Livestream – LIVE UPDATES From LINCOLN

Written By: - Date published: 8:02 am, June 4th, 2016 - 53 comments
Categories: election 2017, greens, Media - Tags: ,

Hi, Standarnistas.

1. The link to the live stream of the speeches from Andrew Little and James Shaw is above. I can tell you that its a cracker day here in Lincoln. Blue skies and unseasonably warm; who said climate change is all bad news, eh? Andrew Little kicks off in a few minutes. There is a real buzz around the room. There are a few of the local Labour MP’s here already, chatting to their GP counterparts. What else can I tell you? The tea is fair trade, the milk organic, the pies vegetarian.

2. Around 200 people in he hall and a pretty impressive media turnout. The chat backstage in the media room is about whether Key will respond to the Green/Labour pact by going for an early election. Not this year perhaps, but earlier next year if the polls start to wobble.

3. Standing O for the leaders!!!!

4. Standing O for Andrew Little!

5. AL: Starts with an anecdote about his first party conference as a young man; the Values Party.

6. The GP delegates are lapping it up. Little is talking about fair reward, inclusion, optimism. Removing the barriers to our potential. Acknowledges James and Metiria, cracks a couple of good jokes.

7. “We owe it to our children” to fight climate change. Big applause from the delegates.

8. ‘Government response to homelessness; blame the homeless.’ We can do better, that’s exactly what we will do! Message to Key: Act like a grownup. (Another standing O!)

9. More on climate change, the need for change. The hall is rapt. (Well most of the hall; there’s a well known blogger in the back row yawning and playing with his phone).

10. “we will build more homes” “More state houses” “Under a government I lead, the elderly will not wait years in pain” An end to charter schools is promised, emphasises life long learning. Our government will be a leader in the fight against climate change.

11. Child poverty is the top priority. Safe, warm and dry houses for every kid. “I won’t give up, it’s not who I am”

12. AL finishes: “Lets send the message that there is an alternative. Lets do this together!” Another standing O, whoops and hollers!!!

 

Now James Shaw:

1. Shaw has started by talking about the country we were, where we are now and we really need to be. ‘This is not the NZ we grew up in.’ Good line: National are papering over the cracks, not building houses.

2. National have three housing ministers, because they need that many to make a housing crisis this big! Nice zinger, James!

3. “Change is coming”. The crowd agree and leap to their feet to applaud. They’re loving what they’re hearing!

4. Shaw is a very good speaker, he’s got the Pixies formula down pat: ‘ loud QUIET loud’

5. Climate change is the big issue. We can and will lead NZ to a low carbon economy. (Note to self, stop applauding, the other media folk are starting to question my editorial independence)

6. “We’ve got something National haven’t got; vision.” It’s time to change the Government and Change. Is. Coming.

7. That’s it, short and sweet, really impressive delivery and Shaw leaves to yet another standing O. Chants of ‘change this government’ as he exits the hall.

OK, gonna pop outside for the media ‘stand up’ .

1. “Were these campaign speeches?”

Both AL and JS agree that they are already in campaign mode.

2. The polls haven’t changed, still 5pts behind?

All 3 leaders are positive that the gap can be overcome. Housing will be a key. Natyional have left a disgraceful legacy.

3. How are the party’s finances?

JS: Raised more than ever, membership up by 3k.

AL: Our fundraising has been a success, highest membership numbers in many years. Our strength is people on the ground.

4. Policy differences, how will that work:

JS: We have a structure and communication. All MMP governments are based on multi party coalitions with differing views.

MT: We will talk over issues as they arise and negotiate.

5. Will this scare business:

JS: No, what scares business is uncoordinated governments. We won’t be like that.

6. What will your Government look like?

JS: Up to voters to give both parties the numbers.

AL: Both parties are committed to changing the government. Too early to look at names etc. The voters will decide, they will give us the opportunity.

7. Good reception, AL, better than the LP conference?

AL: Nothings better than the Labour conference!

 

(Bonus! Get to have a wee chat with Andrew Little, he’s well chuffed about how things are going, as you’d expect.)

 

Andrew Little’s speech in full:

 

Thank you very much.

I have accepted the invitation to speak to your conference out of a profound sense of responsibility.

I am here because I believe those on the progressive side of politics owe it to New Zealanders to offer the hope that change is possible.

We must show that there is a real alternative. A credible alternative.

An alternative government that can transform our economy, end our housing crisis and restore a sense of hope and optimism to Kiwis who have been struggling.

One that will ensure all New Zealanders get a fair reward for the work that they do and that no one is left out or left behind.

An alternative government built on a new politics of inclusion, ambition and optimism.

One that builds on the things we are proudest of about our country, and that removes the barriers which stop us living up to our potential.

I want to sincerely thank you, and the leadership of the Green Party for this invitation.

I want to particularly acknowledge your co-leaders Metiria Turei and James Shaw. I have to say I have learned a lot from working with them.

I have learned from James the importance of matching your tie to your political colours. He really does have every shade of green in that wardrobe.

And from Metiria, that you can live in a castle and still be a republican!

In all seriousness, I have thoroughly enjoyed working together. As members of the Green Party you can be genuinely proud of two talented and dedicated leaders, backed by a hardworking Caucus.

After eight years, the current government has lost touch.

With an economy tilted in favour of those at the top, with rising unemployment and declining real wages, it’s time for a change.

