Hard News: All Change
96 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Neil, in reply to
I think the proposed inquiry into historical abuse in state institutions is seperate.
The current mental health services provide effective mental health treatment they just need to be able to provide more of it.
And the biggest obstacle to that is getting the staff and having appropriate housing so that acute units don’t fill up with people who have become well but don’t have anywhere to live.
Labour’s proposal of placing mental health teams in GP practices sounds good but it’s predicated on finding quite a large number of extra health professionals when current staffing needs can’t even be met.
It’s also likely to double up on roles as there are already care co-ordinators.
It would make much more sense to simply provide more funding for existing services.
-
Currently the NZPB is the only body appointed to accredit Psychologists - I don't have a problem with that as such. But, 1500 hrs (almost a year of full-time work) of supervised practice is a problem. There is an argument for quality over quantity regardless of how you define supervision.
-
izogi, in reply to
Good stuff.
I’m in mixed minds about this. As much as I like the idea of finally seeing some Ministerial responsibilities going to the Greens, I’m wary of seeing a portfolio like Conservation shift outside Cabinet. That’s effectively the management of 1/3 of the entire land-area of New Zealand, plus it’s currently undergoing substantial stress and in need of transformation due to pest and tourism impacts.
-
How his surly arrogance is ignored by his bosses at TVNZ is beyond me.
It’s not ignored. He is popular…
My spies tell me Hoskings basically calls the shots at TVNZ – threatening to simply walk out if any attempt is made to reign in his absolute editorial control of Seven Sharp. It remains to be seen if a new government may allow his bosses to grow some balls and yank his chain.
Part of David Seymour’s tantrum this morning, from Newshub’s liveblog.
I expect the entrenched right will launch an all out attack on MMP over the next three years as part of their electoral strategy. The neolib right bitterly opposed MMP because they thought it would prevent a tyranny of a majority of the governing cabinet ramming through legislation at odds with the will of the electorate. Once it dawned on them that MMP is a consensus based system designed to prevent radical change to the status quo and thus (perhaps inadvertently) entrenching the “reforms” of Douglas and Birch/Richardson, particularly when you had the two main political parties of the centre left and centre right embracing the new elite consensus, they supported it as furthering their ends. As long as MMP guaranteed the continuation of neoliberalism through “moderate” coalitions of the status quo, it retained the support of the hard right elites in business and their political lackeys.
This election changed that. National has eaten it’s allies. Joyce’s arrogant electoral strategy of aiming to wipe out the minor parties in order to rule alone is in ruins, an abject failure. Unless it can somehow create a new allied party, it will never again rule under MMP. The leadership of the new coalition is publicly saying the current version of capitalism is a failure for many people, and it has a mind to to dismantle fundamental aspects of the global capitalist project – restrictions on the free flow of labour, fair pay bargaining, dismantling the slow privatisation of education, ending Bill English’s insane and cruel public housing free market experiment.
Therefore for the right, the best opportunities for rule that will guarantee the unchallenged privileges of the neoliberal project is now a right wing plurality through a return to FPP. Therefore I expect an all out assault on the legitimacy of this government based on an attack on MMP. The biggest party has a right to govern. Coalitions of losers are undemocratic. The country is being held to ransom by one man 93% didn’t vote for. Coalition talks are for the weak, a strong government known on the night is the answer for the countries woes, etc etc etc.
-
simon g, in reply to
They may well attack and undermine MMP, but the next election will be fought under the current system, and there won't be any referendum (or even a change without one) until National take power again.
For the past four terms (Clark's last, plus Key's three) there have been numerous occasions when an excited Gower/Dann/predecessor has stood in front of the colourful TV graphics and declared "Our poll says National can govern alone!". Polls showing a minor party under 5%, or National around 50%, have been the siren voices telling National that they can do it without coalition partners. It kept on happening.
