Just Left

Fascinating on future of capitalism from Prospect

This piece by Geoff Mulgan in Prospect is well worth a read - the end, to give you a flavour, is here:

In the first phase of the crisis the most successful claimants for support have been the big, failing (and well-connected) industries of the last era of capitalism. But the arguments are moving on—to how recovery plans can back job growth, fixing the future (as in San Francisco’s electric car infrastructures or Korea’s massive green jobs programme) rather than trying to fix the mistakes of the past. It’s not clear yet which politicians will be able to articulate a vision of a “servant capitalism” better suited to the 21st century. David Cameron has made some attempts—hard though that may sometimes be for the descendant of generations of stockbrokers. Gordon Brown is a son of the manse, but also deeply implicated in the crisis. Obama should be ideally suited to offering a new vision, yet has surrounded himself with champions of the very system that now appears to be crumbling.

The result is that a large political space is opening up. In the short run it is being filled with anger, fear and confusion. In the longer run it may be filled with a new vision of capitalism, and its relationship to both society and ecology, a vision that will be clearer about what we want to grow and what we don’t. Democracies have in the past repeatedly tamed, guided and revived capitalism. They have prevented the sale of people, of votes, public offices, children’s labour and body organs, and they have enforced rights and rules, while also pouring resources in to meet capitalism’s need for science and skills, and it has been out of this mix of conflict and co-operation that the world has achieved the extraordinary progress of the last century.

To discover what comes next, maybe we should look upwards. Skylines provide the simplest test of what a society values, and where its surpluses are controlled. A few centuries ago the greatest buildings in the world’s cities were forts, churches and temples; then for a time they became palaces. Briefly in the 19th century civic buildings, railway stations and museums overshadowed them. And then in the late 20th century everywhere they were banks. Few believe that they will be for much longer. But what will come next—great leisure palaces and sports stadiums; universities and art galleries; water towers and hanging gardens; or perhaps biotech empires? We need to rekindle our capacity to imagine, and to see through the still-gathering storm to what lies beyond.

Simone Loria

In a moment I will link to a youtube video of a football (soccer if you think Americans know anything about it) goal scored by a player from AS Roma - the most beautiful team playing the beautiful game. Then I will make a serious point that will cut to the heart of the meaning of life - promise.

What you will see is, in all modesty, a fairly run of the mill goal. Not the prettiest you will ever see, taken from a fairly poor corner. The goal was Roma's 1 in a 4-1 defeat at the hands of Juventus. The scorer of the goal was Simone Loria.

Simone Loria is a player who joined Roma in the previous off-season. He came in as a back-up central defender. Since his arrival Roma has suffered a dreadful run of injuries. Unfortunately, Loria has been called on several times this season and his embarrassing blunders have cost us every game he has appeared in. We have lost them all - including a defeat in London by Arsenal which led to the Lupi (Wolves) being knocked out of the European Cup and denied a once in a generation chance to be in a final held in Rome for the first time since 1984 (and led to me being  denied the chance to see my team in a home Champions League Final - I will be in Rome at the time).

If you were playing along side this guy, wouldn't you hate his living guts and resent the hell out of him for being the sole reason your team is struggling? I would.

Now watch.

Remember, it is not a celebration of an important or pretty goal in that video. It's 11 guys showing genuine joy and love for a mate who has been in dire trouble. Most Roma fans (this one included) would have advocated a public flogging as suitable punishment for every prior bungle. David Garrett would approve of that motivational technique. But instead he got what he needed most - the support and encouragement of his team.

Watching that for the first time profoundly moved me. I think we could all learn something from it.

Of course I still think the guy is a donkey and should be sold at the next available opportunity. Hey, I want them to make the Champions League next season!

Progressive Politics in Auckland

Today's pending release of the report on Auckland's future imposes some big challenges for those who are part of progressive politics across the region.

The centre-right has been preparing for this for a long time, and is a relatively united force across the region. They have money and they have a high-tide of centre-right votes from the last general election at their backs.

In contrast, the progressive left is more dispersed, at a lower ebb, and aside from in Auckland City where there is a Labour-Green coalition through City Vision, not really collaborating as much as it will need to do.

Presuming that the report does lead to the creation of a united structure, we face the task of very quickly building a new regional organisation that brings the forces of the left together around a common campaign. If we fail to do that, we will hand the new city to the centre-right by default.

It's a big piece of work to do. It will only happen if all those involved - Labour, Greens, the Progressives, the Alliance, the trade unions, the community independents, the community activists, and so on - all work together, and are all prepared to compromise and work hard to build a united, popular, professionally organised voice for the left in the new city's politics.

We'll know this afternoon what shape the new structure is heading towards. I hope the rest of the left has its head around the scale and political trickiness of what we all have to do!

What sort of media do I want?

A few days ago, Dolan asked what sort of of media we want in NZ, in the context of the squeeze being put on TVNZ to deliver a nonsensical dividend to the new Government.

I want a healthy media industry in New Zealand, that entertains, informs, provokes and delights us. 

To do that I think we need diversity of ownership forms and a diversity of styles and types of media, to cater for the incredible diversity of tastes, interests and passions that Kiwi media consumers exhibit.

On the ownership form, I think we need a good healthy mix of publicly owned media, privately owned media, non-profit or trust media, and personal media (the last of which the Internet provides the main platform for). 

On the styles of media, I think we need proper public service content, commercial content, personal content, all available.

I think we need diversity of ownership because it can help provide the diversity of styles that we need.

To me the big gap is in the production of quality public-service style content. We have RadioNZ which does a fantastic job of producing good quality audio content in a non-market setting. It can explore areas that commercial content producers that have to sell advertising can't touch. That's great. I wish we had a youth-focused network that did the same thing, on the same non-commercial basis, but that was one thing Labour didn't manage last time.

In terms of audio-visual content, we are in a weaker spot in my opinion. TVNZ is a commercial broadcaster which is publicly owned. It has elements which do good public-service content (esp. 6 and 7), but the experiment in putting a Charter framework around a commercial broadcaster did not really deliver the shift in attitudes that were wanted. We also have Maori TV which is great if under-resourced. The huge majority of audio-visual content we have is commercially driven.

I think that's a problem. The lack of a culture of public service TV broadcasting in this country means that people do not get, in the major format for mass media consumption, the kinds of insight and securely critical analysis that would help us understand what is going on in our own society or in the world around us. That has all sorts of effects, in terms of a democratic society that at least hopes to make rational decisions about its future.

So, a challenge for a country like ours, with an extended period of restraint in public spending heading our way, is how can we drive better public service style AV content production?  

I am not sure that TVNZ is the answer to that question, but I'd be particularly interested in the views of people inside the company on that question. Having been in a large number of organisations, one of the most durable features they have is their organisational culture. TVNZ's culture is largely commercial. Is it possible to turn that around into something more conductive to the kind of content production that we have a gap in - non-commercial, public interest news, current affairs, drama, storytelling etc?

You tell me. Interested in your thoughts.

(You will note I've talked about content production a lot. To me, convergence between broadcasting and the Internet means that in time, we won't separate content producers based on the networks they use to distribute their content. We will think about content producers, and the distribution networks, separately. If we don't, we will end up breaking the convergence model and selling Kiwis short. The last government had some research going on into how to deal wtih this in a regulatory sense. It seems that National has cancelled this work. I can't quite get my head around why, given convergence is happening. Does anyone know?)

Congrats to Helen Clark

I am delighted, along with most Kiwis, to see Helen's nomination finally in as administrator of the UNDP. She'll make a heavyweight contribution in the post, having a reach into making far more people's lives better than she was able to do in New Zealand politics.

It will be sad to see her leave NZ. She has been a constant presence since I joined the Labour Party and indeed before, regularly on TV and in Party events in Auckland. There will certainly be a vacuum there that the issue of a by-election in Mt Albert won't really address.

This is not a summary of a career, so I don't need to rave on the outstanding job she did as Prime Minister and as Labour Party leave her. But we know in our movement and our party that without her solid determination and amazing skills, we would not have run a successful government for nine years.

I wish Helen the best of luck, and I hope that she enjoys and thrives in this new job.

Xena the Warrior Mayor?!?

