What I would like from the Labour Party Conference

Written By: - Date published: 8:00 am, July 8th, 2016 - 120 comments
Categories: labour, Left, Politics - Tags:

Labour national campaign launch-1

Regrettably I won’t be there, so the first thing I’d want is to hear that it was a party. A century is a good stretch for any movement. Its’ history is astonishing and its achievements in government both people-building and nation-building.

You can buy the book. I’m not going to defend its entire history – I’m Catholic after all. But I hope there was space given to hear stories of the struggle to get there, from oldies who committed their lives to the cause. Karaoke’d to “Regrets, I’ve had a few …But I did it Myyyyyyy Wayyyyyyy”.  So I hope they celebrated hard.

I’m not going to bore you with some Unicorn-Shits-Rainbows policy list. But don’t let me stop you.

I want to hear that people under 30 were keen to represent; to stand in front of crowds and state why we should vote for them and support them as Labour. Standing for politics just looks bonkers to most humans. It takes guts, and we need the renewal.

It would be great to hear of speeches that are funny, sharp, and memorable. A few lines that resonated around the discourse for more than a moment. A personal plea to include the Austin Powers’ video clip for ‘One Hundred Billion Dollars!’ to underline the incoherence of Key’s proposal last weekend.

I’d like to hear that it was both unified, and rambunctious. Because it’s New Zealand on show, Labour is an amalgam of centrist, activist, ethnic, Maori, feminist, business, and elsewhere. It would be great to hear that ours is a working engine of democracy. Ideas are contested because that is the life of politics. So it can stand in contrast to National’s sterile, mechanized piece of fluff.

I’d like to see the Green party represented. New Zealand still needs to get used to this relationship, as does Labour more fully.

I’d like to see Andrew Little repeat the promise to build thousands upon thousands of homes. And double down on it. With a slow news week, housing remains the one political story that continues to resonate, all the way from the bottom of our society to the top.

Most of all, I want to hear that they had fun, came away proud and inspired, respectful of their hard-earned century, challenged, and ready to govern in partnership for a very different direction for my country.

120 comments on “What I would like from the Labour Party Conference”

  1. Tautoko Mangō Mata 1

    I want what Jane Kelsey wants: A commitment to revoke the ratification of TPP.

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/07/07/exclusive-the-nz-labour-party-can-no-longer-avoid-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    • Bill 1.1

      I’ll second that.

      But given that Andrew Little has claimed Labour has “always” supported free trade, I can’t see any such commitment being made.

      Would like to see The Greens given the same prominence as Andrew Little was given at their conference. Again. I’m not expecting it.

      Definitely not expecting anything worth while on global warming and don’t even expect any announcements in other areas (eg housing) to take it into account.

      Like the aging relative hitting the ton , I expect there will be cake, reminiscence and far too much forced gaiety.

      • Anne 1.1.1

        Would like to see The Greens given the same prominence as Andrew Little was given at their conference. Again. I’m not expecting it.

        I could be mistaken but I understood this is a one day conference to mark the 100th year of NZ Labour’s existence. The Annual Conference (later this year in Auckland I think) is when I imagine Labour will formally welcome the Greens leadership and I am sure it will be greeted as enthusiastically as the Greens greeted Andrew Little. Don’t take notice of the small fringe group who still think we’re back in the 70s and 80s. The vast majority of Labour Party members have been wanting this to happen for a long time.

        • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1

          Picking and choosing when to recognise your friends or not isn’t very good politics.

          The vast majority of Labour Party members have been wanting this to happen for a long time.

          Perhaps the organisers of this event should give the membership a taste of what it wants. Giving the Green co-leaders 20 minutes out of a day shouldn’t be pulling teeth.

        • Craig H 1.1.1.2

          Correct – the main conference is in November in Auckland.

        • Jenny Kirk 1.1.1.3

          Yes – its a one-day conference – not specifically about any policies as far as I know, but about some internal processes – along with celebrating Labour’s 100 years -warts and all. But mostly the “all” – because it has been under Labour that most of NZ’s progressive policies in social areas – health, housing, working conditions, education – and in the international area – have been achieved.

          All of which, of course, are now under threat from this current National government.

          Labour’s main conference will be held in Auckland early November – that will be the conference to highlight the start of the election campaign (not this mid-year celebration).

          • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.3.1

            It’s normal to invite people you consider your “friends” to your birthday party, is it not.

