The Labour Green 2017 campaign launch

Written By: - Date published: 8:14 am, January 30th, 2017 - 33 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, election 2017, greens, labour, Media, Metiria Turei, Politics - Tags:

I attended the joint Labour-Green state of the Nation launch yesterday in Mt Albert and it was impressive.

It was a very comfortable event. There were many, many Auckland Labour activists in attendance. And there were many, many Green activists as well. I have spent a fair bit of time campaigning with both and to have them all in the same room at the same time was a very enjoyable experience.

It is clear that the senior staffers in both parties have put a great deal of planning and effort into the launch and it worked well.

The speeches neatly dovetailed into each other with Metiria’s speech providing the perfect introduction to Andrew’s speech.

Sacha accurately identified the most important passage of Metiria’s speech:

I was touched by this explicit and generous declaration of MMP intent from Metiria’s speech, and by the mutual respect of the two parties’ supporters in the room as well as on the stage:

“That’s what we – myself, James, Andrew and Annette are going after in 2017. That’s why the Greens and Labour have signed the Memorandum of Understanding.

To see our parties, the Greens and Labour working together to deliver for our children, our communities, our environment.

To see Andrew Little become our new Prime Minister.

So, let’s all make this commitment together …”

Andrew’s speech broke with recent tradition in that it did not include any new detailed policy giving National no ability to go through and pick holes in and misrepresent as has occurred in previous years.  And it was also deeply personal and gave an insight into the sense of mortality his brush with cancer gave him and the fear that he has for the world that his son is growing up in.  It was compellingly personal and part of the process where his personality and thinking have to be displayed to the public.  More please.

The media response has been overwhelmingly positive.  Paddy Gower described the launch as having the best left vibe in years.  He said this:

If it is “all about the vibe”, then the Labour-Green alliance has nailed it from the outset of election year.

My first question after seeing them onstage together at the joint State of the Nation was, “What took you guys so long?”

The vibe at the Mount Albert War Memorial Hall was the best I have seen on the Left for years.

The leaders gelled, and so did the crowds. Labour benefited from the Green energy. And the Greens benefited from the extra size of Labour.

They both looked better together. But the most important thing was that it felt real.

The Green supporters liked Andrew Little. The Labour supporters liked Metiria Turei. They clapped each other like they meant it.

Audrey Young in the Herald was also very positive about the event and about Little’s performance.

Little shone. He looked sharp, in a new dark suit from Hugo Boss and new black shoes.

He sounded confident and polished. His message was a mix of oppositional attack and inspirational rhetoric. And the crowd went wild.

So the parties’ future are now linked.  In the past couple of elections suggestions by Russell Norman late in the campaign that the Greens could go with National in my opinion have hurt both Labour and the Greens.  The last time the parties campaigned together was in 2005, the last time that a progressive Government was elected.  Hopefully this year will repeat that event.

33 comments on “The Labour Green 2017 campaign launch ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sacha 1
    30 January 2017 at 9:20 am

    Thanks. Audrey’s follow-up today conveys the tone of the speeches, with extensive quoting: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11790991

    • Carolyn_nth 1.1
      30 January 2017 at 9:41 am

      Referencing US President Donald Trump, Little said there had to be a better path than isolation and bigotry.

      “It’s our turn to shine and to lead the way, to be New Zealand at its best.

      “New Zealand can be a beacon to the world.”

  2. weka 2
    30 January 2017 at 10:17 am

    Little’s humour came across well too. He’s funny. More of this too please.

  3. The Fairy Godmother 3
    30 January 2017 at 10:19 am

    It was a great meeting and I really enjoyed it. I’m ready to go out and do the work in our electorate that needs to be done to change the government. I’m sure everyone else who was there is ready too.

    • greg 3.1
      30 January 2017 at 11:30 am

      i work on the mt roskil by election one thing i noticed in one 23 house block road there was 10 none enrolled voters plus the housing situation has thrown up a larger transit community so i would say contact your local labour/green electorate office and concentrate on enrollments and if you want to make some money sign up for the electoral commission
      south auckland is a gold mine of none enrolled

      • The Fairy Godmother 3.1.1
        30 January 2017 at 12:23 pm

        Yes greg, a good point. Also you don’t need to be part of an organisation to get people on the roll. You can just check the electoral roll to make sure all your family, friends, work mates ,fellow club members and church or cultural group members are enrolled and if they arent get them to fill out an enrollment form and then you can post it back for them. If all people who read the Standard did this it could make a big difference.

  4. nzsage 4
    30 January 2017 at 11:09 am

    It was an inspirational and sometime touching speech by Andrew and Metiria. Great to see.

    Better together!

  5. alwyn 5
    30 January 2017 at 12:46 pm

    If there is anyone reading this who can comprehend the Little fellows mind can they please explain where these two statements in his speech come from?

