Labour’s Ten Big Ideas

Written By: - Date published: 7:32 am, March 26th, 2016 - 167 comments
Categories: economy, jobs, labour, leadership - Tags: , ,

National’s only idea this term has just been shot down by the public. Meanwhile Labour has been thinking about the future and the issues that confront NZ. Part of this process has been the recently completed Future of Work conference. From this process has emerged Ten Big Ideas (“A snapshot of work to date”) that will “help shape Labour’s policy development”.

A key passage from the introduction to the discussion document reads:

There is no doubt that we are experiencing rapid change and disruption in our working lives as a result of technological change, automation and globalisation. An NZIER report released last year tells us 46% of New Zealand jobs are at risk of automation in the next two decades. Those entering the workforce today are likely to have several different careers and many different jobs. Businesses increasingly need new models of organisation, processes and different skills from their workers in an increasingly globalised environment.

The ideas are:

1. Building digital equality – through ensuring Kiwis can access technology regardless of where they live or how wealthy they are.

2. Accelerating technology in business – through developing new models of capital raising and investing in research and development.

3. Developing Business Clusters – by creating regional partnerships of business, councils, research organisations and iwi to get the best out of local and emerging industries.

4. Building wealth from the ground up – by encouraging new models of business, including entrepreneurship and cooperatives to create a more sustainable economy.

5. Establishing a just transition – through creating a social partnership model and strong and flexible social and re-training programmes.

6. Ensuring greater income security – through investigation of new models of income security for New Zealand, including considering a limited trial of a universal basic income-type system in a town or region.

7. Reforming the transition between education, training and work – through comprehensive reform of career guidance and creating a school leavers’ toolkit to prepare them for the practical requirements of work.

8. Labour’s Working Futures Plan – in which all New Zealanders receive three free years of post-school education, phased in from 2019.

9. Partnering with Maori in a post-Treaty settlement era – through the Government facilitating strategic partnerships between iwi, business, and third parties to develop the Maori economy.

10. Establishing a Pasifika working futures plan – by working with the community to focus on the transition between education and work and identifying and eliminating the barriers to entrepreneurship.

Each of these are more fully fleshed out in the main discussion document (see also the graphical / Tweetable forms here).

Item 6 on the UBI has generated the most discussion by far. Other coverage includes:
Labour not shying away from big ideas
Labour launches ’10 big ideas’ about future of work
Labour propose ‘basic income’
Ex-Clinton minister backs Labour’s basic income for all idea
Labour wants computer coding part of school curriculum.

As Ross Henderson puts it in the first of those pieces:

Labour not shying away from big ideas

…I’m thrilled that Labour isn’t shying away from the bold discussions, the new ideas. Politically, this really is the sort of discussion Labour should be having.

It shows an understanding of the future challenges and that they are making sure we start talking about them before it’s too late. These ideas are all about transformation, economic opportunities, and equality. These are the things that Labour does best.

Not surprising to hear John Key dismiss the idea of even talking about what such an initiative could mean in the long term. Of course he has never had a mature or considered response to any of Labour’s ideas, even the ones that the Clark government implemented that he now relies on to stop the country completely turning to custard. It’s handy to remember that John Key once called Working for Families “communism by stealth.”

Even though the current government won’t take the economic challenges and opportunities of the future seriously, the next Labour-led government will. First they need to get elected, and bold discussions about big ideas is exactly how to do that. A good week for them, and well deserved.

Well said!

167 comments on “Labour’s Ten Big Ideas ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. saveNZ 1
    26 March 2016 at 8:01 am

    Great post and good to see a discussion of ideas for the future from Labour. +100

    • aerobubble 1.1
      26 March 2016 at 5:15 pm

      Gift of the gab, a politician vying for PM needs an ability to engage and provoke, yes even smear a poor cameraman. See how i did that, added innuendo. Its all well and good Labour have ideas, though of course its smacks of avoiding conculsions least they look to unpalatable to sell with any conviction, i.e gst. Labour need a delivery mechanics that people trust, have seen operating, and know. It does not matter how backward Key policies are,how wrong headed, he does have the ability to smear a cameraman so convincingly even Police were running around looking in press rooms for copies of the tape, and nobody in the Press were asking the real security question as to how all those cameras came to be pointed at a small bag that could have been explosives. Someone either knew it was a microphone or was lapse in the security of our PM.

    • mosa 1.2
      27 March 2016 at 2:33 pm

      At least Labour is talking about work in the future not just a BRIGHTER version of it for wealthy people only as in 2008

  2. Paul 2
    26 March 2016 at 8:08 am

    Here’s a big idea for Labour.
    Tell massive transnational corporations and banks to pay their taxes or leave.

  3. NZJester 3
    26 March 2016 at 8:50 am

    So what is Nationals response to this so far.
    From what I have read, while having no ideas of their own to put forward to the public, they have decided to go on the attack and shoot down any ideas under proposal before anyone can properly evaluate them. Nationals FUD spinners will be quickly making up figures off the top of their heads that have no real basis of fact in order to form an opposition to them before any real data can be produced to show what benefits they might have for New Zealand. One of the more radical ideas being looked at by Labour that is not yet actual Labour policy somehow according to them is already Labour policy and is total lunacy with their comments backed up again by some of their made up figures.

    • Gabby 3.1
      26 March 2016 at 10:59 am

      It would be nice just occasionally for actual lies to be pointed out in words of one syllable. Is it possible Labour’s current caucus is just too dull witted and slow of thought to handle this?

      • linda 3.1.1
        27 March 2016 at 8:15 am

        if you want lies look no further than john key these ideas are great but what happens as all of us who read this site suspect english and key are hiding the true state of the books

  4. Keith 4
    26 March 2016 at 8:52 am

    Digital equality is paramount. But that will require Labour to overcome the major obstacle, do something about the lack of Ultra Fast Broadband.

    A full 7 and a half years after National was first elected with one of their major policy platforms being Ultra Fast Broadband, I have yet to see it on a main road less than 8 km from Aucklands CBD. It is quite simply not available. Actually all that is is ADSL, old and ranked a pathetic 42nd in the world for download speed.

    WHY? Was it because Nationals “deal making” could not resist the quid pro quo urge and gave one of their donors the lions share of the roll out contract , none other than the useless Telecom in the guise of “Chorus”, one in the same company who made sure NZ stayed firmly in the “Dial Up” age so they could roger us all with internet charges.
    That National rewarded Telecoms reprehensible behaviour by giving them the contract meant no UFB for most of us was fait accompli.

    And by looking after Telecom/Chorus shareholders by recently upping copper line charges so they are now highly profitable and act as a direct disincentive to UFB uptake and a direct disincentive to Chorus finishing the job they were supposed to do, adds to the growing proof that the National Party are only interested in looking after their wealthy mates.

    I mean how else can you explain the FAILURE that was Nationals major 2008 policy and why in 2016 the Internet remains so far behind the modern world in a NZ.

    • Incognito 4.1
      26 March 2016 at 10:37 am

      Digital access is a minimum requirement; it does not necessarily equate to take-up & use. To have a piece of fibre poking out from a hole in the wall in every dwelling in NZ is a waste of infrastructure unless meaningful steps are undertaken to enable people to actually use it. Even if it is mainly for ‘entertainment equipment’ it will be a huge step forward as this a major component of digital use & ‘consumption’.

      Schools do get access to UFB and are being kitted out with wireless networks and many are now implementing compulsory BYOD schemes. The trick is for all students to have a device that can use and teach them how to use it and what they can do with it – this teaching happens more horizontally than in classical ways of teaching.

      • linda 4.1.1
        27 March 2016 at 8:18 am

        and it is a disaster by time its finished it will be obsolete and to expensive to access

    • Stephen Doyle 4.2
      26 March 2016 at 11:00 am

      Never going to see it in Stillwater.

    • Lanthanide 4.3
      26 March 2016 at 12:00 pm

      The fibre rollout was too late.

      VDSL was already being rolled out and could give speeds of 30-50MBs. There are new forms of DSL being worked on that can give speeds of 100MBs+ on standard copper wires. 4G wireless is now capable of 100 MBs download, and 5G is being mooted at 1GBs download.

      Digging up all the roads all over the country to install fibre is not cost effective compared to these emerging technologies.

      National would have been much better off encouraging the investment in these alternative technologies, and putting the bulk of the money in connecting schools to fibre, and rolling out rural broadband where the swap from dial-up to broadband would make genuine productivity improvements for the country, vs in the cities where the only application ever talked about by the government was “streaming TV over the internet” (the exact opposite of something that would improve productivity).

      I personally think this policy of National’s was targetted to turn out the under-35 politically unengaged male voters. This policy was advertised on billboards and magazine ads in a way that other policies weren’t. I think the voters they were targeting would go “cool, I’ll get faster internet in a year or two!” and 8 years later it still hasn’t happened for many.

      • millsy 4.3.1
        26 March 2016 at 10:40 pm

        You’re pretty dense Lanth.

        4G is pretty expensive for the consumer compared to fibre cables. If need be they can strung from poles.

        • Lanthanide 4.3.1.1
          27 March 2016 at 7:53 am

          Er, my point is that the government could have invested the money they put into fibre, into 4g instead. Then it would be cheaper for consumers as there would be much more capacity.

          Similarly, they could have invested into rolling out new forms of DSL faster.

          Would we get the same blanket speed benefit of fibre? No, but the rollout would have been much quicker and cheaper. Better bang for your buck.

    • Don't worry. Be happy 4.4
      27 March 2016 at 6:14 pm

      Twenty minutes from Nelson our internet is slower than dial up. The bill keeps coming in though….

  5. Murray Simmonds 5
    26 March 2016 at 9:09 am

    Here’s an even bigger idea Paul:

    Convince Labour that they need to work towards a totally new model of economics – a model that is fit for the 21st Century. Current classical economic theory is NOT that model.

    Just for a start:

    1. Replace the measurement of GDP as a measure of economic output with a measure that is fit for purpose. GDP admits phoney economic activities such as speculation in futures and includes these in the measure of economic output. Basically GDP, as a measure of economic output is contaminated by a lot of junk “pseudo-economic” activity that more properly belongs in a casino. I wouldn’t mind betting that if we took the “Wall Street casino” out of the measure of the USA’s GDP then the USA would rapidly sink to NUMBER TWO World economy.

    2. Replace the emphasis on economic growth with the notion of a steady-state, non-growth based economy. If nothing else this would allow for a planet where diminishing resources are rapidly becoming a very important consideration. And that’s a consideration that classical economic theorists are struggling to get their heads around.

    That’s just a couple of points for starters.

    • AmaKiwi 5.1
      26 March 2016 at 12:38 pm

      @ Murray Simmonds

      IMO these are the policies you implement once in power but do NOT campaign on. They will scare the voters away.

      This has always been Key’s (successful) strategy. He only promises the uncontroversial. Once in power, he makes major structural changes but always pretending they are simply minor adjustments.

      “I’m comfortable with that.”

      That’s what we want the electorate to feel about all Left proposals. We don’t elect governments. We elect three year dictators. Trust is critical.

      Is it honest? Hell, no! Politics is about power not about baring your soul.

      • Sacha 5.1.1
        26 March 2016 at 6:56 pm

        “makes major structural changes but always pretending they are simply minor adjustments”

        Financialising public sector funding sure fits that description. And not a peep of opposition yet.

  6. BM 6
    26 March 2016 at 9:15 am

    Apart from the education freebie and the UBI

    How much of this is wheel reinventing?

    • Sabine 6.1
      26 March 2016 at 10:26 am

      What is National doing?

      • Paul 6.1.1
        26 March 2016 at 10:40 am

        Maintaining the status quo to protect the interests of the 1%

      • Incognito 6.1.2
        26 March 2016 at 11:03 am

        I will not pre-empt BM’s answer but Labour’s Ten Big Ideas reminds me of National’s National Science Challenges of which there are now 11. It was launched with a lot of fanfare and a very public campaign to get the public engaged and receive input. Remember The Great New Zealand Science Project? It is still up on Facebook but I think the public engagement has died down considerably since its launch at the end of 2012 and MBIE’s engagement has almost completely shifted to the science & technology community. I strongly believe that public engagement needs to be ongoing and not just a ‘ploy’ at the beginning of a process or project – this definitely applies to all things politics.

      • AmaKiwi 6.1.3
        26 March 2016 at 6:13 pm

        @ Sabine

        “What is National doing?”

        Keeping their mouths shut while secretly plotting to privatize and sell off what’s left of the country if they get re-elected.

      • Stuart Munro 6.1.4
        26 March 2016 at 6:37 pm

        Selling bits off the rental mini and waiting for the armed offenders squad to arrive. It’s the Goodbye Pork Pie economy.

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 6.2
      26 March 2016 at 10:38 am

      Dunno how much of National policies are re-inventing the policies of Dickensian era policies or recent UK or US right-wing policies?

      What point are you trying to make?

      I’d argue not enough – but then I like an 8 hour day 40 hour week to ensure people and especially workers get time to spend with families, I like the shops being shut on Sundays and would like to seem them shut from lunchtime Saturday.

      My answer to those who say what about tourists is that every TLA can approve 13 weeks per year where shops can open on Saturday and Sunday. All workers to be paid time and a half and TLA’s can co-ordinate which urban areas can open when.

      This would mean you can in large urban areas cover the whole year if you wish but different areas would benefit for their 13 weeks.

      No worker would have to give up more than 1/4 of their weekends a year.

      The thing about the 40 hour week – and I would argue for less but it’d be nice to get back to 40 hours for a start is that it was designed to share employment around. Employers had to make a choice between paying O/T if they had more work or employ someone else.

      I’d also ensure no-one could be employed for less than 10 hours per week to stop some of the ridiculous casualisation that is occurring.

      But labour of course no longer believe in an 8 hour working day, 40 hour working week.

      They fall into the trap of thinking the employer neo-liberal line that casualisation is liberty for the worker when it just a life-fucking monstrosity.

      It’s not really that complex – x amount of work to be done will take x amount of hours / 40 = x amount of staff.

      Make that the starting point as it used to be.

      • BM 6.2.1
        26 March 2016 at 10:53 am

        Just wondering if Labour has done a audit of what’s existing.

        They’re going to look like a complete pillocks if they do all this work and then National comes out and says “that already exists and has for a number of years”

        Take for example idea1

        Building digital equality – through ensuring Kiwis can access technology regardless of where they live or how wealthy they are.

        Has Labour not heard of the Aotearoa People’s Network?

        http://www.aotearoapeoplesnetwork.org/

        They’re the group that’s behind all the computers in public libraries.

