Having four men hold around 50 meetings to talk about ideas and vision has connected them with their membership, and tested their stamina.
Which is very much what happened during the last Labour leadership process too. These are good processes, and highly democratic ones. I recommend them.
The Future of Work thing
is that a thing? sounds interesting.
It is indeed a thing, and a large one at that. It's the Party's major focus at present, with a whole lot of work going on within caucus, and outside of caucus, with MPs getting out and consulting and talking and putting together discussion papers which will turn into focused policy.
Here's the speech launching it: The Future of Work
An extract from that speech:
A major theme of my work as Leader will be developing a long-term economic plan that’s about making the most of the changing nature of work, that’s about increasing productive investment, and building an education system that’s fit for the challenges of the 21st century.
To do this, Labour will establish a Future of Work Commission to work with New Zealanders over the next two years to develop policies for creating more jobs, creating better jobs, and getting New Zealand ready for the economic challenges of the next twenty years.
The purpose of the Commission will be to look at how we adapt to the rapidly approaching changes ahead; how we make sure ours is a society and an economy that generates work and incomes for a stable and prosperous community, and how we prepare for the likelihood of multiple changes in jobs over a working life, including having periods of no paid work.
Here's a recent article from the Sunday Star Times about it: Labour rolls up its sleeves to tackle the future of work
Here's Grant Robertson on the main themes of the project: Five themes for Labour Party's Future of Work Commission
So it's very much a thing, and very much focused on getting something done. I've seen some of the early work that's coming out of this project, and it's looking good.
I have no belief that Little has any motivation other than power and hence would shift policies on a whim
Andrew has a long and consistent history of working on behalf of workers, and looking for practical ways to achieve gains for workers, without at the same time demonising businesses.
lightbox is a pretty crappy service since most people will not be able to watch it on their TV.
We've got it linked up via a Playstation app, so it's pretty easy to sort out from there. I've just signed up for Neon (because Game of Thrones), and linked our computer to the TV via an HDMI cable, plus an adapter (because Mac). A nice young man in Dick Smith helped me to sort it all out, because I really am a bit of a technical doofus. Our TV is about 7 years old. So really, it wasn't all that difficult to sort out getting Lightbox and Neon on our TV screen, c/f on our computer screen.
Great speech from Jacinda. Measured and insightful and angry, all at once.
I heard Beethoven's 5th live for the first time ever last year. I sat there with tears of joy rolling down my face through those dramatic opening chords, and through much of the first movement.
As for the duet in The Pearl Fishers. It was a three hanky moment when I saw the opera in Adelaide a few years ago.
NZ Herald: Six giant pohutukawa trees saved
Six giant pohutukawa trees that Auckland Transport wanted to cut down to provide extra traffic space at Western Springs have been saved.
What did these voters think the Greens would do, confiscate their houses and cars?
I never really pursued it too much. I can recall comments like, flakey, tree-huggers, all about the trees and not about business and people, going to put huge costs on people, unrealistic, no economic expertise, wanting everying to have composting toilets.
Regarding Labour and the Greens… one of the things I heard many times during the last election, as I stood on doorsteps in both rural and urban areas, was that people didn’t like the thought that if they voted Labour, they would also get the Greens. The typical line I got was, “We can’t vote for you, even though we like you, because we don’t like the Greens.”
Okay then. I usually responded by talking about some of the people I have a fair amount of respect for in the Green caucus, in an attempt to make the Greens less scary to these voters. Pretty frustrating to be spending my time doing that, to be honest, when I’d far rather have been talking about Labour and Labour policies, and urging people to vote Labour (I was afterall, running for Labour, not the Green party).
It’s a little hard to know what underlay the comments from voters about the Greens being scary (and therefore they weren’t going to vote Labour). I’m sure that part of it could be that most people don’t want to say to your face that they won’t be voting for you or your party, so they find something else to say which is not openly opposed to the (pleasant, friendly etc?) woman standing right in front of them. But I do think that some of the sentiment behind the words was genuine: many of the voters I spoke to really, really, didn’t want the Greens in government, and that in turn became another negative for Labour in their minds, because Labour would likely form a coalition with the Greens.
So it’s not clear to me that as a matter of electoral tactics, Labour and the Greens should be too overtly allied. It’s not clear that they shouldn’t be aligned either, for that matter. But what seems obvious to some people here at PAS, which is a fairly left wing kind of place, is not at all obvious to many of the voters I spoke to in the six months or so before the election last year.
Steven, many, many times, the way you spell words has made me think new thoughts. Thank you.