Armstrong on Clark Speech
A pretty fair summary from John Armstrong:
There can be no quibbling. The Prime Minister has delivered. No question. Today’s speech announcing that every teenager will have to stay in school or some other form of education or training until they are 18 will prove to be a quantum leap in terms of upskilling the workforce.
Helen Clark had to come up with something big as a riposte to John Key’s rival state of the nation address yesterday. She has shown Labour is still capable of coming up with the “big ideas” that she sees as an essential component in the party’s re-election campaign.
Clark will be happy with that, and it is indeed fair to say it is a new big idea (well now for this Govt). Armstrong then compares the two speeches:
Whether the Prime Minister has trumped Key is another matter entirely.
Clark clearly envisaged the content of her first major speech of the year would prove to be a victory for substance over style when placed alongside the populist line Key was expected to pursue in his.
So there must have been a sharp intake of breath in the Beehive when Labour read Key’s speech and discovered he was canvassing the very same subject matter and floating a similar-sounding policy.
Key seemed to have gazumped Clark, neutralising the major thrust of her speech before focussing on youth crime as the major strand of his.
As I said, it is a good thing both parties are laying out different policy visions.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Who needs more kids being held hostage to compulsory education? This is recipe for more gang involvement to escape that detested lifestyle.
Much more useful let them leave at 15 and get a driver’s licence and become useful. Kids at 14 are ready for a lot of work.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Having listerned to trotter on newstalkzb, a complete idiot.Mr key secret weapon. This idiot tried to overspeak every time the apossing view was expressed , trotter a rude pig Nationals secret weapon, a liarbor moron.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Armstrong: the new policy bears a striking resemblance to what Gordon Brown’s British NewLabour is doing. Clark is unapologetic about that. If the policy works, borrow it.
And if it doesnt work, still borrow it – and extend it to age 18. From this report:
This is a badly conceived policy. It is likely to further disadvangage [marginalised young people]. Young people who are enrolled in courses they wdo not wish to attend will be unmotivated to learn. The greatest losers are likeley to be the most marginal and disadvantaged
In orther words, Helen Clark’s target group.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
As I was feeling particularly masochistic today – I listened to Helen Clark on Radio Live this afternoon.
Apart from the gag inducing platitudes offered by left wing morons, can someone enlighten me about 2 things:
*What the hell is Nationals hidden agenda?
*How come after nine years of government, they have yet to change some of the terrible policies both the previous National and Labour governments made.
I suspect the answer to point 2 is that this current government has been reaping the rewards those tough policies delivered.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Both the on line polls at the NZHerald and Stuff has Key as the clear winner – abour 80% to Key and 20% to Clark.
Labour are facing another gig problem this year – No one s interested in listening to what she (and her dip-stick MPs) have to say. Even spending many tens of millions wil not work.
Champagne remains on ice.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Can someone translate this into English?
January 30th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Clark is wrong. I, for one, left school at the end of sixth form (aged 16) because I had seen four years of seventh formers spending a year fucking around and maybe achieving a B bursary at the end of it.
I got a job for a year, learnt some valuable skills, then went to varsity – much richer than my peer group and with great networks.
If I’d stayed at school it would have been a wasted year, and my old schoolmates said as much.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Oscars Grouchy Mum wrpte:
*What the hell is Nationals hidden agenda?
Well, we’re going to gather up all the virgins (and cute household pets), hold a mass human sacrifice and welcome our Satan Overlords to their new dominion, as we dance naked in the entrails of poor brown pensioners. Or something. Heck, OGM, get with it — the great thing about a secret agenda is that if you knew what it was, then it wouldn’t be a secret anymore. And what use is that when you’re trying to scare up a poll point or two?
January 30th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
“Well, we’re going to gather up all the virgins…”
May I suggest you would have more underage prostitutes available than virgins.
Another big thank you to the current government. Could that be classed as on the job training?
January 30th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I loved clark speaking of honesty,on tv3 news , check out the disgusting false airbrushed caracture in her likeness over her left shoulder , a MORE honest picture should be used as shes never looked like that. HONESTY??? yer right
January 30th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
One wonders how we are going to see higher incomes in Enzed, if 1/3rd leave education before they reach the age of 17 just because they can score a paying job. Anyone aware of the demographic trends knows the importance of creating better role models now – while we have the skilled higher wages positions available.
If we keep importing skilled workers we simply push up house prices beyond the reach of the unskilled workers. Their position is becoming untenable (which is why continuing to increase the minimum wage is socially necessary).
