The Party Was Behind Him - Shame About The Caucus: David Cunliffe’s unforgiveable sin – at least in the eyes of his colleagues – was being seized of the need for Labour to reposition itself ideologically. He understood that, in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, social-democracy must either have a rebirth of radicalism or fade into irrelevance. It was not a message that his colleagues wanted to hear. When Cunliffe, despairing of rousing Labour’s parliamentary wing, reached out to the party membership, he sealed his fate.
SO, DAVID CUNLIFFE’S LEAVING POLITICS. I’d be lying if I
told you I’m surprised. The toxic, soul-rotting environment of the Labour
caucus is no place for a rational human-being. In fact, what really surprised
me about Cunliffe was how long he managed to endure the company of those
“colleagues” whose petty jealousies and unreasoning hatreds inflicted so much
damage – both to him and the Labour Party he tried to lead.
Some on the left of New Zealand politics have compared
Cunliffe to Jeremy Corbyn. Inasmuch as both men have been on the receiving end
of an extraordinary amount of poisonous media invective and rank caucus
disloyalty the comparison is a sound one. But Cunliffe cannot lay claim to
Corbyn’s outsider status. As a highly competent and effective cabinet minister
in the Clark-led Labour Government, he moved in the inner, not the outer,
circles of his party.
Corbyn languished on the back benches of the House of Commons
for thirty years, a harmless throwback to the era of Michael Foot and Tony
Benn. Cunliffe’s ambition was much easier to spot. That was his undoing. As one
commenter on the Labour-leaning blog, The
Standard, put it: “David Cunliffe was always the smartest guy in the room.
Unfortunately he knew it, and let others know he knew it.”
Cunliffe’s other, even more unforgiveable, defect – at least
in the eyes of his colleagues – was being seized of the need for Labour to
reposition itself ideologically. He understood that, in the aftermath of the
global financial crisis, social-democracy must either have a rebirth of
radicalism or fade into irrelevance. It was not a message that his colleagues –
beset as so many of them were with moral and intellectual lethargy – wanted to
hear. When Cunliffe, despairing of rousing Labour’s parliamentary wing, reached
out to the party membership, he sealed his fate.
In this aspect, also, the parallels with Corbyn are
striking. Neoliberalism, it would seem, has no stronger defenders than the
legatees of Tony Blair and Roger Douglas. Having defanged their respective
labour parties so ruthlessly in the 1980s and 90s, the prospect of
social-democracy growing a new set of teeth is one which these children of the
neoliberal revolution will do almost anything to prevent.
It was Corbyn’s good fortune to take control of the British
Labour Party a full five years out from the UK’s next general election. It’s a
schedule that affords him just enough time to win the ideological and organisational
battles within the party before turning to defeat Labour’s real enemy – the
Tories.
Time was a luxury David Cunliffe did not have. He won the
leadership just 12 months out from the 2014 election. Defeating his internal
enemies and the National Party was simply too big an ask.
This was the brute fact that undid Cunliffe’s leadership.
Torn between honouring his promises to the membership, and preventing his
caucus enemies from moving into open revolt, Cunliffe found it almost
impossible to make the crucial strategic and tactical decisions that effective
political leadership demands.
One of the reasons Cunliffe was so reluctant to abandon the
leadership in the days following the 2014 election was because he knew how
vital it was to finally have the internal fight that the exigencies of waging
an election campaign had postponed. By 27 September 2014, however, Cunliffe was
in no shape to launch a struggle for the heart and soul of the Labour Party.
Emotionally wrung-out, his marriage falling apart, assailed with extraordinary
viciousness by his caucus enemies and deserted by even his closest allies, he
resigned the leadership and threw what support remained to him within the party
behind the candidacy of Andrew Little.
Part of the explanation for Cunliffe waiting so long to
announce his retirement is, perhaps, that he couldn’t quite bring himself to
accept that Little was never going to radicalise, renew or reposition the
Labour Party. In spite of the worldwide voter hunger for a principled alternative
to the exhausted philosophy of free markets and free trade, the New Zealand
Labour caucus’s preference for fudging and fiddling remains undiminished.
So David Cunliffe is leaving. Moving back into the
commercial world where, in marked contrast to the political world, incompetence
is punished and excellence rewarded.
Walk away with your head held high, David. You gave it your
best shot. The struggle continues.
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, 4 November 2016.
25 comments:
A well written and informative opinion on the Labour party.
The ruling cabal will not be happy with you.
There will be false feting of David Cunliffe by the cabal at this weekends conference, charades will then continue until the election.
Winston in his absence will dominate.
" Moving back into the commercial world where, in marked contrast to the political world, incompetence is punished and excellence rewarded."
I'm not any sort of party insider, apart from a passing acquaintance with Jonathan Hunt, who strapped me several times for cheek – so I wouldn't normally comment on a column like this. But I've worked in the private sector enough to know that that statement above is pretty much rubbish :).
The three R's that adult fervent lefties need to educate themselves in -
Little was never going to radicalise, renew or reposition the Labour Party.
And I like your further alliteration Chris: the New Zealand Labour caucus’s preference for fudging and fiddling remains undiminished.
And I have noticed that too often people involved in community services and projects, or social enterprise (which is basically what politics is I think) suffer from a lack of focus on important points. These are on achieving success in accordance with the mission, but with attention to having reasonable goals, and with respect for all workers involved. So your statement resonates - Moving back into the commercial world where, in marked contrast to the political world, incompetence is punished and excellence rewarded.
So have I, Guerilla, which is why I know it pretty much isn't. Consistently poor performance in the private sector (and even in the public sector these days) is most unlikely to go unreproved. Incompetence, when it's your own, or your shareholders', money that's at stake, is not something to be tolerated. That you appear to disagree makes me wonder what sort of private enterprise you were involved in. Please enlighten us.
Cunliffe made a number of errors but which politician doesn't.
At his leadership announcement at his electorate office (with the portrait of him behind him), one jounalist asked him: 'Will you increase taxes?'
Cunliffe said 'Yes!'
He should have said: 'For John Key's millionaire mates: YES!'
With the exhausted philosophy of free market libertarianism (leading to plutocracy) and stalling of the Social Democratic Welfare State (by subsidizing poverty instead of curing it) -
what kind of a "new set of teeth to grow" is left for Social Democracy, than the systematic elimination of poverty through direct participation by all towards achieving at least a minimally meaningful level of direct wealth ownership by all citizens eventually, as defined by the "Ownership Society" concept ?
Well said Chris. Great to see a commentator analysing the issues that matter and providing the context we need as voters to understand the issues at play.
I have read with some wonder the political reporting and commentary on Cunliffe's resignation. The NZ Herald column yesterday was a case in point. It was a personal attack that told us more about the current state of the Labour Party (and possibly the columnist) than it did about Cunliffe. There was no mention of his lasting achievements as ICT Minister or the impact of dirty politics, not to mention the Dongha Liu debacle.
I had such high hopes that Andrew would be able to contain the self destructive forces at play in the Labour caucus. No such luck, it seems. Rather than keeping his caucus quiet - as the Nats have done around their resignations (Hekia is not universely liked) - the factions were quite obviously speaking freely to the media this week.
Just confirms public opinion that Andrew has little control over those same forces that destroyed three predecessors. Also, begs the question, what will the Gracinda and King factions do now their common enemy has wisely removed himself? I would predict they will just eat each other.
As an aside - isn't it interesting that noone has really commented on the ease with which Cunliffe got a new job? Chris, you allude to it when you mention the petty jealousies but few have said anything.
It must certainly grate with those in the Labour caucus who have announced their intentions to leave - and those who know they should be announcing. A reflection of how his skills and standing is perceived outside of the Beltway.
Admittedly it was a long time ago, but I saw people promoted who didn't deserve it, (and before you say anything – I had no dog in the fight, being a lowly process worker.) I saw people who blamed others for their mistakes and got them fired, and I saw at least one CEO who objectively did not perform – at least according to profits and share price et cetera, get a huge bonus. The problem is IMO particularly with people at the top. People at the bottom maybe I might agree these days anyway. But in my day, even a van driver could (and did) get away with popping into his home 3 or 4 times a day to make sure his wife wasn't bonking someone else – sigh. But the top executives belong to groups that appoint each other to the jobs, and if the company doesn't perform it's "it would have been much worse if I hadn't been CEO." And it's been well known for years that executives in New Zealand don't perform nearly as well as those in other countries. Or maybe I'm just behind the times :).
I am reading John A Lee's "socialism in New Zealand" at the moment. It was written in1938 when John A Lee was a member of Parliament. This was a man who left school at 14. It is fantastic. I can't imagine any Politician of today who could write such a book. So full of detail of what was being done and what could be done. I do recommend it.
Little's mission seems to be to do nothing to genuinely distinguish Labour in any fundamental way from the Govt. Effectively the Labour Party has capitulated and is slowly fading into irrelevancy. Its lost its purpose. Its remnants will at some stage join in a coalition with the Nats The next challenge to the Nats wont come from Labour but will arise from a new political movement when Global warming really accelerates and we get genuine Big Yellow Taxi cab style ecological and economic collapse. Then the Nats will look bereft of answers.
Cunliffe: Immigration vital for prosperity
New Zealand needs immigration. It has never been clearer that immigration is more important to New Zealand's economic future today than it has ever been.
Our future depends in part on our getting the best we can as a nation from the talents and cultures that migrants bring. But there are policy and operational challenges.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0705/S00350.htm
Now "one in four of "us" are born overseas. An Executive of the year calls it a "national disaster".
Yes Patricia (4 Nov 13:04) John A Lee's stuff is very good.
Consider also the early chapters of Keith Sinclair's autobiography 'Halfway Round The Harbour'.
Sinclair presents a picture of the great achievements of the First Labour government - something completey lost on the current Labour caucus.
I recall frequent media references to David Cunliffe’s alleged arrogance and overweening ambition but, as a simple member of the public, I never saw any evidence of it.
On the one occasion that I met him, he seemed diffident, shy and anxious to make a good impression.
I suspect that he’s not brilliant at one-liners or small talk and not particularly interested therein. And, when it comes to the rather larger issues that do interest him, he tends to play the ball and not the man.
These would probably be assets in some political cultures (e.g. Germany’s) but not, I suspect in New Zealand’s, and least of all in that of the New Zealand Labour Party.
Besides, being a much-touted leader in waiting isn’t an easy road to hoe. There will be all sorts of sensitive corns that a putative crown prince has to avoid stepping on. Do the words “tall” and “poppy” have any resonance here?
I also suspect that GS is right and that the New Zealand corporate sector is not all that dissimilar to political parties in its mode of judging people. Roger Douglas didn’t really introduce an age of neo-liberal economic rationalism. We’ve still got crony capitalism, albeit with neo-liberal characteristics.
Even so, at all but the most elevated levels, a corporate employee needs to, at least, APPEAR to be contributing to the bottom line, if she or he is to avoid being sent down the road.
BTW I don’t consider myself a left-winger but nevertheless believe strongly that we need to get back to inclusive social policies backed by counter-cyclical economics.
David seemed to understand this too, along with the need to invest in infrastructure at a time of falling interest rates and (thanks primarily though not exclusively to Michael Cullen) comparatively low levels of government indebtedness.
I also thought that David was uniquely well- qualified to bring the corporate sector on board with respect to the restructuring of our economy, whilst educating the broader public away from the self-limiting nonsense of ‘austerity chic’.
But what do I know about the likes and dislikes of the great Kiwi demos?
A few weeks before the last election, I discovered that there were people holding “Hate Cunliffe” parties. I also heard of folk rejoicing at the subsequent break-up of David’s marriage. What had this patently well-intentioned man done to deserve such hostility from anyone?
I most certainly wish him well .
@ Victor. You are a civilised man and much more the intellectual than I am. However, although I agree with everything in your comment of 5 November 2016 at 14:29, as a constant pedant I feel compelled to point out that we hoe rows, not roads. :)
TO Victor: I am glad to see you commenting again - your absence had me worried there for a bit. The terms "arrogant" "narcissist" and "overweening ambition" these days tend to be used to describe to people who are capable of independent thought, especially when used by people who strongly subscribe to the current group-think. Group-thinkers can be as high-handed as their status allows and escape such designations. And I found your last paragraph chilling - an image of people caught up in a fantasy and incapable of seeing those they disagree with as real. In the few dealings I have had with David Cunliffe he has been genuine and engaged, with nothing of that "working the room" falseness that you sometimes see in high-profile people.
Those who surrounded and 'advised' Cunliffe have to answer for his failure also.
I understand Rob Salmond was Cunliffe's 'debate coach' in the 2014 camapaign.
The debates didn't go well. All Key had to say was: '5 NEW TAXES!'
and Cunliffe was doomed.
Cunliffe's debate coach should have primed Cunliffe to finish Key's exclamation.
When key said: '5 NEW TAXES!'
Cunliffe should quickly end the sentence by saying: 'FOR JOHN KEY'S MILLIONAIRE MATES!'
Trying to shout over Key just made him look desparate not a competent PM in waiting.
The 'I'm sorry for being a man' statement was never going to resonate in the workshops, warehouses or pubs of New Zealand.
Again Cunliffe's demise comes down to the morons who 'advised' him.
"... in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, social-democracy must either have a rebirth of radicalism or fade into irrelevance. It was not a message that his colleagues – beset as so many of them were with moral and intellectual lethargy – wanted to hear..."
the NZ labour Party is probably in a death spiral. It is intellectually bankrupt and riven by Byzantine palace politics while the Turks are camped outside. I suspect next election will deal Labour another heavy blow, with the combined NZ First and Green vote surpassing Labours.
I guess in NZ we are lucky in one way - our populist party - NZ First - is way less toxic than UKIP (or the UK Tories for that matter) and Trump's Republicans. Because I suspect NZ First is poised to replace Labour as the primary party of the radical working class.
Olwyn
Thank you for your kind thoughts. For reasons to turgid to relate, it's not been the easiest twelve months and I'm genuinely moved that a cyber-acquaintance should show concern over my absence from the lists.
I agree about the perils of independent thought and the sheer awfulness of the response to Cunliffe. I also see in it a distant echo of the hatreds permeating the US election and the post-Brexit shennanigins in the UK. It seems to me that we live in very dark times.
Grant
Dunno about being civilised. But I bet I can out-pedant you anytime. As Chris will no doubt affirm, I've got heaps of "previous".
And, of course, you're right about "hoe" and "road".
I suspect my subconscious was haunted by the Speight's commercial about "a hard road finding the perfect woman". And maybe it's what happens when immigrant Poms try going vernacular.
Popper
I totally agree that DC was badly served by his advisers. Moreover, as someone with no insider knowledge whatsoever, I'm still not convinced that it was all
accidental.
I like David Cunliffe and enthusiastically supported him at the time of his leadership. I still like him and I am very disappointed that he has left the party.
However, I have come to realise that what the New Zealand people want is a manager, not a messiah.
John Key's 'I don't care how drunk you got on the weekend just make sure you come to work on Monday' schtick goes down like a plain but pleasantly ice-cold pint of lager.
When Andrew little winks at a gathering of unionists on the cusp of a blokey rugby league analogy, then we are seeing some of the potential of the worker's counterpoint to this.
Andrew Little is flawed but he has some characteristics that Cunliffe doesn't have.
He is prepared. He goes into action with a plan of how he will attack, and how far into enemy territory that attack will go. He allows the government's weak spots to fester from that attack and then he releases policy which juxtapose his party's strengths to the governments weaknesses.
Little understands there is no need to go on a crusade about all and everything the government does.
Also, Little has a blokey and humble charm. The kind if think that makes the identity politics brigade think he's not left wing enough. Time will tell that he is.
If one looks at their policies you will find that it is stick standard soc dem stuff.
Once they're in coalition with Winnie and the Greens they won't be signing no fucking TPP. Little chose not to go on a crusade about it. Turns out he was wrong, but you can see where he is coming from.
People on the left need to get it through their heads that, in the minds of the majority, we are not living in a crisis in NZ, on the whole.
As much as I support Corbyn, his approach wouldn't work here.
And we also have to remember that, for his many virtues, Cunliffe is a man who couldn't remember Labour Party policy on the capital gains tax.
Emotional leaders don't resonate in this country unless we are dealing with 1930's style desperation.
This time calls for ice cold political operators. Or rather, whomever we can find that most closely resembles that.
Patricia
You are reading Joan A Lee's book and find it inspiring and informative.
It is being said that today's young have no idea, the historical memory of what we were in the past is eliminated by time and our silence of telling our stories to our children as pre-literate, and pre-cinematic people did.
If you had time, it would be helpful to bring understanding of early Labour and its principles and successes to a wide group of NZs if you could publish excerpts on The Standard, which has a large number of hits and is a leading NZ blog.
At present Robert Guyton, both inspiring and practical natural garden environmental proponent, is running a series on his approach and thoughts and method on Sundays. He is halfway through his planned sequence. If you could put up excerpts from Lee's books after that, starting in another six weeks it would be a great way of alerting us to what Labour was and could, adapted, achieve again. The Standard has an email for contributions and would help you with instructions on how to do it. It would be great to have some thing to chew on there apart from awe. surprise and shock at the latest political stuff-up. Just a thought.
I'm sure you don't mind a bit of blog cross-over Chris. All good for the left to be able to unite in different ways don't you think.
I reckon the labour caucus would be a hellhole place to be.
oh to be a fly on the wall.
Shame mallard doe not resign - truly a ghastly mp.
scary people, for the most part.
Cunliffe will be better off out of it, such vileness from his own.
manfred I think you have allowed yourself to be hornswoggled*!
You say - Emotional leaders don't resonate in this country unless we are dealing with 1930's style desperation.
This time calls for ice cold political operators. Or rather, whomever we can find that most closely resembles that.
There is a veneer of emotion that rises like a spray-on solvent from our leaders, but underneath, you should now notice, are the ice-cold political operators. Where has your mind been these last decades that you haven't realised that?
*hornswoggled from vocabulary.com:
Say you've been hornswoggled! American English has a rich array of verbs to refer to swindling someone, like bamboozle, hoodwink, and humbug. Hornswoggle is one that's particularly fun to say.
Chris,
I have no doubt that Cunliffe may have been a good minister but I believe that party leadership was beyond him. I had the sense in September 2014 he assumed that the votes would go his way and it was a clear path to victory and it did come across as arrogance. He clearly was a shattered man afterwards as you point out. He just made many missteps during the campaign that made him look foolish. Perhaps the balancing job was an impossible ask. At least he had done the decent thing and not force another by-election on the electorate.
As to your comment on Corbyn. In five years time he will have destroyed the Labour party and be leading a rump of fellow travellers while there will be a new Labour party and the Lib Dems gain MPs. All Corbyn can do is fight the battles past against long-gone enemies. By doing so he has set up a further 10-15 of Conservative rule unless there is another Tony-Blair type in the wings.
Post a Comment