Just Left

Conference 2012

In many ways, the Labour Party conference last weekend was a triumph. A set of issues mean it doesn't feel like that right now, but in the longer term it will be seen that way.

Why?

I work in the Internet arena. It's decentralised. Hierarchy doesn't matter much. Ideas rise or fall on their merits. People's views are treated with respect, and everyone can have a say.

It is those aspects of the Internet revolution - how it works and how it changes us - that keep me interested in it - and in politics.

The 'net is changing society. Along with the '68 revolution and the era of the babyboomers, and the massive liberalisation they brought about, New Zealand has much less time for authoritarian leaders than it used to. Collaboration, working together, the demise of hierarchy and bossy management, all these changes are real. Wider choice and respect for our voice - as consumers and as citizens - is part of New Zealand's reality today.

Yet the two main political parties have remained stuck in the past. Labour and National are caught in the old ways of doing things. A small elite at the top in charge; the rest of us there as servants to carry out the wishes of the elite - pawns, all too often, in a game of thrones.

This weekend just gone, Labour started to catch up with New Zealand.

Important reforms gave party members a say on leadership choice and on policy direction. The ability to campaign properly in an MMP environment was enhanced.

Most important was the attitude in the conference. I don't mean the hysterical fringes, or the debate that turned into a proxy for other issues. I mean the broad consensus of what the tone was and what people thought they were doing.

Delegates, by and large, carried through fundamental reforms mostly unanimously. From David Shearer and Grant Robertson, Moira Coatsworth and Tim Barnett, through regions and sectors to electorates and branches and members individually, the door that was opened by last December's leadership hustings and — more emphatically — by changes in New Zealand society, wrought a new settlement in the NZLP.

I know that because of the overlay of leadership debate, the changes we made don't grab attention. But I also know those changes were overdue, are irreversible, and that most of the debate had *nothing to do* with the 'contemporary anxieties' Andrew Little referred to. Anxieties, I might add, that were substantially lessened by the content and delivery of David's leaders speech on Sunday.

The changes we made this weekend are big, and they clash head on with the culture of the Parliamentary Labour Party. That part of Labour is very accustomed to being in charge, on its own terms. The shock to the system this weekend will have been severe for some MPs and for some party grandees.

My advice to people feeling like that is simple: calm down.

Like anyone else, I know Labour needs strong leadership, and that divisions and splits help the Nats and hurt us. That should go without saying. That won't change with a more Democratic party, unless the party decides it does not want to win elections.

What is going to change is the 'on their own terms' part of the leadership equation. Members - including the whole leadership - have decided that power is to be shared. Caucus dominance will always be real, but the previous absolute right of the Parliamentary wing to make all the key decisions for all of us is now a part of the past.

It's a positive thing. The chatter on the conference floor wasn't *against* anyone: it was *for* the ideal of a more open, more pluralist, more vigorous Labour Party. Anyone who feels attacked by what happened, in that sense, needs to reflect and to deal with the change.

That's the sharp end of democratisation. That is what happened on the weekend. That is what Labour people should celebrate. That is what we are all going to need to come to terms with.

If we fail to, then we are in for a rocky road. The wide support for reform should — must — translate into wide support for its implementation, to unify the party and the movement around the new politics that found its voice this weekend.

The alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

I don't want to say a lot about what has happened since. My focus is on making those policy reforms work, and contributing to the management job we now have in pulling Labour together again.

One thing is for sure: we changed the game last weekend. In the long run, Labour will be the stronger for it.

Changing Labour this weekend

Labour's annual conference meets in Auckland this weekend. It's the most important conference in a generation. Changes are on the table that will fundamentally change Labour, bringing it closer to the public and making it fit to lead New Zealand again.

Stepping back from the day to day rush (and the chitter chatter about leadership issues, which is wildly overblown), Labour has taken the past few months to consider its structure and the way it organises. It hasn't been an internally focused review, though the outcomes being debated this weekend are focused on what Labour does.

The focus has been: how do we build a party that is better connected with the community? How do we organise and campaign better with MMP? How do we change from an industrial age hierarchy into a less centralised, more democratic structure?

These are the right questions for Labour to ask, and the answers the review has come up with are broadly right too.

New Zealanders have no patience these days for political parties or governments that claim to know it all. People no longer accept that Wellington Knows Best (if ever they did). Pushing decisions downwards and outwards to communities and to local democracy has been an important part of politics now for years.

That's why we brought in elected DHBs. That's why we extended the remit of local government. That's why an earlier Labour government brought in Tomorrow's Schools. People know what they need and what they want, and the central State doesn't always have to make those calls for them.

Labour's internal structures have not kept up, and nor has its culture. We can all cite examples in the 2000s and before when Labour left an impression of knowing best. The whole "Nanny State" thing could never have emerged without some substance behind it, after all.

Why does this matter?

There are two fundamentals in a political party. One is leadership selection and the other is decisions around policy. Together, those affect strategy, electoral appeal and relevance, political success and eventually, access to power.

This weekend's debate will include the chance for Conference to massively widen the constituency that selects Labour's leader: from 30-50 MPs to tens of thousands of members of the Party and affiliated trade unions.

That is as it should be. People who want to lead should have to demonstrate that they can win support from a cross-section of the public. I am damn sure that the Labour Party membership and members of our affiliated unions are a more diverse and representative cross-section of New Zealand than the Labour caucus is. The new process will require people to show they can win support from that broader constituency before they become leader.

It's a much needed reform, and will bring Labour in NZ into line with almost all other social democratic parties around the world. The ALP will remain the only organisation with backroom boys making these sorts of calls. They are welcome to that splendid isolation.

I am confident Conference will adopt this change. It is brave but necessary change.

There's a similar reform proposed on policymaking. There will be a wider mandate for policy: a Platform (the first ever draft of which is online here) would structure the party's manifesto and election policies. All policy would have to be consistent with the Platform and could only depart from it for a reason (e.g. a coalition negotiation) and with a supermajority of the party's Policy Council (a mix of MPs and activists) in agreement.

To draft, debate and adopt the Platform will involve hundreds of people across the party's branches and regions and sectors. It will involve reaching out to industry, to community groups, to advocacy organisations in every sphere of public life.

Once it is adopted by the Conference, it will be a standing framework that gives people a clear sense of what Labour stands for, and how it will govern. It will shift the right to make fundamental decisions about the party's direction and approach from the Parliamentary wing alone, into the whole organisation.

Both these reforms cut to the heart of what it means to be a modern political party. They acknowledge that not all wisdom resides at the centre. They celebrate the diverse perspectives and ideas that come from really listening to the community, and debating (sometimes with great passion!) the big picture of what Labour stands for and what Labour will deliver.

They are about making Labour the party that is most relevant to the country's future.

Look at our opponents and see the difference. National party members have no real say in policy. It's left to the Board (of seven) and the Cabinet. National tramples on local democracy whenever it can - look at the tragedy of Christchurch and the theft of water resources being given a stamp of legitimacy in Canterbury. Look at the efforts to take community representation away from Polytechs and Universities. Look at the efforts to wind back the powers and responsibilities of local government.

At precisely the moment that New Zealand's government and politics needs to be humble about its own abilities, and respectful of the ideas that the public can bring to the table, the National Party is going the wrong way.

There are other important changes on the table, and you can read the full list here. The overall package is a far-reaching set of reforms. Once we deal with candidate selection next year, a full overhaul will have been done, based on grassroots debate, international comparison and hard-headed analysis of what we need to change.

Labour's got it right. That is why this conference is important. We need to change our party if we are to win a mandate to change the country.

I've been writing about this for a while. It's part of the necessary process I identified in 2010 on this blog - of "turning ourselves inside out":

As we say "this is what we are hearing, what do you think?", we also have to invite people in to join with us and help shape what we are doing next. We have to use the best technology there is to do it, as well as the traditional means of face to face and direct mail politics. We need to be the party that people see as grassroots based, and where they know that if they want to raise an issue or a concern, it will filter through to what our policy is and what our politicians are saying and thinking.

Changing a political party is slow work, but we are heading in the right direction. The historic decisions we make this weekend - the most important changes to our party for a generation - will show just how serious we are. By themselves these changes won't achieve nirvana, but what they do do is this: they give Labour the foundation on which to build a winning campaign in 2014.

Changing Labour so we can change New Zealand, and see this country live up to its promise. That's what Labour is for.

Equality matters to us all

Equality is one of the most interesting values and principles of the labour movement, at least in part because we live in the Era of Freedom in so many ways. Individual choices and the right to be left alone are dominant in policy, politics and the media -- though of course not among citizens or in the way people actually live their lives.

I was reminded of the importance of the principle in the somewhat strange debate that sees the occasional Labour person saying that marriage equality isn't an important issue.

Of course it is.

If your social or family circle includes no people from LGBT people (which is unlikely), you are less directly affected. Sure. I get that. But even so, you benefit from a society characterised by a high degree of fairness for everyone. Direct or not, equality in the realm of marraige matters just as it does in the workplace, or anywhere else.

