Do you mean the Helen Clark government that shut down all the mental health hospitals back in the 90's putting people with serious mental health issues back into the public domain because her (Clark) health 'experts' said it would be best for them?
Funny she talks about the Coalition Agreement should have been transparent - has she forgotten about the 2017 Coalition agreement which was kept secret??
Sounds like cope from those on the gravy train loosing control of funding. That model needs breaking, give Mikes plan a go, if it doesn’t work out, it can be reviewed in future. While 24 million sounds a lot, other quangos are not being critiqued so viciously. Ingrid could look into the Treaty lawyers bills the taxpayers fund on behalf of Iwi corporations and why.
isnt it Rich when a Labour Politician starts whining about what the new Government spend and what they spend it on after the way they pissed money away over 6 years they were in power
Wish the Labour person was so incredibly diligent and honest in the Labour government, given all the legislative ideological stuff they rammed through in the last years that we are now only just finding out about. Her arguments were sensible, and I fail, when I do "what aboutism," but at the same time......
Couldn’t agree more - typical labour hypocrisy. You only need to listen to Hipkins and his constant whinging about everything, good or bad this government does to know this is ideological.
Where did the 1.9 billion to mental health go in Grants Robertsons well being budget 2019 budget what was the return here Ingrid? Id back Mike King track record over anything your regime has attempted over 6 years
ingrid, the ex-TV3 news journo... from waaay way back when Journalism was actual News, no opinion pieces we are expected to agree with. Credit to her for getting out of the shitpile it became so early i guess...
Pretty impressive arguments by Ingrid, and I'm listening because I'm usually inclined to agree with Michael. Seems pretty clear that the Impact Lab report's "ROI" metric is typical self justifying dubious economics. You can't actually measure economic impact because the system you're trying to predict is inherently complex and reflexive. I'd agree with Ingrid that it only makes sense as a relative measure. I think it really comes down to a question of technocracy or democracy. Ingrid seems to believe there is a rational process that the government could follow to allocate resources that could be executed by beaurecrats. It seems Michael disagrees and prefers a directly accountable democratic mechanism for allocating resources. I'd probably disagree with both and say we should fund neither, and charity would be more effective. That way we can utilise the collective discernment of every donor, rather than some pupportedly rational government process or the intuition of some politician.
Labour would have spent 24 million just looking into it
Coming for a party that devastated NewZealanders mental health
Do you mean the Helen Clark government that shut down all the mental health hospitals back in the 90's putting people with serious mental health issues back into the public domain because her (Clark) health 'experts' said it would be best for them?
@@secondchance6603 it was a national party government in the '90s
Funny she talks about the Coalition Agreement should have been transparent - has she forgotten about the 2017 Coalition agreement which was kept secret??
Excuse me if we had more environmental ministers with credentials in the natural sciences we might not be so happy about net zero😂
Sounds like cope from those on the gravy train loosing control of funding. That model needs breaking, give Mikes plan a go, if it doesn’t work out, it can be reviewed in future. While 24 million sounds a lot, other quangos are not being critiqued so viciously. Ingrid could look into the Treaty lawyers bills the taxpayers fund on behalf of Iwi corporations and why.
I just can’t understand how these people can criticise this government, it’s like the last terrible 6 years never happened in her tiny mind 🤷♀️
isnt it Rich when a Labour Politician starts whining about what the new Government spend and what they spend it on after the way they pissed money away over 6 years they were in power
Wish the Labour person was so incredibly diligent and honest in the Labour government, given all the legislative ideological stuff they rammed through in the last years that we are now only just finding out about. Her arguments were sensible, and I fail, when I do "what aboutism," but at the same time......
Couldn’t agree more - typical labour hypocrisy. You only need to listen to Hipkins and his constant whinging about everything, good or bad this government does to know this is ideological.
Didn't take long for comments to start disappearing, some things just don't change.
I am Hoping jabcinda goes to jail...Fund this Hope
Where did the 1.9 billion to mental health go in Grants Robertsons well being budget 2019 budget what was the return here Ingrid? Id back Mike King track record over anything your regime has attempted over 6 years
most likely to young gay men
Labour Party complaining about spending.. that’s rich!! Hahaha it’s actually laughable
Get the receipts
Labour spent 26 million dollars on a "living marae" at Victoria University
The party who signed a deal with Pfizer that we still don't know the details on experts transparency 😂
ingrid, the ex-TV3 news journo... from waaay way back when Journalism was actual News, no opinion pieces we are expected to agree with. Credit to her for getting out of the shitpile it became so early i guess...
Tax payers money.....
Pretty impressive arguments by Ingrid, and I'm listening because I'm usually inclined to agree with Michael.
Seems pretty clear that the Impact Lab report's "ROI" metric is typical self justifying dubious economics. You can't actually measure economic impact because the system you're trying to predict is inherently complex and reflexive. I'd agree with Ingrid that it only makes sense as a relative measure.
I think it really comes down to a question of technocracy or democracy. Ingrid seems to believe there is a rational process that the government could follow to allocate resources that could be executed by beaurecrats. It seems Michael disagrees and prefers a directly accountable democratic mechanism for allocating resources.
I'd probably disagree with both and say we should fund neither, and charity would be more effective. That way we can utilise the collective discernment of every donor, rather than some pupportedly rational government process or the intuition of some politician.
well you have a point but it was a campaign promise after all