Labour's future

(warning, long post) 

I caught Tane's parting shot as he announced (sadly) that he is leaving The Standard to get his life back. In his own level headed and non-bollocks style, he said:

It’s fair to say there’s also a certain disillusionment with New Zealand politics. Aside from all the usual nonsense, it’s disheartening to be writing left-wing politics when neither party of the Left is in any fit state to support.

As a Green voter and supporter who has handed out their flyers, stuffed their envelopes and put up their hoardings over the last few elections I’ve found their recent turn quite hard to swallow. I simply can’t support them so long as they’re propping up a right-wing government and their leader thinks running sectarian smears and National Party lines is a good strategy to promote progressive values. I’m sure the Greens will find their way in time, but it’s going to be a bumpy ride and it’ll probably be without Russel Norman.

Labour, on the other hand, just seems utterly bereft of vision. In the midst of the greatest economic crisis of our age, when they should be putting forward a bold alternative vision, Labour doesn’t seem have a clue where it’s going. Their miserable poll ratings don’t so much represent a rejection of their platform as a complete lack of relevance. As the world wakes up to the fact the policies of Reagan and Thatcher were a gigantic swindle by the rich, Labour still seems haunted by the ghost of 1984.

DimPost commented on it too, and added this:

I’d argue that left-wing bloggers are more relevant now than ever since they’re now in a position to critique the government instead of apologise for it, and the primary left-wing party is off on it’s own, weird journey into political irrelevance and oblivion leaving a great void for progressive voices to fill.

I am always interested when I read comments like this. Part of the purpose of the Labour Party is to be a credible voice for progressive politics that progressive people regard as being on the right track.

It seems obvious in retrospect that our alliance with Winston Peters and NZ First in the last Parliament did some serious harm to that part of Labour's reputation, both with non-aligned progressives and particularly with supporters of the Green Party. The Labour leadership made a call about the stability and sustainability of the government it wanted to run, and we now live with the consequences.

I won't declare I am happy with the state of Labour. Who could be right now?

We got beaten in last year's election for five or six broadly credible and understandable reasons. We face the unpleasant and somewhat daunting task of rebuilding our party, our policy agenda and our reputation in the face of a very popular government that people think is quite centrist. And we do so having baggage with both of the political parties with whom we will need to build rapport and support to form a government in the future.

One glimmer of hope is the Mt Albert by-election. The seat is part of the Labour heartland and the only surprising result would be a loss for us. Another glimmer is the fact that the party is genuinely out listening (e.g. the workshop Clare Curran held on copyright policy, or Phil Twyford on aid issues; the caucus regional visits programme, and so on) and has acknowledged that things were not perfect in the last government. They never are of course, so the statement of the obvious is not really a surprise. It's welcome nonetheless.

Our current position, though, overall, is not an easy place for a progressive activist to be. The challenge is big. It is however a necessary place. The Labour Party would be written off forever if the progressive and industrial left were not prepared to rebuild it. It is clear that we are, and so the question is what kind of party we seek to build and with whom we seek to do it.

When we have got it right, bloggers like Tane and blogs like Dim Post will be supporting, or supportive of, Labour. Labour will be in the lead in the polls. Labour will have strong and deep political relationships with other parties of the centre and left that will allow it to form a government.

What would that Labour Party look like? It will be an open and energised organisation, with a big membership and good resources - staff, dollars, communications collateral etc. It will be an organisation where people know they can debate issues and express different points of view and that in so doing, their contribution will be respected. It will be deeply connected to the communities it seeks to represent and will have an authentic voice when speaking for them.

Now, some of that is already here. Some of it is on the way. Some of it requires major changes in how the party operates. The party under Helen's leadership was never the closed shop of legend, but like every long-term government there was some degree of disconnect between the party organsiation and the government by the end of its time in office. That's down to the pressures of being in government, and now that those pressures no longer apply the obvious re-integration is well under way.

There is another aspect though which will be the hardest for Labour, as the major party of the centre-left, to come to grips with. The world has changed with the current global financial crisis. The impending doom of the climate crisis has also not gone away. These both spell out major crises for the neo-liberal paradigm of economic management that guided New Zealand from 1984.

Low taxes, free trade, light-handed regulation, a restricted role for the state, a residualist welfare system. That canon of how to run a political economy is etched deep in the soul of New Zealand, and the Labour Party is part of that consensus. The conditions that gave rise to that consensus no longer apply, but they shaped the experience and perspectives of everyone who is a senior person in politics today.

That paradigm delivered good levels of economic growth, and with the adjustments Labour made during the fifth Labour Government, began to deliver improvements to public services and to the distribution of income in the community too.

But it was never a paradigm that could permit the fuller expression of a social democratic society here. It could never tolerate the levels of public spending and taxation, the quality of public services, the degree of employment security and minimal unemployment, and the role of the state in changing the direction of the economy towards a more productive future, that remains the raison d'etre of the Labour Party.

