‘Reclaiming Our Children’s Birthright’- Metiria’s speech

Written By: karol - Date published: 9:55 am, January 27th, 2014 - 53 comments
Categories: child welfare, class war, education, election 2014, greens, housing, Metiria Turei, poverty, sustainability, vision - Tags:

Metiria Turei delivered a very strong, inspiring, and well-targeted speech yesterday at the Picnic for the Planet.

She began with some powerful words: words that outlined a fractured set of values, torn apart by the ruthless “neoliberal” onslaught against strong community values; words for an inclusive society where we are all in it together, working with and for each other.

Near the beginning of the speech, Turei said:

New Zealand needs the Greens in Government this year and we, I promise, are ready to be there.

We are so ready to be there! For the sake of our planet and for the sake of our kids.

Our country was built on the values of hard work, a fair share and looking out for your neighbour. And if you do, you’ll make it, and so will your family.

This is the opening line in the New Zealand story.

And it was written in a pact, made decades ago, that in exchange for our collective efforts the state will have our back.

A strong, free public health system and a strong, free public education system was the manifestation of that pact.

We were promised that no one would be left out because they were too sick or unable to work, or because their parents were poor and illiterate.

We were promised that the health and welfare system would be there for all of us.

We were promised that our kids would leave school ready and able to achieve to the fullest extent of their talents.

This pact is precious to us. It’s defined us, as a community, and it has defined what it means to be fair, and what is good and what is right.

Over the past 30 years that pact has been torn apart.

We can use our power this year to make sure that pact is honoured again.

Turei then points out, that these values were not fully realised, even in the better days of our past. She wants to fully implement these values in a way that’s appropriate for our current 21st century context:

This is not some hankering for the good old days, because let’s be honest, they weren’t exactly perfect, especially for Māori, Pacific People, disabled New Zealanders, women, or the environment for that matter.

It’s about reclaiming the values of fairness, and equality and a passion for our land and waters.The essence of our national character.

We can, and will, harness those values to drive us forward to something even better, for everyone: A place that’s fairer, happier, smarter, and Greener.

Yes, Greener! Reclaim the birth-rights of our children!

The right to swim in unpolluted rivers, to live in warm dry homes, to have a great education, to eat good healthy food. The right of everyone to be free to be everything they’re capable of being.

Turei identifies inequality as a defining issue for the coming election. I gave some background to the damaging impact of a wide inequality gap, in this post focused on The Spirit Level, and NZ’s inequality crisis.

In yesterday’s speech, Turei argues that environmental and human-focused policies, problems and solutions are intertwined.

Inequality encourages ecological recklessness among the wealthiest people and the richest nations.

Inequality drives over consumption, then hides the impact from the people who do most of the consuming; rich nations who shift their polluting industries offshore, and wealthy individuals who can afford to fly to Fiji to swim in pristine waters, while other people’s kids can no longer swim in their local river.

Turei refers to the Children’s Commissioner’s report, which shows that this is what poverty looks like in New Zealand today:

17 per cent of kids going without fresh food, their own bed, raincoats, doctors’ visits, birthday parties, and other things most of us would say are the bare minimum.

Ten per cent of kids living in severe poverty.

Poorer kids have three times the rate of hospital admissions for preventable illnesses. They are one and a half times as likely to die in infancy, and have an up to 50 per cent chance of becoming a poor adult, when, inevitably, the poverty cycle begins again for their kids.

The Education Hub Policy

A major plank in the Green party solution will be to create hubs for schools in lower income areas:

We will establish schools in lower income areas as hubs, where the health, social and welfare needs of children, and their families can be met onsite, where the kids are, at school.

Kids in lower decile schools will be: fed, through a national school lunch fund; sick kids will get medical attention from dedicated school nurses; and families will get the support they need to work, further their own education and be engaged in their kids learning.

We’ll employ a coordinator in each school to make these hubs happen and to take the burden off stretched teachers so they can do what they do best – educate our kids.

A key part of our plan is free after school and holiday care in decile one to four schools.

Free after school care will gives poorer children an opportunity to get involved in sports and cultural and music activities, and the space to do homework.

We’ll build early childhood centres onsite in low decile schools where there is a need.

Schools form the “heart” of communities. The education policy is further outlined in this press release.

MSM Reports

Parliamentary Labour have signalled that they support this policy (NZ Herald).

NewstalkZB: ‘Greens to focus on inequality this year’.

TVNZ on the Green’s school policy.

The Dominion Post – Greens target lower decile schools

RNZ – Greens target poverty

MSM News – greens policy gets support from Labour, NZEI

3 News- Greens’ education policy focuses on inequality

53 comments on “‘Reclaiming Our Children’s Birthright’- Metiria’s speech ”

Comments are now closed

Polish Pride 1

27 January 2014 at 10:29 am

All good sounding stuff on the face of thing.
I suspect that the issue will be on how it will be funded under the current system….Redistribution of wealth?

Couple of points for accuracy
“Inequality encourages ecological recklessness among the wealthiest people and the richest nations.

Inequality drives over consumption, then hides the impact from the people who do most of the consuming; rich nations who shift their polluting industries offshore, and wealthy individuals who can afford to fly to Fiji to swim in pristine waters, while other people’s kids can no longer swim in their local river.”

It is not inequality that encourages ecological recklessness nor does it drive over consumption. Instead it is the Profit Motive that drives both of these things.
- blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1.1
  
  27 January 2014 at 1:03 pm
  
  PP,
  
  Re first paragraph you quote: Inequality most certainly does encourage ecological recklessness – this involves lobbying i.e. the political power that large amounts of wealth creates – allowing for direct influence on the policies our governments focus on and pursue.
  
  I agree it is more accurate to say that the profit motive drives overconsumption and ecological recklessness than inequality – yet for the same reasons as stated above inequality does fuel the covering up of the impact of ecological recklessness – therefore the second paragraph you quote of Metiria’s is not entirely accurate – however it is most certainly accurate to say that ecological recklessness, hiding the facts and overconsumption are encouraged by inequality
  - Polish Pride 1.1.1
    
    27 January 2014 at 2:02 pm
    
    Blue If we want to actually solve the problems then we need to identify the root cause. In the two examples given it is the profit motive in the current system. Yes political lobbying can and all to often in this day and age does play a role in this but the reason for it is still the profit motive.
    I.e. the reason lobbyists representing big corporations lobby government to get laws enacted, environmental protections weakened… or whatever they are lobbying for is always to create an environment that will enable their firm to do any one or all of the following
    reduce the cost of doing business which will increase their profitability,
    gain access to corporate welfare which will increase their profitability
    insert benefit X that Corporation Y is after – which will increase their profitability.
    
    Remove the profit motive and you will remove things such as planned obsolescence and many other drivers for ecological destruction. Example: It is cheaper to find a place to dump toxic waste than it is to ensure that it is disposed of properly (Broad example but you get the general principle)
    
    There has always been inequality (not saying that should continue..), there has not always been environmental destruction. The difference.. The importance and strength of the profit motive as a driver under Capitalism.
    
    To say that inequality drives it is grossly innacurate. It is great as a political message if you can get the punters to buy it. The problem is that followed to its natural conclusion it will not solve wither problem.
    You can tax and redistribute wealth and (ignoring other factors that will come into play) theoretically create equality but you will not eliminate the drive for profit that will result in ecological destruction and over consumption. After all it is more profitable to overfeed the west. It is unprofitable to feed those in African nations and until the reverse becomes true the west will continue to be overfed and those in certain African nations will continue to not have enough food (yes granted there are other factors at play as well corruption, despotic regimes etc).
    
    The problems are fixable but we need to stop kidding ourselves about the continual drive for profit.
    
    What do you think would happen to insidious things that still happen in the world today such as human trafficking and child pornography if there was no way to make money (read profit) from them.
    - blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1.1.1.1
      
      27 January 2014 at 2:52 pm
      
      PP
      
      “If we want to actually solve the problems then we need to identify the root cause.”
      
      This is true – and is why I agreed that there was some inaccuracy to Metiria’s speech – however another very important factor to actually getting workable solutions actualised in this world – while democracy ostensibly does still exist – is that ordinary people need to understand the connections between inequality and how it is extremely harmful to getting anything improved. This is what Metiria is doing here.
      
      And for this reason the parts that you quoted of Metira’s speech were actually my favourite bits – because she is spelling out to people why inequality is so very harmful – yes people being substantially poorer than others is horrible – yes some having a glut while others are near starving is wrong – however there is something going on here actually worse than that – it is worse because while this inequality is as severe as it is nothing substantial is going to be able to be changed
      
      None of your or anyone else’s good, creative, and/or forward-thinking ideas will get a look in until this issue is addressed – because there is too much power and influence for a few self-absorbed individuals being created by this inequality. No decent approach toward any of the biggest problems we have will get a platform in the media, they consequently struggle to gain the strong public support necessary to shift things, therefore won’t get represented effectively in governments because money is being directed to ensure this doesn’t occur.
      - Polish Pride 1.1.1.1.1
        
        27 January 2014 at 4:33 pm
        
        I get your point Blue. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
        I think that if/when (they will eventually) they get into power and implement their policies the problems will still exist as unfortunately they always have.
        
        How can I be so certain? This has been my career for almost 20 years – fixing broken systems.
        
        Unfortunately I’ve been into many organisations that have a problem (or many problems) with a system that they have tried a number of times to fix (the last one was in the public sector 4 attempts and 12 million dollars later). The problem is the same every single time – failure to identify and fix the root cause of the problem.
        
        You can increase taxes and redistribute wealth to address inequality all you want. You can make it so everyone has the same or is between points x and y but so long as you have money coupled with the current capitalist system you will have the profit motive.
        So long as you have the profit motive you will have companies looking for ways to increase their competitiveness and often that will come at a cost to the environment. You will continue to have lobbyists try to water down environmental protections and you will have the right wing weaken labor laws as part of their efforts to redistribute wealth.
        
        Many will not like what I have to say. But unfortunately it is the only way to actually solve the problems as it identifies and addresses the root cause. It is the only system that is designed to enable/provide the things required for the group it is designed for (mankind) to be happy. Unfortunately it really is that simple.
        
        These are the questions I have for you. When they get into power and they implement the policies they want to and the problems still exist……then what?
        When They are voted out again and National gets back into power again and the problems you want to solve get even worse, then what?
        When Labour and the Greens get in again and make the changes they want to and the problems persist still (as they always have)……then what?
        
        There comes a time when people have to start to understand the concept that you can’t do the same thing over and over the same way time after time and expect to get a different outcome. Things just don’t work that way.
        It comes down to whether or not we really want to fix the problem.
        
        We can continue to do the same things we have always done. it simply means that we will be in a similar (more likely worse) position in twenty years from now and we can have the same conversation then.
        
        “None of your or anyone else’s ideas will get a look in until this issue is addressed – because there is too much power and influence for a few self-absorbed individuals being created by this inequality. No decent approach toward any of the biggest problems we have will get a platform in the media, in the governments and consequently by the public because money is being directed to ensure this doesn’t occur.”
        This statement I by and large agree with (accept that I don’t think it will be able to be adequately addressed and I do hope I am wrong) Changing the world is never and was never going to happen in the MSM. The change will only come from the bottom up as like you say there is too much power and influence at the top.
        
        Flip 1.1.1.1.1.1
        
        27 January 2014 at 10:01 pm
        
        PP
        
        I got the profit motive is the/a problem. The solution…..???
        
        PS
        
        There are amendments being made to the National Policy on Freshwater Management which are out for comment for those concerned about the health of rivers.
        
        Polish Pride …
        
        28 January 2014 at 8:42 am
        
        the solution is to start looking at and discussing a system designed to meet Mankinds needs and wants
        That system should be designed with the goal of enabling Man to be happy. Afterall when you get right down to it that is what everyone wants in life.
        Maslows Hierarchy of Needs provides a good foundation for this.
        Rather than focussing on low unemployment we should be using automation and technology with the goal of freeing people from having to work. Thats not to say there won’t be work to do, there will as not all roles will be able to be automated.
        With money and the profit motive removed, design can be improved to enable goods to last far longer and to have new parts interchangible with old and in doing so reducing the consumption of resources.
        
        The closest system too this is the Resource Based Economy but a discussion needs to be had on exactly what form this should take and how to transition to it from where we are now.
        Doing so enables the goals of the majority of right wing and left wing voters to be met as well. i.e. the left want people to be able to live a normal and dignified life, the right don’t want to be taxed to pay for it. Their goal is to ensure they their families are successful
        Money no longer becomes a barrier to achieving what we need to in society.
        Under proper systems analysis of what Man requires in a system designed for us, Money dosen’t come into the equation. This is because the reasons it was originally introduced no longer hold true in this day and age.
        
        You only need to look at Maslows hierarchy to see how poorly our current system performs.
        
        The solutions to our problems are not cutting back on consumption. That is just never going to happen for many in society. It is about using science (uncorrupted by money and vested interests) automation, technology and design to move forward and find more efficient ways of doing things.
        
        karol …
        
        28 January 2014 at 8:53 am
        
        Money is just a symptom of the problem and a means to another end – the will of some to have power and advantage over others.
        
        Remove money from the system, some people will use other means to try to dominate others to their advantage.
        
        The solution needs to include a focus on democratic processes.
        
        Polish Pride …
        
        28 January 2014 at 9:33 am
        
        Human nature is dictated by the surroundings or the system that it is subjected to. I don’t doubt that you can’t change peoples thinking overnight and some will still try to cling to power and will given the opportunity to dominate others for their own ends.
        It becomes a little harder to achieve without money in the equation and in a system where people have their needs and wants met.
        
        But yes agreed that a discussion around democracy and what form it should take in such a society will be key to its success for everyone.
        
        I personally think we would need to start with the development of a constitution ensuring certain inalienable rights for all.
        I think that their should for lack of a better name be a Senate whose sole job it is is to enact the will of the people whilst ensuring that it does not contravene rights given by the constitution.
        
        I used to be a fan of direct democracy but have moved away from this a little because of the risk of mob rule and the oppression of minority groups that could result, although a well drafted constitution could mitigate that problem.
        
        Polish Pride …
        
        28 January 2014 at 10:11 am
        
        Karol what my reply below didn’t say is that this (the democracy process and how it should look) is not something that I have got very far on. I can’t get excited about it. I know it should be there and I have intial thoughts on certain requirements (constitution, senate etc) but I agree it is a very important area and in my view viable concepts for this should probably come from people like yourself who do understand many of the issues we have and who are passionate about having a well functioning democracy that gives people a say. You will probably come up with much better solutions in this particular area than I ever could.
        
        Flip …
        
        28 January 2014 at 3:11 pm
        
        PP
        I do not think money itself is the problem and so dispensing with it will not solve it.
        
        Money is just a representation of the value of trade. An ‘agreement’ in the loosest sense of the word of value.
        
        It is perhaps the control of the resources that are traded which is the main problem and who receives the value from the resource usage. To me that boils down to ownership, the share of value of product and compensating future generations for non-renewable resource loss.
        
        I’ll have a bit more of a read about a RBE but it seems a little idealistic at first look.
- bad12 1.2
  
  27 January 2014 at 1:20 pm
  
  Polish pride, did you ask the same question of Slippery the Prime Ministers 300+ million dollar splurge into the education system as far as where the money will come from,
  
  Didn’t think so, if National can magic up 300+ million dollars the Green Party policy looks a breeze…
  - Polish Pride 1.2.1
    
    27 January 2014 at 2:16 pm
    
    No and I don’t need to. It too comes from the redistribution of wealth.
    The difference is I don’t sit there trying to defend one side for doing exactly the same as the other side does. Both approaches (although the greens is arguably noble in intent) are shortsighted and will not solve the problems that we face as a society. Why? If you want to solve any problem then you need to identify the root cause and address it.
    Unfortunately the root cause is that we have a System (that has evolved over time) that does not and is not designed to meet the needs of those that it should be for.
    Until we are prepared to look at that then the problems we face as a society will persist regardless of who is in power.
    Furthermore if the Greens and Labour get in, how long will it be for? Yes they will implement their redistribution of wealth policies for 6 maybe nine years before they are again voted out and National gets back in. At which time they will implement their redistribution of wealth policies. Will the problems get solved? No of course not.
    Why? because nobody has bothered to address the root cause.
    - bad12 1.2.1.1
      
      28 January 2014 at 8:56 am
      
      Polish Pride, while i somewhat agree with you on the need for the ‘system’ to change, firstly admitting that it cannot employ all it’s able bodied citizens using the current economic model i would suggest that until there is a total collapse of economy and the political system the current model will not to any marked extent change,
      
      Of course upon the occurrence of such a collapse of economy and the political system along with it, it is then a lottery whether or not we end up with a system based around fascism as opposed to a far more enlightened society…
      - Tracey 1.2.1.1.1
        
        28 January 2014 at 9:04 am
        
        Yup
        
        We know that economic collapse won’t precipitate the change because (other than Mickey Savage’s government) all others have merely shored up the current system following major crashes… Interestingly National was government in the aftermath of both large recent crashes in 1987 and late 2007/2008
    - Tracey 1.2.1.2
      
      28 January 2014 at 9:03 am
      
      I agree with what you have written. However the conundrum is anyone who proposes such radical change won’t get elected, therefore they water down and we just get the same old, same old. It’s why revolutions have tended to be the fore-runner to drastic change. Too many in Labour are still caught by the connundrum (IMO). How do we get power (to stop the current damage of the “others”) and make a radical change. I also don’t believe enough in Labour believe such change is needed. They want Neo-Liberalism with a kind heart.
      
      At this stage I can only see two places for my vote to begin to reflect the kind of change I want to see, and that is Green and Mana…
      - Polish Pride 1.2.1.2.1
        
        28 January 2014 at 9:50 am
        
        However the conundrum is anyone who proposes such radical change won’t get elected
        That is why you have to take control of the narrative. Show people what is wrong and other alternatives that will actually solve the problems. show them how they will logically solve the problems. No smoke and mirrors. They get enough of that from our incumbent political parties.
        We need to stop focussing on what is on offer by each political party and instead focus on what we want for the society we want to live in.
        Determine this and then use this to show how inadequate the current system is. The result will be that either the parties will adapt to give what a growing number of the public want or they simply won’t and change will come anyway.
        It is a very powerful concept and even hard core right wingers fail to mount even a shred of a credible argument around a system designed to make mankind happy and one that has money removed from the equation.
        
        The best argument against continued Capitalism is Maslows hierarchy as it shows how inadequately it performs and highlights the fact exceedingly well.
        
        But that is not enough. You also have to show people an alternative that will solve the problems and how.
        This is change management 101 – Problem, Reaction, Solution.
        The reason most right now will continue along with the current system is that they either don’t see a problem (althought many now do) and it is the job of those wanting change to make it a problem for them. Make it a pain point for them i.e. find a way to connect it with their life. Wait for the reaction Provide the solution.
    - KJT 1.2.1.3
      
      28 January 2014 at 4:51 pm
      
      The root cause being that every time we make some progress on fixing it. The right wing come along and fuck it up, out of greed.
      
      The solution is, of course, real democracy, so that social initiatives cannot be reversed by every idealogical, or greedy, destructive maniac that manages to get into parliament. And, redistribution of wealth so that a few cannot get so overwhelmingly wealthy they can buy power, to cheat the system in their favour.
      - Colonial Viper 1.2.1.3.1
        
        28 January 2014 at 5:33 pm
        
        Well, that and the fact that the modern Left tends to rely on cosmetic or managerial progressive change which is not Tory proofed, and which the Right can generally all unpick in their first 18 months in power.
        
        The Right on the other hand, when they want something done and changed for good, they make it permanent and nearly impossible to reverse.
        
        Closing down Hillside Workshops is an example. Tories don’t just shut down railways, they rip up the tracks too.
      - Polish Pride 1.2.1.3.2
        
        28 January 2014 at 7:35 pm
        
        Thought for the day:
        Capitalism is inhuman.
        Socialism is enslavement.
George D 2

27 January 2014 at 10:52 am

It was an excellent way to start the year and define what NZ’s major left-environmental party stands for.
Bill 3

27 January 2014 at 11:07 am

A-ha! An actual education policy and not a $400 million use of public money to lay the foundations for the privatisation of NZs schools. 😉

(Not that pumping $400 million into forming a tier of enforcers to lock in league tables and national standards and whatever other market friendly measurable criteria has anything to do with privatisation – it was a ‘left turn’ by the Nats, uh-huh)
RedBaronCV 4

27 January 2014 at 11:08 am

Shouldn’t be hard to fund. The private schools have $35m for 6 years to pay back – that’s $210m up front and $35m a year ongoing. They and the integrated schools might have to sell some assets to pay but hey selling assets is the name of the “rich game”
bad12 5

27 January 2014 at 11:50 am

An excellent speech from Metiria, while i voice some initial disquiet that such Hubs in schools may be addressing the symptoms and not the cause, on reflection, such Hubs located at schools are the best location to deliver en masse to these children what is really needed while providing this in an inclusive way where the kids do not feel alienated by being singled out for special attention,(even where such attention is obviously for their betterment),

A big YES to the provision of sports,arts, and culture in such programs especially in the after school hours and holiday weeks when the children of the poor have little in the way of ‘a holiday’ or a structured activity,

Special attention should be given to such children in an attempt to identify areas in which these kids excel that are not strictly covered in the education curriculum, such gifts, and most kids have one, where there is disposable income in a household are usually provided for by parents but the low income of many(in the 1-4 decile),means that the myriad of ‘gifts’ these kids possess are not fostered and eventually will be forgotten, even by the kids as poverty grinds out of them any and all hopes and dreams,

A BIG ups to the Green Party for this well thought through policy,and i hope that the welfare policy is similarly robust with a ‘first focus’ on the kids policy…
greywarbler 6

27 January 2014 at 12:05 pm

bad 12
I have thought about having mobile health units, fairly simple going round suburbs with two staffers each (definitely not one.) And bringing health services and interaction with the people ,
to the people they want to reach. They would be noted in a computer and attempts made to follow up and ensure that wellness was reached, or even that someone could get them to an interpreter, a counsellor, through a second-tier health van.

