issues.
a third group was called "not-so-super-annuation". i hadn't come across them, though they did garner a good amount of media attention. they were focused on poverty faced by the elderly. they did a good job of presenting the problem, and they had taken some time to connect with people who were struggling in their retirement.
yet, they didn't seem to understand the underlying causes nor to present a viable solution. their solution was to educate people, particularly in the 45 to 60 year old age bracket about the importance of saving & investing. they said people shouldn't be relying on the government and that there was a need for a change in culture.
wow, did i have some major problems with that. first of all, the retirement commissioner & various others have been doing exactly that. there has been so much information put out, aimed at exactly that age bracket. and while the group have actually received interest from the commissioner and others for the work they have done, the solution just doesn't address the problem.
the problem is that so many of the people facing poverty in their old age just weren't earning enough to save. you can educate them as much as you like, but if they don't have enough income, then saving will not happen. there was no consideration of the issues around unemployment, especially for people who are laid off in their middle age. at that age, it's very difficult to find another job. and it's also hard to retrain, especially when this government has decided that older students can't access the student loan scheme. if you're unemployed & struggling, there is no way you can afford to re-train or re-educate yourself.
but more than that, their solution assumes that the answer to poverty reduction lies in individual action. it's the response of a neo-liberal generation, brought up in a culture arising from the policies of the 80s & 90s, that thinks personal responsibility is the solution to all problems. a generation who hasn't thought about the fact that these problems arise from the way our society is structured and the only way to resolve them effectively is to change the underlying structure.
the thing that worried me most about this group was the fact that they hadn't approached grey power or age concern, because they thought those organisations are too political. that sound you heard was me screaming! poverty is political. it is purely political. there is enough wealth, enough resources for every person in this country to live a comfortable life. the issue isn't that we don't have enough, it's that the resources aren't fairly distributed. the way we choose to distribute those resources, as a society, is a political decision. the economic structures our society uses are as a result of political decisions. the way markets, financing, banks, wages, etc etc work in our society is a result of political decisions. we could choose to do things differently, we could choose to structure our society in a way that neither our children nor our elderly would ever have to struggle for food, decent housing and decent heating. but we don't, and that's a conscious choice, and a political one.
it doesn't surprise me that this group won the competition. the reason for that is because they were being judged on the effectiveness of their PR campaign, not on the strength of their analysis or the effectiveness of their solutions. and there was no doubt that the group had the best results in terms of the reach of the campaign, even if it didn't reach me.
but it was frustrating to watch and listen to. while the other 2 groups had a much better grasp of effective solutions, a much better connection to the problems and the people facing them, it was clear they were never going to win. and that's because of the rules of the competition, the structure if you will, that they were working under. it just shows that how you create the structure and what you develop as your criteria will determine the outcome. that's why we need to change the rules, the structures, so that the people who are currently struggling so much can live their lives with dignity.
Monday, 14 October 2013
Tuesday, 30 July 2013
housing policy becomes a race debate
i'm once again moved to write about non-local government issues, & the thing that has got me going is the new labour party policy regarding the restriction on property ownership by non-residents.
i'm not opposed to the policy itself. i'd be happy to have such restrictions, to put a curb on speculation by people who never intend to live here. those people come from countries around the world, they often have enough wealth to drive prices up & making owning a home unaffordable for those of us who are living here.
i'd also like to see some restrictions on local speculators as well. a capital gains tax is a start, but won't make much of a difference to house prices. getting to keep 85% of your capital gain is still makes ownership of rental properties a good option. i'd also like to see ring-fencing of losses on rental properties, so that the loss can't be offset against other income. but no party is pushing that as a policy at the moment, at least no that i'm aware of.
no, the thing that has annoyed me about the non-resident ownership policy is that it becomes an excuse to bash immigrants - even though the policy is specifically not targeted at immigrants. and even for those who understand that difference, there is still a tendency to focus on asians to the exclusion of others.
i've written before about the notion of visible & invisible migrants - it's something i became aware of through research conducted by some friends of mine at waikato university. visible migrants are those of a different skin colour, and very often, the terms "immigrant" & "migrant" are used as synonyms for people of colour living in this country, other than maori. and even in that group, the terms are even more specifically used to refer to asians, africans, & those from the middle east.
