What must Labour do?

As the fog of war lifts, you can see more clearly the contours of what has happened in the recent past.

We lost in 2008 for reasons I have canvassed before - people thought we were focused on issues that weren't important to them; we'd been in office for a long time; there was a recession; people had fallen out of love with our political style; some of our policies were not working out or were unpopular; and failures of political management added on top of this combustible pushed us over the edge.

That's what we did wrong. The Nats also did things right: they really did move to the centre, and they selected a leader who people like. Actually, they *really* like him - for the time being anyway.

We do have strengths though. People generally get the message that we ran the economy well, that health and education got better, that we ran a foreign affairs policy people can be proud of, and that we had a capable government that was doing its best for the people.

The Labour Party thus enters 2010 in a reasonably good position. Last year we managed total leadership change in the caucus and the organisation, we managed to get our fourteen new MPs working well, and we spent a lot of time out around the traps listening to people.

Our task this year, to be blunt, is to listen to what people have been saying, and to go beyond listening, and into reflecting back the things we are hearing and seeing what people think. Instead of listening and saying "that's nice", we have to say, "we've heard you and this is what we think."

That's policy, in some areas, but it is also in the politics or statecraft of the party. For better or worse, the fifth Labour government was a baby boomer government. The political methods of the 70s and 80s were those which ran it: it was tightly managed and focused.

I get the sense though that people are looking now for something a little different. Some in Labour look at Key's hands off approach and see a weakness. I see a strength. The rise of ICT, the end of "deference" towards authority, and growing generations of people who are as comfortable online as offline mean that a political party that is centralised and top down cannot really capture the public imagination.

What Labour must do is turn itself inside out. As we say "this is what we are hearing, what do you think?", we also have to invite people in to join with us and help shape what we are doing next. We have to use the best technology there is to do it, as well as the traditional means of face to face and direct mail politics. We need to be the party that people see as grassroots based, and where they know that if they want to raise an issue or a concern, it will filter through to what our policy is and what our politicians are saying and thinking.

We have to do this if we are to be relevant, and if we want to win there is nothing more important than being relevant.

When people broadly think that the Labour Party is the party that they can shape, that listens to them, and that reflects their concerns and hopes and aspirations in the nation's politics, then we will know we are on the right track.

It's not about rejecting what we did when last in government; it's about setting up the next government in a way that is relevant to people.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this agenda plays out over the coming months.

- Jordan

Comments

[Pete]

From an outsider looking in, that pretty well alignss with my view of the state of Labour.

You still need to develop more small enterprise friendly policies and get rid of the wealth envy mental block.

I would suggest Labour has yet to totally eliminate the "They will all realise the big mistake in electing National and come back to Labour" thinking.
The main thing right now is for Labour to become an effective, positive opposition, to ensure we get the best performance out of National!

[Lew]

Jordan, thank you for this little bit of sanity. I've recently argued much the same thing, but from a somewhat different angle.

I have two objections, though: Labour can't just reflect society's wishes, it has to lead and inspire as well. A good part of the reason Labour was voted out in 2008 was because of this leadership, and a recalibration is neeed, but it is imperative that the party does not become gun-shy. There's no use taking a chameleon approach of adopting the positions the electorate says they want adopted; politics-by-focus-group is short-termism.

And related to that, Labour also needs to decide who it represents, and needs to set about representing them with policy, and (more importantly) convincing those people that they can trust Labour to act in their interests. At present the target demographic appears to be 'everyone', which is a nice rhetorical position to take but honestly, if they're not angering some part of the electorate then they're probably not doing as much as possible to inspire the rest of it. This will mean making some tough policy choices, and some much tougher choices of political and ideological allegiance. I've made clear which I'd abandon and why, but ultimately that's a decision for the party. Let the faction-wars begin.

L

[GNZ]

I'm more with Lew than Pete. Labour needs to lead with some bold policies somthing that Gets some of the public excited and be willing to piss off the others.

Either somthing big with long term effects that national cant bring itself to copy - like capital gains taxes or somthing social/cultural - if national stumble into their own version of the 'anti smacking bill' debate.

Remember Labour is behind, far behind, and national know it - if it upsets noone and inspires no one national won't either and labour will drift to defeat (probably 2 defeats).

[Craig Ranapia]

I'm more with Lew than Pete. Labour needs to lead with some bold policies somthing that Gets some of the public excited and be willing to piss off the others.

Then again, to play devil's advocate for a moment, that's exactly what the tea-bagged GOP is doing. And who knows, perhaps it's going to work for the Palinistas this November, but I don't know if that's a road Labour really wants to follow. I think we'd all be better off if Goff and Pagani had a nice long rest and that 'Nationhood' speech turns out to be a regrettable, but short-lived, aberration.

[Lew]

Craig, I couldn't agree more! This is what I meant when I said that the party needs to decide who it represents and set about representing them. Nationhood lite wasn't any such sort of reinvention, just political monkey see-monkey-do.

L

[GNZ]

Well... WE may be better off if Labour shuffles quietly into the night - but Labour won't be.

Also I don't think the nationhood argument is one that Labour can get much traction on - if for nothing else, because if they did national could comfortably slip a bit 'rightwards'. They need to pick a better idea than that one.

[Lew]

GNZ, even if you hate and despise Labour, are you really that keen on National that you trust them to govern responsibly if not faced with a credible opposition?

L

[Jordan Carter]

Lew - thanks for the feedback. I'm always pretty clear in my own mind, if not in everything I write (you can only fit so many caveats in a piece before it gets tedious), that Labour's mission remains social democratic. We seek to use democratic politics to bring about a more equal society. That is our distinctive mission and it is what distinguises us on an ideological level from the National party, the Green party, and most other parties. It is within that mission that we need to be listening. If we are seen to stand for nothing, voters will not respect us and will certainly not elect us (and good on them).

In terms of who we represent, I have been raising internally the need to define clearly our electoral coalition. It has to be broad enough to get us over the line in terms of votes, but when you go much wider than that, you begin to make it harder to be consistent and credible with that coalition. I think that was one of the biggest mistakes made by the UK Labour Party in the Blair/Brown years. They tried to be for everyone. That doesn't work. I think we here know it wouldn't work.

Craig - I don't think I disagree with you but I may disagree with the broader point you are making. I obviously don't run Labour's strategy. Let's leave it at that. :)

GNZ - we will never shuffle off the political stage. Too many people in this country believe in a fairer society for that to happen. As for boldness, yes: but boldness on our values, not on someone else's.

[Tim Ellis]

Very important post from you Mr Carter.

I think the Labour Party need to accept that they will never govern without Maori. Maori has become the permanent kingmaker. Labour need to accept that despite their historical connections and dominance of the Maori vote, they don't have this vote anymore. Labour have broken trust so many times with the Maori electorate and taken the Maori vote for granted for Labour to win this vote back.

The Maori Party represents almost all the Maori seats. They will form a government with whichever side can advance their interests, which means it will almost always be in Government. Unless the Labour Party embraces the Maori Party, rather than going to great steps to alienate the Maori Party, Labour doesn't have a chance of forming a government in the foreseeable future.

I don't believe, Mr Carter, that your prescription for forming an alliance with its base is viable. Mr Key's government is successful because he reached across the divide, forming governing relationships even with parties that have been directly hostile to National. The Labour Party stands alone on the outer of government now. Perhaps Labour could learn this lesson of forming a government where the widest possible sections of community have a say, rather than just cynically building the smallest possible majority to govern.

[Doug]

Jordon Labours supporters are not helping your cause, the rabid Dogs at the Standard, Labour must be proud of the Shiite that is reported there. Then you have Matt Mc Carten a Unionist coming from far left very occasionally he makes sense then you have Chris Trotter another from the far left he more often than not comes from Mars. People who read these so called labour supporters just lose faith Phil should round them up and get them to pull their Heads in and work for the cause.
PS: Red Alert is not much better they delete any post they don’t agree with, just trying to converse with the converted. It’s a real shame because the idea is a good one.

[GNZ]

Lew,
Well I dont hate labour - sometimes I vote for them. My point was just to get past people confusing what is good for them and with what is good for the group to which they are giving advice.

Jordan,
Yes it needs to be left of center boldness and your comment to Lew indicates 'you' are heading in the right direction in trying to not be everything to everyone. The bad news, ofcourse, is that you might need to annoy a smallish group that appear to be part of your current coalition (I don't have any in mind).

Tim,
I think you are mistaken - the Maori were not the king maker this election and given a choice will go with Labour next time unless goff goes crazy in terms of his one nation strategy. Nationals move to form a wider coalition was a good idea just like labours choice to go with NZfirst (prima face at the time).

Doug,
While I agree that deleting posts is generally a badthing I'm not sure it sets back redalert - how many of the people who's posts they delete has more than a trivial chance of being converted? In blog debates I have almost never seen anyone actually outright change their position and politics is probably the worst topic for that. The best you can hope for is to find people with no fixed position and convince them of yours.

[Doug]

So funny Red Alert puts its own into moderation.

Spud says:
January 20, 2010 at 6:37 pm
@ Anne, Paul, A Mother. I’ve been thrown into moderation and am only allowed two comments per day. I think this is really mean when I’ve been as supportive of this party as I could be for almost a year. I don’t abuse others. I don’t troll and I feel used. My punishment is excessive. My only crime was arguing back on a thread, which as far as I was aware was within the rules.

I’m nothing to this party.

Two comments per day per post spud. That about 12 – 16 a day when we are running at our average levels even without commenting on a second day if the debate is continuing. And in interests of transparency you should have made it clear you were warned. Trevor

[Jordan Carter]

Hey, just as a matter of etiquette, Red Alert's moderation policy is for Red Alert. I would rather not see it discussed here on Just Left.

[Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling]

"People generally get the message that we ran the economy well, that health and education got better,..."

Jordan, if you actually believe this is the case, then that is why you lost and will spend probably more than one term in opposition.

[James]

Actually one could argue that the most effective opposition to National is ACT.That is opposition to Nationals "us too" Labour lite whimpy cop outting....