With a deep housing crisis, plummeting homeownership and children forced to sleep in cars, it’s time for a change.

With a health system stretched to breaking point and an education system going backwards, it’s well past time for a change.

We owe it to the young couples worried they’ll never be able to buy a home because our housing market is out of control.

We owe it to the elderly who’ve paid taxes all their lives only to be told they can’t have the surgery they need because there’s not enough money in the health system for them.

We owe it to our kids – I owe it to my son – to do our part in the fight against climate change – because they don’t have a future if our planet doesn’t have a future.

And here in Canterbury, we owe it to the thousands of people who this government has let down.

People like Loretta Te Paa who I met on a visit here a few months ago.

When the earthquake struck, Loretta and her family were living in Woolston. Their home was ruined so they had to move into a cold, tiny flat in the Linwood temporary village.

They were told they’d be there for 26 weeks.

They were stuck there for three and a half years.

People like Loretta and her family, they deserve better.

They need a government that will back them and stand up for them.

They won’t get that from the current government.

We saw this clearly just last week – they produced a budget that did nothing to solve our housing crisis.

That cut money from health in real terms while freezing spending in our education system.

It’s a budget that actually forecast falling wages in the years ahead.

And look at the way they’ve slashed the social safety net and thrown people on the scrap heap.

They sell off state housing and say community providers can do the job instead – and then they cut the funding to those providers.

They say their social investment approach will target programmes at people most in need, and then they underfund those programs.

They say it isn’t economic to provide emergency housing – so instead they pay hundreds of dollars a night to put some of our most vulnerable people in motels – and then give them the bill.

Just look at the issue of rising homelessness we are now confronted with.

More than 40,000 people sleeping in cars, in garages, in severely overcrowded houses. Sleeping on the street.

Children as young as 11 living under bushes in South Auckland.

That’s not New Zealand. That’s not the country we are proud of.

And the Government’s only response, when not blaming others, is blaming homeless people themselves.

So this week they say the homeless don’t want to be helped, they quite like being homeless.

And this from a Government eight years in office.

When did we decide that was the kind of country we wanted to be?

When did this kind of poverty become ok?

Because we all know it’s wrong.

We’re a wealthy country.

This kind of thing doesn’t have to happen.

It happens as the result of political choices.

Well we can choose a better way.

We can choose to lift people out of homelessness.

And together that’s exactly what we’ll do.

So here’s my message to the Prime Minister: You’ve had eight years. Take some responsibility. Act like a grown up and stop blaming others.

But this isn’t the only issue they’re failing New Zealanders on.

Take their absolute lack of ambition on climate change.

On protecting our environment.

On standing up for our neighbours in the Pacific.

Look at the way this government ducks any moral responsibility on the world stage, from the refugee crisis to the treatment of Kiwis on Christmas Island.

Look at all they’ve done in the last eight years and think about the all the damage they could do if we give them another three.

We can’t let that happen.

We can’t be a successful country when more and more of the gains from our economy go only to the few at the very top.

We can’t be a successful country when the dream of homeownership is slipping away.

After eight years, it is very clear, if we want New Zealand to succeed, we have to change the government.

More and more New Zealanders are telling me there needs to be a change.

But they are cautious about the alternative.

New Zealanders might have real concerns about the current government, but they aren’t going to blindly vote for a change without reason to believe they are trading up.

And if we are serious about being that change, then we’ve got to earn it.

We can take nothing for granted.

We have to be disciplined and focussed as well as bold and courageous.

New Zealanders won’t trust us with the responsibilities of government unless we show them we are ready.

18 months ago, I made the decision to run for the leadership of my party because I could see that things had to change.

I saw a country in which more and more of the nation’s wealth was going to those at the very top, and those who worked for a living were struggling to get a fair share and struggling to get ahead.

That’s not the New Zealand I want to be part of. It’s not the kind of country I want to leave to my son. We’ve got to change it.

In the last 18 months, Labour’s made great progress.

Our caucus is working well together.

We’re reforming our party.

And we’re building a policy platform that can serve as the core of the next progressive government’s agenda.

But in an MMP environment, that alone isn’t enough.

In our country, under our system, governments must be built on lasting, mature relationships between different parties that share a common vision for the future.

That’s why we’ve been strengthening our relationship and cooperation with the Greens.

We’ve worked closely on issues like our Manufacturing Inquiry and the future of our education system.

We’ve worked together to get the government to agree to devolve more power over the Canterbury recovery to smart local people on the ground.

And we attended the Paris Climate Conference jointly as opposition members of the official delegation.

It’s against that background that this week Annette King and I signed the memorandum of understanding with the Green Party.

We are building a stronger relationship because that’s what the future demands. That’s what New Zealand needs.

This won’t always be easy.

We won’t agree on every issue.

We are different parties and we come from different movements, each with our own approach and our own traditions and our own way of seeing the world.

There will be points of real difference and debate and disagreement.

But we can deal with them respectfully and maturely.

I know this because I know that together, we share a vision for a stronger, fairer New Zealand.

It’s a much more hopeful and optimistic vision for our future than the one the current government is pursuing.

The leadership I bring to the next progressive government will deliver a better future for our country.

The government I lead will operate under the principle that the economy is not an end in itself, but a means to the end of delivering a good and decent life to our people.