Keeping people in school, or in jobs with work training might push employers away from the low wage jobs and towards investment in new technology – which is necessary to increase productivity (the whole point of the lower company tax rate).
January 30th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
there is no point keeping people in school if they are not learning anything useful to them there. There is also no point in forcing them to stay at school or to join technical institutes where they will probably just upset the learning of others.
Try and find a place for the people in society that fits them rather than trying to make them the same as academics.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
At the risk of link whoring David, here’s what Labour needs to do. SSSShhhhhh, don’t tel sonic.
http://nominister.blogspot.com/2008/01/adolfs-worked-out-whats-wrong.html
January 30th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
How does Oscars Grouchy Mum “know” there are now more underage prostitutes than virgins, or that this involves any change from the 1990′s (when married women with unemployed husbands paid off the mortgage by making illegal offers to consenting adults).
The news media covered the same scenario on the street prior to the law change. There has been no noticeable change in the number of people operating as prostitutes.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Helen Clark’s going to be live on Close-Up talking about the policy.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Don’t be like that John. Anyone who’s been to see “On the conditions and possibilities of Helen Clark taking me as her young lover” at Bats can see past such superficialities
Review here:
http://www.theatreview.org.nz/reviews/review.php?id=1089
January 30th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Keep them in school till 18…..make them unemployable by raising Minimum wage to $12 an hour….God Socialists are f**king morons.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
James,
I get paid $23 an hour. I’m not unemployable.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Labour (under pressure from the Greens and NZF of late) have raised the minimum wage from the $7 an hour it was in 99 under National.
Despite the claims of Don Brash that we needed unemployment to contain inflation and yet also a low minimum wage to employ everyone (talk about one schiziod nutjob), unemployment continued to fall as we increased the minimum wage.
Why is it the same people who complain about higher wages in Oz also complain about increasing the minimum wage here to 2/3-3/4 of the level it is over there? Don Brash schizophrenia?
January 30th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Its going to be hard to get a tradesman. $70/hr will seem like a bargin in 5 years.
Is Labour going to put ankle braclets on everyone to make sure they attend. Wait for all the limp wristed training institutes to appear and get on the money train.
The real reason is currently the youth can get 2 years of real world experience under their belts before voting. This is solely aimed at Labour using the teacher unions to ensure the youth don’t stray from the true and mighty deliverer.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
SPC: you’re looking at it the wrong way round. You saying we need skilled people to be rich in the future, therefore those leaving school today should be skilled, therefore we should try to force them to stay in school.
Some logical gaps:
1. That skills only come from schools
2. That skills will be imparted by forcing people to stay in schools
3. That people have to have skills immediately upon leaving school, v’s gaining them over their life time.
I would argue that forcing someone to stay in school when that school isn’t imparting any skills, and they don’t want to be there, is completely counter-productive. Being skilled may mean having a trade, it may mean getting a job as a storeman in a warehouse and working your way up. The answer is different for different people, and National’s policy provides for this, with the caveat that you have to do something that develops skills – a job, an apprenticeship, school or polytech.
Labour’s policy tries to force the same answer on everyone, and for that reason would fail.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
You assume “being in education” means being in NCEA school – the apprenticeships scheme can be about being in school while doing work experience and work training etc or simply being in a job with training. You misrepresent Labour policy.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
NZ richest man Graeme Hart was a drop out/tow truck driver who went back to school at a later stage.
For most things its the on the job experience that gives you knowledge and a strong skill base.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Hmmm. Do I misrepresent it, or do you? Or is the detail missing?
They clearly want people in school, and are discounting polytechs as being school (although I expect they will move quickly to add that to their policy). I don’t see why it matters whether it is a school or some other form of training so long as it works. The point is that Labour are looking to drive it as a school thing, where National is happy for other providers beyond schools to fill the need. I think that is a very material difference.
Is there any objection you have to National’s policy? Seems to me that it covers everything that Labour’s policy does and more.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
National will be seen as the party of better ideas with no ideological baggage that Labour has. Just good sensible stuff the National Party is supported for with no nasty prejudicial hang ups against this group or that. It is the Labour Party playing class politics than seems to hate the successful and molly coddle the losers asking them to do nothing for the support they are getting from the community.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
If anyone’s got a secret agenda going on, it seems to be Helen Clark. Raise the school leaving age to 18… and then? Buggered if I know because the fog of platitudinous flap-doode in response to softball after softball was embarrasing.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
On Close Up the “experts” like Ian Grant bagged the scheme and stated that dealing with young crims is a much bigger priority. Also stated that if schools and training institutes are going to take on this extra workload Labour needs to tell the Buerecrats to but out.
