simon wilson writes...

 Simon Wilson writes. This is excellent. There is so much to comment on.

I’ll just focus on two. The first is the degradation of our social infrastructure. It’s the neoliberal austerity bollocks which assumed the Lord Market will come along and fill all the gaps (and if not, obviously there’s no need). Historically and philosophically deeply ignorant.

It’s this phenomenon writ large - of short-termism and an insane economic mythology undermining the whole system. Think only in dollars today. All public spending is a drain on the private sector (Disintegrated, non-systems, non-entangled bullshit non-thinking). This story is an analogy …. An old neighbour was a city water engineer. He railed against the previous mayor who ‘kept rates low’ (zero rate rise!!) and got all the votes for three terms by not funding depreciation or needed expansion of infrastructure.

Result - after he left, the bill is huge. Social & physical infrastructure decayed. A stitch in time saves nine is a maxim because it’s true. And we’ve done that since 1984. Undermined to the point of collapse. Made fragile by fools.

And that’s particularly obvious when a few shocks come - building, groceries, petrol, greedy rent ripoffs (but it’s the *market*!) - and the marginal fall below the subsistence line. We made this fragility through neoliberal practices. The least systems thinking economic creed up there with state communism. And I’m not sure which one is worse. I’m still thinking about it. Would you rather have the neoliberal-corporate crazies, or Lenin?

The second point I’d discuss is the loss of capacity in the public sector. Particularly the loss of creativity and alternative thinking. We saw this happening from the 80s - first destroying a public service culture of open thinking types (so many public servants were authors etc who didn’t want a bar of either academic or narrow corporate life). The neoliberal framing was all. If you questioned its utter bollocks assumptions, or logical framing, or empirical evidence that contradicted its crap, or trued to include power, or the functions of the public service - like long-term strategy and incredible training that flowed through the the private sector - who *didn’t* train to any degree - they just sucked off the tit of society as they always try to do. Argue different lines - a strategy other than commodity (John Falloon at least engaged with the few of us arguing that line), the multifunctional nature of reality, questioning culture:nature dualisms, trying to bring the challenge of indigenous ontologies into the mechanical money frame …. so many - then you weren’t valued for your perspective. You were a ‘problem.’

We left in droves.

On top of that, the corporate managerialism. Job descriptions with siloed walls, the cutting of dialogue between silos, separation of the knowledge *system* that is the research-policy-operation nexus, complexity reduced to measured tasks which were treated as immutable through the year, though the issues *were* mutable, as should have been the tasks. I saw box-tickers get ahead. The least cooperative. The narrowest. The smarmiest. Demonstrate obedience and a focus on output, not wider goals. Basically favour the least ethically concerned for the big picture; the most Machiavellian and scheming for their own ends.

If you’re conceptual, some of the dullest minds who can only think in either-or categories (unable to hold two thoughts in their heads at the same time) decided that, because I was critiquing neoliberal, that meant I had to be a state communist!! Commons yes. Communalism yes. Local ownership yes. Local enterprise yes. But a pox on all centralised Industrialism.

The non-conceptual rise, and when I later dipped my career into local governments, the non-conceptual dominated the execs, and …. being unable to think in concepts and having had a career focus as contrasted with better outcome to all focus …. they saw any dialogue/concept at odds with their banal Eichmanesque train scheduling as being a threat. They saw you as ‘after their job’, because Machiavellian power-seeking was so very common as a career focus.

I now think corporate hierarchical instruct-obey linear managerialism is as empty a philosophy as neoliberalism. And they’re related.

That was the end game of the neoliberal destruction of the public *service* by transactional non-thinkers thinking everything is a trade to some selfish end. So they created that Borg Collective - and we lost the capacities we desperately need.

Until we come to where we are today - a social infrastructure bled white.

And the idiot Nats want to keep doing it of course. Because they are so very conceptually dull and selfish in their motivations.

Anyway. Simon Wilson hits nail after nail.

————————

Simon Wilson: 7 big things I'd like to see inGrant Robertson's Budget

“Forgive me, but I'm angry. And frightened, because of what we've learned about our country these last two years. I don't mean the rise of destructive American-style extremism in our politics, although that is also frightening. I mean what we now know about the effect of 30 years of underspending on core services and infrastructure.

The deep damage to health services, transport, housing, education, water, crime – and they're just the things that hog the headlines – has been laid bare. Wherever you look, the economy, our social services and their administration need structural reform, a refreshed understanding of the goals and so much more investment. And yet the task seems almost impossible. One reason for that: it's urgent.

The "best" solutions for most problems are generational, but we don't have the luxury of time. Whether it's the waiting list for social housing, educational underachievement or our still-rising carbon emissions, big fixes are needed now. But we're really bad at now, or even soon. Where are the promised new homes on the Unitec site? Why can't even the budgeted allocations for everything from mental health to victim support to cycleways get spent?