But getting the children help at school is excellent idea. And parents who are perhaps going through a temporary depression, can benefit from a hand with their young ones’ needs at that time. And parents who are in recurring or semi-permanent negative states, will have those large holes in their care filled for that occasion, and if continuing help is available, perhaps each time that it occurs. This may prevent the need for fostering, which often is worse for the child, than a parent with many faults but is known and familiar, and actually cares about the child.
- bad12 6.1
  
  27 January 2014 at 1:31 pm
  
  Another benefit of the policy is where working parents or a working parent on low wages and most likely to have to work during school holidays will have a safe place during the day where they know the kids will be well cared for and have plenty of ‘holiday activities’ to keep them occupied,
  
  i know from our experience as kids with a working solo mum,(no DPB in those days),that while we all looked after each other leaving 4 kids alone all day for weeks is a recipe for Trouble, and, the pattern being set early Trouble we provided in truckloads…
Papa Tuanuku 7

27 January 2014 at 12:55 pm

Finlayson park School in Manurewa does this kaupapa really well, a model to follow?
Tracey 8

27 January 2014 at 4:11 pm

Thanks karol.
Pasupial 9

27 January 2014 at 9:55 pm

There’s a few snippets in the “MSM Reports” links, but I can’t find a video of the picnic speech. There’s nothing on the Green Party website either that I can find. Labour’s handling of Cunliffe’s speech seems much better coordinated – having both the live stream and a quickly accesible recording.

I fear that Turei’s speech – excellent though it is to read – is destined to become a lost event in NZ political consciousness. Good to hear a bit of cooperation between Labour & Greens in backing up each others positions though. Even if the speech itself vanishes from the mind of those who were not physically present in Wellington on Sunday, I trust that the policy will endure.
- Tracey 9.1
  
  28 January 2014 at 8:53 am
  
  Compare with coverage of
  
  A. Colin Craig
  B. Len Brown
  
  IF the Greens got a fair share of media coverage… would they go up or down in the polls?
Steve Wrathall 10

27 January 2014 at 10:45 pm

“Our country was built on the values of hard work”… but don’t worry about that old tosh. If you want to sleep in until 11 and have your kids go to school hungry, don’t worry. We’ll nick money of those who actually do “hard work” and feed them for you…and you can still keep all the bennie money. Please vote for us!
- McFlock 10.1
  
  27 January 2014 at 10:49 pm
  
  It’s always amazing how tens of thousands of nzers suddenly turn lazy and go on unemployment benefit as soon as the nacts come into power.
  - Draco T Bastard 10.1.1
    
    27 January 2014 at 11:20 pm
    
    +1
  - Polish Pride 10.1.2
    
    28 January 2014 at 10:50 am
    
    and unfortunately for anyone on the left what steve has put above is a very real concern for many on the right. As such they will continue to always vote against this sort of policy. The answer is in Steves post though if you want to look hard enough. Find a way to make the changes you want without redistributing what others have earned or increasing taxes. The problem is that the current system doesn’t lend itself very well to that.
    The problem is not with what the left want to do, it is also not with what the right want (and whether you like it or not it is a valid argument). The problem is the inability for the current system to be able to cater for both sets of view points. This is why the Left vs Right paradigm exists.
    Stick with the status quo and the problem will unfortunately always exist.
    Find a system that gives both sides what they want and you will by and large solve the problem.
    - McFlock 10.1.2.1
      
      28 January 2014 at 12:09 pm
      
      The right will always be opposed to any solution that does not preserve their power. That is their nature, right back to the Middle Ages and beyond. You cannot cater to their viewpoints and those of others any more than you can reconcile the viewpoints of predator and prey.
      - Polish Pride 10.1.2.1.1
        
        28 January 2014 at 1:08 pm
        
        Have you bothered to try?
        The voting right don’t really have anymore or less power than you do. Do not confuse the vast majority of the voting right with those at the top of the food chain. There is a big difference. Understand what the voting right want and solutions will emerge. But don’t assume you already know because much of the views about right wingers on here from those on the left couldn’t be further from the truth. Not surprisingly the same goes for right wingers on Whaleoil saying what those on the left are all about.
        
        McFlock 10.1.2.1.1.1
        
        28 January 2014 at 1:25 pm
        
        I’ve been closer to a lot of tory voters than I care to recall.
        
        It’s not a reasoned position, it’s a lifestyle and a sense of entitlement. I recognised I was fortunate to be in my position – they assumed that they were responsible for theirs. That’s the difference. Everything flows from there.
        
        Polish Pride …
        
        28 January 2014 at 2:03 pm
        
        Yes I would agree that many on the right think exactly that that they are responsible for theirs. What you will also be aware of then is that they don’t like the idea of the govt taking what they see as their hard earned money period. It irks them even more if they think it is going to those that can’t be bothered getting off their arse and getting a job (their words not mine).
        The point is they want a solution that doesn’t mean the harder they work the more they give. It isn’t possible under the current system. It is under an alternative one.
        That same one also happens to solve the problems that the left want solved. Big ticket items such as poverty. Problems that have always existed and have never been able to be solved.
        