As everyone has no doubt heard by now, the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance is set to be released tomorrow. Most of the pundits seem to be expecting the City of Sails to be a so-called 'super city' in time for the local body elections next year.

If we really are going down this path - much will depend on how much power the Mayor will have and how he or she will be elected. One option is a powerful executive Mayor, elected at large by the whole region.

The mother of all arguments against this idea can be found on the front page of the Stuff website today. They are running a poll:  "If an Auckland super city is established who would make the best mayor?" The options are:

Judy Bailey

Winston Peters

John Banks

John Tamihere

Michael Jones

Stephen Tindall

Marc Ellis

Paul Holmes

Lucy Lawless

Now. I don't make rash statements I might live to regret... but if any one of those people is elected Lord Grand Poo Bah Mayor of Greater Auckland then I will be seriously considering moving to Wanganui where the mayor is a comparatively sane and rational human being.

I mean really, is that the best we can do?

What it does though is nicely illustrate the problem with giving a whole heap of power to someone elected in a constituency of 2 million people. Any campaign for that office would have to be waged by a very wealthy person who can afford to have hoardings and leaflets to cover a huge geographic area, not to mention an army of volunteers. So we are talking about someone rich AND famous. There's a combination that screams ability to run a city. Not!

What Stuff has done here is provided us with a fairly accurate illustration of what we might expect if we get this system wrong. An ex rugby player or Paul Holmes. Let's make sure that whatever sized city we end up with, the Mayor is elected an ordinary councilor, then as with our parliamentary system given the role by a vote of his or her peers. Please. Because it's cold in Wanganui and I get chilblains...

Three Little Pigs

I’ve been mulling this over since a couple of weeks ago when Judith Collins’ attempts to roll Corrections boss Barry Mathews reminded me so much of the big bad wolf (Collins) huffing and puffing to no avail as the third little pig’s (Mr Mathews) stone house stood solid.

 

My humble apologies to Green Jelly who penned the gem of a rock anthem version of the Three Little Pigs fairytale that I now so flagrantly butcher.

 

Well the first little piggy, was a country with the blues

Yearning for a tax cut, they saw it on the news

Then along one day, came a dodgy former banker

Who talked up his game like a clever little wanker

A nation of big spenders, they knew nothing of equity

Spent all of their money on cheap imports, what a pity

And then one day with recession coming fast

They voted for some guys who had screwed them in the past

 

[Chorus]

Little Pig, Little Pig, let me in.
NOT BY THE HAIR OF MY CHINNY, CHIN, CHIN!!
Little Pig, Little Pig, let me in.
NOT BY THE HAIR OF MY CHINNY, CHIN, CHIN!!
Well I'm huffin, I'm puffin, I'll blow your house in.
Huffin, puffin, blow your house in.
Huffin, puffin, blow your house in.
Huffin and a puffin and I'll blow your house in!!!

 

Well the second little piggy, gave a vital guarantee

If you maim one of your slaves – no pesky legal fee

If you’re injured on the job you can still afford a feed

With a subsidised wage and all the physio you need

But they told us that the place is in a miserable condition

Behind the scenes they geared it up for Ozzie competition

Then one day they said the board was far too red

Along came Smith with a razor gang instead

 

[Repeat Chorus]

 

Well the third little piggy, has no money in the kitty

He had to keep crims, from escaping to the city

Then along one day came a ham fisted minister

Referred poor Barry to the State Services Commissioner

Confidence in Baz, in words she can’t express

So Barry said he wasn’t going nowhere, what a mess

The Minister was angry – no one messes with the crusher

The big, bad wolf the little piggy musher!

 

[Repeat Chorus]

 

Well the big, bad wolf

Well she huffed and she puffed all that she could

And low and behold the little piggy, in his job he stood

"You wont sack me", the little piggy shouted

The wolf just frowned as she pouted

So he held his ground like any piggy would

And crusher backed down!

Just as fast as she could

Thanks!

On behalf of Jordan and myself, I'd just like to thank Coldplay for an awesome night last night. A brilliant gig.

Joanna Hunkin from the Herald summed it up nicely:

Say what you like about Coldplay - the band knows how to control atmosphere. They have the rare and awe-inspiring ability to change how you feel, and change how an entire room feels.

