A Second Chance For Labour To Put Things Left.

Victory Lies Ahead, Comrades! Allowing the Greens to make the case for change; assessing the force and quality of the Right’s objections; and then, following a period of extensive consultation, fashioning a suite of reforms acceptable to a solid majority of New Zealanders. Such is the royal-road to making Labour the dominant force in New Zealand politics.

IT’S NOT OFTEN in electoral politics that a party is given a second chance to get it right. In 1999, Labour and the Alliance (with the Greens more-or-less in tow) were gifted the chance to craft a political relationship that could have grown into a near-permanent lock on New Zealand’s still-new MMP electoral system. That neither partner in the Labour-Alliance coalition had the wit to seize, or even understand, the opportunity before them is a testament to the woeful immaturity of the New Zealand Left.

Perhaps the best way to describe the opportunity missed by Labour and the Alliance (and, after 2002, the Greens) is by deploying a military analogy.

Think of Labour as a large army marching through enemy territory. (The analogy works best if the army you’re imagining is a nineteenth century one – think of Napoleon’s Grande Armée, or Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia.) The much smaller army of the Alliance is spread out well ahead of Labour’s line of march. Its role: to reconnoitre the territory into which Labour is marching; noting the disposition of the enemy’s troops; their strongpoints; and the places where their defences are weak and vulnerable to attack. Should the enemy encounter the smaller force, the resulting engagement will give the larger army plenty of time to prepare its defences.

For a while, it looked as though the Labour-Alliance combination had decided to work in precisely this fashion. The radical policies of the Alliance – especially those relating to employer-funded Paid Parental Leave and the rolling-back of the Employment Contracts Act – provoked a vehement backlash from the business community. Labour was, thereby, warned in advance of exactly where and how the enemy would attack these measures if they were adopted as official government policy.

Unfortunately, Labour failed to make good strategic use of this advance warning. When the business community’s counterattack came (in the form of the infamous “Winter of Discontent” of the year 2000) Labour fell back in confusion. The Alliance’s policies were slaughtered. Never again would the centre-left armies of Helen Clark and Jim Anderton engage the forces of the Right across such a broad front.

Indeed, in the General Election of 2002, the forces of the centre-left found themselves fighting each other. Labour and the Greens, at loggerheads over the issue of Genetic Engineering, were unwilling to march together. Abandoned by its natural ally, Helen Clark reluctantly joined forces with Peter Dunne’s United Future Party.

Reassured that there would be no more left-wing offensives, National concentrated on reinvigorating its worn-out fighting machine and prepared to take the fight to Labour. In 2005, Labour just managed to hold them at the border. But, in 2008, National brushed aside Helen’s broken army and occupied huge swathes of Labour territory.

Nine years later, under the command of its Joan-of-Arc-like leader, Jacinda Ardern, Labour is again presented with the opportunity to take the fight to the Right. Once again, they have an opportunity to send their radical allies out ahead of their main force to draw enemy fire and provide Labour with the information required to seize the strategic initiative.

If Ms Ardern and her advisers decline to accept this second chance to put things right – or, in this context, left – then they will, once again, have denied to themselves, their party, and their radical Green allies, the opportunity of making steady progressive reform New Zealand’s political default setting.

Allowing the Greens to make the case for change; assessing the force and quality of the Right’s objections; and then, following a period of extensive and authentic public consultation, fashioning a suite of reforms acceptable to a solid majority of New Zealanders. Such is the royal-road to making Labour the dominant force in New Zealand politics.

The test will be whether or not Ms Ardern is willing to follow the example of her mentor Helen Clark. In 1999, with the Greens under sustained attack from National, Ms Clark tipped the wink to Labour’s Coromandel supporters to give their electorate vote to the Green co-leader, Jeanette Fitzsimons.

If, next week, the Greens are still at risk of falling below the 5 percent MMP threshold, and Ms Ardern tips the wink to Labour’s Wellington Central voters to back James Shaw, then we can be sure that the forces of Centre-Left are, once again, on the march.

This essay was originally published in The Waikato Times, The Taranaki Daily News, The Timaru Herald, The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 15 September 2017.

Ten Years Ago This Week: Fattening Tigger

The face/s of the Green Party 1999-2005: Rod Donald & Jeanette Fitzsimons.

WHAT SHALL WE DO about poor little Tigger? If he never eats nothing he’ll never get bigger. So sings Winnie the Pooh as he attempts to rustle-up some breakfast for his new playmate. The Left is asking the same question about those Tiggers of New Zealand politics – the Greens. For if Jeanette Fitzsimons is not given a clear run at the Coromandel seat in the forthcoming election, the Greens chances of ever growing big enough to climb over the five percent MMP threshold look very slim indeed.

The key to unlocking Coromandel for the Greens is in Labour’s hands. At the last election Ms Fitzsimons received 9,561 votes, just 2,450 less than National’s Murray McLean. If the 4,255 people who voted for Labour in 1996 could be persuaded to come in behind the Greens in 1999, then there is every chance of Ms Fitzsimons winning the seat. A Green victory is even more likely when one considers the likely voting behaviour of the 7,932 people who, in 1996, supported NZ First.

According to the rules of MMP, a party which wins an electorate seat is automatically entitled to the number of seats represented by its overall share of the valid Party Vote – even if that share amounts to less than five percent. In the Taranaki-King Country by-election the Greens won approximately 2.5 percent of the vote, and most commentators believe they will achieve at least that level of support simply by having their name on the ballot paper. With 2-3 percent of the Party Vote - plus Coromandel – the Greens could expect to see at least two - and possibly as many as four - MPs in the House of Representatives. And seats in the House are what Tiggers like best!

The question for Labour to answer, as the election draws near, is this: "What reasons can they sensibly offer for NOT throwing their support behind the Greens in Coromandel?" As the undisputed leader of the Left – at least in electoral terms – shouldn’t Labour be committed to seating the broadest and most accurate representation of progressive New Zealand which is possible? And, if it is acceptable for the Labour Party to align itself formally with the Socialist Left, in the form of the Alliance, why not Ecological Left with the Greens?

Broadening the base of a future Left Coalition also makes excellent electoral sense. Historically, the Green Party has drawn its support not only from red-green radicals, but also from blue-green conservatives. A brief glance at the electorates in which the Greens won strong support in 1990 (the last time they stood in their own right) shows that a Green Party with momentum is as likely to take votes from National as Labour. In other words, by backing the Greens Labour can actually grow the total Centre Left vote. That has to be a better prospect than simply redistributing the same amount of support between themselves and the Alliance.

To achieve that momentum, however, Labour needs to signal its support for Ms Fitzsimons sooner rather than later. If the voters can be persuaded that, come what may, the Greens are certain to be represented in Parliament, then they can tick their box on the ballot paper with a clear conscience. Without Labour’s (and then almost certainly the Alliance’s) agreement to stand aside in Coromandel, people considering casting a Party Vote for the Greens may reluctantly come to the conclusion that they would be throwing it away.

And that would be a pity. The Greens, like A.A. Milne’s Tigger, may be bouncy and prone to mischief (especially with genetically engineered potato crops!), but they also represent our last, best hope for a sustainable future.

This essay was originally published in The Dominion of 11 June 1999.