Friday, June 1, 2012

Trotter on Aged Care

The vexed subject of Aged Care has been in the news in the last week. Dr Judy McGregor from the Human Rights Commission wrote a damning report on the Aged Care sector, which the government has agreed to consider.

Chris Trotter has commented on the Aged Care sector this morning as well. Over at Bowalley Road, and in his syndicated newspaper column, he reminisces:

FOR A FEW WEEKS, towards the end of 1973, aged just seventeen, I worked as an orderly at Siverstream Hospital. Speaking frankly, a few weeks was all I could stand. Officially, this public hospital catered for “long-term care” patients. Unofficially, it was an old people’s home.
Many of Silverstream’s residents suffered from dementia. Some were violent, while others drifted in and out of reality in the most disconcerting fashion. The most difficult to deal with, however, were those who remembered enough to know that they didn’t want to be there. Recalling how we would apprehend these brave old souls as they tried to “escape” still gives me pangs of guilt. The bathing, the feeding, the replacing of colostomy bags: it was all hard and emotionally draining work; but the sight of those tears, falling silently from eyes that saw a world their aged owners could never re-join; that was heart-breaking.
There was, however, nothing heart-breaking about the pay. Anyone working through Christmas could earn a week’s wages in less than 72 hours. Overtime, double-time, triple-time: back then the workman and workwoman were worthy of their hire. Mind you, back then union membership was compulsory. Back then we had a Labour Government worthy of the name. Back then, the prediction that my job would one day be described as “modern day slavery” would not have been believed.
Two years later, not so very far from Silverstream Hospital, just a couple of miles up the Hutt Valley at Brentwood School, I cast my first vote. I still remember how my hand hovered above the name of the Values candidate. I had read the party’s splendid manifesto, Beyond Tomorrow, and my head told me that the policies enunciated by Values were the only policies to take the future seriously. My heart, however, recalled “Big Norm”, and I voted Labour.

Silverstream Hospital, built by the New Zealand government for the repair and recuperation of American sailors during World War II (and visited in 1943 by no less a personage that Eleanor Roosevelt) has long since been decommissioned. In its place stands the very handsome Silverstream Retreat – venue for the 2012 AGM of the Green Party.

Trotter then devotes a couple of paragraphs to lauding the Green Party, and rightly so; the Greens are doing a very good job of cannibalsing the Labour vote. They certainly stole a chink of Labour support at the 2011 General Election, and their performance in the House has been by-and-large, superior to Labour's, with a few exceptions.

But Trotter is a former Labour man, of similar vintage to ourselves. It must have been the 1975 General Election when he cast his first vote, as did we. Big Norm of course has passed away by then; succeeded by Wallace "Bill" Rowling who was swept away by a Muldoon tidal wave.

Digressing slightly, we actually saw Norman Kirk speak in 1972, at Labour's campaign opening at the long-demolished Palmerston North Opera House. Labour, thundered Big Norm, would "knock inflation for six" (allowing Muldoon to quip in 1975 that they'd actually knocked it for 12!), would stamp out the bikie gangs, and would not let politics interfere with sport. On assuming office, Kirk promptly cancelled the proposed 1973 Springbok tour of New Zealand, proving that that porkies and broken promises are by no means a new political phenomenon.

Back to Chris Trotter; as he winds up to his close, he unleashes an extraordinary blast against the 2012 version of the Labour Party in an Aged Care analogy; read on:

When Labour’s legacy was still potent enough to win hearts and minds, Mr James’ analysis may have been correct. In 2012, however, I’m not so sure. When the 150,000 mostly female, mostly professional, voters that National wooed away from Labour in 2008 and 2011, and whom they now seem so determined to drive away, decide to go in search of an alternative, are they really going to choose Labour? Does David Shearer really have the emotional heft of a Norman Kirk? I don’t think so.
More and more Labour is beginning to resemble those dementia patients at Silverstream Hospital. Some of Labour’s caucus, like Trevor Mallard, are prone to violent episodes; others, like Shane Jones, test the boundaries of political probity in the most disconcerting fashion. The most pitiful to contemplate, however, are the likes of David Cunliffe and Grant Robertson. They know there are alternatives out there, they can see them, but their colleagues will insist on hauling them back to their beds.
How sad it will be if New Zealand’s oldest political party is forced to end its days looking out at a world it is no longer able to change; weeping tears of silent rage as younger politicians, with the courage to look beyond tomorrow, get ready to inherit today.
This is vintage Chris Trotter; acid-tongued, acerbic, and getting right to the heart of the issue. Trevor Mallard has indeed become Labour's senior citizen; second only to Phil Goff in terms of service, and tainted by far too much baggage. Phil Goff is the last of the Class of 1981, and Annette King is rumoured to be looking at greener pastures.

