Just Left

2011, 2012

What a year.  Earthquakes, elections, dictators, financial turbulence, the end of one job, a lagging thesis, and new beginnings to come in 2012.

I haven't got anything profound to say about the year just been or the year to come, other than to thank all of you who I know for your time, your ideas, your participation in this community on these islands or this planet.

It's been a good one and next year's looking better.  I'll finish my thesis at last; I'll be starting a new job of some description; we'll be making some progress in changing Labour; Wellington will keep being Wellington; and I scent a holiday somewhere hot in July/August.

I hope you are getting a holiday, and that you use it to do something different.  I know I am.

Peace to you and yours.

Comments back

I forgot to put comments off moderation, wondered why I couldn't see them - have approved!

Do we need to change Labour? Yes.

In the wake of a heavy defeat and the election of a brilliant new leadership team, it would be very tempting for Labour to say:

"We have fixed the problem. New team, global crisis and the political cycle will see us through."

That would be a temptation similar to a drowning person in cold water deciding drowning isn't that bad after all.

It's not easy to face the problems we have, but the first step to fixing them is acknowledging them.

Here's my short list for starters, of a few problems we really need to face.

• a record low vote, lowest since the 1920s
• low and static membership in the past three years
• over centralisation of control over policy and strategy, with too little power for members
• an inward focused 'divide the pie' approach by too many party units
• a cultural acceptance of low to no organisation in too many places, and a related culture of federalism divided between electorates rather than a sense of a nation-wide, cooperating organisation
• too much belief that our connections with a wide range of Kiwis are strong, when they are weak
• a sense that we 'own' the voters that went to the greens and nzf, and that they are bound to return to us
• a perception among some parts of the electorate that we are out of touch with their hopes and dreams
• a structure that incentivises our inward focus

It's a long list to which I am sure you can add things, friend or foe.

Some of these are substantive problems that are hard to fix.

Some are perception problems that can be sorted out more easily.

All need tackling to get us on track to what should be our ambition: the party that is open to most Kiwis, and that a regular 45%+ can vote for.

Cosmetic change can't get us there.

That's why we need big change, based on our values, to build a modern political party (not an NGO, not a corporation) that can draw the currents of a diverse electoral coalition together, win elections, and work in communities to change New Zealand for the better.

The status quo, even with the best leadership in generations, can't get us there.

So — it's time to shake things up.

A further reshuffle reflection

I've been mulling on the blog already on the scale of the task Labour faces in returning to government.

An important part of that is actually building a solid policy agenda. 

While our agenda coming into this year's election was comprehensive, it didn't get everything right, and it was not well communicated -- many people simply didn't know what our policy was in some key areas, something that we have to take primary responsibility for.

I don't know how David Shearer will operate the caucus, whether there will be a tight five approach, a functioning Shadow Cabinet, teams based around main portfolios, or opposition-by- caucus, and in a sense it doesn't worry me too much which way he chooses to go.

If we take "clean, green and clever" as a nice abbreviation for the thrust of the agenda that Shearer wants to build, then there is a brilliant team at the top. 

His own interest in the research and science area; Grant's skills in policymaking and control of Environment and Tertiary Ed and Skills; Parker's interest in economic development as a key component of finance; Ardern's likely focus on getting people into work as part of Social Development; and Cunliffe's thinking on how to actually change the business environment to try and stimulate growth...... they all add up to a nice package of skills, interests and abilities.

That bodes well for an actual focus on something (anything!!), as opposed to our last three years of wandering from headline to headline. It's one of quite a lot of reasons I like what Shearer's putting into place for Labour.

Quick thoughts on the new Labour front bench

A few very brief reflections on the announcement of Labour's new front bench:

• Environment finally takes the precedence it deserves with the extraordinarly capable Grant Robertson taking it on at #2
• David Shearer keeps his interest in the new economy with Science and Innovation
• Jacinda Ardern and David Parker get to shine in big portfolios with plenty of substance
• David Cunliffe has a role shadowing Steven Joyce, which will give him ample opportunity to help change Labour's fortunes following his defeat in the leadership race
• Lianne Dalziel picks up Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, which I suspect is a testament to the wide reading, thinking and talking she has been doing in the area since 22 February
• Nanaia Mahuta takes over Education from her Waikato colleague Sue Moroney and thus faces her first outing in a real meaty policy portfolio

I genuinely think this is a good line up: a range of experienced and fresh faces, some novel and useful portfolio combinations, and a good binding together of the caucus team following the leadership race.

I'd love to say something about all of them, but haven't time at the moment.

Labour's Lineup - 19 December 2011

Labour's new lineup:

	MP	Portfolios
1	David Shearer	Leader Security Intelligence Service Science and Innovation
2	Grant Robertson	Deputy Leader Environment Tertiary Education, Skills and Training
3	David Parker	Finance
4	Jacinda Ardern	Social Development
5	David Cunliffe	Economic Development Associate Finance
6	Clayton Cosgrove	SOEs Commerce Small Business Trade Negotiations Associate Finance
7	Shane Jones	Regional Development Associate Finance Economic Development (Māori) Fisheries
8	Nanaia Mahuta	Education Associate Māori Affairs (Social)
9	Maryan Street	Health Disarmament and Arms Control Associate Foreign Affairs
10	Su’a William Sio	Employment Pacific Island Affairs Inter-Faith Dialogue Associate Foreign Affairs
11	Phil Twyford	Transport Auckland Issues Associate Environment
12	Trevor Mallard	Shadow Leader of the House Associate Finance America’s Cup
13	Charles Chauvel	Justice (incl Courts and Corrections) Attorney General Arts, Culture and Heritage
14	Lianne Dalziel	Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Civil Defence and Emergency Management Earthquake Commission Consumer Rights and Standards Associate Justice
15	Chris Hipkins	Senior Whip State Services Associate Education
16	Phil Goff	Foreign Affairs and Trade
17	Annette King	Housing Local Government
18	Darien Fenton	Junior Whip Labour Immigration
19	Damien O’Connor	Primary Industries Food Safety
20	Clare Curran	Communications and Information Technology Broadcasting Open Government Disability Issues
	Ruth Dyson	Conservation Senior Citizens Internal Affairs
	Parekura Horomia	Māori Affairs Treaty Negotiations
	Sue Moroney	Early Childhood Education Womens  Affairs
	Moana Mackey	Energy Climate Change
	Iain Lees-Galloway	Defence Transport Safety Veterans Affairs Associate Health (Alcohol and Drugs)
	Raymond Huo	Building and Construction Statistics Land Information
	Rajen Prasad	Ethnic Affairs Associate Social Development
	Kris Faafoi	Police Customs Associate Health
	Louisa Wall	Sport and Recreation Community and Voluntary Sector
	David Clark	Revenue Associate Tertiary Education
	Andrew Little	ACC
	Rino Tirikatene	Tourism
	Megan Woods	Youth Affairs Associate Science & Innovation
	Ross Robertson	Nominee for Assistant Speaker Racing Associate Disarmament (Small Arms)

 

 

Next Steps for this blog

I'm thinking about what comes next for this blog, and so I'd like to ask you, readers, what you think.

Just Left has been around in one form or another since April 2004.  My enthusiasm for writing has waxed and waned, and different roles have meant different abilities to blog or not.

What do you like or dislike about Just Left - the topics, the writing style and tone, etc?

My initial thinking is to write about a broader range of topics and to dial back the political side of things, but I won't make any decisions before the start of 2012.

I think I'll try to keep writing though: the format forces you into being brief and thinking arguments through, which is always good for keeping you on your toes.

Eager for your thoughts/suggestions.

Labour's new team: #teamShearer #teamRobertson

Labour's new leader is David Shearer, and the new Deputy is Grant Robertson.

Congratulations to both is the first word.  As I've said in my two previous posts, they are facing a very big job to take Labour to a win in 2014.

It isn't only up to them: it is also up to every other member of the Labour Party now to get in behind the new team.

The combo is an exciting one, and the fact that two people who weren't MPs when we left government in 2008 shows how determined Labour is to change and reconnect with the country.

I've been at three of the members' meetings and while all the candidates were impressive, the thing that Shearer did was learn, fast, on the job.  Nobody should underestimate this man. While his back story is awesome, that's not the point: the point is it's HIS back story, and he made the choices and the decisions that grew it.

As he warms up into the role I am looking forward to seeing how the perceptions of our party and our movement change.  David starts afresh for us.  He will need to bind together the caucus and the party and use those talents he has to get people to see us all afresh together.  A big responsibility -- but I am confident he's up to it.

To the deputy: I always wanted to see Grant in the 2IC role because of his massive organising ability, political smarts and ability to relate to everyone.  He will do a great job. He'll be the perfect foil for David and I'm looking forward to working with him and with both of them.

Those who didn't get elected: David and Nanaia have formidable things to give the Labour movement yet, and are part of the mix of talents we need to win in 2014. When the choice goes against you and the jobs you want are not the ones you have, it stings. But I am confident that both will play a part of what comes next, as equally confident as I am that had David and Grant not got the jobs they have, they would have done the same.

Now to the reshuffle!

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.

Charter Schools aren't the solution

I don't know if any of the people who voted for National thought they'd get a failed experiment on the educational opportunities available to poorer kids in New Zealand, but they have.

My friend Stef has written a brilliant post about this, at http://traintheteacher.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/charter-schools-and-loser-students/

Here's a snippet. Go read the post. It's important. You'll find it stimulating.

I did. I know that "Oh" that Stef talks about.

...

Would our futures have been improved if the best and brightest among us got shipped off to a shiny charter school?

I don’t know.

But I do know that if you have a system which not only tolerates but encourages the idea of winner and loser schools the natural corollary is that you must also tolerate loser students. For the kids who are told that they are somehow less worthy a person by virtue of which school they attend that really sucks. Believe me the kids in the so-called failing schools know when they’ve been given up on not just by their local community but society as a whole.

And when a society treats whole communities as dumping grounds for problems associated with poverty it is little wonder that schools and teachers serving them are often viewed as lesser quality. Quite frankly I don’t blame parents for wanting to do something, anything really, to get their kids out of dodge.

But what exactly are they running away from? Is it really a bad schooling or is it about ensuring their children have sufficient cultural capital to gain entrance into the middle class?

...

The problem is that we have is a tail of 20% of students who are under achieving and I’m willing to wager a steak and cheese pie that this tail is found largely in the schools serving our poorest communities.

But poverty isn’t destiny right?

When kids come to school hungry they won’t learn as effectively as the kids who don’t.

When kids are taking extra time off school because they are contracting preventable diseases they won’t learn as effectively as the kids who don’t.

When kids are in unstable living in overcrowded and at times unpredictable living situations they won’t learn as effectively as kids who don’t.

The ‘Poverty Is Not Destiny’ (or ‘Demography Is Not Destiny’ if you like alliteration) crowd that will soon pop up will imply that these issues are not very relevant since they are out of the teacher’s control.  They will say that teachers who speak out against the regime about to be implemented are lazy and seek to shift blame away from their performance.  I’d say that they are worse since they deny the importance that poverty has on student performance.

More importantly why is New Zealand trashing the idea that our education system should guarantee a child, whether they are rich or poor, can rock up to any school in this country and get a great education taught by highly qualified teachers? A kid’s life chances shouldn’t come down to whether their parents happen to not have capital, cultural or otherwise, to choose the ‘right’ school for their kids.