The Dim-Post

January 21, 2012

The sound of distant thunder at a picnic

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 8:12 am

Audrey Young starts the year off with a column about David Shearer and his leadership intentions. The alarm bells start to ring a little louder:

Labour may have elected a leader who, like Key, is hard not to like, but Shearer will be quite a different kind of leader.

Shearer is in no rush. He will be bold when he is good and ready to be bold.

Shearer won’t be responding to every issue just because he is asked – in the way that John Key does and Phil Goff did.

For a start, he is not politically dexterous enough to do so. And having so little experience, he doesn’t have the institutional knowledge of the party or politics generally.

His political compass will be grounded more in values than old Labour traditions.

He will be more positive generally. He will not automatically oppose. He will be measured.

This sounds incredibly similar to Phil Goff’s leadership style. Goff did take some stands: asset sales, obviously; trivialities like the sale of the Crown BMWs, but usually on issues that were damaging to his credibility, with no political upside – like the dispute over whether the SIS briefed him on some alleged Israeli spies. But in general his response to controversial issues and questions was to keep his head down and agree with whatever John Key said. (The canonical example: Key went on Tony Vietch’s radio show and talked about which celebrities he thought were hot. This kicked off a row about sexism, Goff was asked for comment, and replied that he liked the same babes as the Prime Minister, but also his own wife.) Goff very rarely engaged with National or the PM on points of controversy or substance.

The thinking behind this approach was outlined by John Pagani, Goff’s strategic advisor:

They’re waiting for Labour to demonstrate it genuinely understands their needs – and that means  endorsing more of what National is doing – the things the voting public approves of.
Every time Labour attacks policies and a government that voters generally approve of they alienate themselves further from potential supporters who are swinging between Labour and National.
Insisting the public is wrong is a recipe for even more disaster. Attacking constructive things the government is doing is exactly the wrong option.
If anything, Labour should be pursuing more of a consensus approach, so that it can own more of the right direction.
The outcome of this strategy was that for most of the last term National dominated the political agenda; there was no meaningful point of difference between the parties, not even Labour supporters knew what-the-hell Goff stood for, and he became one of the the most unpopular opposition leaders in modern New Zealand politics.
Maybe Shearer will be different. Maybe he will be cautious until he sees an opportunity, and then bold in ways that capture the agenda and inspire the electorate. But Shearer’s advisors are mostly Goff’s former advisors – so when you hear that his strategy will be cautious and measured I start to get a little panicky: do they counsel caution because it’s smart, or because they’re terrible at their jobs, and caution is a low risk option?


  1. Before he can address what people want he and his party must go out in the communities they purport to represent and actually ask them rather than assume they have a ‘tyranny of the democracy’ right to tell them what they want. So until they do and have been seen to be doing this, this I would suggest that Shearer’s best poicy would be to in fact, keep them zipped. Having said that, I would have liked to have seen some kind of input from ‘The workers’ party’ about teh present industrial dispute in Auckland ports, but that’s just me being old-fashioned.

    Comment by Eric Blair — January 21, 2012 @ 9:48 am

  2. apologies for teepees.

    Comment by Eric Blair — January 21, 2012 @ 9:49 am

  3. He will no doubt be keeping his powder dry until 2 months before the next election and then we’ll find out who the real David Shearer is. I’m sure he’s a smart guy and he will no doubt make an excellent deputy prime minister in a coalition with the Greens (harsh perhaps but the eventual outcome of Labour having no core principles and not standing for anything is that they continue to lose ground to a party that does).

    Comment by Innocent bystander — January 21, 2012 @ 10:12 am

  4. “…He will no doubt be keeping his powder dry until 2 months before the next election…”

    He won’t make it that far if he doesn’t turn the polls around. His elevation to leader was predicated on his broader appeal to a section of voters who deserted the party. If Labour are still sub-30% in a year, Shearer will be replaced by Cunliffe and consigned to the bin marked “seemed a good idea at the time”.

    Comment by Sanctuary — January 21, 2012 @ 10:25 am

  5. I wonder if these advisors are trying to sell Shearer a Friedmanite line – “oh, our strategy of kissing National’s ass only failed because we didn’t kiss it enough“. It was probably those breath-of-fresh-air, back-to-our-basic-principles party political ads that really screwed them over, not the previous three years of fucking around.