            Don’t know what all this bloody political pussyfooting is about.

            If you want to show off your new friendship to the electorate, theres an easy way this weekend.

            • leftie 1.1.1.3.1.1

              Who is doing ‘the all this bloody political pussyfooting”?

              People are just responding to what Bill posted.

            • Anne 1.1.1.3.1.2

              It’s normal to invite people you consider your “friends” to your birthday party, is it not.

              It’s quite possible they have…

              • Colonial Viper

                Well, it would be positive to have the Green co-leaders play some sort of role. It doesn’t have to be big. But it would send the right message to the electorate, post MOU.

                • I agree, CV, that it would send an appropriate message to voters. Solidarity. How novel if Labour actually validated this historical mantra of theirs. People could start to feel that Helen Clark’s deceit strategy was being abandoned in favour of authenticity.

                  There’s plenty of voters who get the relation of trust to authenticity and honesty: surely leftists ought to be able to understand that the only way to convince centrists that they are credible is on the basis of shared values and aspirations. And everyone knows you have to win the center to change the government.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    you have to win the center to change the government.

                    Is this true?

                    Are there any counter examples? Much?

                    Please don’t assume I think any of the counter-examples are a good idea.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      you have to win the center to change the government.

                      This is a basic Labour Party election campaign premise.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Labour Party election campaign premise

                      Says who? Your opinion is worthless, being utterly compromised by your massive conflict of interest and shoulder-mounted chip.

                    • I was just recycling conventional political wisdom, OAB, that any political scientist will confirm. But your question is valid: counter-examples to this norm are very rare, perhaps none in our life-time, and you have to go back to the early-mid 20th century to see good examples of massive transforms of political culture.

                      The way political scientists frame the political center is usually to describe them as swing-voters, with the comment that they usually only change the government when sufficient disillusionment with the status quo kicks in. Latest Roy Morgan poll gave us a 2% shift away from the Nats, sufficient to lose them a couple of seats. Key is therefore already hanging on by his fingernails, and the housing crisis will see his grip on the edge crumble, I expect…

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Says who? Your opinion is worthless, being utterly compromised by your massive conflict of interest and shoulder-mounted chip.

                      It’s obvious. Labour views elections as being won and lost on the middle NZ swing vote.

                      Ignore the obviousness of it if you like, it makes no difference to me.

          • KJT 1.1.1.3.2

            It was also under Labour that most of them were reversed.

        • leftie 1.1.1.4

          Spot on Anne, well said!!!

      • Save NZ 1.1.2

        I’ll third it.

      • leftie 1.1.3

        But Bill, Labour’s announcements in the weekend are all about housing.

        • Colonial Viper 1.1.3.1

          Let’s wait and see what they are. Let’s see what they offer to the average wage earner on $55K pa.

    • Enough is Enough 1.2

      I think with the British people setting the precedent of rejecting anti-democratic elitists institutions like the EU, the time is now right to reject our own anti democratic agreements and institutions like the TPP.

      Brexit has given me so much hope.

      Lets hope Labour are inspired as well and make that commitment to revoke the ratification of TPP

    • Brigid 1.3

      We have to make them take notice by signing their own petition.
      http://www.labour.org.nz/tppa_petition

  2. ianmac 2

    A set of definite defensible policies over the coming year would be great. At the moment it is hard to sound bite what Labour intends to do. To non voters we have to be able to tell just what will make our lives better.

  3. Anne 3

    I understand there is a series of statements re- Labour’s housing policy this week culminating in a major announcement by Andrew Little this coming Sunday in Auckland. I don’t think anyone will be left in any doubt what Labour’s housing policy will be by the start of next week.

    • Save NZ 3.1

      I just hope it does not cost them the election and be more taxes….

      There is not going to be any shining knight for housing, National has completely F&^ked it up in everyway. Any intervention now is going to be done with delicate and nuanced precision… and with some sort of common sense…. No one is going to be happy in my view…

      The other thing Labour could do with the Greens is surely with NZ is some way to help climate change with real credits for forestry etc, instead of buying the fake Ukraine ones….

      How about some positive thing in there for people… not austerity…

      Ive mentioned this before, but this is something the UK to help people save (away from property) was called ISA – you could save x amount each year tax free, either in cash or shares. Now that is something that citizens and business would like…

      Unlike Kiwisaver, you could withdraw the ISA at any time and manage it yourself, (oh they trusted the people with their own money), so you could save for a trip, a house, a baby, retirement, whatever, and helps young and old…. In short good practise for Kiwi saving, something there is zero incentive to do in this country.

      • Ad 3.1.1

        SaveNZ, Kiwisaver is the best and only thing that has encouraged New Zealanders to save in many, many decades. It has survived three terms of National government because people love it.

        As the idea of saving through home ownership rapidly recedes, Kiwis will also be weaned off being owned by banks.

        As for tax-tree saving, well, tax is the thing you “donate” to get a generally functioning country.

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1

          Giving workers wages to feed Wall St, just brilliant.

          • Ad 3.1.1.1.1

            2.6 million New Zealanders saving hard, subsidised by bosses.

            http://www.kiwisaver.govt.nz/statistics/annual/joining/

            You can read the statistical breakdown by gender, by age, by income bracket, by region, and form your own judgement about whether it’s been an effective policy.

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1.1

              So, it’s been really effective at funneling NZ wages to feed Wall St. Gotta be proud of that.

              • Ad

                You can check the fees yourself, compare, and do your own judgement. I’m content with the fees reported.

                Only one way to be sovereign over your own life in this economy: save like a bastard. Works as a country as well.

                Kiwisaver is the most effective savings policy NZ has ever had.

                • Colonial Viper

                  Good gawd, I am not talking about their BS ticket clipping fees, I am talking about the entirety of the financial capital that this country has gifted over to Wall St to play their shitty casino games with.

                  Well good luck for those in their 20s and 30s with Kiwi Saver, those funds will all be worthless by the time your retirement comes around.

        • save nz 3.1.1.2

          @ Ad – I’m not knocking Kiwisaver, I am just suggesting popular and beneficial policy as per the post title.

          Kiwisaver only kicks in after retirement. So effectively Kiwis are not incentivised to save for everyday events and emergencies as they have to pay tax on it before retirement.

          Just a suggestion!

          • save nz 3.1.1.2.1

            Labour could be a lot more successful if they put in more positive policy instead of always wanting to tax more, make people work longer…. last election this was a joke, when migration was celebrated and locals were told to work harder and longer to pay for more roads, more superannuation, more hospitals and so forth to cover the increased artificial population growth, so we can have more farm workers and restaurant managers on minimum wages to compete with. It makes zero sense.

            At least when I was a student (although left with a massive loan and expected to pay compounding interest on it from Day 1) I was not competing with 60,000 foreign students able to work 20 hours a week and needing accommodation.

            BTW I do not blame the foreign students at all and welcome diversity, but Nationals policy to ‘free market’ education so that some crony can make some short term profit is clearly detrimental for our local students who can’t make ends meet.

    • Korero pono 3.2

      And how about that TPPA issue mentioned earlier but some how over looked or ignored?

  4. s y d 4

    Great post, forward looking and positive……I often struggle with some of yours, but i really like the sentiments in this.

  5. Rosemary McDonald 5

    “So I hope they celebrated hard.”

    Yeah, nah.

    I hope they look back with some shame at what current Labourites have done to undermine the staunch social policies that exemplified the ‘movement’ in the past.

    I’d like to hear that Labour has finally twigged that being National Light just won’t cut it with those of us somewhat desperate for change.

    A big “NO” to the TPPA would be a start….

    (Labour hasn’t captured my vote yet.)

  6. Stuart Munro 6

    I hope they find their teeth. The forces of villainy and oppression were not persuaded to abandon their sociopathy to create the welfare state that should have led to an enlightened society – they were compelled. They will have to be compelled again.

  7. Michael 7

    It will be an orgy of smug, stage-managed, self-satisfaction. There will be no exercise in honestly coming to terms with Labour’s record since 1916 (many stunning achievements but a massive failure to come to terms with the challenges of globalised capital). I still count as a party member, although I haven’t paid my latest subscription (IIUC, that makes me a “member” for reporting purposes to the Electoral Commission) and I’ll probably still give Labour my Party Vote again next year but my heart isn’t in it anymore.

  8. fisiani 8

    Labour was a useful party in the 20th century when social and industrial change was needed. Back then I automatically voted Labour. But then I grew up and was trained to question and not simply accept. How can Labour be relevant in the 21st century whilst still rooted in the same arguments they lost in the 1970’s. Voting Labour now is unthinkable and every year more and more people are questioning why should they waste their vote.

