Alliance

So most of you will have seen the news about the Alliance's situation.

I was sad when the Alliance split up because of the SAS deployment to Afghanistan.  Of course, that wasn't the real cause of the split - for that one has to look at Jim Anderton's dictatorial leadership style and the continual suppression of activist influence and views.  But it was the proximate excuse and it seemed such a foolish one to do.  Had I been in the Alliance I would have waited to knife him until after the 2002 general election; but the people there made their choice and now they live with it.

This latest news, of Matt and Laila leaving, probably helps the Alliance in terms of making it a more useful and welcoming organisation for new people.  I do not think, though, that it will lead to much of a revival in the party's fortunes.

The reason for that is simple.  Whatever one thinks of the current government, it has a discernible and coherent, left wing approach to a whole lot of issues.  The Labour base is more pissed off with the pace of change than with the direction.  Unlike the 1980s, there is no ferment in the Labour movement for a new party to challenge Labour from the left.  And, unfortunately, there is already a party which is to Labour's left in the public mind - the Greens.  They have a far better public image than the Alliance can ever regain, because they are not tainted by the mess of the 1990s.

Politics is about ideas but it is also about brand, about competent selling of a message and about having an interested audience.  The only thing the Alliance has left is ideas, and I fear that is not going to be enough for them.

Fear, because I think it would be a good thing in an MMP system to have a viable, reliable party to the left of Labour in Parliament.  The Alliance was that in the way the Greens aren't (reliable, that is). 

On the other hand, maybe our MMP system doesn't like small outlier parties.  Look at what happened to the Alliance; look at what is happening to ACT.  ACT has the advantage of money and it is still sagging, and unlikely to return to Parliament.  The Alliance doesn't even have that.

There are a lot of very good people I have known over the years who have been, and are, Alliance activists.  I don't comprehend what keeps them fighting for a party that is so troubled.  I just hope that they do not exit political life if their party does end up closing shop.  The great triumph of the rogernomic revolution was to depoliticise so much of life.  If the generation that grew up in the 1990s seeking a different way of doing things just opts out of politics because of one vehicle running out of steam, then they are betraying their own potential, and their country's need for something better.

Comments

[Greg Stephens]

The party system we are developing under MMP is very untidy and likely to change. In Germany, from where MMP originates, they have four parties at the federal level (and the two seat communists). The have the Greens, Social Democrats, Centrist Christians, and Conservatives (not actually names, I can't remember that of the top of my head).
If we developed a similar system in NZ it would be far better than that which we already have. It would mean more stable coalitions (as there would be less parties in the coalition) and more effective parties (as the would have more MPs). In NZ this could work like this:
Greens/Maori/Alliance - far-left
Labour- centre-left
NZ First/United Future- centre
National-centre-right
and prehaps
ACT- far-right

That would produce a balanced system, with stable govt, but still enough choices for voters

[Idiot/Savant]

It would also mean less diversity of political opinion, and compromises kept behind closed doors within parties rather than conducted out in the open as part of coalition or support negotiations. I want _more_ parties, not less.

[span(ner in the works)]

i tend to agree with IS here (although being in the Alliance, of course i would!). i think that in order to have a fully fledged MMP system, we need to get over the idea of behemoth parties and recognise that diversity in Parliament does not mean that we cannot have stable government.

[Jordan]

"get over the idea of behemoth parties" -- well it's not us who need to get over it, it's the voters, who choose to have large parties. And I know of no political party that would choose to have less representation, if people were prepared to vote for it...

[span(ner in the works)]

i'm not quite sure who you thought i meant by "we" Jordan, but it was indeed the nz public at large, as well as the political elite. i doubt the public will move on if political types continually harp on at them in the media about the instability that will result.

[Jordan]

True - but political types who benefit from it are quite likely to continue to play it, as long as there is a positive response...

[span(ner in the works)]

i guess i just think it's really dishonest, but then that wouldn't be the first time. very frustrating.

by the way, here is a link to my post about the current shenanigans:
http://spanblather.blogspot.com/2004/11/rumours-of-our-demise-iii.html

[Jordan]

yeah, I had commented on that post and have done so again. It's not "dishonest", it's all about framing, and why would anyone frame an argument in such a way that it left them worse off?

[span(ner in the works)]

yes Jordan but you are not the only person who reads your blog and you did not have the courtesy to link to my post in your main post so I thought I would supply it for those who might be interested in the perspective of a member of the party concerned.

i think it is dishonest to say that instablity would result when that is not necessarily the case and it is totally about feathering your own nest.

[Jordan]

It's not dishonest to say that instability would be the result of having a multitude of small parties. It's simply saying the truth. I'd have no problem with ACT and the Alliance and the Maori Party in, but if there were say 12+ parties and you needed four or five party coalitions to form a government, then yes, instability is highly likely.

Besides, people choose who they vote for. We don't make them do it. People used to choose to vote mainly for only two parties; now we've got about four or five parties that are pretty durable in parliament. That's an improvement and there is no particular reason to assume that the trend won't continue.

The implicit point of "feathering your own nest" is one about corruption, which I reject. We don't want Labour to be a major party just because it might lead to jobs or whatever; we want that because the party will form a better government than National ever can.