    “He cut the budgets for health and education.”
    and
    “On health, we’ll reverse Bill English’s $1.7 billion of heath cuts.”

    The Health budget in the 2008-2009 year was about $12.2 billion.
    In the 2016-2017 year it is $16.2 billion.
    Is Little really so mathematically illiterate?

    • mickysavage 5.1
      30 January 2017 at 12:51 pm

      Per head of population and allowing for increasing need because of an ageing population the health spend is going backwards.

    • lprent 5.2
      30 January 2017 at 12:54 pm

      I guess you don’t understand

      1 inflation
      2 increased population
      3. aging population.

      Since National hasn’t been lifting health budgets as fast as any of them, the nett effect is a drop in the resources allocated at a per head basis.

      Perhaps you should get off your arse and learn some basic economics

      • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1
        30 January 2017 at 1:47 pm

        He understands fine – he’s just trying to propagate the standard RWNJ lie that National are increasing spending but he can only use the nominal figures because the real numbers prove the lie.

        • weka 5.2.1.1
          30 January 2017 at 2:09 pm

          +1 Classic RW toll comment from alwyn. He has at least learned to posit his bullshit as questions instead of outright lies, but the point of his comment is most definitely manifest in the last sentence. Spin some, then impugn. Rinse and repeat.

      • alwyn 5.2.2
        30 January 2017 at 3:11 pm

        “learn some basic economics”.
        But I do know some basic economics, and a great deal of advanced economics.
        I also went to the trouble of looking at the numbers and I am afraid they don’t support your claims very well..
        You say that, regarding Inflation, Population and aging population that
        “Since National hasn’t been lifting health budgets as fast as any of them….”.

        Ok, for your information the health budget over the 8 years I referenced rose by 33%.
        Inflation was 13 % between 2008Q4 and 2016Q4
        The estimated total population rose by 10% between June 2008 (4.26m) to June 2016 (4.69m). That is 8 years
        The population over 65, which is a proxy for aging rose between the 2006 and 2013 Census by 22%. That is 7 years, and is only an approximate for the period of the National Government but it isn’t easy to get accurate numbers from any other source.
        These numbers come from the Treasury, the Stats Dept and the RB.

        Thus the health budget rose faster than any of your numbers.

        If we work out the per capita numbers, after inflation, we get an increase in the Health Budget of a real 18%. (1.33/1.13)
        Thus for the total population the increase in the real amount/head is 7% (1.18/1.10).
        Against the population over 65 it is a decline of about 3%. That is the only calculation that has anything like your claim. However do you really think that the entire health budget is spent on people over 65 and do you think it can possibly justify his $1.7 billion claim?

        These are, of course, only an approximate set of results. I don’t know, and really don’t feel like deriving a set of statistics that break health expenditure down by age of patient, or even an inflation rate for health costs as opposed to the CPI but if you know of one you are welcome to come up with your own derivation.

        In the meantime can you answer the original question? Where does Little get his numbers from if not his imagination?

        And sorry DTB and Weka. These numbers do illustrate my point on both the real and per capita values. The only “lie” is your description of my information.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.2.2.1
          30 January 2017 at 4:27 pm

          Researchers claim NZ health budget declining, publicly-funded surgery on way out

          ix prominent industry health leaders and researchers contributed to the editorial in the latest edition of the New Zealand Medical Journal, after several months analysing Government documents and data.

          Their analysis showed Government spending in health had steadily tracked downward since 2009, despite constant reassurances from health ministers that spending was increasing year-on-year.

          The $16.1 billion 2016 Health Budget, announced on Thursday, was $170 million more than last year, including $124m for Pharmac, $96m for elective surgery and $39m for a new bowel screening programme.

          However, the researchers’ analysis of Budget data from 2009-10 found the country’s health budget had fallen short of what was needed each year to cover new services, increasing costs and the Ministry of Health’s cost-weighted index, which accounted for population growth and ageing.

          So, what I said.

          • alwyn 5.2.2.1.1
            30 January 2017 at 6:50 pm

            Researchers say “We want more money.
            Doctor’s union leader agrees.
            So what?
            Have you ever wondered why it costs about $20,000 to have a hip or knee replacement?
            Do you really think it costs that much or do or is it that the doctors concerned just want a new Mercedes?

            Do you wonder why it costs between $4,000 and $6,000 to have a cataract op? And it actually takes about 10 minutes? At least that is what my optician has told me. He also tells me that if the medical profession would allow more specialists in it could be done for a fraction of the cost and the waiting list would vanish.
            While you are about it how do you think the Fred Hollows foundation can do essentially the same thing for about $25?

            Frankly the people you are quoting have a vested interest in putting up the cost of medical treatment by as much as they can.