    • Tiger Mountain 8.1

      is there in the depths of the internet a more obsequious and condescending apologist for the tories than fizzyanus right here on The Standard?

      • fisiani 8.1.1

        What a clever scatological response. Did that make you feel good?
        Seriously why vote Labour. We have the 40 hour week, The welfare state. Free health care for children, pensions and welfare at record highs. Labour’s job is done.

        • Rosemary McDonald 8.1.1.1

          “We have the 40 hour week,…”

          We do?

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7841749/No-rest-for-the-wicked

        • Jenny Kirk 8.1.1.2

          Not much in the way of housing tho, fisiani.
          Labour’s job is not done – its job is now to undo all the damage caused by 8-9 years of a mean-minded National govt which is stealthily taking away the 40 hour week, the welfare state, etc etc.

          • fisiani 8.1.1.2.1

            Can you give me an example from the last 8 great years of any change in the 40 hr week, or a reduction in welfare provisions which are at an all time high. Housing is going up as fast as the builders can do. More houses being built than any time this century and more builders employed than ever. Take off your cloth cap. It’s obscuring your vision.

            • Ad 8.1.1.2.1.1

              I just count myself lucky Helen Clark was so good as locking in her legacy that she has turned this National government more and more left with every term.

              Key is just her ideological pet lamb.

              • Colonial Viper

                That’s just fantasy. Clark never understood that she could have taken the electorate far further left, economically, if she had led the way. Instead, by the third term her entire Cabinet was focussed on trying to appease the MSM instead of re-connecting with Labour’s core support.

                • Ad

                  Key is a fat socialist redistributing debt-drunk nation-building business-subsidizing commie. He’s further left as a statist than any National PM since Muldoon.

                  Which he learnt at the hem of Auntie.

                  • Colonial Viper

                    If Aunty Helen had been what you say, how come the shitty caucus she left behind and her shitty MP and staffing hires, all seem so determined to swerve right.

                    So while National and Key are very willing to head left in order to have power, Labour is terrified to.

                    • BM

                      Key is center.
                      Which is why National is always around 50% of the vote.

                      That left right shit is so last century

                    • McFlock

                      well, having the support of only 30% or so of registered voters fucks your idea of “center”.

                    • BM

                      A non vote is a tick for the status quo.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Sure let’s play that game McFlock. Who are Labour to speak when they can barely secure a pathetic 20% of the registered vote?

                    • McFlock

                      A non vote is a tick for the status quo.

                      That was Wellington’s opinion, too
                      edit: hang on, would that logic have changed the result of the 2008 election? lol

                      Sure let’s play that game McFlock. Who are Labour to speak when they can barely secure a pathetic 20% of the registered vote?

                      They’re the people with 20%.

                      But it has no bearing on whether they’re centre, left, right, or whatever. BM’s claim was that Key was “center” and that’s why National’s vote is around 50%. Well, the concluding assertion is false, even if it were relevant to the opening premise.

                    • BM

                      if Key isn’t center then what’s Ad on about?

                      Key plays it down the center, Labour got nine years in power because people liked some of the stuff they did, only a complete dumbarse would do a 180 u turn.

                    • McFlock

                      more left as a statist than any nat since muldoon doesn’t mean “center”, dipshit. It means more left relative to bolger or shipley when it comes to being “statist”, which in the tory sense means government interference and surveillance in our lives with no benefit to society.

                    • Yeah, Key has been copying the Clark strategy (or, to be more precise, its mirror-image). I see it same as McFlock: Key has been carefully centrist through-out.

                      The clincher was in Hager’s book Hollow Men, in his account of the ascension of Key via mastermind McCully. As someone who saw McCully as a wimp & nonevent from way back, I was obliged to revise my view of the guy: the leaked email from an extreme rightist Nat describing McCully as “the dark side” was classic!

                      The fact that those two have marginalised the right within the National Party testifies to widespread support from the caucus. Pragmatists seem to have dominated the ideologues ever since. The dream poll support for Key & the Nats continually verifies centrist liking for this pragmatism. Media identification of Key’s teflon factor misses this point totally.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      which in the tory sense means government interference and surveillance in our lives with no benefit to society.

                      Labour won’t roll back the FVEY surveillance state we live in. Labour happily votes for National’s spying and anti-terrorism legislation.