Also Ian mentioned he runs the biggest parenting organisation in the country. Maharey grandstanded on Close Up last year and pledged on-air $8million. Guess what they ended up with $20K.
How can anyone trust these monkeys?
January 30th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
What a crock of Labour Bullshit, all around the country secondary schools are desperately trying to balance 2008 student intakes with a diminishing number of teaching staff and Labours answer is increase the rolls – the wankers. It`s patently obvious that the outgoing Labour members are looking at picking up jobs in the “edjakashin” sector or the jobskills industry after the Election.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I like the fact Clark’s going on about a secret agenda.
It means she’s shitting bricks, hence the appearance of old spinmeister Mike Moore (no, no, not that one) at her speech this morning.
Someone has to call her out on it though. Mary Wilson let her have a Stalinesque rave on Leech Radio this afternoon about secret agendas…
PS Craig – didn’t you know that dancing in the entrails of a mass human sacrifice will require a notified consent under the RMA, as well as meeting other local government bylaws? So that’s not the secret agenda.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
so say for instancethere is a bright sudent – and finished 7th form aged 17 and say 5 months – he / she wants to take a gap year before commencing university. to work out what to do – as I did and several of my friends.
Helen Clark will want to make this illegal?
As I have said before – stupid policy on the hoof with intended consequences has become the hallmark of this corrupt and desperate government.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Monty -
She said as much this afternoon. Gap years are verboten.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
clark had a look of terrified impending doom in her eyes on Close Up tonight I reckon. I think I even caught her doing one of those nervous swallow\ gulps.
as the severely astute political person she is she will definitely be seeing the writing on the wall.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
She also agreed about the gap year veto on Close Up.
Travelling overseas and mixing with different cultures is one of the most important learning experiences you can have.
Maybe Klark will make an exception for gap years to Russia or to stay with Chavez.
VTO I think we might see the first televised case of human combustion this year with Klark.
Doesn’t she have the same eyes and look as the Emperor on Star Wars?
January 30th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
I don’t support her ideas. Not because I vote National but because I dropped out of school at 16. I then pleaded to a polytech to take me in to do a Software Engineering course. After this I went and worked for a few years and then started my own successful business at the age of 22.
I don’t believe her idea will change anything apart from pissing people off.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I used to refer to her as a “concrete monster” when she was in opposition. It was a bit mean and personal – I am sure she would be a fine person in person.
But yes southern raider, ‘televised human combustion’ is a possibility. It’s got that feel.
As for her speech – silly silly silly idea that is doomed to failure. But typical. Not sure what it is with so much policy from labour but they really do misunderstand so much of the human condition. This one is a classic. My 2c.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
When asked why only now, she stated because they have been busy with there other accomplishments in education. What like? that shing example Selwyn College with a 30% pass record. I can see why they have been so busy.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Perhaps kids now need to stay at school 3 years longer because of the entire, ‘dumbing down’ of the entire NZ education system
Unless there is a sesimic shift back to the basic fundamentals such as the 3 R’s; male teacher ratios 50:50′ pratical skill learning; one national, examination benchmark; the instillation of personal excellence and individual responsibility… then this is insane policy which (if implemented), NZ will surely rue the day.
For example, its frightening to think how an 18 year old male on the cusp of man-hood, most likely will leave school having never ever had a male teacher/role model.
Just how indocrinated and fucked-up in the head, are these kids/adults gonna be when they finally quit??
January 30th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
from this labour lot and clark especially it all just sounds hollow, empty and completely lacking in conviction.
i trust the people and i suspect they will see straight through it in a flash.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Clark’s got her smiling talking face, her grim talking face, her ‘solid’ speech, her unwavering appearance – but it seems that’s all. Theres nothing else.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Paul you’re mistaken. Why do male youths need male role models? Don’t you know men are the root of all evil.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
vto,
I learned long ago `never trust the NZ voter`!!!!
January 30th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Yeah I do SR. Which of course, is principly why the ‘root of evil’ has firmly embedded itself in this countty.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
ah mr kehua, interesting that one isn’t it. because it carries a ring of truth to it.
but, if I had to choose, I would rather live by the binding referenda of the people of nz than by the rule of these fools currently in govt.
btw – why oh why do people assume that a talent for politics (attratcing votes) equates to a talent for anything else at all (e.g. running a govt, developing good policy, etc). Has there been any research on this blindingly crucial point?