    Comment by QoT — January 21, 2012 @ 11:24 am

  6. “…liked to have seen some kind of input from ‘The workers’ party’ about teh present industrial dispute in Auckland ports… ”
    there is no high level input because they did just exactly that- ask the people what they thought, and the answer was not in favour of wharfies.

    Comment by gn — January 21, 2012 @ 12:56 pm

  7. Maybe we should accept that Labour are a pack of right-wing liberal/free market capitalists who have shown no sign of changing their spots in 27 years?

    And treat them the same as ACT – ignore them and don’t mention them. Starve them of any publicity – good or bad – and put the focus on parties that *may* do some good for ordinary working class Kiwis, like the Greens and Mana; heck, even the Maori Party and NZ First.

    If shunning them induces Labour to revise their horrific existence, great! If not, then no loss.

    P.S. Eric B – Well, Darien Fenton did try to run a post on the PoA wharfy dispute, but Red Alert is in full censorship mode. My comment never showed up (I appear to be banned for asking awkward questions). I wanted to mention on RA that I had asked a Labour electorate secretary what he thought about the PoA dispute – he said the wharfy’s should just show up whenever the boss tells them a ship is in port (ie 110% support for the bosses ‘casualisation’ position). Says something about Labour that even a party flunkie doesn’t see anything wrong with his suggestion.

    Comment by bob — January 21, 2012 @ 7:59 pm

  8. I’ve been reliably informed that Labour are taking their lead from MUNZ on this, and MUNZ are taking a cautious position, not wanting to inflame a situation or risk their position. Of course, we can ask whether the (non-)response we’ve is the right one from Labour, but it helps to know that they do have a strategy.

    Comment by George D — January 21, 2012 @ 8:09 pm

  9. “Shearer won’t be responding to every issue just because he is asked – in the way that John Key does and Phil Goff did.”

    How the hell does Young know this?

    Pure and utter conjecture.

    BTW, in case no one has noticed. Keys stock response is evasion.

    Hopefully Shearer will have a point of difference.

    Danyl your “canonical example” is derisory on so many counts it is impossible to comment.

    You appear to have an illogical loathing of Goff as leader. You need help. Goff is no longer
    a leader.

    Young flies a kite. You accept it as fact.

    I would have expected better rationality from a science teacher.

    You need to go back to your day job, soon.

    This post from you is utter crap.

    Clearly all we have to do to be politically informed is read Audrey Young.

    Comment by peterlepaysan — January 21, 2012 @ 9:57 pm

  10. Re: the PoA dispute, if the PoA board were indeed Hide appointees with a union-busting agenda, then they probably didn’t count on the ITF’s ‘port of convenience’ declaration. The irony would be delicious if free-market nationalists told a globalistic union to ‘go home’ – come to think of it, it would sound slightly Tea Party-ish. And somehow it would probably force anyone still on the fence to get off it.

    Comment by DeepRed — January 22, 2012 @ 12:25 am

  11. The ITF are obviously taking the PoA issue very very seriously in fact so seriously they are keeping it secret.

    From the news section of the ITF website ( ) the 2012 entries are:

    20 January 2012
    Poverty pay unveiled on flag of convenience vessels in south-east Asia

    18 January 2012
    ITF support for families of fishers missing in Irish waters

    13 January 2012
    Grounded Rena splits apart off New Zealand

    13 January 2012
    Pirates free Olib G

    13 January 2012
    Stranded Ukrainian crew to return home

    6 January 2012
    Union aids crew stranded in Kazakhstan

    6 January 2012
    Pirates hijack tanker

    6 January 2012
    Stranded Arena hit by cyclone

    5 January 2012
    Union campaign blocks Russian law

    Comment by will — January 22, 2012 @ 7:24 am

  12. Maybe they are too limited in their ability to create and carry a message?

    Comment by NeilJamesMiller — January 22, 2012 @ 8:25 am

  13. “I’m sure he’s a smart guy and he will no doubt make an excellent deputy prime minister in a coalition with the Greens”. I think someone has taken too many hits of the peace pipe at Green Party national conferences

    Comment by Brad Gibbons — January 22, 2012 @ 9:57 am

  14. It is all well and good to be cautious. But I suppose the question Danyl is posing is does Shearer have the bottle to attack when he sees the opportunity? This question we don’t yet know the answer to. We don’t know a lot about the man. He has largely been leader over the holiday season. Personally, I have been astonished at the amount of completely fruitless and pointless speculation that has gone on. Give the guy six months in the house. Then we might know something.

