 |
| New Leadership For A Rejuvenated Party: Flexible thinking and political courage are the qualities most needed by the New Zealand Left as it campaigns to restrict the National-Act-NZ First Coalition to a single term. For better or for worse, it is the New Zealand Labour Party that will determine whether the Left is successful, or unsuccessful, in its endeavours. |
SURVEYING LABOUR’S savagely diminished caucus, only two MPs stand out as credible future leaders: Kieran McAnulty and Ginny Andersen. Before such a combination could accede to the leadership, however, both the Labour caucus and the Labour Party would have to undergo a profound reconfiguration.
For a start, the party membership and a clear majority of the caucus would need to have rejected neoliberalism as Labour’s economic lodestar. The malign legacy of Michael Cullen – for thirty years the party’s ruthless enforcer of neoliberal dogma – needs to be scrubbed off Labour’s escutcheon. Meaning, of course, that Grant Robertson’s legacy (such as it is) would also need to be cleared away. Robertson’s almost childlike dependence on Cullen (especially in the Sixth Labour Government’s first year) meant that new economic thinking had almost no chance of emerging under either Jacinda Ardern or Chris Hipkins.
In the absence of an ideological break-out on a par with the Fourth Labour Government’s adoption of neoliberalism between 1984-1990, there can be no solidity to the radical programme Labour will need if it is to restore its level of voter support to at least 35 percent of the Party Vote. If Labour’s economic and fiscal policies are not being decried as dangerous lunacy by the Coalition Government (as were the First Labour Government’s) then the party and the caucus are not doing their job. Something along the lines of the US Democratic Party Left’s “Green New Deal” and/or the British Labour Party’s “For the Many, Not the Few” 2017 manifesto, would constitute a useful starting-point.
Just getting that far, however, presupposes an extraordinary amount of intra-party conflict. A substantial chunk of the New Zealand Council would need to be replaced. A new and charismatic party president would need to be elected, and a new General Secretary appointed. Only once these bridgeheads were seized could the necessary reforms of Labour’s constitution be implemented. These would restore full control to the party membership over both the choice of the party leader and the formulation of party policy. (No more Captain’s Calls!)
The only possible source for the political heft required to make any of this happen is the Labour Party’s affiliated trade unions – backed-up by the Council of Trade Unions. Something in the form of a manifesto for organised labour, perhaps? A radical document, pointing the way towards reclaiming the Treasury Benches for ordinary working people in three years or less, might be a useful way of mobilising those elements in Labour feeling let down by the party’s parliamentarians. Such a manifesto might also serve as a back-stiffening device for caucus members not willing to wait the six-to-nine years before it could, again, be “Labour’s turn” at the crease.
Fortunately for those who see democratic government as something more than a glorified game of parliamentary beach cricket, the Coalition Government and its policies are certain to drive its victims decisively towards the Left. Even the likes of Hipkins and Carmel Sepuloni will have to at least feign anger and a determination to offer New Zealanders something better than vicious austerity for the poor, and special favours for the Right’s most generous donors. What Hipkins and Sepuloni are likely to discover, however, is that, having climbed on the back of the left-wing tiger, getting off it, uneaten, can be a little tricky.
Certainly, it will not take very long for Labour’s leadership deficit to be cruelly exposed by the surfeit of political leadership to Labour’s left. Against the dynamism and inspiration on display from both the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, Hipkins and Sepuloni will need to be selling the working class and rangatahi something just a little more appetising than bread and butter. It is, arguably, the only good reason for keeping Hipkins and Sepuloni in place: to give them the time necessary to demonstrate their utter incapacity to front the sort of rejuvenated Labour Party that will be required to win in 2026.
Limiting the Coalition’s tenure to “Three Years – And Not One Day More!” is a campaign in which all three of the left-wing parties could participate eagerly. Anticipating the three-party coalitions which now, and for New Zealand’s immediate electoral future, appear unavoidable, Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori could grow comfortable with each other, and gain confidence, by demonstrating their combined political effectiveness to a public growing increasingly impatient with the Right’s performance.
It is even possible to contemplate the three left-wing parties, the trade unions, and Māori organisations coming together in a national hui dedicated to explaining the shape and purpose of the “New Aotearoa” that must now – in the face of the Right’s reactionary agenda – be the core objective of all progressive New Zealanders. Such a gathering would be a wasted exercise, however, if it was not also the opportunity for an open-ended and free-wheeling debate concerning the constitutional shape of the New Aotearoa. If Te Tiriti o Waitangi is to lie at the heart of that new nation, then its defenders must be brave enough to let it face and answer Pakeha fears, even as it carries Māori hopes aloft.
Rather than making a free discussion, even a referendum, about the principles of the Treaty something to be avoided at all costs – up to and including threats of violence if it is allowed to go ahead – wouldn’t the needs of Māori, and the Left, be best served by embracing the process and making it their own? Why not go to the country in 2026 with plans for a full constitutional convention? Why not promote the election of 120 constitutional delegates to draft Aotearoa’s first written constitution – with Te Tiriti at its heart? Where could the Right go then?
The sixth century BC Chinese military strategist-cum-philosopher, Sun Tzu, wrote: “Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy’s strategy.” The Right has observed the unwillingness of Māori to engage in open debate about Te Tiriti, its principles, and the co-governance it more-or-less mandates, and they have made that unwillingness their strategic target. The harder Māori resist the call for a full debate on the Treaty, the harder the Right will push for that debate to be forced upon them. Their goal is to keep Māori on the defensive. Sun Tzu would say: “Stop doing what your enemy wants you to do. Do what he does not expect, and has not prepared for – embrace the debate, and win it.”
Flexible thinking and political courage are the qualities most needed by the New Zealand Left as it campaigns to restrict the National-Act-NZ First Coalition to a single term. For better or for worse, it is the New Zealand Labour Party that will determine whether the Left is successful, or unsuccessful, in its endeavours.
Paradoxically, the battle against the right-wing coalition can only be fought with any prospect of success after the battle against the right of the Labour Party has been successfully concluded. If Labour is not committed to progressive change, then it will not happen. But, against a united and progressive Labour Party: a Labour Party backed by its allies on the Left, the trade unions, and the rangatahi of Aotearoa; no combination of the Right has ever, or will ever, prevail.
This essay was originally posted on The Democracy Project website on Monday, 18 December 2023.
38 comments:
Well Chris, It occurred to me a year or so into the neoliberal revolution that none of those responsible for it or those who championed it would ever be able to admit it was a mistake. Too much was invested in it by those that believed it would work for everyone and the nation and the world as a whole. Just as those who have evangelised and pushed the mRNA vaccines on most of us have got it so wrong that none will ever be able to admit it. Maybe not none but very few.
The individuals responsible for the original revolution are now out of the picture. Running a countries finances is a job that requires pragmatism. Every countries economy is different and no dogma or ideology is going to work for all. whether it id communism Marksism or Neoliberalism. Or globalism. Nor is there only one way toward success for all for any given nation. What is needed is a realistic grasp of what people need and how best the countries resources be applied to achieve it at any particular moment in time. Any ideology is likely to interfere with this to everyone's disadvantage. I think there is some hope that with Winston there that this collection could demonstrate more of that pragmatism and less ideology than tho other group of parties and thus move quietly away from neoliberalism progressively rather than dramatically. If they turn out to have some practical wisdom I'm prepared to hope. You must have hoped so too as your support for Winston was if successful inevitably going to lead to this result.
D J S
No. What you call "Labour" - which is nothing of the sort - nor progressive nor green nor socially responsible - will not be back. So corrupt and inept and downright stupid have they been, that hope to God this futile, meaningless 'left-right' racist charade will not be maintained. It is no longer of any relevance in this day and age. Past. Over. Let's aim for rational government in the better interests of all citizens and - vitally - the continuation of life on the planet. Goodbye.
“Paradoxically, the battle against the right-wing coalition can only be fought with any prospect of success after the battle against the right of the Labour Party has been successfully concluded”…
By George–he’s got it!
A couple of thumbs up and down from me Chris. I Understand that to those from the left Neoliberal means roughly that the wealthy jemmy the system to themselves and whats left is divided among the rest. Or it could mean the tax taken from the wealthy and middle class can be given to those less fortunate. Really I don't know what it means and I would guess many don't.It's a stupid word. What I am curious about is what replaces what ever it is. Do you replace it with a government run by the trade unions, or do you just get into the CGT and put higher tax rates on the wealthy so extra money can be given to the less fortunate. Worth remembering to, that any austerity measures this government may use will have been partly created by the last Labour coalition. Thumbs up to your choice of leaders although apart from the bullying allegations I would prefer Ginny Anderson. I agree with your ideas on the Treaty review. Maori can have far more influence on any constitutional discussion of the Treaty if they are part of it.
Lastly, a new Labour coalition only has a chance at the next election if the people are unhappy with what changes are made, but mostly, if they are unhappy with their personal position. This National coalition will be betting on a tough first year then two better years. I wouldn't bet against them.
You ask "Why not promote the election of 120 constitutional delegates to draft Aotearoa’s first written constitution – with Te Tiriti at its heart? Where could the Right go then?"
Easy – the Right could propose a constitutional convention that explicitly rejects race-based power and privilege. Unify the country as one people under a race blind government as the left used to aspire before they lost their senses.
Is New Zealand really ready for a Corbynista reformation of the economy? I would be very surprised.
I know certain parts of the left decry what they describe as neoliberalism, and have done so for 40 years, nearly two full generations. The definition has surely changed over those 40 years. Back in 1984 New Zealand had import licensing, fixed exchange rate with limited access to foreign exchange, compulsory unionism and substantially nationalised industry. None of that is coming back.