                    • McFlock

                      yes dear.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Foreign fighters bill passes 94 – 27

                      Parliament has just passed legislation, 94 – 27, aimed at stopping would-be foreign fighters from leaving New Zealand to join Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq or from carrying out terrorist acts in New Zealand.

                      Labour supported it but leader Andrew Little condemned National for rushing it through the House, saying it was an “appalling” process that denied New Zealanders a say on the bill.

                      Greens MP Kennedy Graham said passing a bill the way it had was a “procedural abomination.”

                      The legislation was passed, 94 to 27, under urgency with the Government insisting it needed to be passed before the House rises tomorrow.

                      The Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill amends three existing laws to give the SIS greater powers of surveillance and to give the Minister of Internal Affairs greater powers to suspend and cancel passports.

                      Big thanks to the Greens, NZ First and Maori Party for sticking with their principles and voting against National’s shite legislation and shite legislative process. As for Labour, no surprise there, they complain but vote for it anyway.

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11371580

                    • McFlock

                      I was thinking more about dictating exactly how and when beneficiaries spend their own money, but just as you say, dear.

                • Anne

                  Clark never understood that she could have taken the electorate far further left, economically, if she had led the way.

                  Oh yes she did. I know where she stood on the spectrum and she would have gone further left if she thought she could get away with it. But she knew she couldn’t because the populace and their establishment boys and girls were still too enamoured of market forces and neo liberal outcomes. Any move too far to the left would have seen her manipulated voted out of office. She could only move as fast as the voters allowed and that wasn’t very fast at that time.

                  As for the MSM. When they turned on her she chose to ignore them. The fourth estate doesn’t like being ignored.

                  • Yes, Anne, I agree with your perspective on HC’s reading of her political situation. She’s a natural pragmatist. Her deceit in pretending to represent leftists whilst operating from the right would probably be excused by her responding `depends how you define the left’ and I would agree that such sophistry is valid. Pushed, she’d be likely to define the left in terms that observers with acuity would identify as center-left. She does have a rudimentary form of intelligence (whilst lacking anything higher than that).

                    • Anne

                      @ Dennis Frank
                      You assessment of Helen Clark is ludicrous in the extreme. Did you personally know her? The answer can only be NO. To suggest she only has a rudimentary form of intelligence? If you believe that then I suggest the boot fits your foot.

                  • She & I were studying at the University of Auckland concurrently, though she’s a couple of years younger than me, back when all the smart people were realising the political left was just as much a part of the problem as the political right. The poor woman didn’t get it, so she joined the university branch of the Labour Party.

                    She proved the dire inadequacy of her cerebral process via her track record on the green issue. Our campus student mag was featuring in-depth reports on the various harms being done to nature by the capitalists in the late ’60s so many of us saw the threat. Not poor dimwitted Helen. Greenpeace & Friends of the Earth were launched, various other environmental groups formed in Aotearoa.

                    The penny finally dropped for Helen almost half a century later when she saw An Inconvenient Truth. She said so publicly at the time. A front-runner for the Slowest Learner of the Century Award…

            • Stuart Munro 8.1.1.2.1.2

              Zero hour contracts you plonker.

              • leftie

                Yeah, that’s the most obvious one. Fisiani can’t deny that. Good on Labour/Greens et al to get rid of that whilst in opposition. No mean feat.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  That’s not fair! Just because they managed to cobble together more votes than the most popular government in the history of the universe 🙄

                • fisiani

                  National got rid of zero hour contracts. Stop trying to rewrite history.

                  • National put up legislation that would have enshrined zero hour contracts in law. The opposition convinced some of the Government’s support parties to support amendments that actually did away with that form of exploitation. The passing of the final version was a defeat for National and a win for workers.

                    • fisiani

                      National voted for the legislation. National ended zero hours.

                    • Sorry, mate. You can’t change history. National’s proposal was to make zero hours contracts part of NZ employment law. They lost that argument and eventually voted for the law as amended by the opposition and by their own partners. They were thoroughly embarrassed by their failure to get the original proposal up. Workers 1, National zero.

                  • reason

                    Lets look at the history of the company where key ‘ earned ‘millions playing with tax havens and derivatives

                    “The Final Days of Merrill Lynch

                    as Wall Street turned to rubble and panic threatened to come unleashed, Ken Lewis, the CEO of Bank of America, agreed to swallow one of the country’s most toxic investment houses…..

