Just Left

Prescott goes nuclear

A fascinating blog piece by former UK Labour deputy leader John Prescott here:

http://www.labourhome.org/forum/?p=5366

Some snippets:

But whilst I knew we were short of money I didn’t realise we also lacked the will to fight these elections. The people responsible for this non-campaign – and make no mistake there was no campaign - were Harriet Harman, Caroline Flint, Douglas Alexander and yes, our former Communities Secretary Hazel Blears.

I kept asking the party what was the strategy, what was our message, what was the campaign? I became so concerned I actually wrote to Harriet. Her reply was less than satisfactory. These apparently were the ‘messages.’

For the many v for the few
Grow your way out v cut your way out
On your side v on your own
Substantial leadership v insubstantial salesmanship

And that was it.

It seems the people responsible for our campaign were resigned to defeat and were prepared to use the excuse that we had no money.

and...

Time after time, activists across the country told me there was no message, no campaign and no leadership from the party. This was typified by the resignation of Hazel Blears – our local government minister – going out in a blaze of publicity the day before the local elections.

In her resignation statement, she wrote ‘Get Out and Vote Labour.’

Well you ‘got out’ Hazel but it sure as hell didn’t help our candidates get people out to vote Labour. Neither did brandishing cheques and wearing your heart on your brooch. You weren’t ‘rocking the boat’ you were trying to sink our ship.

And I’ve just discovered tonight that over the last few weeks, James Purnell was not planning for these crucial Local and European elections - he was planning for his own leadership election which he exclusively launched in the Murdoch press.

Not so much a Blarite as a careerite.

The grassroots and the candidates wanted to fight but we, the party, let them down. I’m sure many will quite rightly never forgive us for that.

SLOPS

You know I hesitate to be cynical about a very serious problem that is making people sick here, in North America and around the world but the perennial media frenzy over yet another pandemic threat really irritates me. It is serious. But we do tend to lose all sense of perspective when these things come up.

I can't put it any better than a viral e-mail that did the rounds a few years ago when SARS was the terrifying spectre of choice:

The World Health Organisation today issued a new warning against non-essential travel to the entire Western hemisphere following renewed concerns about the spread of Severe Loss of Perspective Syndrome (SLOPS). Officials are warning travellers not to visit the UK, the US, almost all of Western Europe, and Canada, following further outbreaks of the disease, which has led to mass panic among the media, thousands of ecstatic children being kept out of school by their credulous and moronic parents, and increased profits for DIY stores as the idiot public rush to bulk-buy face masks and boiler suits.

A WHO spokesman said, “You’d be much better off going to somewhere like Thailand or China, because all you’ve got to worry about there is SARS, and let’s face it, you’re about as likely to die from that as you are to get kicked to death by a gang of zombie nuns.”

The SARS virus has now claimed a staggering 500 lives in only six months, which makes it considerably more deadly than, say, malaria, which only kills around 3000 people every single day. Malaria, however, mainly effects only darkies what speak foreign, whereas SARS has made at least one English person feel a bit iffy for a couple of days, and is therefore considered much more serious.

The spread of SLOPS has now reached pandemic proportions, with many high-level politicians seemingly affected by the disease. The rapid spread of SLOPS has been linked to the end of the war in Iraq and the need for Western leaders to give the public something to worry about. Otherwise, they might start asking uncomfortable questions about domestic issues, and that simply would not do.

World first: gay PM in Iceland

Johanna Sigurdardottir is Iceland's new Prime Minister - and she happens to be gay.

I get frustrated when people like Chris Trotter go on about "identity politics" within the Labour Party.  For me such success is not about identity politics but about social democracy in action.  Johanna Sigurdardottir was clearly the best person for the job. 

The social democratic mission is about ensuring that people have the opportunity to succeed regardless of their background (age, sex, gender, disability, income, family background, religion).  I don't celebrate Johanna Sigurdartottir because she is gay: I celebrate Johanna because she was the best person for the job, and Johanna and the Icelandic people did not let sexuality be a barrier to her success.