    Comment by Sanctuary — January 22, 2012 @ 10:02 am

  15. I agree that it should take months at least to find out how Shearer is going to shape up, but I’m more interested in what he does outside the house than in.

    But don’t expect the media and most of the mob to give him that sort of time to prove himself, remember that we live in the age of armchair antipoliticians demanding instant action/fixes (but doing nothing about anything themselves).

    Comment by Pete George — January 22, 2012 @ 10:18 am

  16. Structural biases in NZ mean that we hear an awful lot from the business community, but precious little from the rest of us. Simon Oosterman does what the NZ media are incapable of; presenting the view of the wharfies in colour and with richness:

    Comment by George D — January 22, 2012 @ 1:20 pm

  17. @will #1: Doesn’t look so secret to me…

    Comment by DeepRed — January 22, 2012 @ 1:43 pm

  18. “Simon Oosterman does what the NZ media are incapable of; presenting the view of the wharfies in colour and with richness:”

    On investigation, this appears to be a clear case of false advertising.

    Comment by Tinakori — January 22, 2012 @ 3:55 pm

  19. peterlepaysan .. right on.

    in this blog ‘labour is crap etc etc etc. Unfortunately the govt has no plan and they want to sell state assets as their default behaviour, and more shit to come this term that we already know about.. That is news. But not here .

    But looks like Danyl is continuing in his goff/pagani (who?) obsession. fucking boring.

    looks like I’m out of this the only blog I bother to follow any more.
    Thank christ there’s still Gordon Campbell for relevant criticism.


    Comment by Alistair — January 22, 2012 @ 11:53 pm

  20. Phil who?

    Comment by merv — January 23, 2012 @ 9:14 am

  21. I heard Shearer on NatRad this morning. he sounded conversational but clear. Not a lot of detail but then I wouldn’t expect that at this point. Broadening Labour’s interest to include provincial voters and not just urban liberals is a sensible move. I stil don’t think the “holiday highway” attitude to provincial infrastructure development won them many votes.

    Comment by NeilM — January 23, 2012 @ 12:07 pm

  22. Absent from the Pagani analysis is the stupidly obvious fact that getting back in power after only 3 years is very unlikely, and 3 years of data drawn from the performance of Goff is no way to make strategic decisions. If you really want to look at what National did right, you have to look at their entire wilderness years, during which they consolidated their monetarist and racist base, and only under Key, AFTER demonstrating what they were all about really (so that people could feel safe with them without them actually needing to SAY what their agenda is), did they start being centrist and populist. Brash started the groundswell but was not ever going to cut it as the actual leader. This is a pattern repeated by many parties around the world.

    To put away the idea that Labour should work out what the fuck it is about and keep on message with that, because everything they say is unpopular, is stupid, irresponsible and it will fail. It reinforces to everyone that they really are about nothing but power. I will never vote for that kind of party under a proportional system that gives me other choices. If they can’t sell a left wing agenda then they should stop pretending to be a left wing party.

    Also, I have stopped giving a shit about Labour, since they stage managed their leadership change, like it was actually an important thing to select which old swinging dick is going to run their dying brand. That they did it entirely with their usual backstabbing internal wrangling, and then selected someone who is just awful during interviews, only made it look worse. It rankles especially with me because I actually voted for Shearer to represent me in my electorate (but not their party), but that’s no longer his priority, so I lost my representative, which only shows what a farce the electorate system and it’s supposedly deep connection to communities really is. Not once in the 8 years I have lived here has a single person from Labour ever showed up to discuss what their party is all about to me. The odd phone call about politics usually chops off after they work out we’re left wing – as if what we actually think about politics is thus in the bag and doesn’t need to be consulted.

    I don’t actually much like voting Green. There’s something altogether too fucking puritanically Christian about them, but they do at least actually have policies that represent some of my beliefs, which don’t change from one poll to the next. I’m pretty sure that any power they get will really be used to emphasize the least attractive parts of their agenda, the finger waggling shit, and an obsession with conservation over the actual struggles of the poorer people in *this* species, but there’s an outside chance that a party that isn’t a bunch of jaded old monetarists might do something useful.

    If Mana could even vaguely present as not being personality cultists who *always* turn out to be authoritarian arseholes when they get power, then they’d get serious consideration.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — January 23, 2012 @ 12:16 pm

  23. Labour will probably always be Labour and National will probably always be National. First thing National always does is provide tax cuts for the rich, followed swiftly by social welfare reform. Labour have always had their head in the sand during most of the time while National are in power, then they bring in policies in the social area and throw too much money at health, education, and welfare.

