Helen Clark speech: substance, not style

Helen's speech this morning was a substantive contribution to the youth policy debate. The new announcements - youth apprenticeships and a higher age before people can be free of training or education - contrasts nicely with Key's more negative effort the day before.

The speech also located that policy in the broader context. You can't slice and dice our society and our world. The bits all relate to each other. Clark was saying that youth will grow up best in a society that looks after all of us. She wants a policy that brings everyone to the height of their talents, not only one that punishes people for getting things wrong.

So that is why she can properly pin responsibility for many of today's youths' problems on the previous National government:

Today’s young violent criminals are the children of the “Mother of All Budgets” in 1991.

A magic wand can’t wave that away – but by giving everyone a chance to succeed and supporting the economy’s potential to grow, we can over time make a big difference.

Key dismissed that on Morning Report this morning, showing again how little he understands public policy. He said, what happens 18 yrs ago is irrelevant. He's wrong. National was in power for a decade and systematically sought to undermine the welfare state and the decent society.

A whole generation - my generation - has been scarred for life by that approach to politics and public life. We are the children of the revolution and the only miracle is that more of us are not disasters.

It takes years and decades to build up a decent society, but it's a lot quicker to wreck one. National and Labour proved that well in the 1980s and 1990s:

If the public don’t know what politicians stand for and what their real agenda is, then the public stands to feel deeply betrayed when the truth comes out.

That was the politics of deception of the 1980s and ‘90s – the politics New Zealand banished eight years ago.

Painful, slow progress has been made since, both in real policy and outcomes, and in rebuilding trust that democracy can work. National just offers a return to the past, on both fronts.

Back to Clark's speech. It was, as the headline suggests, not an especially captivating or stylish speech. That isn't Helen Clark's style. She is a serious politician who cares about solving the problems. While I (and others) might wish for a more visionary style of speaking, that isn't what she does. Shes does fact and plain honest policy.

Somehow in these days of soundbites, presidential campaigning, slick Hollow Men-style inoculations, that is a reassuring thought.

Comments

[burt]

Jordan

See stuff: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4379306a7694.html

So how will class sizes look once Labour's policy of keeping kids in school till they are 18 is implemented. What chance is there of addressing the problem against larger rolls when it's been unable to be addressed for years already?

[Monty]

Meee tooooo Helen has missed the boat - for the fourth year in a row National has set the agenda and hit on an issue that will be popular with the masses. This time having already grabbed 50% of the electorate, he is making further inroads into deep working class Labour territory and this follows up nicely on his underclass speech of 2007.

The comments on Clark in the media seem to be that she was underwhelming. This is backed up in the NZ Herald and Stuff polls which typically favour Key's speech (80%) over Clarks speech (20%). Oh dear - the risk has failed - not many support kids staying at school till they are 18. This just demonstrates that Clark is out of touch with the electorate.

The official winner has to be Key. Clark is a distant second. Maybe the problem is that no one is listening to Clark anymore - we are all just looking forward to National being the Government.

[anon]

"A whole generation - my generation - has been scarred for life by that approach to politics and public life. We are the children of the revolution and the only miracle is that more of us are not disasters."

Christ you write a lot of hyperbolic crap.

[GNZ]

Both Helen and John are wrong on this issue. there is a subset of society who are unable to learn in a structured environment - some are unable to learn at all.

for those people we should encourage them to leave school (and stop wasting our money and their time) and to start working or learning in a way that they can learn (for example an apprenticeship or possibly on the job even if that job is mindless manual labour).

every student that you force to remain trying and failing to learn skills they will never use, will spend their time disrupting all the other students and degrading your education system - whether that is technical institutes or high school.

that doesn't mean you discourage school - just that you do need an out for at least some people so you don't just end up with stupid policy.

[j]

Jordan don't you think intervening at the ages of 16 and 18 is a little late particularly when many 6th and 7th form students in low decile schools can barely read and write? I thought you were into early intervention? Surely it would be better to provide more funding and resources to primary schooling and interventions to help less well educated parents provide a better home learning environment? Seems like this is an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approach...

[Left Behind]

Jordan's 29 Jan 2008: "Getting kids back on the rails at 16 is too late"

Jordan's 30 Jan 2008: Let's solve youth offending by punishing the 30% of 16+ year olds who leave school (far and above the % who commit crime)!

"A whole generation - my generation - has been scarred for life".

This is the justification for scarring a whole new generation by holding them in school/training options they don't want for two years?

Also, don't you think it's somewhat ironic that the 90s reforms that scarred you so deeply (so deeply that you couldn't do anything about them for 9 years, so shell shocked were ye by their impact), scarred you because they made it more difficult for 16-year olds to leave school..yet now you guys are making that impossible anyway??

[dad4justice]

Dear Jordan
Were you affected by the recent warm weather and full moon?
Clearly someone is seriously deluded, because Klark has promised to set new standards, while children as young as 12 prostitute themselves and youth abortions have doubled.
Self esteem levels are shattered by a callous government far to interested in minority agenda politics which is detrimental to traditional core family values.

The rehabilitation programmes for our youth caught up with the strong arm of the law are an abysmal failure.
I cannot understand why and how you cannot see that society has been debased by a deluge of violence and a decent Prime Minister with principles would step down and admit she has failed all kiwi's.

[Policy Parrot]

d4j - how do actually know children as young as 12 are prostituting themselves, are you keeping tabs?

[burt]

Policy Parrot

Perfect play of the man rather than the ball. Do you have any counter evidence to the claims that child prostitution is on the rise ? Or is having a shot at D4J the best you can do?

[burt]

Policy Parrot

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4371856a11.html

"A crackdown on child prostitution by Auckland police - which resulted in girls as young as 13 being removed from the streets and 25 arrests - has put the spotlight on a hidden nationwide problem, according to child advocates."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4371634a11.html

"Police say it is unacceptable that so many under-age girls are involved in prostitution in South Auckland, with some as young as 13 being removed from the streets for their own safety."

Thankfully somebody is keeping tabs!

[dad4justice]

burt - I have evidence of 12 year old prostitutes working on Manchester Street Christchurch not far from Tim Barnett's electorate office.

Fact - what a sick environment for children !!