what's the left for?

I've always been intrigued that the National Party was established to fight socialism and the Labour Party as its main objective. It was clear in the 1930s that the future was left, and the forces of conservatism rallied behind a united platform to oppose that future. By clever accommodation and cooption of some of the left's agenda, National managed to stay in government for all but twelve years in the half century from 1949 to 1999.

It is also clear that now, in the early part of the 21st century, the moral certainty and political programme that motivated both sides of politics in the 1930s is almost entirely absent from public debate or intellectual discourse.

It is as if we've come to a quiet time in the country's ideological development in the aftermath of the liberal splurge of the 1980s and 1990s. Which has got me thinking, really. What is the purpose of the left today? What is our raison d'etre?

I have rarely seen it better put than in Clause 4 of the British Labour Party Constitution:

"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."

If you set aside the politics behind the creation of that clause, it can actually be interpreted in a very radical way.

"by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone..."

A defence of collective values is implicit in a social democratic political project. It drives the investment in public services; support for collective organisation in the workplace; the opening of access and opportunity to all people regardless of their background.

"a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few..."

Something that New Labour in Britain has not achieved; that social democrats everywhere have struggled with; but a core promise of left wing politics. The emancipation and freedom of all people to realise their dreams means that disproportionate influence and power - over production, over distribution, over exchange - cannot be allowed to accumulate in any one part of society, be that an ethnic group, a class group, or whatever.

How you combine that with functional economics in a situation where the world hegemonic power is aggressively militaristic and capitalist is a question I would love to know the answer to.

Anyhow, that'll do for now. What do you think the purpose of the left is today? I'd say there has never been a greater need for us; but that we've never been so on the back foot in many ways. I hope to explore some of those 'back-foot' situations in the next few weeks and months.

Jordan

Comments

[Andrew Straw]

The purpose of the left is to protect people and help them to thrive. This can be done through adequate funding for education, crime policies that protect victims, health care policies that guarantee services without inordinate wait lists, and many other people-center policies.

All of the parties on the left share these goals to some degree. The Greens, for instance, have "social justice" as one of their four main guiding principles.

To the extent that Labour attempts to "move to the center" or otherwise accomodate the insensitive right, they lose the moral foundations that give them legitimacy. As Labour drifts to the center, many voters will re-evaluate the Greens and make this strategic decision:

Increasing the size of the Green Party will pull the entire government to the left. This will be the case because if the Greens reach, say, 20% of the vote, Labour will have no choice but to form a government with the Greens. When the Greens have that kind of leverage, they will be able to ask for many concessions from Labour on behalf of their "social justice" ideals.

Of course, it is always possible that Labour could bite the bullet and form a government with National. The real question is whether Labour is more like National or like the Greens. I suspect that they are more like the Greens, but the way the PM attacks them from time to time, one would think she was taking lessons from Michael Laws...

[Jordan]

Well, I think Labour is more than Helen Clark. Labour's instincts, history and ideology allow a coalition with the Greens - they forbid one with National.

The question is - if the Greens were polling 20%, and this scared off Labour voters to the point where Labour was polling 25% and the Nats were on 45%, who wins?

That is why Labour bashes the Greens sometimes; that is why the Maori Party could be a serious headache.

Jordan

[Andrew Straw]

More likely is this result:

National 40%
Labour 30%
Greens 15%
Others 15%

If Green MPs are needed for Labour to form a government, Greens will have the leverage to pull the government to the left. This is good both for Greens and for the average Labour voter.

If Labour feels its main competition is with National, then it will adjust itself to look more like National and take away National's "issues", which is bad for both the Greens and the average Labour voter. When Labour feels that the left wing of its own party can be taken for granted, it will do just that, and attempt to make electoral gains by appealing to more conservative voters.

Ergo: go Greens!

Andrew Straw

[Jordan]

Well, my heart is with this analysis. And if I thought Labour and the Greens had the campaigning and media weight to be able to get this message across to the community, then I'd have my head with it too.

As things actually are though, I think it would just push centrist voters to the right; in the same way that a 15% ACT vote and a large Labour alternative would see National drain votes to Labour.

I concur absolutely that Labour cannot take the left for granted, but the problem which arises again and again is, what is this left? Does it have a coherent programme around which it can unite? Does it have the campaigning skill and resource to win a majority for that agenda?

I find myself somewhat doubting that either the agenda or the muscle are there. That being the case, I understand and tolerate the parliamentary party's pitch to the centre in policy terms.

Cannot imagine anything worse than a Labour government dragged from office by a too-strong Green Party. Green Party supporters may be able to handle a National government, but for a goodly number of Labour supporters it would be a direct detriment to them, and so is something I think is important to avoid.

Jordan

[Idiot/Savant]

Jordan: whoever Winston or Peter favour, of course. But that is the case anyway.

What's important is getting a left-wing coalition over the 50% mark. But that requires defining and shifting the center, not arguing over how the votes will be split.

[Jordan]

Yes, true.

[Idiot/Savant]

Realistically, the Greens' support base seems to be consistently around 6-7%, and I can't imagine it getting as high as suggested (though the combined Alliance - Greens vote did in 1996).

In terms of "muscle", the left are outgunned in many ways. The right have used their money to set up an array of think tanks and lobbying groups (the BRT, Maxim Institute, the various sock-puppet forums) to aggressively push their message both at the government and at the public. On the left, we have only volunteers. That needs to change.

[Jordan]

Nice assertion, I concur. Got any suggestions on turning it from a statement into a reality? :-)

[Idiot/Savant]

Soliciting funds from political parties, unions, and friendly rich people?

Though given that the left traditionally doesn't have any money, we'd probably have to run a bake sale :)

[Andrew Straw]

Well, I should expect that the owner of a Labour Party-oriented blog would not agree that increasing the Green vote is a good thing. After all, the main place Greens would go for voters is cherry-picking the Labour Party.

There are plenty of smart, pro-active people on the left. Those people have lots of good ideas for moving the country forward. It is not just about fighting a rear-guard battle to maintain old social programs. Those programs have to be modernised and de-bureaucratised to have the most benefit for real individuals in the community.

There are several themes that I think the 21st Century left should be embracing:

1. food safety -- this is essential, and as the lead poisoning fiasco has shown, the current government is not taking this basic government function seriously enough. GE is another example. No one has adequately accounted for allergic reactions and other consequences of mixing genes from various plants. A potato ingredient might actually mean a peanut or a soybean!

2. Competition -- leftists should want government to use its power to decentralise the power of big behemoth corporations. Telecom should be forced to unbundle its services and allow other players to enter the high speed Internet market. This will drive prices down and drive widespread Internet-related growth in the NZ economy. Similarly, government should be providing massive tax incentives for individuals and businesses to save energy. By lowering electric usage, several things happen. Individuals across the country will have lower electric bills, and the price of electricity will decline because the demand will be lower. Because the demand is lower, there will be much less incentive to do more "think big" projects like Project Aqua.

3. Invest more in people. University students should not have to spend 20 years paying off debt. Student allowances should be large enough that a student can get an undergraduate degree without accumulating tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

4. Keeping people healthy. With all of the monetary shortfalls in the healthcare system and the large central government budget surpluses, it is a shame that the so-called leftist government can't invest more in keeping people healthy and reducing wait lists. Doctors should also be paid more to attract bright people into this profession.

These are just a few examples of people-centered, leftist positions. If Labour would align with the Greens and set about accomplishing these things, I think we'd all be better off.

[Andrew Straw]

By the way, my comments are mine alone, and do not represent the official views of the Green Party.

[Jordan]

Andrew, it it's any consolation all comments here are comments from individuals. Nobody is representing anything to anybody other than their own views, as far as I'm concerned.

I personally would like to see the Green vote higher than it was in 1999 and 2002. It's a semi-detatched left which can help the Labour left in its own battles. Obviously though, being a Labour activist, I am not going to be out campaigning for the Greens.

I think you could add the fact that there is still massive inequality in our society as something which needs dealing with. not just in economics terms, where some inequality is always going to be there, but in social terms and all sorts of ways the innate moral equality of all people is not respected. That forms another string to a leftist bow.

I have to say, that on Health, there are no huge monetary shortfalls. Total health spending is about $9,600m and the deficits of some DHBs is only a tiny fraction of this figure. If the $3000m/year increase in health spending since 1999 isn't "investing more" then I really don't know what is.

Agree re students; unfortunately not a popular constituency in some parts of the Labour party at the moment.

Jordan

[Idiot/Savant]

Which is why every week I'm still reading about waiting lists and lack of funding.

Thank's to National's "sinking lid" we're now about 0.5% of GDP below the OECD average when it comes to health. That simply isn't good enough. Labour has continued to grow the health budget at he OECD rate (which is good), but hasn't moved to make up the lost ground. Doing so would be a good move.

