Parker’s egalitarian passion

Written By: - Date published: 1:39 pm, July 5th, 2014 - 51 comments
Categories: david parker, Economy, election 2014, labour - Tags:

David Parker’s speech at Labour’s Congress today was passionate, comprehensive, and fully thought through. Respected for his intellect, Parker also said “My political heart lies in what has become something of a quaint  notion these days, the notion of an egalitarian society. Perhaps it’s because of my Southern Presbyterian roots. It’s not just about equality of opportunity. It’s about decent outcomes as well.” Amen to that.

Here’s the link to the full speech and here’s his conclusion summarising Labour’s positive mini-manifesto to be released tomorrow.

Labour is presenting positive choices to New Zealanders for a positive future. The economy has to work for all New Zealanders. We will grow the economy, for greater prosperity and jobs. We will move the economy from volume to value.We will reform monetary policy for the challenges of the 21st century. We will secure the future of super. We’ll lift children out of poverty and restore the Kiwi dream of owning your own home. We will rebalance the economy and achieve greater equity.

Our pledge is to lift New Zealand. To raise our sights. To strive for success. To make New Zealand a better and more equal place. I’m an egalitarian politician. I’m here because I know that’s what Labour’s here for.

He got a standing ovation. I’ve seen a few of those over the years – this was one of the most deserving. You felt he meant it. You knew he would do it. You thought he could do it.

Game on.

51 comments on “Parker’s egalitarian passion ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Populuxe1 1
    5 July 2014 at 1:53 pm

    Codswollop. David Parker is a neoliberal in sheep’s clothing

  2. Colonial Viper 2
    5 July 2014 at 2:01 pm

    I do like Parker personally and as an intellectual, but I think the idea that ‘we must cut super, in order to save super’ is crappy. Especially when he has been talking about Govt affording tax cuts in a second term, and making people pay more of their wages to private investment funds and Wall St (KiwiSaver).

    Why not just put that money into the Cullen Fund and keep Super at 65.

    • Lanthanide 2.1
      5 July 2014 at 2:17 pm

      We should be paying back debt, which costs us $4B in interest each year.

      I’m pretty disappointed that Labour brought out the smoke and mirrors to claim they’d get us to 3% net debt of GDP by 2020, but they got that figure by including assets such as ACC and the Cullen fund. But having those cash assets on the book doesn’t mean we’re suddenly not paying $4B in interest costs each year.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1
        5 July 2014 at 4:28 pm

        We should be paying back debt, which costs us $4B in interest each year.

        That’s actually easy to do. Every time a bond comes due the government should just create the money and buy it back. Unfortunately, no government will do it because it would upset the rich. It would do wonders for our economy though.

        • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.1
          5 July 2014 at 5:20 pm

          Definitely agree in principle but the execution could do with a bit of subtlety/obscuration so its not as much of a blatant affront.

      • Colonial Viper 2.1.2
        5 July 2014 at 5:27 pm

        We should be paying back debt, which costs us $4B in interest each year.

        Paying back debt destroys money from circulation. Ideally we should repay debt while replacing the money lost from our economic system with newly issued debt free money from the government.

        • mikesh 2.1.2.1
          6 July 2014 at 1:36 pm

          ‘Paying back debt destroys money from circulation. Ideally we should repay debt while replacing the money lost from our economic system with newly issued debt free money from the government.’

          Doing this may also reduce the exchange rate, which, it is alleged, would be an advantage.

    • dave 2.2
      5 July 2014 at 4:57 pm

      because that wanker key cut the cullen fund we would need to have start payments in 2011 to avoid cuts to super. the blame can be layed firmly at nationals door in last 40 years its been national who scuttled every effort to pre fund super and avoid the baby boomer train wreak any one who is generation x give national party cadet a broadside and chase the bastard/bitch down the road with pitch fork over this issue they have screwed us !

      • Colonial Viper 2.2.1
        5 July 2014 at 5:23 pm

        We don’t need to cut Super anyway. Not supporting the Cullen fund was unhelpful sure but Super is easily affordable because Super is paid out by the Govt in the same money that the Govt can issue (NZD).

        • Lanthanide 2.2.1.1
          5 July 2014 at 6:30 pm

          “because Super is paid out by the Govt in the same money that the Govt can issue (NZD)”

          Printing money has ramifications. TANSTAAFL.