On a side note, the Vector Arena is a brilliant venue, isn't it? It's just a shame Auckland couldn't get it's shit together and build a real stadium on the waterfront like Wellington did.

Over Editing?

I love having letters published in the newspaper. Fills me with a warm feeling that only participating in democracy does. I've had many letters published in the DominionPost and other newspapers over the years (highlights? A letter attacking the US published in the US edition of Time, and, of course, Steven Joyce's strange reaction to my letter about him in the DominionPost).

I understand that newspapers reserve the right to edit* letters for clarity and length. It's their newspaper - they can publish whatever they want - within reason.

However, I was a little miffed with the editing job done on my letter in this morning's Herald. This is what I wrote:

Last month, John Key was quick to jump to the support of Fisher and Paykel as an "iconic kiwi company", despite F&P fleeing New Zealand last year for cheaper overseas labour.

I wish his government was as quick to support TVNZ during tough times, rather than demanding a profit from the State Owned Enterprise. If he had supported our national broadcaster, he might have been able to save the 90 jobs that have been cut in the name of the National / ACT government's market-led ideologies.

Jeremy Greenbrook-Held, Waimauku

And this is what was published in the "Brevities" section**:

John Key was quick to support Fisher & Paykel as an "iconic company" despite its flight to cheaper overseas labour. He should be as quick to support Television New Zealand, rather than demanding a profit from the state-owned enterprise.

Jeremy Greenbrook-Held, Waimauku

Now, I understand that it was edited to fit into the Brevities section, and the overall theme was preserved. I can even understand them not wanting to include 'ideologies', but the final sentence (which the letters editor snipped) was a key point I was trying to get across - demanding a dividend from TVNZ has led to 90 job losses. I even caveat my claim by saying that had the Nats not pushed for a profit from TVNZ they MIGHT have saved the 90 jobs.

Maybe I'm over reacting here. Interested in your thoughts?

*  Note I don't claim this to be 'censorship' or part of the VRWC.
** I don't have a page reference at the moment - just a xerox of the published letter.

What sort of media do you want in New Zealand?

Today the news broke that TVNZ are axing 90 jobs across the state broadcaster including some in News and Current Affairs. John Key said they were on the way out anyway. The Minister of Broadcasting, Dr Jonathan Coleman, said on Morning Report this morning that he has written to TVNZ to convey his firm expectation that the government be provided with a 9% return on investment. That’s a larger dividend than that provided by TVNZ last financial year when our economy was in a vastly healthier state.

 

The government has suggested that the TVNZ dividend pays for roads and health and schools and that is a perfectly sound argument. But the only consistent thing about this government is its inconsistency. How many roads and hospitals and schools can you build with their mooted bailout of Fisher and Paykel? Or their fifty million buck (and the rest) cycleway? Is the ten odd million dollar dividend from TVNZ really the difference between building a road and not? Must be a gravel road, and a pretty short one at that. Especially when you consider some of that money could be swallowed up by the distinct possibility that redundant TVNZ workers, in this job market, could well cost the country money in Work and Income entitlements.

 

But the bigger question is the desirability of further erosion of the New Zealand media and who benefits from it.

 

Today’s news follows a major restructure of TVNZ two years ago, the outsourcing of sub-editing at the Herald around the same time and the gradual scaling back of newsrooms across the media over the past decade or more. This announcement means that already small newsrooms are getting smaller. Journalists high workload and high story output is getting harder to manage and most troubling, the time journalists have to check facts, break and research stories is going from tight to virtually non existent.

 

Fundamental to any democracy is a free press which scrutinises those in power, acts as a watchdog and brings all sides of a debate to the notice of the public. They can’t do that properly if they don’t have time because each journalist is doing the job five of them once did.

 

Now, I am NOT a conspiracy theorist – that’s a vicious rumour promulgated by my enemies to discredit me. Joking. But when I look at this situation, I can’t help but notice that the people playing this down as inevitable and the people demanding TVNZ cough up a fat dividend with dodgy rationale are the same people that directly benefit from a weakened fourth estate. Just strikes me as interesting.