But then the actual elections happened instead, featuring those pesky voters deciding for themselves, and it turns out National can't govern alone. Key got there with electorate puppets, but they've gone, bar the irrelevant one they'll probably turf out of Epsom next time.
If the Ardern government runs into serious trouble then National may well be able to get there in 2020 without friends, at which point they will be a majority government, elected under MMP, with a high wasted vote, which is exactly when the case for abolishing MMP will be weakest. Chances are, a single party government would swing opinion back the other way ("Remember the good old days when National had to compromise?").
So yeah, there will be plenty of foot-stomping, but I don't think MMP is going to be ditched any time soon.
-
Tom Semmens, in reply to
If the Ardern government runs into serious trouble then National may well be able to get there in 2020 without friends
I would have thought that surely by now the idea of anyone being able to govern alone under MMP would be long laid to rest, but it seems some people like an evil clown staring back at them through the grate when they look down into the political sewer.
National was unable to build a “rule alone” majority despite the extraordinary popularity of Key, the disarray of Labour, an assiduously cultivated new constituency of white middle class greedy home owners reinvented as property speculators and right wing migrants, and an uncritical, largely fawning MSM that gave them a nine year PR honeymoon. The stars are unlikely to align as favourably again for National.
Incumbency alone is worth a few percentage points to the government while if (and this is a mighty big if) they use their power to build their constituency at the expense of National’s North Shore property speculators and authoritarian migrants (because the Key government ruled very much in the interests of only some New Zealanders I feel the new government is perfectly within it’s right to rule in favour of only those who support it as well) they’ll bring plenty of new voters to the polls in 2020.
Mind you, the dinosaur men of the MSM like Barry Soper and Leighton Smith and the plain authoritarians like Garner and Hoskings will make sure this government doesn’t get a honeymoon like Key got. HDPA is pretty pissed today in the paper and the sense of angry grievance from the self-appointed ruling class at NZ First’s dolchstosslegende will only grow. The incessant trommelfeuer of the reactionary classes in the media will go hand in hand with the MSM ’s obsession with binary politics which will manifest itself in constant attempts to find trumped up cracks in the coalition (today over the Kermadec sanctuary, tomorrow charter schools, next week the water tax, etc etc).
If the past nine years should have taught the left anything, it is the MSM is an active enemy. Part of my big if above is how exactly this new government moves to dismantle that right wing media model with a new broadcasting policy designed to increase the variety of voices heard, and allows them to go over the head of the MSM to their constituency. If this to be a real change government, it has to understand that the polarisation of New Zealand means it must use it's time in power to organise and mobilise it's supporters as much as possible.
-
trumped up cracks in the coalition
Clutching at their pearls or at straws. It will be one or the other.
Maybe they will take a leaf from the book of sports writers, where fantastical coincidence and spurious statistics still hold currency. Where a woman PM can cause the fucking All Blacks to lose a game!
A pox on all sports writers. -
Tom Semmens, in reply to
Where a woman PM can cause the fucking All Blacks to lose a game!
A pox on all sports writers.And the funny thing is MSM journos still have the chutzpah to sit around and ponderously complain about fake news.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Where a woman PM can cause the fucking All Blacks to lose a game!
I'm glad I didn't look at Public Address before settling in to watch my recording of 'that game' at 10am this morning....
-
linger, in reply to
sports writers
“How about the Sports Minister? Does the Sports Minister have a sack?
The Sports Minister should be sacked! ”
As with certain other male members of the MSM, I find myself asking: is the sexism inbuilt, or is it just what they believe will appeal to their target audience? -
Neil, in reply to
What I know about mental health services (which isn’t a hell of a lot), is that they are fragmented.
I'm not sure it's fragmented. Mental health covers a very wide range of situations requiring a wide range of varied responses.
From high security forensic units through to a few hours with a counsellor.
There's always going to be organisations that have specialist areas and that will call for co-ordination.
Current needs aren't some mystery to be explored through investigations.
I think Labour would be better off just talking to staff at community mental health centres and inpatient units.
-
This is the kind of nonsense we're going to see a lot of, as we did back in 1999.
Sure, a trip across the Tasman by our PM will really make a difference to Australian newspapers spouting predictable propaganda and Australian politicians chasing their own votes [/heavy sarc]. But no, the great god "perception" must be appeased. Except, it can't. So let them grasp reality in their own time, it's not her job to school them.
The only thing she needs to do in Australia is stand next to Julie Bishop and let the cameras capture a cheerful grin, alongside a painful grimace.
-
Neil,
Some things Labour could do in a short amount of time:
- fund junior doctors in community mental heath centres. They can take significant workload off senior doctors and it provides a path into mental health – it’s hard to attract doctors into the field,
- buy more motels. There’s a desperate need for short term emergency accommodation which can’t wait for some 10 year housing plan. Motels provide accomodation and also allow for a concentration of resources as health professionals can visit more people in less time. This can easily be done now and would have immediate benefit for not a great deal of money.
- offer incentives for nurses to move into mental health. Currently student nurses spend a very small amount of time in mental health placements and often that brief experience doesn’t inspire interest in the field.
- fund Community Suppport Workers in community mental health centres. They do a great job based in NGOs but they could also help with health professional workloads if based in the community centres.
-
izogi, in reply to
Let’s hope the ministers get together form good relationships, and have quite walks on the beach. Or drinks at the Koru club at least.
I hope so. The Conservation portfolio's not the only thing I care about, but I care about it a lot. I have some respect for Eugenie Sage in that space, but right now being shunted outside of Cabinet, for what seems like political reasons, is the last thing that portfolio needs.
Hopefully they have enough structure there to ensure that the Minister can get some genuine attention from Cabinet, beyond it simply throwing some extra cash from a tourism levy (as per Labour policy) and expecting the whole thing to run on cruise control.
-
izogi, in reply to
National was unable to build a “rule alone” majority despite...
After the 2014 election National had 60/121 seats. It had an effective majority after including its two finger puppet parties (ACT and UF), which it had retained on life support for that very reason.
That state was weakened with the Northland by-election, but I can appreciate why some of National's elite would continue to be convinced that going for a complete majority remains a viable strategy.
It's annoying, because parties are just dying out without replacement. That's only been less obvious until now because of National's strategic games in keeping its friends alive on a leash, despite nobody voting for them. In 2017 there were very few realistic options for government, short of everyone having to deal with a party that nobody wanted to deal with. Meanwhile people have demonstrably been wanting to elect other new parties which, despite being far more inspiring to voters than the ACT and UF zombies, cannot break an impossible threshold. If National had let go of its obsession with being such a dominating party that hides contradictory interests behind a brick wall, instead of letting those voters have some influence in which of those interests should be better represented, it might have been more open to letting MMP be adjusted to a form that makes it vaguely possible for new parties to actually get started.
-
The decline in vocational options over the years in the Anglosphere has a large role to play in that.
Anglosphere I can't comment on; however in New Zealand, for many many years' participation in vocational education and training has increased.
Chief Executive of the Industry Training Federation, Josh Williams, pointed out in August, there's more apprentices and trainees that there are uni students.
-
81stcolumn, in reply to
On that note, does everyone need to go to university?
The short answer is no and the reasons to go need to change.
Have finally gotten round to writing something about this.
-
Neil, in reply to
There’s this thing with a buzz word “consumer engagement”.
Labour will have to prioritise. There is urgent need right now for resources to maintain the safety of the most vulnerable and at risk. An increased number of respite beds is one such resource and could be done today. Consumers have a much more limited ability to engage when they’re just trying to survive.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
does everyone need to go to university?
No.
But can everyone benefit from tertiary education?
Hell yeah. And at any stage of their life.
It doesn't need to be the classical university education, it could be anything.
My personal opinion is universities exist to train a specific type of skills that society needs. But society doesn't need everyone to have those skills - other skills are just as valuable and some of those are much better learned outside a university structure.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
But can everyone benefit from tertiary education?
Hell yeah. And at any stage of their life.
I largely agree. You might be interested to note that the Business Council of Australia, the week before last, recommended giving "every Australian a capped Lifelong Skills Account that can be used to pay for courses at approved VET or HE provider over the person’s lifetime". It would comprise access to subsidised programs and a loan scheme. The differences between VET and HE in Australia are more pronounced than they are in NZ, because States mostly - but not entirely fund VET - whereas the Commonwealth entirely funds HE. Regardless, this debate - about what kind of post-compulsory education people need is urgent. I sincerely hope the next Minister in Charge of Tertiary Education in NZ considers this as one of their priorities.
For those with the time and interest, the full report is here.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Regardless, this debate - about what kind of post-compulsory education people need is urgent. I sincerely hope the next Minister in Charge of Tertiary Education in NZ considers this as one of their priorities.
There's a mention of "hop on, hop off learning" in NZ's Future of Work report.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
There’s a mention of “hop on, hop off learning” in NZ’s Future of Work report.
Even stronger, one of the findings of the NZ Productivity Commission's March '17 review of tertiary education was:
A student education account model would place students at the centre of the tertiary education system. However, the prerequisite conditions needed for such a model to be successful are not yet present in New Zealand.
I agree with the second sentence. There's a need for careful sequencing and pacing of related reforms - governance, learner information, regulation etc - before you'd seriously consider such an approach and that reform is needed regardless.
BTW, the full report is here.
-
Having just "finished" further tertiary, I can certainly say I benefited from it. It would be a little annoying to have bracketed my entire tertiary education into the exact period for which it was not free. I began in the year Labour introduced fees, and to finish the year before Labour scraps them would be amusing timing. I wonder if I'm still eligible for 3 free years, having never had even one? Not that I grudge the younglings, this is great news.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Anglosphere I can't comment on; however in New Zealand, for many many years' participation in vocational education and training has increased.
Chief Executive of the Industry Training Federation, Josh Williams, pointed out in August, there's more apprentices and trainees that there are uni students.
In the NZ ICT sector specifically, apprenticeships face big hurdles if Summer of Tech is to be believed:
We have tried VERY hard to get apprenticeships started for IT in NZ. Current funding requires an ITO or tertiary provider + quals baked in.
Employers don't value the quals in the current framework, and the funding can only go to the ITO or tertiary. Cannot off-set employer costs.
Given that ICT skills are changing faster than the NZQA can keep up, the Future of Work's hop-on/hop-off skill system is timely. In America, Apprenti Careers is just the template for a Rhine/Nordic-style ICT apprenticeship system. So far it seems to be only in Washington State.
I raised the issue with the then Minister for Tertiary Education, and not surprisingly he responded with a tin ear. It's exactly the kind of tin ear that supposedly pushed the Rust Belt to Trump and the de-industrialised UK North to Brexit. With Jacinda taking the Treasury benches, I'm *really* hoping the previously announced ICT apprenticeship policy still holds.
In any case I'm prepared to re-skill, so long as it's not like going to a casino where there's no guarantee of a payoff, or a Trappist monastery where you might die of boredom.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
Employers don’t value the quals in the current framework, and the funding can only go to the ITO or tertiary. Cannot off-set employer costs.
I get that - it's problem in Australia and elsewhere. It's also a classic example of the tradeoff between getting skills to get a job and getting enough skills for a sustainable career, typically that is a qualification at at least one level post-compulsory school.
I do understand too that vendor-accreditation is generally higher regarded than any national qualification. Most of our ICT qualifications embed vendor accreditation. But they're still full qualifications.
With Jacinda taking the Treasury benches, I’m *really* hoping the previously announced ICT apprenticeship policy still holds.
Interesting, I'd not previously known about it.
Something similar could emerge from some work underway in Australia to embed digital skills in all training. More about that here.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.