A huge job; learning from the Nats - #labourleader

This post canvasses the huge job facing Labour's next leadership, and learns a few lessons from National's recent history.

 

A huge job.

It's hard to get your head around the scale of the task the next leadership team in the Labour Party faces.

At the core of the job is to create and communicate an alternative to recession economics as preached by Key and English, and to build a hopeful narrative of change and growth to counterpoint the fear/debt mix deployed so effectively by National this year.

They need to work out the ways to get that across to people who do or might vote Labour, and to maintain those messages and narratives for the whole three years, to create a climate where people want to change.

Doing the hard grunt analysis and policy work, and getting the message right, requires smart thinking and broad engagement with what's happening locally and globally. It requires great research and insight.  Fantastic political judgement, and a ruthless determination to apply our values to today, not yesterday.

The new team will need to do and talk about politics sufficiently differently that the little sparkle of interest created by the current leadership race in Labour's future carries on into the new year, and builds new membership and activism in the Party.

They need to work with the New Zealand Council see through a successful programme of reform that improves Labour's ability to organise.  That requires members/supporters and money to drive more voter contact and voter persuasion.  The reform programme also needs to improve the role of members in the party, and improve candidate selection.

They need to fend off the political depradations of NZ First to the right, and the Greens to the left; animate and energise Labour's base; and then reach out and be open to securing the votes of middle of the road voters who chose to stay with National.

They will need to pull every single Labour MP into roles they are well suited to, as spokespeople, organisers, and supporters of change throughout the Labour Party.

It's one hell of a job. 

Of all these things, I think the most important is the first one. If we don't have a credible programme of reform that can actually make people better off, then we won't be able to build the politics around it to win.

And, to be frank, it'll not be much worth winning if all we do is continue to make life worse for most people, which is exactly what National's policy framework of failure is going to do in 2011-2014.

 

Learning from the Nats.

There's the other angle too, to learn from our opponents.

Think about how Key got to where he is today.

With his attractive back story, he entered Parliament in 2002 and was finance spokesman in time to really take on (and in some ways beat) Cullen during the 2005 campaign. 

While he was doing that, the National Party organisation was restructuring itself into a far more effective body, with improved internal governance and so on.

A leader who could motivate the base was in place, leading to a sharply higher vote in 2005 and massive flows of money and membership. 

Simultaneously, despite Brash's inclinations, National was ditching the far right policies of the late 1990s and starting to talk about issues that mattered to voters.

Then Key took over in 2006, moderated further, ran a relatively unified caucus on top of a well-resourced party, and took on Clark at the end of a long Labour government as a fresh and positive face flying into dark and stormy times.

The point I suppose I am making is that the successful thing about Key isn't only his back story.  That helped voters listen to him and still does.  But he is a success because of all the other things - successful reform, big well resourced party, ideas in touch with the times.

That is why I said in my last post that we need to change, and change big time.  It's why I said there is no silver bullet in a particular leader.

We remain lucky that in the Davids, we have people who can do many of these things. I refuse to choose between them, because my voice does not count in the choice.

I'll keep posting thoughts about what I think the task is that we face, because the task does not change, regardless of who our leader is.

That task is hard stuff, and we'll all need to work together to make it happen.

Comments

[Sadesh]

I also think the party needs to get rid of the old faces such as Ruth Dyson and even Trevor Mallard. They have been around too long and people want to see fresh faces with fresh ideas. With all due respect, Mallard and co. come across as too negative and this puts people off. Labour has to also stop the personal attacks and stick to debating the issues that matter the most.

[Stephen Judd]

Interesting. I hope this series will encompass learning from the Greens too. I think part of their success in this cycle is that their processes are comparatively transparent and their members and supporters are much more engaged.

[Jim]

Do you think Labour can do it?

I've never voted Labour although they are a lot closer to me on the left/right scale.

My first vote was cast in 1987 while I was a university student - and I voted against the incumbents - the fourth Labour govt. In 1990 I voted against the govt again.

Shortly after that I had a job. I was working alongside unionists. As a fresh and keen graduate I could not understand why my colleagues would spit the dummy at things that seemed totally innocuous to me.

Our boss (the nice guy that hired me) was Satan and not to be spoken to. I was asked why I was doing things that he requested - as if that was the wrong approach. Serious WTF moment.

If I was fixing something important and morning teatime arrived then I was supposed to drop tools and dunk krispies into tea for a while - never mind if that caused cascade failures elsewhere. And there, in the tearoom, the not-so-subtle indoctrination started.

Unfortunately it all seemed totally illogical and unproductive to me (nothing to do with fairness) and that has pushed me away ever since. I wanted (and pretended) to like those guys but their work ethic never made sense. The automatic opposition of everything was rather tiresome.

And that flipped my vote. I never went to Labour. I feel that I haven't yet seen a true Labour in NZ.

I'm not against the principal of unions and collective bargaining - but my experience has put me off the 'whinging' faction that seems to dominate. Oppose everything seems to be the mantra.

I'd need to see that gone before my vote ever went that way.