Two more examples of the front line being cut caught my eye in today's press. The cuts in teachers that have so embarrassed Ms Parat are now symbolic of wider cuts, to be the focus of teacher union action.
Meanwhile, cost-cutting in Housing NZ, leading to the invocation of that touchstone of service quality reduction - the call centre - has seen the new call centre operation flounder. But let's not worry - service may be appalling, but 70 jobs were lost, so, from the government's perspective, all's well.
It all adds up to further evidence of the real impact of the government's public sector policy - cut and then cut again, and, when, service falls over, obscure the issue and apply a bandage and hope it doesn't seep. And remember, the people whose service is being eroded are not particularly important and will make do with poorer service, because, when all is considered, they are different from the deserving rich.
IDLE THOUGHTS OF AN IDLE FELLOW: The Ruminations of Robert Winter
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
On Politics, Tables and the Greens
The attacks on the Greens around the citizens-initiated referendum have focused my mind on the current wider coverage of the Greens as they rise in prominence.
It made me think also of tables. Tables and the like often figure in philosophical discussion - is the chair that I see the same chair, objective and external to me, that you see and so on.... but the table metaphor in my mind is more prosaic. I'm typing on an old oak table, long in my family. It is a table that tells you of its life - the rings, the chips, the scars and the rest of the damage done to the wood over many, many years. It is not quite a distressed table, but it displays all the evidence of long, and sometimes unfortunate, usage. I'm very fond of it.
That's a little like the LP and the National Party (though I'm not fond of the latter). They bear all those same metaphorical scars, embodied in history, personalities and institutions. We think of each, and immediately a flood of positive and negative thoughts washes over us. It is a weight of baggage that makes difficult change in popular perceptions of such established parties. In some ways, it provides certainty and comfort; in others, it makes for inertia. And when we attack such parties, we wield long knowledge of history and people - we know where they come from and what they think and what motivates them. The narrative of attack is entrenched in established attitudes and knowledge.
The Greens are in a different space altogether. They are in general unsullied by a history of contingent or pragmatic policy-making. They have never "failed" in government. They have never gone from the heights of total electoral victory to the slough of utter defeat. They have never had to confront eye-to-eye the power of global capital as a small, dependent, export-based economy. They have what older parties might see as the luxury of relatively uncompromised principle. It is a very happy political space to occupy.
That's why, in the Greens, there still exists the debate between those who wish to preserve that "innocence", staying outside alliances that might compromise principle, and those who are prepared to enter the rough-and-tumble of mainstream politics, with all its fish-hooks and compromises. But that's not my point here. My point is that, as the Greens rise in status, how the two established parties deal with them becomes interesting. Currently, for example, the Right is trying to blacken the Greens name over the citizens-based referendum issue. That will fail, and, I suspect, in a small way rebound on National and its allies. Accusing the Greens of "abuse" is a bit like attacking motherhood. National's best course is, of course, seduction and compromise - win over layers of Blue-Greens and undermine the radical tradition. That's a politics already in train, which is why people look at Dr Norman very carefully.
For Labour, the issue is different. The Greens and Labour overlap positively. Many of we LP r&fers are comfortable with the prospect of a long-term alliance (in power) with the Greens. How that comes about will be interesting, for it requires delicate jockeying to bring about an alliance without losing votes from Labour to the Greens. But, if I think about it, Labour's approach is as much that of National - to inveigle the Greens into a compromised situation, in which the elements of the compromise broadly suit Labour's political purposes. No doubt the Greens understand this, and I imagine that their internal debates are between the "purists" and the "engagers", and, within the engagers, a more complex debate about with whom and how?
It made me think also of tables. Tables and the like often figure in philosophical discussion - is the chair that I see the same chair, objective and external to me, that you see and so on.... but the table metaphor in my mind is more prosaic. I'm typing on an old oak table, long in my family. It is a table that tells you of its life - the rings, the chips, the scars and the rest of the damage done to the wood over many, many years. It is not quite a distressed table, but it displays all the evidence of long, and sometimes unfortunate, usage. I'm very fond of it.
That's a little like the LP and the National Party (though I'm not fond of the latter). They bear all those same metaphorical scars, embodied in history, personalities and institutions. We think of each, and immediately a flood of positive and negative thoughts washes over us. It is a weight of baggage that makes difficult change in popular perceptions of such established parties. In some ways, it provides certainty and comfort; in others, it makes for inertia. And when we attack such parties, we wield long knowledge of history and people - we know where they come from and what they think and what motivates them. The narrative of attack is entrenched in established attitudes and knowledge.
The Greens are in a different space altogether. They are in general unsullied by a history of contingent or pragmatic policy-making. They have never "failed" in government. They have never gone from the heights of total electoral victory to the slough of utter defeat. They have never had to confront eye-to-eye the power of global capital as a small, dependent, export-based economy. They have what older parties might see as the luxury of relatively uncompromised principle. It is a very happy political space to occupy.