Now the stuffing is knocked out of the model and we need another one. This is the greatest opportunity that social democracy has had since the 1930s to build a new consensus around building a more egalitarian, more human society. Labour has to rise to the challenge.

The challenge I ask progressive readers of this blog to consider is this: what are you going to do to make that happen? 

Will you simply write on the 'net and avoid the dirty reality of joining a party and changing it?

Or will you choose to make a difference?

Comments

[George D]

Long post, long comment. Apologies if I ramble. And thank you for listening, it's genuinely appreciated.

"Low taxes, free trade, light-handed regulation, a restricted role for the state, a residualist welfare system. That canon of how to run a political economy is etched deep in the soul of New Zealand, and the Labour Party is part of that consensus."

"That paradigm delivered good levels of economic growth"

To which I would add 'economic growth on the basis of resource use' for a complete description of where Labour and National are at. I think that the Greens incorporate elements of all of the above, unfortunately.

That description is neo-liberalism. It was always neo-liberalism with a strong social welfare component (with limits) under Labour.

That growth was heavily funded by consumer debt, and massive current account deficits. It went on plasma TVs and larger loans, and while the people were spending, they seemed happy, and when they were happy Labour was happy.

What does Labour need to do? For a start, it needs to look at ways to decouple growth from resource use, and recognise that economic growth is a pretty poor indicator of happiness. Things like time spent with family matter far more.

It also needs to re-regulate the labour market, and do it in a way that entrenches things. We had the 40 hour week, it got thrown out the window, and Labour never went looking for it. It's been too easy for National to dismantle the ERA, which was the result of Labour's 2000 backdown to business. There are many other protections that need to occur. For example, workplace exposure to chemicals - this was something that desperately needed addressing, but workers had to fight for compensation, and the Labour Government was desperate not to recognise them. I've worked as a painter, and that job would have given me brain damage had I stayed there (workers joked that those who stayed in the job saw this happen). High quality filtered masks should be part of the job, for example.

In 9 years, Labour never tackled the underclass, not like they needed to. There are still children going hungry, not getting to school, and growing up cold and sick. Reducing unemployment and increasing growth was going to improve the lives of many, but there were always going to many left behind. Labour refused to listen to Susan St. John and CPAG, and didn't have time for the Anglican Social Justice Commission either. Setting aside a whole day to listen to these would be a start.

I'd also look to put diseases caused by occupational exposure under ACC (if Labour gets back in time to save ACC). And then considering covering other diseases which debilitate and hold people back from participating in society. Expensive, but the cost of not doing so is more so. Also something that would put NZ at the forefront of social-democratic systems.

Put dental care into the public health system as well. Again expensive, but NZ deserves its health. (and one new road could fund a _lot_ of dental work)

Having only four tax brackets was a disaster. I strongly maintain that National would not be able to do what they are doing now, and would not have gained so much traction last year, if Labour had introduced more progressivity into the tax system. There should be a zero-tax bracket at the bottom, and a top tax rate that catches the highest earnings.

If there were further restrictions on media, you'd have a situation more like Australia: as a result of two genuinely public broadcasters you have a much higher quality of public debate. The media in NZ is something that just makes me despair. I'm not sure Labour can do much about this, just saying.

You can't simply lock people up forever. It's expensive, and it doesn't work - it causes more victims. Someone needs to tell Phil Goff that.

Stripping every human right from immigrants and refugees so you can deport a few more every year is not good practice. New Zealand is a country of immigration, and it should find ways to increase the number of talented people who come here. Also looking at ways to decrease the racism encountered - the number of well qualified people here who can't get jobs because their qualifications, experience, or accent is considered not 'local' enough is a travesty. Again, not sure how to tackle that, but Labour needs to try.

The insulation funding was excellent. The Greens should not have had to fight tooth and nail to get it, but Labour front footing it once they realised it was a popular policy warmed my heart. More of this kind of thing. Cost effective public welfare initiatives that are popular. It's a dirty word in NZ since Muldoon, and should never be the sole criteria, but the cost/benefit analysis is incredibly useful. I'd like to see a technocratic Government with a heart.

Here's another suggestion - a subsidy/rebate/tax-incentive/other-instrument given to those who purchase or use bicycles. It should also apply to riding related accessories. The Danish offer a good model. Given the costs (roads, health, pollution) and benefits, this should be a no-brainer. If 10% or more of the population rode, the need for highways would be substantially reduced. John Key was joking when he suggested a cyclelane for the country, but bicycle related investment is worth it.

The GE thing could have been handled differently (it isn't a major issue for me, but it pained me to see that bring Peter Dunne into Govt.) Backing down to the farmers on belching cows was a bad move which just gave them and National more courage, and alienating Maori on the Seabed and Foreshore caused major rifts between Labour and much of your constituency.

s59 was incredibly brave, and Labour did it because it was right. It weathered civil unions and prostitution with little harm, and thought it would be third time lucky. I was out of the country and did not have to suffer the roar of reaction, and don't know how it could have been differently. With retrospect it's easy to say this. It also makes me realise that the Government is constrained in what it can do. I recognise this, and try and only make suggestions that I think are going to be doable, economically and politically. And of course, there is little point in making changes that are undone 18 months later because they contribute to a National Government being elected.

To the extent that I write on the net, it is because my interactions with MPs are unsatisfactory. People I know who aren't party affiliated (partisan) started to feel that their concerns, ideas, opinions, and suggestions were not being considered after about 2003 or so, and seriously alienated from Labour MPs by about 2007. If you're speaking of a disconnect, think about what it's like to be a critic of a policy, who is *perceived* to be hostile. I do take politics seriously, enough to be involved (although since getting to Australia my membership has expired - I'd rather be an active member, and want to be able to talk to people).

And finally, New Zealand politicians need to stop using the "best in the world" rhetoric they're fond of. Helen Clark loved the intimation. It's harmful because it breeds arrogance, and stops MPs from looking openly around the world, accepting that others do many things better, and we can learn. A large part of the problem I had with Dunne and Peters was that their politics were afraid of good ideas. NZ can be the best country in the world, but we've got a way to go. I hope that Labour can help get us there.

[Lew]

Short comment, but linking to a longish one :)

A very interesting and contemplative post, Jordan, thank you. Somewhat different in scope but I think considering some of the same questions as in my post Whither Labour? (though providing a preferred answer, and without the hackneyed rugby analogy).

L

[Lew]

Hm, it seems that the URL from my comment above has been dropped; excuse my linkwhoring: http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/02/whither-labour

L

[GPT]

"It seems obvious in retrospect that our alliance with Winston Peters and NZ First in the last Parliament did some serious harm to that part of Labour's reputation, both with non-aligned progressives and particularly with supporters of the Green Party."

To be fair a fair few of us who were around on the other side in 1999 can relate to that particular conundrum!

[burt]

Jordan

Some healthy reflection is a good thing. I think you should ask yourself this question: Is Labour the party for you Jordan?

As much as I have reveled from time to time in the way being a Labour card carrier puts you at odds with your own ideology it's not good for your soul Jordan.

[ropata]

Labour appeared to forget its egalitarian principles in the bubble years. It was too scared to implement a capital gains tax, and too enamoured of foreign capital sloshing around and pumping up the local property market. It felt good for a while, but a lot of people missed the party. Labour must identify with the 'have-nots' again to regain its soul.

[Jordan Carter]

Burt - given that I believe in building a more equal society as the fundamental basis of my politics, and that I think diversity is a good thing in and of itself as well as for what it gains us as a nation, I am intrigued by your comment. My debate in the 90s was between joining the Alliance and joining the Labour Party. I am absolutely confident of my choice and am totally committed to Labour.

Are you suggesting another party would be a better fit?

GPT - heh.

Ropata - hmm. Labour needs to identify with everyone who wants to build a more equal society, where everybody has the chance to make the best of themselves. If we restrict ourselves to appealing to the "have nots" then we will not be able to form a government.

Lew and George - more in a tick.

[Jordan Carter]

George - interesting thoughts and hard to respond to cohesively in one piece. I don't agree with some of your analysis (did Labour care about the underclass and do some things about it? Yes, and the decline in child poverty helps to show the result) but do agree with other parts (esp. how do we decouple the economy from resource use).

Having been an internal critic of some policy issues, and well established in the party, I can only imagine what it was like to be treated externally as hostile. Not pleasant and part of the situation that needs to change, as discussed in my post.

Lew - I will comment on your post.

[George Darroch]

Jordan, I don't think Labour took poverty seriously, and I stand by that remark. I am particularly appalled by the difference between the rhetoric of Labour on poverty and their lack of concerted action. While I'm sure you care, a number of MPs make it their business to care, and the Labour Party grassroots cares, after the first few years of office the Labour Government really didn't give the issue much attention. I've heard plenty of fine words from Ruth Dyson and others. But words don't mean a thing.

You talk about a disconnect, and this is just such an example. Why did the country feel that Labour was out of touch, things were still bad, the country had not been fixed, crime was still rising (even though it wasn't), and that Maori and Pacific communities still had serious problems. The continued presence of poverty was a driver behind all of those 'feelings'. Why could Key walk down a Mt Albert st and talk about poverty and not have the media laugh at him? Because Labour weren't taking the issue sufficiently seriously.

I'll also happily show you round Favona next time I'm in Auckland, and show you the serious problems that Labour failed (or refused) to address in any serious manner. They're glaring.

Now, I know that Labour can't do everything. I also know that you need to make decisions and prioritise, and some things are more expensive than others. But many of the simpler changes would have been cheap, costing millions or even tens of millions. Others could have been phased in over time. A lot, certainly, but when compared to the social costs, and when compared to other things that Labour prioritised (new warships and prisons, for example), the justification was compelling. They could even have been funded by a tax rate on the highest earners...

I sincerely urge you to read the report of the children's comissioner. http://www.occ.org.nz/home/childpoverty It contains a number of recommendations, none of which received genuine support from the minister in the weeks or months afterwards, as far as I could tell. I'm happy to be proved wrong.

Growing the economy, raising employment levels, the minimum wage, and income related rents, are a start and all needed to happen. Poverty among working people reduced significantly, and Labour deserves praise for this. Perhaps if this wasn't a post asking for advice on where Labour could do better, I'd spend more time talking about what you did right. But these changes don't automagically bring all children out of poverty.

The Minister last year brushed off the report when it was released, and claimed that the figures were wrong, despite them coming from her own ministry. It told me everything I needed to know. The Labour Party repeatedly refused to include children from families whose caregivers did not work into Working For Families, and actively discriminated against them. It also peversely redefined "employment" as working one hour per week or more, hiding huge amounts of underemployment and the hundreds of thousands living in poverty and struggling to put food on the table. It refused to ban loan-sharks. It refused to get pokies out of my community, or even implement basic measures to reduce their harm. It actively promoted problem gambling products. State-housing was built, but hardly enough. The accomodation supplement is still based on 2003 levels and Labour did not raise it since, despite huge increases in housing costs. Labour refused to implement a capital gains tax which would have kept house prices within reach of ordinary New Zealanders, and rents reasonable. It didn't intervene to stop kids going to school hungry (either by feeding them directly or giving their parents food grants). It refused to take away abatements on benefits, making getting off one through part-time work more difficult than it needs to be. WINZ staff still treat beneficiaries like utter shit (I know, I had the misfortune to be unemployed two years ago, and have never been treated with less dignity), and the rules which make it very difficult to survive are deliberately left in place. You've got a system which is half Richardsonesque, half social democratic. Your comment to Ropata about not dealing with the "have-nots" for fear of offending the rest of the population is telling.

I know a young woman on an unemployment benefit living in Auckland who scavenges through skip bins to get enough food to eat, and when she can get a WINZ food grant (few and far between), she buys food she can sell in order to pay for other essential services. These are under Labour Party laws, not National ones. So when you tell me that Labour addressed poverty, I can only say that they addressed only half the problem. I'm sure you'll say that Labour did care, and if only you'd been in power for another decade or two you would have got round to addressing these issues...

Now, no doubt for the next three or six years Labour will talk about poverty, talk about how John Key is failing New Zealand, and how it's appalling that people are suffering. You'll talk about the good things you'll do, and how the country deserves better. These words will make you feel good about yourselves and help you get back into power. And when you get back into power you'll roll back National's changes and roll out a few more. But until I see solid announced policy changes, forgive me for having absolutely zero faith that you won't do as badly the next time as you did the last.

[Jordan Carter]

George, I don't disagree with most of what you write. But for every person you can point to who is still suffering, I can point to someone else who is in a much better position thanks to the work that we did. I know that we were moving in the right direction in many areas, which is why I am proud of what we did achieve.

But the flip side is that the job is never done. And please, don't patronise me by offering to show me around Favona. I grew up in Manurewa, and family and friends are still there. This is not "another world" for me. It is where my roots are and the anger at what the neoliberal experiment did to those communities helps to drive my politics. I've also been on the dole before, for a fairly unpleasent three month stint, and didn't exactly get a friendly smile from the WINZ staffer either.

A further point. Labour could tomorrow announce a policy of increased income taxes and GST increases to put benefits on the real level they were in 1991, and to really redistribute income to those who need it most. If we did so, what we would be guaranteeing in today's context is that we were unelectable. People would not wear it.

The entire purpose of my post was to point out that if we want to be able to do things like abolish poverty, or make tertiary education free, or offer everyone top quality warm dry homes... we need to be able to win the debates about those things and what pays for them. We need to decide we want to do them and then prosecute the argument until we persuade the public they are good things to do.

Persuading the public and deciding on what is a relatively radical approach do not come about because of someone demanding they should. They only occur when hundreds and thousands of people are working for them.

Labour can't do that on its own. And it would be a different type of Labour Party that decided it wanted to go down that road. Which is why the party needs to change.

Most of your complaints are about a job not yet done. Most Labour people would agree with you. It is not a simple "we don't want to go there" that stopped us. Consider that, please, and throw back at me how it is you take a broad, centre left political party, and ask it to throw back a consensus of thirty years that allowed it to achieve some of its goals.

For that is what has to be done.