          • redfred 2.2.1.1.1
            5 July 2014 at 7:35 pm

            yes it does look at the latest job figures from the US and theier stock market

          • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.1.2
            5 July 2014 at 7:40 pm

            Printing money has ramifications. TANSTAAFL.

            Sure. But why would those ramifications be any worse or harder to manage than injecting the same amount of money into our economy by sourcing it from overseas creditors?

            • Lanthanide 2.2.1.1.2.1
              5 July 2014 at 7:58 pm

              “But why would those ramifications be any worse or harder to manage than injecting the same amount of money into our economy by sourcing it from overseas creditors?”

              Because there are people in the world that think printing money is bad, and borrowing money is good. A lot of those people are very powerful.

              • Colonial Viper …
                5 July 2014 at 8:35 pm

                Ah yes, I have to concede to you on that one.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                5 July 2014 at 9:40 pm

                And those people are powerful because they can loan the government money and thus demand interest from them. This is why they don’t want the government creating money – it loosens their ability to control the government and the population in their favour.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.1.3
            5 July 2014 at 7:53 pm

            Printing money has ramifications.

            Yes, that’s why the privilege of doing so needs to be taken from the private banks.

          • mikesh 2.2.1.1.4
            6 July 2014 at 1:39 pm

            TANSTAAFL ??

  3. anker 3
    5 July 2014 at 2:15 pm

    It was a great impassioned speech. Not a big Parker fan as such, but he really did inspire today

  4. fender 4
    5 July 2014 at 2:58 pm

    On Stuff

    “We believe that a rising tide of economic growth should lift all boats, not just the super yachts.”

    “We have rising inequality in New Zealand, we have the lowest home ownership rates in 50 years we’ve got rising rates of child poverty and half of New Zealanders got no increase in their pay rate last year while luxury car sales tripled.”

    Definitely couldn’t confuse his language with that of Drippy Dipton…

    • Colonial Viper 4.1
      5 July 2014 at 5:25 pm

      Real economic growth is over. Parker needs to realise that, as does Labour as a whole. They are setting policy based on false premises.

      • evnz 4.1.1
        7 July 2014 at 12:47 pm

        Economic growth is no longer viable in a full planet. Parker used the word growth a lot which shows he is just another conventional economist, not a post-carbon man. Labour is no different to the Nats here – grow the economy so everyone can have a bit more. What Parker should be saying is we will redistribute the existing economy so the poor get more and the rich get less.

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1
          7 July 2014 at 1:15 pm

          And not just re-distribute the existing economy – which is wasteful and volume consumption oriented. We need to transform the economy into one where “growth” is about improving quality not increasing quantity. And focused on people, not financial returns.

  5. blue leopard 5
    5 July 2014 at 3:00 pm

    Thanks Mike, that sounds like a really positively framed speech (well, conclusion of a speech – to be precise) – very much what the left needs. Good one Parker!

  6. ianmac 6
    5 July 2014 at 3:10 pm

    Financial wizards do tend to be a dry but I gather David Parker has passion as well.
    What major storm will Key/Whaleoil deliver today or tomorrow to distract us?
    10,9,8,7,6…..

  7. thechangeling 7
    5 July 2014 at 4:45 pm

    Sounds nice but until the fundamentals such as making a much larger amount what we consume, so that jobs are created and wealth circulates through and around the economy and is not shuffled offshore all the time because of FTA’s, nothing much will seriously change here.
    That, and a comprehensive manufacturing sector strategy to boost production and jobs along with some form of a centralised wage fixing system and gradually the poverty that exists here will lift over time.
    Tinkering at the edges of deeply embedded neo-liberal economic and social policies will not do much at all.
    I don’t believe Labour has the guts to do what is really needed. My gut tells me that. I believe the Greens will attempt it though.

  8. Lefty 8
    5 July 2014 at 5:47 pm

    If promoting primitive neo liberal economic policies is the mark of an egalitarian intellectual we are all fucked.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.1
      5 July 2014 at 6:02 pm

      lol

      • phillip ure 8.1.1
        5 July 2014 at 6:32 pm

        then there was the not small matter of him being unable to conceal his delight..

        ..as he stood behind cunnliffe..as cunnliffe ruled out harawira/harre as ministers..(yeah right..!..)