For us in Labour, at the core of our political tradition, at the core of my own beliefs, lies the dignity of work. The ability to earn so you can stand on your own two feet and chase your dreams and ambitions.

That’s what we stand for. Every New Zealander having that chance.

We stand for a responsible state which ensures no citizen is denied the basics that allow them to participate in our society and reach their potential.

What are those basics?

A warm, dry, safe home. A quality education. Healthcare that’s there for you when you need it. And a safe and secure community.

We know that wealth must be created before it can be shared.

We support an economy that creates the next generation of jobs, which adds to the nation’s wealth, which modernises our economy and improves our standard of living.

And we know that development that contaminates the air we breathe, that chokes our lakes and waterways, or that damages our planet doesn’t serve our people and that we can and must do better.

Those principles will guide the Government I lead and they will guide me as Prime Minister.

We will reform our economy so it works for everyone, not just the few at the very top.

That means more good jobs, higher incomes and everyone getting a fair reward for their effort.

It means fixing this housing crisis.

After eight years we will do what this government has just never been able to get the hang of:

Build. More. Homes.

We will restore the Kiwi dream of homeownership.

We will address the housing crisis and we will build state houses so that every Kiwi can have a roof over their head.

Under the government I lead, older people won’t need to wait for years in pain.

We will end the cuts in health and make sure Kiwis get the care they need.

And we will recommit our country to the principle of free education.

We will put money back into our struggling public school system and we’ll stop shovelling money into charter schools that are more interested in making money off kids than teaching them.

And we will deliver three years free post-school training and education. Because lifelong education is the path to a better future.

The government I lead will make our country a leader in the fight against climate change.

And the next government will stand up for people in Christchurch that this government has forgotten about.

We’ll get cracking with the central city development, and we will sort out the mess at Southern Response and EQC.

People have waited too long. They deserve better.

And let me be very clear on one more thing: the government I lead will make fighting child poverty a top priority.

We will not accept children going to school hungry or going to sleep in bedrooms that make them sick.

We’ll feed hungry kids in schools and we will bring in proper rental standards so that every child in New Zealand grows up in a home that is warm and safe and dry.

We won’t listen to the cynics who say the problem is too big or too hard. Who say that poverty is just a fact of life.

We won’t give up on lifting every child out of poverty.

I won’t give up. It’s not who I am.

Next year, New Zealanders will have a clear choice.

On one hand a tired, out of touch government that is increasingly looking after only the few at the very top, and that has presided over a stalling economy, growing inequality, and an endless housing crisis.

Or they can choose a new, progressive government – our government – with a better plan for the future.

Our government will back people to get ahead, and reward their effort and ambition.

Our government will deliver a better, fairer New Zealand.

In the next 18 months, let’s send a simple message to New Zealanders:

There is a real alternative.

It’s time for a change.

Together let’s change this country.

Let’s build a better New Zealand.

Let’s do this.

And we can do this together.

Thank you.

 

53 comments on “Livestream – LIVE UPDATES From LINCOLN ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. r0b 1
    4 June 2016 at 1:42 pm

    Thanks TRP – handy for those of us too irritated by FB to live stream!

  2. Lanthanide 2
    4 June 2016 at 1:44 pm

    Listening to Little now, to pay for these promises of *free* education, healthcare, building state houses and fighting child poverty, they’re going to have to put up taxes, or run up debt.

    • te reo putake 2.1
      4 June 2016 at 1:50 pm

      I think it’ll be adjusting the tax take, Lanth. Particularly making the rich pay some for a change.

      • Lanthanide 2.1.1
        4 June 2016 at 1:53 pm

        Overall, will the public pay more tax than they do now, or less?

        If they pay more, the tax will be “put up” as I said. If they pay less, or the same, then the government will have to use the current projected surpluses to fund these policies – which means not paying off debt that otherwise would have been paid off.

        Changing the burden of tax onto the rich, is not the same as increasing tax, which is what is necessary for these policies.

        • Macro 2.1.1.1
          4 June 2016 at 2:16 pm

          Ensuring that those who avoid tax and shift profits off shore pay their way (not options available to most btw). Changing the distribution spending, (eg. no charter schools receiving millions, cutting defence spending of 4 billion, etc – I’m a retired Naval officer btw – but that sort of expenditure at the expense of homeless people is obscene, stopping stupid spending on “Roads of National Significance”, no more slush funds for Saudi businessmen, flag referendums, super wealthy boat races, and reducing expenditure for Prime Ministers department – to name but a few of the top of my head)
          And a Carbon Tax redistributed to promote public transport, alternative energies, reduction of energy consumption, and subsidize those at the lower end of the socio-economic ladder (who would be the most affected). a la the Australian Carbon Tax that was working in Australia until trashed by the village idiot Abbott.

          • Bill 2.1.1.1.1
            4 June 2016 at 3:13 pm

            A carbon tax…you might not like this, but according to this research, even at 300 euros a tonne, the cost of a typical flight would only increase by about 25%.

            In other words, market based solutions don’t and won’t work given the reductions that need to be made. And the market is bloody stupid anyway.

            According to ‘the market’, when I sat today and thought about feeding my chooks, then because there was no-one around to pay me for taking the few short steps to the sack of grain, and because there was no-one I could pay to take those few short steps to the sack of grain, there was no possibility of taking any action – according to market principles. My chooks would sadly and unavoidably have had to go hungry today because my actions couldn’t be monetised and hence ascribed a value. That’s how the market works; nothing happens without money providing value.