        • Descendant Of Sssmith 6.2.1.1
          26 March 2016 at 11:21 am

          Aye but it would be even better if NZer’s were guaranteed access to the internet for free in any town or suburb in NZ up to a certain daily limit. Anything above that limit could then be paid for.

          This would be a modern equivalent to the previous guarantee of free local calling.

          This would in my view mean re-nationalising Telecom to provide both the infrastructure and cost without profit extraction.

          I actually have no doubt that if telecommunications hadn’t been privatised we would already have this.

          All private providers could compete for the service above the free limit but be allowed access to the state owned infrastructure at the same cost ie they could compete on their own service delivery and cost structure.

          Would it mean some cross-subsidisation – yep. But that’s not a bad thing. Just like urban areas subsidised the cost of putting telephone networks in rural areas.

          Just like in fact my insurance which I never claim on subsidises those who have had the misfortune to do so.

          This particularly needs to happen as the government pushes more and more for it’s citizens to do stuff on-line.

          If the government forces people to do their interaction with government on-line it should provide the access to do so.

          • RedLogix 6.2.1.1.1
            26 March 2016 at 11:34 am

            This would in my view mean re-nationalising Telecom to provide both the infrastructure and cost without profit extraction.

            I actually have no doubt that if telecommunications hadn’t been privatised we would already have this.

            Same example in Australia. Labour’s full fibre FTTP was shutdown and Turnbull’s abortive FTTN hybrid was imposed simply to protect existing interests.

            The idea of a government owned company, NBN, that might actually own and deliver telecom services in the public interest was a horrifying anathema to the Liberals. Absolutely had to be shut down.

            By sheer luck I’m typing this over one of the relatively rare full fibre FTTP connections that were installed under the Labour govt contracts. It’s pretty dammed good and I’m only limited by the cheap-arse modem I can’t be bothered upgrading.

            But elsewhere the Turnbull version is turning into industrial strength custard. Despite his claims just three years ago his version would be quicker and cheaper … the reality is a technological mess that will never work properly, will never be delivered in a time-frame that matters, and will cost more than Labours version.

            And then when it’s done, Australia will have to rip out the crap Turnbull imposed on them and install fibre to the premises anyway. Costing even more again and taking still longer.

            All thanks to the magic of the private sector.

            • Macro 6.2.1.1.1.1
              26 March 2016 at 6:04 pm

              Yep my experience with internet in Aus is that it is pretty terrible – especially in the suburbs. Where my daughter lives is in a brand new sub-division – you would think that they would have something pretty good – its crap!

          • burt 6.2.1.1.2
            27 March 2016 at 3:49 pm

            Aye but it would be even better if NZer’s were guaranteed access to the internet for free in any town or suburb in NZ up to a certain daily limit

            Free… Guaranteed… Mighty fine idea, let’s have everything that costs money to provide being free and guaranteed.

            • Descendant Of Sssmith 6.2.1.1.2.1
              27 March 2016 at 8:42 pm

              Not everything. Who said that.

              I’m presuming you get to pay for the police to arrest your burglar or the person who assaults you, you pay for the fire service to stop your house burning down, you pay for the time take by the IRD staff member to sort your tax return.

              You also conveniently overlook this point:

              If the government forces people to do their interaction with government on-line it should provide the access to do so.

              If the internet is as essential as everyone is saying it is it becomes not a private service to those who can afford it but a community good.

              Profit and duplication of infrastructure and multiple managerial structures are just adding costs to providing it to everyone.

              • burt …
                29 March 2016 at 6:47 pm

                Your argument that internet access should be free and guaranteed because the gummit is wanting more done online is bollox. I don’t recall a WINZ office being established free and always open outside every house. I don’t recall 24/7 police stations at the end of every drive either. The IRD have always been ‘you come to us’ to.

                But I’ll play the ‘I’m entitled to other people’s money’ game – if the Internet is free because it’s essential then surely the state must also give out free internet capable devices to all ? ( sorry -free and guaranteed devices )

    • linda 6.3
      27 March 2016 at 8:49 am

      where is nationals ideas put up or shut up BM WE ARE STILL AWAITING on john keys delivery OF the brighter future/something special time for action BM you lot have had 8 years and delivered ZERO AND NEGATIVE ZERO you and our donkey have to deliver BM your side needs stop playing with pony tails ,stop telling porkies AND DO THE JOB and if you lot the masters of the universe aren’t up to the task get out of the way

  7. Wainwright 7
    26 March 2016 at 10:11 am

    More like ten vague ideas. Look at number 6 for example. We’re going to ensure income security by ‘investigating’ different options? Investigation doesn’t ensure security, investigation just lets you put off annoucing a real UBI policy by three years.

    Labour keeps giving us mealy-mouthed management babble instead of real inspiration. A waste of everyone’s time and energy.

    • Sabine 7.1
      26 March 2016 at 10:26 am

      What is National doing?

    • Craig H 7.2
      26 March 2016 at 1:20 pm

      It might be UBI, it might Danish-style flexiscurity, it might be a jobs guarantee, it might be guaranteed minimum income, it might be something I haven’t mentioned here. Hard to announce a policy when the options haven’t been explored and costed.

      • Sabine 7.2.1
        26 March 2016 at 1:36 pm

        what has national then been doing for the last 8 years?

        • BM 7.2.1.1
          26 March 2016 at 1:39 pm

          Have you looked?

          • dv 7.2.1.1.1
            26 March 2016 at 6:44 pm

            List 3 good things BM

              • dv …
                26 March 2016 at 7:32 pm

                So BM what have those 3 ACTUALLY produced.

                Web sites pretty and have lots of fine words.

              • Lloyd …
                27 March 2016 at 11:31 pm

                With reference to one of theses three.
                We once had a DSIR which was fairly effective at generating ideas for business to take into production and helped business with technological problems.
                The last Labour government created a tax rebate for R & D for business. What was one of the first things the gnats did when they got into power? They got rid of of the R & D rebate.
                So in 2013 the gnats started tinkering with things to make it look like they were helping R & D. Pretty pathetic.

                • Lloyd …
                  28 March 2016 at 12:09 am

                  With reference to number two . PUBLIC – PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS !! YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING!!
                  That idea has been so proven to be a dead dog. That is all the gnats can crank out as a way to improve infrastructure?
                  Far more efficient is tax the rich (and that includes all those foreign firms paying a pittance in NZ) and get the state to construct the monopoly services that are most efficiently installed by a government owned and funded organisation.

                  • Lloyd …
                    28 March 2016 at 12:15 am

                    With regard to number three. Dividing science into little blocks with specific questions to be asked has so worked well where?
                    In reality giving a large number of scientists some money to survive on and asking them politely to both produce questions and answers to these so-far unasked questions is far more likely to produce something significant that can be used by business.
                    Funding young graduates in debt-free post=graduate research is such a better idea.

        • Craig H 7.2.1.2
          26 March 2016 at 2:30 pm

          SFA.

          I’m personally a fan of UBI, but would settle for anything substantially better and fairer than the current BS. Despite that, Labour should check and cost options before setting policy, and would be remiss to not do so, so taking the time now is fine by me.

          • AmaKiwi 7.2.1.2.1
            26 March 2016 at 6:18 pm

            Donald Trump wins elections by NOT costing. He uses the wrecking ball: “This system is a fiasco. I’m going to tear it all down and start anew.”

            • Lara 7.2.1.2.1.1
              26 March 2016 at 7:00 pm

              He hasn’t won an election yet

            • alwyn 7.2.1.2.1.2
              26 March 2016 at 8:34 pm

              Do you mean that you approve of Trump’s tactics?
              You want Labour to do what Trump does by the sound of that statement.
              Little will have to get a hair transplant.

