If anything they probably see what’s been happening as nothing more than a harmless positive outcome for a favorite political party.
FTR. Appointed in 2007 Steve Tew is a pragmatist you could love to hate, but he is not a fool.
But of late one can only wonder how All Blacks management have allowed this politicisation to get quite out-of-hand.
As mentioned on these boards elsewhere, a characteristic of this most recent National govt has been a deep insidious politicisation throughout many areas of public service. Sport is not immune. A case study is the way in which contestable research funds for Sport (they were small but did exist) have been turned into funds for the assessment of SportNZ projects/goals. Not in itself all that evil until you confront some quite sinister micromanagement with respect to how results are reported. With the benefit of time i can say things were somewhat different before 2007.
It’s also the complete opposite of how many other sports do it, instead letting adults dead set on reliving the glory days of their youth run riot over the structure and organisation of kids and teens sport, leading to the exact kind of half-arsed results the All Blacks and NZ rowing have avoided. The miserable condition of NZ swimming is a prime example of this.
I don't think the arguments involving vicarious behaviours of parents are as straightforward as might appear. Historical participation data would strongly suggest that many parents lack meaningful knowledge with regard to the sports they are watching. The level of expertise demanded by modern sport is substantially different, even at school level which is a problem for coaches and parents. Unfortunately the discourses of commodified sport (think any given Sunday) fill a lot of the gaps, which matches very poorly with the experiences necessary to sustain and develop sport.
Don't don't start me....
Given the expensive hours required to produce, edit and review research; it is staggering that academics are encouraged to give it to people who then charge inflated, rorted prices for it.
"Winning sports records boost incumbents’ vote totals and likelihoods of reelection, exceeding in magnitude the effect of variation in unemployment. In contrast, sports records following elections display no such relationship."
A study found here.
I'm not sure if this is paywalled or not.
I await with interest any government response to a winning streak by the Ferns.
It is worth a hat-tip to the NZRU for their enlightened relationship with academia. They have funded research and PhD scholarships for at least ten years to my knowledge and possibly longer. Not only does this contribute to a world leading culture of sport research in NZ (which we do export). It seems to have shaped the way in which high performance sport has developed in NZ. I don’t happen to believe that all the research in itself has had direct benefits, but the culture it has created appears to be influential. Indeed it should come as no surprise that NZ Rowing has done the same thing and has achieved similar results.
That said it’s not all Roses, I would argue the biggest threat to sport in NZ is sport academies in schools. These in many cases have far exceeded their stated purpose, becoming a focal point for conflict between adult values and children's needs.
It weighs heavily on my mind as Mr. 7 has asked to join his friends in playing before school Rugby. My son made this choice on the basis of friendship, to date he has made no mention of wanting to be an AB.
As for leadership, this is gold and worth a read while it is still visible. I wonder what politicians amongst others could learn.
The left in Britain has a long and painful history of arguing that the voters don’t know what is good for them and will eventually see the light etc.
How did UK Labour break out of this funk? Tony Blair.
Not exactly –
This makes the presumption that no one else would have been electable at the time. Given 17 years of Tory rule there was a lot of anything but a Tory will do. Failures in the previous election turned myself and many others into door knocking Labour activists. Blair’s predecessor was in fact John Smith who died in opposition before the 95 election. Neither Foot nor Kinnock, Smith was Scottish Labour, a Lawyer and member of the Bilderberg group. He wasn’t Murdoch’s pick (what Murdoch did to Kinnock was more than unkind). The most likely outcome based on the figures going into 1994 was a Labour victory, though probably not as substantial as the one Blair obtained. At the appointment of Tony Blair as leader, much was made of his marriage to Cherie Booth and the blessing of Tony Booth a well-known actor and unionist. When I went door knocking I thought I was supporting someone with left wing credentials. In subsequent years I wouldn’t be the only one who felt betrayed, I gave up my Labour membership before the next election.
With respect to the graph you present it conflates political views with actual voting patterns. I understand there is quite a lot of concern that many of the 7% that haven’t turned out NZ after 1999 election are those on the left who don’t have anything to vote for. This situation is complicated by the MMP threshold where it is quite possible to vote on the left and not have your vote represented in parliament. Mine was one of those votes in the last election.
In a context where ill-health, poverty and inequality is conspicuous, related debate here in NZ would suggest something has changed. Whether that change demands a shift in the centrist at all costs agenda remains to be seen. I do think the scrabble to put the “zombie of the old left to death” has been somewhat unseemly and to the advantage of people like Corbyn. What interests me about this article in the New Yorker, is the cold presentation of all the things that the still growing working class aren’t receiving and what it may revive.
Hat tip to Paul Brislen:
This on Boing Boing today…