[Jordan]

NZMA reports that spending on health in the public sector grew from 6.6% of GDP in 1989 to 8.1% of GDP in 1999 - the OECD average was 8.3% (http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/116-1169/324/).

In 2004/5 the estimates are that public health spending will be $9.92bn, which is about $2.5bn ahead of where it was in 1999.

As I said - how can that be called anything other than re-investment?

I'm not saying it's perfect, or that things can't get better. They have to. The goal should be that private health insurance is just not needed. Short waiting times, enough capacity to do the job. You cannot get there overnight though.

Jordan

[Andrew Straw]

If Labour were committed to fully funding health care, it could be done overnight. They have the votes in Parliament to do it, but not the will.

You know, up until this year, there used to be a 24/7 clinic operating here in Dunedin. Because of government cutbacks, this clinic had to shut down its overnight shifts. Now, if you get sick in the middle of the night, as my daughter did recently with the rotovirus, you have to go to the emergency room.

Further, a friend of the family recently broke her leg, and because it was not "serious enough", the operation she needed was delayed and her leg's condition got much worse. Prompt treatment would have prevented that, but it's all about not having the money to do health care the way it should be.

With a budget surplus in the billions, Labour can afford to fully fund healthcare. I am sure Greens would do it, if they were the majority party.

Just as I am sure a Green government wouldn't put up with lead in our food. I still can't believe the government will not identify which products have this lead-tainted cornflour in them, or pull them ALL off the shelves. Sure would make it easier if people would just eat it, the government implies. After all, under ACC, individuals can't sue the malevolent jerks who put this in our food supply.

I put food safety at the top of my list for a reason. Greens have been consistently on the side of the consumer, while Labour is all over the board in an attempt not to irritate food manufacturers.

[Jordan]

I guess that's the difference between a party which leads governments, and one which doesn't. Labour accepts the realities and constraints of power; a party like the Greens does not have to and probably wouldn't be able to.

There is never going to be a public health system where there aren't anecdotal problems. Nor a public one. Are you standing for a DHB election, Andrew, given your concerns about how the local health board is not providing the services you want?

What IS your ideal level of health spending?

I'd like to see it at about 10% of GDP, or about $3bn ahead of where it is now. I would hope that a plank of Labour's manifesto is a resource increase of that magnitude.

What I don't think, though, is that this will somehow make all the problems go away. It won't. Health demand will always be ahead of what is available - it's just how life is.

[Andrew Straw]

Greens could easily replace Labour as the majority left-wing party in this country. It would simply take a steady outflux of Labour people who are dissatisfied with the direction that party is heading in.

Greens do not make comments in some other-worldly fashion, just to make them. They propose something be done about inadequate healthcare, closing local schools, NOT proposing massive new hydro all over the country, and certainly not leaving lead-tainted food on grocery store shelves because they have a different vision of where the country needs to be.

The Greens have realistic goals. One need only sift through their policies at http://www.greens.org.nz to get a feel for how a Green-led government would act.

Comments like "you don't know the pressures of being the leading Party" are really throw-away lines. Such animosity does not convince anyone that Labour has solutions to the country's problems, only that you want to rub it in the Greens' faces that you got more votes at the last election. What you forget is that politics is about the future, and Greens have a much clearer sense of direction about where the country should go. It is for this reason that they will steadily pick up votes from Labour as that party drifts.

Greens have a reputation for having strong opinions about things, and a Green Party meeting often involves a lot of democratic debate before a decision is made. What usually comes out of this process is a policy that sustains the Greens' four main principles:

1. Ecological Wisdom
2. Social Responsibility
3. Appropriate Decision-making
4. Non-violence

Not allowing lead contamination in food, for instance, would be an example of social responsibility and appropriate decision-making. There is also an element of ecological wisdom in not allowing New Zealand companies to import adulterated ingredients. I bet 60% of New Zealanders would agree with Green positions if they were aware of them and not filtered through the news media and ridiculed by corporate pansy talk-back hosts.

Despite the fact that most media in the country are either Labour or National supporters at heart, Greens will get their message out. Voters will know that there is a party which looks out for them. The talking heads may concentrate on the Labour/National rivalry like they always have, but they will miss the real scoop when Greens become the primary alternative to National. May not be next year, but it's coming.

You don't have to be a futurist to see this happening. Having worked on campaigns in the States, I can smell when a political party has it together. I suspect Greens will have an unusually large party vote next year. Larger than the 7% they got last time.

(btw, I am really enjoying having this conversation with you and others--Thanks!)

[Jordan]

Andrew - I don't have any animosity towards the Greens. My first contact with party politics was with the Alliance; and I have been a Labour party activist since 1998. I am very well aware of the pressures of power. To say the Greens do not carry the responsibility of carrying the centre is just a statement of fact, it isn't a put down.

The Greens have no prospect of replacing Labour as the majority centre left party. The Alliance failed to do this, and it had a much better prospect of doing so - it had a totally destroyed Labour Party and it had FPP as a real reason to consolidate left support behind one or the other party.

Neither of these situations applies now and Labour's hold on middle New Zealand cannot be challenged by a Green Party which stays true to its roots. I can't see the Greens ever becoming centrist enough to challenge Labour, or winning the link with the organised labour movement which sustains the Labour party through hard times.

I don't think that the Greens can match Labour for a vision which includes all the people in our country. If I did, I would be a member of the Green party.

I suspect the Greens will vary between 5% and 10% for the foreseeable future, and that's about it. There is no comparison of Labour's replacement of the Liberal Party; conditions are very different.

I would be interested to see you argue as to WHY you think the Greens can, or should, replace the Labour Party.

JC

[Idiot/Savant]

Jordan: it's not nearly as bad as I thought then (this is what happens when I look at a graph that ends in 2001). Good to see it.

Andrew: Well, _money_ could be assigned overnight. But rebuilding the system and undoing the damage caused by financial starvation takes a bit longer. Labour could do more - you can always do more - or they could publicise it better, but they are at least on the right track.

As for the Greens replacing Labour, barring a repeat of 1984, I just don't see it happening. What I do see (and hope for) is a strong Green party acting as a consistent "conscience" for the Labour party, influencing policy to pull it in a more leftwards and environmentally sustainable direction.

[Andrew Straw]

I meant to say "corporate patsies", not pansy.
There's a slight difference. :)

[Andrew Straw]

O ye of little faith. The Greens don't have to react to a 1984 situation in order to keep climbing. How many people in Labour didn't think the Greens would break 5% in 2002? Plenty.

The issue is vision, and the Green Party is the party on the left with the strongest vision for how the country should be run. This thread was entitled "what's the left for"? In the Green Party, that kind of question doesn't even need to be asked. The whole point of the Party is to provide a vision of a better future for the country. One might even argue that the Party's purpose is not just winning elections, but educating the public on what government could be doing better to serve citizens.

And as for Greens needing to move to the so-called "center" to get votes, that is not how it is going to happen. Greens are about education and moving the public towards a better society and environment. This is a common Labour misconception, that one has to cater to some bland pablum policy that is inadequate in so many respects in order to get votes. That's not how it works. Quit listening to Bill Clinton: using his approach, Democrats lost both houses of Congress to people who DID have a vision, a Republican nightmare of a vision. Helen Clark and Labour are following in Clinton's footsteps. Brash is using the Gingrich model that was so successful for the American right in Congress in 1994.

The problem here is that once Labour loses the legislature, that's it for the PM. Clinton could at least sit in the Oval Office after the Republicans won and weather the storm. He seemed to do just fine trashing the welfare system in the US and making all sorts of compromises with the right. Executive and Legislature are one entity in NZ, so if you lose Parliament, you lose the whole ball of wax.
Brash is revitalising the National Party with a real, coherent vision. It is taking shape like a big storm cloud coming over the horizon.

You can thumb your nose at having a vision and say that you can't govern that way, but just watch National trounce Labour in the next election with their right-wing vision. It would make more sense to take up arms with the Greens and present an alternative vision.

Now, if Labour doesn't reduce the population's intelligence by allowing it to be poisoned with lead, Greens have a strong chance of bringing the country along. Kiwis are entirely capable of understanding where the country needs to go. They just need some leadership, and Greens provide this.

And yes, you'd be welcome to help educate the public and make a real difference in the Green Party, if you like. We have plenty of former Labour Party members in our ranks. Like I mentioned above, there are a lot of real, left-thinking people still in the Labour Party. They are muffled by the party leadership. That is why Labour voters and party members are often friends of the Greens.

[Idiot/Savant]

Actually, I agree with you - the Greens have better vision-fu than Labour. They've been very forceful about advocating for a secular, liberal society that respects human rights; a sustainable economic structure; and social justice than Labour has. They're _moving the center towards them_ - or at least making a serious attempt to.

The reason I don't see them as growing enormously is because the center is nowhere near there yet. If they want really serious voter share, the Greens will have to either moderate their message somewhat (which loses the point), or hope for the sort of electoral catastrophe that shifts the center wildly to the left. Ironicly, Don Brash being elected may do exactly that - or it could simply funnel votes to Labour.

This does not mean the Green Party is useless or powerless. Being a strong consistent advocate pulling a Labour government left (whether in coalition or out of it) is a good role to fill. It's achieved a lot already - look at the government's position on Kyoto and renewable energy - and it can continue to deliver progress in the future.

In the long-term, the Greens just might grow beyond 10%, but we're talking a major shift in attitude here. It would take a serious abandonment of left-wing territory by Labour for that shift to occur.

[Andrew Straw]

Well, that assumes that taking bold positions on matters of importance doesn't attract votes.

Greens are often identified as being the "Marijuana Party" or the "Hippy Party". The thing is, this party is a big tent and encourages people to think very seriously about how their actions affect the environment and one another. It's not just about placards and protests, although there is definitely a place for that.

There is a transformation going on in the Green Party. It is becoming more diverse while at the same time staying true to its core principles.

In a sense, one is much freer in the Green Party than one is in Labour. As a Labour member, one feels pressure not to push the limits of the envelope that party is in. It is threatened both from the left and the right. Greens don't have that problem, and can therefore say exactly what they mean. It is this educative position that makes Greens effective, and the more they do it, the higher their vote totals will be next election.

For many people, the Greens are the Labour Party they always wanted, and that's why they give Greens their party vote while voting for the Labour MP in their electorate.

All Greens have to do is convince Labour voters that voting Green will make the Labour Party look more like they want it to, and half the battle is won.

[Jordan]

Do you have a history in the Labour Party on which you base your comments about how Labour members think and feel, out of interest Andrew?

I think that taking bold positions does attract votes, but when you are pitching at the centre (which any party wanting to govern does have to do), you also need to accept that bold positions can turn people off, too. You need to find the right balance.

Right now, I think the government is too much into heads-down, and isn't doing enough of the vision stuff. It risks looking like a managerialist administration not keen on doing anything, and some of the reforms of the first term which were designed to drag the centre leftwards have not been followed up so much with the lack of the Alliance in Government.

If Greens take Labour list votes, then all that will do is make Labour weaker and the Greens stronger. While I don't find that threatening, I know a lot of voters who do.

Your comments about how the Green Party is developing are interesting. In my seven years in the Labour Party I have observed a similar trend - in fact, I would almost use the same language.

Jordan

[span(ner in the works)]

andrew said:
"In a sense, one is much freer in the Green Party than one is in Labour. As a Labour member, one feels pressure not to push the limits of the envelope that party is in. "

I have to say, as a kind of inside outsider of the Labour Party for about five years, that this is certainly my view of Labour too. i have heard too many stories about senior MPs getting up and ridiculing delegate votes on remits, and refering to the difference between "party" and "caucus" policy.

i am interested in what you write about the change in the Greens, Andrew. please tell more!

[Andrew Straw]

Well, any NZ party that would welcome with open arms an American Democratic lawyer as a member cannot be bad. ;) Not everyone is so liberal in their thinking.

I wouldn't say the Greens have changed with regard to their values. It may be that they are just making a very good effort now at showing how being pro-environment, pro-democracy, pro-human rights, and sensitive to the needs of low-income folks is really right in line with mainstream New Zealand values. They have been, in my view, very effective lately at enunciating the Party's position on a number of topics important to average people, including most recently the lead contamination in New Zealand corn flour. They are guardians of the public's interests, and even if some people (are you listening, Michael Laws?) don't appreciate what they do, most Kiwis know Greens are on their side. And if they don't know now, they will slowly learn due to the Party's outreach and educational efforts.

It's not that the Greens need to change, really. They just need to remind Kiwis what their interests are, and who consistently protects those interests.

That's why I am such an optimist about the Party's prospects.

[Jordan]

Andrew, isn't "we" the more appropriate phrase when talking about the Greens for you?

That said, I get that one confused sometimes too.

I don't think that the Greens actually are on most people's sides, as a collective group. There are lots of left wing Greens, for which I'd endorse the statement - but there are right wing ones too.

If we're building a project for social justice in this country, the enemy are National and ACT - not Labour.