                    Merrill’s losses were now $12 billion. (By the end of December, they reached $15.3 billion.) Lewis later said that what he mainly remembered from the conversation with Price was just the “staggering amount of deterioration” in Merrill’s financial performance.

                    “provide protection against further losses” on $118 billion in toxic assets, primarily taken from the Merrill Lynch balance sheet.”

                    We have a sub-prime minister hurting the poor to make the rich richer.

                    He’ll fuck us like Ireland.

                    • reason

                      Ireland ?

                      “The government had a report thrown together by Merrill Lynch, which declared that “all of the Irish banks are profitable and well capitalised.”banking system is an act of faith: it survives only for as long as people believe it will. Two weeks earlier the collapse of Lehman Brothers had cast doubt on banks everywhere. Ireland’s banks had not been managed to withstand doubt; they had been managed to exploit blind faith”
                      _________________________________________

                      ““All of the Irish banks are profitable and well capitalised,” wrote the Merrill Lynch advisers, who then went on to suggest that the banks’ problem wasn’t at all the bad loans they had made but the panic in the market.

                      all of Ireland had become subprime. Otherwise sound Irish borrowers had been rendered unsound by the size of the loans they had taken out to buy inflated Irish property. That had been the strangest consequence of the Irish bubble: to throw a nation which had finally clawed its way out of centuries of indentured servitude back into it.”

                      _______________________________________________________

                      Perhaps the only detailed academic examination of Ireland’s regulatory laxity comes from Professor Jim Stewart of Trinity College, Dublin. The IFSC, he reveals, formed a core element in the toxic global “shadow banking” system that led to the global financial crisis. For example, hedge funds would typically be listed in Dublin, managed in London and domiciled in a classic tax haven like the Cayman Islands.

                      ****************************************************

                      Simply put, the Irish miracle was a mirage driven by clever use of tax-haven rules and a huge credit boom that permitted real estate prices and construction to grow quickly before declining ever more rapidly.

                      __________________________________________________________

                      Lastly is the area of offshore trusts, a means of avoiding tax so common that even the dogs on the street could tell you what they’re used for. The users of trusts enjoy relative anonymity which makes it difficult to ascertain who owns them, what assets they control and thus how to tax them.

                      ************************************************

                      “James Shaw: If New Zealand is not a tax haven, why would Mossack Fonseca—a company which, by its own admission, has 95 percent of its business in avoiding tax—urge its clients to use New Zealand’s foreign trust and company structures as a way of avoiding tax?

                      Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Two things. Firstly, there can be quite legitimate reasons why people have a foreign trust, and I suggest the member leave the House and ring Greenpeace, Amnesty International, and Red Cross because they are implicated in the papers. But, more importantly, the member should just turn around and ask his colleague—Mojo Mathers has a foreign trust. [Interruption]

                      Metiria Turei: Sir, it will take just a moment. The inaccuracy of the Prime Minister’s statement was dealt with in a personal explanation yesterday by Mojo Mathers. As a result of her personal explanation, the Prime Minister is not entitled to restate that false accusation in this House.”

                  • Stuart Munro

                    National conspired to fuck over the workers with zero hour contracts and were humiliated and crushed. Shape of things to come.

            • Brendon Harre 8.1.1.2.1.3

              Helen Clarks government built more houses in Auckland in the 2000s (and that was not enough to stop the pre GFC housing bubble). National has failed Auckland and NZ on housing.

        • McFlock 8.1.1.3

          free healthcare from underfunded DHBs and hospitals. pfft.

          • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.3.1

            ODHB continued to be significantly underfunded even though this is where the Labour Minister of Health was based.

            • McFlock 8.1.1.3.1.1

              yes dear,
              although labour didn’t bully the board into taking shit frozen food trucked the length of the country, and then make ODHB /SouthernDHB the only DHB with meeting its budget as a main target, and then bring in the commissioners when the board continued to screw the budget to pay for fripparies like neurological healthcare for the community.

              But that’s just the worst one – CapCoast has issues with its hospital upgrade, and pretty much every other DHB is under a severe financial crunch.

              So yes, it was always nagging there under Labour. But it’s fucking abysmal, much much worse, under National.

              • Colonial Viper

                Sure, it was merely bad under Labour, while it’s dismal and terrible under National.