        The thing that needs to be accepted is that regardless of your thoughts on their viewpoint they get the same vote as you do and as such in a system that has the Lvs R paradigm at its very core you will never fully achieve the world you want to live in under the current system. Why? because there are others (those on the right) who have an opposing view of how the world should be. Even then thats not an entirely accurate way of putting it. Those on the right are happy for others to be able to lead a comfortable and dignified existence where their children are well fed etc. etc. etc. They just don’t think they should have to pay for it.
        
        The wakeup call should be that neither side can achieve what they want to under the current system. A system that has been designed to meet the needs and wants of Man and puts in place a framework for doing so just so happens to give both sides the outcomes they are after. It does this without redistribution of wealth.
        
        Surely that has to be worth taking a serious look at
        
        McFlock …
        
        28 January 2014 at 2:20 pm
        
        Nah, not really, if I recall previous discussions on the matter correctly.
        
        The obvious problem with your statement is that you talk about everyone’s needs being met – this is perfectly possible, but tory greed is not about their needs.
        
        The people who you talk about being upset at being taxed still live a life of comfort, even after tax. Something in them creates an insatiable desire for more. If the causes of that desire were addressed, then they would no longer be tories.
        
        karol …
        
        28 January 2014 at 2:29 pm
        
        Plenty wrong with Maslow’s Needs Theory – based on very limited research of selected individuals. It’s a psychological theory (therefore focused on the behaviour of individuals), and does not take into account social context or social processes.
        
        Polish Pride …
        
        28 January 2014 at 7:40 pm
        
        Simply look at the hierarchy. In your view is anything missing for what someone would need on some level to be happy.
        
        Then ask yourself this simple question. Should the system be designed with the goal of enabling a person to be happy?
        If not why not?
        
        Polish Pride …
        
        28 January 2014 at 8:28 pm
        
        it is not about Tory greed and this is part of why the system fails. failure to understand the true nature of each side. I have been reading the standard and whaleoil for 3 years. I see what you all complain about.I see what they complain about on whaleoil. I see what they call you. I see what you fellas call them. Both are a good representation of the Lvs R paradigm and both fail dismally to understand what the voter on each side wants.
        
        But lets for a moment and take your stated desire…
        
        “Something in them creates an insatiable desire for more. If the causes of that desire were addressed, then they would no longer be tories”
        
        Lets say it is addressed and there is no longer tories. you have full blown socialism.
        So people are now essentially enslaved those receiving a hand out from the government so they can live what someone else determines is a dignified life. Then you have those that earn a good wage but are highly taxed to pay for the system. They work until they retire and then they get a pension.
        Throughout your life the govts goal has been low unemployment
        part of your education is paid for by your parents
        Free healthcare (mostly), you pay for your prescriptions and you hope the drugs you need are bought by pharmac
        Poverty still exists
        Every 6 or so years your pet govt gets voted out and replaced by the one you don’t like quite as much and they make things a bit worse for the next 6 or so years.
        You still have to buy the things you need and want
        You work at least 40 hrs per week or more. You see your family in the evenings after a hard days work and you also get two days on the weekend.
        If you want to take the boat out on the weekend. You have to have saved up and bought one or know someone who has one or unfortunately you don’t get to take a boat anywhere.
        Your home – yep you either rent and pay someone elses mortgage or you get a mortgage of your own and work to pay that off for the next 20 -30 years.
        
        The alternative you redesign the system to meet the needs and wants of mankind. You use science technology and automation to work towards automating roles so people don’t have to work. You use science and technology to determine the best use and management of resources to serve the needs and wants of everyone. You give people the resources they want. Yes there are still plenty of jobs to do, but you only need to work half the time as many roles can be automated and all financial roles are no longer required.
        Throughout your life your govt or the system had the goal of and automated many roles so more and more people were not required to work
        free education
        free healthcare
        No poverty
        your govts goal is to free you from having to work, enable you to be happy, they want to maximise the time you get to spend with family and friends
        The things you need and want you simply order.
        you maybe need to work 3 days out of seven because you job share with someone who does the other 3. You only have to work until your 45
        You want to take the boat out on the weekend you just book it.
        Your house yes you get a house – all families get to have a home designed and built for them (well of course there’s existing houses too) But everone has a safe warm healthy home of their own –
        
        Thats the difference between the shit system we have now and one that is designed for the needs and wants of mankind
        
        oh and the right wing voter doesn’t get his hard earned money taken from him and given to someone else cause that is pretty much why he votes right.
        Of course he doesn’t have money anymore but like everyone else his needs and wants are catered for so he pretty much gets to live the life he wants to.
        