        ..and ‘chippy’ hipkins..

        ..and the man who sold more state-assets than key has done..

        ..phil goff.

        ..a smirking moa-mallard…

        ..all dumping on internet/mana..

        ..it wasn’t that edifying a look..

        ..and i am picking that the adult poor will be offered nothing 2morrow..

        ..just more arbeit macht frei…

        ..to be fuelled by ‘growth’/drilling/mining…

        ..those rightwingers in labour wd rather lose this election..

        ..so they cd take back control of the party after cunnliffe..

        ..and be pretty sure of denying key a fourth term in ’17..

        ..whereas if the left of labour prevails..

        ..those rightwingers are fucked..

        ..for the forseeable future..

        ..mallards’ moa-stunt was a clear ploy to diffuse the donation-policy popularity..

        ..the man is a fucken traitor..

        ..they all are…goff/’chippy’/parker/mallard..

        ..secret-agendas up the wazoo..

        • phillip ure 8.1.1.1
          5 July 2014 at 6:50 pm

          and irony o.d.-alert..

          labour is disdaining/spurning the only party that has ‘real’ labour policies…

        • The Al1en 8.1.1.2
          5 July 2014 at 7:22 pm

          “as cunnliffe ruled out harawira/harre as ministers”

          Great political move. As DC said, he can’t imagine Hone voting for Key, so why give him anything he doesn’t have to.
          It sends a message to those considering wasting their votes on mip, if you really want to be represented in the government you’re best bet is vote Green or Labour.

          “all dumping on internet/mana..”

          After all the bull you’ve directed at Labour and the Greens recently, one has to have a little chuckle at that.

          • redfred 8.1.1.2.1
            5 July 2014 at 7:39 pm

            still voting mana in this corner.. still going to need supply and confidence numbers…and a portfolio outside of cabinet me thinks

            • Chooky 8.1.1.2.1.1
              6 July 2014 at 9:20 pm

              ‘What are Internet MANA bottom lines and what Cunliffe’s comments minus msm hysteria actually mean’

              By Martyn Bradbury / July 5, 2014 /

              The embarrassing manner in which the mainstream media have over egged Cunliffe’s recent comments this morning is just another reminder of what is so very wrong with political journalism in NZ – that we have MMP elections covered by a First-Past-The-Post Press Gallery…..

              …..As The Daily Blog has pointed out for about a year now, the relationship between Labour and Internet MANA will most likely take the form of a supply and confidence arrangement so the idea that Cunliffe is saying it’s unlikely for Laila or Hone to sit at the Cabinet table isn’t a shock or surprise to anyone with the intelligence to research this properly. It seems Paddy, the Nation and Claire Trevett have no comprehension of how supply and confidence relationships work, so seeing as the mainstream media simply won’t explain it, allow me to.

              What do Internet MANA want?

              Their joint platform follows 3 themes:

              Manaakitanga: Sharing our wealth – Feed the kids, free tertiary education, 30 000 new state houses, financial transactions tax.

              Nga Moemoea: A future of hope – Right to work, living wage, public investment into internet infrastructure, cheaper universal internet, 100% renewable energy by 2025.

              Rangatiratanga: A free and independent nation – more Maori language in schools, withdraw from 5 eyes, repeal GCSB Bills and enact a Bill of Digital Rights

              What are the bottom-lines for a supply and confidence arrangement likely to be?

              I think the most likely outcome if there is a Green-Labour-Internet MANA majority would be an offer post election for supply and confidence meaning Internet MANA were outside Cabinet but guaranteed stable Government with a supply and confidence arrangement with the 5 most likely bottom lines being

              1 – Feed the Kids

              2 – More public investment in internet infrastructure and universal internet access

              3 – 30 000 new state houses

              4 – Repeal the GCSB and TICs Bill and implement a Digital Bill of Rights

              5 – Could be free tertiary, cannabis decriminalisation or living wage.

              Such an arrangement would keep Internet MANAs independence while delivering real and tangible change for their voters. None of that subtlety was explained by the nonsense media coverage of it.

  9. Once was Tim 9
    5 July 2014 at 6:25 pm

    “Tinkering at the edges of deeply embedded neo-liberal economic and social policies will not do much at all”

    Rome wasn’t built in a day …. rahderahderah.