If David Shearer is to lead Labour into a new era, he needs to get the pruning shears out. It is something of an indictment that if Shane Jones quits (as is strongly rumoured by bloggers as diverse as David Farrar and Robert Winter) he will be replaced by the union-aligned Carol Beaumont, whilst two of Labour's most impressive from the 2008 intake, Kelvin Davis and Stuart Nash languish outside Parliament.

We doubt that Labour will ever get back to being the party that Chris Trotter remembers. But in a week where Aged Care has been a talking point, Trotter has provided excellent and thought-provoking copy.

26 comments:

Judge Holden said...

Trotter went mad some time ago. That's why you quote him so much.

Keeping Stock said...

That's right Judge; shoot the messenger. Is it any wonder that your beloved Labour Party is such a dysfunctional family? Denial seems toi be the instant reaction to everything.

Judge Holden said...

But he doesn't actually present any evidence or proffer an argument to support his conclusion. He just hurls some insults about, mixed in with some hokey nonsense about how great things were in his day.

You like it because you're a hack and he's attacking the side you don't like, but insightful analysis it ain't.

And talking of denial, you've never acknowledged that Banks is a liar. He's a liar right?

Keeping Stock said...

Yep; Banks told fibs; just like Kirk, Muldoon, Lange, Bolger, Clark and just about every other politician in between. It's in their DNA unfortunately.

Judge Holden said...

He's a liar, but he's fit to be in Key's government. High standards you guys have. Thanks.

Keeping Stock said...

Clark lied for nine years; ditto for Mallard, ditto for everyone else in that Cabinet and ditto for Peters whilst he was a Minister; where was your faux outrage then Judge

Judge Holden said...

You're so cynical. It's acceptable for a Minister of the Crown to lie to you because in your view everyone does it. Why do tories have such a poor regard for the truth?

Peters should have been sacked over lying about the Glenn donation. No question. You probably said so yourself at the time. What I don't get is why you can't see your double standard, unless it's because you're a hack whose only principle is National good, Labour baaaaaad.

robertguyton said...

KS - you say John Banks is a liar, yet you don't clamour for his removal from Government?
How odd.
Others have lied, it's true, but this is a 'live' case, that connects directly to John Key and the integrity of the PM and the National Party.
But you seem 'relaxed' and that.
Odder still.

robertguyton said...

"Trotter then devotes a couple of paragraphs to lauding the Green Party, and rightly so; the Greens are doing a very good job of cannibalsing the Labour and National vote.

There, corrected for you, KS.
Don't thank me. It's what I do.

The Gantt Guy said...

Ignoring the trolls for a moment, and getting back to the point of the post:

(1) if compulsory unionism is the answer, someone's asking the wrong question (or asking it half a century too late)
(2) if a high minimum wage makes you wealthy, why not legislate a $100/hour minimum? And if you do that, who would do all the jobs that aren't worth that amount?
(3) if the watermelons ever get their grubby mits on the treasury benches it will spell the death of the New Zealand economy. Bad enough now with the National Socialists led by an ideological invertebrate and an economic illiterate. Imagine if the NZ Communist Party led by an Australian Maoist and a useful idiot stoner ever got a crack at it?

robertguyton said...

"2) if a high minimum wage makes you wealthy, why not legislate a $100/hour minimum? And if you do that, who would do all the jobs that aren't worth that amount?"

One of the stupidest arguments ever offered about anything. That technique of massively exaggerating one detail of an argument to make nonsense of the original, suits you so well, Gnatt.
Bigger classes make no difference to student learning, the Nats say, so a class with 200 students in it, will do just fine, eh, Gnatt!

