Labour goes into its conference on November 1 with its fourth leader in five years. What does that say about its brand?
Go back 40 years. Loyal Labour voters thought it stood for social security, free education and health care, progressive taxes and a managed economy. Then the Lange-Douglas government radically freed the economy, slashed income tax and imposed co-payments for social services. Labour voters got confused, then angry. Labour split three ways. Its vote plunged.
How’s this for kitsch: “Warm workers greetings” (cf “warm Pacific greetings”)? That was David Cunliffe’s opener at the Council of Trade Unions conference on October 9. So, more such palaver at the Labour party conference this coming weekend?
Cunliffe’s CTU speech also had much of his trademark declaiming and strumming of policy chords the (not very many) delegates wanted to hear.
John Banks and Len Brown are short-run: excitable politics. Houses and superannuation are long-run: serious policy. In serious-land fiscal and monetary moguls are under fire for a tax structure and low interest rate settings that favour investing in houses, not economy-building vehicles.
The Commission for Financial Literacy and Retirement Savings (CFLRS — was the Retirement Commission) and the insurance and finance firms’ Financial Services Council (FSC) upped the debate this month. Add that to the Treasury’s long-term fiscal projections in July. Political pressure is building.
Eisenhower 13Oct18There is a much interest in “inequality”. The wide and growing difference between the very well off and those on lower-middle and lower incomes and correspondingly low or zero net wealth has been bothering not just social liberals but conservatives, by which I mean Burkean or moderate conservatives who value social cohesion and are not libertarians or reactionaries (viz the Tea Party in the United States). Back in 2011 such practical conservatives as Lawrence Summers and Martin Wolf declared inequality the greatest policy issue for the “western” world.
The United States touts itself (very debatably) as the oldest continuous nation-state democracy. So perhaps it is not surprising that its Congress has had a senior moment.
The United States has a chronic federal fiscal problem which at some point it will have to address with higher taxes (many Democrats) or lower spending (many Republicans) or both (many middle-ground Democrats and Republicans).
Should local bodies bother about children? Could the cabinet agree?
The Every Child Counts coalition of major not-for-profits has signed up 200-plus local election candidates to commit to pushing for their districts to be internationally accredited by UNICEF as “child-friendly”.
That includes “working to support every child’s right to a standard of living that meets their needs by reducing health, education and income disparities”, starting with a “living wage” for council and contractors’ employees. It requires more “council investment in children and young people, particularly in the early years” and “building support for quality education”, accessible recreation and cultural facilities and child-friendly transport. Plus “planning and policy development that includes children’s voices”.
In Australia the proportion of first-home buyers taking out mortgages is near a decade low and the proportion of rental investors near a decade high. Sound familiar?
Low interest rates in theory stimulate businesses to borrow, invest and make jobs. Money borrowed to buy houses does boost furnishing and appliance sales and some renovation and small business owners borrow against their houses for capital. But most mortgage borrowing doesn’t directly do much for productive investment.
Is our air and water getting warmer? If so, do we humans want to do something about it? If so, do we here want to be up with the leaders and innovators?
John Key’s answer at the recent Pacific Islands Forum was, in effect, yes, yes and yes. He signed up to a declaration of a “need for urgent action at all levels” and “a responsibility for all to act to urgently reduce and phase down greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution”.
Labour has a leader. Now what? There is a long hill to climb. Each of the three contenders described part of that hillclimb in their pitches for the job.
First there is the foothill, the 2014 election. Labour excited its troops by trumpeting that they were electing “the next Prime Minister” and the candidates joined that chorus. But actually, there is a fair chance the next Prime Minister will be a National MP — if John Key wins a third term, then moves on.
Australia has elected “daggy dad” Tony Abbott (his daughter’s phrase). Here the Labour leader show is in its last week, an asset sales referendum has thrust democracy on John Key and a question is posed about Bill English.
Set aside the beguiling ovine image of Abbott being dagged. The issue for Australia is whether he will dag the economy — that is, fix the public sector (the budget) and prod private sector productivity with regulatory reform.