I think now that this issue is pretty much done and dusted, it’s a good time to a) reflect, and b) have a laugh. I’m sure it’s not a laughing matter for Hekia or Cabinet just at the moment, but that video was hilarious.
I would say though, I can’t for the life of me figure out Whaleoil’s outpouring of vitriol towards Hekia of late. It seemed to go beyond what was warranted, I thought. Anyway, that’s my 2c worth. Video was hilarious.
It was Bill English who set her up with this half baked policy and then left her to hang out to dry. He was nowhere to be seen when the policy was abandoned, People who show that sort of cowardice are not leaders and English is probably the only person who does not realize that. But let us see Hekia bounce back, that will be a test of her mettle. She is not a coward.
No. There will be a book published the ‘Fall and Rise of Hekia Parata’. She will recover. the isse I wonder about is whether the teaching unions and Labour ‘astroturfed’ the class size issue so opposition to it appared far greater than it really was. Labour / Greens now think they can successfully ‘white ant’ much of the budget.
It’s like there is no navigator at the moment with National. The idea that Hekia’s falls alone is dream time. Many will see her as abandoned and identify that as a wider leadership problem. Even saying that she was going to put it on hold subject to further talks would have given her room to move, then a watered down statement later that she been influenced by the discussions to look for alternatives. With English saying they were looking for cost savings but they would after consultation look elsewhere, after all the ‘plan’ was for his ends as Minister of Finance and not for ‘greater excellence’ in education.
I see this as part of the greater downfall of the National led Government to the 2014 Election, at which time the feral media will have made mincemeat of John Key, a sucessful man, which the media hate.
Despite having the largest number or seats National will not have enough to govern, at which time a Labour/Greenpeace coalition, led probably with a joint Prime Ministership of Grant Robertson and Russel Norman (Finance), will take New Zealand by “surprise” as the media are already predicting. They will continue to push their theme,
They will then have achieved their “Ambrose” moment, and “God Defend New Zealand” – nobody else will care.
This was never about improving teacher quality. It was about saving money. National intends to cut $100 million + from education while at the same time not spending a brass razoo on teacher development. That shows its true commitment to the issue.
Quite so, Ross.
It was a cost cutting exercise plain and simple. The so-called “quality” side of it was to distract from the very real fact that classes were going to get bigger and teaching programmes were going to be cut.
Well you can’t polish a turd and the public saw right through it.
Despite Hekia’s claims that the government wants to focus on tecaher quality, it’s become clear that the government is not the slightest bit interested in that. If it is, why have the cancelled the professional development to raise teacher quality?
It’s all about 1) saving money and 2) trying to smash the unions. The irony of all this, is that this debacle has most likely made the unions (through their teachers) stronger.
They don’t seem to be able to change tactics, nor does it seem to have dawned on them they’ve had a string of losses which are causing concern about the plight of the economy. Even their attempts at diversion ‘the beast of Blenhiem’ and this week ‘feral’ parents are looking more and more superficial. Not really the look of a Government with purpose, but rather one that dithers along, raises smoke screens when under fire and which can abruptly retreat. With all due respect to debate about same sex marriages and the like, a lot of people want a more positive approach to the economy.
Joel Rowan (@11.26am)
I not so sure the issue is “done and dusted” (although I agree the government should reflect on the last 3 weeks).
Some questions remain:
1) If something as major as reducing teachers and increasing class sizes was flagged as earlier as 2009, why wasn’t this mentioned before the election? The government does have a mandate to sell assets because it was put to voters before the election. But nothing was said about increasing class sizes until just before the budget this year.
2) John Key made it very clear before the election that their would be NO cuts to frontline staff. In defining frontline staff he specifically mentioned teachers. Why was breaking an election promise being considered?
3) Why was Parata so uninformed about the consequences of changing the staffing ratios? She seemed surprised when schools did the number crunching and cuts of up to 10 staff would have happened.
4) Has Parata got a handle on her portfolio? Her style is to speak to media using a prepared script. She does not answer questions and just repeats the script over and over again. It’s totally ineffectual.