Losing sight of the bigger picture

Over at No Right Turn, Idiot/Savant sometimes reminds me of people I used to work with in Student Politics. That is, like them, he could occasionally be accused of "losing sight of the bigger picture".

His post this morning ripping into Phil Goff over Goff's response to compensation being paid to prisoners who were mis-treated in a public prison is an excellent example of a certain sort of fundamentalism which exists in student politics and in some parts of the left, and the right.

"Fundamentalism" is a pretty strong word. I did encounter it though on both sides of politics. It's not exclusive to the left. For the left on campus, at Auckland University in the latter part of the 1990s, it was unacceptable to be any further right than the left wing of the Alliance. You were made to feel like an alien presence if you supported Labour. I also had Libertarianz and ACT friends who had a similar view of National: anyone who supported National must by definition be an unprincipled mushroom which should really just be wished out of existence.

In other words, the mainstream political thinking of the vast majority of students, let alone the wider community, was written off as being irrelevant, wrong, stupid or some combination of the three. It was an incredibly out of touch, elitist and stressful political situation to be active in, and that is the main reason I never became a "proper" student politician. My energy was directed in more productive directions instead.

Idiot/Savant's post reminded me of that past experience with his declaration about Phil Goff:

He has compromised on its fundamental values of human rights in favour of arbitrary state power and pandering to the vicious vindictiveness of the "hang 'em high" brigade. As long as he holds his ministerial warrant, those who support human rights should not support Labour.

As it happens, I think the judgement - from what I read in the Herald, an important caveat - seems sound. There will be a lot of people less liberal than I am, and some of them will not think it sound at all - they will think it is ridiculous and wrong, and they will probably also think that the men involved were lucky to be in prison at all, rather than being hung, drawn and quartered.

But - please? "those who support human rights should not support Labour"? Hello? A decision to appeal this case is a cause for argument. To magnify that into "Labour has deserted human rights" is fantasy land stuff. Like all mainstream political movements the Labour Party is a broad church. It has more right wing and more left wing elements. Goff is on one side of the chapel, I am on the other.

That's fine. We could try and purge the Labour Party of the people on the other wing - either of us could. What would that leave? It would leave an organisation struggling to hit 30% of the vote, and utterly unable to form a government. (It would leave an organisation quite like the National Party, actually.)

It is a strength not a weakness that different points of view are debated inside the party, and a consensus emerges which the party can unite around. That is the reality of serious electoral politics. The alternative - purges, etc - is illustrated by the Alliance's experience since 2001. That did the Alliance no favours, did it?

So let me say it plainly. Where departments break the law then compensation is required. I'm very happy with that. I can't see how the Government will win the appeal.

While I might disagree with Phil on this decision, I know that the Labour Party's record of achievement on human rights is substantial. I also know that National has done some good work in these areas too - they did pass the Human Rights Act after all, and the Official Information Act too. The combined efforts of the two major parties since the 1970s have done more for human rights in this country than many people give them credit for.

But, no, let's ignore the record and the intention. Let's ensure the perpetual success of the right wing in politics by making Labour into a minority sect: pure and virtuous, but more interested in ineffective hand-wringing and talking to itself than engaging with, and representing, the public.

That'd just be such a good strategy. Great stuff. Not.

I don't mean to criticise NRT, and this is not to attack his substantive point. I agree with the vast majority of what he writes, and while I can see what Phil is doing with his response, it's not one I would have chosen myself.

I just get annoyed by overblown rhetoric which attacks Labour without due cause. (No comment on what due causes might be :)) Parliamentary politics is a juggling act. Labour's responsibility is to do what it can to govern "in the interests of the many not the few" (ick rhetoric) and sometimes that means you do things you'd rather not. But if we did everything we wanted, we'd be out on our ear - and who'd be hurt then?

Not me. Not the politicians. A lot of other people would though.

Comments

[Rob Davies]

Maybe the success of a political movement lies in the balance between the "two" sides. A proportion must act as a conscience to remind you of your history, the remaining few must look toward the future and lobby for change. When the two counter-elements are present any change is manageable and ideologies move in sync with development.

Further proof we're all better than the Tory's.

[Jordan]

I don't think that is a fair characterisation of the situation in the Labour Party at the moment. Both 'left' and 'right' are tag words for some pretty complicated stuff around personalities, styles of working, social networks, political outlook, historical experience etc that actually are very hard to pigeon-hole.

I see the main tension actually as being between those who think NZers are essentially conservative and that this cannot change, and those who think NZ has a conservative gloss that can be scraped off with effective campaigning and engagement with politics.

Of course that's just my view... but it is a useful tension to have in a political party. The left/right splits on economic issues are not deep in the NZLP, and on social issues they're not much deeper.

[Idiot/Savant]

You seem to be under the strange misapprehension that I care about Labour's internal politics. I don't. I'm not a member, never have been, and likely never will be. Labour is simply a vehicle as far as I'm concerned, to be judged solely on its effectiveness. And where it ceases to be effective, I will get a new one that serves me better.

Labour is not the left, and thanks to MMP, a loss to Labour is not a loss to the left as a whole. What I am suggesting is that those who take human rights seriously (and Goff clearly does not) vote for another left-wing party which will act as a restraint on Goff's authoritarian impulses. That's not "putting National in power", it's not "treachery to the left" - it's just sensible, practical politics.

[Jordan]

Thank goodness for MMP :-)

I'd only add one more thing: the internal politics of the Labour party matter more than you might think.

[Scott]

I remember Jordan Carter back on campus in the late 90s. He criticised student protesters and said that the only way to get rid of fees and debt was to join Labour and vote Labour. Five years later, where are the rewards from that strategy? Student debt is higher than ever, and fees are going up 4.5% at Auckland University, with Labour's complicity.

Never mind about the rest of Labour's achievements in office - a war in Afghanistan that killed 20,000 people in its first stage alone, 'anti-terrorist' legislation that attacks basic democratic rights, the theft of the seabed and foreshore from Maori, bans on sympathy, secondary and political strikes in the ERA, the Jobs Jolt which has hit tens of thousands of the poorest and most vulnerable Kiwis...nice work mate!

Like all politicos, Carter confuses his own interests with the interests of everybody else. A man's gotta live, and a cushy job in Wgtn for a right-wing Labour MP is a good a way as any. But the rest of us sure aren't getting our cut.

In reality the ability of the union movement and the left to win progressive reforms is inversely related to the political influence that this Labour Party has over it. Maori and the activist left represented by the Alliance have broken with Labour; let's hope that the union movement which still provides much of their base follows. They're certainly being given every incentive.

[stephen]

Frankly, the only thing that scares me more in New Zealand politics than Phil Goff as justice minister is Tony Ryall...

But seriously, Phil's reaction is pandering and kneejerk and entirely in keeping with his previous record. Pragmatism is one thing, but he has run a positively draconian line (or a cynically populist one). NRT has omitted the stupid and redundant anti-terrorism legislation, the Crimes Act amendments to give ever-greater surveillance powers to the police, and other attacks on our civil liberties. Then there's the Zaoui case (admittedly not Goff's portfolio), and the repeated refusal to look at the Ellis case (and we all know why)...

Labour's record while in term is not great and NRT is right to point this out, and again I agree with NRT, Goff is one of the biggest obstacles to my support for the Labour party (Margaret Wilson would run a close second, but that is a topic for another day).

Participating in the consensus depends on some acknowledgement of the things that I care about. Labour as it is is a far more authoritarian we-know-what's-good-for-you brand of left than I like.

[Jordan]

I've never seen anyone equate Margaret Wilson with Phil Goff before, that's a novel comparison.

Scott sounds like one of those SWP people from campus days; which would explain both the personal abuse and the rewriting of history that is the basis of his comments above. One day I'll get around to posting more about what I actually did on campus in Auckland - it's not very interesting, believe me, but it was far more productive than the activities of the "occupy the registry to force a revolution!" brigade :)

[dc_red]

I'm always wary of the "uncompromising and unrealistic left" for whom anything short of socialist revolution is a sell out.

I guess Labour could abolish tertiary tuition fees tomorrow, but the surplus would be spent in no time, and the government would be crucified upon a cross of outraged newspaper articles and sundry media hysteria. (Interestingly, the Right is all but exempt from criticism of economic mismanagement - take a bow GWB).

The problem for governments like Labour is that 99% of the criticism received (from the media, other political parties, and the chicken littles of business) comes from the Right. The 'natural' response to such criticism is to move to the right ... the danger being that you end up indistinguishable from the Tories you supplanted. Goff arguably strays in that direction from time to time, and Labour sometimes lacks the courage of its convictions.

Still, would anyone like to hazard a guess what tuition fees would be if Shipley & Co. were still in power?

[Millsy]

I dont like Labour, I dont trust Labour and I belive that Labour is as beholden to big business as National is. Labour is sitting on a surplus while students and benificairies are having to struggle to eat, our health system is on the verge of collapse, and our schools are having to sell raffle tickets to pay teachers salaries (and are losing ground to those who want to privatise the whole education system, lock stock and barrel).

Unions are still struggling to attract members, wages and conditions are still rather stagnant, the job cuts continue.

Labour is still carrying on with a program of privatisation and deregulation, and is proceeding to further relax controls on foreign ownership.

Labour is failing to take a more aggressive stance to defends its policies, and is backing down to big business over the slightest little things.

Despite that, I would still rather have Labour than National in government, or things could be a lot worse

[Jordan]

"our health system is on the verge of collapse,"

This is not true. Spending is up $4bn a year by next year, compared with 1999. What sign of a collapse?

"our schools are having to sell raffle tickets to pay teachers salaries (and are losing ground to those who want to privatise the whole education system, lock stock and barrel)"

No school has to fundraise to pay teachers.

"Unions are still struggling to attract members,"

Union membership has gone up.

"wages and conditions are still rather stagnant,"

Are they?

"the job cuts continue."

Employment is at record levels, and unemployment is at its lowest rate in two decades.

"Labour is still carrying on with a program of privatisation and deregulation,"

By buying Air NZ and the railways back? By re-regulating the electricity market? By regulating Telecom? By the ERA? By re-nationalising ACC? By ending the involvement of private business in the prisons? By limiting funding to private tertiary providers? By providing for another week's annual leave?

"Labour is failing to take a more aggressive stance to defends its policies, and is backing down to big business over the slightest little things."

By giving up on the ERA? By cutting corporate tax rates? By cancelling the income tax increase for higher income earners? By not taking ACC back?

"Despite that, I would still rather have Labour"

Same - we seem to have very different ideas about what Labour is actually doing though!

:-)

Jordan

[stef]

"Labour is failing to take a more aggressive stance to defends its policies, and is backing down to big business over the slightest little things."

I find this comment interesting. What jordan saying is that there needs to be a united left on the extra parliamentary side to espouse these left wing philosophy through civil society. Arguably the most successful part of rodgernomics was the fact that the reforms aren't really questioned at a structual level save those out on the left and in university. There's been no real civil society questioning of our current economic and social system, but rather almost tacit agreement that the current set up is as good as it gets.

Hence labour is beholden more to big business ideals because they are still large and organised enough to do it. They have a coheseive ideology and are willing to compromise in order to do it.

The left in contrast seems to be a lot more splintered with people willing to walk away on a number of issues that represent a small voting base, but together represent a balance of power.