invisible migrants tend to be white people from europe, canada, america, britain, australia & africa (especially south africa & zimbabwe). when people use the terms "immigrant" & "migrant", they tend not to mean this group of people (not everyone, but many people). and so this policy, though it applies to non-residents, is taken to mean predominantly chinese & other asian people. even though they aren't specifically targeted by the policy.
it doesn't help that there are no concrete statistics so that we can know the parts of the world that current non-resident owners come from. in the absence of actual data, stereotypes prevail. and such stereotypes are exacerbated by an opposition that wants to turn the whole debate into one about race instead of one about housing, to hide the fact that they have very few policies aimed at making housing more affordable.
as a result, what i've seen, particularly on facebook, are comments directed at various asians, be they chinese, japanese, indonesian or thai, & none of those comments are particularly flattering. even if they are neutral, the fact that asian non-resident owners are being identified while white non-resident owners remain invisible, in itself creates a racial dimension that is unnecessary & in face harmful.
i believe facebook pages are the responsibility of the people who created them, & i really do expect politicians to be strong on challenging racial stereotypes and challenging the process of making some non-residents more visible than others on their own pages. to be silent is to be accepting, especially when it's a space that you have total control of. strong leadership can certainly help to reduce some of the nonsense that's coming out as the discussion goes on - it can't be stopped altogether, but it certainly can be reduced.
it's the least we should be expecting.
i'm not opposed to the policy itself. i'd be happy to have such restrictions, to put a curb on speculation by people who never intend to live here. those people come from countries around the world, they often have enough wealth to drive prices up & making owning a home unaffordable for those of us who are living here.
i'd also like to see some restrictions on local speculators as well. a capital gains tax is a start, but won't make much of a difference to house prices. getting to keep 85% of your capital gain is still makes ownership of rental properties a good option. i'd also like to see ring-fencing of losses on rental properties, so that the loss can't be offset against other income. but no party is pushing that as a policy at the moment, at least no that i'm aware of.
no, the thing that has annoyed me about the non-resident ownership policy is that it becomes an excuse to bash immigrants - even though the policy is specifically not targeted at immigrants. and even for those who understand that difference, there is still a tendency to focus on asians to the exclusion of others.
i've written before about the notion of visible & invisible migrants - it's something i became aware of through research conducted by some friends of mine at waikato university. visible migrants are those of a different skin colour, and very often, the terms "immigrant" & "migrant" are used as synonyms for people of colour living in this country, other than maori. and even in that group, the terms are even more specifically used to refer to asians, africans, & those from the middle east.
invisible migrants tend to be white people from europe, canada, america, britain, australia & africa (especially south africa & zimbabwe). when people use the terms "immigrant" & "migrant", they tend not to mean this group of people (not everyone, but many people). and so this policy, though it applies to non-residents, is taken to mean predominantly chinese & other asian people. even though they aren't specifically targeted by the policy.
it doesn't help that there are no concrete statistics so that we can know the parts of the world that current non-resident owners come from. in the absence of actual data, stereotypes prevail. and such stereotypes are exacerbated by an opposition that wants to turn the whole debate into one about race instead of one about housing, to hide the fact that they have very few policies aimed at making housing more affordable.
as a result, what i've seen, particularly on facebook, are comments directed at various asians, be they chinese, japanese, indonesian or thai, & none of those comments are particularly flattering. even if they are neutral, the fact that asian non-resident owners are being identified while white non-resident owners remain invisible, in itself creates a racial dimension that is unnecessary & in face harmful.
i believe facebook pages are the responsibility of the people who created them, & i really do expect politicians to be strong on challenging racial stereotypes and challenging the process of making some non-residents more visible than others on their own pages. to be silent is to be accepting, especially when it's a space that you have total control of. strong leadership can certainly help to reduce some of the nonsense that's coming out as the discussion goes on - it can't be stopped altogether, but it certainly can be reduced.
it's the least we should be expecting.
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
a privileged birth
so it's been a very long while since i posted here, as i was reminded by someone i met at a meeting tonight. it's not that i haven't been writing posts, it's just that i'm writing them at my website. so please feel free to check in over there regularly - almost all of those posts are related to either to local body issues or to my campaign, but there are some interesting wider issues that come up as i work on the campaign.
i'm moved to write here today about how much i'm over the birth of the royal baby. i've been avoiding most media in the last 2 days, particularly any news bulletins on tv & radio. i just can't bear any more of this coverage. while i wish the baby & his family well, i can't get into the hype around royalty & privilege by dint of birth.
as many long-standing readers of this blog will be aware, i do have an on-going campaign of sorts, to become the queen of nz. i can report that two people have agreed to be my subjects. i'm not sure how many more i'll need before i can displace the foreign royal who is nominally our head of state. but i can promise fewer scandals, and there certainly will be no baby-having by me. so you can be a little more confident that your news bulletins would focus more on news than on royal antics, should you accept me as your sovereign.
i think i'm especially annoyed by all of this, because it's happening during ramadan, a time when i've been more focused on the have-nots. to be continually reminded of just how much the haves have just makes that reflection even sadder. we can never create a world where everyone is exactly equal, but we can work towards one where there is a lot less inequality, and a lot more financial security for everyone.
one of the ways we could do that is to stop glorifying privilege by having this kind of blanket coverage in the media - & particularly that part of the media that purports to be giving us the news. a 30-second clip is more than sufficient to let us know the baby is well & all family members are overjoyed. anything more is just free advertising for the commercial enterprise that is the royal family.
if you happen to be one of those people who are of a similar mindset, consider countering all this royal baby news by making a donation to a charity of your choice that deals with issues around poverty. or, if that's not a possibility, you could consider a submission against the latest changes to our employment laws which will further drive down wages, or consider supporting the living wage campaign. concrete action is the only way to counter this kind of hype.
i'm moved to write here today about how much i'm over the birth of the royal baby. i've been avoiding most media in the last 2 days, particularly any news bulletins on tv & radio. i just can't bear any more of this coverage. while i wish the baby & his family well, i can't get into the hype around royalty & privilege by dint of birth.
as many long-standing readers of this blog will be aware, i do have an on-going campaign of sorts, to become the queen of nz. i can report that two people have agreed to be my subjects. i'm not sure how many more i'll need before i can displace the foreign royal who is nominally our head of state. but i can promise fewer scandals, and there certainly will be no baby-having by me. so you can be a little more confident that your news bulletins would focus more on news than on royal antics, should you accept me as your sovereign.
i think i'm especially annoyed by all of this, because it's happening during ramadan, a time when i've been more focused on the have-nots. to be continually reminded of just how much the haves have just makes that reflection even sadder. we can never create a world where everyone is exactly equal, but we can work towards one where there is a lot less inequality, and a lot more financial security for everyone.
one of the ways we could do that is to stop glorifying privilege by having this kind of blanket coverage in the media - & particularly that part of the media that purports to be giving us the news. a 30-second clip is more than sufficient to let us know the baby is well & all family members are overjoyed. anything more is just free advertising for the commercial enterprise that is the royal family.
if you happen to be one of those people who are of a similar mindset, consider countering all this royal baby news by making a donation to a charity of your choice that deals with issues around poverty. or, if that's not a possibility, you could consider a submission against the latest changes to our employment laws which will further drive down wages, or consider supporting the living wage campaign. concrete action is the only way to counter this kind of hype.
Monday, 10 June 2013
on home ownership
i've finally managed to get some time to write about stuff - here's a post over at my website about the hectic weekend i've had.
i was listening to morning report on my way to work & heard this item on home ownership. it's basically a couple of economists trying to convince us that nz'ers should no longer dream of home ownership. instead we should be content with renting, although they do tell us that the rental market needs to change so that people can rent for the long-term. nice of them.
until the rental market changes, what are people supposed to do? and who exactly are they to be renting from? in the world these economists are telling us to aspire to, we would have one class of people who get to own property to rent out, and another class of people who would always be renting. The perpetual tenants are apparently able to build up just as much wealth as the property owners, simply by saving & investing the difference between what they pay in rent & what they would have paid towards a mortgage.
if that's the case, then they would build up enough wealth to buy a house, surely? so they may as well just own the house they live in. this is assuming, also, that there are in a position to make savings. the problem at the moment, the reason why the home-ownership dream is becoming impossible for an increasing number of people, is precisely because they don't have enough left over to save.
but more than that, if you listen to the clip, don't you just love (ie really hate) how they dismiss "emotional" reasons for owning a home. as if emotions have no value, no basis in logic and reason. as if emotion is a thing that is divorced from and inferior to rationality. which is nonsense. if owning a home has some benefits that are based on emotional reasons, then those reasons will impact on your general feeling of well-being, and therefore your mental health.
a paper by charles waldegrave, robert stevens & peter king (which i can't seem to link to, but you can find a pdf via google), makes the following point:
Home ownership often provides an accruing asset which changes people’s perceptions about themselves in positive and independent ways. It also has the extra advantage of providing freehold ownership in later years when most senior citizens are not part of the work force.
home ownership also has the benefits of providing stability, better educational outcomes for children & better health outcomes.
so what would be the purpose of trying to convince people that they should give up the dream of owning their own home? it could be to distract from the fact that one of the main barriers to home ownership is income inequality. it could be to try to get us to accept that nothing can be done to make homes more affordable. there's always that pressure to make more land available to developers, which you will also hear mentioned in the interview, as if big sprawling cities will solve the home ownership problem. if you can't afford the transport to get to your job or to decent schools; if there aren't decent amenities & council services, and the cost of these are added to your house, then more land isn't the answer either.
the whole tenor of this piece, and of the advice given by the economists interviewed, was so defeatist. i found it alarming. it's when we give up hope & stop agitating for change, when believe things can never get better, that's when the already powerful & wealthy become even more so, and when the lives of those in poverty get worse. we can do better than this. it's just a matter of public will, which will then translate to political will.
i've been thinking of bob marley for some reason today, and so i'll leave you with this as inspiration:
i was listening to morning report on my way to work & heard this item on home ownership. it's basically a couple of economists trying to convince us that nz'ers should no longer dream of home ownership. instead we should be content with renting, although they do tell us that the rental market needs to change so that people can rent for the long-term. nice of them.
until the rental market changes, what are people supposed to do? and who exactly are they to be renting from? in the world these economists are telling us to aspire to, we would have one class of people who get to own property to rent out, and another class of people who would always be renting. The perpetual tenants are apparently able to build up just as much wealth as the property owners, simply by saving & investing the difference between what they pay in rent & what they would have paid towards a mortgage.
if that's the case, then they would build up enough wealth to buy a house, surely? so they may as well just own the house they live in. this is assuming, also, that there are in a position to make savings. the problem at the moment, the reason why the home-ownership dream is becoming impossible for an increasing number of people, is precisely because they don't have enough left over to save.
but more than that, if you listen to the clip, don't you just love (ie really hate) how they dismiss "emotional" reasons for owning a home. as if emotions have no value, no basis in logic and reason. as if emotion is a thing that is divorced from and inferior to rationality. which is nonsense. if owning a home has some benefits that are based on emotional reasons, then those reasons will impact on your general feeling of well-being, and therefore your mental health.
a paper by charles waldegrave, robert stevens & peter king (which i can't seem to link to, but you can find a pdf via google), makes the following point:
Home ownership often provides an accruing asset which changes people’s perceptions about themselves in positive and independent ways. It also has the extra advantage of providing freehold ownership in later years when most senior citizens are not part of the work force.
home ownership also has the benefits of providing stability, better educational outcomes for children & better health outcomes.
so what would be the purpose of trying to convince people that they should give up the dream of owning their own home? it could be to distract from the fact that one of the main barriers to home ownership is income inequality. it could be to try to get us to accept that nothing can be done to make homes more affordable. there's always that pressure to make more land available to developers, which you will also hear mentioned in the interview, as if big sprawling cities will solve the home ownership problem. if you can't afford the transport to get to your job or to decent schools; if there aren't decent amenities & council services, and the cost of these are added to your house, then more land isn't the answer either.
the whole tenor of this piece, and of the advice given by the economists interviewed, was so defeatist. i found it alarming. it's when we give up hope & stop agitating for change, when believe things can never get better, that's when the already powerful & wealthy become even more so, and when the lives of those in poverty get worse. we can do better than this. it's just a matter of public will, which will then translate to political will.
i've been thinking of bob marley for some reason today, and so i'll leave you with this as inspiration:
Thursday, 6 June 2013
immigration maths
i've been shifting some of my blogging over to my website, so feel free to check it out. today i've just done a post on the proposed changes to liquor licensing laws in hamilton.
also, i got this from someone on facebook. it's an excellent takedown of some the anti-immigrant rhetoric that's going around:
also, i got this from someone on facebook. it's an excellent takedown of some the anti-immigrant rhetoric that's going around:
Monday, 3 June 2013
how it should be done
i've been trying to take a bit of a break this weekend - not always successfully! - mostly because it's the last long weekend in a long while. and also because i'm going to be incredibly busy next weekend, so am trying to build up reserves. i'll be at a leadership seminar on saturday, and on sunday will the be MC'ing at the regional interfaith forum. if you're able to get along to the latter, please do register by wednesday. it'll be an interesting event, and we will have the race relations commissioner in attendance. i'm looking forward to meeting up with her.