The Gantt Guy said...

Nope not at all. In fact, the only reason why class size is even a discussion point is because of the effective government monopoly over education driving down standards of both teaching and learning.

The optimum class size for students is whatever the parents and the school decide. Note, the parents and the school. Not the government. Not the bloody teachers' union.

The optimal minimum wage, similarly, is what the employee and employer decide it is. With a starting point of $0 per hour.

It's called private contract and it isn't an area where the government belongs.

robertguyton said...

Ohh! Ohh! I've got a question for you, Gnatt!
The Fencing Act requires farmers to fence their stock off from getting onto the roads.Requires!
Farmers shouldn't have to do that, Gnatt, should they? Surely it's up to the farmer to decide whether to fence or not to fence???
What do you think?

The Gantt Guy said...

What do I think? I think you're a moron and I hope you never, ever stop talking. People start listening to you and the watermelon party vote goes through the floor overnight.

robertguyton said...

I could bring down the greens overnight?!?
Keep me talking then! You could do that by answering my question, Gnatt. Too hard?
Too tricky? Too many big words?

The Gantt Guy said...

Not at all, Robert. I do find it hilarious that in a discussion about school class sizes you bring up farmers and the fencing act. What is it, Robert? Like most of your odious ilk you see children as cattle? Units of economic output produced for the glory of the state?

Keeping Stock said...

Interesting point TGG; I thought the Greens HATED cattle because the poohed and farted so much. But I bet Robert enjoys sitting down to a juicy eye fillet steak, or a steaming casserole or stew in the middle of a southern winter; cattle are fine then!

The Gantt Guy said...

Inv, the environmental movement,from their military wing in groups like the Sea Shepherd, to their propaganda wing in such collectives as Greenpeace and WWF, to the political arm via the watermelon parties, to individuals such as Awful Al Gore, Tim Flannery and Will.I.Am, is peopled from top to bottom, front to back with hypocrites.

That their willing lapdogs in the media still regard them as people of principle says much about the standard of journalism and the types that enter the media professions!

robertguyton said...

Now, boys, you've got yourselves over-stimulated, listening to each other's foolish jabber.
My question, Gnatt, doesn't mention cattle, though both you and Keeping imagined it did. No, it's a question about rules and their imposition. I know that's a favourite topic of your, Gnatt, and hoped you'd have something intelligent to say about that, but it seems I stretched you too far and I'm sorry for that. As for your frothy rejoinder, Keeping, I can only surmise that your obsession with food stems from the diet you are following and that you see t-bone steaks, fried liver and tripe, everywhere you look.
Maybe you could have a go at my 'Fencing Act' question? It's not as scary as you seem to think!

Judge Holden said...

Gantt is a fear-filled nutter who thinks moooslims are taking over the world as part of a communist/environmentalist conspiracy involving some mysterious elite (perhaps the Bilderberg Group or some such). He also things Breivik was on to something and Obama is a Marxist and was born in Kenya, and will somehow cancel the elections if he loses in November. Engaging in rational discussion with such a tool is not possible. He makes fruit-cakes look sane. When this is pointed out he gets a wee bit agro. He needs a job.

Keeping Stock said...

Not at all Robert; it's more the bovine sounds I've been hearing all day whilst my neighbour's cattle graze our paddock. We'll be getting some beef from him shortly, and I'm sure it will be delicious. But you're welcome to the offal; not my cup of tea at all!

Keeping Stock said...

You've been warned about starting flame wars over Brevik Judge. Kindly cease and desist.

robertguyton said...

"moooslims"!
Thank God for your wit, Judge. The place'd be bovinely dull without it.

(Sorry, Inv, you're funny too!)

The Gantt Guy said...

Don't worry, Inv, I won't respond to Sludge's sledges. He's just a semi-literate buffoon who obviously hasn't taken his medication for some months.

robertguyton said...

You are too, Gnatt - " I won't respond..." Priceless!

Sophie Stephens said...

This is the first time I have come across your site. Post info, I’ll be back soon. Thanks Aged Care Accommodation - South East Melbourne