Labour / NZ First Government

[justakiwi]

That has absolutely nothing to do with our comments re beneficiaries.

I have no intention of being drawn into a discussion about the butcher. I think it is disgusting that you are now attempting to use that tragedy for your own agenda. I refuse to be part of it. End of story.

Please comment about the butcher who took his own life.

You have no idea what it is like to be in business - to take on risks, to work hard, look after employees and now, to see a government recklessly and randomly destroying businesses without offering any direct assistance.

Just like Cindy and her incompetents.

[dobby41]

Please comment about the butcher who took his own life.

You have no idea what it is like to be in business - to take on risks, to work hard, look after employees and now, to see a government recklessly and randomly destroying businesses without offering any direct assistance.

Just like Cindy and her incompetents.

What business experiance has Simon had?
How about Goldsmith?

[fungus pudding]

True, but nobody who has ever been a beneficiary in the past, would talk about them the way Balance does. Those of us who have been there don’t make blanket negative generalisations about beneficiaries as a group of people. We just don’t. So I make no apologies for my comment.

The only semi-relevant comment that Balance makes that I can see is 'Government has been extremely generous to beneficiaries however', which is hardly a blanket negative statement, and in fact is a comment about the actions of the govt. - not beneficiaries.

[justakiwi]

Yes it is a comment about the government, but he is implying that the financial assistance the government is giving beneficiaries is not “deserved” and would be better spent elsewhere. He would not have made that comment if the recipients of that money were not beneficiaries.

The only semi-relevant comment that Balance makes that I can see is 'Government has been extremely generous to beneficiaries however', which is hardly a blanket negative statement, and in fact is a comment about the actions of the govt. - not beneficiaries.

[blackcap]

Yes it is a comment about the government, but he is implying that the financial assistance the government is giving beneficiaries is not “deserved” and would be better spent elsewhere. He would not have made that comment if the recipients of that money were not beneficiaries.

The bit I don't get about the beneficiaries getting extra money is that they did not need it. With the changes that were implemented by the government, (the lockdown), beneficiaries were not disadvantaged one iota. However it was those that had business that were disadvantaged. Any extra money should have gone to those disadvantaged by the measures. For beneficiaries nothing really changed.

[stoploss]

The bit I don't get about the beneficiaries getting extra money is that they did not need it. With the changes that were implemented by the government, (the lockdown), beneficiaries were not disadvantaged one iota. However it was those that had business that were disadvantaged. Any extra money should have gone to those disadvantaged by the measures. For beneficiaries nothing really changed.

I think it was a long term plan , it didn't sit well with Labour that John key was the only one to put the basic benefit up in decades ......

[justakiwi]

Some families for sure, would have struggled with children out of school - where they may well have been provided with breakfast each day prior to lockdown. When families are already struggling to make ends meet, having extra mouths to feed for even one meal a day, would be significant. Kids at home during the day may well also mean heating needs to be on - parents at home while kids are usually at school, may not put it on just for themselves. Even simple things like more loads of laundry over a week. If you include pensioners in the beneficiary category, they were pretty much confined to home so may well have been buying groceries online or giving family/friends petrol money to shop for them. Again, home all day so more heating needed. I am just guessing here obviously but these would be likely added expenses.

It would have been difficult to target the assistance to only “some” beneficiaries, based on need. Logistically difficult especially given other time pressures right now, so easier to make it an across the board payment to everyone.

The bit I don't get about the beneficiaries getting extra money is that they did not need it. With the changes that were implemented by the government, (the lockdown), beneficiaries were not disadvantaged one iota. However it was those that had business that were disadvantaged. Any extra money should have gone to those disadvantaged by the measures. For beneficiaries nothing really changed.

[Balance]

The show isn't over there by any means.
It will be interesting to see what the budget brings.

Already too late for the 174 workers laid off by Bunnings as an example.

In Australia, my friend was buying building supplies on the last few weeks to improve his property. Not do in NZ - why?

In NZ, greengrocers are allowed to open but not butchers - why?

[Balance]

That has absolutely nothing to do with our comments re beneficiaries.

I have no intention of being drawn into a discussion about the butcher. I think it is disgusting that you are now attempting to use that tragedy for your own agenda. I refuse to be part of it. End of story.

Disgusting? More like the truth hurts, doesn’t it?

Fact is that you & Cindy would love to just bask in the glory of containing the virus.

You are not prepared to face the hard facts however that there are going to be deaths and health problems - of the ham-fisted uncaring one-sided support provided by this ‘kind’ government.

[jonu]

We're meant to trust these cynical incompetents!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/hea...ae-controversy

They remove the word marae from the clause and then reinsert it in the definition! Finally the Greens have something (mild) to say.

Labour would have had a 2 year expiry on this law if not pulled up by National.

The comments of the Human Rights Commissioner at the end of the article are downright chilling.