                • McFlock

                  still better under Labour than anything you’ve fucking managed to produce, cassandra

                  • Colonial Viper

                    I’m sure the electorate will view Labour in that same glowing light next year

                    • McFlock

                      Really? Because those of us without a direct line to the “intrinsic intelligence of the universe” aren’t making election2017 predictions yet, if at all.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Labour 25% +/-3%; <5% chance of being over 30%.

                    • McFlock

                      lol that’s what the universe is telling you, is it? You should take that to the casino

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Humans are fundamentally, materially, energetically and spiritually connected with the wider fabric of the universe. It’s pretty obvious. Even ancient western civilisations understood this, before you rooted it out of your knowledge base.

                    • McFlock

                      maybe, maybe not – but not everyone claimed to be passing on messages from it. Those that did were usually on seriously interesting drugs.

                      You jumped the blowhard pretension shark there. I mean, I was used to you spouting pseudo-profundities and pretending competence in everything from engineering to microbiology and geopolitics, but channeling the inherent intelligence of the universe? That’s a huge call, even for you.

                      I see you’ve learnt the trump tactic of never backing down from absurd statements made off the cuff, but doubling-down on ’em.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      “maybe, maybe not”

                      Geeezus.

                    • McFlock

                      now look, if you’re going to go off on some religious rant about the midichlorians the ancients could control, you might do us all the favour of not taking another religion’s saviour’s name in vain…

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    I won’t have that! Cassandra had teeth.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    fundamentally, materially, energetically and spiritually

                    Four ways then.

                    No, wait, material and energy are the same thing.

                    That’s three ways.

                    “Fundamentally” is a natural consequence of material and/or energy, leaving us with two ways, or not, who cares, it’s Gummy’s drivel.

                    It’s a bit like the Spanish Inquisition sketch only backwards.

        • KJT 8.1.1.4

          40 hour week only exists for a few paper pushing parasites.
          The rest of us haven’t had as few as 40 hours for decades.

          “The welfare state. Free health care for children, pensions and welfare at record highs”.

          National is fixing that as fast as possible.

          $60 last time I went to the Doctor.
          Welfare below subsistence level since Richardson.
          Pensions. Even those who should know better are now trying to get rid of the last vestige of universal provision. To feed the private finance industry.

        • Jenny 8.1.1.5

          Scatological? there was nothing scatological about TM’s comment. fisiani as well as being Right Wing you’re an idiot.

          http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scatological

  9. Peter Swift 9

    16 comments from CV and I still don’t know what he would like to see from the labour conference.

    Ditching the negativity, CV, list 16 policies you want from labour.
    Do you have anything worthwhile other than daily beat downs?

    • Brendon Harre 9.1

      You are wasting you time expecting anything new from CV. He is a bitter and twisted fuckwit who has an over rated sense of his own importance. Being constructive is not something he can do.

      • Peter Swift 9.1.1

        It does seem that way, but my question is still live and he still has a chance to put his beat ups to one side and engage positively for a change.

        Though it has to be said, I’m as hopeful about that as much as I am impressed by his unswerving t-rolling.

        • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1

          oh fuck off Peter Swift.

          Engaging with you positively would be like trying to engage with a black hole positively. A waste of energy and a guaranteed end in oblivion after a very very very long waste of time.

          If you’re at all interested in my policy suggestions, go talk to the Region 6 rep and get Dunedin South’s Andersons Bay Peninsula branch’s policy remits for the 2015 region 6 conference.

          Bet you can’t be arsed, though, because like most of Thorndon Bubble Labour, you’re full of lip service and not much else.

          • Peter Swift 9.1.1.1.1

            All I can take from that bizarre rantoid is that you don’t like your doctrine being challenged and you have nothing positive to contribute, preferring to stay a negative Nancy/Norbert for effect. Some would say that’s not surprising.
            Me, I just laughed a little on the inside. lol

            • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.1.1

              I knew you couldn’t be fucked actually looking at policy.

              As I already concluded above, a waste of both time and energy.

              • Peter Swift

                Judging by your posting history in this thread and your general disposition elsewhere, I think it’s clear to all but those who +100 your every fart or protect you from being challenged, the only conclusion is you’re negative for the sake of it to serve you own jilted agenda.

                In this thread, being deliberately angular, you were given the option of engaging on a level playing field. You chose to duck it. That’s more telling info about your motive here.

                Being pigeon holed by you, or attempted to at the least, is quite okay for me.
                What’s clear is many here apparently think as little of you and your playing politikz as I do. That’s a plus for the standard.