Even a modern iteration, the Corbynista revolution, will be a hard sell. Top taxes of over 50%, wealth taxes etc, effectively the sort of things that Martyn Bradbury proselytises. Would that win the 2026 election?
As for the proposed constitutional convention? Even the relatively modest changes around co-governance, resulted in a big electoral back lash. Doubling down on that would seem unlikely to be a winning strategy.
How the three parties work together will be the real test of the opposition? TPM , with 3% of the vote, but nearly 5% of the seats will be the one to watch. Will they moderate their approach even just a little? I think they will. The new MP's have a much more substantial background in both iwi leadership and educational qualifications than the two co-leaders. The performative art of the two co-leaders, though electorally successful among young activists, will be a difficult fit in a potentially governing coalition.
As for the new leadership of Labour, I think you are right. I picked them some time ago as the two standouts. However, they seem unlikely standard bearers for a Corbynista revolution. Perhaps that is why they appealed to me. Both have substantial commonsense and therefore I can't see them falling for a neo-marxist revolution.
I'm not sure I understand your current stance, Chris. Before the election I thought I heard you say you were supporting NZ First (as I myself was and have been for several years). What exactly did you expect them to do? Winston had sworn off working with Labour again. Maybe you had hoped NZ First would get a high enough percentage of the vote that it could form a government with National without ACT? But that was never at all likely. So why are you surprised at the result? The extent to which this government will impose extreme austerity is debatable, and we should thank God that NZ First is there to impose a measure of sanity and pragmatism. On other policies the changes will, for me at least, mainly be welcomed: a retreat from woke virtue signaling, a turn away from race-based policies, an end to media bribery, and -- with any luck -- more open and frank debate about -- the direction this country needs to head.
To: Wayne Mapp
Do I detect a note of irritation, Wayne, at the refusal of people all around the world to just accept neoliberalism and try to make the best of it?
But, why should they? Are their societies better or worse than they were in the 1970s? The answer, from a New Zealand perspective, at least, is an emphatic "No!"
Whether it be the quality of our public health and education systems, the dignity of paid employment underwritten by compulsory unionism, the availability of affordable housing for young families, or the quality of public broadcasting, and the news media generally, the New Zealand of the 1970s was a much happier place than the New Zealand of the 2020s.
Not that you will admit to any of this, Wayne - no one who has swallowed the neoliberal Kool-Aid can. Were they to do so, then they would have to acknowledge that all the pain and suffering imposed upon ordinary working New Zealanders and their families since 1984 has been for nothing. No. Rather than accept responsibility for what is so evidently a colossal series of bipartisan policy failures, Wayne, you double-down:
"Back in 1984 New Zealand had import licensing, fixed exchange rate with limited access to foreign exchange, compulsory unionism and substantially nationalised industry. None of that is coming back."
Well, hold onto your hat, Dr Mapp, because, all around the world, over the next four decades, that's exactly what will happen as nation states adjust to an attenuated global economic system, the exigencies of combatting climate change, and the growing depravity of the capitalist ruling-class and its professional-managerial enablers.
Because, in the end, as the radical socialist Rosa Luxemburg so rightly put it: "The choice is between socialism and barbarism." A sentiment with which I am sure Labour's self-described socialists, Kieran McAnulty and Ginny Andersen, would heartily agree.
I see you're back. My heartiest up the arm handshake.
Those who have swallowed the neoliberal Kool-Aid can - not cough it up, even though it sickens to the heart and gut. But an old dance wull get us on our feet - CanCan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T59EDTqqW0A
To pick up on your specific point about NZ being a lot better in the 1970's than at present.
Were our education and public health systems really better back then? I think not. Look at the numbers (percentage) who now have tertiary education. Look at life expectancy. I have had a fair bit of experience of the public health system. In my experience they are excellent with services unimaginable 20 or 40 years ago.
Housing. Houses today are higher quality and larger. However, the level of home ownership is considerably less. That is perhaps the biggest difference to the 1970's, and also probably the thing that causes the most dissatisfaction. With a sense that past times were so much better than present. I certainly have young relatives struggling get on the home ownership ladder. Conversely there are other younger members in the extended family who have bought houses in their 20's. In part this is due to different priorities, but also because it is harder to assemble the deposit.
I know that many on the left go on about disparity. Income disparity has not changed since the early 1990's. I imagine that wealth disparity has, mostly due to housing prices. Those who rent all or most of their lives have comparatively little and cannot really assist younger members of the family. Those who do own their own home, and have done so for more than ten years, will have net wealth in the high hundreds of thousands and can readily assist their children in a financial sense.
Hence I get the appeal of CGT. Two Labour governments (1999 to 2008 and 2020 to 2023) have had the chance to introduce a CGT, but failed the chance. In contrast Keating did so in 1987. Because it was sufficiently moderate, it has survived successive Liberal governments.