Grant Robertson's weekend post on Red Alert summed up nicely why:

As the excited crowd left the public gallery of Parliament on Wednesday evening, the Speaker had to pause the business of the House. There was a buzz in the air following the vote on Louisa Wall’s marriage equality bill. It was a great night for fairness, equality and courage. The journey New Zealand has been on since the passing of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in the 80s, through Civil Unions in 00s took another important step in giving all New Zealanders a fair go. We saw some courageous testimonies in the days leading up to the vote and some courageous speeches and voting on the night.

When the crowd had dispersed, and the gallery was deserted, my friend and colleague David Clark got up to introduce his private members bill to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour in line with Labour’s 2011 manifesto commitment. The crowd should have stayed. He gave a great speech. So did Darien Fenton who followed on from him focusing on the plight of the cleaners in Parliament. Have a look at the speeches, they are thoughtful and heartfelt pleas for a fair wage for all workers. The response from the government speakers was as predictable as it was out of touch.

...

I would have loved the crowd who so enthusiastically supported marriage equality to have stayed and cheered on a fair go for our lowest paid workers. The issues come from the same well-spring. Its all part of the agenda of a fair go for all New Zealanders and a society where we reject exclusion and unfairness and embrace and value the contribution that all Kiwis can make to our society.

Fairness, equality, is deep in the DNA of New Zealanders. We instinctively knowthat a system stacked against the weak and powerless is wrong. That is why our history is littered with progressive reforms based on the principle of equality: votes for women, votes for Maori, human rights law affecting all, anti-racism campaigns, the Halt All Racist Tours movement, striving for ecological justice, the human rights improvements for LGBT New Zealanders, fair workplace laws, egalitarian social security arrangements, a non-discriminatory state pension.... on and on it goes.

The phrase "equality" summons up some of the worst. That's why most of us, most of the time, talk about fairness. Equality isn't about forcing conformity, or lowest common denominatorism, or turning people into stalinist clones.

It's precisely the opposite.

You cannot have a free society which is disfigured by divides between the insiders and the outsiders.

You cannot have democracy when the voices of a few with power drown out those of the many who don't.

You cannot have economic success for all when working men and women are treated as a cost to be minimised.

You cannot honour the Treaty when the trappings of colonialism still lie all around, powerful and alive and well despite the progress of the past forty years.

You cannot have social justice when you treat those on benefits as second class citizens, somehow less than the rest of us.

You cannot have dignity when some are treated as a little less equal than others when it comes to social rights and customs that are at the heart of our society.

Honouring the diverse circumstances we all have is why the Labour movement believes in equality. Fairness is justice and justice & fairness are all about equality: that is the core of social democratic politics and ideology today. Not just to those living but to those who are yet to come (which is why environmental stewardship is becoming more pronounced in social democratic and Labour politics).

So I have a piece of advice to my friends in the Labour movement who try to charactise the Living Wage campaign, or Marriage Equality, as sideshows. (I've heard both, to my surprise.)

They aren't. Relate them back to our core beliefs. If you are in an audience skeptical about one aspect of this journey we are all on, towards fairness & equality, then tell another part of the story.

For those who aren't interested in marriage equality, relate the issue back to core issues of fairness at work.

For those who can't get their heads around why a strong trade union movement and fair industrial laws are good for us all, relate it back to suffrage or marriage equality, or the universal pension.

These things are all related. The more clearly we link them together the more likely it is our message can cut through, and the stronger our movement becomes. The more voters will get the message that equality affects everyone and is worthy of the support of all, regardless of their circumstances.

Let's not play divide and rule. Let's not engage in reverse wedge politics against ourselves.

Instead, let's celebrate the founding and distinctive principle that motivates our movement, and that is more relevant to New Zealand's future prospects than it has been for many years.

Campaign School mulling

I've spent the weekend in Hamilton at the first Young Labour campaign school.

It's been an interesting couple of days for a number of reasons. The turnout was fantastic — around about sixty attendees not counting presenters. There was a good broad range of topics, from elections to issues campaigning and thinking about messaging and communications.

Ten years after the first Summer School, which is a Labour Party event organised by Young Labour, a campaigning focus like this is well timed and much needed. Campaigning is core business for a political party and we don't make enough effort to teach people how to do it.

It is not for me to go into any specific detail about what was covered, but some reflections:

• issues campaigning is getting more important as a way to drive emotional connection between the party and various groups of voters — done well it is a strength.
• knowing the political context as it is, not as you sort of wish or hope it might be, should be obvious but isn't always.
• another reminder about the importance of repetition to get messages through. We are so, so, so bad at this in many ways and it's entirely down to us to get that right. Narrative is similar.

Again and again too, through the weekend, was acknowledgement of the climate change challenge we face. If any part of the Labour Party is going to lead a new approach here, YL is going to be critical to the effort.

Good event, continuing with local govt campaigning next.

Political Leadership and #MarriageEquality

Change is a tough thing sometimes.

This post is about political change, its history in New Zealand, and why Labour MPs need to grasp the nettle and support Marriage Equality, as a core part of Labour's vision for a country where everybody belongs.

Political parties and movements that are progressive secure change by changing people's minds about issues. They do not ride with the grain of current opinion in those issues where change is demanded: they challenge it, they confront and cajole and persuade, and change people's minds.

New Zealand has a long history of such persuasion. It's a give and take process between movements and the broader electorate. You have the debate, you shift a bit more towards where the public are, and they have shifted a ways in your direction too. You keep pushing, and keep shifting opinion.

That's how the welfare state was founded. Labour's vision for the Social Security Act in 1938 would have been impossible in 1928. It was the experience of the Depression, and the constant campaigning by Labour party politicians and activists all around the country, that changed the public's view. From villages in the south Waikato to hamlets in central Otago to mining towns on the West Coast to Queen Street: Labour made the case and changed views.

Change always happens that way.

Look at the attitudes of Pakeha New Zealand towards Pacific migrants that were exposed by the ugly campaign Rob Muldoon ran in 1975. Dawn raids, attacks on overstayers, blatant racism and fearmongering about interracial marriage, crime, jobs and more were all exposed.

Today such views are held by many fewer people.

Politicians and campaigners made the case for equality and justice and inclusion, and those views have spread. New Zealand today takes great pride in Pacific communities and the diversity they bring to the country, and the links back to the Pacific Islands that they represent. I do not believe there would be many, if any, New Zealanders around today who have a fundamental problem with Pacific migrants and the Pacific communities of this country.

Those campaigns were underpinned by the core values the Labour Party stands for: the moral and legal equality of all people, a respect for and celebration of diversity, a championing of the personal freedoms we all need to thrive and flourish, and an abiding sense of fairness that said it simply did not make sense to treat people from the Pacific as second class citizens in our own country.

Of course, Pacific peoples are only one example. The direction has been consistent for women (suffrage onwards), for Maori, for people with disabilities and for homosexuals.

The direction is the direction of justice for all. It isn't perfect: there is still sexism and racism and homophobia and colonialism and fear of those who are different. But we have made this country a better place through the exercise of values, argued for and expressed through a democratic system.

In every one of these cases, the message has been profound. It has been a message of love. It has been a message of respect. It has said to people:

"You too are one of us. We share our fears, our hopes, our dreams. Come into our house. Be with us. Together we are one."

It is impossible, I think, to overstate the importance of that reality.

Our country is the country it is today because love has trumped fear in all of these stories.

Today, in a legal sense, we are near the end of that progression for equality for LGBT+ New Zealanders. Civil Unions were a step along the way, and they were important. They came only 18 years after homosexuality itself was decriminalised. But they are not the answer.

It all comes back to love and respect. Does our community include all of us? Or are we, those of us who are gay, to be told that we are second class citizens?

My own view is of course on the side of justice and equality. It would be regardless of the fact I am gay. To me, the struggles for fairness and equality are all linked. I take seriously the notion, expressed among other places in the Bible, that we are each other's keepers.

To me, the fight to end sexism and racism is the same as the fight to end homophobia.

It's the same as the fight against fear of those with disabilities.

It's about making the case that WE ARE ALL EQUAL. Not the same: we are gloriously diverse. But equal.

Equally worthy of respect and honour.

Equally worthy of the justice of the land being ours in the law.

Equally open to love.

Equally deserving to be treated as fully human.

These values are what unites the Labour Party and the Labour movement.

It is why a blokey as hell tradesman from Te Atatu, a Samoan minister in Mangere, a shearer in Te Awamutu, a lecturer in Dunedin and a nurse in Christchurch are all on the same side, why people like that all vote for Labour.

They know, and I know, that the promise of a better land and a better future requires us all to be on each other's side, fighting against those who would tell us we don't belong, don't deserve a fair go.

Labour MPs know in their hearts the values their party is founded on. They know that parts of their communities are on a journey to finding those values congenial. They know that some people will be opposed to Marriage Equality, just as some are opposed to Equal Pay for Equal Work, and some are opposed to migration to these islands.

They know they have, in their role, a special responsibility: to bend their energies to the widest possible spread of those Labour values that make New Zealand better for everyone.

So I expect Labour MPs to be out there talking about this issue, and making the case in favour of equality, and explaining to all why it's just a part of a bigger picture:

Building a country where we all belong.

That's what Labour is for. That's what leadership is about: making a difference and bringing about a better future.

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.