How Labour Won in 1996 – How Helen Clark was not Michael Foot
Posted: April 6, 2011 Filed under: Labour Party Leave a comment »Several days ago I received a link to a story about an aborted coup against Helen Clark by Labour Party right-wingers in 1996. Titled, ‘The Anatomy of a Failed Labour Coup‘ it was written by former Labour Party staffer Phil Quin and published in the New Zealand Herald on Saturday 2 April. Quin was an inside member of the Labour Party’s right faction and his description of the aborted coup against Clark was an interesting account of that part of Labour Party history.
It had the effect of setting me thinking about the various strengths that Clark had and also of the importance of her role as leader of the Labour Party in that period.
I have felt that Labour’s predicament in the mid 1990s could be readily compared to that of its UK counterpart in the mid 1980s. Both had lost seminal elections twice, NZ Labour in 1990 and 1993 and UK Labour in 1979 and 1983, both were seen as having lost significant support and direction, both lacked credibility and both were seen as lacking determined and dedicated leadership. What was important for UK Labour in 1987 was that it re-established itself as the second party in United Kingdom politics. In 1983, it had been strongly challenged by the SDP-Liberal Alliance, which had come within two percentage points of overtaking Labour’s vote in the General Election. Labour still had a large number of seats in the UK Parliament due to the First Past the Post Electoral system, but lacked credibility. In 1987, Labour had to convincingly defeat the SDP-Liberal Alliance to retain its status as the major opposition party. In doing so it would allow its new leader, Neil Kinnock the ability to cement himself as an alternative Prime Minister to Margaret Thatcher and thereby reinforce the perception that Labour was the alternative Government.
In 1996, Labour in New Zealand had to do the same. In 1993, Labour had simply been outdone on a number of fronts in terms of direction and credibility. While, the particularities of First Past the Post may have meant that Labour, as had its 1983 UK counterpart, gained more seats in Parliament, there was little debate as to the fact that it had been beaten in seeking voter’s hearts and minds by the Alliance and New Zealand First. Added to this was Moore’s, some might say, ‘unhinged’ behaviour on election night in 1993. If UK Labour’s 1983 Manifesto has been labelled as the world’s longest ‘suicide note,’ Moore’s rambling incoherent speech conceding defeat in which he blamed everyone else for Labour’s failure, combined with references to a ‘long dark night’ was, without doubt, New Zealand’s longest political suicide speech. It was in those moments that Moore cemented his fate as Labour Party leader.
In comparison, Jim Anderton’s political behaviour in the aftermath of the 1993 election, especially when compared with Moore’s, saw him being lauded. Jim’s status was upgraded to statesman. And, for a brief few months, James Patrick Anderton was the preferred Prime Minister of a significant number of New Zealanders. Labour slumped in the polls.
Given those circumstances, Helen Clark had to take over the reins of the Labour Party. She was the only plausible option.
But, unlike, Michael Foot who stood aside for Neil Kinnock, Moore had no intention of going quietly. What followed was a period of bloodletting in the Party combined with even more strange behaviour from Moore, before Clark could settle into her role as Labour Party leader.
But, it paid off. Labour was, even though it lost, the victor in the 1996 Election. Like 1987 was for the British Labour Party, 1996 was for the New Zealand Labour Party. The aftermath of the 1996 Election secured Labour the position as the dominant party of the centre-left and crippled the Alliance as a potential and potent left-wing force. This had occurred despite Labour having lost the election and dropping in percentage points. The Alliance did as well. But the difference lay in how they reacted. Labour emerged from the wreckage of the 1996 Election sounding confident. Clark emerged sounding like a potential Prime Minister. This is in comparison to the Alliance, whose campaign consisted of a petition that failed to fire, a series of ads and sound bites that were simply embarrassing and an organisation that was wracked by inter and intra party strife. Unlike the Alliance, the Labour Party ran a coherent and competent campaign. The fact that its vote fell in the 1996 Election had more to do with the campaign and message projected by Winston Peters and New Zealand First which substantially increased its vote, than with a failure on Labour’s behalf. However, in the end what really counted was Labour and Clark’s ability to dust themselves off and pick themselves up.
Moore or Goff did not have the ability to project that level of leadership in the aftermath of 1996. They lacked the ability to sound like winners despite a loss and of having the ability to unite a Party around them. Both were too tainted by their experiences with and in the Fourth Labour Government. Both were seen as part of the Party’s right and both lacked the resolve and determination that Clark presented, especially in the aftermath of 1996. Retaining Moore in 1993 or electing Goff as Leader of the Labour Party in 1996 and toppling Clark would have almost certainly would have had the effect of killing the Party’s chances.
Helen Clark was a leader – it remains to be seen whether Goff can match her in the aftermath of an election defeat.
Being My Brother’s Keeper – The Public Health Sector that Never was.
Posted: March 28, 2011 Filed under: economy, Labour Party 1 Comment »Several days ago was the 139th anniversary of the birth of Michael Joseph Savage, the first Labour Prime Minister of New Zealand. Savage’s Labour administration is credited with the creation of the welfare state in New Zealand.
Several days ago a friend of mine was watching ‘Sicko’, Michael Moore’s expose of the American Health system. She commented about the favourable aspects of our health system as a consequence. While, these two events might appear unrelated, it set me thinking about the original intentions of Labour and of Savage in the health sector and how those intentions never came to pass.
For the original intention of the senior members of Labour’s first administration was to actually create a comprehensive, universal and fully publicly funded health service, just like the NHS in Britain. From its earliest years, Labour had consistently promoted a comprehensive and fully state funded health system which was accessible to all people and, likewise, it did so in its 1935 manifesto. This health service would cover all aspects of a person’s health from GP visits to surgery, from dentistry to optometry. It was all to be freely available to people and it would all be funded from the taxpayer’s purse.
Such was the belief that Labour was going to replace the existing medical system upon its election in 1935, that as Janet Frame records in ‘An Angel at My Table’ her father burnt all the family’s doctor’s bills. This was a scene that was repeated elsewhere in New Zealand. People had complete confidence in the new Government’s commitment in this area.
In Government, Labour moved swiftly and appointed one of its new members, but someone with some interest in the area, Arnold Nordmeyer (later Minister of Finance in the 2nd Labour Government), to chair the Select Committee looking at proposals for a National Health Service. Nordmeyer was ably assisted by his friend and later Minister for Health, DG ‘Doc’ McMillan in proposing the new service. McMillan also had the benefit of being a Doctor and having been in private practice before being elected to Parliament. Both McMillan and Nordmeyer were supporters of a comprehensive and state funded health system. Mary Logan in her biography of Arnold Nordmeyer, ‘Nordy‘ notes that Nordmeyer and McMillan had even won support from Walter Nash, Labour’s Minister of Finance for a completely public funded health system.
The other trump card that Nordmeyer and McMillan had was the support of Prime Minister Savage. Along with Labour’s commitment to implementing social security, Savage took an active interest in the organisation and outcomes of this ‘new’ health service. He perceived it as an integral part of Labour’s social security system and another step toward creating a society which catered for all people from ‘the cradle to the grave’.
But, the one person that they could not convince was Deputy Prime Minister, Peter Fraser. Fraser had close contacts within the British Medical Association (BMA) and consistently thwarted attempts to impose a comprehensive system. Fraser’s opposition and that of the BMA finally angered Savage to such an extent that there was, as Gustafson records in ’From the Cradle to the Grave,’ a ‘showdown’ in the Prime Minister’s office between Savage and the Head of the BMA. The BMA told Savage that they would oppose the new system to their utmost. In response, Savage stated that the Government would treat the BMA Doctors as being ‘locked out’ and that the Government was committed to implementing its policies to the betterment of the people and as a result it would hire immigrant Doctors if necessary to ensure its policies were enacted. A furious Savage then walked out of the room leaving an apologetic Fraser.
Of course, Savage died in 1940 of cancer and his desire of a universal state funded health system died with him. As Prime Minister, Fraser struck a deal with the BMA for a more limited scheme which allowed Doctors to be subsidised by the state. It also set the standard for the private sector to operate in cooperation and later, competition with the state sector. In the 1980s and 1990s this commitment to public health service was scaled back even further with funding to the public sector cut, the public sector corporatized and the private sector making great gains in the supply of health services.
Presently, Labour is involved in a debate over its leadership. However, of real importance to me is who picks up the mantle for supporting similar policies such as those that I have detailed. Labour needs people who have the same steely forthright resolve as Savage in this regard and a commitment to implementing policies that benefit all in society. Currently, I don’t see any Labour MPs who are being touted as potential leaders at the moment making that commitment. That is, however, not to say that they will arise.