    At LEAST the pendulum appears to have reached its outer limit on its swing to the right (at least within Labour). The problem is though that there are too many that Labour lay claim to wanting to represent who are running out of life, and there’s a bubble or two that are probably going to pop in the meantime.
    They might have earned my electorate vote – no way the party vote.

  10. Ant 10
    5 July 2014 at 6:31 pm

    The transcript is appreciated but where is the video of the speech?… It’s 2014.

    Shouldn’t key speeches be streamed? Its kind of ridiculous this isn’t happening from a major political party. Especially after releasing tech policy LOL

  11. Draco T Bastard 11
    5 July 2014 at 9:37 pm

    Must read comment

    My feeling about full employment is that getting it, and sustaining it, and making sure the jobs are both socially worthwhile and provide the people who have them with dignity, isn’t a simple matter of of increasing some amorphous quantity called “demand”. Also, economic models that assume there is such a thing as “aggregate demand” – from which the concept of effective demand is derived – are extremely idealized. It seems a little strange to me that people who are often so skeptical that there is a single category of stuff called “capital”, the portions of which have values that are commensurable and that thus allow us to measure the total amount of capital, are nevertheless so comfortable with the idea that there is a single quantity of human behavioral dispositions called “demand” and that these dispositions can all be aggregated into a single function.

    Don’t agree with him fully but he’s right in that having jobs isn’t going to miraculously create equality.

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      5 July 2014 at 9:42 pm

      We know there is plenty of work which needs to be or could be usefully done in society. Whether or not they can be organised into paid “jobs” (and the desirability of doing that) is another matter altogether.

    • thechangeling 11.2
      5 July 2014 at 9:56 pm

      If full employment is “extremely idealized” then why did New Zealand experience this very situation in the 1950s/60s/70s??? (Think Bretton Woods post war agreement between capital and labour and the subsequent boom of production/consumption driven by aggregate demand).
      How can “demand” be categorized as “amorphous” when demand for goods and services clearly happens every day? If demand didn’t occur then living standards would plummet and we’d all die.
      Well paid jobs for everyone would shrink the gap between rich and poor depending on how much of the ‘surplus value’ would be surrendered by capital to labour.
      Who ever wrote that stuff sounds like a typically biased neo-liberally inspired neo classical economist.

      • thechangeling 11.2.1
        5 July 2014 at 10:07 pm

        Read the full article now. It would seem that ‘demand’ per se as a primary driver of economic thus social life is a problem because its just another economic theory of how to generate and distribute wealth rather than just having something as simple as a UBI for everyone as a human right. Why must economic theories dominate our right to an existence?

        • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.1
          5 July 2014 at 10:16 pm

          In the old days it was always about ‘political economics’. That discipline understood that economic choices were inherently political ones reflecting the priorities and preferences of the society and its leadership.

          When economists started pretending that they were a mathematical science, they stripped off the “political” moniker and tried to make out that they were akin to a robust physical science describing forces of nature.

          Which was entirely convenient for the elite who wanted to get most of society out of the way, and convincing for those politicians who really got sucked into following along with a technical sounding and plausible scam.

  12. fisiani 12
    6 July 2014 at 5:17 am

    And yet again the focus is on outcomes rather than opportunity. Redistribution rather than growth. Handouts rather than handups. Fish rather than fishing rod. No wonder he got a standing ovation from the inmates.

  13. Kaye 13
    6 July 2014 at 9:57 am

    And not a word about benefit rates. Or the plight of beneficiaries. I guess we aren’t part of this great egalitarian society. This pretty much confirms what most of us have know about Labour’s opinion of us since the 2000s. ie, exactly what National think of us, the lowest form of life there is, not worth of acknowledgement.

    Any remote chance they had of getting my party vote is well and truely gone now.

  14. mikesh 14
    6 July 2014 at 2:37 pm

    He still seems to be promoting this bloody stupid capital gains tax idea, which will see property owners and speculators laughing all the way to the bank. If he wishes to impose such a tax in the erroneous belief that a capital gain is some form of income then he should tax it it at the proposed top income tax rate of 36%. The alternative of a land tax however would have a better chance of achieving something since it would encourage more efficient land use – in particular, higher density housing in places like Auckland, and perhaps a movement, especially by businesses, to the regions, where land is cheaper.