            Insane, yes?

            And yet we expect the market to inform and guide our actions and inactions around global warming.

            • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1.1.1
              4 June 2016 at 3:29 pm

              “even at 300 euros a tonne, the cost of a typical flight would only increase by about 25%.”

              Yeah, but the price of everything else will have increased as well, so there’ll be much less discretionary money to spend on things like flights.

              “Insane, yes?”

              Creating strawman arguments and expecting them to impress anyone is insane, yes.

              The funny thing with your example is, assuming that sack of grain isn’t self-grown, then you yourself are engaging in the market (whether cash or barter) to procure the goods and services that you want and need.

              • Bill …
                4 June 2016 at 3:58 pm

                ffs Lanth. Let me help you out here. There was a sack of grain (a resource or supply). There were hungry chooks (a demand). There was requirement to ‘mine’ that resource or free up that supply to satisfy a need. It’s pretty simple, yes? Now if I was to act according to market principles, then the grain would have sat untouched and the chooks would have carried on scratching with no direct access to the grain and with no service provided by way of being fed.

                See that lack of money to provide ‘value’ to my actions meaning that (if we follow through with market principles) nothing gets done?

                That applies to me and others not getting the operations we need. It applies to houses not being built. It applies to infrastructure getting run down. It applies to South Dunedin’s prospects in a warming world being ‘swept under the carpet’. It applies on action to cut CO2 emissions or other GHG emissions.

                And it borders on a psychotic disconnect.

                About you flight costs. Business class travellers will fly just the same as today. More or less the same number of flights will take off and land as today. You say that costs of other stuff will go up. True. That’s generally the case in a growing market economy. And income and wages also rise. maybe, at 300 euros, some poorer people who currently fly won’t fly any more. But that’s a nothing in the scheme of things.

                • Lanthanide …
                  4 June 2016 at 4:15 pm

                  “Now if I was to act according to market principles, then the grain would have sat untouched and the chooks would have carried on scratching with no direct access to the grain and with no service provided by way of being fed.”

                  That’s the part that doesn’t make sense.

                  Investing your time to feed the chooks will create value in the future, presumably so they will lay eggs. But you may also get entertainment and other non-monetary benefit from this action.

                  So according to market principles, you would invest your time and effort to create value in the future.

                  “About you flight costs. Business class travellers will fly just the same as today. More or less the same number of flights will take off and land as today.”

                  Basic supply and demand economics will tell you that if the price goes up, there will be less demand, and consequentially less supply. 25% price increase is a significant enough cost increase to see demand reduce; probably not by 25%, but enough that there would be fewer flights.

                  As far as business trips go, yes, they’re generally much less elastic than holiday trips. However it might mean that instead of sending 7 people on a company trip, they might send only 6 instead. If enough businesses do it enough times, the airlines will downsize to smaller planes, or reduce the number of flights on particular routes.

                  • Bill …
                    4 June 2016 at 4:45 pm

                    ‘The market’ recognises one value. It’s measured in financial units. Whatever motivations I may have that are non-financial, become irrelevant and so without value according to market theory. If it was otherwise, it wouldn’t be market economics. And yes, there are other economics and other possible economies. But we (our society) operates under the aegis of a market economy and market economy rules. That kind of economy and the rules it has are incapable of meeting the challenge of global warming.

                    But hey. If orthodox economists believe otherwise (evidence suggests that they don’t) and can come up with a market based solution to global warming – one that reduces yearly global emissions by the 10 or 15% that’s now required, then I’m not going to stand in their way.

                    Taxes won’t work in terms of required reductions. Carbon trading schemes don’t work. I’m happy for them to give the next tool in their shed a blast. But we’ve got about 15 years to achieve about zero emissions from fossil alongside huge cuts from various land use sources (eg – dairy).

                    Go read the report to get the deeper or finer detail on why even a 300 euro tax simply won’t work for aviation. Rich people will fly regardless. The poor will get hammered at 300 euro per tonne for fossil fuel. The rich (and business) will absorb any increases with comparative ease. Carbon emissions will not fall.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      4 June 2016 at 5:10 pm

                      “‘The market’ recognises one value. It’s measured in financial units. Whatever motivations I may have that are non-financial, become irrelevant and so without value according to market theory.”

                      If that were true, Hollywood wouldn’t exist to produce entertainment products (because entertainment is something that isn’t measured in ‘financial units’).

                    • Bill …
                      4 June 2016 at 5:54 pm

                      So Hollywood films aren’t made with a profit in mind and box office receipts are unimportant and no-body from Hollywood’s trying to slam Kim Dot Com into jail for a very long time because he allegedly damaged their profit margins. Righto.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      4 June 2016 at 7:12 pm

                      You’re descending into Draco-levels of ranting.

                      People value entertainment, and are willing to pay money for it. The entertainment industry exists to create entertainment and sell it.

                      You value eggs. You could choose to buy them at a supermarket, or you can produce your own. Producing your own has a monetary benefit in that you don’t need to purchase them in order to meet your desire.

                      Also, you might get entertainment from feeding your chooks, so that you don’t need to buy entertainment products. Or you might get exercise from it, so that you don’t need to buy exercise equipment or go to a gym. Etc.

                      It is possible to put some sort of value on almost anything. The whole point of trade in general is to trade something you have, for something else that you value more at that moment in time, or to secure something that you will value in the future.