i was watching the political debate on native affairs, maori television this evening. although i can't vote in the by-election, i know one of the candidates reasonably well so i'm quite interested in seeing how the election plays out. the one thing i can definitely say is that i was very impressed with the way the debate was conducted.
not only was the interviewer/moderator well informed, but she asked really challenging questions of all the candidates. mihingarangi forbes has a quiet but very effective interviewing style. unlike the interviewers on political shows that air on tv1 & tv3, she doesn't badger the person she's interviewing, she allows them to finish their answer but she doesn't really allow them to get away with not answering. and when they do evade the question, as the maori party candidate did on the issue of male leadership of the party's political wing, it looked quite bad.
but more than that, i was impressed with the respect the candidates showed each other. they didn't feel the need to talk over each other, they all listened respectfully when it wasn't their turn to speak. they all spoke to the issues and the policies, and didn't feel any need to personally attack or denigrate each other.
this is the way political debating should be, and i can only express my utmost respect for the candidates, the interviewer and for maori television who have once again shown us how it can & should be done. they have also reminded me why i can't bear to watch the nation or Q&A, even though i'm a person who is politically engaged and enjoys watching political issues being debated. i think the only person who approaches this level on the other channels is john campell, who i have been watching more of in recent weeks.
so well done maori tv, and i'm now looking forward to the one-hour debate on june 24.
i was watching the political debate on native affairs, maori television this evening. although i can't vote in the by-election, i know one of the candidates reasonably well so i'm quite interested in seeing how the election plays out. the one thing i can definitely say is that i was very impressed with the way the debate was conducted.
not only was the interviewer/moderator well informed, but she asked really challenging questions of all the candidates. mihingarangi forbes has a quiet but very effective interviewing style. unlike the interviewers on political shows that air on tv1 & tv3, she doesn't badger the person she's interviewing, she allows them to finish their answer but she doesn't really allow them to get away with not answering. and when they do evade the question, as the maori party candidate did on the issue of male leadership of the party's political wing, it looked quite bad.
but more than that, i was impressed with the respect the candidates showed each other. they didn't feel the need to talk over each other, they all listened respectfully when it wasn't their turn to speak. they all spoke to the issues and the policies, and didn't feel any need to personally attack or denigrate each other.
this is the way political debating should be, and i can only express my utmost respect for the candidates, the interviewer and for maori television who have once again shown us how it can & should be done. they have also reminded me why i can't bear to watch the nation or Q&A, even though i'm a person who is politically engaged and enjoys watching political issues being debated. i think the only person who approaches this level on the other channels is john campell, who i have been watching more of in recent weeks.
so well done maori tv, and i'm now looking forward to the one-hour debate on june 24.
Thursday, 30 May 2013
same old story
if you're wondering why i haven't managed to write anything here in the last few days, check out my website & you'll see what's been keeping me busy.
today i've been feeling pretty depressed by the whole cartoon episode. that would be the two cartoons by al nisbett in the malborough express & the christchurch press. the ones that uphold every stereotype of poor people as could fit into one drawing, and that put the central focus on brown people.
it's the same old story. a tried and true formula. casually used by a wide spectrum of media and particularly the advertising industry. say something outrageous, sit back & desperately hope for the storm of complaints. if they do arrive, trot out the usual lines about freedom of speech & how xyz group in society just need to get a sense of humour. throw in a bit of "PC gone mad", & if really pushed, apologise if anyone took offence (the non-apology that puts the blame squarely on every person but you). bonus points if you can fit in the words "panty-waisted", "thought police", "pinko-facist", or hey, even "namby-pamby".
if you don't get any takers the first time around, say something more outrageous the next time. and just keep pushing that boundary until finally the complaints flow. you know you're guaranteed a large segment of the population who will leap in to defend your right to be obnoxious, without the slightest bit of care towards the already marginalised group you have chosen as your target. you also know that said marginalised group doesn't have the numbers or the power to seriously challenge you in any way. and caring about people's feelings has already been accepted by our current cultural norms as a terrible thing to do.