        McFlock …
        
        28 January 2014 at 9:12 pm
        
        So people are now essentially enslaved those receiving a hand out from the government so they can live what someone else determines is a dignified life. Then you have those that earn a good wage but are highly taxed to pay for the system. They work until they retire and then they get a pension.
        Throughout your life the govts goal has been low unemployment
        part of your education is paid for by your parents
        Free healthcare (mostly), you pay for your prescriptions and you hope the drugs you need are bought by pharmac
        Poverty still exists
        Every 6 or so years your pet govt gets voted out and replaced by the one you don’t like quite as much and they make things a bit worse for the next 6 or so years.
        You still have to buy the things you need and want
        You work at least 40 hrs per week or more. You see your family in the evenings after a hard days work and you also get two days on the weekend.
        If you want to take the boat out on the weekend. You have to have saved up and bought one or know someone who has one or unfortunately you don’t get to take a boat anywhere.
        Your home – yep you either rent and pay someone elses mortgage or you get a mortgage of your own and work to pay that off for the next 20 -30 years.
        
        No
        yes
        same as everyone else – what right have they to live in ease when others die
        yes
        indirectly via govt
        yes, much better than now
        nope
        nope, because there are no tories to vote for and no tories to vote
        yes, but you get everything you need
        nope, you can work 40hpw if you want to, though. Everyone gets to, nobody has to work longer
        etc
        
        ” You use science and technology to determine the best use and management of resources to serve the needs and wants of everyone. ”
        Huxley describe that society, ISTR.
        
        KJT …
        
        28 January 2014 at 2:45 pm
        
        Most of the people who pontificate about hard working Kiwi’s have never done anything harder than pushing a pen, for all their life.
        
        Richer Kiwi’s are richer, at least in part, because of the leg up and assistance given to them by other workers and taxpayers. If they had been born in a less prosperous society they would not be so rich.
        
        Refusing to pay the taxes, that help pay for their advantages, is bludging selfishness.
        
        This, very hard working Kiwi, has no problem at all with paying a few dollars more tax, so all our kids can get a leg up.
        
        This policy has a return of at least 11 times. (If I help them now they will have enough prosperity and resources to look after me when I am fully geriatric, instead of half way there) Good value for money. Nationals tax cuts have cost the country billions in borrowing and compounding interest.
        
        And, What I said previously about universality, a discussion you must have slept through.
        
        Flip …
        
        28 January 2014 at 3:29 pm
        
        Myth. Hard work = more income.
        
        Everybody has the same amount of time. How they are able to apply it is circumstantial. Some have more talent (natural) and skill (applied time), but not the amount > others that obscene income differentials suggest.
        
        Deservedness is to salve the conscience of the wealthy when it was really almost entirely luck.
        
        Everytime ‘hard work’ is used as justification for wealth it should be challenged and expunged from media.
- tricledrown 10.2
  
  27 January 2014 at 11:06 pm
  
  steve i think the political climate is changing and people are warming to the policies of the left that will make sure our kids that are being left on the bottom of the heap because bullshitting bullies like you have had your day the average length some body stays on a benefit and the numbers have gone up under the rights bullying policy $6 billion of potential being lost is what you idiots blindly ignore.
- tricledrown 10.3
  
  27 January 2014 at 11:14 pm
  
  steve our country was also built on caring and sharing all in together team spirit that picked up we johnny keys mum and him put him in a state house gave his mum a widows pension johnny got a free education milk in school tertiary education so he could reach his potential.
- Murray Olsen 10.4
  
  28 January 2014 at 12:38 am
  
  We’re coming for your money, Steve. Better bugger off real quick before we get it. And never, ever take the risk of returning. I’m sure you’ll be an asset to whatever cut rate fiscal paradise you manage to flee to.
- Tracey 10.5
  
  28 January 2014 at 8:56 am
  
  Look forward to your comments on the following Steve
  
  https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/31639050894-e44e2c00
tricledrown 11

27 January 2014 at 11:15 pm

steve I paid high taxes so we johnny could reach his potential.
Tracey 12

28 January 2014 at 7:58 am

” steve i think ”

Trickledown, thank you for succinctly summing up the difference between you and steve.
AsleepWhileWalking 13

28 January 2014 at 8:08 am

I <3 Greens!
Pasupial 14

29 January 2014 at 6:17 pm

No sign of video from the picnic speech online yet, but this came up on YouTube under Turei 2014, and is certainly well worth the time: