Refounding Labour #1 - #labourleader

In the wake of Labour's most serious election defeat since the 1920s, a comprehensive and critical re-examination of almost all of what Labour's politics is about is an absolute necessity for our party.

On the table must be our policy, our campaigning, our organisation from branch to national level, our candidate selection, our structure, our communications, our tone, the way the parliamentary party works, what the staff do in the party and in parliament, and on it goes.

There was a bit of reflexive back patting after election day.  I'm not too worried about that, but the time for that is now past.

The scale of what we need to do justifies the same name the UK Labour Party has chosen for its post-election work: Refounding Labour.

We don't need to just review or reform our party: we need to refound the party and the movement.

The only thing not up for debate as far as I am concerned are our social democratic values: our commitment to fairness and equality for all. That is what Labour does and always will stand for. 

But as revisionists have always said, it is our constant job to apply our values to the world as it is, not as it was -- or as we wish it was.

We have to start with acknowledging what happened to us on 26 November.

We got hammered. 

There are no two ways about it. 

The result is worse than in 1996, which should have been impossible given that that result followed the three-way split of the 1980s Labour Party.

It is a comprehensive rejection of Labour as a party fit to lead the government. 

I know it as a candidate.  There was none of the anger of 2008 directed at us. Instead there was simply indifference. People were sure we weren't ready for the job.  Second time in a row.

We must face that defeat, own it as an organisation, acknowledge it, and be ready to take some hard choices about how to refound our party and our movement to win.

It's that big a deal.  A positive and upbeat four week campaign does not erase the fact of failure, and nor must it be allowed to disguise how far we have fallen and how much work we have to do.

First and most profoundly, Labour has to work out again what electorate it wishes to appeal to.  Who are the 50-60% of New Zealanders we want to have open to voting for us, from which we can draw 40-50% of the vote at general elections?

Secondly, we need with hard data and through open and engaged listening, to work out why it is that so many of those groups who used to be open to us are not now listening, and just don't care what we stand for or say.

Third, we need to build a policy agenda for 2014 that responds to what New Zealand needs for the 2010s, 2020s and beyond, to what Kiwis want for their country, and that gives effect to Labour's values.

Fourth, we need the organisation on the ground all around New Zealand to be able to talk about our hopes and dreams for these islands with our country, and to listen to what they have to say. 

(It is not good enough that there are many electorates where the Labour Party is basically absent.  It is even worse that in some electorates where we do have organisation, it's out of touch and unable to run decent campaigns - and that includes some seats we actually hold!)

Fifth, we need the leadership to pull all this off.

I'm the Secretary of Labour's policy council and have learned a lot of lessons about what worked in the past three years.  I've been on NZ Council, the party's governing board, since 2004.

I've learned a lot about the party, but have an overwhelming impression that, to be frank, and despite the hard work of many, we are miles behind where we need to be.

Some things have worked but far more has not.  This is not the time for a status quo response. This is not the time for "business as usual".  It's not the time for the same old approaches that have led us to an historic defeat -- and that have led us to let down New Zealand.

I don't know who can do that leadership job for us.  I like David Shearer.  I find David Cunliffe brilliant to work with. I think both men would be capable leaders of Labour, with different strengths and weaknesses brought to the job.

I haven't made up my mind which of the two I would prefer to see in the job.  The astonishingly open process now happening of interviews and hustings meetings around the Labour Party are going to be a very good test.

By the time of Caucus on 13 December, I'm sure I'll have made up my mind about who I want in the job, and I will let my local MP know.  I don't have a vote and whoever gets elected will have my respect, and my support.

But what I do know is this.

One leader or another is not the solution to Labour's problems.

A fundamental acknowledgement that we have a major job to rebuild our party and our movement, and to reconnect with voters who we have clearly lost touch with, is the start.

Leaders can help or hurt with that, but we are in the fortunate position of having two front runners who both would help. 

We have to say it clearly: NO leader can do what needs to be done on their own.

It requires every single one of us in the Labour Party to stand up, to do things differently. 

We all have to share our ideas and hopes for change, and to be determined that whoever is in the top job, we work together to put our values into place by leading a government after 2014.

I'll do another blog next week with some more concrete thoughts on what needs to change.

I hope this makes it clear that I'm looking forward to being part of it.

Comments

[BruceS]

Interesting post Jordan. I think one of the commentators on election night summed it up for. The pacifica population (many churched) were put off by Labour's social policies and because of them have not returned to the party.

When Labour return to representing a wider group of the population then they will return.

Also you talk about social democratic values but do not practice it because the unions get a way bigger say - it is not one vote per one person.

[Don]

Hi Jordan, Don Here.

Can I suggest the following:

1) The Greens ran a mature, positive campaign. They focused on the ball, not the player. When their supporters defaced the National billboards, they took responsibility right away. Not a snicker in sight. They certainly would have taken some of your vote. This is a paradigm to follow.

2) Stop attacking the opposition MPs specifically and their actions more generally. Don't automatically be against anything that doesn't come from Labour. Accept that National, Peter Dunne and even ACT can have some good ideas. Work with them.

3)Offer, honestly and regularly, to work with the National party on research and policy and programmes. If you're turned down, keep trying, offering. [I saw Trevor Mallard do this in Education in the house last term. Phil Goff said that he'd written to the Prime Minister twice offering bi-partisan solutions. If only these hadn't been so few and so seldom.] John Key did this on the Anti-Smacking bill when he was in opposition - and got rejected.]

4) Focus on what you're about and try to work with the Gov't to achieve a better solution for all NZ.

Yes - Labour and National are different. But National aren't nearly as bad as Labour might suggest. They didn't reintroduce Interest on Student Loans (a dumb original policy if you ask me); They haven't gutted Gov't funded health care; They haven't gutted quite a lot of programs - some of which I think they should have.

So - before I get too far off the track, I urge Labour to focus on the positive, on honest and realistic policies, and to actively and publically work with all of Parliament for the benefit of all of New Zealand.

You'll then be campaiging from a morally superior position and we'll see Labour in a very different light at the next election.

That's my 2c.

[ME]

I wholeheartedly agree with you JC! We need to listen to people out there. I was out there canvassing and didn't feel this coming at all - perhaps cos we were doing all the talking? We have a short window of time where people are still engaged in the election enough to say what they were thinking on E day. We need to not defend, and not justify. Just listen.
We do have a great history and clear values to rebuild from (refer to opening TV statement). We've articulated those values again (albeit I dare say a month before E day was a bit too late), and I'm positive we do have a clear and critical place in the political context.
I agree we need a strong movement around and behind us. We need clear action planning - from branches to LECs to regions etc. And they have to be built around more than just campaigning to 2014. The community see through that. We have to be seen genuinely and purposefully walking the talk.
Thanks for a great blog.

[kate reilly]

Thanks Jordan found this very useful.

[Eleanor Doig]

The Occupy movement is articulating the vision we need. Reducing the gross inequities in income and regulating tax and financial systems to ensure they do comply with their social responsibilities. The concepts of fairness, equality and independence are deeply ingrained in our national psyche and I believe it is to these fundamentals we need to appeal. I wonder if it has been the absence of articulate resistance to the power of finance and corporations which led to the indifference shown on 26th Nov? There is such a sense that money is power and that therefore those with both will always win, which has led to the response of 'what the hell - we can't do anything and no one is speaking for us' .

[Pearl Todywalla]

Good for a start. We need to list down 10 things National did that helped them to Win & 10 things which Labour did which got it defeated so badly. Few ..... 1) Strong Leader 2) Labour MP candidates should be strong, committed & having good chances of Win. 3) Policies shud be critically analysed before putting infront of the opposition & public. 4) Unless not sure that the policy is gona benefit to max public dnt announce it eg. Benefit for jobless, extension of retirement age etc. This time Labour put fwd so many policies in comparision to National - Outcome is clear. 5) Start the election prep early. GO_LABOUR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GNZ]

I dont think you lost on ideas - you lost on image.
Ie the public supported you on asset sales - considered it a big issue - and didn't vote for you.

In the end a significant amont of people vote for the person they think looks like a nice smart guy with presence. So for a lot of voters it was a hoice between Key and some dude who often wears red and complains about everything (understandable I guess becase he gets no coverage any other way). And with labour leadership not seeming strong (at least to the voters) voters were free to just hand the vote on to the greens.

The other issue I found was that regardless of the facts (or election promises) many just didnt seem to trust labour to be fiscally conservative. To win that debate Labour probably needed to be so conservative that they would win on every timeframe.

Personally I voted for you because in my own little way I didn't want in the aftermath for rejection of your image to be mistaken for rejection of your more adventerous policy moves (most importantly to me the super age change).

[Geoff]

The thing the Labour Party really needs to reflect on is that one third of the electorate didn't vote. It can choose to reclaim votes off NZ First and Greens but therein lies the path to permament opposition. Labour needs to reconnect with those who did not vote.

[Rich]

Labour's got a bit of a choice:

- Either it wants to be a party of the centre (/right) and compete with National on competence issues to be the (old, white) men in charge of capitalism's life-support. If it does that, it'll get occasional terms in charge on the back of National's perceived failures (or electorate boredom). When things turn really bad though (and they will) Labour would then just be like UK Labour, the Italian Democrats, Greek Socialists, etc. in acting as a roadblock against change.

- The alternative is that it becomes part of a conversation as to how we run society in a world of rapidly diminishing resources, and part of a broader movement seeking radical change. That would probably mean no Labour-led governments until the Nats finally fail in their efforts to maintain middle class affluence.

[lprent]

I've learned a lot about the party, but have an overwhelming impression that, to be frank, and despite the hard work of many, we are miles behind where we need to be.

No kidding. I've been saying that since 1999 in just the two areas I look at. How to use volunteers effectively at electorate levels which is largely a data / targeting issue. And how to leverage social media inside the party.

It isn't too hard to get the systems running technically and in terms of people. Rather pointless learning to these things when the party has no facility to transfer knowledge.

I can't be bothered waiting until the party "thinks" things through. It is a lot easier to just do things outside and ignore the idiotic internal politics.