The Silence of the Lamb


This was a big week for David Shearer.  After a slow start, we expected him to define his leadership of Labour.  So what did we discover and just how good was his speech?

Shearer starts off with an off-beat reference to the circus.  Next comes several repetitions of ‘the honest truth’ as if there was such a thing as the dishonest truth.  He wants us to see him as an honest man, not a showman.

After some further hedging around the subject we get the goods. The vision is, wait for it: “New Zealand should be a place where people know that they can get ahead, a place where the rest of the world wants to live and a place that we can all be proud of.”  A bland platitude telling us that Labour is headed towards the centre ground. Not much of a vision.

Shearer moves on to Finland.  We hear about a former Finnish Prime Minister who had a bit of a vision.  No matter the eerie echo of Roger Douglas who also pointed to Esko Aho as a model.  Shearer says he is no tinkerer and he will take bold action on innovation and education.

Will new Labour imitate Finland’s better policies for families and their low child poverty rate?  Analysis shows child benefit packages in Finland to be among the most generous in the OECD countries with New Zealand ranked near the bottom (Bradshaw and Finch 2002). And paid parental leave is for 31 weeks. 

Or will new Labour take up the Finnish approach of equal access to education? “Schools in Finland are focal centres for their communities. They provide a daily hot meal for every student, plus health and dental services, psychological counseling and a broad array of other services for students and their families” (Pearson Foundation 2012).

Shearer tell us  that Labour will spend the next two years planning so we must wait and see. But he will be ready to go on day one, which does seem a little unfortunate.  At last we get some substance.  Capital Gains Tax is in and other tax cuts go. Then we are back to the magical idea that we must innovate in this higher tax economy.

Time for a quick anecdote about Shearer’s visit to Sri Lanka, which is a worry as if New Zealand was a country in similar dire straights.  He is channelling Tony Blair’s new Labour who stated their priority as,  “Education, education, education.”  We are promised more spending on early childhood education, early intervention and more training places.  Ticks the boxes. It is a scandal that this current National government is allowing 83,000 young people to have no work and no training.

The rhetoric is hardline about getting rid of bad teachers and putting bad schools on notice.  No mention of the problem of thousands of our children coming to school too hungry to learn or returning home to cold, damp houses.  Still we hear a general commitment to fairness together with the Blairite mantra of rights and responsibilities.  After all, who is going to argue for unfairness, ignorance and irresponsibility? Yet we have a new edge here.  Not exactly pandering to the teachers unions.  Maybe too many voted Green?

There has been a passing mention of our clean green brand and this returns for the finale: “This new New Zealand will be the kind of place the rest of world would like to live. It will be clean, it will be green, it will be clever …and it will be a place that’s good for lambs.”

Russel Norman says a smart green economy.  John Key says a brighter future. New New Zealand is clumsy. But the lambs?  To end with that joke invites the kind of quip with which I titled this blog.  Shearer is not the ideal name for a man talking about lambs.  I’d say his speech writers let him down.

There has been no reference to Labour’s past.  As William Blake asked, “Little lamb who made thee, dost thou know who made thee?”  For Labour it was the unions.

Meet David Shearer, the new Tony Blair, only without the ability to deliver a compelling oration.  It suits the media to set up a Shearer versus Key dynamic to have a story to run over the coming months.  The wolves will be licking their lips.

 

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “The Silence of the Lamb

  1. Welcome to the blogosphere, Neil. I read your piece… interesting! If I can paraphrase you, you’ve rated Shearer a B or B+ – Can Do Better?

    From what I can pick up from Shearer, he’s trying hard not to “spook the horses” – ie, frighten the Baby Boomers/Middle Class. Whilst I can understand that tactic, if he doesn’t differentiate between Labour and National – why should the punters tick:Labour at the next election?

  2. Thank you Frank. Yes, I’d say a ‘B.’ Too cautious. There is not enough there to differentiate as you say.

    Plus the live streaming on their website didn’t work properly. My impression is that Labour’s staff are not performing as they should be to support their leader.

  3. Nice.
    Good content, may I recommend a sub-editor you can e-mail text to for grammar & spelling?

    Welcome to the wild wacky world of WordPress, where usual conditions don’t often apply, but freedom of speech is generally available. 😉

  4. if you compare Shearer’s speech with Key’s maiden effort as leader of the Opposition, one could be forgiven for thinking Key was the Labour leader and Shearer National’s. Key’s speech was powerful, inclusive and very well written. Shearer’s was trite, bitsy, vague, poorly written and delivered with all the panache of a droning vicar.

    The Finnish schools point could easily have been expanded – is it all the Finnish system he likes or just a few cherries? Schooling is totally free in Finland, including tertiary – 50% of adults are involved in continuing, higher education. Also, in light of his crack about teachers, the Finns hold teachers in very high regard, they are respected as educational professionals and given the room to meaningfully educate students, without the stifling effects of standardisation. Schools are much smaller than ours and more involved with their communities (only 5% have over 500 students).

    I think the media have been rather kind to him. More so than he deserved.
    I just can’t understand why Labour ditched Cunliffe in favour of this bland Blair clone. If it is because the right-leaning faction are ascendent, that is tragic – plainly they are oblivious to the flax-roots distrust and contempt they have earned.
    i so want to vote Labour, but I no longer can.

    • “I just can’t understand why Labour ditched Cunliffe in favour of this bland Blair clone.”

      Labour are trying to compete with National on personality politics. Like John Key, David Shearer has a good backstory – doing amazing things at the UN, staring down warlords, etc. Shearer’s speech was waffle. Comparatively, Cunliffe’s economic speech a few months ago was a speech by a leader-in-waiting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s