Hat tip (No Right Turn)

President Barack Obama

Like many others, I was up at around 5.20am this morning Auckland time to watch the inauguration of my generation.

You expect a good speech from Obama and you are never disappointed. It was not the sort of mushy high-blown rhetoric that some other presidents have used; and you also get the sense that he is not reading words so much as expressing what he thinks and what he intends to do.

I know that all speeches are meant to be like that, of course, but trust me: most don't even come close.

My favourite passages:

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

This is the President who can renew the social contract in America, and who in so doing can combine it with the sort of environmental stewardship that secures the future of human life on earth. He is not talking about a small project, this man.

Another:

[T]hose values on which our success depends, honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old.

These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history.

What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is a wonderful statement of the idea at the core of progressive left politics: that there is more to life than the self, and that what happens to all of us together matters as well.

It is a speech that stands with the best, and watching it this morning was something I can never forget. If anyone in politics or public life ever thought that the ability to speak to the moment, to persuade and inspire, just didn't matter, then surely the whole trajectory of Barack Obama from his 2004 Convention speech to this morning's Inauguration speech is all that you can need to think again.

If you missed it and want to see it, find it online. You'll find the time well spent.

From the history books... After the War

Below is a column I wrote when Young Labour President, back in 2003, on the Iraq War.

Some of the stuff I wrote in those days was appalling, but this remains an interesting read, as we finally near the end of the Bush presidency.

After the War
24 March 2003

Young Labour opposes the current war against Iraq. As we have said elsewhere, it is illegal, immoral and wrong.

But Saddam Hussein's regime is also immoral and wrong. And to see it gone will be no great loss to the world.

The most common theme emerging from those who are supporting the war is that this is somehow a fight for freedom against tyranny; as if those with concerns support Saddam and his works.

I would like to state, for the record, that it is possible to both oppose war, and oppose dictatorship.

And it takes no great genius to realise that this is making the world a more dangerous, and less free place, rather than anything else.

Strange things are stirring as the war moves ahead. I am convinced that the US and UK military operation will see no stunning setbacks; the war does not appear likely to last very long notwithstanding current delays. Unless there is a Stalingrad-esque attempt to stand and die around Baghdad, the days of the regime are numbered. It's no joke when the US armed forces are described as the most powerful in the world, and the idea that a half-starved, sanction-depleted government could stand against American might does not bear serious consideration. We can only hope that reconstruction of an independent Iraq proceeds quickly once the fighting is finished.

Sadly, the war is only the very beginning of a much more difficult set of questions and problems.

The biggest and cruellest joke is the idea that this war will somehow create peace. Every bomb that falls; every innocent civilian killed; will simply feed the terror networks the Americans seem to think they are in the process of destroying. The impression of a religious war, no matter how strenuously denied, is one that will have its consequences. The saddest outcome of this conflict is likely to be a steady worsening in terrorist activity all around the world; targeted to be sure at the aggressors in the current conflict, but making the world more dangerous for all of us.

For me, serious as this is, it is only a secondary consideration. The more chilling issue is the shambles at the United Nations, and the question of American hegemony. The world's multilateral institutions developed after World War Two with peace as their mission, in a world of disintegrating empires, facing the fallout of fascism, and determined never to see a repeat. America was if anything more dominant then that it is now; certainly in economic terms it was, though militarily today's power is more extensive.

The difference between then and now is one in Washington. A far-sighted and clear-thinking US administration realised that it could never win the peace through war. It generously helped to rebuild Europe; treated the vanquished enemy with a large measure of decency and compassion; and put together a system of multilateral institutions designed to build international cooperation and development.

And it worked - it worked wonderfully, for those countries which were part of it, and especially for the Americans and their interests. It saw off the challenge of the Soviet Union; it developed unparalleled economic prosperity. For sixty years the Americans were seen more as friends than as something to be feared; and largely they were.

Today all that good work and reputation is close to being in tatters. A hard headed regime in Washington fails to understand how the world works; lacks the insights and sheer humanity of the victors in the Second World War; and on a host of issues is driving wedges between the United States and the rest of the world.

This war in Iraq is a continuation of that divisive way of doing things; it sets a very chilling precedent in several respects:

• it gives free reign to states to step outside the international legal system, if they perceive it as being in their interests to do so.
• it entrenches the idea that UN declarations and resolutions will only be imposed on America's enemies (Iraq) not their friends (Israel).
• it tells murderous regimes all over the world that if they are disarmed (Iraq) then they are a ready target; if they have weapons of mass destruction (North Korea, Pakistan, Israel etc) then they are safe.
• as mentioned, it will inflame Arab opinion and increase the risk of terrorism around the world, threatening us all.

It also doesn't help the twists and roundabouts that America's objectives in the region are so unclear. Do they want a democratic Middle East? Do they want the harder-line Arab regimes with democratic mandates, and lessened access to oil that would result?

No, of course not. They want - need - that cheap energy. So will we see the toppling of Iraq; the same of Iran; and then the continued propping up of other autocratic regimes to keep the "Arab street" under control?

More likely.

The entire situation reeks of hidden motives, duplicity in language, and danger for now and the future. Once the war is over, the UN must take over the reconstruction of Iraq. Urgent consideration needs to be given how to repair the damage the international law has suffered: the UN must consider reform and regeneration in a new era of unparalleled American dominance. The whole global community needs to stamp out any notion that pre-emption outside the UN Charter is okay, and instead continue to address how the world will deal with regimes it finds repugnant, without destroying the existing framework.

Whatever happens, in a way completely unlike September 11 2001, it seems all too safe to say that things will never be the same again. The values bases of Europe and America are shown to be too far apart to paper over. Much work needs to be done, and it's our generation that will wear that effort - as well as the consequences of the current mess.

New Zealand's position has been simply outstanding. One can only hope that in the hard conversations and rebuilding to come, Helen Clark can play as much of a role as Peter Fraser did in the aftermath of 1945. Cooperation on the world stage is in peril now, but rebuilt it must be. America has proven in the past that it can be compassionate on an unparalleled scale. America does not have to put the rest of the world on edge; but that requires changes in American politics and leadership which will be the subject of another column.

Change is vital. Otherwise, peace will remain a dream, and this Iraq campaign will be remembered as the time when the lights went out - not all over Europe this time, but all over the world. I fear we will not see them lit again in our lifetime, if this doesn't get sorted out.

the end of the Washington Consensus

If anyone was in any doubt about the impact the financial crisis is having on the world and on world politics, one only has to look at what happened in the UK on Monday to get the answer: big changes are on the way.

Had you suggested even a year ago that a UK New Labour government would signal a new 45p in the pound income tax rate on high income earners; increase payroll taxes for public services; ramp the budget deficit up to 118 BILLION pounds sterling and cause part of that by a cut to the VAT rate.... you would have been dreaming, in fantasy land.

But then a year ago, if you had suggested that the United States government, sort of in the hands of the Republicans, would offer $700bn as a bailout of the banks, followed a month later by $800bn more purchase of distressed assets, I and everyone else would probably have suggested you had gone barking mad.

The simple fact is that for thirty years the West operated in a fantasy land of its own making. We thought we could borrow and hope forever, to bridge the gap between rising expectations of living standards, and lackluster per capita economic growth.

People, smart people, honestly thought that liberalising markets was always the right thing to do - even in finance, and that even the creation of more and more assets that were more and more distant from the real economy was good for finance and good for the rest of society.

The events of the past year or so, which have really come to the fore in the past few months, put paid to that for once and for all. The whole neo-liberal framework of "leave it alone" is now shown to be what those of us on the left generally argued it was: bankrupt.

People have now come rather hurriedly to the realisation that it is only the State as the embodiment of the public interest that can withstand the shocks and unravelling that is to begin. Which is why the debate in Britain today and in the United States during the whole course of the Presidential election campaign highlighted rather more fundamental differences than has been the case.