            Apart from that of course, complaining that the health budget is not going up by as much as they would like is NOT a cut in the budget. That $1.7 billion “cut” sounds like crap.

            I am still unable to access the link that Sacha provide. Who was the work done for? Organisations like this can find evidence for anything you want if you pay the bill.

            edit. I can access it now. I will have a read.

        • Sacha 5.2.2.2
          30 January 2017 at 4:53 pm

          A large proportion of total health spend is on over-65s, actually. More than is intuitive. You’ll enjoy the brief Infometrics paper which identifies its sources.

          • Carolyn_nth 5.2.2.2.1
            30 January 2017 at 5:04 pm

            But, to be fair, Sacha, as someone getting older, my experience is this: when I was younger I rarely used the health services – went several years without seeing a GP. And in those days, there was less user pays, more free services. Now as I’m getting older, I do need more attention – mainly hearing and sight. And I find things now cost more: more user pays. And there’s a stronger 2-tier system.

            I see many people my age with health insurance which I don’t have. There’s a lot of things I’ve had to pay for myself. Sometimes it’s a real struggle to get to see a specialist.

            Older people I know with more wealth and financial resources, and health insurance, get instant surgery, tests, etc.

            So, there’s an increasingly 2-tier system for the elderly – and for many of us, we have paid taxes during our working life, and never needed to use the health services much at a younger age.

      • alwyn 5.3.1
        30 January 2017 at 3:13 pm

        Which is, I’m afraid,not something I can access.
        It isn’t publicly available apparently.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.3.1.1
          30 January 2017 at 4:28 pm

          Fixed link

          • Sacha 5.3.1.1.1
            30 January 2017 at 4:46 pm

            Even that didn’t work. Try this

            That bracket in the link must have confounded the auto-embed code.

            • alwyn 5.3.1.1.1.1
              31 January 2017 at 11:49 am

              I see that they used the oldest trick in the book.
              Choose the start and end dates of your comparison to emphasize the result you want. Then lie about it.
              The Infometrics work uses a base year from which the comparison is made of 2009/2010. Then Andrew uses the results to compare Health spending under National with Health spending under Labour. That is not what these numbers are doing of course. They are starting with the figures from National’s first full year in power as being the base. Thus they can ignore the billion or so extra dollars that National had put into the Health budget in the 2009 budget. It also ignores more recent data.
              A valid comparison if you were wanting to compare the National and the Labour expenditure would have been the amount in the 2008 budget and expenditure in the 2008/2009 year with later ones.
              That wasn’t what Little Andy was trying to do of course. He simply wanted to spin a yarn, which most of his audience are only too happy to swallow.
              I haven’t looked at the source of the “demographic growth numbers”. It isn’t worth wasting my time on. This was a hastily produced document that gave the client what he wanted and to hell with the real world.

              Actually Weka gave the best description of what Andy was up to.
              “Spin some, then impugn. Rinse and repeat”.
              It certainly seems to work when your audience consists of typical left wing uneducated idiots.

              [“Actually Weka gave the best description of what Andy was up to.” No, she didn’t. And you know how I feel about my words being misused and my views being misrepresented. Banned until I can get back online and look at what shit you are spinning here and what kind of moderation it deserves. – weka]

              [haven’t had time to deal with this properly, so a 3 month ban in the hope that you will learn to be more careful about how you represent my views here. If on the other hand you want to troll by misusing my words, feel free and expect a longer ban next time. – weka]

  6. Ric 6
    30 January 2017 at 3:30 pm

    https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Country-Note-NEW%20ZEALAND-OECD-Health-Statistics-2015.pdf

    from the link
    “Public spending per capita grew
    strongly between 2001 and 2009, at an average of 5% per year
    Since 2009 growth has been generally flat with a decline in 2013.”

    There is no doubt that under the Labour government spending in public health grew more than it has under this National government. (if at all in real terms)

    More commentators should back up their comments with reputable evidence.

  7. Ian 7
    30 January 2017 at 4:00 pm

    Andrew said:

    “My government will be fiscally responsible… We will run surpluses, just like last time..

    We’ve balanced the books before, and we’ll do it again”.

    Still trapped in the Monetarist neo-liberal fog

  8. Leftie 8
    30 January 2017 at 8:06 pm

    Really love that photo, for me, it says it all.

  9. Dave kennedy 9
    1 February 2017 at 10:15 pm

    It is really hard to get rid of myths, Russel never said ” that the Greens could go with National”. He was asked a direct question whether we would consider a coalition with National and he made it very clear that the Greens would not support National “for confidence and supply” but the Greens could work with National on common policy if they became the Government again. Just like we did with the Healthy Homes insulation project, cycle trails and managing toxic sites. It’s a pity that misreporting is excepted as fact.