0 Another Labour policy fail

Labour has gone all-out on Education policy this week. David Cunliffe and Chris Hipkins have rolled out a number of policy initiatives, which doubtless have been developed in partnership with teacher unions. 

After accusing National of "pork-barrel politics" last weekend over the roading announcements, Labour has gone all porcine itself this week. It's tossed out $50 million for school donations, $70 million for laptops and iPads for students, and a plan to spend "hundreds of millions of dollars a year" replacing aging school buildings. We would have thought that happened anyway, but there you go!

Stuff has surveyed its readers on the laptops and iPads plan, and Labour won't like the result:

More than three quarters of respondents describe this as a "hollow election promise", and it's hard to disagree. Who is going to ensure the taxpayer-funded technology is used for its intended purpose? Who is going to meet the cost of replacing lost, damaged or stolen items? And who's going to monitor TradeMe to ensure that losses are genuine?

Labour's policy is well-intentioned, but as with other policies the party has announced, poorly thought out. In fact it seems Trevor Mallard has put more research into his unofficial policy of de-extinction for the moa than has gone into this policy.

Still; the polls could have been worse; they could have been as one-sided as this one:

0 The Waikato Times on Hipkins' "epic fail"

We blogged yesterday about Chris Hipkins' attack on Hekia Parata's IES policy. The Labour Education spokesman has painted it an "epic fail", whilst ignoring the PPTA's support of the initiative.

The Waikato Times has called Hipkins out. In an editorial headed Hipkins misses mark, the Waikato Times opines:

Labour's education spokesman, Chris Hipkins, has given Education Minister Hekia Parata a low mark for trying to introduce the expert teachers policy, "Investing in Educational Success".
Because of the lack of input from school leaders, he said, she "has failed spectacularly" and "clearly needs to go back to school to learn what consultation actually means". But perhaps Hipkins has failed to assess all the relevant material. Earlier this month, Parata released a report on the shaping of the $359 million policy to create a new career structure for teachers after consulting with the education sector.
The New Zealand Educational Institute, the primary teachers' union, claims to have a better plan for spending the funds than the Government's plan to identify "expert" and "lead" teachers and pay them extra to act as role models across several schools. The NZ Principals Federation sees flaws, too. This does not mean it was not consulted and Post Primary Teachers Association president Angela Roberts described the dialogue as "comprehensive, robust and genuine". It was neither performance pay nor a lolly scramble. It was an investment "that will have a positive impact on our schools and our students". 

The Waikato Times leader writer is dead right in our ever-humble opinion (sorry about that Rex) to climb into Hipkins. He has made the classic mistake of cherry-picking reaction, and only making public that which suits his narrative.

The editorial continues, with a comment about the PPTA:

The PPTA has no track record for being a Government apologist. But it has taken issue with critics' claims the policy is unacceptable and unworkable and would remove highly rated teachers and principals from their schools for two days a week, adversely impacting on children's learning. A PPTA blog post says there is plenty of evidence on the professional benefits of mentoring and the positive results to come from focusing on collaboration rather than competition. More telling, the blog post said any disquiet and concern about the policy can be found "only in a small part of the beltway in Wellington".  

The PPTA blog-post is the one we published in part yesterday. The comment about the beltway was in the portion we didn't publish, not wanting to steal all the PPTA's thunder! But the union is dead right; we strongly suspect that the PPTA is referring to the area around the Labour and Green parties' respective offices in Parliament, and around the NZEI's National Office in Willis Street, Wellington.  

The editorial closes with a final rebuke to Hipkins, amidst suggestions that any policy Labour comes up with will be redundant:

Elsewhere schools are thinking about what clusters they are already in and what they need to do to be ready to pick up the extra staffing and funding next year. Hipkins' report card on Parata's handling of the policy said a Labour Government would "almost certainly" dump it. Labour's own model (to be announced within the next two weeks) would draw on teacher expertise to improve educational outcomes. But, according to the PPTA, that's what Parata has done - and it welcomes the results.  

There's only one "epic fail" here, and it isn't Hekia Parata's policy. Chris Hipkins' attempt to make political capital on a policy which is not universally opposed earns him a big red "not achieved".


Footnote: Make sure you follow the NZEI link, and see if you can spot the Green Party candidate

0 Why don't they mention the PPTA?

There seems to be a split in the ranks of teacher unions. The Herald reports on an apparent "epic fail" of Hekia Parata's Investing in Educational Success policy:

The Government's $359 million expert teachers policy has proved to be the latest in a series of "epic failures" in the education sector due to a lack of consultation with teachers and Labour will soon announce a better model it says.
The Government policy which would see "expert" and "lead" teachers identified and paid extra to act as role models across several schools was slammed by primary teachers union the NZEI and the NZ Principals Federation after they met to discuss it this week.
NZEI National President Judith Nowotarski said leaders from national and regional principal and teacher groups had sent a clear message that the policy, as it currently stood, was "unacceptable and unworkable" and "identified the lack of direct benefit for children in this policy".
School leaders were concerned the policy would remove highly rated teachers and principals from their schools for two days a week, which would impact on children's learning.