it's a safe strategy for anyone in the media, as long as you know where to toe the line. where paul henry went wrong was with his timing. had he made his comments regarding ms dikshit in a week when the commonwealth games weren't about to start, & when another nz'er was already under investigation in india, & when the government was concerned about securing a free-trade deal, then he would easily have got away with it, as he had so many times before. his producers, you will notice, suffered no negative consequences.
but paul holmes, michael laws, hell pizzas, alcohol advertising companies & so many others carry merrily on, using the strategy to their advantage. they just can't lose. neither will the malborough express or the christchurch press. and mr nisbett won't be out of a job any time soon.
and in the meantime, racist & bigotted stereotypes get more deeply embedded and entrenched in our culture. lack of basic empathy and humanity get tossed down the gurgler. and society becomes just that little bit more nasty, more fractured.
if there's an answer to any of this, i haven't found it. all we can do is to keep challenging the stereotypes, and using our own freedom of speech to try to push back against this wall of hate. fully knowing that we're playing into the hands of the media that choose to put out this kind of thing as we do so.
today i've been feeling pretty depressed by the whole cartoon episode. that would be the two cartoons by al nisbett in the malborough express & the christchurch press. the ones that uphold every stereotype of poor people as could fit into one drawing, and that put the central focus on brown people.
it's the same old story. a tried and true formula. casually used by a wide spectrum of media and particularly the advertising industry. say something outrageous, sit back & desperately hope for the storm of complaints. if they do arrive, trot out the usual lines about freedom of speech & how xyz group in society just need to get a sense of humour. throw in a bit of "PC gone mad", & if really pushed, apologise if anyone took offence (the non-apology that puts the blame squarely on every person but you). bonus points if you can fit in the words "panty-waisted", "thought police", "pinko-facist", or hey, even "namby-pamby".
if you don't get any takers the first time around, say something more outrageous the next time. and just keep pushing that boundary until finally the complaints flow. you know you're guaranteed a large segment of the population who will leap in to defend your right to be obnoxious, without the slightest bit of care towards the already marginalised group you have chosen as your target. you also know that said marginalised group doesn't have the numbers or the power to seriously challenge you in any way. and caring about people's feelings has already been accepted by our current cultural norms as a terrible thing to do.
it's a safe strategy for anyone in the media, as long as you know where to toe the line. where paul henry went wrong was with his timing. had he made his comments regarding ms dikshit in a week when the commonwealth games weren't about to start, & when another nz'er was already under investigation in india, & when the government was concerned about securing a free-trade deal, then he would easily have got away with it, as he had so many times before. his producers, you will notice, suffered no negative consequences.
but paul holmes, michael laws, hell pizzas, alcohol advertising companies & so many others carry merrily on, using the strategy to their advantage. they just can't lose. neither will the malborough express or the christchurch press. and mr nisbett won't be out of a job any time soon.
and in the meantime, racist & bigotted stereotypes get more deeply embedded and entrenched in our culture. lack of basic empathy and humanity get tossed down the gurgler. and society becomes just that little bit more nasty, more fractured.
if there's an answer to any of this, i haven't found it. all we can do is to keep challenging the stereotypes, and using our own freedom of speech to try to push back against this wall of hate. fully knowing that we're playing into the hands of the media that choose to put out this kind of thing as we do so.
Sunday, 26 May 2013
a nice day
i was expecting to have a bit of a quieter weekend, but things don't generally turn out as you expect!
one thing i did this morning was to visit a friend, who i wrote about last month. well, i have to say that she is doing so much better, and it was lovely to see her happy and improving. she's out of hospital & in a rest home, and has an aim of getting well enough to go back to her own home.
i would hardly have believed it when i saw her a month ago in hospital, but she told me that she was determined not to accept what the doctors said & to fight for her health. i expected nothing less of her, which is why she is so dear to me. it really made my day to see her chatting & laughing.
on a related note, i went to see the film "song for marion" on friday night. it was such a lovely movie, though really quite heavy with emotion. i felt like the film was sort of played out in my life today as i watched this friend & her husband interacting, and the loving warmth they shared. people can show their love in such intimate & unexpected ways, even when they don't realise they're doing any such thing.
the "song for marion" theme carried on later in the afternoon when i went to see the GLOW Singers perform. they did a lovely selection of songs, including in maori, chinese & spanish. it really tied together the two parts of my day nicely.