    Comment by Daniel Lang — January 23, 2012 @ 10:52 pm

  24. Yeah cos if there’s three things this Country doesn’t need it’s improved healthcare, education and welfare outcomes.

    Disclaimer: I don’t vote Labour

    Comment by Rob — January 24, 2012 @ 7:45 am

  25. “more money” is not equal to “better outcomes”

    Comment by Phil — January 24, 2012 @ 12:43 pm

  26. Yes, but “less money” does not equal “better outcomes” either.

    Comment by Richard — January 24, 2012 @ 1:18 pm

  27. Oh pshaw, Richard.

    It does if “better outcomes” = entrenching reduced social mobility.

    Comment by Gregor W — January 24, 2012 @ 1:27 pm

  28. Shearer’s logbook:
    – gave nod to Len Brown to evict Occupy Auckland protesters
    – AWOL on PoA dispute; make no appearance to support wharfy picket line
    – turn up at Ratana to try grub a few more Maori voters, despite offering Maori nothing (hopefully they blame Helen for the F&S Act)

    Yep, Labour-ing under the illusion that it’s all business as usual…

    @ Sanctuary (comment 14) – events, dear boy! Events rarely give a new leader 6 months to gently ease oneself into the swing of things. Shearer had 2 months to sort himself – it doesn’t take that long to sort out the backroom stuff and start responding firmly but carefully to events, to show NZ you are different to what they just rejected. Shearer is rapidly running out of time.

    Comment by bob — January 24, 2012 @ 1:49 pm

  29. Labour looks dustier and deader as time goes on. Shearer has some nasty rumours floating around in the background, too…..waiting to jump out and cause much embarrassment if they are true.

    As time goes on a Green vote looks more and more like a sane and sensible vote for NZ’s future.

    Comment by Steve (@nza1) — January 24, 2012 @ 4:13 pm

  30. Ben Wilson: I agree wholeheartedly on local electorate MPs. Get rid of them. In 40 years of voting I’ve only once ever had a local MP I voted for…and he quit his party and founded a new one. Local MPs are a fraud. List MPs have been much more honest and genuine representatives of their real communities of interest….people everywhere who vote for what they stand for.

    Comment by Steve (@nza1) — January 24, 2012 @ 4:19 pm

  31. >Labour looks dustier and deader as time goes on.

    To be fair, so does National. They’re just different undead. Vampires instead of zombies. Contrary to popular culture, zombie outbreaks are easily contained by braining the bastards. Vampires are far harder to control – the only limit to their numbers is self-imposed – they need humans to feed on.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — January 24, 2012 @ 4:55 pm

  32. @Steve Local MPs are a fraud.

    Which ones Steve? Some cruise, some use it as a party convenience, but quite a few work hard for their electorates, and quite a few constituents still like the proximity of local representation. It’s something with plenty of scope for improvement, but far from past it’s use-by date.

    List MPs have been much more honest and genuine representatives of their real communities of interest….

    Some have, some haven’t, especially those whose prime community of interest is their party rather than the wider community.

    There’s far more and far stronger grizzles about list MPs than electorate MPs, and there’s a lot of room for imrpovement.

    I’m sure if your favourite party won an electorate or two your attitude would change somewhat.

    Comment by Pete George — January 24, 2012 @ 7:00 pm

  33. zombie outbreaks are easily contained by braining the bastards. Vampires are far harder to control

    Depends if the objective is containment or eradication. Vampires have an incentive not to expand their numbers — that just increases the competition for resources. But they’re hard to wipe out because it’s hard to find all of them. Zombies, on the other hand, are hardly elusive. But you have to wipe them out quickly, else they reach critical mass and control is no longer possible; you have to find another island to live on.

    I tried to work out a way to tie this back to the political metaphor but failed.

    Comment by bradluen — January 24, 2012 @ 7:01 pm

  34. considering the hyperbolic scorn you directed against shearer’s detractors during his selection, this must really come as a surprise to you danyl

    Comment by the sprout — January 24, 2012 @ 10:05 pm

  35. Pete George: I had more than one local MP look me in the face and tell me he didn’t care what I thought because he knew I didn’t vote for him. I have never had that from a list MP for a party I voted for. This is why I say the average voter is MUCH better off talking to a list MP from a party they support than a local MP from a party that does not share their values….and that would cover most of them for most voters as very few local MPs get more than 50% of the vote.