Labour's education spokesman Chris Hipkins said the fact that teachers and principals were willing to turn down pay rises of up to $40,000 a year "reflects how bad they believe this policy is".

And Green Party candidate, former teacher and NZEI delegate Dave Kennedy offers a similar narrative at his blog:

Classroom teachers, the New Zealand Educational Institute, the New Zealand Principal's Federation and education academics have all strongly rejected the Government's proposed $359 million Investment into Education Success (IES). All believe that this substantial amount of money will not produce the results that the Education Minister claims and would be better spent elsewhere.

Now the fact that NZEI, the Labour Party's Education spokesman and a Green Party candidate with strong NZEI links are singing from the same songbook is nothing new. But what is interesting is that none of them mention the secondary teachers' union, the PPTA.

We blogged last week about our surprise at the PPTA's willingness to throw off its tradition reluctance to deal with a National Party Education Minister. PPTA has engaged with Hekia Parata, and even though it is early days in what has already been a tense relationship, there are some very promising signs.

And the PPTA has published an interesting blog-post on its website that busts o few of the myths surrounding IES. We have left the link on Dave Kennedy's blog, given that he is always so keen to provide us with links to further our education on causes dear to his heart, if not to ours. The post is headed Six Impossible things being said about IES, and begins thus:

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said:
"one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen.
"When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day.
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." 
1. There has been no consultation.
This might be true if these changes had been legislated in place but that’s not what happened. The $359 million was an employer offer made to unions for them to bargain and amend with the aim of eventually putting it into their collective agreements.   If using the democratic structures of unions to make changes for teachers isn’t consultation what is?
2. The money could be better spent on…
It possibly could but it was approved via the Budget process to be spent on a specific educational initiative.  Budget spending decisions are a government prerogative.  Anyone waiting for the day when a democratically-elected government sets its budget priorities by national plebiscite will be waiting a long time.  If it is more important to spend money on addressing issues of poverty than teachers does that mean teachers will never seek another pay increase?
3. IES creates a layer of management…

We won't steal any more of the PPTA's thunder (but urge you to read the piece), and in fact can't quite believe that we are endorsing a union's point of view. But we reckon that the PPTA is on the right side of this argument, despite Dave Kennedy's rather patronising comment that "I also believe they do not understand the full ramifications.". With due respect to Dave, patronising a brethren union is not the way to win friends and influence voters!

It would seem that Chris Hipkins has simply rushed out a presser after reading the NZEI's diatribe about Mrs Parata and the IES policy. Perhaps he has former NZEI people advising him. In any event, the opposition of NZEI and the Principals Federation seems to be more about election-year ideology than advancing opportunities for their members.

Once again, we commend PPTA for putting aside past differences with Mrs Parata in an effort to improve the lot of principals and teachers, because that will ultimately improve outcomes for the children they teach. We'll leave the last word to the PPTA:

Listen carefully – that is the sound of professionals collaborating.  

0 White-anting in Labour? Surely not...

Is David Cunliffe being white-anted again? You'd have to wonder after reading Andrea Vance's story on Stuff:

Senior Labour Party MPs have used social media to attack the alliance struck between Mana and the Internet Party.
Former leaders Phil Goff and David Shearer, and Rimutaka MP Chris Hipkins, are among those who have objected to the deal. It could see MPs from Kim Dotcom’s fledging political vehicle enter Parliament on the ‘‘coat-tails’’ of a victory for Hone Harawira in Te Tai Tokerau.
The strong opposition from within Labour could make post-election coalition talks tricky.
Goff says he feel strongly about Dotcom’s ‘‘pure political opportunism’’, citing his previous donations to ACT MP John Banks, now the subject of a court case. ‘‘He wants to be able to influence and control politicians.’’
Goff says he was previously ‘‘very critical’’ of National for exploiting MMP and failing to implement recommendations from the Electoral Commission to abolish the provision.
‘‘I’m scarcely likely to endorse another rort ...I’m being entirely consistent,’’ he said.
Goff says he made his feelings clear to the Labour caucus. ‘‘It will be the decision of the party leadership...but I see problems in creating a coalition where the philosophies and principle of people that you are trying to enter into a coalition with is unclear because they seem to be coming from diametrically opposed positions.’’
Those  views were also reflected in a passionate Facebook post at the weekend. Shearer also used the social media site to write that although he wished the Internet-Mana ‘‘marriage’’ well, he knew ‘‘it’s going to end badly.’’
And on Twitter last week, Hipkins posted: ‘‘The good old days, when political parties formed from movements. Now all it takes is a couple of million and some unprincipled sellouts.’’ 