January 30th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
VTO the other relevant point is do these people with a talent for politics ever think of any thing else other than how to get re elected.
If Klark worked for a corporate she would have been fired after 3 months for blowing out operational costs, killing ingenuity and not delivering on a single KPI.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Paul L, the whole point of the apprenticeships programme in schools is to link the person at school to training for a job. This involves people doing work part-time and learning on the job. Many employers requiring skilled workers from day one have been involved in this in pilot programmes for years. So yes you may well be misrepresenting what Labour’s policy is about. As for whether I am, Labour wanted to have a clear message – in school till 18 is the headline delivering it. The detail is more broadbased. And in practice one can expect certain developments.
Anyone completing 5 years secondary education at the NCEA 3 level at 16 or 17 can expect to be exempt.
Polytechs, new public providers and some private providers will also provide courses to those under 18 – including part-time courses to those working part-time.
Work based apprenticeships will also be allowed.
Ultimately what the two parties have in common, is not paying the dole to those under 18. The difference is that National would accept people moving into work full-time whereas Labour would require it to be a position involving some training.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Ultimately what the two parties have in common, is not paying the dole to those under 18
Under 18′s can’t get the dole. They can get other benefits like sickness and invalids – which is why 1100 are on the invalids benefit at the moment. National and Labour will allow under 18s to get the benefit conditional on training unless they were too sick. This training has been opened to include polytechnics.
It would be interesting to see how Polytech pass rates are affected by troubled teen freeloaders who are going to polytechs either to ensure thay get benefits or because they have to go to some sort of training to avoid going to secondary school.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
They all also get a benefit when they go bleating to Winz that they don’t get along with their parent/s. And since kids of this ilk have become skilled con-artists, parents are very really believed.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
So will schools now have to add a Year 14 to cope with this new breed of school non-leavers?
January 30th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Just reading the Aucklander magazine/newspaper.
Lead story is most schools have to fundraise 40 to 50% of their operating budget (excluding salaries). Some schools are having to raise millions per annum from parents and the community.
Where the hell is the extra money going to come from Helen? The community has already been sucked dry through taxes and donations and now you will expect us to once again pick up the tab for your stupid schemes.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Labour must be fucked – even Trotterski is saying Key won – Clark missed the opportunity.
My wife just asked if he was a right wing commentator. ha
He says Clark missed her chance.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
The thing about left wing commentators is that they disparage others on the left and sort of expect right wingers to be abominable and are thus quick to appreciate anything nice and reasonable from them (while attacking those on the left for any aberration from absolute truth and righteousness). Trotter has attacked Labour from all sorts of inconsistent positions over the years – first it was pandering to Maori and alienating the white working class, then it was alienating Maori.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
How are teachers expected to cope?
January 30th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
They won’t have to, Frank, because Clark’s policy grab will never see the light of day.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Err what’s left wing about governing ova a feudalisticly driven and owned society where the goal is now “you can be a landlord too!” and the majority of the poulation spends most of it’s thoughts on chasing imaginary wealth printed out of thin air that can never be paid off?
Where’s the left wing bias in privately owned concentrated media saturaion that generates billions of dollars per year selling the populaton a steady diet of oneup manship?
How are the hoards of personal drives that need such “corporate nanny state” cheer leading ever going to appreciate the bountiful common heritage of countless generations before them when so enslaved?
Democrats for Social Credit (DSC 08)
January 30th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Oh dear, Hulun wants our schools to deal with her mistakes, by keeping those who can’t, won’t or don’t learn at school for two more years, in already over crowded classrooms, while thos who can, will and do learn have to cope with less resources, because the education department are having to do the job that the corrections department cannot!!
I can spell idiot!
January 30th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
SPC: Have you been reading the comments here, or have you visited the Standard? Left wing commentators most certainly aren’t quick to appreciate anything from the right wing, and also tend to have a group think going about the left and excuse any sins (including corruption if I recall correctly in the case of Trotter). I realise it is convenient for you to suggest otherwise just now, the alternative of course being that Helen is losing it.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
What’s most interesting about this is how similar the two proposals are. Sure, National has the boot camp proposal to pander to rednecks, but on education, the proposals are essentially the same. The only difference is that under Labour’s scheme under 18s must be connected to some form of structured education, although what that means I’m not quite sure.
How wonderful. On this issue we have two Helen Clarks to vote for at the next election
January 30th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Sorry Charlie,
Can’t be arsed reading the whole thread.
Has anyone pointed out that under Key, if you don’t actually get off your arse and do something rather than just wag school as H1 proposes, you lose your dole! Therefore a significant difference,
I think the irony here is that Key is invoking Clinton welfare policy……….probably more to come.
Labour seem bereft of ideas full stop. No doubt,
January 31st, 2008 at 1:10 am
Sorry Charlie – we still only have the 1 Helen Clark (thank God) to choose, and anyone who votes for her raising the school leaving age to 18 would have to be as thick as pigshit.
Her rapidly cobbled together response to Key’s speech has backfired bigtime – a totally stupid idea even by her standards. If this is the sort of bullshit policy-on-the-hoof she’s dishing up in January, imagine the crap the desperate crone will be offering us by election time!
January 31st, 2008 at 6:51 am
There were 18 of us in the final year of high school in 1971.
Three of us wanted A Levels so that we could get into university.
The remaining 15 were – you guessed it – the school’s First XVI thicko rugger buggers who elected to cling-on in school only to play sport and generally stuff around with cars, girls, and booze for another couple of years.
Under labour’s proposals, high schools up and down the country will now become rubbish bins for legions of alienated, dissaffected hoodies and hoodettes with no ambition and fuck all interest who can’t even play organised sports.
Now, hands up. Who wants to be a high school teacher? And don’t all shout at once.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:52 am
So, Charlie Tan. I take it that you quite comfortable having teenagers with knives running amok in our streets?
Then again, the bad guys in this case are Labour supoporters, so I suppose you would be behind them.
January 31st, 2008 at 7:45 am
Charlie Tan: Sure, National has the boot camp proposal to pander to rednecks, but on education, the proposals are essentially the same.
So in a nutshell, if you want to take a troubled youth and instill discipline, self respect and a desire to achieve something positive with their lives in them you are a redneck. According to Charlie Tan at least.
I know this is a foreign concept, but poverty alone is not the only reason for children who go awry. Sometimes a lack of discipline plays a role as does the lack of positive rolemodels.
January 31st, 2008 at 7:49 am
rrm great link , who could our leader? helen take as a lover ,we need a stunch liarbor supporter, willing to give all??
January 31st, 2008 at 7:52 am
Headline today’s NZH..’Minister says hot summer to blame for murders’ ..WTF??!!
January 31st, 2008 at 8:00 am
Paul Marsden , you forgot the full moon, that causes murders,bashings stabbings but i blame that hidious air brushed pic of the leader, that bright glowing shot could cause tempory madness.:)
January 31st, 2008 at 8:13 am
…every teenager will have to stay in school or some other form of education or training until they are 18 will prove to be a quantum leap in terms of upskilling the workforce.
I strongly doubt that. The numbers involved aren’t large enough to do that.
And since when did government compulsion do anything except produce unintended consequences?
January 31st, 2008 at 8:25 am
It simply does not matter what Labour promise it will not be implemented. People have stopped listening to them.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:35 am
nationals’ ‘hidden agenda’..?
(c.f…’hollow men’..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 31st, 2008 at 8:49 am
Labour have had nine years to implement these policies and many more that we will hear about in coming months. They will also concentrate on measures to rectify the perceived mistakes of the last National Govt.
What has changed really? Only the style of the messages. Funny that with an election looming everything is now possible and the mistakes perceived to have been created more than nine years ago still need to be remedied.
Tax cuts are now easily possible, funding of education is now possible, a more effective justice system is now possible.
Come on everyone, stop, take a cynical approach and really analyse what they are saying. 450 communications gurus are able to spin a lot of messages. Those messages are being carefully created to appeal to the non questioning and the often uninterested majority. It is not a new technique. Just keep saying “the voters can’t be fooled”. Then interview them to hear their opinion. Most haven’t got a clue what has been said to them.
All the top media people are now working as communications specialists and their old mates left in the media seem incapable of prising the real messages out of the politicians.
In particular Sainsbury and Mary Wilson. Sainsbury is everybodies mate and Wilson is a Rottweiler who only likes blue meat. By the way, where is Campbell?
January 31st, 2008 at 8:50 am
Philu
And Russel “hollow man” Normans secret agenda?
