I See Red

Len Brown candidacy speech: A Mayor for ALL of Auckland

My candidacy speech Shared via AddThis

Climate Change: a defining moment for our small country

New Zealand needs a Government that will be bold on Climate Change, and if it is not National, then New Zealand needs to wake up quickly and elect a Labour-Green Government.  But it must be a Labour Party  that is willing to stand up for what it believes and articulate a new way forward.

Caring about the environment is not a domain exclusive to Labour and Green voters. New Zealanders have a deep connection to the land.  There are many responsible farmers for example who respect the land and care about the treatment of their stock on that land.  My in-laws have a dairy farm in Kaikoura as do many of their relatives.  I know they care deeply about that land.  There are many conservative rural voters who care if our rivers and air are polluted; I spoke to many of them during my 2002 and 2005 campaigns in Rakaia.  And there are right-leaning liberal city voters who care whether we have clean water to drink; water was the major issue during the 2007 local government elections in Christchurch.

But there is also a fear of what action on the environment might mean and a belief that environmental solutions will come at an economic cost.  It is an understandable but flawed 20th century way of looking at our 21st century economy and environment.

We have known for some time that our environment (dirty air and water) has a huge impact on our physical health.  But there is a dawning realisation that our economy is intrinsically tied up with our environment, both in terms of our ability to continue to rely on it into the future (sustainability), and our environmental reputation overseas in terms of our exports.

And there should be a dawning realisation that our economy can prosper and our country become a better place by focusing on improving our environment - as Obama is demonstrating in America by investing in Green jobs and Green technology.

New Zealand is uniquely placed to be at the forefront of creating a strong economy by enhancing rather than sacrificing its environment.

The smallness of our thinking is currently preventing us from reaching out to where we need to be.  A new generation, both left and right, must make it a priority to overcome this challenge and make it a defining moment for our small country at the bottom of the world.

A deep connection to that land is what unites Maori and Non-Maori New Zealanders.  It is a fundamental component of our national identity.  Now must be the time for us to take the bold steps to reshape our economy and improve our environment.

"Private Schools" not "Independent Schools"

Maybe I'm a bit behind the times, but I first noticed the use of the term "Independent Schools" at a public forum on Adult and Community Education a few weeks back in Christchurch.  It was a well attended meeting with around 500 members of the public attending and some powerful speeches from the Principal of Papanui High Denis Pyatt, one of the best Labour MP speeches I've heard (from Maryan Street), and some great moments from CLASS President Maryke Fordyce.  

Fordyce answered the claims about "priorisation" brilliantly by pointing out that ACE had survived numerous Governments, a Great Depression and two world wars.

This was a "middle NZ" audience and the National MPs, Nicky Wagner and Aaron Gilmore, went down like a cup of cold sick.  The lines supplied to Nicky Wagner and Aaron Gilmore about "pixies printing money", and "prioritisation" just didn't cut the mustard when the Government had just increased funding to private schools by $35 million.  

For some reason (beyond my comprehension) Nicky Wagner decided that she would put forward the case for private schools, but instead of calling them "private schools", she kept calling them "independent schools".  A framing that clearly didn't impress the audience who shouted out "private" every time she used the word "independent".

But clearly it is part of the right-wing song sheet.  Because tonight, in a very interesting piece on National's $35 million increase in funding to Private Schools on Campbell Live, those on the right used the term "independent schools" several times (particularly Heather Roy, but also the Headmaster of Kings College, Bradley Fenner and the "Independent Schools NZ" Director Deborah James.

It seems some people don't have to share the burden of the recession like others do and need a bit of a hand out from the Government to help them get by.

Bryce Edwards on the current state of the left

Bruce Edwards has a thoughtful analysis of the current state of the left in New Zealand in 2009.  Some very interesting observations.  Some lessons include the importance of the left developing "Yes" campaigns (what we stand for, rather than against), but also the importance of debate on the economy becoming much more central to what the left in New Zealand stands for.  To generate that debate will require the left to question the status quo, generate debate and conversation and propose positive alternatives.  That will require boldness.

In my view climate change and the environment is an economic question as much (perhaps more so?) as an environmental question.  Cleaning up our environment, meeting our international climate change commitments, creating healthy environments and people, maintaining our clean green reputation etc, will require us to transform our economy.  The question is, what will that transformation look like?  I'm not sure what it will look like but I do know that it will require some "yes" campaigns.

Goff on sending NZ troops in Afghanistan

Guyon Espiner: poor analysis of what Labour should be doing

No Right Turn has a good critique of Guyon Espiner's latest blog post "on the road to nowhere".  I have no problem with people criticising Labour (or any other party) when it is justified, relevant, and has a good analysis backing it.

But Espiner's piece basically boils down to "the opposition should stop opposing".  Climate Change is one of the defining issues of our time.  Labour cares about the environment, our international reputation, and had a vision of being a nation that is carbon neutral.  You don't go from that to endorsing or being silent on a lackluster 10% reduction target.  To do so would be far more damaging that opposing the 10% reduction.  And what bothers me isn't so much Goff and Labour being criticised, but that a journalist thinks that Labour should be silent (or support) National's disastrous position.    

No Right Turn writes:

More generally, at its heart politics is about disagreement (and disagreement about ends, rather than simply means). People have different interests, and not all of those interests can be reconciled. Where they can't be, and there is competition over resources or a decision to be made, politics happens. I would expect a leading political journalist to understand and work to convey the basic facts of what he is reporting on. Instead, by seeking to cast disagreement as fundamentally illegitimate, he is trying to erase those facts (and that disagreement). And that does not make our democracy strong.

Hear hear.  

Wouldn't a more interesting piece have talked about how climate change is one of the defining issues of our time and one of the major points of difference between Labour and National.  While Phil Goff and Labour struggle to find relevance, Climate Change and a "new green deal" could be one of the issues that Labour champions over the next 2 years.  Climate Change could be the issue that helps Phil Goff build an MMP relationship with the Greens and Maori Party who both have major concerns about our environment.

And on Afghanistan, couldn't the piece have talked about the risks to Phil Goff and Labour (looks strange because Labour sent the SAS into Afghanistan 3 times), but also the opportunities (New Zealand being strongly independent in its foreign policy and how the peace sentiment is stronger than the war sentiment and how while sending the SAS troops to Afghanistan now might seem like a small issue, in 2 years time it could be a major one)?   Didn't Barack Obama oppose the Iraq war at a time when 80% of the US supported it, yet that same war later became one of the key reasons why he won the Democratic primary and is now the President of the United States?

There was so much there to build an interesting piece with some strong analysis.  Instead we got "Labour should stop opposing".  

NB: There is something to be said for agreeing with the Government on some things (when that issue is supported by both sides, when it is in the national interest etc).  And Labour has been doing that in some areas.  Opposition for the sake of opposition isn't particular useful.  But these two issues certainly don't belong anywhere near that category.

I agree with Bill English on housing

It isn't often that I say this, but I agree 100% with Bill English on housing and what it tells us about our economy. 

“In the long run the economy needs to shift away from spending and borrowing on housing to more exporting. The signs at the moment are that it’s not making the shift that we would want to see, so we need to look at whether there’s any policy mix that might make the right shift.”

We must re-orient our economy away from investment housing, consumption of overseas goods, and spending more than we earn.  We must become an economy that invests in innovation, production, and exporting, and a country that saves (both Government and individuals).

That requires creating the right policy settings (incentives and disincentives).  And that requires a Government that plays an active role in shaping our country in the interests of the wider public good and not simply leaving it to the market.

But can Bill convince his colleagues?

Not yours to sell

Phil Twyford has made an excellent video to promote Labour's campaign: Not Yours To Sell.

Cosgrove on National's special education cuts

Reducing emissions requires political and public will

Adding Naughts in Vain has an interesting blog post on water consumption in Queensland Australia and draws parallels to greenhouse emissions reductions.

His conclusion is that we can do it if we have the public and political will to do so: "dramatic and permanent efficiency gains are possible if there is the public and political will to make them".

In just a few weeks 86,000 have joined the "sign-on" campaign for a 40% by 2020 emissions reduction target.  That indicates to me that there is public will to change how we do things and among young people the mood for change is even stronger.

But what about the political will?  National will make changes but are too hamstrung by their traditional support base (and their coalition partner Act) to make the bold changes that are required.  Yet, at the same time, National is uniquely placed to bring the farming and big business interests on board.  And those interests must be on board if we are to reduce our emissions by 40% by 2020.  It is in the interests of New Zealand farmers and business as much as anyone else for New Zealand to be bold in this area and National could help provide the leadership to demonstrate that. 

Sadly I don't think it is an opportunity National will pursue.

On the positive side I think it opens up an opportunity for the Labour-Green Opposition.

I believe the next Government (which will be a Labour, Green, Maori Party Government) will be elected on a bold platform around emissions reductions.  A bold platform which will capture the aspirations of a new generation clamoring for real change - not the hollow change offered by this current National Government.