      • Wainwright 7.2.2
        26 March 2016 at 7:13 pm

        “We need to investigate the options” is the kind of vague crap we got under Shearer. I thought we were past that.

        • Craig H 7.2.2.1
          26 March 2016 at 10:26 pm

          Labour is extremely gun-shy, so won’t be announcing anything till the ducks are in a row.

          • Wainwright 7.2.2.1.1
            26 March 2016 at 11:04 pm

            Ducks in a row is code for another 200-page manifesto of policy no one cares about.
            Make it big, make it inspiring and damn the neoliberal obsession with never spending money. Tax the rich, feed the kids. Or just give up.

  8. Incognito 8
    26 March 2016 at 10:21 am

    By just eyeballing these 10 ideas my first impression is that quite a bit of thought has already gone into this. There appears to be some level of subtlety that raises my level of curiosity. For example, Idea #3: “…to get the best out of local and emerging industries.”; what does “best” mean in this context?

    Conspicuously absent from these ideas is any specific reference to the rest of the world; it all seems very focussed on NZ only in an almost cocoon-like way!? I think this is a major omission and thus a potential weakness.

  9. Chooky 9
    26 March 2016 at 10:33 am

    Some reasons NOT to vote for the NZ Labour Party…it is a follower of the right wing in the USA:

    ‘NSA must end planned expansion of domestic spying, lawmakers say’

    https://www.rt.com/usa/337233-nasa-planned-expansion-representatives/

    (….but ….Sir Michael Cullen of the New Zealand Labour Party has just agreed to expand domestic spying… and Andrew Little supports Hillary Clinton

    ‘New Zealand government plans further expansion of spy powers’

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/03/19/gcsb-m19.html

    “Claims by Cullen and Reddy that their proposals would strengthen “oversight” of the spy agencies are a sham. The GCSB and SIS would be permitted to spy on anyone if they obtained a warrant from the attorney-general and a judicial commissioner. When agencies decided that an operation must be conducted “urgently,” they would be able to conduct warrantless surveillance for 48 hours.

    Spies would also be given “immunities from civil and criminal liability” if they broke the law during undercover operations. The GCSB currently has immunity when acting under authorisation and for “any act done in good faith to obtain a warrant or authorisation.” This would be extended to cover SIS agents. Immunity would also be given to “anyone required to assist the agencies, such as telecommunications companies” and “human sources.”

    ‘One law for all spy agencies?’

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/298493/one-law-for-all-spy-agencies

    ‘Trump or Clinton – who would be better for New Zealand?’

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/298063/who-would-be-better-for-nz

    Andrew Little: “Hillary Clinton offers a safe, steady pair of hands in the presidency which is why I think she would be attractive to a lot more Americans.”

    • John Shears 9.1
      26 March 2016 at 11:00 am

      CHOOKY the National Party Rooster Cock a doodle do.

      Crowing from the rooftop.

      Chooky posts this rubbish on this thread at 10.33am and had already posted it on Open Mike at 10.13am.

      Should be called Speed Gonzales perhaps?

      Go crow somewhere else Chooky you are a waste of time.

      • Chooky 9.1.1
        26 March 2016 at 12:02 pm

        lol…is that all you can say?…not much of a defense really

        • weka 9.1.1.1
          26 March 2016 at 12:34 pm

          As far as I can tell you vote for parties that either have no influence in parliament or are centrist and will support either pro-Clinton Labour or National.

          Your comment re Clinton has nothing whatsoever to do with this post and is simply Labour-bashing. What’s the strategy here? Because the only way to get any movement away from the mess we are in, apart from taking to the streets, is to have a left wing govt and that is going to involve Labour. So why bash them?

          You are part of the problem, just as much as Labour is.

          • saveNZ 9.1.1.1.1
            26 March 2016 at 1:07 pm

            I would personally feel better if Little had something positive to say about Sanders, and Cullen had actually made spies accountable. Maybe that is what Chooky’s post is about?

            Both these issues by association negate Labour, if they are trying to revinvent themselves as a party for the future they need to step out of the Rogernomics, neoliberalism and NatLite thinking.

            Look around the world. It is turning into a climate change toilet under neoliberalism, the richest pay no taxes and actually receive corporate welfare under neoliberalism and instead of some sort of technological utopia of the future people are poorer, less secure and in real terms earn less and work harder and voters around the world are rejecting this way of thinking and this way of government.

            Hedging bets by a foot in each camp is not going to work for Labour. Like last election it enraged voters who were expected to pay more taxes and work longer while the status quo of neoliberalism and globalism and warfare were not addressed.

            Thankfully Labour seems to be thinking a bit more about the future, with the future of work. At least they are trying and it’s a step in the right direction and I’m hoping for not just a change in government but a change in direction from neoliberalism.

          • Chooky 9.1.1.1.2
            26 March 2016 at 1:48 pm

            @weka…actually despite financially supporting the Greens last time and voting for the local Green …I voted Mana/Internet as my party vote, as you well know

            ( it was a tactical vote which I thought would maximise the chances of a Left coalition….but I didnt factor in the Labour Party ‘s non cooperation with Mana/internet….a genuinely Left Party)

            my vote for a Left coalition was disallowed along with many other committed leftists because Labour by standing Kelvin Davis in TTT against Hone Harawira destroyed Hone Harawira chances of getting Mana/Internet into parliament and the possibility of a Left coalition win

          • Leftie 9.1.1.1.3
            27 March 2016 at 2:17 pm

            @Weka, although I agree with most of your post. Do you realize that when you had a go at Chooky for bashing Labour, you then did it yourself?

            “You are part of the problem, just as much as Labour is.”

            • weka 9.1.1.1.3.1
              27 March 2016 at 4:48 pm

              I don’t have a problem with people having a critique of Labour. That’s not Labour-bashing.

              • Leftie …
                27 March 2016 at 5:46 pm

                I never said you did Weka. You posted to Chooky “Your comment re Clinton has nothing whatsoever to do with this post and is simply Labour-bashing” and I agree with that 100%, but then you posted “You are part of the problem, just as much as Labour is.” So you had a dig at Labour yourself. I was just pointing out that it appeared a bit hypocritical, that’s all.

                • weka …
                  27 March 2016 at 6:14 pm

                  I don’t believe I was bashing Labour. Being critical of Labour and bashing Labour aren’t the same thing.

                  • Leftie …
                    27 March 2016 at 8:45 pm

                    Sorry Weka, didn’t mean to offend. I think people often contradict themselves because they want to show that they are being fair and unbiased, but more often than not, the lines between “critiquing”: and “bashing” can get pretty blurred. A dig without specifics is still just a dig.

                    • weka …
                      27 March 2016 at 9:38 pm

                      I’ll disagree. I don’t think it’s any secret that I think Labour are part of the problem. I just didn’t think it was appropriate to get into that in this thread, me or Chookt. And the point I was making is that what Chookt was doing was part of the problem too. I’ll agree if you are suggesting we all are, but not if you are saying that naming something as an aside as a way of making a point is Labour bashing.

    • AmaKiwi 9.2
      26 March 2016 at 6:22 pm

      +1

      “Claims by Cullen and Reddy that their proposals would strengthen “oversight” of the spy agencies are a sham.”

      Because they are based on trusting bureaucrats and politicians.

      “Stupid” is trusting the very same people who have repeatedly been proven untrustworthy.

      • Leftie 9.2.1
        29 March 2016 at 2:01 pm

        “Stupid” is trusting the very same people who have repeatedly been proven untrustworthy.”

        Like liars John key and the National party.

    • Leftie 9.3
      27 March 2016 at 2:11 pm

      @Chooky. Selective much? You missed out the part that said prior to your quote “Labour leader Andrew Little says New Zealand will have no choice but to work with whoever is elected by the American people, but he would lean towards Mrs Clinton.”

      The article from RNZ was a skewered question to start with… “Trump or Clinton – who would be better for New Zealand?” Bernie Sanders wasn’t mentioned once, neither was any other candidate.

      No doubt Andrew Little was thinking, like most people do, if in the event it came down to just Trump and Clinton, better Clinton than Trump, and responded accordingly to the question he was asked.

      So you went off topic in order to bash Labour. You obviously want the continuation of the Key National dictatorship to remain in power, because no other opposition party can get into government without Labour. You are thinking of only yourself and that baseless grudge you cling to like a comfort blanket, and are thereby cutting off your own nose despite your face. Why should the rest of us have to pay and suffer more of John key and his government because you got it wrong?

      Labour made no secret that they would campaign for all the Maori seats, they always intended to stand a candidate in TTT even prior to the Mana/Internet hookup.

      It is a lie to blame Labour for Hone’s defeat. It was not Labour that cost Hone his seat, it was hooking up with Dotcom that did. Northern Maori saw it as a weakness that Hone needed a white man to win. That’s how they saw it. If Hone had of remained independent, he would have been backed, and no doubt he would have retained his seat.

      • Chooky 9.3.1
        27 March 2016 at 7:15 pm

        actually I wrote the post for Open Mike first …and then thought it would also be appropriate here…(check the times)

        …also it would seem some people agree with me ( see above )

        …and despite what Labour did the last election …my arguments stand

        …it is not a trustworthy political party

        1. )how can you vote for a Labour Party which wants to increase spying on New Zealanders ( see above links)

        2. ) how can you vote for a party which supports Hillary Clinton in the Middle East (see above links) Andrew Little: “Hillary Clinton offers a safe, steady pair of hands in the presidency which is why I think she would be attractive to a lot more Americans.”

        Conclusion: far from wanting a Left coalition to lose the next election I want it to win. I have supported David Cunliffe in the past and even considered voting for Labour until he was forced to stand down by his own Party and has not been resurrected. I will vote for another party on the Left. Labour is not the only Party on the Left .

        Just because you criticise Labour and give good reasons for not voting for the Labour Party does not make you a supporter jonkey Nactional.

        ( btw I dont believe you are a genuine ‘Leftie” from all your other comments…more like a right wing tr..l )

        • Leftie 9.3.1.1
          27 March 2016 at 8:38 pm

          @Chooky, rofl rich that you accuse me of not being a Leftie, but a right wing troll, when its you who is into constant anti Labour bashing. It doesn’t matter where you posted it first, you are still off topic by posting it on this particularly thread. Not everyone agrees with you, but I don’t see that as being relevant.
          Your argument is baseless. Labour didn’t cost Hone his seat, Hone did that to himself, which I have described in the above post.

          Labour hasn’t said it supports increased spying on NZers. Your link says ” A Labour Party spokesperson said it supported the idea of a single piece of legislation but wanted to see more detail about the GCSB potentially having more powers to spy on New Zealanders.”

          If you had of bothered to read my post properly you would have read that I have already addressed Andrew Little’s comment.
          Your link from RNZ was a skewered question to start with… “Trump or Clinton – who would be better for New Zealand?”
          Bernie Sanders wasn’t mentioned once, neither was any other candidate.

          No doubt Andrew Little was thinking, like most people do, if in the event it came down to just Trump and Clinton, better Clinton than Trump, and responded accordingly to the question he was asked.

          I though you liked to pride yourself on having some political nous? Vote for whomever you like, but the fact still remains if people want a change of government, then you do need Labour.

          There are way more reasons to vote for Labour than not. Rather Labour and their coalition partners Greens and NZ First than the thieving traitors we have now under Key.

          I am a supporter of David Cunliffe. I was gutted after he was forced to step down, I wrote to him and he wrote back. I have had to move on. He most certainly has. It doesn’t help anyone being locked into a mindless grudge where objectivity and rationale gets lost, and all the good things get ignored.

  10. Atiawa 10
    26 March 2016 at 11:15 am

    The flag referendum and the subsequent status quo outcome should not be underestimated. Suddenly and mostly as the result of social media use, we are seeing voters talking and communicating about another opportunity to change the flag, when for example the Queen passes on.Many of these people believed the referendum was their life-time opportunity to decide a new flag, however they are now realizing that another flag debate will perhaps be part of the wider debate associated with the Queens successor and our becoming a Republic.
    My point, is that Labour have through their Ten Big Ideas, begun a national conversation that will encourage genuine engagement on issues far more reaching than their ideas. Most NZer’s are beginning to understand that it can’t be business as usual and over time will embrace the necessity for change.
    The outcome could well be more advantageous than any of us could envisage.

  11. BM 11
    26 March 2016 at 11:27 am

    Idea 3

    Developing Business Clusters – by creating regional partnerships of business, councils, research organisations and iwi to get the best out of local and emerging industries.

    The greenXchange is New Zealand’s ‘greentech’ business cluster and accelerator, with a primary purpose of leveraging smart Kiwi innovation into the international JV marketplace at an early stage.

    http://www.greenxchange.co.nz/index.html

    Around the country right now, 17 Māori beekeepers, landowners, entrepreneurs and investors are packing their bags.

    They represent a cluster we call the Mīere Coalition. They’re all involved in honey (“mīere” in Māori ), in one way or another. Maybe they keep bees, maybe they have land full of manuka on which significant numbers of beehives are kept, maybe they sell honey or maybe they have money to invest in establishing a significant Māori presence in NZ’s honey industry.

    https://www.nzte.govt.nz/en/news-and-media/blogs-and-commentary/2014/10/31/maori-succeed-through-cluster-commerce-in-asia/

    http://www.poutama.co.nz/

    COBOP’s economic cluster is represented by regional and local managers from local and central government agencies.
    The cluster works to support the goals of the of the Bay of Plenty regional growth strategy Bay of Connections.

    http://www.cobop.govt.nz/economic-cluster

    The Cluster (Canterbury Software Inc.) is Canterbury’s leading professional association dedicated to advancing innovation, commercialisation and export. We have a broad-based member community – New Zealand’s most innovative companies and successful entrepreneurs based in a region renowned globally.

    http://canterburysoftware.org.nz/invest/

    plus many others.

  12. Draco T Bastard 12
    26 March 2016 at 12:06 pm

    Those entering the workforce today are likely to have several different careers and many different jobs.

    Thankfully. IMO, part of the problems that we have today is the over-specialisation that has occurred over the 20th century causing people to disconnect from each other, to come to believe that the work of one doesn’t affect others.

  13. Alastair 13
    26 March 2016 at 12:37 pm

    It’s curious that the top 10 issues do not include the one that could cause more disruption to the NZ economy than technological change. Climate change is going to have just as much impact on the economy through sea level rise and catastrophic weather. All political parties in NZ have to include policies to achieve zero carbon emissions within a couple of decades, and policies to mitigate the effects of climate change.

    • Unicus 13.1
      26 March 2016 at 6:27 pm

      No mention of launching NZ toward a republic here.

      Can someone explain then why Andrew”s principal response to the flago ref was that he now thinks we’ll be a republic after QE2 pops her clogs – didn’t anyone in his spin crew explain that most of the 57% were voting for the status quo – which probibly means they don’t like the idea of a republic.

      Political successes is about lots of things not the least timing – this was not the moment to blather on about what most NZers aparently consider a smelly dead cat .

      Do better Andrew – you make us all look silly consistently spouting half baked dogma like this .

  14. Tom 14
    26 March 2016 at 1:11 pm

    Unless the ideas turn quite quickly into arguable policies and costings they may be a bit late for an election in at most 12 months. Something solid needs to comeout of talk and ideas to persuade the voters.

    • alwyn 14.1
      26 March 2016 at 8:40 pm

      I wouldn’t worry about spending too much time considering them.
      The way Little operates he’ll have dropped 8 of them by this time next month.
      Look at all the policy’s Labour had at the last election that he dumped as being in the too-hard basket. What was too-hard of course was he couldn’t understand the big words.

  15. Incognito 15
    26 March 2016 at 4:03 pm

    The OP quoted from the introduction to the discussion document:

    Businesses increasingly need new models of organisation, processes and different skills from their workers in an increasingly globalised environment.

    An article yesterday is the NZ Herald with a rather inconspicuous title Why is it so hard to change how we manage ourselves? stated:

    By many accounts, the office hierarchy is dying. It’s just not exactly clear what, if anything, will replace it.

    The article is mainly on holacracy and one company that experimented with it and failed; it is actually a good read IMHO.

    The workplace will undergo many changes in the years to come; it will be interesting how old-school companies will engage with new-style ones. Job titles & descriptions will changes; some will disappear altogether or replaced by new ones, possibly hybrids of conventional ones. Or should we expect more super-specialised novel ones?

  16. sweety 16
    26 March 2016 at 5:26 pm

    I still can’t find any reason to carry on voting for Labour. After the disruption Little caused to the flag vote , I’m finding it very hard to take anything he says seriously.

    • Lloyd 16.1
      27 March 2016 at 11:40 pm

      Sweety if you are saying Andrew Little stopped Johnny Boy’s fern flag, then Andrew is obviously an effective politician, as he got what he wanted. Conversely it shows up Johnny Boy as a pretty useless politician with crap design sense.
      As The Donald has shown, making sense and political power are not necessarily the same thing.

    • Wainwright 17.1
      26 March 2016 at 7:15 pm

      He’s the man to listen to on inequality and the urgent need to find real solutions.

    • Incognito 17.2
      26 March 2016 at 10:02 pm

      That’s a very good write-up!

      Although I don’t think Labour should be rushed into running before they can walk after the repeated knee-capping by National and MSM and its long-running infighting it does seem that there’s a high level of timidity in its PR. People love confidence; it’s appealing, seducing, sexy, works like a great ‘aphrodisiac’ and trumps [no pun] competence almost every time. Now, if you combine the two some real magic can happen.

    • The Chairman 17.3
      26 March 2016 at 10:31 pm

      Below is a disappointing observation taken from your link, Sacha.

      “Equally, none of the panellists wanted to confront square-on the fact that, since socio-economic factors determine 60-80% of children’s achievement at school, the most important thing we could do to improve the education system and prepare people for the future of work is to tackle poverty.”

  18. BM 18
    26 March 2016 at 6:16 pm

    Idea 2

    Accelerating technology in business – through developing new models of capital raising and investing in research and development.

    Has Labour not heard of Callaghan Innovation or do they think they’re doing a shit job?

    http://www.callaghaninnovation.govt.nz/

  19. Lara 19
    26 March 2016 at 7:10 pm

    I guess it’s just me (and BM maybe)

    But this looks rather wishy washy to me.

    Some of the terms (such as “digital equality”) need definition to have any real meaning.

    Most of these words look to me to be management speak, bureaucratic doublespeak, emptiness.

    The only one that is clear is three years of tertiary education.

    This is what I think.

    I think NZers need affordable and healthy housing. Higher minimum wages, a living wage. Corporations and the wealthy need to pay their fair share of taxes, and a FTT is a great idea. Climate change needs serious planning for… we’re practically fucked already, less just be less fucked if possible. We need to aim for full employment again.

    More practical ideas, not so wishy washy.

    Just me I guess. I hate that management speak.

    • weka 19.1
      26 March 2016 at 7:57 pm

      “We need to aim for full employment again.”

      Isn’t that what the Future of Work is all about? Not full employment at 40hrs/wk (we’re never going to have that and who wants it anyway?), but that everyone in society has a liveable income and can take part meaningfully in society.

      • Lara 19.1.1
        27 March 2016 at 8:33 am

        Yes, of course it is.

        My point was that the language is wishy washy.

        Apart from considering a trial of UBI, the rest is too wishy washy, there’s no substance.

        And “considering” a “trial” isn’t really inspiring confidence that it’s something they’ll actually do.

        • weka 19.1.1.1
          27 March 2016 at 8:48 am

          The other options are that they either leave a UBI out, or they put of the whole future of work plan until they can do the next stage of investigatation in private. Your points about language seem valid, but I think your expectations are unreasonable. I’d be interested to hear how they could have said what they did in different language. How would you say it?

    • sweety 19.2
      27 March 2016 at 4:02 pm

      Lara, Please don’t ask them to explain. remember most of this is plagiarized stuff copied by one of their MP’s.

  20. Nick 20
    26 March 2016 at 7:12 pm

    I would have preferred they just said….
    1. Subsidized solar power for all homes and businesses.
    2. Ban the purchase of housing by overseas investors.
    3. Send the Government departments to the provinces
    4. Make voting compulsory
    5. Reinvest in trains electric
    6. Make green electric cars cheap and build a rechargeable network
    7. Link all politicians pay rises to the countries success
    8. Clean up the environment in a really big way by investing properly
    9. Free University
    10.

  21. Nick 21
    26 March 2016 at 7:22 pm

    I would have preferred they just said….
    1. Subsidize solar power for all homes and businesses.
    2. Limit the purchase of housing by overseas investors.
    3. Send Government departments to the provinces
    4. Make voting compulsory
    5. Reinvest in trains electric
    6. Make green electric cars cheap and build a rechargeable network
    7. Link all politicians pay rises to the countries success
    8. Clean up the environment in a really big way by investing properly
    9. Free University
    10. Tax the most wealthy more

    • weka 21.1
      26 March 2016 at 7:58 pm

      It’s not a policy manifesto.

      • Lara 21.1.1
        27 March 2016 at 8:36 am

        Nah.

        It reads more like a wankfest management speak manifesto.

        I remember all the BS when I was a teacher. I used to call them WOFTAM’s. Waste Of Fucking Time and Money.

        They called them meetings.

        And then I’d go back into my classroom and grapple with the same problems I had before, which almost no meeting or “professional development” dealt with.

        Looks like Labour engages in the same WOFTAM kind of behaviour as schools.

  22. Gristle 22
    26 March 2016 at 8:19 pm

    Right now pv generation is a solution looking for a problem in NZ. We have huge amount of renewable electricity generation, but we also have rapacious Gentailers charging too much. Subsidising PV installation has overseas largely benefited the middle class. Working class and unemployed do not have the capital to invest nor often own the house to put it the PV on.

    When electric cars come into the frame the pv might be part of the answer on how NZ doubles or trebles the amount of generation required.

    NZ capital is too heavily weighted in housing. Pricking that festering boil needs to happen and having CGT of the table means the most direct way of getting more money into other types of investment cannot be used. Never mind, let’s use all of the other dozens of tools. Second homes attracting higher deposits for personal and corporate entities. Stamp duty on house that are not primary occupancy. Overseas purchasers not allowed to buy existing housing stock. Etc etc.

    Anyway, move capital away from the housing market and into business investment. So some mechanisms are needed to make this easy. Some of the peer to peer lending systems are making progress in this area.

    I am surprised more has not been made of climate change impact and that thing called the TPP. Both of these are situational constraints on the future of work.

    Automation is going to cause big work place reductions. Whilst not trying to reject this I do see that the increased productivity has to deliver a social benefit and not just longer queues for minimum wage jobs. Establishing a social contract on this, in the same way that ACC was approached needs to be explored.

    • weka 22.1
      26 March 2016 at 8:26 pm

      “Establishing a social contract on this, in the same way that ACC was approached needs to be explored.”

      Can you please talk about that a bit more?

    • millsy 22.2
      26 March 2016 at 9:34 pm

      “We have huge amount of renewable electricity generation..”

      And it is still bloody expensive.

      • Naki man 22.2.1
        26 March 2016 at 10:25 pm

        “We have huge amount of renewable electricity generation..”

        “And it is still bloody expensive.”

        I would say my bill last month $106 is anything but expensive.

        • Muttonbird 22.2.1.1
          26 March 2016 at 10:29 pm

          Your last bill came from the hottest month of the year and you hold it up as evidence of a reasonable power pricing structure?

          That spin is so amazing that it could run the grid on its own.

        • maui 22.2.1.2
          26 March 2016 at 11:48 pm

          Its fantasticly cheap isn’t it, I’ve heard no stories of pensioners or state house owners unable to afford to heat their homes… o wait..

      • Craig H 22.2.2
        27 March 2016 at 8:05 am

        Max Bradford has a lot to answer for…

  23. McFlock 23
    26 March 2016 at 8:29 pm

    but – cycleway…

  24. Ad 24
    27 March 2016 at 7:03 am

    New Zealand doesn’t have the capacity to debate lots of ideas at once.

    Labour should deliver to the electorate a simple, coherent, costed plan for the country. Not “10 ideas” no matter their goodness. Show us all you can make sense.

    Labour is falling into the same old trap of too much policy. And too soon.

    Labour must better distinguish itself from National, and do so with a plan.

    • te reo putake 24.1
      27 March 2016 at 9:12 am

      You’re seeing the plan, Ad. Start by talking about hip pocket issues. No 1: Work. Labour are looking to engage with Kiwis, talking with them instead of at them.

      • Sabine 24.1.1
        27 March 2016 at 9:37 am

        TRP, it is clear that half of the ‘left’ would rather see Labour fail then support it. And the right just hopes for Labour to fail, lest they really have to admit that the emperor has been naked for a long time.

        No matter what Labour does, there is always the ‘It’s not enough Brigade”, the “Labour of the Eighties evil evil evil Brigade”, the “Labour can’t get anything right Brigade” and the “Labour does it too, did it worse Brigade’.

        Heck, just read through these comments, there are a few here that are giddy in anticipation that Labour hopefully fails, as they are not Labour enough for them.
        Never mind, that we are not anymore in the 30’s of the last century anymore, never mind that Lange has left the building a long time ago, never mind that the challenges of our time are very very different from the past. Never mind that Clark inherited a clusterfuck from Jenny Shipley.
        Don’t you find it funny that everyone is happy to bash Clark as if she was the devil re-incarnate, but no one ever mentions Shipley?

        No Labour just needs to be Labour and do something. And when they do something, o my gosh, they are not doing enough, they don’t get it right, they are loosers, neo liberals and whats not.

        Yeah, right Tui.

        • te reo putake 24.1.1.1
          27 March 2016 at 10:16 am

          Cheers, Sabine. I can’t argue against what you’ve written. I’ve referred to Lenin’s ‘Left Wing Communism; An Infantile Disorder’ more than once here at TS in regard to a few of Labour’s critics. Lenin was writing about the situation in Europe at the time of revolution, but the essence of his analysis remains true today.

          The Bolsheviks had to fight off direct attacks from the right and, at the same time, sniping from those who claimed to be the ‘true’ left. Most of the latter couldn’t gain significant popular support and from the sidelines complained that the revolution was too slow, too fast, too narrow, too broad, too democratic, not democratic enough etc. etc.

          Folk like this often have their hearts in the right place, but don’t have a firm grasp of left politics and struggle to put forward a coherent political philosophy of their own. Rather than go through the hard slog of winning support democratically within the parties of the left, they sit on the outside carping about the failures and belittling the successes.

          Not surprisingly, most of these critics have little actual connection with the working class, or indeed, have a sneering attitude to working people. Politics is an academic exercise for them, rather than something to be lived.

          • Descendant Of Sssmith 24.1.1.1.1
            27 March 2016 at 9:03 pm

            Bullshit. You’re telling me that a simple policy like state housing for life won’t work today.

            You’re telling me that an 8 hour working day 40 hour working week won’t work today.

            You’re telling me that giving workers the right to strike won’t work today.

            You’re telling me that increasing tax on those who are earning the most won’t work today.

            No wonder Labour is fucked – they’re living in TINA land along with the national party.

            • Descendant Of Sssmith 24.1.1.1.1.1
              28 March 2016 at 6:05 am

              Not surprisingly, most of these critics have little actual connection with the working class, or indeed, have a sneering attitude to working people. Politics is an academic exercise for them, rather than something to be lived.

              And actually quite a few of us have been union delegates and part of the working class for years. That’s more than many Labour MP’s can claim.

              Funnily enough those sentiments seem to reflect many of the people standing and working for the Labour Party. The continued absence of some long term sustainable policy while having all these consultative / policy development wankfests written in management speak just doesn’t appeal.

              The fact that you label those of us as wanting Labour to fail shows how out of touch you are with those who might vote for you.

              At the end of the day I guess your success will be reflected in the elections and while you are chasing the votes of the swing voter old Labour voters like myself will simply vote elsewhere.

              And any criticism I’ve made of Clark has been pointed and clear. The failure of that government to increase benefit rates when they increased NZS was a failure of care and integrity and done for no good reason.

              No doubt you’ll see it as politically necessary – I see it as cynical vote catching and heartless.

              Likewise some of the benefit changes.

              You might also like to note, though I’m sure you know that already, that in Left Wing Communism Lenin was criticising those who were willing to work with the capitalists.

              No compromise means having some pretty clear principles. I’m really unsure what Labour’s are apart from 1. gaining power and 2. chasing the swing vote.

              They seem to be failing on both but are lucking out because of National’s failures and people’s disillusionment with Key.

        • dv 24.1.1.2
          27 March 2016 at 10:20 am

          Shipley also was chair? of main zeal- they were stuffed too.

        • The Chairman 24.1.1.3
          27 March 2016 at 10:38 am

          Ponder this:

          Labour of the Eighties largely resulted in Labour falling short on policy today. Thus, explaining the notion Labour can’t get it right, while opening them up to accusations that Labour did it too.

        • Leftie 24.1.1.4
          27 March 2016 at 2:23 pm

          Completely agree with that assessment Sabine. That’s exactly how it is.

      • Ad 24.1.2
        27 March 2016 at 12:29 pm

        It’s a list not a plan.

        They need a cold look at that last “election failed” report. “Hip pocket” is not an axiom of coherence.

        No more single unrelated ideas.

    • Incognito 24.2
      27 March 2016 at 10:52 am

      Labour must better distinguish itself from National, and do so with a plan.

      With all due respect, but what you seem to be asking for, nay demanding, is for Labour to be exactly like National IMHO.

      NZ does have a lot more capacity in debating ideas than you give us credit for. The thing is that Key and the current Government have no interest in debating issues. In fact, they do anything to stifle debate.

      NZ doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel each and every time. For example, the concept of UBI has been around for a long time and there are tonnes of information to work with and build on. NZ is unique but not that unique.

      The Ten Big Ideas are not policy!

      It takes time to plan policies for complex issues and debate these. Do you rather have these sprung upon us in an election campaign without any input or engagement whatsoever?

      If you re-read the OP:

      Meanwhile Labour has been thinking about the future and the issues that confront NZ. Part of this process has been the recently completed Future of Work conference. From this process has emerged Ten Big Ideas (“A snapshot of work to date”) that will “help shape Labour’s policy development”.

      To me, this means that the ideas are not stand-alone ones but are linked and should be seen and debated together. This might culminate in a “coherent, costed plan for the country”. [my emphasis] Complex societal issues are not dealt with by window-dressing and little licks of paint and other patch-up jobs that National has been practising for the last 8 years; they need a holistic approach to do it properly or risk wasting a lot of time and taxpayers’ money, which is exactly the reason why National has not made any inroads of national significance. [pardon the pun]

      I do fear though for how Labour is going to ‘sell’ its policy; a lot of good hard work could easily be undone by crappy PR and lousy communication (through MSM, for example). The framing is paramount but I suspect it will be pitching economist (argument) against economist (argument) and thus produce the usual outcome.

      Just a note on costing: the Government’s books are all over the place and the so-called benefits from the TPPA are another wild guess (e.g. take a large number and halve it!?). So, why expect or demand even that Labour produces watertight costing each time when National abysmally fails at this and borrows billions at the same time? It is inconsistent but mostly illogical because nobody can accurately predict the future.

  25. The Chairman 25
    27 March 2016 at 10:29 am

    There seems to be a bit of corporate welfare and special treatment for businesses being considered in Labour’s Ten Big Ideas.

  26. Bill 26
    27 March 2016 at 12:09 pm

    There is no doubt that we are experiencing rapid change and disruption in our working lives as a result of technological change, automation and globalisation. An NZIER report released last year tells us 46% of New Zealand jobs are at risk of automation in the next two decades.

    Okay, calling bullshit on the first two aspects of that basic premise. A quick read of the NZIER report reveals that aside from internet based communications (Oh noes! Peeps can get taxis or beds for the night from ‘any’ private citizen by using teh interweb and don’t have to use traditional taxi companies or B&B/motels/hotels!) and software programming speeding up (eg) accounting, they’ve hung their estimates on such magical thinking as a huge roll out of driverless cars and such like.

    There has always been change. And it’s often been fast. Here’s a thing though. If (as contended) the change is too fast to adapt to, well…the change ain’t happening that fucking fast then, is it? ie – if peeps aren’t skilled to run the new magical society, there ain’t no new magical society.

    Not that they’re really talking about new technology (magical society). What their really talking about is the application of technology. So, you know – self service check-outs at supermarkets that don’t really have much to do with a new technology but are more to do with the application of a technology. And we can reject it. Am I the only one who, for a number of inter-related reasons, steadfastly refuses to use automated checkouts? I don’t think so.

    And what about the potential human (or psychological) rejection of self driving road vehicles?

    I’m guessing if I read the report in its entirety, there’d be instance after instance where the potential impact of the human or sociological component of their techno wet dream has been simply ignored.

    The major driver of future bullshit for workers and companies is tighter globalisation leading to more off-shored production and more in the way of remote decision making as huge corporate monopolies simply trash domestic companies (buy them out, undercut them etc)

    And then there’s that niggling detail called climate change that’s going to take the whole fucking lot away. Roughly the same time scales being talked of for magical automation leaving us adrift and the very noticeable and hugely damaging effects of climate change landing . Two dynamics colliding and, well…in a world of ‘robot versus climate” or “human ingenuity versus deleterious climate driven events”, sorry guys, but my moneys on climate every time.

    Meanwhile, heard any word on that broad, deep suite of radical socio/economic changes that just might save our lily white arses? Nah. Thought not. Hey! The robots are coming. The robots are coming! It’ a shiny new techno-ma-logical, self service world awash with apps…Upskill. Retrain! Beat the rush! sheesh.

    • Incognito 26.1
      27 March 2016 at 6:11 pm

      No Bill, you’re not the only one who refuses to use automated check-outs. They’re only good for small shoppings and they confuse me no end. Don’t get me started on the new automated check-ins at airports; what a nightmare and it takes me longer now to check than in the past. Whether we can reject “it” is becoming a moot point, sadly.

      • BM 26.1.1
        27 March 2016 at 6:22 pm

        How do they confuse you?

        • Incognito 26.1.1.1
          27 March 2016 at 8:39 pm

          That’s quite a personal question, isn’t it? Let’s just say that I struggle with the hand-eye coordination and the juggling act with the shopping basket, the shopping items, the scanner, the plastic bags, the wallet & various plastic-fantastic cards, the ‘instructions’ on the screen, various other items in hand and/or necessities to find my way through life, etc. And do not remove the scanned items before paying! Frankly, I detest having to adapt to a machine that is there supposedly (!) to make it easier for me, which it does not. The whole experience gives me as much pleasure as logging a call with my IPS and inevitably having to deal with an overseas Call Centre. [end rant]

  27. Jenny 27
    31 March 2016 at 12:41 am

    It is interesting, if not absurd, that Labour’s final list of ten big ideas, emerging from the Future of Work conference, (ignoring the huge redundancies and restructuring going on in the fossil fuel sector, particularly coal, due to lessening demand), left out mention of climate change.

    5. Establishing a just transition – through creating a social partnership model and strong and flexible social and re-training programmes.

    Big Idea number 5 calling for a just transition.

    Which begs the question: A “just transition” from what?
    To what?

    It is like someone wrote:

    “We need to establish a just transition to jobs that don’t fry the planet* – through creating a social partnership model and strong and flexible social and re-training programmes.”

    And them, some deranged East German censor armed with scissors, snipped out the words he didn’t like, rendering the resulting passage meaningless.

    *paraphrasing Gareth Hughes memorable comment on the quarter $billion bailout of Solid Energy.

    • ropata 27.1
      31 March 2016 at 12:55 am

      probably referring to “transition” in the following context :

      I don’t think we will see mass unemployment, but we will see a major transition to new types of employment by people who currently work in roles that will be automated. We’ll see three types of change: displacement, people losing their current jobs; augmentation, in which current jobs are done better with new technology; and thirdly the creation of new jobs.

      The challenge is to make the transition as smooth, painless and planned as we can. The goal is to forecast and recognise the skills and jobs you’ll have in the future and the way the jobs will change.

      Governments need the right education policies, social and economic infrastructure; and companies need to understand how to achieve organisational change and equip their staff with skills for the future.

      http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/mar/16/the-future-of-work-computers-are-good-at-the-jobs-we-find-hard-and-bad-at-the-jobs-we-find-easy