    Comment by Steve (@nza1) — January 24, 2012 @ 10:34 pm

  36. Healthcare doesn’t need more money, just restructuring. Prime example: a family member of mine recently underwent an operation in Christchurch. The problem with this is that there are apparently only 16 anaesthetists (I’m sure I didn’t spell that correctly but never mind) available and all of them bar one scheduled for other work in the country at the same time. The one available was in England and the Christchurch Hospital spent three weeks communicating with this “specialised” person about coming to Christchurch because they were pretty scared because of the Earthquakes.

    So effectively the Government has to pay to fly in someone from England (which isn’t cheap by my standards) and the patients have to put up with people who are frightened of the Earthquakes. They have a very responsible job but think too highly of themselves to put sick peopke first. It’s like Tony Maryatt all over again: happy to accept a pay increase and to commute to his job from his fancy home, while the city in which he works has seen such horrible destruction that has cost thousands of people their homes.

    I would suggest that the Government look at providing a six month course for Nurses after they have completing their nursing training. Use 3% or 5% of the most intelligent nurses-in-training to go on to a six month course so they can become qualified as anaesthetists. The Government would be breaking even. They wouldn’t have to fly anyone in from England, but they would have to pay some of the costs for the increased education. But the extra cost would be next to nothing. Prime example of how a sector can become a lot more efficient and effective without throwing tons of money at it.

    Comment by Daniel Lang — January 25, 2012 @ 1:02 am

  37. @Steve – your experience doesn’t necessarily equate to the average voter. You might get what you want from your party MPs who happen to be list, others will be different. I’d instead approach any list MP if I thought they were relevant to what I was trying to do.

    I’d rather do what I can to ensure and assist local electorate and list MPs to be attentive and responsive to all local voters, and in my recent experience in Dunedin all four MPs (two electorate, two list) have all publicly expressed a willingness to do this.

    The one MP who has the least time attending to her home electorate is Metiria Turei due to her party leadership role and national commitments.

    The two MPs with the most time to put into their local city are electorate (Labour) MPs due to the fact that they are in opposition so don’t have government responsibilities and commitments.

    The local National list MP has told me he is a virtual electorate MP because he has an office in the city and deals with constituents similar to the electorate MPs.

    Comment by Pete George — January 25, 2012 @ 7:14 am

  38. @ Daniel

    I can only assume your hypothesis is generated from a position of complete ignorance.Where to start.

    Firstly you posit that the health system needs no more money but merely structural change, then close with the solution of giving a subset of nurses more training. Where does that training come from? How might it be funded?

    Some nurses already cross-train as anaesthetic technicians (this is quite common in the UK and Canada) that can assist in surgery but that is as far asyou can go without going through med school.

    It take years to train to be an anaesthetic specialist, not months; 6-7 of study, assisted praxis and medical practise to be qualified as a registrar, and at least 10 years for a consultant.

    I’m not sure where you got the number of 16 anaesthetic specialists from but I believe there are about 12 available to CCDHB in Wellington alone at various levels of expertise, so I’m calling bullshit.

    Comment by Gregor W — January 25, 2012 @ 9:00 am

  39. I’m calling for more training and less plane flying.

    6 – 7 years? In addition to standard study? No, something’s wrong there. Bureaucracy at its finest.

    I got the number 16 from my family member who was told by the Christchurch Hospital. Details were not specific. Perhaps Christchurch Hospital have 16 of their own, which would probably be the case. But there is room for more.

    I think a six month or a one year course on top of current study would be sufficient, perhaps two years. The point is that there is room for restructuring which reduces the cost over all. The cost of health on the Government may rise but it will decrease in relation to the fact that there will be more efficiency due to more anaesthetists being available, on call, available to skip their lunch break if they areurgently needed. This will mean that operations will not be delayed by three weeks, then told it’s going to be delayed for another two months, then told two days before the operation that, hey, it’s not two months but two days away now because the specialist has been able to calm his or her nerves about coming to Christchurch.

    And how can you compare Canada and the UK to New Zealand and the UK? That’s complete ignorance. Please, consult your geography books (or you can borrow one of mine).

