The Project Begins

Yesterday's announcement of the government's decision to increase the minimum wage by 50c marks the formal beginning of National's 2011 election campaign.

Make no mistake about it. The neo-liberal shibboleths of the 1990s have been left behind. The New National Party has decided that its raison d'etre in the 21st Century is one thing and one thing only: to be in power. To achieve that objective, it has one tactic and one tactic only: to destroy the relevance of the Labour Party in New Zealand electoral politics.

That means everything is fair game. Policy crosses to Labour's left; moderate-seeming approaches to some sensitive issues (the category the minimum wage increase falls into); dirty tricks when it comes to campaign and finance law (see this fortnight's repeal of the EFA); close relationships with other minor parties to build a solid Parliamentary position post-election.

It is the mirror image of Labour's 2002-2005 approach, with one important difference. Labour's purpose in government was to build a fairer, freer and more equal society. We did that through more progressive taxes and tax credits; socially liberal legislation that expanded people's rights; investing for long term economic security; genuine treaty settlements... the list goes on.

National's purpose is to be not-Labour in government. 

They'll do whatever they think can deliver that.  It will be dressed up, eventually, in some swish narrative that appeals to some Kiwi values. But it won't be values based. The only value it seeks to serve is power itself. That will be National's eventual undoing: the task for Labour is to uncover that moral bankruptcy, expose it, and persuade the public of its reality.

The task then for the progressive Left is to stop tilting at shadows. Some of you wish that National would relapse into Ruth Richardson style politics. Get over it. The Nats are not mad and they are not stupid. There will be no front line neo-liberal assault from these people. There will only be what it takes to win and to be popular.

While it is hard to fight this in some ways, in other ways the left should be glad. It is better for New Zealand to have this sort of National government than the sort that governed in the 90s and shattered our society with hammer blows we are still recovering from. It is also better than the sort of National government which bankrupted the country in the 1970s and 80s. It will do less economic damage and less social harm.

What it will not do is make progress, and that is what we need to show and to promise to deliver. In so doing, we have to call this what it is: a National government with power at the heart of its ambition for New Zealand.

Comments

[Oliver]

A few things for you Jordan:

1) You are so blinded by your tribalism that you read pragmatism to be some sort of evil conspiracy.

2) By far and away the dirtiest thing ever done by any NZ govt in the last 100 years was the Electoral Finance Act so don't you think for a second that you have any credibility talking about dirty tricks or plotting for power.

3) You talk about National bankrupting NZ but both this National Govt and the previous one inherited massive deficits from you beloved Labour Party.

4) John Key's govt dosn't have the far-right secret agenda that Labour tried to trick us all into believing in so do't think that the conspiricy tactic will work any better.

[Jordan Carter]

Oliver, I don't know what you're reading, but I didn't allege any bankruptcy or any conspiracy. I simply allege a lack of vision and principle - being in power is the foundation of what National exists to do. It's the very opposite of a conspiracy.

Leading on from which: how on *earth* is that a "tribal" statement? I have never hated the National Party: I just think they're a bunch of boring, middle class people who hate my party and its vision of a fairer country. There is nothing wrong with that. There's just nothing right with it either.

As for the EFA: that is the most ridiculous accusation that can be made in politics in this country. If anyone is a blind tribalist, it is the person who thinks - let alone writes - such a thing. How a level playing field in the law on spending for elections is "dirty" is utterly beyond me. The only problems with the EFA were the way we did it, and the fact it was poorly drafted and thus hard to work within.

You've got a major problem with your ethics, though, if you think it was "dirty".

[Principessa]

"2) By far and away the dirtiest thing ever done by any NZ govt in the last 100 years was the Electoral Finance Act so don't you think for a second that you have any credibility talking about dirty tricks or plotting for power."

I dunno- I always thought selling off- what was it?- something like 13,000 State Houses in the 90's was pretty dirty.

[Dolan]

Hi Oliver. The EFA is the dirtiest thing ever done by a nz government in the last 100 years??? I barely know where to start. Principessa reckons that would be State House sales. Personally, I would lean heavily towards Sidney Holland's 1951 waterfront lockout breaking measures that made refusing overtime an illegal strike, giving a loaf of bread to a hungry neighbour and reporting both sides of a story in the media. But hey, either or will do. You possess a staggering lack of perspective my friend.

[Dolan]

I obviously meant Holland made it illegal to give bread to your neighbour and report both sides of the dispute, in case the above did not make that clear.

[Oliver]

Fair call I actually forgot all about the waterfront lockout. But whatever your view on selling state houses that didn't constitute a dirty political trick like the EFA. It was a law designed to disadvantage one political party and condemned by such authorities as the Chief of the Electoral Comission and the top Human Rights watchdogs. It was also replete with changes desingned just to suit Labour such as specifically changing it so that Owen Glenn was still eligible to donate.