                      So again, back to your original example, where you declared that applying market principals mean you would NOT feed your chooks. Which is fundamentally untrue – if you value eggs, and value your chooks not dying, then you will feed them.

                    • Bill …
                      4 June 2016 at 7:24 pm

                      Lanth. I was talking about market values – not mine. It seems you’re determined to miss the rather simple point I was making, which was, how utterly absurd those values are.

                      Maybe there’s a corollary about how absurd we must be to have acquiesced to the activities of most of our waking hours being determined by those values and the various rewards that flow them?

                      I know that I was definitely alluding (edit – nope, I stated it) to the insanity of us expecting those values to somehow provide us with the necessary wherewithal to confront the global warming that those values delivered to us in the first place.

                      Just for you, I’ll put that in Draco terms. Capitalism delivered us AGW. Capitalism won’t deliver us from AGW. 😉

                    • Lanthanide …
                      4 June 2016 at 7:32 pm

                      I disagree that capitalism can’t deliver us from AGW.

                      If things are priced appropriately, it’ll work itself out.

                      It is society that won’t allow things to be priced appropriately. That’s not the fault of capitalism or the market (both in the abstract sense). That’s the fault of our modern society.

                      Strangely enough, people won’t vote for their standard of living to drop significantly.

                    • Bill …
                      4 June 2016 at 7:42 pm

                      That kind of take is verging on free market fundamentalism as spouted by the likes of those who find ACT too centrist.

                      The market isn’t some kind of self regulating or equilibrium seeking thing. It’s a set of rules where, as long as profit is generated, anything goes. That’s where state regulation steps in.

                      As for the role of society in all of it, you’ve lost me. Society cops the fallout from the interplay between the market and the state. It doesn’t really have an active economic role to play.

                      People vote.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      4 June 2016 at 7:54 pm

                      We could have communism and still not take appropriate steps to solve CC.

                      There isn’t a single pure-capitalist country on the planet, all societies that have capitalism have regulations and limits.

                      It doesn’t matter what system you use to distribute resources, which is all a market-based economy is. If the people in that society don’t want to solve CC, they won’t.

                    • Bill …
                      4 June 2016 at 8:09 pm

                      I could agree with the first bit.

                      But then, if we’d used communist forms of organisation to determine production and distribution, then we’d probably never have arrived at this juncture in the first place. I’m not talking about totalitarian Bolshevik or Maoist, state driven nonsense when I refer to communism btw. Just to be clear,

                      I’m referring to deeply democratic forms of organisation embedded within society driving or determining matters of production and distribution – a democratic economy in other words, as opposed to either a market economy or a command economy.

                      I agree with the second bit.

                      I obviously disagree with the first part of the third bit given what I’ve just written and sadly, might have to agree with the second part of the third bit 🙁

                • weka …
                  4 June 2016 at 4:24 pm

                  The main problem I have with your argument is that you seem to be attributing motivation to the market (kind of like how people think the standard is a person). The market is a construct and a set of tools. How they get used can be different (I’m not suggesting that is the be all and end all). For instance there is no good reason why ‘the market’ can’t take into account unpaid work. In fact, the market is completely dependent on unpaid work and just isn’t very honest about it, or takes ot for granted.

                  If you are arguing at a purely theoretical level, then the tools can be applied differently in practice.

                  I don’t think the market on its own will give us the cc change we need, but it would be imprudent to not use it when and where we can given it is what we have right now. The point of carbon taxes isn’t to solve emissions on its own, it’s to create a range of measures within a system to induce change, and that includes regulation. I don’t think it’s enough, but I can’t see change happening without it either.

                  • Bill …
                    4 June 2016 at 4:56 pm

                    The main problem I have with your argument is that you seem to be attributing motivation to the market..

                    No. The market – the name given to the framework or collection of rules that determine how our economy will function – impacts on our motivations at a societal level. The act or the action must make money – spin a profit. Period.

                    If we had a different set of rules that provided different motivations for doing things then, by definition, it wouldn’t be a market economy.

                    With regards global warming, I think there’s a very good argument to be had that the market economy isn’t simply inadequate, but actually compels us to act in ways that are inimical to our interests.

                    • weka …
                      4 June 2016 at 4:59 pm

                      If I come round and feed your chickens how has the market impacted on that act?

                      “With regards global warming, I think there’s a very good argument to be had that the market economy isn’t simply inadequate, but actually compels us to act in ways that are inimical to our interests.”

                      So if a L/G govt wanted to introduce a carbon tax alongside other measures that would compel us to act against our interests? How?

                    • Bill …
                      4 June 2016 at 5:17 pm

                      Adhering to market principles (it’s only an illustrative example, yes?) then you simply wouldn’t come around and feed my chooks. And sure, neither you nor I have to adhere to those principles, but then, I was only attempting to show what those principles entail and how utterly absurd they are.

                      As I said with regards taxes, according to the study I linked to, taxes won’t work to bring about the scale of reductions that are needed.

                      Is that an indication that carbon taxes can’t change our behaviours sufficiently? If so, then we continue to behave in ways that are market driven and not in our interests in spite of the market introducing a financial disincentive to counter (essentially) its greater incentives.

                      Legislation and policies can be and often are a completely different kettle of fish. They work.

