Labour Party conference 2015 – winners and losers



I’ve covered Labour Party conferences since 1995 and Andrew Little’s blunt, no frills home-brand meat and 3 veg speech is one of the smartest and most clever I’ve heard.

Gone is the poisoned chalice of identity politics, gone are the issues that infuriate activists but bore the wider electorate, gone were the petty personal attacks, gone is the uncertainty of what Labour actually stands for.

It’s jobs, jobs, jobs.

Little’s speech is a clever crafting of working class language that reaches beyond the bubble worlds of Labour’s urban coffee support club and reaches back into the heartland that Labour have lost touch with but does so without upsetting one drop of soy latte. It cleverly quells middle class concerns that their 24% untaxed property valuation illusion of wealth is under threat and it repositions Labour on the side of the democratic majority by focusing on jobs and demanding an end to poverty as a matter of morality and values not politics.

Little has rallied the base, reached out to the middle and appealed to the disenfranchised. No easy feat for his first speech.

This speech follows excellent speeches by Annette King and Grant Robertson and this was the only Conference I can remember where the vicious infighting that has always plagued Labour was no where to be seen. Perhaps the horror of what they collectively wrought last year has scared them into working together.

The new Presidents call for less amateurism at the beginning of the Conference could be seen everywhere. From the Conference co-ordination to the removal of policy that makes them easy targets. This inoculation agenda is the exact same one Key used before he came to power.

TDB Recommends

Matt McCarten has quietly rebuilt an organisation that was on suicide watch.

That’s not to suggest there will be a change of Government come 2017, but it does mean that Key’s sleep walk to a fourth term is seriously being challenged.



Poverty activists – Labour’s clear goal to not tolerate poverty leaves no wriggle room. Each budget will need to be audited for how it impacts child poverty, that’s one hell of an undertaking.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs – As unemployment looks set to hit 7%, the demand for jobs with dignity will be more important than ever before. Using the $40billion in Government procurement on NZ small business and companies will help start that.

Aspiration – Little’s speech was so different from previous leaders speeches. He didn’t mention Key, didn’t mention Dirty Politics, didn’t mention Cameron Slater – he talked about values and hopes and dreams. National Party voters may aspire to a new giant flatscreen TV and holiday home in Bali, Labour voters will aspire to basic decency.

Caucus – They weren’t trying to kill each other. Inconceivable!

Annette King – Her speech proved why she is such a pocket battleship and so needed on the front bench.

Grant Robertson – His future of work is the most intellectually challenging political idea to come out of any party for a very long time. The discussion is fascinating and it makes the National Party look like dinosaurs with keyboards.



The property speculating middle classes look at the election results and the once liberal conscience of NZ – the middle classes – walked away from Labour to National to keep their untaxed capital gains. By removing the Capital Gains Tax policy, Labour cleverly end the issue that spooked the middle classes the most.  National have already put in place a capital gains tax and all Labour need to do once in power is simply extend that 2 years to 5, or 10, 0r 20. So Labour get a capital gains tax without having to actually campaign for one.

Identity Politics – the inability for identity politic activists to debate the issues in a way that doesn’t cause allies to become enemies and alienate the broader electorate has seen identity politics put on the naughty step for some time out. It gives the Greens some room to move on those issues but that could also erode the strategic edge the Greens have by pretending to work with National.

NZ First – A strong Labour Party ain’t no friend of NZ First. NZ First will either have to make more Ron Mark type race baiting comments to win rump National voters or get on board with Labour and admit they’ll enter a political menage a trois with the Greens and Labour.

Yes I appreciate that mental image isn’t pleasant, but this is politics.

Twitteratti – Andrew Little’s swipe at the cynical twitteratti in his speech shows he isn’t going to get conned into think that tiny echo chamber has anything to do with the wider political electorate.

Media – Gower & Sabin’s desperation  to try and find something to attack seemed driven by their networks ratings meltdown and the other members of the Press Gallery had to give begrudging respect.

Big Sugar – The sugar pimps and dealers will have a harder time making their profits as Labour force the issue of removing sugar from processed foods while cleverly avoiding the ‘sugar tax’ label.

National Party – National thought the lull in activity over at the Labour Party was a sign that their fourth term was in the bag. ‘Angry’ Andy was a mocking term they tagged him with, but his speech and his redirection of Labour should alert them that they’ve missed the threat Little really is.




  1. Add power company shareholders to your winners list. Labour’s dumping of NZ Power means the high bills crippling us are set to continue.

