John Key - what a Cnut!

John Key’s announcement today that he intends to hold back the tide of public servants is like some latter day Cnut. The stark truth of this announcement is that it will significantly limit a National-led government to implement new policy. Forget about getting tough on crime or radically restructuring health or education - Key won’t have the bodies to follow through. Unless, of course, Key is going to outsource the delivery of core government services. You see that’s exactly what I think today’s pledge is actually about. Key’s going to have to privatise big employers like Corrections, Health and Education. If not, he’s virtually committed National to one term of thumb twiddling.

How did we not see this?

Kiwiblog has been a bit quiet about the hammering National got on its privatisation agenda during today’s Question time. I can understand why. The privatisation policy came out in a rather clumsy and embarrassing way. But a quick trawl through photos from recent National party conferences shows it was fairly upfront about its position. Despite rumours to the contrary, here’s English selling the policy on behalf of his Leader. What a loyal, stand-up guy English is. How come we never noticed this earlier?

Privatisation Debate on Kiwiblog

DPF contributed a reasonably cogent argument why he believes National should remain open to privatising certain state activities and assets.

Unfortunately, the thread that followed was anything but cogent. It was an appalling mess of personal abuse and incoherent babble. A few posters desperately tried to keep things apropos but Redbaiter and his demented accolyte, D4J (fresh back from his latest stint in purgatory for abusing David’s hospitality) heaped ad hominen and inane rant into the proceedings.

David tried to set a reasonable tone when he said:

What I want is a Government which will be open minded about where there is a role for the private sector, and make decisions based on empirical evidence and analysis.

This was classic DPF. True to his soft-liberal underbelly, DPF is not totally ideologically-driven. But he needs to float this particular argument because National’s privatisation by stealth is hemorrhaging votes.

The problem David and National have is this kind of moderate ‘we want to be open - but we’re not entirely wedded to the idea‘ perspective may have been valid in the eighties when the government was pretty much indiscriminately selling-off Crown assets and enterprises - but I am not sure it has much traction now.

The debate has subsided because there’s not a lot to talk about. All of the obvious things that could have been privatised were privatised and what remains really are core functions. There might be some room around the margins for discussion and there remains a strong opportunity for public-private partnering as a way to delivery high-performance outcomes. But as for mainstream privatisation…forget about it.

National wants to soften the privatisation disquiet. Accordingly, it’s getting all its mouthpieces (like DPF) out and about to make soothing noises.

But this is where Kiwiblog fails as National propaganda: Kiwiblog is frequented by some pretty brainless ideologues for whom nothing short of selling everything bar army and police is a good idea. The net result is that National and DPF’s ambition to set out some reasonable and soothing noises about privatisation (it will be evidence based not ideological!) is drowned out by the idiots. Visit Kiwiblog and you come away with the distinct impression that National will sell you goddamned teeth if they were reasonably accessible.

Key struggles on education privatisation issue

Keep peddling…

DPF’s playful complaint about getting lost in Auckland during an “eventual” evening - attending a “funeral” at Judith Collins’ place is engaging, I suppose. But despite DPF’s personal novella - the more interesting story is the eventual funeral shaping up for National’s education policy which is increasingly being seen as stealthy privatisation.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, David’s still peddling the party line, of course, dismissing concerns about the idea of private ownership of school facilities. He thinks National’s problem is the way it released its policy. Apparently, had National spent more time setting out its arguments in policy documents people would not be too worked up about the prospect of school facilities being managed for profit.

But the ever reliable Dean Knight whacked the nail squarely on the head with his usual clarity when he opined:

Or, we can say - as a matter of philosophy - we believe in the state undertaking core public functions.

Regardless of whether there might or might not be minor fiscal benefits, some of us might believe that the stability achieved by the government owning and administering public assets is more important.

That said, I’m happy for these issues to be agenda for the hustings. A honest election, based on the philosophical role of the state, would be worthwhile. Sell or retain SOEs? Maintain or privatise prisons? Public or private (toll) roads?

Dean’s absolutely right to sheet this back to fundamental philosophical positions. While it’s such a common refrain to hear politicians (and their apologists) cry “the media/public doesn’t understand” more often than not what’s actually being ignored are genuine concerns people have about these kinds of touchstone political issues.

Do you want a private company owning your school assets? Or as DPF naievely enquires: Are schools different to other government agencies who, already, inhabit privately owned buildings (in busy CBDs, ahem)?

The answers to these questions are really influenced by your core ideology. Dean’s right to draw parallels with the privatisation of prisons and roads. These, like schools, are issues where the public start engraving deep lines in the sand. Are these things different? Despite what David may believe, a lot of New Zealanders think so.

If DPF is emblematic of the thinking going on in the National party on this issue, it’s doing itself a grave misfortune by not appreciating there are some fundamental philosophical objections to the privatisation agenda. Blaming the selling of the policy blinds National to gaining an appreciation of the New Zealand electorate.

Privatising schools - more policy out of National

You gotta hand it to DPF, he’s adept at running interference on an issue. National finally released some policy on education and, once again, it lifted its hemline enough for the rest of us to see it’s going commando on privatisation.

DPF meanwhile is vainly trying to keep the Kiwiblogger’s focussing on the bulk-funding debate within National. The rest of us, meanwhile, are intrigued by Key’s references to greater private involvement in the provision of education and lifting the amount of funding given to private schooling.

There’s no other way to read into this position - but further privitisation in education.

The Press quotes Key as saying:

“Do I believe that the private sector could build a school and operate it on behalf of the state? Yes, I do,”

Although he also reported to have added:

“I don’t think a wholesale programme of privatisation would be acceptable and nor would we embark on it”

DPF needn’t worry about National’s bulk-funding policy though. If National aggressively pursues greater privatisation in schooling, bulk funding would have to be necessary element. Worryingly for parents, under National, bulk-funded schools would be unlikely to meet the student-teacher ratio of 1:15 the current government aims to have in place by 2008.