Labour Conference approaches

Interesting Colin James thoughts on this in the paper this morning. A few snippets:

Don't look for despondency at the Labour Party's conference this weekend. This is not a party in mourning. It is a party sensing opportunity. In part that is due to the influx of 14 able, mostly younger, MPs, in part due to the clean leadership changeover straight after the election, matched by a quick transition at the top of the party outside Parliament, and in part due to the Mt Albert by- election success. 

...

Labour's challenge, starting this weekend, is not just to cobble policy for 2011, which is easily done, but to develop policy which will be modern nine years on from 2014. That requires fundamental rethinking of the baby- boomers' line. Labour has yet to show it can meet that bigger challenge.

The dominant policy tone of the past 50 years has been civil, moral and economic liberty. Our sorts of societies and economies have been deeply transformed by deregulation. That is the baby-boomers' legacy.

In the economy, this deregulation, accompanied by the increasingly rapid development of a transformational technology - information technology - gave us a bubble-boom, followed, as all such bubble-booms have been, by a financial crash. It was also accompanied by a spike in income and wealth inequality, as previous technology-driven bubbles have been.

...

But note, for example, that John Key has appointed pre-baby-boomer Don Brash and baby- boomer Mr Caygill to guide us to wealth parity with Australia. He has reached to the past, not the future, thereby giving some credence to Victoria University academic Jon Johannson's argument that Mr Key and Bill English are not a new generation of policy leaders but the tail end of the baby-boom - transitional, not transformational.

Of course, the transformational thinkers who generate the post-crash policy revolution are not likely to be found in this country (though it is not impossible). The problem for politicians here is which major party can tune into them and translate their ideas to local conditions.

That is what Labour's 20-and-30- somethings conferring this weekend might ponder. Those watching from National's side might, too.

I often agree with much of what James writes. He is certainly an acute observer of what happens in NZ politics. 

One thing he's definitely right about is that the Labour Party conference won't be downbeat. It might be smaller than in recent years - that's what election losses do - but the party is chipper and starting to look carefully at where it goes next and why.

After all when you lose, you have to look hard at yourself, as well as working what your opponents did better than you. And so a little bit of that will be in order in Rotorua this coming weekend.

Comments

[Chris Diack]

“I often agree with much of what James writes. He is certainly an acute observer of what happens in NZ politics.”

Dripping with insincerity given that James obviously interviewed you and quoted you. Perhaps modesty prevented you from quoting James quoting you.

This basic thesis (baby boomers = old outmoded thinking) and new bright young things like you equals new thinking and our future is very suspect.

Very very poor analysis.

Some ideas are timeless they not based on any particular generational analysis. Brash's economic liberalism is much bigger than Brash - it has more or less conquered leftwing parties who now have limited room to move on economic fundamentals.

Labour isn’t so far generating any new thinking on major public policy issues. True Labour is still limping from the last election but the bigger issue is that the modern Labour party is basically a status quo conservative (small ‘c’) party. These sort of parties seldom produce much new thinking.

The other issue is that Labour still romanticises Clark. It has not internalised her rejection; Labour analysis is that voters basically got it wrong last election and will come right.

She may well be to Labour as Thatcher was to the Conservatives. Labour will need to decisively move on.

Sometimes James is insightful; sometimes not but he is always very Wellington (the real pulse of politics in New Zealand is Auckland - James has never understood Auckland). At Labour’s regional conference in Auckland in 1986 he told me that Labour was in trouble in 1987 and that Jack Elder would definitely loose his West Auckland seat.

[Clint Heine]

If I was a Labour member I'd be very worried. I'd be saying the same if any party was in the same situation as Labour are right now.

A change of leadership is the only answer to it. Key is teaching the veteran a few lessons and Goff will never beat Key at election time. Labour is still hanging onto its past, even through its new MPs, all of whom have connections with Helen as well. You need a new leader who is willing to stamp new authority over the party, not one who is fixing up the wrongs done by Helen.

[Phil Saxby]

Chris Diack and Clint Heine should stop wasting their time posting on this blog. How many years is it since they went to a Labour conference? It's 15 years or more since I did, until this year, and the Rotorua conference was inspirational compared to our conferences in the 80s and 90s.
The combination of Key and English is strong and smart, so far, but behind them trail a line up with weak links for all to see. And obviously the Goff/King team cannot overnight replace Clark/Cullen in public esteem, but hell, they have two years!
Anyone who was at the conference could feel the energy. And remember, old age and cunning can always beat youth and enthusiasm! Right now, Labour has a lot of both working for it. Roll on 2011.

[Jordan Carter]

Chris Diack - keep thinking what you're thinking. It will make our job easier, for you are so far off the mark it's close to amusing.

Clint - you may have missed it, but we had a leadership change. Nobody's planning on another one any time soon.

[Clint Heine]

Willing to bet on Goff lasting til the next election? He probably already knows he has less than 2 years left in his job.