one thing i did this morning was to visit a friend, who i wrote about last month. well, i have to say that she is doing so much better, and it was lovely to see her happy and improving. she's out of hospital & in a rest home, and has an aim of getting well enough to go back to her own home.
i would hardly have believed it when i saw her a month ago in hospital, but she told me that she was determined not to accept what the doctors said & to fight for her health. i expected nothing less of her, which is why she is so dear to me. it really made my day to see her chatting & laughing.
on a related note, i went to see the film "song for marion" on friday night. it was such a lovely movie, though really quite heavy with emotion. i felt like the film was sort of played out in my life today as i watched this friend & her husband interacting, and the loving warmth they shared. people can show their love in such intimate & unexpected ways, even when they don't realise they're doing any such thing.
the "song for marion" theme carried on later in the afternoon when i went to see the GLOW Singers perform. they did a lovely selection of songs, including in maori, chinese & spanish. it really tied together the two parts of my day nicely.
Thursday, 23 May 2013
this is unhealthy
i'm not particularly impressed with this suggestion by the waikato district health board (wdhb), to reduce the waiting times at the hospital's emergency department:
Visitors to Waikato Hospital's emergency department could soon be handed leaflets after their consultation, telling them exactly why the reason they were there did not rate as an emergency....
An ongoing struggle to improve the times is being further hindered by the high number of people who could easily have avoided going to the ED, the board was told.
the reason why the wdhb is concerned about emergency times is this:
Under the Government's health targets programme, each of the country's 20 health boards are set a goal of having 95 per cent of admissions being seen within the six-hour time frame. Waikato DHB sits in joint-last place in the rankings on 86.9 per cent.
the board knows the reasons why it can't meet its target: overloading. in fact, one of the board members even goes further and gives an accurate assessment of why this is happening:
Board member Ewan Wilson said he suspected many people would be deterred by the fear of exorbitant weekend surcharges at medical centres, so they headed straight to the hospital.
you would think then, that this board member would have something to say about the provision of affordable after-hours health care. perhaps he would reinforce the notion that people shouldn't be denied medical attention because they can't afford the basic cost of seeing a GP. he might have called on the government to rethink the way our health system is catering for those people inconsiderate enough to feel unwell and need a doctors outside of normal GP working hours.
but there is none of that. instead, he thinks the wdhb "just need to get harder". in other words, they should discourage people from using the hospital's emergency department, without any concern about where they might go. many of those turned away would just not be able to afford the weekend rates at accident & emergency clinics, even with a community services card. there will be those who don't qualify for a card but are unable to afford the added up charges of a consultation and medicines.
and if these people don't see a doctor within a reasonable timeframe, they could end up back in emergency & might need hospitalisation because their condition has deteriorated. so really, not much will have changed.
there are also issues here about excessive profits being made by private providers of accident & emergency care. yes, they are providing a vital service, but i have a reasonable idea of the level of profits that are being made here, and i object to vulnerable people who really have very few options being forced to fork out on high fees just so these centres can make massive profits. again, it's not like they had a choice in being unwell - if they had any choice in the matter, i'm sure they would have chosen a much more convenient time.
i believe in universal, affordable public health care. i believe that access to health care is the right of every person in the country. and while i agree that doctors have the right to earn a decent living, i can't support excessive profits. especially because that is money that could be put back into the health system to provide better services for people who need it.
we already know that the most impoverished people suffer from the worst health problems. if anything, the wdhb should be thinking of ways to get these people into the health system at the earliest possible stage of their illness. i appreciate they are constrained by government targets and government funding, but at the very least, they should be lobbying the government to change the system instead of trying to shame the sick people who turn up on their doorstep.
Visitors to Waikato Hospital's emergency department could soon be handed leaflets after their consultation, telling them exactly why the reason they were there did not rate as an emergency....
An ongoing struggle to improve the times is being further hindered by the high number of people who could easily have avoided going to the ED, the board was told.
the reason why the wdhb is concerned about emergency times is this:
Under the Government's health targets programme, each of the country's 20 health boards are set a goal of having 95 per cent of admissions being seen within the six-hour time frame. Waikato DHB sits in joint-last place in the rankings on 86.9 per cent.
the board knows the reasons why it can't meet its target: overloading. in fact, one of the board members even goes further and gives an accurate assessment of why this is happening:
Board member Ewan Wilson said he suspected many people would be deterred by the fear of exorbitant weekend surcharges at medical centres, so they headed straight to the hospital.
you would think then, that this board member would have something to say about the provision of affordable after-hours health care. perhaps he would reinforce the notion that people shouldn't be denied medical attention because they can't afford the basic cost of seeing a GP. he might have called on the government to rethink the way our health system is catering for those people inconsiderate enough to feel unwell and need a doctors outside of normal GP working hours.
but there is none of that. instead, he thinks the wdhb "just need to get harder". in other words, they should discourage people from using the hospital's emergency department, without any concern about where they might go. many of those turned away would just not be able to afford the weekend rates at accident & emergency clinics, even with a community services card. there will be those who don't qualify for a card but are unable to afford the added up charges of a consultation and medicines.
and if these people don't see a doctor within a reasonable timeframe, they could end up back in emergency & might need hospitalisation because their condition has deteriorated. so really, not much will have changed.
there are also issues here about excessive profits being made by private providers of accident & emergency care. yes, they are providing a vital service, but i have a reasonable idea of the level of profits that are being made here, and i object to vulnerable people who really have very few options being forced to fork out on high fees just so these centres can make massive profits. again, it's not like they had a choice in being unwell - if they had any choice in the matter, i'm sure they would have chosen a much more convenient time.
i believe in universal, affordable public health care. i believe that access to health care is the right of every person in the country. and while i agree that doctors have the right to earn a decent living, i can't support excessive profits. especially because that is money that could be put back into the health system to provide better services for people who need it.
we already know that the most impoverished people suffer from the worst health problems. if anything, the wdhb should be thinking of ways to get these people into the health system at the earliest possible stage of their illness. i appreciate they are constrained by government targets and government funding, but at the very least, they should be lobbying the government to change the system instead of trying to shame the sick people who turn up on their doorstep.
Tuesday, 21 May 2013
hamilton city adopts a living wage policy
i've been making some steady progress on my campaign over the last couple of days. i have now set up a facebook page for my campaign, and you can find a policy document there which sets out the my position on various issues. that document was developed by a group of people who have a similar vision for our city.
a couple of weeks ago, i recorded this video giving a bit of background about myself & talking about why i'm standing for council:
it's a bit longer than i intended, but then i always have so much to say - hence the blogging!
as a reminder of why political activity and activism is so important, the hamilton city council has made a decision today to adopt the living wage policy. it means that 80 council staff (about 10% of the total) will be remunerated adequately for their labour. this move will make hamilton the first city in nz to adopt the policy, and i'm really glad that our council has pushed ahead with it.
the policy will be phased in over two years. at this stage it only applies to direct employees, and the next step is to have the policy applied to those employed by contractors hired by council. this kind of policy really makes a difference to people's lives - not just those 80 who will be affected, but also to the businesses where they will spend their money, thereby circulating more money through the economy.
not only that but it will hopefully have the effect of increasing wages in other sectors of the economy as well. with private companies like the warehouse adopting the policy for permanent staff, we might yet have work valued in the way that it should be.
i'm heartened by the fact that 8 councillors supported the policy, with only 5 voting against. that makes it a strong statement by council, and it's a pity that the mayor was so much against it. i really hope this indicative of the feeling around the country regarding this policy.
a couple of weeks ago, i recorded this video giving a bit of background about myself & talking about why i'm standing for council:
it's a bit longer than i intended, but then i always have so much to say - hence the blogging!
as a reminder of why political activity and activism is so important, the hamilton city council has made a decision today to adopt the living wage policy. it means that 80 council staff (about 10% of the total) will be remunerated adequately for their labour. this move will make hamilton the first city in nz to adopt the policy, and i'm really glad that our council has pushed ahead with it.
the policy will be phased in over two years. at this stage it only applies to direct employees, and the next step is to have the policy applied to those employed by contractors hired by council. this kind of policy really makes a difference to people's lives - not just those 80 who will be affected, but also to the businesses where they will spend their money, thereby circulating more money through the economy.
not only that but it will hopefully have the effect of increasing wages in other sectors of the economy as well. with private companies like the warehouse adopting the policy for permanent staff, we might yet have work valued in the way that it should be.
i'm heartened by the fact that 8 councillors supported the policy, with only 5 voting against. that makes it a strong statement by council, and it's a pity that the mayor was so much against it. i really hope this indicative of the feeling around the country regarding this policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)