That's why, in the Greens, there still exists the debate between those who wish to preserve that "innocence", staying outside alliances that might compromise principle, and those who are prepared to enter the rough-and-tumble of mainstream politics, with all its fish-hooks and compromises. But that's not my point here. My point is that, as the Greens rise in status, how the two established parties deal with them becomes interesting. Currently, for example, the Right is trying to blacken the Greens name over the citizens-based referendum issue. That will fail, and, I suspect, in a small way rebound on National and its allies. Accusing the Greens of "abuse" is a bit like attacking motherhood. National's best course is, of course, seduction and compromise - win over layers of Blue-Greens and undermine the radical tradition. That's a politics already in train, which is why people look at Dr Norman very carefully.
For Labour, the issue is different. The Greens and Labour overlap positively. Many of we LP r&fers are comfortable with the prospect of a long-term alliance (in power) with the Greens. How that comes about will be interesting, for it requires delicate jockeying to bring about an alliance without losing votes from Labour to the Greens. But, if I think about it, Labour's approach is as much that of National - to inveigle the Greens into a compromised situation, in which the elements of the compromise broadly suit Labour's political purposes. No doubt the Greens understand this, and I imagine that their internal debates are between the "purists" and the "engagers", and, within the engagers, a more complex debate about with whom and how?
A Major Cock-Up: Parata backpedalling madly
The Herald tells us:
A Herald survey of ministers found that at least seven of the sixteen Cabinet ministers with school-aged children sent all or some of their children to private schools. Four ministers refused to say where their children attended or could not respond, and five ministers said they had enrolled their kids in state schools.
The private schools favoured by National's ministers are also the ones that we taxpayers subsidise to significant extent - that is, we taxpayers, facing bigger classes for our kids, are subsidising the elite education of (many) National ministers' kids.
But that's just one background point. Mr Armstrong argues today that National have rescued a mess from a catastrophe, and he's right, though I'm not sure about the rescue. It is a mess at every level:
Coda: my favourite teacher - she who brightens my life - showed me this last night - it's been circulating in the teaching world over the last few days:
A Herald survey of ministers found that at least seven of the sixteen Cabinet ministers with school-aged children sent all or some of their children to private schools. Four ministers refused to say where their children attended or could not respond, and five ministers said they had enrolled their kids in state schools.
The private schools favoured by National's ministers are also the ones that we taxpayers subsidise to significant extent - that is, we taxpayers, facing bigger classes for our kids, are subsidising the elite education of (many) National ministers' kids.
But that's just one background point. Mr Armstrong argues today that National have rescued a mess from a catastrophe, and he's right, though I'm not sure about the rescue. It is a mess at every level:
- at a policy level, how could the policy have emerged in such a way that the risk assessment wasn't done properly? Between the minister's office and the ministry sits a question: who cocked up? And I bet that it won't be the minister's office that cops the blame.
- at a political level, who missed the beat in not recognising that the average punter believes in smaller class sizes? It's the popular metric for improved education - and the average punter hasn't read John Hattie (the educationalist who, I believe, gave the government the heads up on the possibility of moving to larger class size)
- for the minister: she was the great hope, the coming person, left scrambling and forced, to all intents and purposes, to apologise this morning to intermediate school principals. How quickly a star can fall in politics.
Coda: my favourite teacher - she who brightens my life - showed me this last night - it's been circulating in the teaching world over the last few days:
On the Greens, the asset sales campaign and National's tetchiness
I see that the Right Blogs will not let the asset sales campaign issue die down, and are now busily accusing the Greens of "abuse" of everything - funding, the purpose of citizens-based referenda and the like.
I have been gormless. Of course, the real reason that the dogs have been unleashed is the growing fear that the signatures are being gathered, that there will be a referendum on asset sales, that the Government will come out on the wrong side of the figures, and that public disapproval of asset sales will confront Mr Key front and centre. And it will leave the government in a terrible position - either offer two fingers to the nation, or back down, humiliated.
A word of advice. I understand that trying to blacken the reputation of the LP is easier - we've been around a long time and have our own skeletons. Being nasty to the Greens backfires badly. They are still pretty pristine and unsullied, and trying to make out that they are corrupt apparatchiks won't work. Such a a campaign merely brings the Greens' position into clearer and more positive focus. If I were the Greens, I would be quietly pleased that the Voices of National is busy trying to blacken our reputation.
Coda: the idea that the Greens will "bully" people into signing the referendum brings to mind a Monty Python sketch:
I have been gormless. Of course, the real reason that the dogs have been unleashed is the growing fear that the signatures are being gathered, that there will be a referendum on asset sales, that the Government will come out on the wrong side of the figures, and that public disapproval of asset sales will confront Mr Key front and centre. And it will leave the government in a terrible position - either offer two fingers to the nation, or back down, humiliated.
A word of advice. I understand that trying to blacken the reputation of the LP is easier - we've been around a long time and have our own skeletons. Being nasty to the Greens backfires badly. They are still pretty pristine and unsullied, and trying to make out that they are corrupt apparatchiks won't work. Such a a campaign merely brings the Greens' position into clearer and more positive focus. If I were the Greens, I would be quietly pleased that the Voices of National is busy trying to blacken our reputation.
Coda: the idea that the Greens will "bully" people into signing the referendum brings to mind a Monty Python sketch:
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Right Blogs in another Tizz: Beware Green Bullies
Blogs that support the Constant Cock-Up Party, to which Messrs Coleman, Brownlee and McCully, and Ms Parata belong, have been in something of a tizz in recent weeks. I've noticed a palpable rise in tetchiness as the lacklustre performance of the government becomes ever more apparent.
Today sees another leap into fantasy. It appears that the Greens may be recruiting a part-timer or so to gather signatures for an anti-asset sale petition. This is a serious campaign - nothing wrong (or in any way illegal) in putting some organisation into it.
In a wave of grumpiness, that simple action has led to:
Today sees another leap into fantasy. It appears that the Greens may be recruiting a part-timer or so to gather signatures for an anti-asset sale petition. This is a serious campaign - nothing wrong (or in any way illegal) in putting some organisation into it.
In a wave of grumpiness, that simple action has led to:
- assertions that its the only way that signatures can be gained (which I for one can assure you is not the case)
- assertions these part-timers are going to "bully" people into signing the petition - yep, I can see that traditional Green-bully behaviour, the vicious bastards, all that pointed celery.....
- allusions to improper funding of these part-time posts (no proof of course - just the intimation, you understand - actually, though don't let on, I've been told by a good source in the National Party that Al Qaeda, the 'Ndrangheta and Putin have joined forces to fund this, but that's just between you and me....)
- the further improper use of the term "asset sales" which I assume the Right want describe as "mutually beneficial ownership structures" or "capitalist charity at work", or the like.
Parsing Mr Key
Pottering through my working day, I was musing on something Mr Key is quoted as saying about the class size-schools' funding issue. He said, apparently:
"It's fair to say there were some hard edges for a small number of schools and the Government is looking at how it can take the pressure off those hard edges."
"Hard edges", I mused, thinking about the way language can be used to conceal or obfuscate a mighty cock-up.
And a flock of possible Keyisms kept butting into my work:
A local hydraulic rebalancing, nothing to worry about (The Great Asian Tsunami)
A modest hiccup in the financial sector (The GFC)
A short-term disruption in the power supply (Fukushima)
A touch of post-holiday queasiness (The Black Death)
Unexpected guests - where's that tin of fruit salad (Genghis Khan and his Horde arrive at the gates)
A twinge in the back (Julius Caesar's last thought)
A little silly, but it fills the longueurs of the afternoon.
"It's fair to say there were some hard edges for a small number of schools and the Government is looking at how it can take the pressure off those hard edges."
"Hard edges", I mused, thinking about the way language can be used to conceal or obfuscate a mighty cock-up.
And a flock of possible Keyisms kept butting into my work:
A local hydraulic rebalancing, nothing to worry about (The Great Asian Tsunami)
A modest hiccup in the financial sector (The GFC)
A short-term disruption in the power supply (Fukushima)
A touch of post-holiday queasiness (The Black Death)
Unexpected guests - where's that tin of fruit salad (Genghis Khan and his Horde arrive at the gates)
A twinge in the back (Julius Caesar's last thought)
A little silly, but it fills the longueurs of the afternoon.
Teaching in Paeroa
The Right like to attack teachers. Sure, that tradition professes a belief in education, but does its best to blacken the reputation, and undermine the professionalism, of teachers. Underperforming, overpaid, over-unionised and way below the salt, goes the narrative.
Because I know teachers, I know that this is nonsense. No doubt there may be poor teachers, but show me any group in which that is not the case. But I know that swathe of teachers who care deeply about their students and their achievement, who go the extra yards in teaching and extra-curricular activities and make a difference to many, many lives, only to be disparaged.
This is brought to mind by the story from Paeroa, in which a bandanna-clad youth entered a classroom and shot a fellow student with a BB gun, before firing at the teacher, who, in his daily work, had to subdue the youth before, presumably, returning to Lear's angst, or the properties of chlorine, or key elements of binomial theory. It's an extreme case, but, when they are not teaching, our teachers are acting as part-time parents, guardians, counsellors, career advisers, and, occasionally, security force. And in return, they get bigger classes, more work, and the threat of a performance system that starts from the perspective that teachers need to be given a shake.
Because I know teachers, I know that this is nonsense. No doubt there may be poor teachers, but show me any group in which that is not the case. But I know that swathe of teachers who care deeply about their students and their achievement, who go the extra yards in teaching and extra-curricular activities and make a difference to many, many lives, only to be disparaged.
This is brought to mind by the story from Paeroa, in which a bandanna-clad youth entered a classroom and shot a fellow student with a BB gun, before firing at the teacher, who, in his daily work, had to subdue the youth before, presumably, returning to Lear's angst, or the properties of chlorine, or key elements of binomial theory. It's an extreme case, but, when they are not teaching, our teachers are acting as part-time parents, guardians, counsellors, career advisers, and, occasionally, security force. And in return, they get bigger classes, more work, and the threat of a performance system that starts from the perspective that teachers need to be given a shake.
More blame game in the Key Government
Mr Coleman has admitted using very wrong figures about audience size for TV7. Those inaccurate figures may have been an important factor in the debate about shutting down TV7.
And who is to blame for the use of the wrong figures? Not Mr Coleman, of course. In what is now standard practice, a lowly official is hung out to dry:
Yesterday Dr Coleman said an official from the Culture and Heritage Ministry or someone in his office had verbally provided him with a breakout figure.
"I can't remember exactly but at some point we decided it was 200,000 per week.
I'm beginning to think that working in Wellington under National is like the life of a medieval whipping boy, destined constantly to be blamed and punished, and always expecting the next cuff or insult,
And who is to blame for the use of the wrong figures? Not Mr Coleman, of course. In what is now standard practice, a lowly official is hung out to dry:
Yesterday Dr Coleman said an official from the Culture and Heritage Ministry or someone in his office had verbally provided him with a breakout figure.
"I can't remember exactly but at some point we decided it was 200,000 per week.
I'm beginning to think that working in Wellington under National is like the life of a medieval whipping boy, destined constantly to be blamed and punished, and always expecting the next cuff or insult,
Education, MFAT: Amateurism and the Key Government
The education stuff-up echoes the MFAT fiasco in lots of ways. Here we have a government and ministers who don't respect the public service. don't listen to advice, know better than the professionals in the sector, possess an insouciant belief in their own rightness, and who, having stuffed up, either blame their officials or shrug, smile sweetly, and say "well, wasn't that a mess" and move on as if running the country was amateur night at the RSA.
It took the professionals in the sector about 30 seconds to work out what was particularly wrong about the cuts introduced by Ms Parata. Either the officials briefing Ms Parata are gormless, which is unlikely, or the political decision was made, regardless of detailed impact reports, and in the certainty that ministerial might is right. Amateur night, indeed.
It took the professionals in the sector about 30 seconds to work out what was particularly wrong about the cuts introduced by Ms Parata. Either the officials briefing Ms Parata are gormless, which is unlikely, or the political decision was made, regardless of detailed impact reports, and in the certainty that ministerial might is right. Amateur night, indeed.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Front footing the vision thing in the NZ Labour Party
The Right is excited by the Dom Post's editorial today, which praises the Greens and disses Labour. There is more than a little "divide and rule" in both the editorial and Right comments. They like the narrative of Labour - unelectable because of a lack of vision - and Greens - unelectable because they have a vision -for it is the only route by which National can squeeze in in 2014. It's politics, and seen as such.
However, the following comment from the editorial does merit repetition:
Labour needs to deal with its historical baggage and sort out what it stands for quickly. Otherwise it might as well forget about the 2014 election and start planning for 2017.
All round the party, the debate about the need for a vision for Labour - a clear, unequivocal statement of what we stand for - is mounting. I, and many others, have argued that this is a paramount concern, not resolved by a series of low-key speeches by Mr Shearer. The LP has to state in crisp, uncomplicated terms what sort of Social Democracy it favours (there is variety on offer), and what policies follow from this. In modern politics, image matters, of course, but image also rests in part on substantive ideas that people understand and can support. Labour must front foot the question of vision earlier than later if it wants to be in power in 2014.
However, the following comment from the editorial does merit repetition:
Labour needs to deal with its historical baggage and sort out what it stands for quickly. Otherwise it might as well forget about the 2014 election and start planning for 2017.
All round the party, the debate about the need for a vision for Labour - a clear, unequivocal statement of what we stand for - is mounting. I, and many others, have argued that this is a paramount concern, not resolved by a series of low-key speeches by Mr Shearer. The LP has to state in crisp, uncomplicated terms what sort of Social Democracy it favours (there is variety on offer), and what policies follow from this. In modern politics, image matters, of course, but image also rests in part on substantive ideas that people understand and can support. Labour must front foot the question of vision earlier than later if it wants to be in power in 2014.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)