Tom Scott par excellence
May 22nd, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar
I missed this last week. You can see all of Tom Scott’s cartoons here. Superb.
Related posts:
- Tom Scott on Mike Moore
- Today’s Tom Scott
- Liberty Scott on Labour and obesity
- Today’s Tom Scott cartoon
May 22nd, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Well yes, and I posted the Scott cartoon link to the Hodgson thread. Just shows you how uncaring and evil the left can be in their War On Women!!
But I still prefer my original suggestion for a different cartoon narrative on the matter:
Baby steps Mr Scott. Baby steps.
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Who needs the pill. Put that picture of Bradford in every bedroom. That ought to do it.
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Has Sue Bradford spoken out against free contraception for beneficiaries? Or only against WINZ administering it?
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Ha, you said you wouldn’t be holding your breath tom!
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 2:27 pm
bene’s breed bene’s.
Maybe bradford should question why the rich-poor gap is increasing— because the poor have so many kids they cannot afford to raise.
The ‘rich’ might be ‘rich’ simply because they have less children.That tends to happen why you must pay for them yourself.
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Pete –
Vote:Auckland Action Against Poverty spokeswoman Sue Bradford this morning said while the contraception was voluntary, it was “totally unacceptable” for the Government to get involved in women’s reproduction.
“Most New Zealand women will not accept that. It’s because beneficiaries are seen as people who are worth less than others,” she said.
Bradford said the Government was persuading women to take contraception through sanctions, such as having beneficiaries who have an additional child on the benefit to look for work when that child was one.
“We believe that women in this country have the right to control their own reproduction,” she said.
– http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6876758/Beneficiary-contraception-plan-intrusive
May 22nd, 2012 at 2:32 pm
“The ‘rich’ might be ‘rich’ simply because they have less children.That tends to happen why you must pay for them yourself.”
Yeah not too sure about that comment.
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 2:33 pm
It was a shameful display by a lot of privileged women who let their ideologies and hatred of the Right lead them into some distasteful postures.
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 2:53 pm
My wife is a midwife – about as pro-women’s rights as you can get. But she heard about this policy and said, “Excellent! That will help a lot of women.” She said that it actually gave more choices and more control to women, not less.
Vote:Sue Bradford advocates for who?
May 22nd, 2012 at 2:54 pm
I mean, ‘whom’…
Vote:Dammit.
May 22nd, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Not the Nine O’Clock News had a very funny skilt about ‘who’ and ‘whom’. Back in the day.
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 3:02 pm
@Yvette: There’s nothing in that article that suggests Sue is against free contraception for beneficiaries, as opposed to the Government coercing them into using it.
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 3:22 pm
There’s a real chance WINZ staff could encourage beneficiaries into using contraceptions, just like there’s a chance they could encourage them to use their benefit, and their accommodation allowance. Maybe there should be no human interface, so there’s no chance of any influence.
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 3:58 pm
pete – you asked “Has Sue Bradford spoken out against free contraception for beneficiaries? Or only against WINZ administering it?”
I just dropped in what she reportedly said. I don’t pretend to understand what she means – who does?
Vote:If it is a National idea with the word ‘beneficiary’ in it, she’ll be opposed.
[As for those who call her Phyllis Diller, I think that is utterly insulting to Phyllis Diller, who infinitely more intelligent, coherent and entertaining]
May 22nd, 2012 at 4:12 pm
@Pete George: perhaps people could make that case then, rather that misrepresenting other people’s positions.
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Therea good item on this at Hard News – http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/the-editorial-image/ – including referencing the Kiwiblog faux outrage of a few days ago.
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 4:34 pm
The long term unavoidable shot in the arse contraceptive jab is what should be being introduced for these tramps…..
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 6:26 pm
That is the point. Welfare is NOT a good option. It is a life of poverty. It is made worse if the caregiver smokes and drinks which many do. People who are working control their fertility why can’t welfare people. They are bringing children into poverty.
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Tom Hunter,
Good comment, except the bruises are more likely to be from a subsequent partner, rather than the father of the children. Of course, it gets a bit murkier if each child has a different father…
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 6:38 pm
A very good cartoon by Scott. For once, he has put his leftwing views to one side.
There is a lot of truth in what wreck1080 said. “Maybe the rich are rich because they have fewer children.” As the old saying goes: “poverty breeds poverty”.
As for Sue Bradford – she actually **needs** there to be poor people in this country. If everyone were rich, she would have nothing to moan and bitch about, and that would piss her off more than anything else.
I’m not convinced that the offer of free contraception will do much at all.
If a beneficiary gets paid “x” dollars extra per week for having another child, then in 95% of cases that is all that they will think about (and be motivated by). They would never even think about the extra costs involved in caring for the extra child. It’s all about “money up front”.
The more that I look at the so-called “welfare reforms”, the softer they look, and Working for Families is STILL untouched. Bloody ridiculous.
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Ha, indeed mm. I confess amazement that a solid lefty cartoonist like Scott could actually dare to do this.
Awwwww – and then you ruin the ride by referencing the jowly one.
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 7:31 pm
that PHOTO reminds me of the Helen Clark campaign one a few years ago .. airbrushed to make her look more attactive
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 7:34 pm
“Surely all women in New Zealand have the same rights to sexual activity and to bear children, without suffering any penalty.
(then) Green MP Keith Locke.
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/06/10/hard-hearted-immigration-policy-does-nz-reputation-damage/
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 9:16 pm
hj
So you agree with Keith, then?
Vote:May 22nd, 2012 at 10:15 pm
The Government also provides women with maternity care (ie deliveries), pre/post natal care, care for prem babies and Plunket to name a few – all part of the reproductive system – and as a former user of all these services, I certainly appreciate that they were all free and in no way an intrusion or invasion on my and my offsprings’ health and welfare. One of the post-natal services is to ensure that one doesn’t rush into number two, three, four… too quickly. Is Bradford also against this government support?
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 2:19 am
And to think that the wider use of contraceptives in females in the 60′s was credited for giving women more choices and liberation. It helped fuel the feminist revolution back then – and yet Comrade Sue is now telling us it’s anti choice and anti women? Pull the other one love.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 11:46 am
The govt never announced contraception. National announced sterilisation. Far different kettle of fish. and a sign beneficiaries are never going to be able to improve their lot. Plus left in a fourth tier of no benefit, no employment , no hope.
Vote: