Just Left

On the #tppa - The Context

I've been thinking about the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (common twitter hashtag #tppa) for a while due to my professional interest in what is happening in international Intellectual Property Law.

This post sets out some of the bigger picture as I see it, and will be followed by a further post about the potential impact of the agreement, and then probably a final post on the implications for Labour's trade policy.

It's slightly heavy going. The takeaway point? Be concerned, and find out more.

What is the #tppa anyway?

The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement is a "comprehensive" plurilateral agreement (i.e. between multiple countries), being negotiated between some Latin American, North American, Australasian and East Asian states (Viet Nam, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Peru, Chile, the United States, Australia and New Zealand).

It is important to understand first that the TPPA is NOT A TRADE AGREEMENT. It will be called that a lot in the media, but that isn't its purpose. It goes "behind the border" and deals with a huge range of things that are about building comprehensive common standards and platforms in a huge range of areas - electronic commerce, investor-state dispute resolution, telecommunications, banking, services, intellectual property. These are all above and beyond the "trade" related aspects of the agreement.

The timetable is that the negotiators are aiming to finalise an agreement towards the end of this year, around the date of the U.S. Presidential election.

The TPPA builds on an existing agreement, known if memory serves as the P4, though it is in fact being negotiated from the ground up.

Japan, Canada and Mexico have all expressed an interest in joining the agreement, interest which has not so far been reciprocated by the negotiating parties.  The total two-way trade value between the United States and the eight other countries is around $440bn a year, making the value of the agreement reasonably small in the scheme of U.S. and global trade.

So that is what it is. In thinking about it, there are three bits of context to keep in mind with this agreement:

• the geo-strategic situation,
• the nature of globalisation and trade agreements, and
• the future prospects of New Zealand's economy.

Geo-strategic situation: is it all about China?

I am not a geo-politics expert, but it seems to me that part of the web of conflicting ambitions about this agreement relate to whether the purpose is economic, or geo-political. U.S. policy in the Asia Pacific is at least in part about the containment of China. That has to be why China is not involved in the negotiations, at least in part.

Readers will be more across the foreign and security policy debate than me, but the important point about that context is this: to the extent that economics is the core of the agreement, the U.S. will push hard for (in particular) Intellectual Property rules, as that is the main area of potential economic gain for them. The other countries will push back. Agreement will be hard to find. If on the other hand the geo-political imperative is what is driving it, then the U.S. will be more likely to accommodate reasonable economic demands from the other countries in the agreement.

Nature of globalisation: less is best.

More globalisation isn't always better.

Dani Rodrik made an argument in a recent book "The Globalisation Paradox" (a Washington Post review is here) that I fundamentally agree with. The TPPA is an example of the constant pressure to try and go beyond freeing up global trade (which I support), and into reducing the differences between countries on a whole range of fronts that up until now have been left to national decision. His view is that globalisation would have more legitimacy, and actually deliver better, if it was in essence "thin" - focused on reducing trade barriers, but leaving democratic governments to regulate the social and cultural elements of their societies as they see fit.

This appeals to me on a number of grounds. One is practical. I think that "subsidiarity" is an awful word that hides a great concept: make decisions as close to the grassroots as you can. There isn't any problem with countries cooperating to do things they can't do by themselves: e.g. freer trade, or tackling climate change, and so on. But there isn't much point in taking things they can do for themselves (e.g. choosing the balance between the interests of creators and users in the intellectual property universe) and forcing decisions on those into complex, slow, multilateral or global forums. Governments are closer and more accountable to the public, and can change things faster.

Another is principled: I think as a matter of democratic choice that most choices SHOULD be available to governments. In trade you generally both gain, but in some of the other areas agreements like #tppa seek to regulate, there can be very one sided gains that just cost some parties a lot, to put money in the pocket of another. IP (intellectual property) is the classic example. The U.S. wants #tppa states to lengthen the copyright term. That would put more money in the hands of U.S. IP producers of old, end-of-term copyrights (like some early Disney stuff) at the expense of consumers who would, once copyright expires, be able to make free use of that content. States should choose that balance, based on what is good for their people. They should not be locked in to choices made in one context that cannot later be changed.

So I suppose my head is at a "thin" globalisation model. Free trade is broadly good. But trying to use international agreements to pick the pockets of the poorer countries is not good. Taking away government ability to choose what suits a country best isn't good either.

Next steps for New Zealand's economy - the future or the past?

The third bit of context is about what comes next for our economy. We are unusually dependent on primary industry today for our exports and our standard of living. We have a very efficient agricultural sector in economic terms.

I don't think that that represents our future. I apologise in advance for the generalisations here, but this is trying to set out some big themes.

Here's why it isn't our future. We are hitting limits. Environmental limits mainly: but also physical ones. There isn't a lot more land to use, and the rising intensity of use of existing agricultural land requires ever increasing inputs - that add to the pollution being caused. Also, our agriculture industry is quite polluting, and is resisting the imposition of simple pricing mechanisms that would force them to start down a less-polluting path.

We can make our best future as an economy by adding value through innovation. A lot of that will happen in agriculture, but it can also happen in other areas: design, music and culture, high value manufacturing, business services, electronic commerce, high value tourism etc.

Those sectors tend to be faster growing than agriculture, and importantly, they are less capital intensive than agriculture - and they create more and better jobs for a given investment than agriculture does.

One way the #tppa could fall would be to give us some limited goods market access to the U.S., say in dairy and in meat. The cost would be tougher IP laws that hurt those new economy sectors I mentioned above.

I think that would be cutting off our future. We should not sign up to an agreement that advantages the old-economy industries with relatively limited growth prospects, and puts barriers in the way of new-economy industries that represent cleaner, greener and richer jobs for people who live and work in New Zealand. We would be doubly disadvantaged: relative advantage would be with industries with a slower growth path, leaving all of us worse off; and the chances of upgrading our economy into a more high-tech and high-income zone would be lost to us.

Conclusion

So that presents three areas of context. There are others that I don't have time to cover in any depth. There might be nuance you care to share with me that I haven't thought of - I'd love to hear from you if that is the case.

My view is already probably quite obvious. I think there are major risks to New Zealand's future present in the #tppa, the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. I'll try and get to some of those specific concerns in the next post, probably over the weekend.

Fiscal responsibility

There was a nice set of numbers in a Stuff story yesterday about net Government debt levels in the past few years:

Net core Crown debt in $NZ:
2000: $25.9b
2002: $25.3b
2005: $19.9b
2008: $10.3b
2011: $40.1b

Forecasts:
2012: $53.8b
2014: $67.8b
2016: $72.5b

These numbers show Labour's prudence in office, and National's profligacy.

Yes, there has been damage to the government's financial position through the Canterbury earthquakes and the global recession. Those are granted. But the chipping away at NZ's debt levels has also come about through wilful cuts to government revenue through tax cuts to those who need them least, only partly offset by tax rises on those who feel the pain the most.

The story contains a broader narrative about public impressions of who is responsible for the debt.

I've never understood why anyone would think it's a left wing thing to run up public debt.

The Clark governments in 1999-2008 weren't exactly National-lite, and they paid off a large volume of net debt. The Nats in the 1990s left it more or less where they found it; Labour in the 1980s and National in the 70s both lifted debt significantly.

Modern social democrats aren't interested in running unsustainable deficits. Given the New Zealand private sector's obsession with borrowing to the hilt, it is more important for the NZ Govt to be conservative fiscally than is the case for many other countries.

That is why our policy last election was a mix of tax increases and spending restraint that would have seen borrowing a little higher in the short run but lower after about four years, and for all time after that.

David Shearer has decided the policy should avoid the confusions inherent in the 2011 pledge to re-start NZ Super fund contributions while the deficit still exists. That's fine. Since National is promising surplus by 2014/15, which Labour was too, I anticipate the incoming Labour led government in 2014 will pretty quickly be looking to start the pre-funding again.

Fiscal responsibility is what we are all about -- along with a broader responsibility to society and the economy which isn't part of National's DNA.

We will on average run higher levels of government spending and tax than National, because we have different judgements about where the line should be drawn between individual and community responsibility in some areas, and because we use the State to undo the inequalities the market creates by its ordinary operation.

We will be tougher on pollution than National because we don't believe in giving some sectors a free ride that they don't deserve.

We will be more careful about preparing for the upcoming baby boomer retirement and the costs it will impose on super and health spending. Thus our painful pledge to raise the retirement age over time; thus the KiwiSaver initiative; thus the creation of the NZ Superannuation fund; thus our determination to run fiscal surpluses and pay off debt.

Two final thoughts.

First, external prospects. If the world enters a prolonged low-growth period, then Labour will have to do tough thinking. It is easy to be fiscally responsible when revenue is rising through economic growth. When it is not, tougher choices will be required -- and our take on them has to be clear well before 2014.

Second, the broader economic fight between the parties isn't on fiscal issues - it's on how to grow and develop. The wider structures that are driving poor performance in our economy - flawed tax regimes that exempt capital and incentivise non productive investment; limits on firm scale growth due to lack of access to capital; an under-regulated labour market that keeps wages low and lets firms avoid tough choices about productivity - are the actual real difference between Labour and National these days. Even in a world of low growth, doing these things better will leave New Zealanders better off.

As David Parker said in his excellent pre-Budget speech this morning: "Change nothing, and nothing changes -- but don't blame Greece!".

The Hope Project: changing Labour's organisation

Yesterday I said that overhype can lead to disappointment, and foreshadowed what will happen to John Key as it becomes ever more obvious that he can't deliver a "Brighter Future". I was asked by a few people to expand on what Labour has to do.

Labour is going to need to pitch as the party of the future and as the party of hope, to reconnect with past and possible supporters.

Too many of those people don't think that is what we are about. Some of our own conduct and choice of messages has helped create that impression. That is why we need to change.

I'm going to focus on the party outside parliament, because that is where my involvement is.

Our president, Moira Coatsworth, foreshadowed the review we are now doing in May last year. David Shearer is the co-sponsor and the review has been widely supported across the broad leadership of Labour.

It was clear to Moira, and more broadly, that Labour's organisation needed a solid going-over, because it simply isn't working.

For those who quibble with that, consider:

• membership trends
• operating budgets
• party vote trends
• electorate vote trends
• membership involvement in setting Labour's agenda and policy

Those have seen our vote float between 27% and 41% in the past two decades. The centre left vote has also, arguably and depending on definition, shrunk pretty consistently since 1996. It isn't that all parts of the picture are bleak, but that the whole combo is.

My view is as a serious party seeking to change the country and lead governments, we need to peak our vote in the mid to high forties. Today, the Labour party doesn't have the organisation or the programme to achieve that.

That is why over the years (here in 2008, here in 2010, or here in 2011 for instance) I have said that Labour needs to open up: it needs to be more in touch with the interests and mores of people who do or might support it. It needs to be relevant to all those people, seen favourably by them, and able to organise them.

So I was pleased when the review kicked off this year with a listening phase. It wasn't that the wise heads defined the issues and consulted about them: instead the broadest set of areas was floated, and the party listened. It really listened. Members of the review team travelled around the country and heard what people had to say.

To most normal people, that sounds like an obvious way to start.

To most people in politics, it is extraordinary.

The review group, under tight limits of time and resources, pulled together over 1000 submissions and the results of dozens of discussion meetings, to produce its report for consultation at the regional conferences.

You can find the report in PDF format here.

It's a very interesting first pitch. It deals with the need to keep values up front in the party and to improve the internal culture where this is needed.

It wants us to look again at local structures, MMP campaigning, the democratisation of policy making, representation, leadership selection and more.

I think it's a thorough start and the feedback at regional conferences is really positive so far. People are aware of how big the mountain is we need to climb, but feel the proposals made so far are starting off in the right direction.

The test for the party is what comes next. After the regional conferences, the review team has about a month to tie down concrete proposals for annual conference. As a member of the party council that will receive the report and sign off final plans, I don't know exactly what the review will come up with. Like all my fellow Councillors I'll be looking forward to seeing it.

The test we will face is not to decide whether or not to change Labour so it can win. It isn't to make those changes in a technical sense, because we know we need to do that.

The test is going to be working the changes we agree are needed into the work that thousands and thousands of volunteers and people across diverse communities do every day to make Labour the party that it is.

I'm confident that substantial changes, based on our values, will get support and will be a major landmark on the way to a win for David Shearer in 2014. Implementing it will be the hard but satisfying work of the next few years.

That'll be the Labour party organisational side of things sorted and on the up.

In a political world marked by dashed expectations, which is what 2014 is going to be all about, getting our organisation right is a vital part of putting together a hope project that can really change New Zealand.

Boy does the country need it!

Next post in this short series will talk about the broader strategy we need to follow to make best use of a stronger organisation.

Labour's Q1 2012 in review, Q2 in prospect

Labour has had a good start to 2012. Helped by a government shifting to the right — and looking a little shifty to boot — the task of introducing the new leadership to the public has begun, and the party's organisational review is engaging members and supported in the kind of stimulating, challenging conversation we all hoped for.

David Shearer's first big speech was ok too. He talked about the right things; he talked about them in the right way.

The right thing to start with is the economy, because economic change is at the core of what Labour exists to do. Solving the great challenges of sustainable environments and more equal societies is in huge part a task of choosing and shaping markets, both productive and financial.

Education was well stated because it is integral to the development of citizens as people, and helps with the economy too. And in the parts dealing with Education, David tackled another issue Labour needs to think through and address carefully: the fact that some people we would like to support us think that we are as a party more concerned with the people who work in public services than in the public they are meant to serve.

The staffing at parliament is being sorted, caucus is well on the way to gelling after the leadership contest, and the review is providing people with the first chance since I joined in 1997 to have a good, hard and honest look at ourselves.

All in all, an ok start. Most of it is pointing in the right direction.

That's good, because Q2 is going to be a heck of a lot harder.

The biggest test will be in our response to the Budget, due in late May. National will continue with its austerity drive. Labour should challenge the logic of that, without committing to anything. We don't know what the economy will be doing in 2014, and can't define our policy on that this year.

Hard stuff. Get it wrong and you are either going to tie your hands behind you for the rest of the term, or be accused of having no alternative.

Other things will be the party's six regional conferences, where members will scrutinise the draft proposals for organisational change from the review, and start debating our policy framework for 2014. The scandals and fights that are bubbling up from National will also be important to handle right.

Another hard task is the construction of a longer term take on Labour's story.

It does not take a political savant to acknowledge that at last year's election, people were not clear about what Labour stood for, whose side we were on, or how our specific policies tackled the country's problems to improve people's lives.

We have to be much better at that this term. I know that the new leadership team knows that.

It's not easy because it isn't entirely obvious how you resolve one central dilemma. The policy framework was about right, but the public thrashed us. Shifts in policy are an easy signal that a party has changed. We have to convince the public that we get it that we lost last time and that we have learned the lesson,

That connects to another tricky issue; being clear about why we lost and what the lesson is.

Getting that right is a precursor to getting the narrative right.

Initial signs are ok, but the speeches David has lined up over coming months will show how it's going. He will also need to think about different ways of building that narrative; one way that Labour in NZ hasn't used before would be to consult supporters and members directly about some options for this.

Overall though, things are going well. A good first quarter done; a challenging second quarter looms.

Shearer's first speech

I got up this morning and watched the video stream of David Shearer's first major positioning speech of the year. It was a good effort. He delivered it well, and it had a freshness of tone and lightness of style I find refreshing and easy to read and to listen to.

The substance is good too. The focus on the economy and education is well merited: they are interlinked, and in the economic sphere, doing the same things is going to lead to the same results.  That is why we need big changes, and that is why he's talking about them.

I also agree with the signal to review the tax-free threshold promise we took to last year's election.  At $1.4bn a year when fully rolled out, that was a very big tax cut. I would be surprised if we can afford anything like it in 2014.

Some key extracts:

We're going to keep on doing things the way we are ... for as long as the supply of lambs holds out.

We're going to go right on relying on property market bubbles and a small basket of primary produce exports to earn our living and we're going to go on borrowing money to pay for a standard of living we can't afford.

We owe too much. We all know that.

We earn too little. We all know that too.

Far too many of our eggs are in the one basket.

We all know that.

And anyone who tells you we can make things better here, without making big changes, is dreaming.

New Zealanders can cope with the truth.

So let's be honest with ourselves.

The honest truth is that the Christchurch recovery cheques from the insurance companies will only help us a bit.

The honest truth is that asset sales - even by the most generous measure - will hardly help us at all.

The honest truth is that a commodities boom, even if it keeps on rolling, isn't enough on its own to pay for what we need.

The honest truth is that merging and restructuring government departments will simply not cut it.

And the honest truth is that the economic plan New Zealand is following at the moment has more missing from it than it has in it.

He locates the positioning in the idea that things need to change. That is indeed the Labour way - not backward looking or status quo.

If I had to sum up what we need to do in one sentence I'd say this: we need to make a new New Zealand.

That's what the next Labour government will be about.

That means looking at everything through a whole new lens.

Everything.

It means questioning the comfortable assumptions we make.

I think the "we" there is New Zealand, but it's also the Labour Party - and he's right on both counts.

We all have an instinctive sense in New Zealand that everyone deserves a go, and that everyone needs to pull their weight and contribute.

Labour believes that. It always has.

Don't let anyone tell you different.

We say two things:

Number one: our community must take care of the needy. They deserve a share of the pie.

And if people fall on hard times, we will help.

But equally importantly, number two: everyone who can help to make that pie needs to be involved, and fairly rewarded for doing it.

Rights and responsibilities, that's the social contract that binds our society.

A precis of the next speech perhaps, and a nice summation of what Labour believes.

Have a read of the whole speech. It's worth a look.

Labour's new MPs and their speeches

Labour's four new MPs gave their inaugural speeches to Parliament on Tuesday night.

David Clark, Andrew Little, Rino Tirikatene and Megan Woods gave powerful and evocative speeches. Each has their own style and their own areas of background and focus: Andrew in the law and the unions; Megan as an historian; David in policy work and Rino as a descendent of famed public men and women and a track record of his own in Māori business.

Those perspectives infused what they said.

What interested me was the common thread through their comments: the idea and ideal of equality.

Each recognised our common humanity, and the moral equality of people, as being the foundation of how we ought to organise society.

They also expressed that very old Labour value: progress. The belief that by working together we can make our society a better place than it is today.

I'm proud of all of them, proud of the values that join us together in Labour's cause.

The videos are over at http://blog.labour.org.nz posted by Clare Curran on Tuesday evening.

Have a watch.

A daring thought #labourleader

Patrick over at his excellent blog, The Progress Report, did a post during Summer School on the session on Labour leadership. Have a look at his outline of the discussion.

I am not yet sure of it, but I think it is possible by the end of this year, the New Zealand Labour Party will have an institutional role for members in choosing the leadership of the Party.  We will, if that is so, be joining our fraternal parties around the world, and will be giving people a big new reason to join the party and be involved.

It seems obvious to me that in an age when deference has declined, when voters are better connected to politics (when they choose to be) than ever, and when parties are struggling for relevance, then a system of choosing the key leadership personnel that involves that wider membership in a meaningful way is important.

One of the reasons I helped set up the run of leadership meetings we held last year, was with the hope that modelling a more open process for leadership change would create an appetite for further steps in that direction.  If Summer School is anything to go by, that's precisely what has happened.

The process we choose will be important.  My view is that in a country as small as this, we should do our best to keep it deliberative.  We could, as Patrick suggests, have an electoral college model between the Caucus, Members and Affiliates, and that would work for me to a degree with postal ballots for the latter two, and in person ballots for the Caucus.

But we are a small country and actually, almost every member should be able if they wish to get along to a meeting to hear the candidates debate, to talk with fellow members about what is most important to them, and so on.  That would lead to a better set of choices being made, and reduces the chances of a "populist" leader being able to just woo a disconnected membership in a plebiscitory fashion that doesn't mean a whole lot in terms of judgement, deliberation, discussion and so on.

A way to do that could be to make sure the period of time the leadership question was open was long enough for a good solid series of meetings, and then to have some way that members and affiliated union members who showed up to the meetings had a double weight given to their votes compared with those who just relied on the media or other ways to come to their decision.

I'm not sure that's a good plan, but I think it's worth thinking about. I can see upsides and downsides to this approach, and to the whole notion of taking the decision into a bigger forum. 

There are benefits to the speedy decisions the Caucus can make today, and to containing the debate, the choosing of sides, and so on, to a very small group of people who will in the end be forced to work together afterwards.

I think those benefits are outweighed by the simple issue of principle: that decisions about the leadership of the party should be in the hands of its members, not just the select few. The downsides would have to be managed, but the fact most left wing parties do have a bigger constituency than just Caucus shows that this can be done.

What do you reckon? 

Do you think we'll be changing the system? 

Do you think an electoral college model works? 

Do you think it would be better to give more weight to people's choices if they participated in meetings and argued who they wanted to see win with their fellow members and supporters?

#summerlabour - Summer School 2012

The weekend saw the tenth Labour party Summer School, a residential retreat organised for the Labour party by Young Labour each year.

It's a chance for party members to think about the long term challenges of social democracy away from the drivers of day to day reaction, self-censorship and organising imperatives. It isn't cut off from what's happening day to day, but tries to be a bit detached and reflective.

There were a whole slew of interesting sessions which tabled a range of policy and ideological issues, and a discussion of Labour's organisational review chaired by party president Moira Coatsworth.

The rewarding parts of the event as always were the chances to meet new people, and to talk about politics in the absence of time pressures and with new ideas floating around.

Compared with the last few, there was a higher turnout and more new faces. Both very welcome developments.

From my conversations, there is a strong recognition that Labour needs to be doing things differently compared with what we have done in the past few years, to establish more clearly in the public mind what Labour stands for, and to reach out to and include pools of potential Labour voters who do not vote for us at the moment.

The election result is primary evidence of this, but so is the tone of voter and campaign feedback and of the attitudes of friends and family to Labour today.

We are too often seen in a way that doesn't feel real to us, but does to too many voters: detached, self obsessed, negative, without a plan, economically non-credible, captured, and essentially backward looking and irrelevant.

Perceptions like that aren't only caused by outsiders or by 'the media'. It takes two to tango. Things we have done that seem minor or irrelevant to us sometimes symbolize a much bigger deal to people we want to support us, not to be pissed off by us.

It's a big challenge to undo all that. We have a good new team in the leadership roles, and still fresh people at the party council leadership, to do that rebuild. But it can't be just down to them.

That's why summer school was fun, really: a chance to spread the news about change, and to face up to the fact it will be scary, fun, challenging, inspiring work that will leave Labour more fun to be part of, and more electable to public office.

Do we need to change Labour? Yes.

In the wake of a heavy defeat and the election of a brilliant new leadership team, it would be very tempting for Labour to say:

"We have fixed the problem. New team, global crisis and the political cycle will see us through."

That would be a temptation similar to a drowning person in cold water deciding drowning isn't that bad after all.

It's not easy to face the problems we have, but the first step to fixing them is acknowledging them.

Here's my short list for starters, of a few problems we really need to face.

• a record low vote, lowest since the 1920s
• low and static membership in the past three years
• over centralisation of control over policy and strategy, with too little power for members
• an inward focused 'divide the pie' approach by too many party units
• a cultural acceptance of low to no organisation in too many places, and a related culture of federalism divided between electorates rather than a sense of a nation-wide, cooperating organisation
• too much belief that our connections with a wide range of Kiwis are strong, when they are weak
• a sense that we 'own' the voters that went to the greens and nzf, and that they are bound to return to us
• a perception among some parts of the electorate that we are out of touch with their hopes and dreams
• a structure that incentivises our inward focus

It's a long list to which I am sure you can add things, friend or foe.

Some of these are substantive problems that are hard to fix.

Some are perception problems that can be sorted out more easily.

All need tackling to get us on track to what should be our ambition: the party that is open to most Kiwis, and that a regular 45%+ can vote for.

Cosmetic change can't get us there.

That's why we need big change, based on our values, to build a modern political party (not an NGO, not a corporation) that can draw the currents of a diverse electoral coalition together, win elections, and work in communities to change New Zealand for the better.

The status quo, even with the best leadership in generations, can't get us there.

So — it's time to shake things up.

A further reshuffle reflection

I've been mulling on the blog already on the scale of the task Labour faces in returning to government.

An important part of that is actually building a solid policy agenda. 

While our agenda coming into this year's election was comprehensive, it didn't get everything right, and it was not well communicated -- many people simply didn't know what our policy was in some key areas, something that we have to take primary responsibility for.

I don't know how David Shearer will operate the caucus, whether there will be a tight five approach, a functioning Shadow Cabinet, teams based around main portfolios, or opposition-by- caucus, and in a sense it doesn't worry me too much which way he chooses to go.

If we take "clean, green and clever" as a nice abbreviation for the thrust of the agenda that Shearer wants to build, then there is a brilliant team at the top. 

His own interest in the research and science area; Grant's skills in policymaking and control of Environment and Tertiary Ed and Skills; Parker's interest in economic development as a key component of finance; Ardern's likely focus on getting people into work as part of Social Development; and Cunliffe's thinking on how to actually change the business environment to try and stimulate growth...... they all add up to a nice package of skills, interests and abilities.

That bodes well for an actual focus on something (anything!!), as opposed to our last three years of wandering from headline to headline. It's one of quite a lot of reasons I like what Shearer's putting into place for Labour.