The Politics Of Addition: The objective of all intelligent and compassionate citizens entering the polling-booths between now and 7:00pm on 23 September cannot be as narrow and sectarian as “dragging the neoliberal Labour Party” leftwards. The most important task, at this crucial moment in our country’s history, is for progressives of every ideological persuasion to provide both Labour and the Greens with the votes they need to take New Zealand forwards.
THE BIG QUESTION confronting progressive voters in this
election is: how do they elect a genuine centre-left government? Is this best
achieved by abandoning the Greens and delivering the entire progressive vote to
Labour? Or, should at least some progressive voters step off the Jacinda Train
and re-board the Greens – thereby delivering Labour a reliable and
ideologically compatible coalition partner? Neither of these options are as
politically straightforward as they seem. Predicting the behaviour of our friends
can be every bit as difficult as anticipating the actions of our foes.
Perhaps the most reliable barometer of voter intentions is
RNZ’s “Poll of Polls” (PoP). The most recent of these puts the Greens on 5.4
percent – perilously close to the 5 percent MMP threshold. Even if all of this
support flowed to Labour, currently at 41.8 percent in the PoP, however, the
result (47.2 percent) would be insufficient to land it on the Treasury Benches.
And, of course, not every last Green voter would abandon their party for
Labour, making it even less likely that Labour could form a centre-left
government on its own.
The veteran left-wing activist, John Minto, is very clear
about how progressive voters should resolve this problem:
“In the current political situation only the Green Party has
a realistic chance of dragging the neo-liberal Labour Party significantly to
the left in a post-election government. Without the Greens, Labour will tinker
here and tinker there, while leaving the free market to run a country bitterly
divided by poverty and inequality.”
Putting to one side, John’s bald characterisation of Labour
as a “neoliberal” party, his clear preference is for progressive voters to get
over their Jacinda-inspired “rush of blood to the head”, and march back into
Green Party territory. The problem with this position is that it assumes the
voters deciding between Labour and the Greens are engaged in a simple, zero-sum
game. Walk back from Labour’s camp to the Greens’ and the level of their voter
support will rise in inverse proportion to Labour’s.
But, as we have seen, this will not be enough. Simply
churning the Labour/Green vote gets neither party over the line and into
government. The brutal truth, which John refuses to face, is that the current
“progressive vote” – if it remains static – is not quite big enough to secure a
“pure” centre-left government. Once accepted, that admittedly lamentable state
of affairs leaves Jacinda with only one choice. If the Left can’t get her over
the line, she will have to look to the Right.
In this respect, her predicament is no different to that of
Helen Clark’s in both 2002 and 2005. Once again, John’s political judgement is
very clear:
“On past evidence, Labour will choose to go with New Zealand
First ahead of the Greens. In their three terms from 1999 to 2008 that was the
pattern.”
Except, that wasn’t the pattern at all.
In 1999, Labour was committed to forming a centre-left
coalition with the Alliance. On election night, it seemed as though the Greens
had (just) failed to secure any parliamentary representation at all, prompting
Labour and the Alliance to fulfil their promise to the voters by announcing the
formation of a clearly-signalled, centre-left government. When the Special Vote
Count put the Green Party (just) over the 5 percent threshold, and deposited
seven Green MPs in Parliament, they happily agreed to support the new
Labour-Alliance Government on all matters of confidence and supply.
In 2002, Labour, Jim Anderton’s Progressives and the Green
Party, with 63 seats between them, could very easily have formed a centre-left
government. Why this didn’t happen can be explained in just two words: Genetic
Engineering. The Greens had made a moratorium on the release of
genetically-engineered organisms a bottom-line of any coalition agreement with
Labour. But, badly stung electorally by the so-called “Corngate Scandal”,
Labour was in no mood to trust the Greens on this issue. Both sides refused to
compromise and the negotiations fell through. Clark turned to the “common
sense” United Future Party and a deal was Dunne.
In 2005 the numbers were even tighter. The
Labour/Progressive/Green seat tally came to just 57 – not enough to form a
majority government. With the addition of NZ First’s and United Future’s seats,
however, Clark had a comfortable working majority. Had it been up to her, the
Greens would have been given at least a couple of seats in a broad coalition
Cabinet. Unfortunately, it wasn’t up to her. Both Winston Peters and Peter
Dunne had made the Greens’ exclusion from the Executive a non-negotiable
condition of their support. Had the Greens won 10 seats in 2005, Rod Donald and
Jeanette Fitzsimons would have become Ministers. That they were able to win
only 6 seats, kept them out of the Cabinet Room and, almost literally, broke
Rod’s heart.
That’s the history – and the lesson to be drawn from it
couldn’t be clearer. The election of a centre-left government only becomes
possible when the number of voters prepared to vote for progressive policies
grows – as it did in 1999, when, between them, Labour, the Alliance and the
Greens accounted for 51.64 percent of the Party Vote.
Jacinda’s ability to form a genuine centre-left government
after election day will not be enhanced by swapping votes between Labour and
the Greens, but by growing the vote of both parties. John’s imprecations
notwithstanding, it should not be a matter of progressives already committed to
voting switching their allegiance, but of their encouraging as many
good-hearted New Zealanders as possible out of the Non-Vote and into the
electoral fray. The objective of all intelligent and compassionate citizens
entering the polling-booths between now and 7:00pm on 23
September cannot be as narrow and sectarian as “dragging the neoliberal Labour
Party” leftwards. The most important task, at this crucial moment in our
country’s history, is for progressives of every ideological persuasion to
provide both Labour and the Greens with the votes they need to take New Zealand
forwards.
This essay was
originally posted on The Daily Blog
of Tuesday, 12 September 2017.
9 comments:
44% Labour and 8% Greens and its all on without NZF and the Maori party.
We want New Maths - addition 10 out of 10 for a good government that knows how to really work and not skulk in the back rows surreptitiously passing some grog round and not listening to the learning material. Tom Lehrer shows you New Math and after listening I feel that I have heard Bill English or John Key telling us how we have never had it so good with their stable economics. It makes me want to give a horse laugh!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6OaYPVueW4
Watch how an enthusiastic audience would look if we got a really good government with top marks in addition. Copenhagen shows intelligent Danish people who appreciate what's good, in this case, political satire, even in a foreign language! We have got a long way to go before we become sophisticated, modern thinking.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHPmRJIoc2k
We really need to do something about all those people – many young – who don't vote. I'm pretty sure conservatives don't give a shit about this, but left-leaning people definitely should. (Unfortunately, I'm not at all good at figuring out exactly what to do, just at knowing that something needs to be done.) :) Because apparently they found out that if kids vote in their first election, then they tend to keep voting for the rest of their lives. And young people are idealistic, so that might just shove Labour over to the left a bit.
Wise words.
Watch the face of the man in the white shirt!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvxwKY3Vhq4
mmm... you do somewhat have the habit sometimes Chris of getting emotively swept up at times, & then your predictions get very shall we say... hopeful.
One poll that somewhat smells of being cooked up by some Labour/Jacinda 'true believers' & you seem to be opening the champagne for someone whose intentions & plans seem to run from the pragmatically political of doing nothing; to the outwardly opaque & vague. Sorry but weren't you in the exact same state of euphoria back in 1984?! But of course I'm sure all of the converts to Jacinda will tell themselves the exact same thing.
Perhaps a bit more realism would be a better way to go. Prediction, Labour gets around 40% (death duties & capital gains tax pushing baby boomers to decide blue, in spite of not being Nat fans in any way shape or form), Greens getting back to parliament if they can stop haemorrhaging 50/50; so IF they return that's 44-46%.... which means they have to summon a whistle blowing populist out of his coffin like Nosferatu to cross the line who in reality they always were going to need (whose sole policy seems to be to build a time machine to return the entire country to 1976).
End of the day if the best that the left can come up with are 'progressive tax policies' (which in the UK have made how much of an impact on inequality?) then wait till they're dealing with rapid automation in a decades time.
Politics truely is a vacuum & as neither of the main parties seem to want to pull themselves out of that vacuum & have 0 vision then it would seem that this election is a bit irrelevant as the future of New Zealand will be decided elsewhere. Once the euphoria dies down from this circus Chris, & the hangover kicks in a little from the Champagne, buy yourself a Kurzweil book, or perhaps have a flick through part 3 of Yuval Harari's new read, make your predictions based on the future... not dreams of the past
Isn't it a bit cheapskate to keep using the 'neo-liberal' tag still on Labour? And it is not fair. The world economy runs a market trajectory and opting out of that is not feasible even if it was doable. Do we want to resurrect Rob Muldoon?
Creating a Labour based and led Government takes a whole lot of skills of which sticking to a rigid doctrine is a losing strategy. John knows about gthe "dead rats" syndrome from last time I'm sure! And stating the bleedin' obvious, no good changes will happen unless the winning of hearts and minds for their plentiful votes puts the Left into those House winner seats!
Here is what you cannot say on the Standard [Thanks to Labour/Green apparatchiks]
“Our story of bus drivers reveals the existence of the proverbial elephant in the room. It shows that the living standards of the huge majority of people in rich countries critically depend on the existence of the most draconian control over their labour markets – immigration control. Despite this, immigration control is invisible to many and deliberately ignored by others, when they talk about the virtues of the free market.”
― Ha-Joon Chang, Twenty-Three Things They Don't Tell You about Capitalism
Thesorrowandthepity, 10,000 years of cultural history, and the biological back beyond, are the main things we can go on for the future.
Now look at how dusty, dismembered, disheveled, torn apart, the yertles the turtles are at the bottom. More importantly in a democracy, how very many of them there are.
There are some interesting youtube videos of Robert Putnam and Charles Murray on the plight of the working classes in the US (black and white). Putnam sees solo parenting as an issue but he also sees it as income related. My theory is that Western societies have economically hit the bonk. The Roghan report has Jordan Peterson with an evolutionary psychologist whose theorising traverses beyond the social constructionists.
Post a Comment