January 31st, 2008 at 9:03 am
Is Toms now writing Dear Leader’s speechs, talk about comedy. The mad cow is in la la land, let the kids leave school if they want to. If they don’t want to stay at school they are hardly going to be good students, they would only screw it up for the rest. I would say no dole till you are 18 and if you do leave school you have to work or get hungry.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:10 am
Cubit9f – That’s what my mind keeps coming back to. NINE YEARS! Given that, it’s rather odd hearing Helen talk along the lines of “If we don’t do something we’ll never become an advanced, 21st century economy”. It’s as if she’s conceding they’ve not even started towards that goal.
I think it preferable that all those under 18 are in education (of whatever form), and also, that all those udner 18 be connected (ie having the technical training facilitated by the school) to a high school and all the community and pastoral care that entails.
However, I don’t think it’s workable. I’m fresh out of high school, and can’t imagine schools being able to facilitate the flexible pathways labour’s imagining. Clark herself concedes the policy needs refinement and hasn’t been though through in detail. Ie, it’s a new jerk response attempting to ourbold National. I don’t feel it’s workable policy.
H be that in school or elsewhere, I don’t think it’s workable. Labour’s talking about flexible pathways…having only just left high school, I can’t imagine schools being able to provide for numerous other polytech and apprenticeship. courses
January 31st, 2008 at 9:51 am
Charlie Tan: The difference is very large. Labour has a single solution, school until 18, no allowances for any variation (typically big government coercion). National has many solutions – anything BUT the dole until 18.
All the detractors seem to have missed one really important point with National’s policy – YOU CAN STILL LEAVE SCHOOL AT 16 ! No one is being forced, coerced, compleled (call it what you want). THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE – NO COMPULSION !
Once they’ve left school they have to deal with the consequence of their decision – get a job if they want, it’s okay! Have a ‘gap year’ and do an OE, great, no problem. The just have to deal with the fact that WINZ will not fund their choice to do nothing.
The whole “boot camp” that the lefties have latched on to is a red herring. The real argument is the choice between solution A) compulsion – you must do what we want you to do, even if there is a better solution. OR B) do what you want, just remember some choices have fairly large negative consequences.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:53 am
Sorry about the caps – can’t get bold to work.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:57 am
“So in a nutshell, if you want to take a troubled youth and instill discipline, self respect and a desire to achieve something positive with their lives in them you are a redneck. According to Charlie Tan at least.”
Well, when the policy is so badly thought out you are. I suppose our defence force – among other institutions ill equiped to handle troubled youths – could be used as babysitters, but I’d rather not see that happen. There is a reason this proposal is being labelled a boot camp. And quite honestly, I think there are many people who support this policy who don’t give a flying fuck about what happens to these kids.
Apart from that, as I said, the differences between the two policies are subtle. I applaud John Key for adopting a “social engineering” approach. Doesn’t mean I’ll vote for the ugly little bugger though.
I wonder why your position as a “foreign correspondant” gives you greater insight on this, Pascal. In your stories, do you have a special interest on crime issues overseas? I’ve published overseas on policy matters in both mainstream media and academic journals and I have lived overseas while doing it. Does that make me a “foreign correspondant”? If so, can I run around claiming I know about everything too?
January 31st, 2008 at 10:07 am
“no allowances for any variation”
Bullshit. Helen said that the stipulation was that you had to be in structured education until you were 18. You could work, but there had to be some sort of formal assessment component to your work to make sure you were learning on the job. And other educational institutions are, of course, not off the table. Read the speech.
As for JK’s plan, it’s just “let them work if they want”. No hint of tackling issues around upskilling. Still, it is a bold step into social engineering from the leader of a party that has generally chosen to abdicate responsibility for everything to the private sector. Good on him. What a fine left-leaning individual he is.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:13 am
By the way, Pascal, as a foreign correspondant you should know that such schemes as JK’s boot camp proposal would advocate have been tried and failed in the U.S.
http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NationalNews/KeysaysLabourideologicallyopposedtobootcamps/tabid/184/articleID/44669/cat/64/Default.aspx
So excuse me for thinking that this *is* a cynical ploy to appeal to middle New Zealand’s inner redneck. Just like DB’s racist winging a few years back.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:37 am
Charlie Tan: By the way, Pascal, as a foreign correspondant you should know that such schemes as JK’s boot camp proposal would advocate have been tried and failed in the U.S.
Where do you get the foreign correspondant theme from? Confusing me with someone else? I am resident in New Zealand, own property here, work here, got married here. I’m a Kiwi mate.
Oh wait! You read foreign concept and thought that implied the concept came from overseas? *laughs softly* No, it is an English phrase used to indicate the concept is a strange / different one or one that the listener is unaccustomed to. Hopefully that clears it up.
