The Fabians have a new set of seminars looking at choices that the government should face in the upcoming 2010 budget.
Choices and Consequences: The 2010 Budget is the first lecture in Fabian Society’s Resilient Economy Series. Peter Harris, well-known economist, will outline an progressive alternative context for this year’s budget. Selwyn Pellett, of the Productive Economy Council, will give a business perspective. There will also be an opportunity for you to participate.
There are two other seminars in the Bold Choices series.
I attended the first of these in Auckland last Sunday. It was excellent and thought provoking. I’m pleased to see that some of the materials used in the seminar are now on-line. Not as good as the seminars themselves, but excellent material for my post writing.
Apparently David Farrar found (to my amusement)
Chris Trotter, who was at the seminar, described it on Radio New Zealand’s Afternoon programme as “very interesting, more people than he expected with a very lively debate”. David Farrar, in the same discussion, discovered to his horror that Kiwiblog had provided free advertising for the seminar and promptly took it off! You can listen to the discussion here.
The Fabian Society is worth a look, by the way. I know there have been some notably bad Fabians but there have also been some notably great ones. The Fabian Society has the opposite of the Anarchist â€˜direct action’ ethos. It promotes left wing thought by discussion and dissemination of knowledge. So it can lead to fascinating insights if well managed, as this inaugural event patently was. And if good speakers are presented. Once again, tick.
I’m surprised that in the points she took from the discussion, she didn’t pick up on the emphasis on getting changing our export structure. But I suppose that people hear what they’re interested in. I’ve been involved in export industries for most of my working life with its constant frustration with the lack of investment capital available.
Like Anna at Lefter, I’d give these seminars a big tick. The debate was good, the seminar leaders were excellent, and the doctrinaire statements framed as questions from the floor were mercifully limited (one of the main reasons I tend to despise sitting through public speaking compared to blogs).