                    • weka …
                      4 June 2016 at 6:29 pm

                      “As I said with regards taxes, according to the study I linked to, taxes won’t work to bring about the scale of reductions that are needed.”

                      And as I said, they’re just one tool, so why not use them. I can’t see an argument yet against them alongside other measures. I don’t believe we will have any silver bullets, and we need to be looking at not just a range of actions, but ones that work together.

                    • Bill …
                      4 June 2016 at 7:04 pm

                      I linked to a study that makes the argument you say is missing Weka. (You’re looking for pages 89 through 109) They do. not. work.

                      Aside from all the stuff about carbon taxes hitting the wrong people the hardest (poor and low emitters) while barely impacting on those who need impacted the hardest (the rich and business who are the high emitters) consider the following in relation to aviation (and then extrapolate for other sectional interests)

                      The aviation industry will argue or lobby for as low a tax as it can – and lobbying is a very powerful tool that’s made all the more powerful when you can pull economic levers that will impact negatively on the government you’re lobbying. I’ve seen suggestions for carbon taxes to be as low as 30 euros per tonne. And that’s when academic studies suggest that 300 euros a tonne will have bugger all impact.

                      So at about 50c per liter (going on today’s exchange rate for 300 euros, and assuming 1 tonne = 1000 liters), nothing happens. Except poorer people will be hammered if that same amount hits at the petrol pump (or down the transmission lines). So now the poorer people who hardly drive because of financial constraints are screwed by higher petrol prices and general inflation, while the wealthy who can absorb 50c per liter carry on much as before.

                      What happens if we up the tax by a factor of 10? Okay. An extra $5 per liter probably scoops up a large proportion of even high emitters (rich people)…and prices on ‘everything’ just went through the roof. And guess who gets hit disproportionately by that?

                      Y’know, since we have a global carbon budget to work to, and since NZ can easily work out a NZ budget from that global budget, why not assign a decreasing personal carbon budget to all of us?

                      I’m sure we could work out a way to ration carbon on a personal basis where or when we buy carbon directly. And on indirect carbon use, well…lay in that infrastructure and do whatever is necessary by way of legislation or whatever to get rid of carbon at the systems level as fast as we can. We have 15 years or so to do it. And taxing the stuff won’t even begin to take us down that road unless the idea is to cripple the poor for the actions of the rich. In which case we’ll take a few short, halting steps in the right direction I guess.

            • Macro 2.1.1.1.1.2
              4 June 2016 at 5:05 pm

              And yet we expect the market to inform and guide our actions and inactions around global warming.

              No indeed not. BAU got us into this mess and it sure as hell isn’t going to get us out!
              A Carbon tax is not BAU it is regulating the market – that is one of the purposes of a tax – like a tax on tobacco and alcohol and as is being suggested a tax on sugar. But having raised that tax we can further adjust the market by spending that tax in areas that promote a reduction in the usage of the addictive substance. Education and nicotene patches, etc. In the case of Carbon – more and better public transport, incentives to personally reduce carbon consumption and for those at the bottom of the socio economic ladder (who find the transition away from the use of carbon the most difficult to achieve) subsidies so that they can.
              It is not going to achieve carbon neutrality overnight but the evidence from such a market driven economy as BC suggests that it has a significant influence.

              • Bill …
                4 June 2016 at 5:45 pm

                I think it more or less is BAU. It is using a financial incentive to counter even greater financial incentives. And it works on small or incremental levels – eg, smoking or sugar. How did it actually work on smoking? It made it unaffordable for growing numbers of people and today there are fewer smokers than 10 years ago.

                Carbon taxes do not make behaviours unaffordable for those rich enough to absorb the increase – ie, rich people and business – and it is rich people and business that emit a hugely disproportionate amount of carbon.

                You want to cycle the tax back to low emitters – ie, the poor? Okay. And business will by and large continue as before and send personnel (management) on business class trips around the world or up and down and around to meetings and conferences.

                And if their core business costs rise because of a carbon tax, then those costs will, as ever, be passed on to the consumer or end user, assuming they don’t find a way to dodge the tax…well, they’d probably pass it on anyway in that case. 👿

                And if you think that loss of total market size due to people not being able to afford shit would be a concern to business, then I’d suggest you think again. Business is about market share – the total size of the market isn’t really a factor.

                Legislate. Lay in infrastructure. Construct all the public transport. Retro-fit whatever can be retrofitted. Cut emissions. But don’t think that using the market or market mechanisms for any of it will achieve anything like the scale of change we need in the time scale available – it wont.

          • Enough is Enough 2.1.1.1.2
            4 June 2016 at 3:44 pm

            As well as a Carbon tax, and a top tax rate of 66 cents in the dollar for all income over $125,000, a sugar tax is so important.

            We need to address the obesity epidemic. A targeted sugar tax will deal with it.

            • Stuart Munro 2.1.1.1.2.1
              5 June 2016 at 12:53 am

              Better to regulate added sugar levels and labeling than tax sugar – unless you want to stress the population more through food pricing.

              Same with carbon actually – bloke I know was with Ecan, involved in school heating conversions from coal to pellets. The school, the local government & the furnace producer all expected to score the carbon credits. Occam’s razor is straightforward regulation instead of Pigovian taxes. No gravy trains, just changed outcomes.

          • weka 2.1.1.1.3
            4 June 2016 at 3:49 pm

            “And a Carbon Tax redistributed to promote public transport, alternative energies, reduction of energy consumption, and subsidize those at the lower end of the socio-economic ladder (who would be the most affected).”

            Yep, although the GP’s current carbon tax policy is revenue neutral with the taxes going to business and families ie it won’t be available to pay for the social security that Lanth was talking about in his original comment.

            It would be very exciting to see L/G working together on a carbon tax policy though. The systems thinking behind the scheme needs better understanding and explanation too.

            • Macro 2.1.1.1.3.1
              4 June 2016 at 4:51 pm

              As I indicated above the current govt indulge in a load of frivolous “nice for some” spending – charter schools, and private schools being a prime example. The most obscene misuse IMHO of public monies forecast in the latest budget is the huge increase in Defence spending over the next 4 years. Now I realize that military hardware needs to be kept up to date. As a member of the Armed services for 15 years and having served on the Naval Staff at a time of the last frigate buy I know all too well just how much these things mean to service personnel. But when we have a country where there are literally thousands homeless, and 250,000 kids are going to school hungry everyday you have to ask yourself just what are our priorities for spending?

              • weka …
                4 June 2016 at 5:01 pm

                I agree with that point Macro. My initial response to Lanth was that there was a third option to raising taxes or increase debt, and that was to manage the economy competently with the right intention in mind.

                (my previous comment was more about how a carbon tax fits into that and whether it should generate direct revenue for the govt or whether it’s better not to treat it as such).

        • Jack Ramaka 2.1.1.2
          4 June 2016 at 7:10 pm

          What the rich paying tax?

        • DoublePlusGood 2.1.1.3
          5 June 2016 at 12:00 am

          Do both. EZPZ, problem solved.

      • Wonderpup 2.1.2
        4 June 2016 at 3:53 pm

        If it means more money for those living in cars, going to school, for research and public media, more for the very young and very old, then tax the crap out of me.

  3. weka 3
    4 June 2016 at 1:52 pm

    Rousing, inspiring speech from Little.

    Shaw up now,

    This is the moment.

    …

    My hope is that with this first Labour Green government we will find ourselves again (as a country).

  4. te reo putake 4
    4 June 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Well that was fantastic! Little and both Greens leaders were rapt with how things went. I got to speak briefly with Andrew Little and Meteria Turei afterwards. Both very upbeat and optimistic about the future. Reading between the lines, I’d say the plan is to fight for a stand alone L/G government, maybe with C&S support from NZF, if needed.

    An upfront electoral pact has never been tried before under MMP, but I can tell you that from what I’ve seen here, there will be no lack of enthusiasm from Green members to make it happen. They so want to be in Government!

    I assume Turei and Shaw will get an invitation to the Labour Party’s centennial conference. I reckon they’re going to get an equally rousing reception from the red faithful as Little got from the Greens delegates. This is real, people!

    • Lanthanide 4.1
      4 June 2016 at 3:33 pm

      Unless direction of polling changes markedly, my best case scenario is still Labour + NZFirst with Greens on C&S.

      “An upfront electoral pact has never been tried before under MMP”

      Labour and the Alliance formed an upfront electoral pact before the 1999 MMP election.

    • Enough is Enough 4.2
      4 June 2016 at 3:39 pm

      It is not the red or green faithful that elect governments though.

      Lets not get carried away with two natural allies agreeing to finally align to get rid of their common enemy.

      As James said, that enemy is formidable and massively resourced.

      I can’t wait for the joint policy statements. That is when I think the missing million will fall in behind us.

    • weka 4.3
      4 June 2016 at 3:43 pm

      Great to have the live commentary trp.

      “Reading between the lines, I’d say the plan is to fight for a stand alone L/G government, maybe with C&S support from NZF, if needed.”

      That’s what I got from it too! Very exciting if true, and about damn time that NZ stopped being held hostage to Winston Peters’ power games. If he wants to change the govt he’s welcome to get on board. His next move will be interesting (on the Nation he declined the opportunity to slag off the Greens but instead pooh poohed the agreement).

      • Enough is Enough 4.3.1
        4 June 2016 at 3:50 pm

        Winston has been in government twice in the past 25 years. I think it is a bit of a stretch to say its time to stop him holding the country hostage. His influence is always exaggerated by the media.

        But I agree that the only result worth considering is a Green Labour government.

      • Karen 4.3.2
        4 June 2016 at 3:57 pm

        My hope is for exactly this – a Labour/Green coalition. I think this is the start of that dream becoming a reality. I watched both Little and Shaw’s speeches on live stream and both men were really impressive. I liked the fact that they talked about both being progressive parties – and neither mentioned NZ First (who are not a progressive party IMO).

        When the Alliance and Labour announced they would work together 18 months before the 1999 election it provided a boost in the polls that carried them through to victory in the election. This will be harder – we have a more right-leading media plus the Nats have loads of money to practice all the dark arts suggested by Crosby Textor. But I do feel a little bit more hopeful than I have for a while.

        • Enough is Enough 4.3.2.1
          4 June 2016 at 4:03 pm

          My hope is for a Green government.

          That is not realistic in the short term so having Labour join us to remove the government is the next best option.

          • leftie 4.3.2.1.1
            4 June 2016 at 4:59 pm

            You need a reality check, its not realistic in any term. FPP went out in the 1990’s, it’s MMP, and it’s not just a matter of Labour “joining” the Greens to oust out National, it’s Labour and the Greens WORKING TOGETHER to oust out National.

            • Enough is Enough 4.3.2.1.1.1
              7 June 2016 at 2:11 pm

              National came within a whisker of achieving that in the last election you [goose].

              Of course it is achievable.

              Stop being a defeatist and have some ambition you layabout.


              [Pointless abuse replaced. And while National briefly looked like getting 60 seats, their final vote was 47%, down slightly on the previous election. As I understand it, an outright win requires 50.3%, at least. TRP]

  5. ianmac 5
    4 June 2016 at 3:47 pm

    When Key visits Fiji next week, he will be comparing notes on how to diminish the Opposition. Cut out their ability to be heard. Frank is a master of that not that we would expect our Media or our Investigative Journalists to be intimidated. No?

  6. ianmac 6
    4 June 2016 at 7:25 pm

    TV1 gave the Conference a good hearing tonight. Surprising really.

  7. Jenny Kirk 7
    5 June 2016 at 9:43 am

    Great post, TRP. Thanks for putting it up.

    Its heartening and morale-boosting and I’m hoping like heck that a Labour-Green government can be achieved without NZF – but that’ll take some doing ! and a lot of work behind the scenes.

    • te reo putake 7.1
      5 June 2016 at 9:57 am

      Thanks, Jenny, much appreciated. It was just luck that I happened to be close enough to be able to pop down to Lincoln for a couple of hours. I’m really glad I made the effort. The Green party comms people were excellent and set me up in the media room without any fuss. The volunteers in the hall were equally nice and made sure I had everything I needed to be able to do the live blog. Plus I was constantly offered tea and healthy snacks, which was lovely!

  8. Jenny 8
    6 June 2016 at 10:50 am

    Thanks for this TRP.

    I gave my opinion, here, that Andrew Little gave the best speech of the conference. (up to that point)

    I rated Andrew Little’s speech 9 points out of 10.

    I rated James Shaw’s speech 8 out of 10. Mainly because of Shaw’s lack of specific policy as compared to Andrew Little’s address.

    I would have rated Shaw even less, but I made compensation for the impression that he was holding back, so as not to steal the thunder of Meteria Turei’s Sunday Centrepiece Campaign address.

    In retrospect Meteria Turei’s rehashed “Clean Rivers” campaign with which the Greens have fought the last two elections, was in my opinion a bit of a let down and disapointment.

    Leading grown adults in repeated chants “Of change the government” was about as eddifying as drunken 20 somethings chanting FJK, and about as empty, and didn’t help give a good impression either.

    I think that the Greens will have to lift their game if they want people to take them seriously.

    P.S. Could you ask the Greens Party comms people if they could provide us with full transcripts of both James Shaw and Meteria Turei’s speeches?

    • Jenny 8.1
      8 June 2016 at 11:53 pm

      It seems that day two of the Green Party conference has been deemed, not worthy of a mention by Standardistas.

      So I will try and give it a go

      The much hyped Centrepiece Environmental Campaign Address by Meteria Turei, (which I had so looked forward to hearing), turned out to be a disappointing repackaging of the Green Party’s Clean Rivers Campaign, a campaign with which the Green Party have had as their leading campaign over the past two elections.

      And which in my opinion, the Green Party have yet to achieve much (if any), cut through with.

      As Einstein said the definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I admit that that may be being a bit harsh.

      And yes the deplorable conditions of our rivers is something that does need to be addressed.

      But the desperate theatrical anthropomorphising of our poor polluted rivers would have had a certain cutesy appeal to a section of the population, but unfortunately ten year olds can’t vote.

      It is hard to see who else could be the target audience for this campaign.

      The rest of us city folk who hardly ever see a river except on TV when one floods, or rural folk already annoyed that they can no longer graze their flocks and herds on the rivers’ edge.

      It is my opinion that the pollution of our rivers should not be used as an excuse to ignore the greatest ecological disaster of all time. Which is of course climate change.

      There was only one brief, out of context mention of climate change tacked on Meteria Turei’s Centrepiece Campaign address. Which seemed to be in there for appearances sake only.

      And one long heartfelt and convincing narrative by a clean river activist Mike Glover concerned with pollution of his local river.

      And that was it.

      Oh, and and the repeated chanting “change the government”, mustn’t forget that.

      Dire, I know.

      Compare this to Andrew Little’s much more serious speech addressing all the main hard social justice issues of the day, and in which he made four direct mentions of climate change. And one indirect mention of climate change that I thought could be a very significant sign that the Labour Party are doing some very serious behind the scenes grappling over this issue.

      No doubt following the lobbying of his caucus colleagues by Labour MP Su’a William Sio and his Climate Change taskforce which visited the Pacific climate change front line states in March on a fact finding mission.

      “So here’s my message to the Prime Minister: You’ve had eight years. Take some responsibility. Act like a grown up and stop blaming others.

      But this isn’t the only issue they’re failing New Zealanders on.

      Take their absolute lack of ambition on climate change.

      On protecting our environment.

      On standing up for our neighbours in the Pacific.”

      Andrew Little

      It is the last line of this quote that I think is significant, and portentous.

      https://www.facebook.com/OxfamNZ/photos/a.10150574664390723.373587.23625700722/10153452365830723/?type=3&theater

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/303337/pacific-islands-swallowed-by-the-sea

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/302835/push-for-pacific-nations-to-engage-with-ipcc