I do believe that your understanding of John Key’s suggested policy is a bit flawed, as flawed as you pointed out others’ understanding of Helen Clark’s policy is.
For example, what you call a “bootcamp” is utilizing a scheme that has been in place for a long time. They are called LSV’s and are part of Work and Income’s employment training alternatives. Currently however they are under utilized and they are one example of where National believes the existing schemes can be improved to help our disaffected youth.
Read the policy backgrounder on it and then read what Work and Income has to say on them. By all accounts they are remarkably successfull vehicles for providing better opportunities to our youth and more importantly – they are existing schemes that are already running.
So you can keep on calling them “bootcamps” and blabbering on about the US and your publishing overseas. My advice though – go and read the actual documentation on these and see what they’re about.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:00 am
I beg your pardon for misreading your comment above.
Anyway, as to the LSV’s, I’m sure these work very well. However, they work very well because the people who are on them actually acknowledge that there is a need to improve their lives. They are not on them because they want to collect the dole. That’s what JK’s scheme is proposing. How do I know they won’t work. Well *laughs softly* I’m happy to take the advice of the guy who actually runs the schemes. See link above.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:07 am
Of course, I reiterate the fact that I am happy that the National Party has finally begun to embrace social engineering policies, even if I don’t agree with the details.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:09 am
I did, and yes, on the face of it what Phil Goff says makes a fair amount of sense. However, as I said “one example.” National is suggesting something similar, but not necessarily identical. Their policy is backed up with research and 30 something points of reference and links to established work. Do yourself a favour and actually read that and follow the links. They do have a fair number of answers and, whilst they might not necessarily be the perfect answers they are backed up and substantiated answers.
However, I am curious. What do you believe is the answer for repeat youth offenders?
Should we not try to instill a sense of self worth in them and provide them with the tools necessary to function well in society and to take advantage of their opportunities?
Or is the answer that rather vacuous policy release from Labour that suggests they should stay in school or training until 18 years of age, but where they have no clue as to what to measure, approve or how to manage this process?
January 31st, 2008 at 11:11 am
Charlie Tan: embrace social engineering policies
That comment does you no justice. Any party serious about fixing the social problems that plagues New Zealand currently will need to have a social policy. There is no need to try and paint it as somehow negative or against the grain for a particular party.
It’s good that John Key and the National Party provides options and alternatives for the youth in their policy. Well worth a read, because the actual policy backgrounder reads differently to the media releases and image that has been painted on Kiwiblog by some dissatisfied commentators.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:41 am
There is a lot of yearning for a solution and the hardy annual of boot camps and compulsory military training are always trotted out as a the panacea of all youth ills.
A little bit of enlitlement on CMT, National Service or conscription. The reason for these activities carried out by the military was tp produce trained manpower for Military Service requirements. The personal qualities gained by the conscripts were a bye product of the training not an end in themselves.
The greatest method of giving these young men some social and personal skills was of course guided by the military staff but most was gained from having a vertical slice of society thrown in the deep end together and learning very quickly that they all had something to offer and all would learn a lot from each others life experience. The “silver spoon” from Fendalton had to mix with the “bottom of the heap” from (you know, one of the so called depressed areas).
My fear is that those calling for the return of such schemes don’t realise that simply putting all the difficult socially deprived people in a heap and hoping that some poor junior NCO is going to sort them out is just not aware of the realities.
I don’t think the upper and middle class supporters of such schemes envisage their sonsd and daughters being dragged into these schemes to provide the balance that a vertical slice of society provides.
You can also bet that unless there is a military imperative to the scheme there will be no great interest from the professional military to becoming baby – sitters, parents, teachers and guidance counsellors for those people where all of the above mentioned have failed. They have more important things to do with their professional time.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:41 am
Paraphrasing from a National Party Press Release, with thanks to Simon Power!
Meanwhile Annette King states that the sun and moon are to blame for the horrific youth violence incidents this summer.
It has nothing to do with the rise in youth violent offending of 47% since 1999.
It has nothing to do with the youth offending team at the Justice Ministry being unable to cope.
It has nothing to do with the collapse of the Reducing Youth Offending Programme run in conjunction with CYF and Corrections.
It has nothing to do with fact that the Labour Ministers Group on the Youth Offending Strategy did not meet for 3 years.
It has nothing to do with the National Truancy Register promised in 1999 and 2002 still not being implemented.
Nope, it’s all the Sun and Moon’s fault.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:43 am
“Any party serious about fixing the social problems that plagues New Zealand currently will need to have a social policy.”