Will He Stay Or Will He Go? Phil Goff and the Leadership of the Labour Party
Posted: March 25, 2011 Filed under: Labour Party 2 Comments »The Darren Hughes saga may not just claim the political scalp of that MP. It could, it appears, have far reaching consequences for the Party’s leader, Phil Goff. News is leaking through the media that Goff is in danger of being rolled by members of the parliamentary and extra-parliamentary party due to his (mis) handling of the Hughes affair. It is rumoured (rumours are dangerous things) that one of those seeking to actively unseat him is former Labour leader and Prime Minister, Helen Clark.
I remember meeting Phil Goff when I was a young Labour Party member and activist in the 1980s. At that time Goff was Minister of Youth Affairs, and became Minister of Employment and Education. He and I did not hit it off. At the time the Labour Party was in open revolt. Indeed, there was open civil war in the Party, which eventually destabilised the Government, bringing to an end the Prime Ministerial leadership of David Lange and providing National with a 30 seat majority in the 1990 election. It also led to the creation of the Alliance and ACT, two parties which are diametrically opposed to each other, but whose membership and leadership were mostly Labour Party activists in the 1980s.
The problem for Goff has always been that he is a tainted man. When he was an up and coming Labour high flyer in the 1980s, he was given the ‘problematic’ portfolios of Education and Employment. These were ’killer’ portfolio’s for any Minister, particularly a Minister in the most right wing Government the country had experienced since the 1930s. He quickly became identified with Roger Douglas and the right wing faction in the Labour Party. It was Goff, for example who first increased state house rentals in the 1980s, it was Goff who replaced employment schemes with training programmes and it was Goff, who implemented the Hawke Report, which advocated high fees, loans and a tertiary tax for University students.
I actually have a letter from Goff to me, when I was President of Labour Youth in 1989, in which he praises Margaret Thatcher, as creating a low inflationary economy in the United Kingdom and therefore setting the economic basis for future employment and economic security.
In the 2000’s under Helen Clark, he was seen as a conservative Minister who played it safe and opted for conservative social and economic solutions. Any semblance of the left wing ‘fireball’ that Goff was in the 1970s is well and truly gone.
But, to be fair to Goff, it is also under his leadership that Labour has again started to move to the left. Labour MP’s have actively started questioning the basis behind the neo-liberal market agenda that has underscored their policies since, well, the first time that Goff was a Minister in the Fourth Labour Government. True, these have not been big questions, but they have been significant enough policy changes for a number of people to start talking about Labour recapturing its social democratic soul.
Still, to many people, Goff was always an in’-between’ leader. A man whose role it was to ‘babysit’ the Labour Party until a new leader could be appointed. It was commonly assumed that this would occur after the election. He was a ‘Michael Foot’ type leader. But, without the left wing credentials, duffle coat and unkempt look that Foot was famous for.
However, in replacing Goff, Labour is taking a big gamble. They may be hoping for a ‘Gillard’ effect. That a new Leader will cause the polls to rise in Labour’s favour; that a new leader could deal with Key and, thereby, energise the Labour Party in the lead up to the election.
The Labour Party is no longer a Party that suffers a leader which loses it elections, like it did with Walter Nash, Norman Kirk or Bill Rowling. Both Nash and Kirk eventually won and Rowling was eventually deposed by Lange. It has transformed into a party in a hurry; it is party that actively seeks political power now. (I even suspect that it might actually see it itself as the ‘natural’ party of Government).
Either way, if Goff goes, Labour may not win the election. But, if he stays, Labour won’t win the election without massive blundering by the National Party. The choice is Labour’s
Margaret Lives – This Government is Not for Turning
Posted: March 21, 2011 Filed under: economy, Labour Party, National Party Leave a comment »People expecting a radical change of economic direction from the Government are to be severely disappointed as a consequence of recent comments made by Bill English and John Key. To use a refrain that was popular during the Thatcher era in Britain, to describe its economic direction, ‘the Government is not for turning.’ Indeed, the Government has appeared to have used the Canterbury Earthquake as an excuse to announce further cuts in existing government spending.
People are being told that the Government needs to find appropriately $800 million as a consequence of the earthquakes and that we can expect nothing in the Budget. However, Key and National’s line would have been more convincing, if they had not been saying it prior to the February earthquake. It was at that point that Key signalled that government cuts and partial asset sales were on the Government agenda. He then used some exceedingly dodgy explanations to justify them, such as comparing New Zealand’s debt to that of Spain and Greece.