Another reason: there isn't enough money to do what needs to be done. That means we need a serious commitment to low-cost options and a ruthless focus on priorities.

Third, we have a public service that is far too often incapable of even thinking like this, let alone planning and acting accordingly. I know many talented officials, in central and local government. But their organisations and far too many of their senior staff are beset by inertia. They favour gold-plated solutions because they lack the courage to take risks. They don't think creatively and are dismissive of emerging technologies. They rely on sector interest groups for "expert" guidance, despite the obvious conflicts of interest. And the politicians are beholden to these officials. Why has no one stepped up and allowed health workers with expiring visas to stay? And there's a fourth factor: the neverending clamour from people opposed to new ideas and change. Politicians find it all too easy to confuse that with deeper public opinion.

Want an emblematic example of these problems? Look no further than the light-rail line proposed to run between downtown Auckland and Māngere. To be clear, that line would not be a bad thing to have. In fact, it would be great if we had it. But that doesn't mean we should spend at least 10 years building an 11km-long tunnel for it. And whether it costs the $15 billion announced by the Government or the $29 billion suggested by Treasury, it's far too much. Rather than treating congestion and carbon emissions as urgent problems, that project will delay our response to them. Especially as it will suck funds away from other options that could have quicker and larger impacts. Tunnelled light rail is old technology, even if it's driverless. But it's favoured because it's a really big construction project, proposed by agencies that have the ear of the transport construction sector. It won't disrupt Dominion Rd shopping, even though there are cheaper and better ways to avoid that harm. And many people still call it "a tram to the airport", thus disparaging not just this project but the whole value of better mass transit. And all of these things mean it's unlikely to happen anyway. We're wasting time and the Government is squandering public support.

This is exactly how not to progress. Right now, Finance Minister Grant Robertson is writing his 2022 Budget. It's a big one: the budget in which he defines how we emerge from this pandemic into a world of inflation, fast-growing inequity, climate change and war in Europe. Here are seven things he could include.

1. Take the GST off vegetables and fruit It's not hard, with barcode technology. It's not radical, with Australia and other countries already doing it. There are complications around the edges, but so what? That's a minor problem compared with the advantages.

2. Supersize the prefab housing sector The new Enabling Housing Supply law will lead to more houses being built. But there are still unnecessary blockages to consenting and changing land use. Kainga Ora and community housing providers require more funding to build more homes. Most of all, new technologies need to be fast-tracked and supersized. That includes prefab housing and the use of new materials in insulation and other parts of construction. The goal is cheap, fast and good. It's a lazy myth that we can't have all three.

3. Health system reform This one is already happening! Is there anyone, apart from Shane Reti, who still denies health structures are in urgent need of an overhaul?

4. Pour money into poor schools We know that two years of Covid have profoundly disrupted children's educational and social development. And we've had more news this week that literacy levels are falling. These things affect all schools but especially those serving the poor parts of town. It's time to stop pretending that the kids are okay and step-change the way these schools are funded and resourced.

5. Vastly extend the public transport subsidy It's great that fares have been cut in half for three months. But it should be made permanent (or possibly free and permanent) and backed by funding for more bus routes, more frequency and other measures. Instead of having as few large diesel buses as "necessary", why not have lots more minibuses on all the suburban and feeder routes? For public transport to work well, it also needs non-budget measures like priority bus lanes on all arterial routes and other limits on where cars can go.

6. Free e-bikes Compared to digging multi-billion dollar tunnels and buying electric buses at $650,000 a pop (yes, true), e-bikes are really cheap. They're not for everyone, but what would happen if e-bikes were free or heavily subsidised for all who want them? Stop all other spending on new urban transport infrastructure. Convert road space cheaply, with sticks and concrete dividers, to provide more bike lanes. Subsidise local manufacturing to meet demand. Include cargo e-bikes, and not just for commercial use: kids ride in them very well too. See what happens. It might be astonishing what super-expensive new things we suddenly don't need to build. Remember that people who still want or need to drive will be among the beneficiaries.

7. Tax relief where it's needed National Party leader Christopher Luxon has proposed adjusting the tax regime to counter "bracket creep".

That's fine, although not if it's done the way he suggests. He also proposes a roll-back of the tax restraints on property speculators. The net effect of Luxon's plan is to give a larger tax break (about $2 billion) to the topearning three per cent than to the bottom-earning 66 per cent. He even had the nerve to say his plan would help the "average Kiwi family": if you're earning, say, $55,000, he wants to give you a whole $800 extra. Per year.

Luxon also maintains debt is out of control and he wants a return to offshore drilling. This is laughable. National has a popular new leader and his response to the crisis we're in right now is to advocate more of the very same policies that caused it. It's like he's pretending the last 30 years didn't happen.

Like he's never even heard of public-health emergencies, or poverty, or climate change.

Here's a better plan: make the first $15,000 or $20,000 of everyone's income tax-free. Everyone benefits, especially those who need it most. What about it, Grant?”j