  2. wow..!..just fucken ‘wow!’..

    virtually everything you say needs to be unpacked and re-arranged..

    ..but i will just go with just perhaps the most low-hanging of the fruit..

    ‘Big Sugar – The sugar pimps and dealers will have a harder time making their profits as Labour force the issue of removing sugar from processed foods while cleverly avoiding the ‘sugar tax’ label’.

    but that ‘harder time’ won’t be for at least another five years and two election-victories..will it..?..(talk about delayed in essence…it is fucken meaningless..and the sugar-pushers have been given a green-light/sugar-high until then..haven’t they..?


    ..(and i am sure the poorest will be reassured by the news that they will be counted/evaluated/then ignored..on a regular basis..(much as clark did..)

    listen..!..i can hear them singing and dancing in the gratitude..)

    ..the only ‘winners’ from this are the neoliberal-paradigm..and those who profit from it..(and of course the sugar-pushers..)

    ..and the ‘losers’..are the rest of us…

    • Chelsea, Tip Top and Cadbury should be fine, they really don’t have much problems with labelling. It’s all the other foods (and I mean all of them) stuffed full glucose and corn syrup that are going to have a cry

      • Indeed, Sam. I’ve had a look through my pantry…

        Sanitarium penut butter – 4.5% sugar

        Fresh n Fruity strawberry yoghurt – 9.9% sugar

        Marmite – 11.8% sugar (in verrrry small print – had to use a fricken magnifying glass!)

        Pam’s Mint Sauce – 31.9% sugar

        Tomato sauce – 32.4% sugar

        Cerebos Tomato Relish – 33.8% sugar

        Trident Sweet Chilli Sauce – 66.1% sugar!!

        I can’t eat any of that stuff, it’s now toxic to me.

        The lowest-sugar breakfast cereals are;

        Sanitarium Puffed wheat – 8.8% sugar (which I eat in very small portions)

        Vogel’s Cafe Style Light Nuts & Seeds muesli – 6.6% sugar

        All over a lifetime of consuming sugar, either voluntarily (ice cream, cakes, bikkies, chocolate, etc) or involuntarily, hidden in food. (Who looks at food labels? It’s like who looks at Terms and Conditions for websites, apps, on-line access, etc.)

        (Anyone got a can of Watties baked beans in their pantry? Would be interested to see the sugar content of that. Look at the right side of the contents label, under “per 100grams”)

        • Who remembers when Coke use to use those subliminal shutter tricks at Civic movie theatre?

          Makes me laugh when you think for the better part of a 100 years, 90% of sugar content in Coca Cola was actually cocain

            • so if you have a tin of baked-beans on toast..

     have just consumed 31.48 grams of sugar..

              ..(well over one ounce of imperial-terms..)

              (and that isn’t counting the sugar in the bread..)


              • and as an f.y.i..

                pams baked beans have 21.6 gms..

                ..and oak baked beans have 26 grams..

       watties clearly take the sugar-crown..with their nearly 32 grams..

                (and they are the most expensive..’top-shelf’..)


                • Indeed, Phillip. Of course, the more sugar in the product, the more likely people will associate it with a “positive” taste sensation.

                  I wouldn’t be surprised if these have been tested on some very now-fat lab-rats (the four-legged variety) to see how much they preferred the high sugar-laden content rather than low-sugar stuff…

                  • there was actually a good doco on prime last week on sugar..

                    ..and it showed how they have humans blind-tasting and grading different samples with differing amounts of sugar in them..

                    ..that is how the sugar-pushers determine how much of this white-death they pack their products with..

                    ..watties clearly went for the doctor..

                    ..also interesting that the cheapest brand here..pams..has 2/3rds of the sugar the top-shelf brand watties has..

        • Lets all obsess about sugar so important to get distracted from the big picture TPP procurement and loss of nation(sarcasm).
          When the hell did the govt role become that of sugar regulator and caloric intake.

          • Anabel, I am “obsessing about sugar” because if I don’t, it will probably kill me. (Was that a cheer I heard from Whaleoil and Kiwioblog?)

            There is a government role when,

            (a) sugar is included in nearly most processed foods, including things you wouldn’t think of being loaded with the stuff,

            (b) obesity and the diabetes epidemic is impacting on the health budget. Guess what a future National government will do as diabetics draw more and more from an over-loaded, under-funded health-system? I’m picking more user-pays; increased prescription charges; and cuts to other services like mental health.,

            This is a governmental, community, as well as family and individuals problem. No getting away from it.

            As I personally found out a year and a half ago.

        • Kia Ora Frank – FYI …

          Watties Baked Beans 420g tin …7.4g sugar per 100g!

          That’s some sugar load isn’t it, in what has always been described as a reasonably “healthy” NZ staple food?

          Weet Bix isn’t too bad … 2.8g sugar per 100g.

          We in this household have been checking food labels for just over a year now, trying as much as possible to reduce our processed food intake. Instead we prefer to eat as fresh as possible. Fortunately we are able to keep a vegetable garden and fruit trees, which is a big plus.

          Incidentally by cutting down processed food, the result for us has been this … hubby has lost 15kgs and I have lost just over 20kgs, although this wasn’t the intention initially. Blood pressure way down and we are so much healthier and fitter in every respect.

          The hidden foe is definitely sugar, tucked away sneakily in most processed foods. Some serious attention is required here!

          • Yup, I lost about 20kg as well. Strangely, part of that was due to my diabetes (diagnosed in 2013) which saw me shedding weight despite eating whatever I felt like and minimal exercise (blogging requires hours of sitting and researching)…

            Weetbox is another of my permitted breakfast staples…

            • Well, well, Frank. Welcome to my shitty little world. Diagnosed Type 2 in 1993.

              That’s when I found out about the “Sugar Conspiracy”.

              It’s absolutely everywhere.

              Oh and just ignore those neo-liberal fuckwits with their call for “personal responsibility”. It’s just a sub-text for “don’t expect me to fuckin’ pay for your illnesses”.

              Any moment one of them will post the old “there is no such thing as a society”.

              Goes some way to explain my deep and abiding abhorence of the right.

              • Indeed, JS. I’ve been extremely lucky in many respects. The right-wing response of “personal responsibility” fails because of a lack of decent information; Nutrition Labels in near-microscopic lettering; and sugar disguised as other “food” products. Eg; instead of listing sugar as the first ingredient in a list, the manufacturer breaks it up; “sucrose”, “glucose”, “fructose”, etc. It’s all sugar, just different varieties. So the first listed ingredient might be a vegetable product, then water, then “sucrose”, “glucose”, “fructose”, etc…

                Cunning devils.

                Well, at least we live to write another day, eh?

                Cheers, JS!

        • I want a Govt to wipe my bum, hold my hand and tell me what to eat.
          Drink responsibly.

          “Waahh” a regression policy to create helpless people who look to the very people that helped created the problem( govt TV ad regulation for junk).

          I ate too much junk food and booze now I’m fat and work in parliament.
          Eat responsibly

          Fricken be responsible for yourself your actions and words as that is all you can be responsible for .

          • John L – it’s pretty hard to “Eat responsibly” when sugar is loaded into most processed foods. I guess I can stop eating except for vegetables and meat… but why should we?

            Trying to deflect responsibility onto consumers when we often aren’t aware or able to control sugar content doesn’t address the problem – it just minimises it for you so you don’tr have to think too deeply about it.

            And don’t forget that, as kids and young people, none of us could be “responsible for yourself your actions and words as that is all you can be responsible for”. We ate whatever we wanted. You can’t tell a six year old to check the Nutrition Information on a carton of “Fruit Loops”| (which are horrendously high in sugar) when it’s put in front of them. And very often parentrs haven’t got the time, knowledge, or inclination to check the Nutrition Information on a hundred items they have to purchase each week for their families.

            As usual, your judgemental admonitions come up hard against reality. And reality wins nine times out of ten.

            • Then don’t eat processed foods.

              People eat these products because they taste good. Why penalise people who want to eat what they want because they are do it in moderation or stay active. Surely education, what to eat, but more importantly, how to cook it, is the way forward.

              Most of these manufacturers already do a light version, so in turn are meeting requirements that labour are still thinking up.

              I agree that too much sugar exists in some products, but many in question are also very low serve. Who drinks a cup of sauce or eats Marmite by the spoonful?

              The line is just too blurry for me to decipher

            • Also, we’re not allowed to eat meat anymore either hehe (try to stop me eating bacon)

              And secondly, it’s the parents responsibility. I have a six year old and she doesn’t get fruit loops plonked in front of her because we don’t buy them. If we do, I explain that they’re a sometimes food and not a very healthy breakfast. That is the flow of education.

              Banning fruit loops isn’t going to stop kids pouring sugar on their ricies when mum isn’t watching either, what about home baking? Or the plethora of recipes on the internet with high sugar load, do we force an edit?

              Where do you draw the blurry line?

              • so’s entirely up to you if you decide to commit slow-suicide by bacon..

                ..but what about yr daughter..?

       are cool with getting her addicted to a known/proven carcinogen..?

          • That’s right, John. Blame consumers for what’s in the food. After all, they’re the ones least able to dictate what goes into it.

            Victim blaming much?

            • Victims? I find that a but condescending.

              This feels a bit like their recently pulled policy. Pulled because we don’t understand it. Never a thought that it just wasn’t received well because it wasn’t appealing. These policies (or the ones pulled through lack of traction) treat the general electorate like fools. Turning ones back gets easier and easier when once leaders start referring to the Nz public as “sheeple”

              Stop the rot and get positive. Proper positive, not DC positive.

        • porridge frank..porridge..

          (those fat wholegrain full-flakes..not the powdered-muck..)

          ..chop up a few dates..a banana..some apple..some pear..a dash of salt..

          ..mix it all up..barely cover with water..

          ..bring to the boil..then cover and turn off heat..

          ..and walk away for 30 mins..

 self-pressure-cooks into a sublime..and healthy..taste-treat..

          ..layer the bottom of a bowl with blueberries..pour the porridge on top..

          ..can be eaten as is..or liquid of choice can be poured into it..


          • Indeed, Phillip. I have oatmeal mixed with low-sugar museli and puffed wheat. Pears – yes, definitely! Dates, probably not so much as they loaded with sugar. Bananas ok, in small quantity.

            Yep, with Diabetes Type 2, your whole life changes and foods you took for granted and ate without second thought are now verbotten or eaten in small, limited quantities.

            And with the addictive nature of sugar, even with my stubborn willpower (so I’m told), I find myself caving and having an ice cream I shouldn’t. If anyone doubts the addictive nature of sugar, I suggest they engage in a little simple experiment and foreego anything sweet (ice cream, chocolate, lollies, fruit pies, cakes, etc) for as long as they can. It doesn’t take long for the cravings to kick in. I think I understand now how rehabilitating smokers feel.

            • Since your bananas are OK, freeze a couple and use the food processors to whip the frozen bananas up when you crave icecream.

              You can add cocoa, frozen berries or other flavourings and it’s actually a really nice alternative.

              • A banana has more than half the sugar content of ice cream. I’d rather have a small serve of ice cream. The information is already there. Education and lifestyle choices are the key to keeping weight down. Not putting information on a packet that already has the information on it.

            • I say this a lot. Chocolate isn’t even chocolate any more. It should be labeled milk and sugar.

              When food is expected to stay on shelves for an unnaturally long time, you have to put something in it to make it tast nice like sugar.

              Some times I think people have forgotten what reall food tastes like. Even fruit are jammed full of chemicals to make them last in storage upto a year or more. That’s really ridiculous

        • We also use Sanitarium peanut butter but the label states “no added sugar”, so 4.5% sugar must be a component of the peanuts themselves. Also, the 9.9% in the yoghurt probably comes mostly from the milk (lactose) and from the fruit, though it would contain some added sugar.

    • I say to you again Phillip Ure: “Five fucken years?” how about never. The Prime Minister has what the Americans call a Bully Pulpit, along with the power of the State to drive that debate forward, and relax five years comes around all too soon as the older among us will acknowledge. But in your impatience you overlook other means than the mandate club.

      If every sweetened drink had to print the number of teaspoons of sugar in each bottle on each bottle, there would be both a major hit on sales of the highest and a stampede to be able to improve their carbohydrate profile.

      At worst I would try that first before offering to man the barricades.

      • @ nick..i actually think the fizzy-drinks are a side issue…and feel if people decide they want to load up on sugar..and to hell with the consequences..’s their they say.. is the hidden sugars that are of most concern..i reckon..

        ..i’ll bet if you would find nine out of ten people would not know that that healthy-snack’ of watties baked beans.. is soaked/drenched in sugar to such an eye-watering degree..

        ..and this is case with most processed-foods..

        ..and this is why the sugar-pushers/’food’-manufacturers must be forced to stop doing this..(and not in five years time..)

        ..the human-costs to both people and society (from the obesity/diabetes outcomes) are too high to ignore..

        ..and are getting worse by the day..

        ..we don’t allow food-manufacturers to peddle other poisons in their food..

        ..why not the ‘poison’ that is the eye-watering amounts of sugar most consumers face in the supermarket-aisles..? the future we will look back in amazement at what we allowed these scumbags to do/get away with..

        • is the hidden sugars that are of most concern..i reckon..

          Indeed, and surprisingly, fruit juices are amongst the worst offenders! They are too concentrated for the human body, and without the natural fibres and roughage that whole-fruits have. No wonder I was constantly thirsty and waking up six or seven times a night to piss and go to the fridge to drink; back to bed; piss and go to the fridge to drink; back to bed; piss and go to the fridge to drink, all night…

  3. and..and..what’s with the sneers @ twitter…?

    ..i hafta say..that in my news-collecting/collating endeavors i find my twitter-feed one of the best sources..

    ..and perhaps the most honest/spin-free/fastest source of the really good/interesting stuff…

  4. Deep sea oil drilling????

    Our threatened Pacific neighbors????

    Climate change?????

    Jobs Jobs Jobs

    Jobs Jobs Jobs

    Jobs Jobs Jobs

    Jobs Jobs


    • Yes Jenny, jobs jobs jobs were the focus of Little’s speech, because employment is central to the wellbeing of our society. If people don’t have jobs, they lose hope, live in poverty, can’t provide for their families and can’t participate fully in society. In areas were unemployment is high, such as Northland, we have correspondingly high rates of crime and suicide.

      Your sarcastic comment adds nothing to this discussion.

  5. I wish I could share such optimism. Unity appears to be the highest priority, and hence few dare risk stepping out of line. Yet we had Mr Nash launch an attach on certain activists and bloggers not long ago. Maybe he had to eat some humble pie after all, the future will show. As for the speeches, I have only read Andrew Little’s speech, which sounds good and inspirational, but then again, David Cunliffe same as Phil Goff can also hold “good” speeches. At least Little stresses traditional Labour priorities, such as achieving a more egalitarian society again.

    But the proof will be in the pudding. Annette King has already whipped up a pudding that is half baked, so to say, as it will be difficult to ban or tax sugar only in processed food, or restrict use in selected foods only.'disappointing

    And the devil is always in the detail, so next year is the year to watch, I presume, when some clear policy may be presented, in time before the next election in 2017.

    I think that abolishing the capital gains tax policy is a mistake, while some other policy ideas of past may deserve to be reviewed (e.g. the electricity buyer body they proposed last election).

    To abolish poverty will require tax changes, and we know what that must mean, and perhaps a universal basic income can be integrated also. That would be good. Providing jobs will not be that easy, unless Labour will steer away from the Nat Light kind of pro neoliberal approach to business, as with that it will all depend on business and employers playing their roles, which they have often tended to do reluctantly with more regulation put in place.

    Affordable housing, that is important, especially for Auckland, and also do we need more social housing. How will that be achieved without “upsetting” middle class home owners fearing a loss in their home value and credit rating.

    Annette King has a bit of a mixed track record in health, some good, some not so good, and she will have to prove that she can deliver, which means she will need to convince voters.

    Grant Robertson, well he is still an economic apprentice in my eyes, maybe getting more of a handle of his spokesperson portfolio, but still needing to improve.

    So I will not be rushing to change my apprehensive views towards Labour, I expect clarity and determination, and policy that meets the social, economic and environmental needs I see in NZ.

    At least, apart from a broken, dropped glass (which hints good fortune in some cultures) nothing much has gone wrong, it seems. That may be “positive” in itself, for starters.

    • The reason they are not rushing to sugar tax is that the NZ public punished them with the whole “nanny state” meme. We lost 9 years of sensible policies and Mrs Rich was worth her wage to big sugar. There is the start of a capital gains tax now all that needs to happen is change by regulation and anyway all that needs to happen is that the IRD do the job that they are paid for and tax the income correctly.

      • the facts are lucy…that fighting climate-change will require/mandate nanny-state on steroids… ain’t seen nuthin’ yet…

        ..we will wonder at how we fretted over a ‘sugar-tax’…

    • The problem with being part of a progressive, reforming movement is that each movement has an equal and opposite version. So there never has been a policy that could not be criticized, trashed, and mocked. That is the price you pay for wanting to try to make things better.

      National, with neither aspiration nor inspiration, beyond making more money (it matter naught if it is by stroke of pen, sale of milk powder or of residential land) does not suffer the same problem. So they can simply lie in wait, their lip pre-curled, and pounce on a policy without the constraints that bind a participant with his own hopes and dreams.
      It is a bit sad though when they are joined by so many who should be allies.

      Labour are unlikely to be able to usher in an Earthly Paradise, or almost certainly not in their first term. Nor do I anticipate their making my life any better, personally, God knows no government has managed that feat to date. But I am confident that they are at least looking for the road to the first goal and suspect that they wouldn’t mind having a bit of a dash at the second one too, if all goes well. And that will do me for a start.

  6. Thanks for the spread Martyn much appreciated.

    I want to see a more open accessible public input communication with all Labour party MP.s again.

  7. Inspiring? maybe. But without any actual policy, in my opinion Little’s speech is more aspiring than inspiring.

    Meanwhile the greatest calamity that humanity and the planet has ever faced barrels down on us and barely gets a mention.

    An ‘aspirational’ call to cut our emissions by 40% below 1990 levels. Since all our previous targets have been ignored; Why not make it a 1000% or a million. As long as both our major governing parties are committed to business as usual (which they are) then the catastrophe remains unaddressed.

  8. So it’s “jobs, jobs, jobs”

    Excellent news!

    I look forward to Labour supporting National in amending the RMA to improve job creation in the provinces.

    • Andrew, now your blaming the RMA for lack of jobs?? Fuck me, whatever next?? Sunspots?

      How about looking at your own party thats been in government the last 7 years?? Or is taking responsibility too much of a big ask from your righties?

      • Firstly, I don’t have an ‘own party’ since I’m not a member of any party and over the years have voted for several.

        Secondly, you’d need to be totally disconnected from the realities of the NZ economy if you think that the RMA isn’t holding back business development and hence job creation.

        But hey, I’m in 100% in support of Andy Little if the party focus is indeed to be on jobs, jobs, jobs.


        1) He has yet to propose any viable policies that will deliver those jobs.

        2) He has yet to recognise that some existing policies within Labour are actually barriers to job creation and need to be dropped.

        3) He has yet to confront various Green Party policies that would be economically destructive if implemented whilst in a coalition with Labour. If he’s really after jobs (and good on him if he is!) then ultimately Labour has to break with the Greens.

        So it’s a start…but there’s a long way to go yet.

  9. A very nice plug for Labour, Martyn.

    Point of order Mr Speaker:

    I am one of the disenfranchised and I’ve seen nothing in Palmerston North (or even your reports of it) to encourage me to vote Labour ever again.

    Just be a bit more considered with your sodding generalisations…

  10. Labour members collected $2748.30 for the locked out AFFCO Talleys workers at Wairoa and the conference voted unanimously to condemn the actions of one of New Zealand’s richest families in their quest to deunionise existing workers, deny them fundamental rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining and send a clear message this will not be tolerated by a future Labour government. That was good enough for me and the thousands of Meat Workers Union members who are working in the shittiest conditions you can imagine, and paying for it with their health, their income, their safety and their lives.

    • Be great if they took Talley’s knighthood off him too. I reckon that would set the seal on any new deal between the Parliamentary and industrial wings of the Party.

  11. In his speech, Andrew Little presented a positive, comprehensive, inclusive plan to benefit New Zealanders most in need and to create a more equitable society, while not threatening those who are pleased with their current situation and do not care much about people experiencing socioeconomic deprivation. He presented a presupposition that these people can be expected to contribute their fair share via taxes, so that we can all gain the advantages of a fairer society.

    Labour’s focus on “jobs, jobs, jobs” is essential to assist people out of poverty and to start to enable people to have control over their own lives.

    Labour’s plan to require manufacturers to reduce the amount of sugar in processed food will be very effective, by reducing sugar consumption across society. This will obviously have long term health benefits and lower the cost of treating largely preventable illnesses, such as diabetes and heart disease.

    Andrew Little’s speech signifies Labour’s focus on addressing the socioeconomic inequalities in New Zealand society.

  12. “Losers:
    The property speculating middle classes”

    How do you come to that conclusion?
    How are the property speculating middle class the losers in this speech?
    Andrew Little offered no indication that he’d restart the state housing that built his party – he did manage to blame foreigners though.

    Banning foreigners and doing nothing to prevent rent exploitation empowers our property speculating middle class. They’ll be free to buy the houses.

    The CGT may have been symbolic and 40 years too late, but by getting rid of it Little has given the green light for landlords to continue with their soically destructive way of life.

  13. Sooo…. I take it that ‘identity politics’ refers to queer and transgender issues? and we are in the loosing crowd? Well its easy to be dismissive when you arent part of the group thats being downplayed

  14. fyi to moderator..

    ..a bunch of comments are still in moderation.. visible on screen..the others having done the disappearing thing..

    [I am so lining you up to take this job! Hah! – ScarletMod]

Comments are closed.