Briefly, in democratic politics we now have a social democratic view that says the state must intervene to protect the public interest, and we have a neoliberal view that says we should keep the state in its box, except for the current crisis.

It gives me great comfort to belong to a party and a movement whose principles are the right ones to deal with this crisis and to make sure that the recovery from it is designed with the public interest in mind, rather than the financial interests of those who gambled and lost being protected once again.

Of course, at home in NZ it is a bittersweet intellectual victory, because we've just lost the ability to put those principles to work. The upside is that the work of the past nine years has so changed the National Party that it has little choice but to work in the framework of moderate, social democratic values that the New Zealand public support.

The extent to which the new government remains true to what they said in the campaign, as opposed to the rather more savage and offensive liberal extremism that still beats in the chests of National's true believers (and their ACTivist sidekicks), is the extent to which it has a chance of winning the next election. Any deviation back to the horrors of 1990s extremism, ignoring the lessons of this financial crisis, will do NZ great damage, and lead to a very big repair job for the incoming Labour government.

Our task as an opposition will be to spell out clearly why it is that our values are the best fit for generating the recovery New Zealand needs once the storm has passed, and why, unlike any of the other parties, our arguments are actually ones that a) will work in practice, and b) we believe in.

...

Been travelling for work, it's conference season. The next conference is in India. I am not convinced it is worth going there, given yesterday's horrific events. Maybe home early which would be fantastic.

Go Obama

If Obama isn't elected President of the United States tomorrow, I'll fall over with shock.

Can't wait for the victory speech!

The Travails of Gordon Brown

When I was in Brussels last year, one of the trips I made was to visit the British Labour Party conference in Bournemouth. This was towards the end of September, and I was wearing two hats - helping my European PLP colleagues with their work, and representing the NZLP in a sister party capacity with some other Kiwis.

Gordon Brown had taken over as Prime Minister and Labour Leader earlier in the summer, and was then at the height of his popularity. He was "not-Blair", he was refreshingly up front, he was, indeed, as the advertisement said, "Not Flash - Just Gordon".

Labour was well ahead in the polls and the conference was buzzing with anticipation of an early general election. They needed, so the story went, a fresh mandate to go with their fresh leader. Given the position in the polls, they were likely to win. All the gossip, in gusts around the Conference, was whether it would be 1 or 8 November, 2007.

I left the Conference feeling quite confident that they would win an election, but not at all sure that it was a good idea to have one just on the basis that it could be won, two and a bit years into a five year Parliament.

Then the next week, the Tories had their conference, announced a populist policy on making rich people richer (through reducing inheritance taxes), their polling bounced, Labour's declined a bit, and the brooding Scot in Downing Street decided, eventually, not to have an election after all.

It turns out in retrospect that that crazy decision, allowing speculation to build so high then being frightened off the election, was the worst decision Gordon Brown has made in his long and quite stellar political career. I am with Andrew Rawnsley on this: it will remain the defining moment of his premiership. Where he was thought to be strong, he is now weak. Where he was thought to be decisive, he is now thought unable to make a call. Where he was the master tactician, now he is a bungler writ large. And the 10p tax issue (Brown's final budget as Chancellor bizarrely increased income taxes on the lowest earners from 10p to 20p, to finance a general rate reduction from 22p to 20p for middle income earners) means that where he was once the champion of the poor, he is now corrupted and cares nothing for them.

Hyperbolic? Perhaps. But Rawnsley's column is damning: "his reputation has collapsed on every front". Brown is not Blair. He could not hope to play-act his way across the New Labour tightrope of ignoring Labour's heartlands and appealing to the greedy upper middle classes. He could not pull it off, but he has tried to. And in that single act of "bottling" the election last year, he made it impossible for his good qualities to ever again be taken seriously.

For good qualities he has in spades. His seriousness of purpose and his track record of redistributive politics and economic success are enormous achievements. He is a clever, hard-nosed operator who has every chance of being an effective leader of a Labour government that could have shucked off the worst parts of the Blair legacy, kept and rebuilt the broad coalition, and continued to modernise Britain.

No more.

Thrashed in local body elections, tortured by the victory of Boris Johnston in London's mayoralty, and seemingly helpless in the face of the Tory advance, Brown has not managed to set out the vision he talked about last summer. He has not managed to keep unity in the Labour Party. He has continued to hit his base in the guts, be it the tax issue, the 42-days-detention issue, or others.

The best that Brown and UK Labour can hope for, from the perspective of today, is to regain a modicum of competence, and slowly take back the agenda through honest hard work and clear Labour policies. If they do that, they might have a chance in 2010. The alternative is that it is all too late, and that he has stuffed it, and that Labour in Britain is about to enter another long period of opposition.

It's too early to predict the final outcome, but the window to change the perception (and it is the "doom" perception which leads, from what I can make out) is very small and is already closing. If in a month he has made no progress, then I think he will have morphed into the late-2000s version of John Major.

That will be a travesty on many levels if it happens. But if it does, then Brown will have to look at himself as the man to blame. He has had every opportunity to get it right and he has not done so. Blair had to go, yes, but Brown had to get it right and he hasn't.

And so the outcome may be handing Britain on a plate to the most right-wing, vicious, up themselves bunch of political operators in Europe. Bad for Brown - but far worse for the millions of Britons who would suffer as a consequence.

Campaign finance and the NZ Herald: for or against?

Something I didn't get the chance to write about yesterday: the NZ Herald has editorialised its support for John McCain, practically endorsing him for the United States Presidency.

This is quite bizarre for a very simple reason. In its neo-con-worshipping list of praise for the Senator, they neglect to mention his sole significant political achievement - which is the one achievement of his that I think might make him worthy of support, if I was ever in any danger of voting Republican.

That is, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law. Many of you have heard of it. It regulated the spending of political parties and candidates in US federal elections, restricting both donations and spending, regulated spending by third parties in general elections, and toughened requirements for third parties to be registered and conform with the law.

The Herald's endorsement is of McCain as a "man of integrity".

So where is the Herald's integrity in having two positions on campaign finance law reform?

They support it in the United States, and see the man who brought it in as a worthy President, integrity-laden and all.

At home, they regard the same sorts of regulation as an "Attack on Democracy".

Go figure.

Hillary in 08

I am a Hillary Clinton supporter for the US Presidency, but not a wholehearted one. I do think it would be useful for the US to move beyond the bizarre duopoly that has been in the White House or nearly since 1988.

But setting that quite large caveat aside, I think she's the best placed Democrat to win the Presidency and govern effectively, though probably not with the same levels of excitement as an Obama presidency. She gives a good aura of confidence, and she has had eight years' practice in Presidential politics up close and personal which would be a priceless advantage in running a competent administration.

Obama is a very attractive speaker and politician, but I get some of the same vibes off him I get off John Key. Great things to say but not enough to back them up.

So I was very relieved she hauled back from Iowa to win the New Hampshire primary election yesterday. It was a clear if not solid victory, and sets her up well for the big run through to 5 Feb.

What she needs now to do is to ensure her campaign a) stays focused on the future, and b) explores the more personable, emotional side of her as a human being. If she can do that, and not look and sound like reheated 1992 Clinton B, then I think she can both win the nomination and the Presidency. If she doesn't do both she risks not getting the chance to fight a general election, and perhaps more frighteningly leaving the Democrats with a nominee who cannot win.

Because I do not believe that Obama can win a general election against the current Republican Party. I think there is no depth to which they would not consider stooping, and that simply the intensity and vileness of what would be thrown at him would unbalance him more than would occur with Clinton.

Whoever gets it, they have a job to do. The Bush Administration has been so bizarrely, unbelievably, utterly useless and dangerous that to bring America back onto a path of sanity and stability is going to test the mettle of whoever gets the White House from Jan 09.