Maori culture: Alive and well in New Zealand

"When one chief disappears, another is ready to appear."

This Maori proverb perfectly sums up the handover of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to her successor. It was smooth enough not to warrant any newsworthy comment of note outside of Australasia. Perhaps that's fitting for a woman who closely mirrors the New Zealand stereotype. 

Her last speech in parliament - click on the image to hear it on the BBC News website - was also an example of how to bow out with grace. Not only was it honest and emotional, but it was also self-deprecating. How often do you hear that about someone in politics these days?

What struck me more than anything else was the nod to the Maori people and culture. Not only did Jacinda wear the traditional cloak, but she also finished her speech in the Maori dialect. That in itself isn't too surprising as children are taught it at school, but still. Then there was dancing in the chamber. Such a nod to the Maori culture demonstrated that whilst not everything is perfect in New Zealand, they acknowledge the original inhabitants of the islands they inhabit.

Their neighbours in Australia could do well to learn and learn from their near neighbour if it is to address the issues of Aboriginal rights.

The 2023 Spring budget: what will it offer prospective retirees?

Remember when a Chancellor's budget was full of surprises? The anticipation of just how much the income tax threshold would rise or fall was palpable. No one outside of a select group of senior cabinet ministers had even an inkling of what the Chancellor was going to say when they stood up in the House of Commons.

That has all changed. These days we pretty much know the headlines days beforehand. Despite reminders from the Speaker of the House that leaking details of the budget is not allowed, it is now standard practice. Of course, it doesn't officially happen. If you ask the Prime Minister or Chancellor how on earth it could happen, you'll get no answer.

The absence of any real surprises in the budget is a bit of a letdown. If we know what the Chancellor is going to say, what is the point in him saying it. It just adds some political theatre. Admittedly they may have one or two cards up their sleeve, and they may add some colour to the overall picture.

As a prospective retiree, I'm interested in what the Chancellor is doing for folk like me. Yes just like everyone else, I'm just interested in pounds, shillings, and pence. He seems to be trying to encourage folk like me to delay retirement. Will his strategy work?

Increases to the pension contribution thresholds are helpful to those able to contribute more to their pension funds, but that won't be many. Even the current £40k annual limit is beyond most of us, so raising it to a reported £60k will only help high earners with lots of disposable income. Out of the few who have at least £40k a year spare, how many would consider a £20k increase enough of an incentive to keep their nose to the grindstone?

After 40+ years of service, I won't be tempted to continue working. As soon as I feel the time is right, I'll hang up my name badge for good and disappear into the sunset with an enormous grin on my face. I'm not alone. Why would anyone in my position want to carry on working?

The whole point of a pension is to build up a pot big enough to provide what you need later in life. Once you've achieved that objective, most would call it a day. Having additional cash to spend may be OK for some, but if you've done your calculations correctly why would you need it?

Gary Lineker: mixing sport with politics

The Government’s spat with Gary Lineker has the BBC playing piggy in the middle. Who’s side should they take? The one that bankrolls their very existence and who has people in high places with the ear of the boss, or their highly paid and high profile star who is inclined to make off-piste comments? It’s the classic battle of power and influence, but who has the most?

What we tend to forget with the plethora of media coverage is why this spat started in the first place; the government’s strategy to deal with migrants coming to the U.K. Gary Lineker’s strong response made a valid point using language that was bound to upset some. The fact that it allowed the government to hit back and attempt to take the moral high ground meant the discussion was on the right or wrongs of voicing an opinion but not on the government’s strategy itself.

Was it the government’s strategy to whip up a storm? Probably not, but Gary’s intervention gave them the opportunity to do so. They found themselves in the glorious position of being able to get on the front foot after announcing a policy they knew would be unpopular. It’s called the dark art of public relations.

At the heart of this tussle is an organisation that in the past has been shown to take action against its employees after high level interventions from the government. Such influence is something that exists in every organisation. The difference is that the BBC is a highly respected media outlet that tries hard to be impartial.

So what does impartial mean? It should mean not taking sides and being able to ask difficult questions no matter who they’re directed to. A classic example is the BBC’s Russia correspondent Steve Rosenberg. He regularly asks President Putin questions that ordinary Russians would be arrested for asking. Gary’s case is complicated by him being a contractor rather than an employee. Should that matter?

If Hew Edwards or Fiona Bruce had made the comments, would we feel the same way? I’m not sure we would, as it would make it more difficult for them to interview government officials in future. So is it OK for a sports presenter to criticise the government? Well yes, I think it is, which is why I find the manoeuvring by the government so troublesome.

What is clear is that the BBC’s decision to suspend Gary has been a PR disaster, and the government must be loving it. So far there is no solution to the issue with both sides digging in on principle. It is clear from those that follow Gary Lineker online that he has strong backing. The solidarity of fellow pundits also demonstrates just what they think.

Where will this all end? No one person is bigger than the organisation that employs them. If no one backs down, it is likely that Gary Lineker will be sacked. Will he care? Probably not. His contract is small beer compared with his other business interests, but if others jump on his bandwagon what then?

Presenting Match of the Day this weekend is a poisoned chalice. The BBC announced that tomorrow’s show won’t feature any presenter or pundit. They had little choice after nearly all of them stood in solidarity with Lineker. If they continue this approach the programme may just survive, but how does this all sit with an organisation seen by millennials as out of touch? What’s more, will it alienate their core audience? Time will tell, but the omens aren’t good.