National used to have a different policy. Build more prisons.
“It’s good that John Key and the National Party provides options and alternatives for the youth in their policy.
Yes, and as I said, there is much in National’s policy that I agree with. My problems with his speech are 1) it conflates two separate issues (youth crime and education); and 2) doesn’t address problems surrounding upskilling the workforce. Labour’s scheme lets people work, but only if it allows them to acquire skills.
Apart from that the two schemes aren’t really that different, as I have said. Well done John Key for setting out a scheme that is mostly Labouristic.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:47 am
right way “Nope, it’s all the Sun and Moon’s fault.”
Ha ha, and that’s because the sun and moon dont have a lot of common sense.
I always thought annette king was a standout (not for policies, but for handling of things) but if she keeps saying things like this then sheeesh, that’s just der-brain stuff.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Well Charlie, I would not call it Labouristic. I would call it a sensible answer to one of the problems facing New Zealand. And the similarities between the two approaches might see us actually solving the problem in a bi-partisan fashion without all the politics around it. That would be a first prize type of solution.
cbuti9f: My fear is that those calling for the return of such schemes don’t realise that simply putting all the difficult socially deprived people in a heap and hoping that some poor junior NCO is going to sort them out is just not aware of the realities.
That is a valid concern. My understanding might be flawed, but from what I’ve read the LSV approach is comprised in part (70%) of professional civilians assisting and offering their guidance. As it looks that is not the entirety of National’s suggestion, but it does use the LSV scheme as a point of reference.
In fact, all John Key’s statements about it has indicated that they’re taking a militaristic approach to the discipline and authority. It seems like a small distinction, but a clear enough one from being a form of involuntary conscription.
Reading about what they do currently it sounds a lot like the Boy Scouts or my image of what Summer Camp must be like in the States. (Too many movies *laughs*) It sounds like a remarkably positive experience.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Charlie Tan
“National used to have a different policy. Build more prisons.”
For much of 2007, Labour ministers were boasting about the bigger/newer/better prisons they were building. National spent the time carping about the cost of the landscaping. Somehow I don’t recall you flooding the blogosphere with complaints.
How does it work? Prisons are bad when National builds them, and good when Labour builds them?
January 31st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Charlie Tan (again)
“Still, it is a bold step into social engineering from the leader of a party that has generally chosen to abdicate responsibility for everything to the private sector.”
“Of course, I reiterate the fact that I am happy that the National Party has finally begun to embrace social engineering policies”
Hate to say it Charlie, but you have lost the plot. Neither of these comments has the slightest grounding in reality.
During the term of the past National government (you know, the ‘far right’ one), the overwhelming majority of government expenditure was on health, social welfare and education. Same for the previous National government (the ‘interventionist’ one). And the one before that.
You may or may not think this is a good thing, but is is indisputably true. To suggest that there has been any NZ government in living memory that has not had active social policies is simply ludicrous, no matter what you might think of the policies in question.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Charlie, I happen to be the HR Manager for a company that employs a number of school leavers as part of our work-force (and on standard adult wages, not youth rates either).
We also tried to work with schools in the area to provide school-to-wor transitions as part of the ‘structured work learning environment [SWLE]‘ (or whatever the actual buzz word is) and couldn’t do it for commercial reasons. Are you aware of the amount of paperwork and limitations to allow the work they do (which they get paid wages) to count as a SWLE? It makes employing even 3 or 4 of them uneconomic, let alone just 1 or 2.
In the end the only school we are able to work with is Hutt Valley High School. You know why? Because as a high decile school, they can run a work transition programme with out the students having to be in a SWLE – go figure – something about the average wealth in their area means they don’t deserved to be “helped” as much as those from the lower decile schools. More interestingly, the schools that the students need a SWLE have a lot of difficulty placing their students (most don’t get placed in a workplace) but Hutt Valley High School are able to place most of their students, and as a result, we’ve employed 1 or 2 students every year, and quite a few have become permanent staff members, with a full time job and career prospects. The other students miss out.
Over buearucrat rules basically stuff it up for everyone. Don’t tell me that the students we employ don’t learn skills – at the very least they learn the valuable life skill that if you don’t turn up to work you don’t get paid – all other skills flow on from that. But as we can’t deal with the hopeless rules/limitations on what they are allow/not allowed to do and the endless forms/assessments/reports they, apparently, are not learning anything so it doesn’t count. That’s the current policy for you – and the students are not working or learning anything.