Now, the Government and its economist allies in the banks and finance houses are using the earthquake and an IMF report to the Government as ammunition. Apparently the IMF has called for cuts and balanced budgets. Of course, as CTU economist, Bill Rosenberg noted this morning on Morning Report, the IMF would recommend this solution regardless of the circumstances. The IMF’s refrain is comparable to, not as much as a needle stuck in a groove of a record, but a record that simply has one track and one verse.
But, what I found to be the really interesting thing about the discussion this morning between Rosenberg and Westpac’s ‘pet’ resident economist, Dominic Stephens was the belief that Stephens still had in the free market and spending cuts actually delivering the economic and social goods not only for Christchurch, but in the longer term for New Zealand as a whole. The recession and the resulting failure of market economics as a practical solution (not that it ever was) appears to have simply passed him and his colleagues by. Cutting spending and lower personal taxes, Stephens croaked was the only solution. GST had to increase he said. He made some references to the damage that having a ‘high’ 39 cent marginal tax rate had caused.
Further, Stephens was worried about capital gains as this was causing people not to invest in productive areas of the economy but, to speculate in unproductive areas such as land. Yes, quite. I am not disagreeing with him in this respect, but I would observe that this is an issue, mainly because New Zealand is one of the few countries not to have a capital gains tax. This is partially thanks to the efforts of people such as bank economists who have actively campaigned against it.
Labour and the Greens have gone on record as pointing out how damaging such cuts could be at this point. They are correct. As Rosenberg pointed out this morning, cuts at this point, especially since the recession is not over could have the undesired effect of prolonging it. It brings to mind Maynard Keynes’s famous observation during the Great Depression of the 1930s that the Budget could be balanced while lying on your back.
However, despite their comments, both Labour and the Greens are very light on detail. In my opinion, what is needed is an active government policy of investment and actually more government spending, this will mean higher taxes (read more tax bands)on those on higher incomes and, importantly, the imposition of taxes on areas that are not currently taxed, such as capital gains and bank transactions. Bank transactions have become a hot issue in Europe due to the amount of money involved. Taxing transactions especially those on large corporations would raise more money that GST would ever hope to. And, it would be progressive, something that GST is not. The other area in which New Zealand is being short changed is the area of free trade. New Zealand is in the process of negotiating yet another free trade deal, in this case the TPP (Transpacific Partnership). This deal involves a number of nations, including the US and the outcome of such a deal could be very detrimental to New Zealand’s economic, financial and social sovereignty. Every time such a deal passes, it weakens the productive base of the economy and the ability of people and the government to determine their own economic and social outcomes.
New Zealand stands at a cross roads. We can either build an egalitarian social democratic economy and society or continue on with the half baked failed free market economic theories that are the real cause of our present distress and have caused practically every major economic recession and depression since the 1870s. The choice is ours.
National Unravels
Posted: June 15, 2009 Filed under: By-election, Labour Party, National Party Leave a comment »National is putting a brave face on its loss in the Mt Albert by-election, stating that it was always the underdog and that it never expected to win. However, this merely masks the extent to which it has tumbled since it started the campaign. Initially, it had brave hopes. Labour was at a very low ebb, National, on the other hand, had popular support on a number of issues. The Government’s attitude in Parliament reflected this new reality, with National and ACT members running procedural and oratory rings around their hapless Labour counterparts.
National was very confident that it had a real chance in Mt Albert. At the beginning of the campaign, it was Labour that was seen to be on the back foot, lacking coherent policy and seemingly, any charisma. Political commentators opined that it would be a close run between National and Labour. In short, the by-election was National’s to lose. And, lose it, National did.
At the beginning of the Parliamentary term, a newish National MP asked John Key a patsy question in the House. The gist of the question was how confident was the Government that it had popular support. John Key answered that the high level of support for the Government was reflected in the opinion polls, which showed Labour in the mid 20 percent rate and National in the mid 50s. This was followed by snickering from the National MP’s and blunted wailing from Labour’s. Key would have done better to have kept in mind the political proverb attributed to UK Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, who commented that ‘a week is a long time in politics, and a fortnight an eternity.’
National chose the wrong candidate in Melissa Lee. A favourite of John Key and of the party leadership, she was seen as having been parachuted into the position over the previous National candidate, Ravi Musuku. She then proceeded to blunder from one gaffe to another as the campaign progressed. Her comments on the motorway, followed by her refusal to front at meetings in the electorate provided the impression of a candidate who was afraid to appear in front of voters. Even her jokes backfired on her, with her comments about MPs working long hours for low pay which she gave at the launch of the Unite Union’s campaign in favour of raising the minimum wage, making her look ‘out of touch’ and arrogant.
Into this mix was the decision by National to press ahead with the motorway, which meant bulldozing hundreds of residential properties, the somewhat teenage stalking by MP Richard Worth of two women and the continuing saga of the Auckland Super-city, spearheaded by ACT Minister, Rodney Hide. When you have friends like ACT, one wonders, who needs enemies? By the end of May, National looked slightly seedy and slightly shabby.
However, despite its convincing win, Labour should not take the Mt Albert result as vindication for its strategies and programme. In spite of Labour swamping the electorate with its workers and its supporters, what really superbly aided its campaign were National’s own appalling political decisions and their final one to desert Melissa Lee, leaving her to sink.
Labour still lacks a coherent programme, its policies and strategies offer the same approach as they did prior to its General Election loss (Tory-lite). In this, Labour’s candidate David Shearer is a prefect representative, presenting himself as conservative and bland, much like Labour’s leader, Phil Goff. Labour, remains an aimless Party, pursuing an aimless agenda.
At the end of the day, Labour won in Mt Albert, because National lost.
Unity
Posted: April 22, 2009 Filed under: By-election, Labour Party, National Party Leave a comment »Word has finally filtered down about the date of the Mt Albert By-election. John Key has announced that June 13 will be the date that people get to decide who the new MP should be, and from which party. National, has already publicly announced that it feels that it could win the seat and Labour, has already publicly announced that it could lose it. Hence, the campaign will no doubt be bitterly fought in the full glare of the media.
However, as these two paragons of modern right wing political activity contest the seat, my own thoughts turn to the problem that the left has in contesting the seat and upcoming elections. Maybe, it is the thought that a clear consistent left wing point of view and programme needs to be articulated that prompts me to say that members of the democratic left need to be singing from the same song sheet. So far, the Left has proven itself incapable of doing so. In the last General Election, three parties from the left stood, the Alliance (of which I am a member), RAM, which is mostly Auckland based and the Workers Party. None of the aforementioned Parties broke the 1 percent barrier and none of them look likely too in the near future.
The onslaught of the Recession and the inability of the Government to deal with the cumulative crises that are rolling across the economic landscape bring the need to have a united democratic left ticket into focus more sharply. After all, the recession has brought the free market experiment to a grinding shuttering halt. Merely tinkering around the edges which appears to be the economic programme of both the Tories and the L(iberals) is not going to restore economic or social well being.
In such a situation, a rejuvenated democratic left would be well placed to offer an alternative to the tired right wing agenda that is being promoted. Although, it would need to be a left that in a sense returned to ‘first principles’. One of those principles being that a society needs to be inclusive and democratic in the real sense of the word. This is contrary to the idea that paradise can be achieved through the teaching and action of a small elite.
Chris Trotter wrote some time ago about the glee that appeared on some of the faces of the extreme left when they talked about the deepening recession. With every piece of misery that appears, some people on the left appear to have a public orgasm. As far as they are concerned each piece of misery brings us closer to the ‘Revolution’. Of course, this is far from the truth. As the recession cuts its way across economies, for the most part, people become fearful. They become fearful of losing their jobs, their homes, their standard of living and they start to gravitate toward parties and organisations which can offer them and their family’s stability in an unstable time.
However, Chris’s comment also reminded me of the remark of a German Social Democrat at the beginning of the Great Depression. They noted that the socialists were in the inevitable position of being doctors wanting the patient to recover, but also impatient heirs who wanted the patient to pass on, so that they could inherit the estate. However, bad economic news notwithstanding, I do not think that capitalism is about to collapse. And, even if it did, I really don’t think that the revolutionary left in this country is a long way away from being capable of either mounting or accepting such a challenge.
The real emphasis is on the democratic left to promote a radical and alternative democratic vision.
Mount Albert could be the start of that realignment.
Full of Sound and Fury
Posted: March 17, 2009 Filed under: Labour Party, National Party, Parliament Leave a comment »We live in a disconnected age and nowhere is this disconnection more prevalent than in New Zealand’s Parliament. Over the past several weeks I have been subjected to watching parliamentary debates. I say, subjected, because a friend and I watch Shortland Street (my guilty little secret) and he has taken to recording Parliament TV prior to us watching the recorded episode of ‘Shorties’.
Parliament TV reveals that National is, simply, arrogant. Its election victory and its continuing high ratings in the polls have led to it treating the business of the House with, what verges on, open distain. Watching John Key in action is like watching the stereotypical smarmy used car salesman at work. Key, who gives the impression that he is generally out of his depth, nonetheless answers questions with real arrogance and glibness. This attitude is more than matched by other National MPs, who following the behaviour provided by their leader, openly mock the Opposition.
However, if the National Government is arrogant and smarmy, then the Labour (Liberal) Opposition is generally loud and ineffectual. L(iberal) MPs appear to be the parliamentary version of possums caught in headlights – in short, parliamentary road kill. The L(iberal) Party has not adapted to its role of parliamentary opposition well. It appears to spend a lot of its time in meaningless points of order, asking (often ineffectual) questions that National effortlessly bats away or bizarrely pointing out the deficiencies of existing policy and statues. The problem with this line of questioning is that, as National points out, Labour had 9 years to rectify the very issues that it is now raising as problems.
If evidence is needed of the inane attitude of parliamentary debates then it was ambly provided for me on March 4 with questions from L(iberal) leader, Phil Goff to John Key about the outcomes of the Job Summit. Key was arrogant and mocked Goff, who subsequently tied parliamentary proceedings up with points of order and supplementary questions that led nowhere. Another was the bumbling attempt, provided last week by Progressive MP, Jim Anderton (who is essentially a defacto L(iberal) MP), to discredit National in relation to the reintroduction of the royal honour system.
People need to be aware of the debates and discussions that occur in parliament. Indeed, it was this principle that led the first Labour Government to broadcast parliament on the radio. Michael Joseph Savage felt that people should be able to listen in and have the ability to discuss that legislation debated by their parliamentary representatives. He felt that such broadcasts would actually improve the level of democratic discussion both within and without the House. Unfortunately, parliamentary speaking and debate appear to have actually got worse over the intervening decades. As part of my thesis, I have had to read parliamentary debates from the 1920s and 30s and a comparison of the standard of debate and discussions from that period presents a group of people who were (for the most part) well read, well informed and exceedingly literate. Whereas, modern parliamentary debate and discussion is best summed up by Rodney Hide comparing Points of Order to limbs of trees.
No longer is parliament the place for ideas or wider discussion. Instead, it has become increasing disconnected from the wider world, becoming merely a place for petty point scoring. It is, to paraphrase a soliloquy from Shakespear’s ‘Macbeth’, a place full of “tale(s) told by a fool(s), full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Riding High in the Saddle…
Posted: March 6, 2009 Filed under: economy, Labour Party, National Party Leave a comment »The National led Government completed its first 100 days in office recently. And, among all the self trumpeting about its various achievements in this period, it gained an added bonus in the form of several opinion polls that showed National leading Labour by a substantial margin. National, it appeared could do little wrong in the eyes of the voters. It was reacting quickly and decisively to the economic crisis, leaving the Liberals (Labour) to wallow in its wake and claim that they would have done exactly the same, only better.
Frankly, I would have been surprised if the Government had gone down in the polls. It has come freshly elected into office and inherited an economy, which is in a deep recession. It has then suggested various schemes and programmes to promote economic growth and employment. The L(iberals) on the other hand have not really been able to suggest an alternative. Indeed, L(iberal) leader Phil Goff actually stated that he would support government proposals and the suggestions from the Jobs Summit, if the Government dropped its commitment to tax cuts.
The public wanted a political change and fresh ideas and, from their perspective, Key and co are providing them.
Of course, as the old saying goes, ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating.’ The Government’s economic package is actually not daring or fresh. Like three day old cabbage it is rather stale. As such, the L(iberals) are quite correct in their assertions that they would have done the same or better, simply, because they would have. Indeed, economically there is not that much different between either National of Labour.
A case in point is the recent Jobs Summit. The Job Summit has played a part in stimulating debate about the economy and job creation even if its proposals were laughably weak. The promoted ideas from the summit were policies relating to tax write offs for business, a 9 Day Working Fortnight and the building of a nation wide system of cycle lanes.
The 9 Day Working Fortnight is especially being touted by the Government and its allies in the Business community, as being useful for those in the manufacturing and service sector. It’s implementation, they claim, will allow workers to keep their jobs in this area, even if they do not keep their wages or conditions. As the Prime Minister euphemistically stated on March 4;
“…even if workers are to take a reduction in their pay, we have always made the case that it might be a lot better for workers to hold hands and for all of them to keep their jobs, even if on a slightly reduced pay, than for some of them to lose their jobs.”