As for Jordan being tribal in this post is that you blindly believe National is morally bankrupt, it your refusal to accept that a leader can be pragmatic it must be some trick for Labour to expose. Your post appears to be driven by emotion rather than reason.

[Jordan Carter]

Oliver: you keep putting words in my mouth that I have not written. That says something about you but it doesn't say anything about me.

Let me try again. National was formed to oppose the Labour Party. It did that fairly consistently until like Labour, it was taken over by some crazy neo-liberals. Both our parties' fourth governments enacted a radical, extreme programme of change to the right.

Now that that project has been shown to be bankrupt, and not able to be sustained democratically, both parties have reverted to type. Labour in NZ is a moderate, liberal-social democratic party. National is a liberal-conservative party. National wants society to stay the same or drift in a slightly more conservative direction. Labour wants society to become more equal.

Nothing is morally bankrupt in either position. I have not alleged that it is. It is not tribal to identify the reason-for-being of a political party. It is not "blind" to analyse what National is doing. It is not unreasonable to criticise the right in politics.

You aren't going to persuade me or anyone else on this blog if you just make blunt assertions that have nothing to do with what you claim to be trying to critique.

[Jordan Carter]

Hmm, that's embarrassing. I did call them morally bankrupt. Mea culpa. It was unbecoming hyperbole.

[ropata]

Jordan,
Of course National has a different vision than Labour. Being "not-Labour" is not the definition of evil is it? Helen and the previous Govt pulled NZ significantly towards the left, which was mostly a good thing. Be happy that National is far more moderate than at any time since Muldoon, this is a successful effect of MMP. Labour lost the mandate of the electorate by ramming through two pieces of deeply unpopular legislation in typical high-handed fashion. Their public statements on both issues (S59/EFA) were basically dishonest and self-serving.

As to your claims of National being power-crazed, it tends to go with the territory of political animals. But at least the Nats are making a distinct effort to demonstrate some accountability, and a proper legislative process. Unlike the previous administration which appeared content to ignore rational argument and demonise anyone who questioned the Labour/NZF/Green axis.

Yes there's plenty of people around still annoyed with Labour, it would pay to listen to them rather than continually trying to "re-educate" everybody.

[Brett Dale]

National is off to a good start, if they do a good job in the next three years, they deserve a second term.

[Peter Wilson]

Yep - the Left will be fighting the National party in its strongest historical mode - where the liberal and conservative elements (best represented by John Key and Bill English respectively) outweigh the radical and the nutty. The last time National was operating under this setting they got four terms, although the economic circumstances were vastly different (and John Key is no Sir Keith Holyoake).

So, good for NZ, but serious challenges for the NZLP.

[cmburns]

Good Lord

Do you actually believe the drivel you write ....... get out of politics and go and do some good in the world.

[leftstuffed]

"National's purpose is to be not-Labour in government.

They'll do whatever they think can deliver that. It will be dressed up, eventually, in some swish narrative that appeals to some Kiwi values" Jordan Carter 11-Feb 2009

well, Jordan, really. Doesn't this take one eyed partisanship to a new leve?

i mean, would Helen really have hung on to Winston that long if the leadership of the NZLP hadn't of thought he would magically break through five percent? what else was her rhetoric of "giving the man a chance" and "innocent until proved guilty", but a swish narrative designed to appeal to some Kiwi Values?

The previous Liabour Government invented the game you talk of, winning at all cost, and would dearly love to be still playing it. Instead those kiwi values you talk of saw through the pretence that was Liabour, and gave someone else a chance. A party with integrity. they didn't make a pledge card (taxpayer funded or not), but they've kept their election promises, which makes a refreshing change.

[dave]

This blog is supposed to be " Labour views on New Zealand Politics". You are outl of touch with your own Party, Jordan. Helen Clark is no longer the leader. Its a bit silly to write as if she is.

[Clint Heine]

Love it Jordan! So you accuse the Nats of doing anything to be in power - kind of like how Labour did everything to get themselves out of power and leave behind their scorched earth policy. Hey, you started it with saying "shibboleths"!

But come on, both the Nats and Labour have values - Labour does not have exclusivity on that. Just as when Labour left NZ in dire straits in 1999 - which you forget a little too easily. What worries me is how Labour had no fear in radically nationalising rail when over 15 points behind in the polls on election year. A cunning plan to hurt the incoming National Govt?

Get over it, National and Labour are two sides of the same coin. I gave up trying to see where one party started and where each ended as you guys are more similar than you would like. :)

[Tim]

Jordan, in the first term 1999-2002 I thought Helen and Labour were great, in the second term they were doing a reasonable job but the gloss wore off and then in the third term they were just plain wrong. So I voted against them (rather than 'for' national) at the last election because I'd had enough of their sanctimonious self-righteousness.
Thanks for confirming I made the right choice.