Labour launch their campaign

It seems like the election campaign has already been going for ages. Greens launched their campaign last month, and relaunched it last Sunday.

Labour has just launched their campaign today.

From Stuff Live:

  • Labour officially launches its campaign from 12.30, with Helen Clark in a front-row seat.
  •  Jacinda Ardern’s speech focuses on housing, mental health, education and…

…climate change – which she calls “our generation’s nuclear free moment”.

I remember listening to a couple of members of my family discussing climate change a few years ago. It’s fair to say they were sceptical. I was waiting for my moment to jump in, when suddenly I heard my father pipe up. “I don’t know much about the science he said, “but I do know what they showed me in Kiribati”.

He had visited with local village leaders who had shown him where the water sat when they were children, and where it was now – lapping squarely around their survival.

There will always be those who say it’s too difficult. There will be those who say we are too small, and that pollution and climate change are the price of progress.

They are wrong.

We will take climate change seriously because my Government will be driven by principle, not expediency. And opportunity, not fear.

And there is an opportunity, that we can turn into our advantage, and shape our identity. It is a transition that can, and must, be just.

This is my generation’s nuclear free moment, and I am determined that we will tackle it head on.

But restoring our role as innovators, and as a clean green nation on the world stage, means tackling something closer to home.

Our rivers are dying. The majority are almost too dirty to swim in.

I don’t accept that this is just the way things are now. Not when we our water is a taonga.
Not when we have a duty to protect it. And not when we can turn things around.

We will clean up our rivers. We will do it for the next generation. And we will do it together.

We do have some hard calls to make. But the government I lead will be a government that listens, then acts. A government that leads, not follows.

More from her speech:

The Government I lead will be a government that listens, then acts. A Government that leads, not follows, says Labour Leader Jacinda Ardern at the launch of the Labour Party’s 2017 election campaign at a packed Auckland Town Hall.

“I will never stop believing that politics is a place where we can do good.

“That we can build a confident and caring nation if we include each and every person, in each and every town and region. That is New Zealand at its best.

“It’s been three weeks now since I was asked to take this job and lead our campaign. In those three weeks, I’ve never once felt alone. Whether it’s been on social media, on the streets, or by your show of support here today, I feel humbled and heartened.

“So, the question for all of us – for you and for me – is this: now what?

“Now we re-double our efforts.

“Now we focus not just on the challenges, but the opportunities that will bring lasting change.

“Now we be bold, and now we be brave.

“This is our moment, and it starts with you.

“This is a time for talking with your families and friends. This is a time for knocking on doors and working the phones. This is a time for sharing our vision of tomorrow with everyone you meet.

“Let’s go from here today and run the campaign of our lives.

“Let’s do this.”

Full speech: http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1708/Campaign_launch_speech.PDF

 

Previous Post

42 Comments

  1. John Schmidt

     /  August 20, 2017

    The vast majority of our rivers are not unclean. The majority of our rivers lakes and streams are unseen in the vast out back blocks of NZ. I live in a province where I would have to work hard to find a river stream or a lake that cannot be swum in and in the rare case that they could be found it would be near the coast next to a town or a city. Upstream from these areas in the vastness of the mountainous terrain that we live in are miles and miles of rivers and streams by the million that are crystal clear. Dirty rivers and lakes are very localised and in most cases cleaning up is already occuring. So lets stop the BS around clean rivers and lakes and have a bit more truth out there.

    • Blazer

       /  August 20, 2017

      whats the Waikato river like these days.Its not all about you…although I realise the ‘I’m allright Jack’ is quite typical of right wing voters.

      • chrism56

         /  August 20, 2017

        The Waikato at Karapiro is quite clean. Downstream of there is a lot of the problems, but then there are a lot more towns right on the riverbank, some of which still have minimal sewage treatment or even septic tanks Taupiri, Huntly.

  2. chrism56

     /  August 20, 2017

    Her speech, like so much of what the Labour party has said in recent times, is either platitudes or virtue signaling. The closest to “policy” is these expert committees to put in place the things that are vote killers.
    At least National named ten roads to be upgraded. Has Labour done anything as concrete (pun intended) as that?

    • Corky

       /  August 20, 2017

      Those non thinking attendants care not one wilt for roading. They are captured by Jacindamania. She’s so cool and beautiful..and sensitive.

      But lets take a moment and feel sorry for Andy. What an ego destroyer seeing Jacindmainia draw the crowds.

    • Blazer

       /  August 20, 2017

      when are the Northland bridges being upgraded…all piss and..wind.

      • chrism56

         /  August 20, 2017

        ” all piss and..wind” You shouldn’t talk about yourself in those terms, though I note you still can’t deal with ellipsis.
        Weren’t many of the bridges going through the consent process?

    • Mefrostate

       /  August 20, 2017

      National are indeed promising $10bn more of Roads of National Significance.

      That’s $2,000 of your money that could be spent elsewhere.

      There’s no analysis to show the benefits will exceed the costs.

      Five of the seven previous RONS created less value than they cost.

      For the East-West Link, NZT’s economic expert said: “I have not prepared a quantitative assessment of the economic costs of the Project. Neither have I quantified the benefits… I am confident that the economic benefits of the Project will outweigh the economic costs (especially if the construction costs are not included).”

      Simon Bridges pressured KiwiRail to block an OIA request which showed that rail was more cost-effective.

      National also promised Northland a bunch of bridges during the by-election, and then didn’t build them after they lost.

      All this from the party that pretends to be fiscally conservative and “sound economic managers”. I’m sure if Labour announced the identical project people here would complain they were “bribing voters with their own money”

      • chrism56

         /  August 20, 2017

        And what was the cost benefit for the Dominion Road tram – even if it could be built for the numbers quoted- which it can’t?

        • Mefrostate

           /  August 20, 2017

          Benefit-cost ratio for light rail to the airport is 1.7 (https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/looks-light-rail-airport-link-dumps-heavy-rail-sl-p-190893)

          • chrism56

             /  August 20, 2017

            That is the AT information. Surprise surprise – they are all gung ho. They also stuffed up their costs for the Britomart rail loop in a big way. Where is the independent analysis?

            • Mefrostate

               /  August 20, 2017

              I’m going to let the discussion stand as is. I’ve just provided facts (except for the last paragraph of my first comment), whereas you’ve deferred to tu quoque and ad homs.

              Although it’s worth mentioning (also fact) that Auckland Council requested an assessment of airport light rail from the Auditor General, and that NZTA under National promised their own BCR this year, a deadline they will miss.

            • chrism56

               /  August 20, 2017

              Here is the link showing that AT stuffed up the costings of Britomart rail loop and this is even before serious construction had started.
              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11709494
              Their projections also depend on moving about 2600 people per hour by tram. About the same as one motorway bus lane

            • Mefrostate

               /  August 20, 2017

              If I were to use your strategies, I’d point out that the East-West Link has also had cost blow-outs, and that Orsman butchered his reporting on the information AT provided him in order to push his narrative.

              But let’s stick to the topic of the $10bn RONS#2.

              How do you feel about the facts I provided about National?

          • PDB

             /  August 20, 2017

            Who are all these ‘magical people’ lining up to get from the CBD to the airport (or vice-versa) that wouldn’t prefer now getting into a car/taxi from right outside their hotel/place of residence, chucking their mountains of luggage in there, and going through the tunnel which is more direct and quicker?

            • Mefrostate

               /  August 20, 2017

              You’d think that demand forecasting would be an integral part of benefit-cost analysis, wouldn’t you.

              But to be fair, you are right that decades of public spending on roading projects has made it seem like the only option. Results differ in most other global cities.

          • chrism56

             /  August 21, 2017

            There appears to be no more information about the AT analysis than what is on the NBR article. However, taking that, it shows 17 stations in 23km and a travelling time of 38-44 minutes. If we allow a minute stopped at each station, and the longer of the target times, that means the trams have to average 50km/h between stops. That includes their acceleration and braking, so peak speeds would probably have to be over 80km/h. All this is on a urban street with cars and foot traffic sharing the path. Yeah, Right.
            That indicates that it isn’t a quality analysis, just a once over promo.

            • Blazer

               /  August 21, 2017

              so 35 m.p.h and bursts of 48m.p.h…..whats the speed limit for cars on these roads.?

            • chrism56

               /  August 21, 2017

              Those roads are 50km/h and you have trams sharing the roadway (look at the publicity photos) going 80km/h along them. They also are stopping about every 1200m so it would be a constant acceleration deceleration

            • Mefrostate

               /  August 21, 2017

              “These bloody professional transport engineers have no idea what they’re doing!”

              – chrism56, a person on the internet.

            • chrism56

               /  August 21, 2017

              At least mefrosty, AT could put their report with costings up. All they have got is PR bumpf
              https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/light-rail/
              It is so “good” even Mike Lee is against it.
              The “professional” transport engineers who have stuffed up almost every project they worked on? What was the last thing they did that was on time and on budget? How’s Parnell railway station getting on?

            • Mefrostate

               /  August 21, 2017

              Happy to explore these after you address my question:
              How do you feel about the facts I provided about National?

            • chrism56

               /  August 21, 2017

              I would like to see the data on the east west link and where is the report Simon Bridges wouldn’t release? You provided no links.
              You can put all the economists in the world end to end and you still wouldn’t reach a conclusion. What was the cost benefit for the new Auckland tunnel?
              As I showed in the link, the contracts for three of the Northland bridges have been let – so that “fact” of yours is wrong.

            • Mefrostate

               /  August 21, 2017

              On the bridges: Fair enough, I’ll concede that I overstated the point. 3/10 bridges announced in March 2015 have been put out to contract. How comfortable are you that they’ll be a valuable investment of your tax dollars? What assurances have National given you?

              On East-West Link cost: gradually crept up from $1bn to $2bn as detailed here (https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2016/06/13/east-west-an-ever-increasing-cost/). You’ll also not that there was better value to be had from the cheaper options.

              On East-West Link evidence: available here (http://www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/NSP000038/NSP000038_04.%20EWL_AppRebuttal_Economics_JWilliamson.PDF)

              On Bridges obfuscation on East-West Link & hiding the third-main business case: details here (http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/06/simon-bridges-defends-attempt-to-block-oia-request.html) or here (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/332428/transport-minister-tries-to-block-official-information-request) and an exploration of the contradictions here (https://thespinoff.co.nz/auckland/23-06-2017/i-have-not-quantified-the-benefits-the-astonishing-truth-about-nzs-most-expensive-road-ever/)

              BCR for the Waterview Connection was 1.15 as per here (https://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Business_case_for_the_Waterview_Connection.pdf). You’ll note that costs for that project also “blew out” from $1.89bn to $2.77bn.

              I’d still love to hear your thoughts on National spending $2,000 of your money on more RONS.

            • chrism56

               /  August 21, 2017

              I provided the link over on the other thread showings that Bridges didn’t prevent the report release, at least according to the Ombudsman, but Blazer is still arguing black is white. You two seem to work as a tag team.
              And the actual report is linked to as well by me.
              I read the various reports on the evidence about the East West Link. You originally called it NZT, rather than NZTA which was confusing. I have never had much confidence in CB analysis as we never get to see the assumptions.
              Using Spinoff as your source is a double edged sword. Simon Wilson is very critical of Auckland Transport.
              With regards the cost of Waterview, Stuff recently reported the actual cost was $1B cheaper than you, so perhaps you need to look at your historic sources
              http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/92998849/1-6-billion-Waterview-Connections-mystery-opening-date-a-few-weeks-away
              If Suff is correct, that makes the cost benefit a lot better than your case.
              I would much prefer National to waste a bit of money on roads than Labour waste a lot of money on whatever took their fancy.
              Now tell me how the “professional” Auckland Transport people got Parnell station right.

            • Mefrostate

               /  August 21, 2017

              Ok great, I’m glad we got all the links you needed to see out in the open. Hopefully we can now talk about the point I was making.

              Crucially, you’ve finally made the admission I suspect is common among National supporters and road huggers:

              “I have never had much confidence in CB analysis as we never get to see the assumptions.”

              I want you to know that this looks to me like you’re willing to ignore or try to discredit evidence when it paints you party in a bad light.

              “I would much prefer National to waste a bit of money on roads than Labour waste a lot of money on whatever took their fancy.”

              And this looks like you’re not interested in political parties providing evidence for their policies, but you’re happy to trust that your party will do the right thing (and that you assume that the ‘other guys’ will be doing the wrong thing).

              Both of these are a sign of demagoguery and are an atrocious way to participate in a democratic society and leave you vulnerable to being exploited.

              So you know, National propose to “waste” $10billion without evidence, Labour are proposing $20m on rail with evidence (even if you try to discredit it, it’s far better National’s nothing).

            • chrism56

               /  August 21, 2017

              No MeFrostate – you are putting your own spin on my words but that seems par for the course with you. Just like your uncredited plagiarism, I suppose.
              As someone who regularly drives the Waikato expressway and to Tauranga, the improvement done by that roading is immense. Money well spent.
              One of the reasons I don’t believe CBAs should be the sole criterion is there are often good reasons not to use them. A case in point in the Manawatu Gorge replacement. All analyses would say just upgrade Saddle Road but that is clearly unacceptable. So by your measures, that replacement road must not be built? How about the rebuilding of SH1 through Kaikoura?
              Here in the central North Island, there are no railways and everything has to move by truck. That is reality. If you have to get goods to or from say Port of Auckland, no-one is going to double handle them by truck then rail, especially if they are perishable.
              And I am still waiting on Parnell station.

            • Mefrostate

               /  August 21, 2017

              It’s not spin, it’s my personal assessment of your attitudes to governance. Others are free to make their own.

              I provided some facts about the RONS projects and National’s continued ideological preference for roads, even when the available evidence shows they’re bad use of money, sometimes without any supporting evidence, always at great cost to the taxpayer, and from the party which claims to be fiscally responsible. I was also willing to admit where I was too strong with my language.

              You responded first with a tu quoque about the Dominian road tram, second by attacking the reputation of Auckland Transport (I wonder if National have biases too), third by rightly looking for the independent evidence which the current government has failed to produce, fourth with a mischaracterisation of CRL cost blowouts (still a tu quoque by the way), fifth by attacking the transport engineering profession with your own envelope calculations about how trams work, and sixth with just a little more of throwing random other projects into the mix (I have no idea what you’re asking about Parnell station, but it’s irrelevant, has nothing to do with RONS).

              When I did finally got you back to the specific question of National’s proposal, you said exactly this: “I would much prefer National to waste a bit of money on roads than Labour waste a lot of money on whatever took their fancy.”

              To interpret that in context of competing policies for the election, “a bit” = $10bn and “a lot” = $20m.

              And “whatever took their fancy” is clearly a more reasonable allegation to throw at National’s policy than at Labour’s.

              And even if there was evidence for National’s policy, you’d clearly not be interested, because you’re enjoying the benefits of quicker drivers on previous RONS projects, even if they cost you personally $2,000 in taxes.

              We’re not going to get anywhere productive from here, I’ve said my piece. Feel free to add whatever else you think is necessary, and I’ll let others decide how the discussion reflects on you, me, National and Labour respectively.

            • chrism56

               /  August 22, 2017

              [Deleted, use proper names – PG], you are spinning so much, you will auger into the ground.
              AT is a political organization – they have gutted their engineering department and contact most of their work out. As Parnell Station shows, they are quite prepared to make stupid decisions to suit their political masters – even your favourite source Spinoff says this, though you didn’t have the guts to admit it. Their Dominion Road tram plans haven’t been costed (ask the industry) and their numbers for that are just dragged out of the air. That is why they haven’t published their analysis report, (which you slagged off NZTA for on the East west link- sauce for the goose), just puff pieces in selected publications.
              You defined the roading as a waste of money, not me. I gather the Manawatu Gorge replacement is a waste of money in your eyes as it doesn’t have a good CB ratio. And you can’t even quote others correctly because it doesn’t suit your optics.
              If you actually bothered to read, NZR said the W2W triple tracking needed to be done because that section of track is overloaded and can’t take more trains. How will they get the extra 10 train trips a day for Labour’s golden triangle scheme?
              You also were happy to slag off any opposition without even being able to get your own facts right. No wonder you are at one with Labour.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  August 20, 2017

        Judged from the viewpoint of a road user I can’t see how a NZTA roading project could ever produce a positive cost benefit given the incredibly inefficient implementation most suffer.

    • If Jacinda gets herself in the family way we’ll have either Kelvin or WRP stepping up from Deputy to the main role. That, to me is the worst case scenario and I hope that the PC (when it comes to the left anyway) media will ask the question. It’s a necessary one.

      Perish the thought either of those two would become PM.

      • Blazer

         /  August 21, 2017

        Grasping for straws….can you imagine the Blimp or Barger as…P.M!!

  3. chrism56

     /  August 20, 2017

    For three of the bridges, construction is about to start – waiting for the land to dry out, no doubt.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/323729/work-to-start-on-northland-bridges-this-year

  4. Alan Wilkinson

     /  August 20, 2017

    Jacinda is the perfect leader for the clueless. All platitudes and populist fantasies. Basically Eva Peron for the latte set.

    • Blazer

       /  August 21, 2017

      whereas Big Berth Butt is a leader in waiting for the informed,intellegentsia and the odd….scientist…I presume.

  5. Gezza

     /  August 20, 2017

    I watched The Nation – Twyford v Adams on computer. Also the panel discussion. I’d rate their performances, and the talking over each other, as roughly about even. I went to the Labour website to recheck what they mean by Labour committing to building “affordable housing” which Phil kept mentioning & Amy didn’t address. Their website policy on that is pretty slick.

  6. Alloytoo

     /  August 21, 2017

    The sad reality is that the anti nuclear power lobby is as much to blame, if not more so than anyone else for climate change.

  7. Brown

     /  August 21, 2017

    I said some weeks back that Helen Clark’s fingerprints are all over Jacinda’s soaring to glory. How I wish Clark had kept her UN job.

  8. robertguyton

     /  August 21, 2017

    Seems Jacinda will be our Prime Minister soon.

    • PDB

       /  August 21, 2017

      Winston and her will get on just fine……….