    Comment by Daniel Lang — January 25, 2012 @ 8:00 pm

  40. Good to know you’re such an expert on the skills required for an aesthetic medicine.
    Feel free to advise the medical council and college of anaesthetists what your peer reviewed recommendation would be. I’m sure they’ll give it due consideration.

    You do realise that these guys hold your life in their hands, right? Six month course? Be my guest to be the first volunteer on that trial.

    I should have been clearer; 6-7 years inclusive of study for a junior registrar.

    Also, I can compare NZ to the UK or Canada because they have essentially the same clinical standards for medical training and practice (nurses and surgeon/specialists alike). But you’d know that being an expert in clinical practice and all.

    As before, with the non specific details and the ‘someone said’ example, I’m calling bullshit. Mostly because in-patients don’t get told that kind of stuff. They are just told ‘surgery delayed’. No one in the profession is going to bad mouth a consultant to a punter.

    Comment by Gregor W — January 25, 2012 @ 11:17 pm

  41. No I’m not an expert on medicine but I do feel that it is an area which the Government can say “Okay, let’s give kiwi jobs to kiwis” and provide the necessary training to kiwis to improve our employment statistics over the long term. I also feel that it is best to have our trained professionals work in an area that is close to them. For example, South Island trained anaesthetists to work in the South Island as long as they live in the South Island. This requires more anaesthetists and more training. The reason is because people find it easier to work in the area in which they live, be it because they are used to the people and weather in that area and therefore there is more likely the chance that they will get the job done more effectively because they are not commuting to an area which they know very little of.

    Um, well, actually my family member was told that the surgery would be delayed, the reason given was as stated. I don’t appreciate my family member, a recent patient, being referred to as a “punter” and I don’t appreciate that you are calling me a liar when I am not. This is a close family member too, not a distant half-cousin or a step parents half-brother’s wife.

    The professionals in question must have felt that my family member deserved to know the reason, which is more care and consideration than would be given, it seems, had it been left up to you.

    Comment by Daniel Lang — January 26, 2012 @ 1:23 pm

  42. @ Daniel

    So let me get this straight.

    The premise is now about jobs for Kiwis not mismanagement of funding? It’s funny; I hadn’t heard the dole queues are chock full of specialist medical professionals.
    So by this logic, this same concern for local employment would apply to lawyers, accountants, plumbers, taxi drivers and tree-surgeons?

    More to the point, where does this hypothetical supply of people desiring to be anaesthetists operating in Canterbury come from?
    And where does the ‘more anaesthetists’ requirement come from? Your single example?
    Furthermore, are you suggesting to meet your hypothetical shortage, you suggest restrict qualified Cantabrians labour mobility by compelling them to work in Christchurch merely because they were born there?

    You’ve conveniently ignored the facts that I have attempted to present; work in the anaesthetics is extremely specialised; as specialised as any other surgical field.
    It’s not plumbing, which (I think) takes about 4 years to be qualified in (not 6 months).
    No disrespect to plumbers but they don’t , as a general rule, do anything as dangerous as putting another human being under controlled sedation for hours at a time.

    For the record, I’m not calling you or anyone in your family a liar.
    I suspect what has happened is that, in the face of a query from a patient about delays, someone (probably non clinical admin staff) has made something up on the spot to deflect or defuse a situation.
    They may have said there was a delay in getting an anaesthetist for surgical list work – which could happen for any number of reasons – but in no world would any medical professional say “Dr X is afraid of earthquakes . It’s his/her fault you case has been bumped”.

    It is, frankly, inconceivable.

    Comment by Gregor W — January 26, 2012 @ 2:42 pm

  43. No it’s not inconceivable. It happened. Just like a GP told me that I couldn’t have a scan for my drastically enlarged cysts, and couldn’t have them cut out, because of “budget cuts”, which happened during National’s first term in power, so this would have been 2009 that I was told this.

    The system isn’t fallable. But we need to have measures in place, such as more training and more specialists, to make it less of a failure, especially given predictions that there will be a lot more of natural disasters through the globe in coming years.

    I fully acknowledge the length of time training takes and had my original posts been more factual than sentimental, obviously our debate would not have been so contorted. I’m glad I’ve encountered debate though, because usually people shy away from it and you haven’t which makes me glad as I now know your views and where you are coming from.

    Unfortunately the dole queues are not full of professionals because we have a younger generation that does not have access to cheap tertiary education or proper pay incentives for wroking hard and for getting fully qualified within an area.

    Comment by Daniel Lang — January 30, 2012 @ 11:55 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: