You know it's a close election when it's time to demonise the unemployed.
On Wednesday, welfare campaigner Lindsay Mitchell pointed out that what's missing from this election campaign is any sensible discussion about welfare.
And then bang, just like that, discussion turned yesterday to Louise Upston wanting to drug-test the unemployed. Red meat (she hopes) to National's voter base.
Two things.
First, you may think I might agree with Upston, which is why I needed to write this, especially since I quoted Lindsay in this morning's post (set it up to automatically post, in fact, before Upton opened her gob yesterday). So let me quickly explain that Lindsay is saying that the silence about welfare is a silence about long-term welfare dependence. That welfare dependence is now generational. That this really is the massive social problem New Zealand needs to grapple with.
Upston doesn't deal with that -- her proposal is, she hopes, simply a quick fix for a bigger electoral return. (Yes, she does say "they don't want young people wasting their lives on welfare, and for some drug use is a barrier to work," but we all know this is no fast-fix cure to that.)
So, second, if she were truly genuine about lifting up the unemployed, she'd recognise that for the most part (aside from the likes of departing Reserve Bank governors and should-have departed MBIE chief executives) unemployed folk have no responsibility for the parlous state of the job market. And, therefore, any decent politician might instead focus on creating the conditions for private job creation and for reducing long-term welfare dependency, rather than moralising against the jobless themselves.
It has been one of Javier Milei's positions since he took over the presidency in Argentina -- resisting demonising those who bear no responsibility for the dire state of employment, and instead bearing down on getting the hell out of the way of employers.
That might work better for all of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment