New Zealand Education is at risk - it is time to make a stand!!

Please share posting this with other teachers!

It is time for New Zealand teachers to stand up and speak out about where the Government is taking them before it is too late!!

September 2015

The September New Zealand Principal’s Magazine reporting on the 2015 NZPF Conference couldn’t have made the disastrous issues facing New Zealand education any clearer.

But who is listening to the ‘frightening messages’ – or more importantly taking action?

My interactions with local principals seem to indicate that, even though they may be aware of the situation, it is all too hard; so much to do just to keep up with compliance requirements.

Elwyn Richardson

Reminds me of a favourite saying of my old friend Elwyn Richardson who said, ‘When you are up to your backside in alligators it is hard to remember you came to drain the swamp’.

Sadly Elwyn is no longer with us but he still remains as the ultimate example of what  creative education is all about – his book, ‘In The Early World,’ recently republishedby the NZCER  is testament to the kind ofeducation that we were once heading towards. His classroom was a community of young artists and scientists exploring and expressing their ideas about issues that concerned them.

And it is not that the ‘frightening messages’ are new as anyone who  reads the posting of ex senior inspector of schools Kelvin Smythe will know. Kelvin warned us in the 1980s of the consequences of  ‘Tomorrows Schools’ reforms of  self-managing, competitive schools, but no one listened ,including myself, at the time! A man before his time but at least he hasn’t given up the fight. He is now more relevant than ever.

Visit Kelvin's site

A recent comment to one of his posting, said in respect to the NZEI succumbing to the Government’s wishes over Community of Schools (a good idea abused by the Governments’ standardisation ideology):

‘Don’t comply. Stand firm…..resolution from our leaders will not happen while teachers remain apathetic and only think in the short term about their back pocket rather than the long term about the NZ education system, their profession and what is truly best for our students’.

Our ‘so-called’ self-managing schools are suffering from what one writer calls ‘a corrosion of character’.  They were promised the opportunity to develop flexible schools but find that their success depends on the approval of the Education Review Office.  This dilemma, to gain approval by ERO and to stay true to their educational beliefs, is made worse because ERO approval is a shifting target. Only those with real character (and courage) can stay true. And then there is the problem of their school’s reputation and destructive interschool competition; far easier to comply – to go along to get along.

Denise Torrey

Back to the NZPPF Magazine’s warnings.

From the ‘President’s pen page’ it couldn’t be clearer. Denise Torrey summed up the messages from the internationally respected keynote speakers.

‘Professor Meg Maguire (UK) demonstrated the harsh reality of the global education reforms (GERM) which in a nutshell, she said,’ can be summed up as the decimation of the public education system in the UK’.

Meg Maquire spoke about how assessment and so called ‘performance’ are the all-consuming focuses in the UK.  ‘Children’ she said, ‘face more of the same, year after year: assessment preparations, then assessment, then repeat’.  School leadership is a statistical exercise in crunching data and preparing children for the next test. And, she said, ‘if schools are underperforming they are closed down by the equivalence of ERO (OFSTED) and replaced by private academies’ (charter schools).

No wonder such principals suffer from ‘a corrosion of character!’

This brings up what Denise calls ‘the sinister topic ofprivatising of education.

Diane Ravitch

She now sees such ‘reforms’ as all about ‘eliminating publiceducation.

Keynote speaker  American educator Diane Ravitch outlined the steps politicians use to introduce their agenda- ones that will be recognised by New Zealand educators.

 First they manufacture the ‘crisis’ ‘in New Zealand the ‘one in five failing’ and  ...’students are leaving school and can’t read, write or do maths’. Once the crisis gets public support then in comes the political solution.

1 in 5 failing = 1 in 5 in poverty! Any connection?

 The ‘crisis’  is framed as teachers not doing their job properly, teachers unions protecting them, not being accountable and not having proper standards. Then in come the standards in literacy and numeracy and suddenly we have a standardised measure of a schools ‘performance’.

Next in line, warns Denise, are privatised charter schools to solve the problem – and to make a profit. Denise brought up the issue of the TTPA (Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement) which she says would allow foreign corporations to establish charter schools and, if so, to override the decisions of democratically elected Governments.

In this scenario schools are to blame – no mention of poverty being an issue.

Totally compliant

And to make things worse schools have not expressed a creative teaching alternative to such developments. Too busy complying to fight for educationally inspired Communities of Schools and   the NZEI, it seems, has lost an opportunity toshare the creative ideas of teachers and instead has opened the way for greater compliance and standardisation; a sell out with dire consequences.

Denise asked those attending, ‘What is the purpose of education?’ 

Seems like a good question and too important to leave to

ideologically driven politicians. She continued, ‘there seems to be an absence of a shared vision for education in New Zealand.’ A vision’, she said, ‘that might include the ‘empowerment of children to manage their own learning’ and todevelop ‘creativity, problem solving and critical thinking’.  She asked,  ‘where would policies like NationalStandards  in reading , writing and mathsand the Progress and Consistency Tool fit into today’s personalised education?’

 Denise informed the meeting that a business world survey found that the top five skills required for job hunters are: problem solving, team work, communication, critical thinking and creativity.

And Denise reminded attendees there are the views of theimportance of a creative education by such educational experts as Sir KenRobinson. ‘Unless we reach an agreed sense of the purpose of education’, Denise concluded, ‘we will continue to be overwhelmed and bewildered by myriad policy initiatives none of which emanate from a common purpose.

Time to stand up and speak out! There is an alternative.

 A good start would be to put the focus back on the vision of the all

but side-lined 2007 New ZealandCurriculum; a curriculum one speaker, Cathy Wylie,   said ‘is the jewel in the crown’ of a positive future oriented education.

 Steve Maharey,the Vice Chancellor of Massey University, continued the theme of the importanceof a personalised education system where, ‘students would become activeparticipants in constructing their own learning by making their own decisionsabout why, how and what they learn’.  And he commented the New Zealand Curriculum, introduced when he was Minister

Steve Maharey

ofEducation, was ‘a document to be proud of’.  He concluded by saying that in a rapidly changing world only the flexible, creative and innovative will succeed’. He could’ve also be referring to schools themselves!

 The message was loud and clear; creativity or compliance.

 Liz Hawes the editor of the NZPPF magazine (who summarised all

Liz Hawes

the various speakers) that 'resist1 resist! resist! was the clarion call from the lead keynote speakers’ all of who ‘described the reforms as having crushed the quality education systems in both countries (the UK and theUS, leaving barely mediocre private academies and charter schools in theirwake’.

And it is no better in the test dominated school system ofAustralia. Read what Phil Cullen, an ex-Director of Primary EducationQueensland (another old warrior who hasn’t given up), has to say aboutdestructive Australian testing (NAPLAN) system.

Meg Maquire

Professor Meg Maquire (Kings College London) continued the message with frightening clarity 'mirroring the concerns], that Liz Hawes writes, ‘ that New Zealand teachers have expressed since the introduction of national standards, public achievement information and league tables; fears that these will lead to obsession with assessment data, threats of school closure for under performance and chains of charter schools’.

In England Meg said, ‘we haven’t got a system left. Teachers are the objects of policy, not the agents. These are deforms not reforms’, resulting in ‘intolerable stress levels’.

‘Don’t go down this path,’ she concluded.

Professor Alma Harris (Head of Educational Leadership, London) asked attendees to rethink what high performance means and to ‘press the pause on the Programme for International Student Achievement (PISA), which is distorting education’. Sir Ken Robinson calls then as reliable as the

The leaning tower of PISA

Eurovision Song contest is for defining singing quality! What is wrong is that PISA testing takes no account for context and that the real problem with PISA is when the measures become the target’. And they only measure what they measure! ‘The trouble with targets’, one business philosopher wrote,’ that it is not the ones you hit that count it is the ones you miss because you weren’t looking.

Alma’s final message was to ‘unite against thestandardisation and privatisation of our excellent education system with itsworld class curriculum’. ‘Resist! Resist! Resist!

This was a message  further pushed home by Professor Diane Ravitch of New York University.  ‘You must avoid being infected by GERM (Global Education Reform Movement). It is not aboutreform it’s about privatisation and eliminating public education’. 

 ‘What drags down performance in the United States is poverty, more than any other factor. But politicians and power brokers don’t want to talk about poverty they want to talk about reform.’

  A further belief is that ‘if you standardise testing, and the curriculum and everyone has common testing them all children will be successful and all poverty will disappear And, with regard to charter schools, ‘you have no unions, no tenure and no security’. ‘This is education for profit based on ideas

that teachers are motivated by incentives such as performance pay’. Education in the US is becoming more corporatized  and computers are being seen as a replacement for teachers  which, says Ravitch, ‘is the ultimate in eliminating human relationships from education’  it  is all about schools calculating the ‘value add’ score based on literacy and numeracy tests scores. And those who resist such reforms are labelled resisters who just want to protect the status quo.  Sound familiar?

‘Resist! Resist! Resist!’ Ravich insisted,‘public schools are vital to a democracy’

Liz Hawes concludes her summary by writing, ‘It is timely that we continue to take on board the strong warning from the speakers from both the UK and the USA that global reforms are dangerous and destructive and should be resisted’.

Time it seems for educators to remember ‘they came to drain the swamp’ and to set their sights on an educational vision that focuses

on thedevelopment of the talents and skills of all New Zealanders rather - a visionthat we can all get behind.

This is something worth fighting for but so far I don’tsense much action.

It will take character courage, imagination and working together to avoid the current ‘corrosion of character’ but what is thealternative?

Actually it will take a change of Government.

It's all about politics( including educational reform). Market Forces ideology has demeaned the common good.

A rock star lifestyle for  the rich elite!

Time to move away from 'rock star' leaders

A recent article in local  our paper said that maybe we need to move away from ‘rock star’ leaders. Maybe ,it suggested ,that leaders need to be some sort of charming rock star is a myth’ and ‘one that is detrimental to the success of any organisation’.

Qualities of good leaders

Which one exhibit over confidence?

‘Good leaders’, says professor of business psychology Dr Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic (University College of London and New York Columbia University), ‘have four general qualities. The first is trustworthiness and integrity, the second is good judgement. The third is having a vision,- a compelling story that persuades a team to put aside their own selfish agendas and to work for the collective good’. The fourth quality is self-awareness, and it is a lack of this that can result in an ‘epidemic of overconfidence’.

It is interesting to compare National’s John Key and Labour's Andrew Little on these qualities.

Time to let go of the 'free market' knows best myth.

What happened to the 'trickle down'?

Our current ‘rock star economy’ is based on the belief that the ‘market knows best’ along with the idea that self-interested individuals need to be free to develop their selfish agendas. For the less fortunate the wealth created was supposed to ‘trickle down’ but this has also been a myth. The rich have got richer and the poor poorer.

Free market in free fall.

The ‘rock star economy’ is now at risk as milk prices fall and as the Chinese economy is showing signs of ‘speed wobbles’ - the 'great fall of China'. It seems our success was more to do with forces outside our own borders than political leadership. Simply leaving the logic of the free market to work without constraint has developed  an elite owning the lion’s share of any wealth generated. The collective good has been forgotten; there has been a stagnation of average and median earnings.

Time for an alternative vision.

The time is right to right to develop an alternative story. Thirty years of market forces politics has created a very unequal society. Issues about sustainability and ensuring that all citizens are able to contribute and benefit need to be placed back at the centre of the debate.

A n inclusive vision

A challenge for Andrew Little and Labour.

Andrew Little and the Labour Party need to develop a new vision for our country that will  not only make up for current ‘market imperfections’ but also lead us in a new direction.. We need a vision that sees a stronger role for the government to construct a more democratic, humane and caring society to ensure all citizens get a fair deal.

'Free market' policies flawed.

New Zealand is no longer the egalitarian society we once proud of and growing inequality is placing a strain on the social fabric of our country. As well the emphasis on growth at any cost, consumerism and a deregulated financial ‘free for all’ is placing the sustainability of our environment at risk.

Free market policies are now being seen as flawed – the rise in inequality the obvious symptom.

Now is the time to develop a vision that creates the opportunity for everyone to get a fair share.  Currently we are at risk of letting an elite rich shape the future of our country.

The real winners

Inequality and climate change the defining challenges of our time

Inequality and climate change are becoming the defining challenges of our time. After three decades of ‘market forces’ there is developing a sense of unease or discontent felt by those who find it hard to see themselves as ‘winners’. This unease will grow as the upwardly mobile middle classes find  their future  being placed at risk
.

We need an inclusive model that serves all citizens.

We need a new model of economic growth that serves the needs of all based on decent work, environmentally sustainable development and economic of production for social ends – growth that has the potential to put more life into regional economies. 

.

We need to have a conversation about what kind of country we want to be? 

We need to look at successful countries that have avoided such inequality; countries that have not gone so far down the market forces ideology.

Time to value the collective good.

Political decision need to be made to ensure that the collective good is protected and that all citizens are given every opportunity to contribute to the nation’s wealth. New infrastructures and public services need to be developed.  Democracy needs to be reinvigorated to respect the ‘voices’ of all citizens? New directions   in health, education taxation, housing, power provision and welfare need to be in place to ensure all can contribute according to their talents?

Thirty year experiment has had it day.

Market forces and privatisation that have dominated New Zealand politics for thirty years has failed to produce a healthy society that all feel part of. The consequences of such thinking  now need to be faced up to.

A vision to get through rough times

An opportunity to develop a better vision.

The situation we now find ourselves in provides an opportunity to draw together a vision of a better world. It is an opportunity to challenge the ideology that underpins ‘market forces’ of the minimal state, privatisation and speculation and to replace them with principles based on democracy, justice, sustainability, redistribution and collaboration.

We need thinking leads to a new vision to take our country into a more successful future for all members of our society not just an elite few; a country that will be a fit place for the younger members of our country to inherit.

Need to speak out about 'free market' failure.

Andrew Little and the Labour Party need to speak out against the present inadequacies of current policies and to speak out about the advantages of a more equal society. They have the challenge of developing in the public understanding of what is at stake. The advantages of freedom and choice, promised by ‘market forces’ are limited to the rich –  while the rest of the population  move further into debt.

 Well said Pope Francis!

We need a vision of a better society

Time to make a choice

 But most of all the Labour Party needs to articulate  vision of a better society that is both achievable and inspiring ; one capable of developing meaningful reforms; a vision where the talents and skills of all citizens are seen as the countries major resource. 

As the article in the paper referred to said there is a need for ‘a vision- a compelling story that persuades a team to put aside their own selfish agendas and to work for the common good’. We just ust need to replace ‘team’ with ‘country’.

It is time for real choices to be made.

There is an alternative

New Zealand politics: 'Ruth , Roger and Me'. After three decades of market forces ‘trickle down’ economics it is time for a new story/direction.

New Zealand - the way you want it?

Do we need a new flag or a new vision? Both!

I recently listened to an interview with Andrew Dean and was impressed with both his ideas and his ability to handle the interviewer’s questions with respect and ease.

So impressed that I bought his book ‘Ruth Roger and Me: Debts and Legacies’ and I recommend it highly. Andrew grew up in the shadow of Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson’s reforms – now

referred to as 'Market Forces' ideology or 'Neo Liberalism'.

An excellent read

The reforms moved New Zealand (along with other Western countries) from a regulated economy that was unable to cope with a changing world. At the time, the saying went, ‘there was no alternative’ (TINA).Ironically the changes from a more state controlled economy to the ‘free market’ was introduced by a Labour Government.

After three decades all the promises from the ‘hard medicine’ of deregulation have not benefited all as the term ‘trickle down’ wealth promised. A lot has been lost. It is now time for new ideas.

Andrew Dean

Andrew’s book is an attempt to ‘come to terms with the recent past’. It is his thesis that as a result of the changes has resulted in many people feeling ‘discomfort’ as a result of policies that have left people less certain, less protected and more stressful about their future. As well people are feeling ‘disconnected’ from their communities. It is all about self-responsibility.

Margaret Thatcher 'There  is no such thing as society'.

Andrew reminds readers of Margaret Thatcher’s infamous comment that ‘there is no such thing as society’ and that now young people see themselves as solely, or almost solely responsible for their economic success or failure. This replaces previous idea that the state’s role to ensure that everyone ‘be allowed to live lives of dignity - be given a fair go’.

The ideas introduced are now all but invisible and now it is assumed ‘that markets, allowed to operate freely and independently…. will make everybody better off’; wealth will ‘trickle down’.

Ruth R's 1991 Budget

The ‘stiff medicine’ of the reforms, according to Ruth Richardson will make us ‘healthier for it’ There is to be no gain without pain'.‘By leaving welfare, trade unions, and state monopolies behind, we have become self-sufficient and free. If we are poor then that we will simply make us work

harder; and if that job pays very little, then we will be encouraged …to make better choices’. Ruth believed (still does) that 'we' needed to be freed from the 'tyranny of big government' which was 'sapping the individual spirit'/

Roger Douglas had a vision of no income tax, slashing of social spending of all kinds and the replacement of state provided healthcare and education with competitive and private and private user-pays systems. This is a privatisation agenda – the business world can do everything better than the government. The ideals of privatisation have in recent years led to asset sales and moves, through charter schools, to privatise education. Health is also open to privatisation.

Roger Douglas - Labour!

The reforms, according to Douglas, were all about the need to ‘break the dependency cycle which encourages some people to look to the State for support when they could be making it on their own’. This is all about worsening people’s standards of living to help them! The legacy of this thinking lives on and is now established as current political orthodoxy so natural to be invisible.

As a result of this thinking many Western counties have developed an ‘underclass’ of desperate people with their associated social problems: drugs, crime homelessness casual crime. The growth of such poverty confounds market forces thinking. Many in poverty now worry about money to support their families all the time. ‘Poverty’, Dean writes, ‘is more than lack of money: it is also a set of conditions that make it difficult to get ahead’- health costs, poorer life expectancy, and mental health issues.

As Dean writes, ‘being poor is bad for your health’. 

Today  widespread and deep poverty is in contrast to a New Zealand the  home of ‘cradle to the grave welfare provision’ – that was dismantled with Ruth Richardson’s Mother of all Budgets  in 1991. Ironically the first reversal in this policy was passed by the National Government in this year’s budget. A clear sign ‘market forces’ has not solved the problem? Labour’s working for Families programme provided some respite but in reality the poverty has deepened as income has increased at the top. As well, writes Dean,’the bottom 30% of society….experienced either no or very low gains in the thirty year period’.

 So much for the ‘trickle down’ theory.

Dean, as a recent student writes about the effect of the student loan scheme. Free tertiary education is now hard for recent students to imagine but was introduced in… He interviews the Vice Chancellor of the University he attended who had the task of introducing ‘market forces user pays’ into the universities.

The vice chancellor now suggests ‘there may be some things that cannot be easily captured in standard accounting methods’ and adds, ‘More market does not seem to have freed the worst off among us to participate in New Zealand society’.

David Lange , ' I want to thank all people whose lives have been wrecked by us'.

It is becoming clear that the guiding principles of ‘freedom and responsibility of the individual’ has not worked for all or the benefit of the wider society. Not all people are in a situation to be able to make choices without support.

There is now a need to return to benign government oversight and regulation; for state planning and redistribution; to value collective solidarity through unions and means to protect workers from exploitation. This is not a call to return to state paternalism (often referred to despairingly as the ‘nanny state’) but more a development of regional, community and local involvement in the name of the common good.

There is a need, Dean writes, to develop ‘social capital’ or cohesiveness to develop more community participation and responsibility. 

Dean quotes the research of Wilkinson and Pickett (authors of the book The Spirit Level) who write that a large range of social ills (such as crime, drug use, obesity and mental illness and educational attainment) increase with greater inequality as well as a decline in community life and social cohesion. People are left to fend for themselves and are less caring of others.

Young people in particular have been on the receiving end and many are feeling socially isolated, worthless and powerless. In 2014 11% of people aged 15-24 were not in education, employment or training; the youth unemployment was 19%.’ Unemployment in recent years has remained higher than in the thirty years after the Second World War’ and productivity has certainly been no higher since 1884 than it was in the decades after the Second World War’. The rich have gained while ‘for many the changes have been destructive.’

‘Home ownership is now a distant dream for people'.. ‘with affordability is most difficult for the young and the poor. ‘The speculative frenzy of the last decade’ has been ignored by the government. There is little popular support for solutions that would dampen the demand, such as a comprehensive capital gains tax’. ‘Make no mistake’, Dean writes, the housing crisis has been exasperated by the sanguine belief that the market will simply fix the problem’.  To solve this problem ‘would involve

governments building more houses themselves’. State houses have been sold off, or inadequately maintained, and currently are up for grabs for others to make use of; another move towards privatisation.

Fertile ground for opposition politicians to develop positive alternatives I would think but this would mean contesting the victory of the market forces ideology of the past thirty years. 

What has been lost is respect for the common good and, Dean writes, ‘addressing the nature of our duties and responsibilities to others’. The pain and the gain have not been shared by all.

In 1935 the First Labour Government was like a ‘second coming’ with its promise of social security, free medical treatment and its free hospital care for all; ‘so great was the joy in our family’ (Janet Frame). In contrast, writes Dean, ‘we now have a well-developed scepticism of utopian visions….one that has led to a political imagination that is insular, technocratic, and in the end, moribund’.

Michael Joseph Savage

Political discourse, he writes, now sounds like advertising campaigns for insurance companies e.g. ‘vote positive’.

Apathy about politics after three decades of market forces is rampant it is time, he continues for ‘a more imaginative, visionary, political  settlement….at the very least we must discard a political philosophy that ….is a failure …and that Labour ( needs) to broaden the meaning of freedom such that it includes rights of participation…that everyone feels part of.’

His book is asking for a new national story. ‘What if this story were to be one of aroha – feeling, empathy and compassion’ in contrast to the individualistic ‘winner takes all’ society we now live in. ‘A country in which people could really live a full life’ – all people.

First Labour Government

It is time to have a conversation of what kind of country do we want to be.  Growing inequalities and social dislocation will not be solved by the current ‘market forces’ ideology. We need a new view of the world to solve intractable problems we face today.

Best to read Andrews book to fully appreciate his thoughts.

A few of my own thoughts

The current market forces ideology (often called neo –liberal) was introduced in the 80s to reduce state control/compliance and to free the enterprise of the individual with the belief they would, make better decisions. After 30 years we still have top down government but increasing developed through privatised contracts.

Perhaps such changes were needed (Ruth Richardson’s ‘medicine’) but any advantages have not been shared and inequality, with its associated social problems, is growing.

An alternative to privatisation based on contracts and targets (which are open to ‘rorting’ and distortion is now required. What we now have is still top down - ‘free market Stalinism’; it is a process that shifts the blame to the providers.

                                                         The current government is leading to New Zealand

Privatization agenda

being run for the benefit of big business and international corporations and the process democratic values are being demeaned.

We have to get people to believe that the free market does not work in all situations – there is a need for central government to ensure all citizens benefit from economic growth. This does not mean a return to heavy handed state intervention but assisting regional and local communities to have greater responsibility, associated with greater resources to do so.  

Once New Zealand had Provincial Government; maybe it is time to return to some form of regional responsibility and diversity within agreed frameworks.

This would require a rebalancing of central and regional/local government.  Privatisation based on target setting is a too narrow a way to ‘measure’ quality of life for all citizens. With targets, it is not the ones you hit that always count – sometimes you miss equally important things you weren’t looking for and there are always unintended consequences.

Such thoughts would require greater faith in democracy; a feeling that all citizens need to be valued and listened to. We need to develop a culture that engages people at all levels. We need to have means to unify the various independent organisations so that they contribute to the common good. Schools, hospitals, welfare services, housing, NGOs, police all work independently – there must be ways to integrated them more fully?

The current government’s agenda is to deregulate the state, to privatise power and to allow corporations to have too much influence. We  now need government intervention to smooth out growing inequities but this ought not need be a return to the heavy hand of state intervention – more a ‘helping hand’ to ensure all benefit rather than waiting for the false promise of ‘trickle down’ economics.

It is now time for a real alternative – for the beginning of a new thirty years of sustainable and equitable development? Time for a new narrative; one based on diversity, fairness that requires the participation and ownership of all citizens.

Vision.Looking towards a better future - escaping the present

We need to develop a future consciousness.

The elections are over - now it is time to think of where to next..

The National Government has been returned with a resounding victory. The Labour opposition is in disarray and now faces the necessity to both consider the reasons for their defeat and to elect a new leader.

All sorts of ideas are being expressed to explain Labour’s  defeat: that as the opposing a party they made little attempt to discredit the government; that Labour’s  policies were distracted by extraneous developments around Dot Com and Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics’; and issues of leadership failure. The truth is that Labour has been struggling for several years as the polls clearly indicated.

More from Pope Francis

My own feeling is that Labour ought to have pointed out that the market reforms (that the government has followed and in truth governments since the 1980s) have not, as promised success for the benefit of all. The ‘trickle down’ phrase, often quoted in the past, has been a myth and increasingly has made the ‘rich richer and the poor poorer’. The market reforms were premised on getting the government out of the equation through reducing regulations and encouraging privatisation of services with the intent of developing grater innovation. As Ronald Reagan said, ‘the government is not the answer it is the problem’ At the same time Margaret Thatcher said, ‘there is no such thing as community’ and added ‘there is no alternative’ (TINA). We have seen, over the past thirty years worldwide, the democratic power of the state to protect its citizens being passed over to control by international corporations and vested financial interests.

Wrong - there is always a choice

As the neo-liberal ideology colonised Western counties thecitizens of such countries shifted to the centre away from a belief in the welfare state; the ‘left’ was no longer felt a good place to be.

The election ought to have been contest between a rising concern about the bigger issues of environmental degradation and the possible effects of climate change and   the present status quo. It was no contest. The Greens held their own but Labour failed to grab the imagination of the people who saw little sense of shifting from the security and certainty of the current government. Why worry about such issues if the government, as represented by the Prime Minister, seem not to be concerned?

Don't listen to the scientists!

The big question for opposition parties is to face up to the shift from the left to the centre by people who once might have voted Labour.  Being left is no longer something successful people want to be allied with; the current government has sold the idea of the aspirational society (‘winners’) and, associated with this, there is little empathy for those not able to succeed (‘losers’). Sadly even those who have most to lose under a continuation of the present government couldn’t even be bothered to vote!

Maybe it is time to forget the left /right issue and focus on a present versus future orientation?

The National Party focussed  simply on the need to be allowed to keep doing what they had been doing – ‘working for all New Zealanders’ , the Greens focused on a qualitatively different future but one that might well have frightened off many people and Labour’s ‘Being Positive’ was vague to say the least.

Future success for any opposition must be to focus not on left or right but the present or the future.

Nash - asking the right questions.

One of the prospective contestants for Labour leadership during a TV interview Stuart Nash talked about the need to consider ‘a vision for New Zealand thirty years into the future’ and that there is a need ‘to create a mood for change’. 'What sort of country', he asked, 'do we want to be seen as'? Values to underpin such a vision should for the benefit and protection of all and not just the well off? Vision provides direction but values provide a moral compass. Once direction has been established, and values clarified, then all actions need to be aligned to achieve the vision. Such a clear vision has the power to pull people into the future and to see that more of the same, or looking back to the past, is

Chris Trotter

folly

This is naturally easier said than done and  would require multiple conversations with as many individuals and groups as possible  both to educate people about the challenges we need to face up to and some positive solutions  to work towards. Maybe, as the people of Great Britain found out in 1939 when the threat of Nazi Germany could no longer be ignored, there will be no choice.

In a paper written by Chris Trotter (published in the Press 22 April 2014) he stated that the challenges of the future cannot be ignored. The Green Party (‘it’s not easy being green’) wouldn’t need to exist if other parties grasped the sheer size of the paradigm shift needed to deal with global warming, resource depletion and the despoliation of the natural environment.’

The tragedy of our times is that the politics of ecological denial has some extremely powerful backers. Trotter believes that the history of the 21stC will be shaped by an increasingly bitter

struggle between neo-liberal market forces ideology and the need to develop sustainability in all aspects. This boils down to the belief of individualism versus the interrelatedness of all living things. In short, he says, 'between I and we'; individual self-interest versus protection of the common good.

This is the issue of the present versus the future. The Green party focussed clearly on sustainability - economic and environmental, with its smart economic policies.  The Green’s position was easily understood – if feared (and hence ridiculed) by those ‘winning’ under present policies. National, in the recent election, focussed on the competitiveness of our market system while at the same time colonising some of the traditional territory Labour claims – free medical visits up to 13 and extending maternity leave. This could be interpreted as ‘tweaking’ the present scenario.  Labour position, although having much in common with the Greens, was unclear.

So my advice is to drop the left /right descriptions and to develop a future versus present argument. Both the Greens and Labour could work together to develop this positive future scenario by developing policies both to alleviate and prosper in a world focused on sustainability.

A future orientated vision has the power to provide a sense of hope for those who are currently being left behind or only managing to hold on their position in society of ‘winners and losers’.

Sooner or later the choice will become clear but now, as Stuart Nash said, is the time to develop a mood for change; to focus on the kind of New Zealand we want to work towards.

A strong vision pulls us out of the present!

According to Chris Trotter if Labour does not pick up the challenge of defining a possible exciting future, one that is inclusive of all, then labour could be ‘consigned to the dustbin of history.’

Trotter believes that many Labour supporters indicate that working closer with the Greens is their preference. This would have to include myself.

The NZ elections - more of the same or a chance for transformation

The NZ Elections - are we missing the big picture?

The future of capitalism - Lester Thurow

Postscript.

 Do we need a new balance between Central and Local Government.

The neo-liberal market forces ideology believes in minimal or small government with business friendly regulation often at the expense of protection of the environment and the common good The Labour Party, in particular, has been seen as representing a centrist state determined party summed up in recent years by the National Party (and in turn a majority of people) as the ‘nanny state.’  The big business world , particularly international corporations, believe that governments and public service bureaucracies restrict their success and support  ‘small ‘ government and minimal regulations.

Maybe it time  to reflect on the role of government in an information age?

When New Zealand was first settled by Europeans a system of provincial governments was established – difficulty of communication made this sensible. With inequality, created by wealth created through the discovery of gold in the South Island, and the difficulties resulting from the land wars in the North, as well as a need for a national approach to developing expensive infrastructure, provincial government was abolished and central government, as we now know it, established.  The state, particularly as a result of the reforms of the First Labour Government became all powerful.

The welfare state established post World War 2 was finally replaced by current neo-liberal ‘small government’ ideology in the 80s – introduced ironically by a Labour Government.  The state was increasingly seen as part of the problem to be solved by privatisation of state services – this is increasingly being extended into such area as education (charter schools) and health.

Perhaps a new vision for New Zealand could consider a re balancing of local and central government responsibilities?

 Local government currently has a lower voting turnout than national politics. A future vision might well consider empowering local government with a greater share of the tax take and as part of this move to create connections at the local level between local and central services? Education, welfare, health, police, job creation, justice could be integrated, to some degree, with local government? Such moves would increase a sense of democracy at the lowest level and move away from the current ‘one size fits all’. Regional governments, as long as they complied with basic requirements set by central government, could develop the diversity that would reflect New Zealand’s cultural make up.

This is about empowering people and in the process reinventing democracy for the 21stC? Currently state governments worldwide are being influenced by vested corporate and financial interests. A strong state government is the only real protection of all New Zealand citizens. Devolving responsibility to the lowest level, within agreed guidelines, will encourage regional development/ diversity; cater for cultural differences and coordinate ways of improving resources; working with private enterprise as necessary, in a range of areas.

At least would be worth a consideration for a future conversation about the future?

References.

An interesting NZ  paper about understanding community governance

 And a paper from the United Kingdom ( consider recent vote for independence in Scotland)