A radical Corbynista revolution would be unlikely to survive a change of government. The mood is not there. I know that every so often a government gets to make major and permanent changes. Labour from the 1930's and Labour again in the 1980's. But I don't detect a yearning for such a change again, at least not in the economic sphere.
Much more likely is a much greater shift to biculturalism and multiculturalism. In that sense the 2020 to 2023 government was the harbinger of change, similar to that of the Kirk government. The initial change may not stick, but the changes will get adopted by subsequent governments and become permanent. A constitutional convention is probably not the best way to do this, at least not yet. However, 2040 is now only 16 years away. Will the bicentenary of the Treaty/Te Tiriti be the catalyst?
Again we see the true leftist cry for "real socialism" because this time it will definitely work.
You decry "neoliberalism" but we have never seen it applied. We have seen various governments apply a form of liberalist economics with a massive input of socialism and yet you blame the tiny bit of liberalism for the failure of our economics without acknowledging that it's the socialist side that has stuffed us up.
And are we worse off than in 1984? I'm not and most people i associate with have a vastly different life style than they could have contemplated in 1984. Elective poverty is a thing and the desire to be just like the rich guy down the road, as long as he pays for it, used to called out as envy, now the left regard it as a "human right".
You say we'd have better health care had we stuck to a central government controlled system yet throughout the world health care options have increased vastly which has in turn strained and stretched health providers and the training of them to breaking point.
As an aside, had we stayed locked in the 1980's as you so desire, all our brightest and best would have long left and taken their skills with them.
What would it take for Labour to win? Neo liberalism or whatever that is in 2023 is the least of their issues. Number 1 is to win back disaffected Labour supporters who reeled back in horror at Labours humanities department uni experiment obsession with race, namely their hidden agenda that the world revolved around all things Maori.
Labour would also have to somehow dismantle their new legacy of breath taking incompetence when it came to achieving anything else for the other 85% of the population.
And somehow win back our trust. That government seemed to operate entirely on managing political perceptions to win the next election be that spending decisions, hiding things they were doing that they knew voters would be unhappy with or by making announcements of postive aspirations with no idea and no intent of delivering them. Gas lighting and smoke and mirrors does not maketh a good government!
In other words to win Labour have to be ordinary down to earth common sense people who have worked in the real world for a living, who are broad church for the betterment of ALL, not just the few.
And both nominated prospective leaders you mention would not do anything positive for Labours stocks. Anderson was perfect for the Ardern era, a box ticking bureaucrat in the truest sense of the Wellington woke who was a dreadful police minister who had eyes on a racially segregated justice system. I cannot begin to contemplate how that would not have worked and what damage that would have done. And she was not wanted by the rank and file local Labour people. McAnulty torched his credibility with the 3 Waters Mk2 version, a blatant gas lighting PR exercise if I have ever seen because it did not address the non democratic co-governance aspect that was one of the biggest issues.
And honestly, the Greens or TPM being presented as "dynamism and inspiration" is the opposite of reality. The Greens have cemented in their blindness to ironic consequences that their warped activist world view has on reality whilst TPM's overwhelming negativity and spitefulness are like a drowning man, entirely likely to drag us all under with them.
Labour 2026 must not look like Labour 2023. But how they achieve that will have to be left to the biblical miracles department!
"The choice is between socialism and barbarism."
Really? Are they not the same thing? Just ask the Soviet Kulaks for example with over 300,000 executed and millions dying from starvation as their grain was trained back to Russia. They lived under the glorious reign of USSR tyrants; the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".
There are plenty of socialist nations we can look to for inspiration today, North Korea, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela.... Most are economic basket cases with the possible exception of China which is as brutal a regime you could hope to find anywhere.
We have been doing 'socialism lite' in New Zealand for decades and our productivity and economic performance has continued to deteriorate simply because no country has ever become wealthy through taxation and redistribution.
Socialism’s paternalistic State sets up an environment of perverse incentives that mitigate against wealth creation, personal responsibility and the development of interdependent, intergenerational family relationships.
There is no glorious socialist utopia awaiting us anytime soon. The longer Labour and their Marxist mates in the Greens and Te Pati Maori stay in the political wilderness the better off all New Zealanders will be, including their supporters.
"What Would It Take For Labour To Win" ?
A bloody miracle.
Jesus raised three people from the dead. Perhaps if he is not too busy this festive season, he could make Labour number four.
I don't know whether we can pin the blame for "the quality of our public health and education systems" or the "availability of affordable housing for young families, or the quality of public broadcasting, and the news media" on "Neo Liberalism". There's been no shortage of grand plans and tax payer money thrown in those directions. Incompetance is a more likely explanation. As for public broadcasting - no more money down that drain please.
Looks like the mostly "neo Liberal" countries are far from being worse off now than in the 70's. Here's some stats clearly showing the strong corelation between economic, political and legal freedom and general prosperity https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/the-big-story/the-freedom-and-prosperity-indexes-how-nations-create-prosperity-that-lasts/
The replacement of free trade and economic and regulatory liberalism with increased state ownership and control (that's what's being suggested here?) has a pretty dismal record I'm afraid. Perhaps some pertinant examples contradicting that might help but, wishful thinking aside, it does seem unlikely that the Kiwi voters will be rushing to support it. Having the Maori and Green party bufoons on your side is not going to help at all.
.....Only once these bridgeheads were seized could the necessary reforms of Labour’s constitution be implemented. These would restore full control to the party membership over both the choice of the party leader and the formulation of party policy....
This didn't seem to work well in the UK with the election of Jeremy Corban. The problem is if activist groups become a majority of the membership [as happened in the UK] the party can quite rapidly lose touch with the voters it is trying to convince to vote for it.
Interestingly in the UK the leaders from the left of the party have either been heavily defeated in general elections or have failed in their attempts to take the leadership. Examples are Bevan, Foot, Benn and Kinnock.
In NZ since the Labour Government of Peter Fraser the one term Nash Government was heavily defeated and succeeded by a National Government of 4 terms, the one term Kirk Government was heavily defeated and succeeded by a three term National Government, the two term Lange Government was heavily defeated and succeeded by a three term National Government and the two term Adern Government has just been heavily defeated.
The one exception to this gloomy tale is the three term Clarke/Cullen government.
It is interesting that you refer to the malign legacy of Michael Cullen when he was a major contributor to the most successful and popular Labour Government since 1951.
As political parties exist to gain power it would appear to me that the proposals you are making would ensure if implemented that Labour would never regain the Treasury Benches.
I would venture to suggest that the reason for the early demise of so many Labour Governments is the inadequacies of so many of their ministers and this has never been better illustrated than the shambles we have witnessed this year.
One thing the party must address is the caliber of its candidates which in the parliament just passed was embarrassingly shallow.
Simon the charade of Ardern giving Cullen the job of investigating and putting together a CGT package and not even putting up a fight against Winston was to me the Ardern Legacy. The whole exercise was for show and at Cullens expense. At least Cullen had an intellect whereas
Ardern was just fluffy noise.
Hi Chris, I’ll accept that the retrospective view of those supposedly halcyon times is one when life was good and just but is it not also true that it bankrupted NZ and the UK (the poor man of Europe). Try making the sums work now when we spend an eye watering and ever increasing amount of the little money NZ has on health keeping the aged alive for one more year. It’s getting close to half of all government spending in the UK. Then there’s the always growing proportion of our population who are multigenerational beneficiaries and heartbreaking underclass. The likes of Michael Savage in NZ and Aneurin Bevan in the UK wouldn’t recognise a modern day welfare state. Is it that this is the challenge that lies before the left insofar as they haven’t in the 40 years that Dr. Mapp highlights been able to adequately explain how to pay for the damn thing - or in PM Key’s words, show me the money.
Maybe have a look at Anne Salmond's article on Newsroom: in praise of the middle ground.
Her analysis of what went wrong with Labour is quite concise: When a global pandemic delivered the last Labour government an absolute majority, however, they exceeded their mandate on a range of ideological issues, flirting with a racially ‘split state’, building centralised, top-down bureaucracies in health, water services and technical education, and almost fatally undermining local governance in the process.
I could mention a few other things that set some dead against Labour, not least the lack of delivery.
She also says that "[m]ost Kiwis want a peaceful, creative and prosperous country; flourishing waterways and landscapes, and infrastructure and institutions that work well, not radical disparities of wealth and power, divisive posturing and populist rhetoric."
I wonder whether a better political system would be something akin to the Swiss system, with more decision-making power at the local level, an appointed cross-party executive, and frequent referenda. The Swiss even have two different local levels: the Burgergemeinde (established citizens community) and the Einwohnergemeinde (residents community), with the Burgergemeinde determined by descent and the Einwohnergemeinde by residence. Something similar could be used for iwi (descent) and general population (residence). The Burgergemeinde tries to benefit its members, but also at the same time the public in general. For example, many of the forests are owned by the Burgergemeinde, but accessible for recreation by the public in general.
Part One
Never has it been so apt that this blog is subtitled "Ruminations of an Old New Zealander". Kieran McAnulty is the down to earth provincial character that is recognized by those that remember Country Calendar in black and white, but then urbanized for the rest of their lives. Nostalgia ain't what it used to be and shouldn't shape todays political hopes.
I am not isolating McAnulty for criticism, but I fail to think of anyone who was elected to an electorate, lost their seat, and went on to be Prime Minister [Moore and Goff went on to leader of the Labour Party, but electoral suicide]. Tangi Utikere and Rachel Boyack were the successful provincial candidates, not Kieran McAnulty. Surely the party would look to those that stood tall against the tide?
Greg O'Connor defeated the Deputy Leader of the National Party, Nicola Wallis, against both a blue wave and a greening of Wellington politics. This is the a model for the urban spaceman. Unfortunately, Greg does not fit the image. Line up the losers, and replicate.
Cushla Tangaere‑Manuel was the most successful Labour candidate. She took (or reclaimed) a Maori electorate. Where is she in the Labour rankings, dead last. Successful young Maori women? Crucial groups may feel taken for granted.
The central question - What Would It Take For Labour To Win? At no time did Labour look to why people overwhelmingly voted labour the previous election. The decision that the electorate had moved on from the acclaim Labour had for controlling Covid19 and saving lives was an untested hypothesis. To be reminded how there would be people around the Christmas that may have otherwise ben missing would seem a strong election claim.
Even putting away the previous success, Labour have been aware that they are a 'get out the vote' party. This means working with the Unions and community-based groups. The Maori vote suffered from low turn out. It was as if Hipkins was afraid that if he appealed to Maori to vote, he was afraid one or two votes in Garston would desert. The failure to get the Maori vote out was only matched by the failure to mobilise the Pasifika vote. Remember the south and west Auckland surge? Not if you watched this years election.
Most worrying for Labour has been the new migrant vote. This is because unlike the Maori and Pasifika vote it did not stay home, it leapt the fence. This leaves Labour in real trouble. The new migrant vote has not gone to the Greens or TPM, and is not likely to in significant numbers, but National and Act. This is a growing and important electoral group, and Labour seems not to have a clue as to how to win this vote back. The multi-ethnic Auckland electorates became a house of cards on election night. Many of the Labour candidates were slighted on the list, and both the electorate and party list vote was hollowed out.
"Need to reject the malign legacy on MichaelCullen"? Chris , you and the workers elected representatives will need to fight this one out. CTU President Richard Wagstaff comments on the lasting legacy of Sir Michael. “Working people acknowledge and thank Sir Michael for his foresight and leadership on so many issues but specifically on the introduction of KiwiSaver.”
“KiwiSaver has seen working New Zealanders prepare for their retirement in a structured meaningful way, which they never had before. It has been hugely successful scheme and has seen a shift in how New Zealanders feel about saving.”
“Sir Michael also led the turnaround from the disastrous neo liberal economic experiment that preceded his time. That experiment hurt so many working people, and Sir Michael brought about policies that began some reversal of economic inequality and rebuilt public services.”
“Sir Michael was a friend to working people. He made Aotearoa a better place. He will be sorely missed,” Wagstaff said.
If you like, I will be your second in this mortal combat.
Hope and love still holds in the old leftist's heart but surveying the shit show that the Left has become must be deeply dispiriting. I feel for you Chris.
"The left has also come to betray pretty much every constituency it once claimed to speak for. When working-class Brits revolted against the neoliberal European Union, leftists smeared them as racists and rubes. When women spoke up in defence of sex-based rights, leftists called them ‘TERFs’ and ‘transphobes’ and demanded rapists be put in women’s prisons.
The betrayal of the Jews – though a long time coming – feels particularly poignant. This year, leftists who will still get all misty eyed about the Battle of Cable Street – when Jewish and working-class leftists faced down Oswald Mosley’s fascists in the East End – made abundantly clear which side they are actually on.
What’s left? A movement once devoted to the liberation of mankind has become authoritarian and misanthropic. A movement once devoted to the abolition of racism is now the enforcer of racial hierarchy and an apologist for genocidal anti-Semitism. A movement once fuelled by the radical promise of the Enlightenment is now ‘decolonising’ itself of all of those supposedly ‘Eurocentric’ and ‘white’ values and thinkers.
In 2023, the radical left surrendered the moral high ground once and for all. For whether we like it or not, this is what the radical left is now. The conspiratorial Israelophobes and the woke racists run the show. The word ‘leftist’ has, with good reason, become a term of abuse among the very people leftists once aspired to liberate. Those who still find inspiration and meaning in the ideals the radical left has so spectacularly betrayed would do well to start marching under a new banner."
Tom Slater: https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/12/30/2023-has-exposed-the-moral-depravity-of-the-radical-left/
Be careful what you wish for, Chris; the "politics of ethnic in-group advocacy" has rarely, if ever, led to anything genuinely good. If the aims and aspirations of the "rangatahi of Aotearoa" are grounded in race based division they're obviously at odds with priciples of universality, plularity, nationality and equality. Welcome to the Lebanon of the South Pacific?
"Having grown up amid the 20th-century intra-ethnic ceasefire, reporting this gives me no pleasure. But my prediction for 2024 is that as we see Gen Z maturing to political agency, its radicals will bring the politics of ethnic in-group advocacy definitively back, to unpredictable but potentially seismic effect. Older generations may pine for Hands Around the World, and the long 20th-century peace. But we must all brace ourselves for the coming to political consciousness of a generation that no longer believes peace is in their interests."
Mary Harrington: https://unherd.com/2024/01/gen-zs-radical-race-politics/
It isn't possible to advance a solution without first defining the problem.
The term 'neoliberalism' varies in meaning across age groups and political perspectives. Initially coined to champion 'free market' economics against public services and planned infrastructure, it has evolved. Now, it's synonymous with regressive social controls, including restrictions on protest, free speech, and criticism of governmental power. It has become a fervent supporter of global military interventions under the guise of quelling 'barbarians' rather than engage in diplomacy.
A quarter of the world’s population live in countries subject to neoliberal trade sanctions so it can hardly be described as a system committed to free trade. The essence of neoliberalism has never truly aligned with 'free' markets either. Annual reports of NZ's largest corporations show the boards are controlled by the same investment firms, HSBC. JP Morgan, Citi and BNP Paribas. They control 52% of Spark, 47% of Auckland Airport, 51% of Fisher and Paykel Healthcare and 40% of Ryman Healthcare etc. The Australian market is far more saturated with the same firms controlling about 95% of the ASX 200. This isn't competition it’s a monopoly control of the economy for the purpose of wealth extraction, akin to absentee landlordism.
Our political system has evolved into a domain ruled by an elite Mandarin class, expecting handsome rewards for their administrative prowess. They promote the values of their class as virtues, often disregarding the beliefs, values, and culture of those they govern. The most successful among them are rewarded with prestigious titles and sinecure postings in global capitals like Brussels, New York, and Washington.
All these traits of Neoliberalism bear the hallmarks of Imperialism, which historically pitted populations against each other based on ethnicity, culture, and physical characteristics. The Labour Party has been exemplary in this regard, playing its role as a dutiful Mandarin. At its core, it is a party of liberal imperialism, seemingly oblivious to the inherent problems this poses.
Even if the party were to find a Blairite figure capable of charming the public in front of a camera, four decades of entrenched liberalism ensure that it would continue to chase illusions rather than fostering hope for positive, substantive change.
In 1984 Labour took a bold step: it redefined the national population as "diverse".
Think what that has done?
It tipped the balance between the interests of NZrs and people who were once "foreigners".
Once "working class" was (without question) predominantly white.
It is not by accident that "old white men" is a slur.
Labour is now prepared to bend over backwards to accommodate migrants.
Michael Savage "We have visions of a new era when ALL NZr's will have beauty as well as space and convienience in and around their homes"
Jacinda Ardern "I will be concentrating on technology [combating hate speech - Harvard]"; "small-minded nationalism"; "I don't want another politician to have to deal with it [climate change] when I'm long gone in politics, having a wonderful time - somewhere in the Mediterranean [chuckles]"
[As above]
Guardian
White nationalists support the establishment of whites-only nation states, both by excluding new non-white immigrants and, in some cases, by expelling or killing non-white citizens and residents. Many contemporary proponents of white nationalism fixate on conspiracy theories about demographic change and consider racial or ethnic diversity to be acts of “genocide” against the white race.
Progressives want to diversify (desirable) majority white developed countries.
The benefits of immigration are concentrated; the costs dispersed.
Demographic change isn’t a conspiracy. [“it was a deliberate strategy” - Bedford]
On 7 November, Lana Lokteff, an American white nationalist, introduced a “thought criminal and political prisoner and friend” as a featured guest on her internet talk show, Red Ice TV.
For about 90 minutes, Lokteff and her guest – Greg Johnson, a prominent white nationalist and editor-in-chief of the white nationalist publisher Counter-Currents – discussed Johnson’s recent arrest in Norway amid authorities’ concerns about his past expression of “respect” for the far-right mass murderer Anders Breivik.
Hamas
In May 2018, Vice News’s Motherboard reported on internal Facebook training documents that showed the company was distinguishing between white supremacy and white nationalism – and explicitly allowing white nationalism.
It was not until March 2019 that Facebook acknowledged that white nationalism “cannot be meaningfully separated from white supremacy and organized hate groups” and banned it.
Banning discussion is a symptom of a weak argument, but it isn’t just the progressive left who interests align, it is also Bob Jones; Sean Plunket; John Key: Leo Molloy and John Banks, (judging by statements such as “Auckland would be sunk without those Chinese migrants and their investments”).
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/21/facebook-white-nationalists-ban-vdare-red-ice
Ginny Anderson as leader? Think again.
As the inevitable approached in 2023, and "Chippy" failed to impress the voting public that he or his party were worthy of re-election because of the uselessness and their crazy split ethno state experiment, Ginny failed to read the room, again, both as police and justice ministers. As the umpteenth Justice Minister, she wasn't finished with the mad ideology. She was on the verge of turning the law even more on its head, than Labour had already, and was toying with the idea of guilty until the accused proved themselves innocent for cases of sexual assault, one assumes in a blow for feminist causes.
I cannot help but wonder how many miscarriages of justice that would have created! And how many other Frankenstein laws would this new ideological standard spawn?
Given Labours narcissistic streak, where the election was lost because of tides, I Ching, and shit happens philosophy, Labour '23 will still be clinging to their fading student ideals and theories well past the next election.
And who really wants a reject MP who thought a justice system foundation of Guilty until they prove themselves innocent a good idea, as PM?
Chris
Perhaps the major reason Labour has become unelectable comes down to competence, or the lack thereof in the Labour Party caucus. Ministers resigning because of poor judgement, an inability to turn ‘announcements’ into deliverables, embarrassing interviews with the press that worked overtime to make them appear credible.
How did a bunch of underwhelming performers climb to the very top of the political ladder?
Perhaps the answer lies in the recent promotion and resignation of Claudine Gay, former President of Harvard University and a diversity hire. Her resume was underwhelming and evidence of plagiarism surfaced with up to 50 examples now in the public domain and likely more to follow.
She was clearly promoted within the system because of her ‘diversity’ rather than her competence.
This is Labour’s problem in microcosm. They have spent decades congratulating themselves on their LGBT inclusiveness, gender equity, and ethnic diversity, and have completely ignored competence, diligence, personal integrity and a track record of accomplishment outside the academic and political sphere.
The result is what we experienced over the last six years.
Are Labour capable of the kind of introspection and change required to reverse this failure? It would mean dismantling all of the plausibility structures their lives are presently built upon. Admitting they have been foolish in their assumptions and in their actions. I cannot see it happening.
Their only hope is that sufficient number of ‘like minded’ students graduate into voting age and are willing to preference ideology over competence. I can see that happening.
I don't know where you got those figures Loz, perhaps you can link it.
Auckland Airport, according to Yahoo finance and for example, is 53% owned by the general public, about 25% by Government (Auckland council) and the rest by institutional investors, pension funds and the like. You probably own shares in it yourself if you have a Kiwisaver account.
My latest lucid comment. Read what Loz said ...
Labour - there may be a prize for the largest number of little words and conundrums that a clever person can form from those letters.
In the meantime another useless but more amusing exercise. Jonathan Pie sells himself to the fans for yet another foray into the scented fog of politics with a spraycan of Klear & Simple to freshen the air within our own personal bubbles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-tEtbIp2BI
This short! comment differs... as it contains no "isms" or Idealology".
New Zealand's current disastrous economic calummny arose over the last term of a Labour Government whose prime motivation was to redistribute Income .. not to create it.
Solution ... Invert these priorities with a small government...of whatever stripe.
Larry M - I get the feeling that you are a sloth - they hang upside down along strong branches that support their weight and move carefully to prevent the forces of gravity affecting them. But gravity always strikes sometime and also they are not safe from fast-moving ideas that can catch and destroy them. So watch it Mr M. no-one is safe these days. What is more your ideas are upside down, if not in unintelligible mirror writing. The Labour Government's prime motivation was to create income for its elected members, same as for other political parties in NZ/AO.
What needs to happen to get Labour re-elected to government?
Not a lot. Especially not policy.
Just time needs to pass so the average kiwi voter forgets what a nasty, incompetent and authoritarian bunch make up the political cadre who stand for election in Labour Red.
6 years, 9 years at the outside and Labour will be back.
And given what is visible in the parliamentary and aspiring pool of wannabe parliamentarians for Labour, e.g. Campbell Barry, the nasty and authoritarian aspects of Labour political presentation (in my personal opinion) are well covered
Gone are the days of a Fraser Coleman - ya know a genuinely nice bloke who cared about his working class voting base in Petone/Hutt/Wainuiomata. And who worked diligently to try and deliver for them
Labour now are a bunch of middle class, uni student pollies with lots of political light and noise but no practical capability to craft meaningful policy and then enact that policy operationally. Dont believe me - look at the complete disaster that Kiwibuild was. only had 9 years to develop that policy and understand what was needed to deliver it. Completely fumbled and then buried....
But anyway Labour will be back, maybe diminished and having to deal with the Greens as a more equal partner as the under 30 vote seems headed to the Greens in the in city urban electorates... But back they will be...
Well said! This is the state of the global Left in 2024. Chris Trotter, you must acknowledge this if you want any credibility
Yup
Looking back at the now old posts I see Wayne Mapp is registering things that don't actually measure qualitatively but quantitatively. There are more this or that, but how are things for the ordinary person and their needs?
No wonder politicians can hold their heads up although they are making asses of themselves when they find satisfaction from counting things of secondary importance, while plainly leading us into a quagmire that we may never get out of. If it was just a maze we could find our way eventually with co-operation amongst us, but these dirty rotten scoundrels have sold off the cow for a bag of poisoned or GE altered beans, and free entry to the Strip-It-for-Money Games for life. This may get buried in the pile-up of the right wingers missiles, sorry I mean missives, but an important someone might read this and then change an intercardinal compass point!
Post a Comment