Education For All

education (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)

I was recently asked for my views by an advocate of the public choice theory of education.  In brief my views are:

While I am concerned about wasting taxpayers funds and also about poor performers in public education I am also encouraged by those examples of quality and innovative teaching in the profession.  I’m encouraged that there remains some semblance of parental and community governance through New Zealand’s Board of Trustees structure. I also believe that government has a role to play in ensuring that all citizens have access to affordable, high quality education.  That does not mean that all provision should be by government.  Ultimately we need an education system that is focussed on best outcomes for children and helps every individual student develop their full potential.

Freedom of speech means listening to each other

Another Waitangi Day – another violent protest.  The right to peaceful protest is fundamental in a liberal democracy.  However, when a handful of malcontents can prevent the Prime Minister from being heard then something is very wrong.  Just as the protestors have the right to make their views known in a peaceful and orderly way so too the Prime Minister has the right to attend an event to which he has been invited – without loutish thugs attempting to use him as a tackle bag.  He should also be accorded the opportunity to have his say.  Others may disagree with his views but freedom to express  those views is a precious thing.  We should be concerned when a minority of political activists try to take away such freedoms. It’s a real shame that on a marae, of all places, each of the participants couldn’t have their say and listen to the speakers with some respect.

Hope this guy doesn’t win!

The NZ Herald today reported that a man with a gumboot on his head and promises of free ponies for all Americans is hoping to take out President Barack Obama in the race to the White House.

While Mr Obama is certain to represent the Democrat Party in the Presidential Election later this year, a host of little known politicians are nonetheless competition for to get their name on the ballot.

The incumbent claimed an overwhelming 82 percent of the vote (48,970 votes) in this week’s hardly reported New Hampshire Democrat Party primary – a race which was all but over before it began.

After Obama was Republican candidate Ron Paul, whose name was written on ballots by 2273 voters, followed by Ed Cowan, who got just 2 percent of the vote.

However close on Mr Cowan’s heels was Vermin Supreme, a self-declared “friendly fascist”, who reeled in 831 votes.

Campaigning before the New Hampshire vote, Mr Supreme promised to enact a mandatory tooth brushing law.

“Some people will tell you this mandatory tooth brushing law is about the secret dental police kicking down your door at 3am to make sure you’ve brushed. Friends, it is not.

“It’s not about the government-issued toothpaste containing an addictive yet harmless substance. No friends, it is not even about DNA gene splicing to create a race of winged monkeys to act as tooth fairies. What this mandatory tooth brushing law is about is strong teeth for a strong America.”

Mr Supreme, who ran for the Republican Party in 2008, also advocates giving each American a free pony, “one of the most overlooked issues in America today”.

He says the policy would create jobs and is good for the environment.  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10778515

National holds Waitakere

The Dominion Post reported today that the Labour Party has decided not to challenge National’s win in the marginal Waitakere electorate – held by popular Social Development Minister, Hon. Paula Bennett. http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/6252176/Labour-won-t-challenge-Waitakere-result

MMP here to stay – lets make it better

Political party reform should be debated – in addition to having the Review of the MMP electoral system.  Democratic participation is about more than just how the votes are counted and translated into parliamentary seats.  The process by which parties develop policy, the organisational structures, the ability of members to participate in decision-making – whether it be about policy, candidate selection or arguably leadership selection are all matters that would be worth of debate as New Zealanders consider how to improve the system we have.

In the US the primary system usefully provides a testing ground for candidates and an opportunity for members to participate in policy debates prior to the actual voter decision at the general election for President.  There is much about the American system that I don’t think we should emulate.  But the primary concept is well worth a look.

Maori Party puts action ahead of rhetoric

The decision by the Maori Party to conclude an Agreement with the National-led government represents a triumph of pragmatism over noisy rhetoric. 

 

In the Parliament elected by New Zealanders on November 26th only one of the major parties was in a position to form a government and that was National.  The choice before the Maori Party was therefore a simple one – should it offer limited support to the government in return for certain policy gains which would have a positive and practical impact on daily life for Maori or should it go into Opposition for the next three years?

 

The Whanau Ora programme which is still in its infancy has not yet had a chance to be implemented, to work and to be evaluated.  The Maori Party has already chalked up particular policy wins during the 2008-11 term of office - including a not insignificant amount of public funding for Maori development.  Since the emergence of the Maori Party both major parties have been competing for Maori support.  For that alone the party deserves credit.  In politics talk is cheap. Ultimately actions do speak louder than words.

Greens questioned over costs of new programmes

Image via Wikipedia

Green Party candidate, Gareth Hughes, came under fire this evening at the Ohariu candidates meeting over Green spending promises to subsidise “green jobs” and to expand the Working For Families programme to include welfare beneficiaries.

A member of the public asked Mr Hughes whether the Greens had costed their policies together with Labour’s new spending initiatives if there was a Labour-Green coalition after Saturday’s election. Mr Hughes responded by saying it was “unfair” to be asked that question when the other parties also had costly initiatives.  He went on to claim that under the Greens new Capital Gains Tax, re-prioritising motorways spending (presumably cancelling Transmission Gully) and making farmers pay more in ETS costs would produce “$8billion” in new revenues for the government while the increased spending would be only “$4billion”.

Current MP – Peter Dunne – said that jobs would come through business growth and recent tax reforms would help towards that.  In addition he wanted to see a reduction in red tape and compliance costs for businesses.

National candidate Katrina Shanks reiterated the party’s pledge to bring the government accounts back into surplus by 2014-15.

Mr Hughes was also questioned on the “thousands” of “green jobs” being promised and precisely where those jobs would come from. Mr Hughes explained that they would appear “if we encourage entreprenuers to live here”. Quite how entreprenuers would be encouraged through higher tax rates was unclear.