Some people have commented about the need to have ‘equality of sacrifice’ during the recession. However, what is emerging is that the sacrifice is going to be very unequal. Nowhere is this more evident than in the 9 Day Working Fortnight and its emphasis on those industries which are largely staffed by low income workers. Of course, these industries are merely a reflection of the low wage status of the New Zealand economy as a whole.
This fact was even touted by the Government in a Question in Reply to National List MP, Michael Woodhouse. In response to Mr Woodhouse, the Minister of ACC, Nick Smith noted that the average household income is $67,000. This amount, which if it was divided between two main bread-earners in a household, would equate to roughtly $33,500. This is hardly a princely amount on which to feed, clothe and provide shelter and provide transport for a family.
Equally, while National, ACT and the Business Community argue that workers taking a 9 Day Working Fortnight and forgoing two days worth of pay is a sacrifice worth making to save their employment, it might very well have the opposite effect. A 10 percent pay cut, which is what the 9 Day Working Fortnight effectively is, will detrimentally affect the living standards of those workers who undertake it and of the wider community. The 9 Day Working Fortnight with its 10 percent less pay for workers will mean 10 percent less to spend in the community. In the 1991 recession, cuts to wages and benefits by the fourth National Government literally bled the economy, by substantually reducing domestic demand and increasing unemployment. Wage cuts in the Great Depression had even worst effects. In short, wage and salary cuts in economic recessions are not good ideas.
As I mentioned previously, the proof of the pudding lies in the eating. And, the day for eating is rapidly approaching. Although, National is currently riding high in the saddle, New Zealand and the two main parties have been largely living in a ‘fool’s paradise’. This country has been largely engaging in a phoney war with the economic recession, with the result that most people have been thinking that it won’t be that bad. Only now are they becoming aware that it very well might.
Weaned on 25 years of neo-liberal economic thought, National and Labour are largely relying on the market and the Business Community to economically revive themselves. Unfortunately for them, the Business community are in the process of bunkering down. Thus, we come to the nub of the problem, as aside from tinkering around the edges, neither party appears to have any coherent long term plan.
The Government needs to provide a strong lead and to do so it needs to work out what its priorities are. At the moment, both major parties appear to be to hoping for a quick return to the economic conditions of the early 2000’s. Therefore, there has been no movement to examine the underlying commitment to the market and policies and legislation like the Reserve Bank Act, Free Trade, Overseas Investment and the like. These cornerstones of the freemarket are to remain in place, even as the edifice crashes around itself.
I would argue that if we want to have an economy that promotes high wages and full employment, then like the first Labour Government we have to be courageous and to commit to those principles as the centre piece of the economy and put in place programmes that promote those goals. Unfortunately, National and their L(iberal) counterparts are shaping up more like George Forbes and his failed United Party than either Harry Holland or ‘Micky’ Savage.
‘Hard’ Left … Who you callin’ Hard Left, Willis???
Posted: December 23, 2008 Filed under: Labour Party 3 Comments »I was going to write something about the ‘hard left’ in New Zealand. However, I see that Chris Trotter has partially beaten me to it on his blog. For the past week, Chris and Oliver Woods of RAM have been involved in a rather in-depth discussion on whether there really is a future for the left, outside of Labour.
I want to comment on this discussion because some of the remarks that have been made, in addition to other comments that have been said to me since the election, have really cheesed (he politely says) me off.
Initially, my posting was to be about the fact that Andrew Little, in a recent response to a (rather inept) question about the left at a recent function in Christchurch, referred to the Alliance as the ‘hard’ left. (Little, incidentally, is seen as part of Labour’s left faction and is being touted as a future leader of the Party). I wasn’t impressed by Little’s response, one because it lacked any real content and two, because of the ‘hard left’ comment, from which I took to mean that the ‘hard’ left is now being seen as anything from the Alliance (and one assumes sections of the Greens) to the Workers Party and the SWO.
I have often mused as to what type of country we live in, when traditional social democracy is perceived as the same as revolutionary socialism. The answer to that question is very simple; we live in a country that is ideologically right wing and despite nine years of a Labour-led Government remains so.
And, this is the rub of the argument, the people who label the Alliance as ‘hard’ left are the same people who generally term Labour as left and claim this because Labour has ‘reclaimed’ its social democratic soul. But, what is constituted as modern social democracy is in fact the ‘third way’ so beloved of Tony Blair and his ideological philosopher, Anthony Giddens. Indeed, the social democratic ethos that modern Labour has claimed is not really ‘social democratic’ at all, rather it is an ethos borrowed from the ‘social’ Liberals of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It is the same liberal ‘soul’ that inspired Asquith, Campbell-Bannerman, Lloyd George and in New Zealand, Balance and Seddon and it has largely the same policies; free trade, restrained free markets and use of the state as a redistributive tool. In fact, this social liberal principle is nicely articulated by new Labour MP, Phil Twyford who in his maiden speech comments;
“It is possible to run an open economy that welcomes good foreign investment while also protecting what is good and valuable about our landscape and our institutions and our way of life. It is possible to have a business friendly environment while also treating workers with dignity and respecting their rights. It is possible to celebrate success and wealth creation while also giving a hand up to those who need it”
To paraphrase, George Dangerfield from his 1932 classic book, The Strange Death of Liberal England, the modern Labour Party, like its Liberal predecessor is simply to the left of the Tories.
The follow on argument that I have heard frequently is that the way forward for people like me is through supporting the ‘progressive’ members of the Labour Party, and, if one follows that line of thought to its ultimate conclusion, by re-joining the Labour Party.
I won’t lie. I have thought of rejoining the Labour Party at times. However, a visit to the Labour Party website or a conversation with Labour Party activists quickly discourages me from doing so. From what I have learnt, there is still an ongoing fight with the Party’s right (which appears to be very entrenched in both numbers and philosophy) and many of the policies that I do agree with, such as free education and health care, economic justice and popular sovereignty, fair trade and progressive taxes appear to have long since been removed from the Labour Party’s political vocabulary.
But, what worries me the most is the manner by which the left has been forced back into the notion of supporting Labour. We are told to support it because it is the only ‘game in town’. In essence, we now have ‘first past the post’ by default. For example, in 2008, the comment was that support for any left party other than Labour, lets in the Tories. Horribly, this is precisely what MMP attempted to overcome by allowing people the choice to vote for those parties which best represented their viewpoints or opinions. If you could get enough votes to cross the threshold, then you gained seats in parliament.
Yet, the two major parties have been intent on driving parties out of parliament. Labour drove the Alliance out of parliament in 2002 (after the Alliance/Progressive split), when it ran a vigorous, EPMU funded campaign in Waitakere, against a real left social democrat MP Laila Harre, in favour of the lack lustre EPMU organiser and Labour candidate, Lynne Pillay. If the Alliance had survived, there would be three progressive parties in parliament, the Greens, Labour and the Alliance (I count the Progressives as part of Labour). This would have shored up left support for the Labour led Government.
Of course such an undertaking would have meant that Labour would have needed to realise that while it was the major party on the left, it was no longer the most dominant. And, this is the real crux of the matter; Labour wants to be the only game in town on the left.
Chris has noted in his article in Raymond Millers book, Party Politics in New Zealand (2001 edition) that by 1999, the Alliance’s strategy had to be one of reabsorption into Labour, due to its falling vote. Its task was completed. That may have been Chris interpretation of Alliance strategy, but it was never mine or that of any party activist. The ‘strategy’ of the Alliance was never to be reabsorbed into Labour. If indeed that had been the case, I wouldn’t have bothered to get out of bed in 1993, let alone campaign for either MMP or the Alliance during that period. Initially, the ‘Grand Plan’ was to replace Labour as the major party of the left. Later, it was to forge itself as the main party of the left as opposed to Labour being of the centre left.
But, the Alliance failed. The Alliance failed, because there was never a clear view on what it wanted. It failed not due to the membership, but due to the decisions of the leadership. Who, after each election (and particularly, after 1996) decided to progressively water down the Alliance’s platform so as to become more responsible (to its potential partner, Labour) and to gain more electoral support from voters. However, in each subsequent election, the Alliance lost support. This was in comparison to the more left wing NLP (NewLabour Party) which had actually gained support after its first election in 1990, before its absorption into the Alliance.
People who know me are aware that I am currently undertaking a part-time PhD thesis on the Labour Party from 1919 – 1935 and its relationship with Democratic Socialism. A read of the 1919 manifesto shows that by 1984, Labour had achieved much of what it had advocated in its early years. By 1989, the fourth Labour Government had given much of those achievements away. By 2008, the modern Labour Party is not even close to re-achieving them.
I know that there is a real constituency for people who believe in progressive taxation, free education and health care, more participation by people (dare, I say ‘workers’) in the economic system and in their places of work, a system of social security etal. When I joined the Labour Party as a teenager in 1982 (under Bill Rowling), it believed in many of these things.
Bill Rowling was not a member of the ‘hard’ left.
Recent Comments