                • Colonial Viper

                  Engaging with you positively was never a genuine offer on your part. Anybody could tell that from the outset. And so it has proven to be.

  10. Well, getting back to the way Advantage framed the conference, I think the best thing to come out of it would be evidence that it isn’t merely an exercise in nostalgia. I mean, a significant indication of Labour’s potential to yet make a substantial contribution to the development of Aotearoa.

    Helen Clark’s failure to do so, the flawed Lange/Palmer era, the aborted Kirk/Rowling effort, combine to suggest Labour is spent (conceptually).

    Where’s the positive alternative to capitalism the left always tried to make voters believe they were able to provide? Where’s the intellectual learning from the failure of socialism? I see no reason to accept that traditional business has some kind of divine right to produce our economy, but since the ’80s Labour has worked hard to get us to believe that’s how they see it (while carefully not admitting doing so).

    • Stuart Munro 10.1

      No great vision is required.

      We have a government abounding in corruption and incapable of addressing even the most basic problems. Jobs, houses, an economy built on more than trade deficits and borrowing, an education system that keeps pace with the world.

      If Labour and Greens had no idea at all, were basically honest with a 50% strike rate they’d be infinitely better than the Gnats. Infinitely better than zero isn’t hard to do.

      The only thing the Gnats have succeeded at is supplanting kiwi workers with foreign slaves and destroying social safety nets.

      The next government needs to remember that when they take power: take the battle to the enemy and take no prisoners.

  11. rhinocrates 11

    Hold it in a brewery to see if they really can organise a piss-up.

    OK, a shopping list:

    Coherent policy clearly presented.

    Commitment to that policy – NOT a repeat of the TPPA and 90-day fiascos.

    Coherent team and competent spokespeople committed to their portfolios and on top of them, able to speak confidently about them, NOT treating them like decorations and sinecures. Let me think that if So-and-So is Minister of Whatever and a crisis comes up in their area of responsibility, they’ll be informed and able to deal with it.

    The caterers supplying only plastic sporks, Shitkins not announcing to the world that they’re all busy fighting each other. Generally maturity and restraint and at least the impression that grown-ups are in charge. Also, someone should stand by Mumblefuck with a taser at all times in case he feels the urge to say something. Maybe a sedative in his Milo.

    Relevance. It’s not 1916, so no self-congratulation and resting on laurels as a substitute for ideas for the future. Engagement with young people, addressing their concerns.

    Green issues – if they intend to go into coalition with the Greens, then they’d better show their willingness to work with them instead of taking them for granted. So what’s their policy on warming?

    The dead wood announcing their resignations to spend more time with their egos (OK, that’s pretty unlikely). Seriously though, shine some light on talented younger back benchers who’ll be future front benchers.

    “Just the same but even more incompetent” was never a good look, so I’m hoping to see a competent alternative government in waiting, not exiled Bourbons.

  12. Corey 12

    Labour isn’t 100 its 32, to say kirk and savage have anything to do with the bourgeois wastes of space that have led that party in the last 32 years is to piss on their legacy.

    • Colonial Viper 12.1

      Good way of looking at it. Kirk and Savage wouldn’t recognise Labour of the last 30 years.

      • Ad 12.1.1

        Nor should they.

        • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1

          Have the principles of applied Christianity changed so much as to be unrecognisable in the modern day?

          • Ad 12.1.1.1.1

            Not to me, but then I’m Christian. And Labour.

            Plenty of other substantial things have changed.

  13. Ad 13

    Good solid announcement there, covered by Mickey.

    Let’s see more.

  14. Jenny 14

    My hope is that Andrew Little, at the Labour Party Conference, will repeat the promise he made in his speech at the Green Party AGM

    “The government I lead will make our country a leader in the fight against climate change”
    Andrew Little

  15. Jenny 15

    Commensurate with making our country a leader in the fight against climate change would mean removing the ban on raising climate change as an objection in planning hearings for new fossil fuel projects.

    If climate change was allowed to be raised as evidence against new fossil fuel projects, no new coal or oil mining or drilling would ever be consented to again.

    The evidence is that compelling and irrefutable.

    Which is why planning tribunals have been ordered by law to disregard it.

    Open mike 08/07/2016

  16. Ad 16

    This weekend’s celebrations have fully lived up to my expectations.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago