Colour blind

I've not been blogging as much as usual because, mainly, there is less to blog about. Hopefully that will begin to shift a bit as the parliament warms up for the year. It's amazing how much less political news there is without the House sitting.

Reflecting on some of the reading I have posted this week (the Colin James stuff, even the NZ Institute stuff, and the PM's good speech to Parliament yesterday) and some of the events in the world (particularly the French riots of the past few weeks), I am more glad than ever that we have a Labour government in our country.

One of the most taken-for-granted aspects of our lives as human beings is colour. When I stare out of my office on the ninth floor, and look out over Wellington Harbour, it is the stunning colours of the scene that set the landscape off. Without a doubt the geography provides the bones of what we see, but colour is the texture, the meaning, the beauty of it all. Imagine being colourblind. Imagine seeing all in black and white. Imagine how stark that would be. A different kind of beauty to be sure: a simplicity and elegance, no doubt. Good black and white photography captures it well. It is not, though, how we wish to see the world.

The splash of yellow daisies on a lawn on a hill; the glowing red of pohutukawa blossom on the Thames coast; the stunning azure blue of the harbour this morning; the carnival colours walking down Cuba St. Colour is life.

So bend the metaphor. Treat difference as colour. Thinking about it in this way highlights why the policy of the French republic has not led to successful integration of migrants from other cultures. We ignore colour, ignore difference, at our peril. Official secularism and unicultural homogeneity have created a society deeply divided, and even worse one in ignorance of its own division. Simply so the French could see the world in black and white.

Look at the different approach in the United Kingdom. A frank acknowledgement that people come from different cultures. A broad-based, slow but growing acceptance of civic multi-culturalism, bound together into one society based on British values. Patchy? Yes. Hard? Definitely. Will it work? It's the only way that can, because it's the only form of progress that understands people in all their difference and commonality.

Bend the metaphor to our own shores. Difference as colour. The last general election saw black and white v. colour. Colour won. Clark and Labour talked about inclusion; about building the nation in a manner which reflects us as we are: human, different yes but together in this place. About public policy operating in a manner which includes all; which emphasises our common collective interest in a society that respects our differences but acknowledges that we need to live together under one political and legal framework. The phrase she is now using is "social solidarity" and that is a blunt but accurate phrase to sum it up.

It extends past Treaty stuff. The productivity challenge could fit the metaphor too. One side of politics says, "this is easy. Cut taxes, cut regulation, get out of the way. Black and white baby." My side says "this is hard. We've done a lot of good things, but we're still lagging. Let's try and understand that as it is, not as we'd like it to be - and let's try a range of things to fix it." Difference, colour, adaptability, versus rigid black and white.

So what was the alternative to a thid Labour term?

The sort of colour-blindness that spreads into true blindness. A will not towards an equal framework of respect, but instead from the right the privileging of the white middle and upper class, Protestant view of life and politics over all else. A sort of politics that tries to ignore how New Zealand has changed since the 1960s; that really just wants everyone to fit into white, straight, picket fence land.

That sterile view would have been deeply destructive of the progress Kiwis have made together - not only socially but economically too. It would have been a wilful turn towards monotony and monochrome; away from colour, away from life. It set itself up against a true view of New Zealand, one that says: be who you are, there is a place for you here.

Who would choose to be colourblind?

Comments

[Graeme Edgeler]

"So what was the alternative to a thid Labour term?"

Well at least you don't take it quite as far as Helen Clark did, when, at Victoria University she portrayed the choice as between a country we could be proud of and one where "people scratch each others' eyes out."

[Jordan]

A touch of exaggeration is an age-old political tactic. :-)

[Tom S]

The last election was incredibly divisive because National chose to fight the election on a platform of what was effectively a white supremisist campaign aimed squarely at the Pakeha majority and mixed with a massive tax bribe to the (also largely Pakeha) white middle class. Cunningly, it allowed white people to vote against the darkies but rationalise it by saying they just wanted a tax cut. In doing so National gambled that they could get an absolute majority of votes by appealing to fear mixed with greed - a toxic brew indeed, and reason enough to disqualify the current National leadership team from ever being allowed to rule in NZ.

They came close to winning because the ideas they pushed - greed and fear - were simple, easy to pick up on subliminally and powerful motivators. That they failed was not really because Clark and co. talked the big picture and articulated a powerful alternative vision, but rather because enough New Zealanders of all colours and genders were terrified at the prospect of a National government ands its implications to the social, cultural and economic future of New Zealand that they got out and voted to keep National out.

That makes the 2005 general election extremely unusual. People normally vote to get a government out, not vote to keep the opposition out!

Labour still has to build and articulate a coherent big picture for New Zealand. Helen Clark dips her toe into the pond of the "New Zealand way" big vision, but she is far, far more a manager and political pragmatist. After six years, this is not enough. Merely being competent after a decade of incompetent ideological insanity was an immense relief to all New Zealanders, who had become punch drunk with a National government that seemed determined to wage economic war on its own population and crush its own national culture.

I think that as long as Brash, Key, Brownlee and McCully remain in charge of National then its more rather than less likely that Clark can win again in 2008. But relying on fear of an un-reformed backward looking National to win you elections is hardly a positive platform for the nation. Its victory by being not as awful as the alternative, and it explains why Labours poll edge is so soft.

Helen Clark is already a notable Prime Minister, one of our best. But if she desires the sobriquet of being a great leader and a great visionary for our fine nation she needs to do more to build an alternate, inclusive, mildly nationalistic and multi-racial, multi-cultural vision for NZ - and so far the jury is out.

[Sam]

Tom S,
You shouldn't underestimate the power of Clark's vision - it is strong and constructive, and by not communicating it clearly to the masses she is more likely to have achieve it. The act of broadcasting her vision to the public would be her downfall - as a nation we are not ready for that sort of visionary governance.

Her best ploy is to give the impression of being a good manager (we respect this - just as we respect Brash's previous role at the Reserve Bank) and implement her vision by stealth - I would argue that this is exactly what she has achieved.

[stephen]

"Labour still has to build and articulate a coherent big picture for New Zealand."

I used to think that, but these days I'm starting to ask myself why. Why does a government need to articulate a big picture?

That's a job for the collective of citizens, channelled through their arts and culture.

I suggest to you that the absence of a big picture from the Labour party is deliberate. The party is a broad church, and any big picture too clearly articulated will piss off a substantial number of its supporters, let alone the rest of the country. Aiming for low-level, concrete successes is both more achievable and less controversial. For a politician, what's not to like?

[stephen]

"as a nation we are not ready for that sort of visionary governance."

Patronising. I don't WANT visionary governance. Is that backwardness or maturity?

[Sam]

As for the original post - what utter trite rubbish. Lets think of something warm and fuzzy, connect it to our agenda through spurious bending of metaphors, and with a pretence of eloquence (my 7-year old daughters 'poetry' has better results than this) present it as some kind of philosophical reflection - all from someone who has flamed me for an illogical post in the past!

[Sam]

Stephen,
Neither - you are proof that we are not ready. I don't consider it backward or immature, it is just a state of not being ready. I did not mean to imply a 'value' as to that readiness, nor that we will ever be, or want to be ready for it. Sorry if my communication was unclear.

[stephen]

Well let me just say that I'm ready for visionary governance in the same way that I'm ready for Asian flu :-)

[sock thief]

Jordan, your Labour Good, National Bad view is just as crassly black and white. Have you forgoten the foreshore and seabed legislation so quickly?

Odd you should criticse France because of its secular status - seperation of Church and State being a fairly basic liberal idea.

[Jordan]

ST - You think the Foreshore and Seabed legislation was black and white? Perhaps you have not read it. And National is to be criticised for what it campaigned on. I freely acknowledge that many National people are uncomfortable with the policy their party took to the polls, as were a large number of National voters. National is more than welcome to adopt policies more closely in line with those of Labour any time it likes, and I will applaud that. It is not an exclusive, or a black and white, point of view. It is by definition inclusive. People just have to choose to be part of it.

Sam - thanks. I experiment with a range of styles, and some of it is trite in tone indeed. Some is the opposite. All have their place in public discourse.

[Jordan]

Stephen - interesting speech by Cullen a while back on why he doesn't like "vision" as a concept, worth a read. Have a look for a speech called "Two Ticks for Clio: Reflections on NZ Politics and History" on http://www.beehive.govt.nz/

[Jordan]

and ST - you're right - it's not the secularism that is the problem, so much as the complete ignoring of any differences. E.g. being illegal to collect statistics on ethnic groups etc.

[Sam]

Despite Cullen's denial, the "Values and principles in a pluralistic democracy" that he refers to are in fact a VISION, and as I argued previously are being actively pursued.

He does not liken it to a vision simply because the term has become hijcaked as perjorative, not necessarily because it doesn't fit - thus to admit it would put potential voters off. The 'values and principles' of the current government is their vision, and it will be recognised as such in the eulogies for this administration once Clark and Cullen 'pass on'.

[M Cullen]

What a nice 'ideological burp' Jordan.

[GeniusNZ]

Tom
> effectively a white supremisist campaign

Talk about exageration - by that standard the labour party are comunists planning on slaughtering farmers in the name of land reform.

They lost because they pitched it as a big change and too much of the middle ground looked at national and thought - nah Im happy with it the way it is, no big changes for me. Neither side can run around using that as great propoganda but that's how it is.

Sam,
>Her best ploy is to give the impression of being a good manager (we respect this - just as we respect Brash's previous role at the Reserve Bank) and implement her vision by stealth - I would argue that this is exactly what she has achieved.

I agree but you can hardly expect Helen or Jordan to admit that!

[Roman Eos]

>speech by Cullen a while back on why he doesn't like "vision" as a concept..

concept = idea makes this writing by Mr Cullen okay. I am not suggesting word play you understand, just that "vision" like that in quotes can be any notion - eg vision, perception, ideology - its user wants it to be. And the other swaps so.. no problem!

still I am dismayed that such a man, a Minister of your government, appears stuck on (quote) principles and values(/quote) as his preferred modus operandi.

Yes, he also cites them as a worthy perception, but "vision" he distrusts. Is it his own perception of the word that he distrusts?

Or, to test this another way, if the opposite walls of the Parliamentary chamber - behind the Opposition members - were hung with his favorite pictures, arts, scenes etc., would he gladly lift his eyes to them in standing to address replies..?

Seeing over the immediate (maybe hurdles) if you follow me. His answers are what matter, not their faces, catcalls etc.

Am I not arguing for performance? Better performance maybe. A vision to transcend problems without ignoring them.

And if vision is a problem word, then find and use a metaphor for it. This way retain the 'stealth' element an earlier commenter remarked upon. Wisely, I think.

If not this, then another word. A good and sensible and practical word. Like "horizon".

Thank you for this opportunity.. with regards,,

[Fucking Retard]

Jordan said,
"Sam - thanks. I experiment with a range of styles, and some of it is trite in tone indeed. Some is the opposite. All have their place in public discourse."

Is one of your other styles personal abuse and does it also have its place in public discourse?

[stephen]

I was thinking about this over lunch.

The last time I think NZ had a genuinely visionary government was with the first Labour goverment in the thirties.

However, vastly different conditions obtained then.

You had:
- a relatively homogenous society (in the Pakeha world, anyway)
- the shattering experience of the great slump binding people on the one hand and causing a search for new solutions on the other
- a shared vision left from the early days of the colony of a new, improved Britain in the South Seas, which provided some sort of underpinning to the welfare state.

I don't think any of those things are true today, and frankly, I'm glad of it. I think real, working solutions for society come out of conflict, dialectic if you will, and that focussing on getting the small things right is all that we can aim for, as long as our definition of "right" is in accord with the most fundamental principles of fairness.

I like big pictures, but they're bullshit really. If you want a chicken in every pot, nationalising the chicken farms is not the answer.

I read the speech. Cullen is a clever cookie. (I didn't realise he did an undergraduate degree in mathematics, which raises him in my estimation a notch.) And that was a comforting speech to read, the bit about the foreshore and seabed notwithstanding.

[Sam]

Roman Eos, I am thinking that Cullen's "Values and Principles" is exactly the "sensible and practical" metaphor that you are looking for. It retains a subtlety that doesn't scare off (all) of the voters.

Stephen, My point is that I think this is a big vision Government (big vision by stealth if you will) - hence the polarisation between left and right that has not been this clearly demarcated for quite some time.

[Jordan]

GeniusNZ - on the contrary, it is precisely why Helen has been so successful. The values which are driving government policy are apparent to all in what we do, so flouncing around talking about them seems to be un-useful. I used to be one of those who wanted a big picture painted. There's a little more of that now than there was (read the Address in Reply speech by Helen), but competent management comes first.

That is one reason the recent Cabinet changes are a good thing.

Sam - what's your take on this as an argument: that the election ended up quite polarised because National took some strong right wing stances, and Labour then responded by doing the same thing on the left - both with the intention of getting out their core vote - which succeeded for both parties. What ya reckon?

[Sam]

My feeling (and it is only ill-informed speculation) is that National really set the agenda, but not through their 'rightwingness', but through their conservatism. They really could not offer intelligent rw policies.

Labour did not successfully respond to this in the campaign IMHO. Their so-called core shrunk as voters were enticed by the Nats not-so-cheap-trick tax-cuts, but as leftwingers realised the conservatism that this would entail, many reluctantly returned to Labour - just to keep the Nats out. Labour did not win this election as much as National losing it.

Everything was going for National, but instead of new right innovation we were offered tire old-school conservatism, not even some kind of intelligent combination of the two. Disasters for Labour aside (and the current govt. situation is soo tempting fate in this respect) we won't see the Nats again until they remix their policies. Imagine tax-cuts with a forward-looking and inclusive economic/education/health/social reform - an election winner.

[Sam]

Having just gone through all of the above, I should ammend my original statement re: "polarisation between left and right that has not been this clearly demarcated for quite some time" It should probably read "polarisation between 'progressive' socialism? and conservatism that has not been this clearly demarcated for quite some time.

It was National's conservate agenda that drove this polarisation (which appeared to be right/left). In a nutshell, National got conservatives and those that wanted tax cuts at any cost - while Labour got those who at any cost would not have a conservative govt.

[Jordan]

OK, that's interesting. I agree that Labour's campaign failed in many dimensions, but it succeeded in the most important one, i.e. getting more votes than National, and allowing the PLP to form a government.

I also think that the "split" is over-rated. The evidence in the voting numbers is that Labour only suffered a small decline in its vote in provincial and rural areas, and that this was nearly matched by an increased vote in the metropolitan areas.

The loss of Labour MPs in some provincial seats seems to have been the work of highly effective push polling and canvassing from forces outside the National Party, directed at those Labour MPs personally rather than at the party vote.

I think overall for Labour to have held its vote at 2002 levels given the much tougher campaign was amazing. It says something about the cohesiveness of the Labour base vote that is quite comforting to me. The core vote did not shrink, since the overall vote did not shrink. The vote grew by 97,000, and the percentage almost held. Pretty bloody amazing.

The issue for the next election is who can put the most compelling vision for the future. A reiteration of 1990s policy and divisiveness from National will ensure they lose a fourth time. Labour on the other hand will have to pull something pretty amazing out of the hat to win a fourth term.

[Sam]

Jordan, like you I think the rural/city divide is a crock'o'sh*t - and I was not referring to it in my comments.

Unlike you however, I don't think that Labour held onto their core voters by appealing to core values - that would be dangerous in that it would frighten off swinginging voters from the centre (hence big vision by stealth). I don't see their election 'win' as a conscious electoral mandate to implement their vision, as much as a conscious reaction against the conservatist agenda that defined the election.

My impression from talking to acquantances is that many Labour voters were very reluctant to do so - it was the lesser of two evils. I don't call this a cohesive voter base at all - just looking at the numbers is way too simplistic in that sense (although my speculations are every bit as wild I'll admit).

National on the other hand retained their core conservatists and stole a whole lot of swingers from the centrists with their tax-temptations.

As for the next election - once Brash is safely out of the way I predict that many of the so-called 'Labour core' will stampede accross for a change in government - especially as it is becoming harder and harder for Labour to distance themselves from the existence of their social and cultural 'big picture vision'.

[Jordan]

Well, my experience is different - I don't know if you were involved in campaigning or not, but what I did - in Wellington, in Nelson and in Auckland - involved contact with a helluvalot of voters, and the Labour base was strong.

And I am mystified by your view that a clearer articulation of Labour values and principles will lose votes. We sharpened up this time and our vote went up. Getting that right next time will help, but what we will not win an election with is a mushy non-campaign like this one almost turned out to be.

[Sam]

No, not involved in campaigning - so as I readily admit, my speculations are as wild and woolly as any other (but I do believe also that campaigning does not provide an accurate picture of conceptions either - you are more likely to get honest opinions down in the pub in an open discussion than during a campaign, I mean how many times have you agreed with a salesperson in order to shut them up and move them on?)

As to your mystification I will try to elaborate (although it is a misty concept in my mind anyway). NZer's by and large are left-leaning conservatives (try and work that out!?), hence the success of the current 'third way' style government, and the lack of a real right wing opposition (a conservatist party instead that does not seek to radically alter our outlook).

The longer Labour stays in power, the more confident they become of creating the socialist paradise that was at the core of the party right from its very beginning. The longer they stay in power the more this 'vision' becomes apparent to the ordinary person - who is pretty scared of such a lw direction - hence the relative brevity of Labour govts in this country.

While I think NZ is a better place after the govt of the last 6 years - the mutterings are already in full-swing - the PC debate, the Treaty debate, even the economic direction debate - the general population are beginning to pull back from the increasingly leftist vision that is starting to be articulated with more and more clarity. The current make-up of the govt. reflects the public pulling back into a more centrist position.

It was only Brash's ineptness that stopped a National led govt this term - not Labour winning it. They were very lucky indeed.

[Jordan]

I guess where we fundamentally differ then is over the "leftness" of the government. This is a government which is very moderate in economic and in social policy. There is no ambition in the leadership or in the party activists I know for any sharp move to the left; and indeed, the government has shifted right not left since it came to office in 1999.

That is why the "vision" that Labour is pursuing is not what one might call a "left" one. We aren't there talking about higher income taxes for higher benefits or better public services. We aren't talking about nationalising industries or massive re-regulation of the economy. We aren't talking about abolishing our armed forces. We aren't talking about abolishing the family and living in communes across the land. We aren't talking about fortress economics and living behind a wall.

You might call all the above 'traditional' leftist approaches. If we adopted them we'd be totally turfed out of power, no question.

What Labour is developing is a very different sort of platform. It's about engaging in the debate about our future as a united nation; about improving prospects for economic development and productivity; about developing our reflections of ourselves in music, arts, etc.

It's not a traditional left wing approach. It's one that listens to what people are saying they want: government out of the way, sound public spaces and services, a strong Kiwi identity and rising standards of living.

That is a very strong platform to campaign on. The thing Labour needs to do next time is run a good campaign. I am convinced that in most areas we have the policy and the direction right - but if we can't communicate what we're doing and why (our failure this time), then we will lose because people will decide they're sick of us.

[Sam]

"We aren't there talking about higher income taxes for higher benefits or better public services. We aren't talking about nationalising industries or massive re-regulation of the economy. We aren't talking about abolishing our armed forces" - Labour may not be talking about them, but they ARE happening (albeit some more slowly than others), and that is my whole point. It is an inevitable and incremental shift in the mindset of the Labour party - so much so that it is almost imperceptable, until about the third term.

You can see how talking about these traditional lw policies is unattractive to voters, but the tax burden is increasing at the top end, there is increasing benefits and spending on social services at the other end (remember working for families etc), we have bought a large stake in AirNZ, we do have Kiwibank, we have lost our combat air wing, we have reregulated parts of the electricity network, employment law, and soon telecommunications etc etc. You have to open your eyes and see what is happening to see the actual 'picture' - not listen to the talk. This has been the cleverness of the Labour party of the last 6 years, but the confidence is growing etc etc (see above).

You also have to bear in mind that I am not placing a value on whether this shift is good or bad, I am not attacking the Labour party per se - I'm merely pointing out what I see (i.e. it is an observation, not an opinion).

[Jordan]

Well, none of the steps we've done in those areas are "red in tooth and claw" - in some areas, we've gone in the opposite direction, and in other areas 'progress' (in the traditionalist sense) went furthest in 2000/01 and has since moved back.

This third term won't see much more in any of those dimensions, because their relevance to where Labour is headed is minimal. If that proves not to be the case, then the fight for a fourth term will be harder.