Now getting all high-and-mighty and having an attack of principles is one thing, but it's not something you'd usually associate with the Labour Party. But Ms Vance makes a very interesting point:

All three MPs were linked to the Anyone But Cunliffe [ABC] faction - who were opposed to David Cunliffe assuming leadership of the party. However, a Labour source played down talk of more division, saying all three were close to Te Tai Tokerau candidate Kelvin Davis.
Davis himself posted on Twitter: ‘‘Bro, I think of the people of Te Tai Tokerau, not Sergeant Shultz.’’  He was referring to Dotcom’s German origins.
A spokesman for Labour said Cunliffe was ‘‘off the grid’’ and not available for comment. 

Kelvin Davis is rapidly emerging as a lightning rod for the ABC faction, which as well as the three chaps named above includes the likes of Annette King, Trevor Mallard and Clayton Cosgrove. 

There's a test coming for David Cunliffe's leadership of the Labour Party. Will he support Kelvin Davis wholeheartedly in an attempt to wrench Te Tai Tokerau from Hone Harawira's grip? Or will he take the path of least resistance, and give MegaMana an armchair ride into Parliament by campaigning softly in the far North? 

Mr Cunliffe is on a hiding to nothing here. He is already deeply unpopular with a large portion of his caucus. But he will also need every possible coalition option if he is to have any chance of forming a government after the General Election.

No one said it would be easy...

0 Tweet of the Day - 31 May 2014

It would appear that Labour MP Chris Hipkins ISN'T a fan of the Large German Gentleman and his purchasing power:

Now we do have to note that Chris Hipkins, along with the likes of Trevor Mallard, Annette King and Clayton Cosgrove is aligned to the ABC faction within the Labour Party. So we can't say with any authority that David Cunliffe shares this view of Dotcom, which is a great pity.

David Cunliffe could earn himself a lot of respect if he were to come out and say that he will have nothing to do with anyone buying political parties. We suspect that Mr Cunliffe is much more an end-justifies-the-means politician.

Mr Cunliffe's attitude to MegaMana over the next few weeks is going to be fascinating to watch. Does he, like Hone Harawira, have a price?

0 Tweet of the Day - 12 May 2014

Chris Hipkins claims not to be a fan of John Key. We claim not to be a fan of Chris Hipkins! But we applaud him for this tweet he put out earlier this morning:

We agree absolutely with Mr Hipkins. We don't know whether or not he is a parent, but we are, and whilst we do not agree with every choice our children have made, we love them without condition, and will always be there for them.

Those who attack Members of Parliament through their children or their families are beneath contempt. It is an issue that we feel strongly about. 

And those who have trolled Stephanie Key's Facebook page in an attempt to somehow indirectly smear her father are particularly low in our estimation. John Key has rightly said this morning how proud he is of his children, and we couldn't agree more.

There are plenty of political opportunities to attack any MP over various political issues without bringing members of their families into the debate. We are delighted Chris Hipkins agrees, and he has risen in our estimation.


UPDATE: Metiria Turei has tweeted likewise (and earlier than Chris Hipkins), and is likewise applauded.

0 Thought of the Day - 9 May 2014

A kindly reader sent us this by e-mail.

Pete Hodgson was, of course, a senior Labour Party MP, and Labour's strategic genius in the run-up to Labour's loss at the polls in 2008. But the man who succeeded him as Labour's strategic genius for 2011, Trevor Mallard, would do well to take note.

On this occasion Pete Hodgson was dead right. It does not matter how many times Trevor Mallard, Grant Robertson, David Cunliffe, Chris Hipkins and even Russel Norman and Winston Peters tell porkies. The lies don't become any less porcine by being endlessly repeated.

0 The Winners & Losers Caption Contest

Things have been pretty tense for the last few days. So let's lighten up for an hour or two.

David Cunliffe has reshuffled his caucus today, and as with any reshuffle, there have been winners and losers. First elected in 1984, Trevor Mallard would appear to the the new hope of the Labour Party, rocketing up from being in the bottom eight unranked MP's (of a caucus of 34) to #15. On the other hand, Chris Hipkins, who has been one of Labour's best performers slips off the front bench to #10 to allow the almost anonymous Nanaia Mahuta to rejoin the front bench.

The Herald story on the reshuffle was accompanied by this photograph:

We're not sure why Kieran McAnulty was present. Perhaps, as a TAB bookie, he was setting the odds on the winners and losers. But we digress; you know the rules; keep 'em short, humourous, pithy and relevant, and don't get unnecessarily personal. Beyond that, you are limited only by your own imagination.

The floor is yours...