I have just been reading a book called "What's Up With Our MPs" by Allan Peachey, who wrote years ago about the NZ education system. Its not often that I read, as a critical analyst, a book which provides coherent and objective ideas on a subject. This author is indeed a very precious discovery, and I wanted to share this with New Zealanders because upon searching Google to send him a letter of praise, I came to discover that he is actually a National Party MP for Tamaki, a southern electorate of Auckland.
Now, this would be great news if he was our future NP leader or had a great deal of influence in the party. Sadly, the party seems to be captivated by more pragmatic forces, and as it our destiny under democracy, we will see policy once again dictated by the lowest common denominator; that is, an appeal to fear or short term expedient interests at the expense of long-range or rational policy objectives.
I just hope the voters of Tamaki realise the gem they have representing them. As far as I'm concerned, a diamond in a haystack is still a haystack with a lost gem.....or is that a compass needle. Anyway, Peachey MP is despite imminent education qualifications lacking the required political system to actually make a positive difference. That is where I come in.
In the meantime, I will keep looking for more gems.
There are very good reasons why we don't see Allan in cabinet - his age and health have unfortunately worked agains him. Also ideologically, he has often seemed to be more ACT than National in his party views. Directions and opinions expressed in the book "Whats up with out schools" have not necessarily been expressed since he joined Parliament - and in fact there have been some contradictions. More is the pity, because the Education infrastructure in NZ is bloated and too political. From Allan there has not been the same evidence of leadership in the house as we saw at our school. If you read Deborah Coddington's small book on choice in education, you will see a second case where what looks good in print has never quite worked out in practice.
ReplyDeleteThanks Evan; I'm not surprised by your statements. Actually I was up to page 98 of his book when I wrote that statement. His book seems to go downhill from there. He is clearly a good educator, but he lacks the intellectual vigour to really change the education system.
ReplyDeleteYes, I too think he would be a good MP for ACT to poach from the National Party. I have only been living in NZ two years, so thanks for the background. Kind of reminds one of Alan Greenspan - from Randian to Fed chief. But then maybe he had this diabolical strategy to destroy the financial system to free the world. Nah, lack of integrity seems more plausible. :)
Andrew . Allan has been missing so long in the Newspapers that I did a search and came up with this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/east-bays-courier/4931652/Future-of-schools-under-review
http://eastandbayscourier.realviewdigital.com/default.aspx?iid=46584&startpage=page0000001
I think this is the sort of thing that hold MPs back in their search for promotion! Here Allan seems to be PUBLICLY assisting certain schools in ganging up on an intermediate in his electorate somewhere. This kind of thing gains both friends and enemies. More seriously, it adds a political dimension to a scenario that requires consultation and rational analysis - you can't have some people supporting the closure of the Intermediate simply because they support the National Party, or others wanting it to stay open because they support Labour or the Greens! If the Pope waded in, you'd get more divide and conquer still!
Maybe he does not have ambition for higher office - preferring instead to work the parish pump.
I don't have a problem with him having a voice on such issues. At face value, it seems to be the right thing to do; save money, and make the education dollar go further. One might argue that Auckland's southern suburbs are going to expand, but then it would be better to have schools centralised to offer better service.
ReplyDeleteOne would of course hope that reason is the stand on such issues, and democracy is less inclined to achieve that, but it does not preclude good decisions. It just means they are less likely when they go against the govts interests. :(
You might not have a problem with this but I think others would. The intermediate's principal and board will now be driven onto the back foot, and it may be that the Ministry of Education feels that its hand has been forced in a particular direction.
ReplyDeleteFamilies may be motivated not to enroll at the school, or to withdraw their students - simply because their local MP is tilting the scales.
You would hope that reason is the motivator here, but unfortunately when it comes to schools, politics and even personalities can be the bigger driver.
Much better surely to do what most MPs do, and that is put in the constructive advocacy behind the scenes so that public coercion cannot be alleged. The previous MP was probably better at this kind of thing because from memory he ended up a speaker or chairman of the house.
Hi Evan, I'm not sure what specific outcome you would like, but I think the problem with a democracy is that everything tends to reduce to an extortion regime; with a majority, or a pretense of a majority, extorting what influence they have. One hopes for rational outcomes, one hopes that people are rational. All I can say is that I want to contribute to the development of a meritocracy, where any one, two,....individual(s) can have influence if they have good ideas; and the majority be dammed if they don't.
ReplyDeleteNo, it does not work that way. It is those with the money, power, resources, eloquence and cunning that control agendas - and get the privileges. Individuals have undue influence if they do what Allan is doing in this example. You might equate these characteristics with merit and rationality - but I see more egotism, greed and naked ambition than anything else. The outcomes we get are typically short sighted and for the short term benefits of the most influential. The majority produce a particular government every 3 years - but the difference between National and Labour is minimal - as Don Brash is currently pointing out with great glee. Call it democracy if you will. Anyway, this started with your suggestion that Allan is an underrated politician but I suspect that he is in fact overrated and his track record as an MP would bear this out - he has a huge majority in his seat but he remains a back bencher.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't suggesting it works....but how it should work..I don't want to get into a debate about the subtle failings of a system which is fundamentally flawed. If there are powerful alliances and agendas, they are given 'moral agency' because we function in a democratic framework. Correct, Allan extorts influence...so we should all repudiation extortion...but in the context of the system, Peachey is by 'relativist' standards pretty good I suggest. But I do agree with your original argument that he probably does not accept his original views, or does not have the wherewithal to follow through. That is evident from page 98 of his book. The start is flawless...with a few exception.
ReplyDeleteEvan, I think you have a misconception about egoism. Can I suggest exploring why you think egoism or self-interest has to be short term. What precludes him thinking long range, or conceptually. Everyone likes to attack greed and ambition. I see nothing overtly greedy in his actions. He has a view, and he is using a bad system to achieve what he thinks is good. The problem is the system, and he (like you) does not possess the theory of values to see the more fundamental problem.
The reason I guess he is a backbencher is perhaps that he is libertarian in perspective. Perhaps he will come to the forefront if ACT pick up a lot of seats, and he is seen as a 'trade off' for a cabinet position between the two parties. I can't profess to know the concrete specifics because only been here 2 years, but I'm more concerned about fundamentals, where the problem is people's unthinking acceptance of the tyranny of the majority...or the pretense of it. Either way its a bad deal that marginalises people and dumbs them down. Politics is the peak organisation for any nation - its values trickle down into everyone's lives. It affects the way corporations act, individuals, etc. Its going to get worse. People will be slaves to an ever-increasing array of statutes. They will cease to have any ego....and you think egoism is the problem. That is how fascism is created. We are not selfless enough???? Next people will be arguing we had no choice....human nature be dammed...its in our genes. They will never question their code of morality. This code of morality which seems to correlate best with poverty, uncivilisation and wars. i.e. lack of thinking. We are only relatively better in the West, but could well descend into the dark ages.