New Zealand – The way you want it? Can National channel its 1975 Incarnation
Posted: July 16, 2020 Filed under: economy, General Election, History, Labour Party, National Party Leave a commentThe votes are in and after several years of trying, Judith Collins is the new leader of the National Party.
The choic
e is brave – although, I suspect that National’s caucus had little option – as Collins is divisive and polarizing. It is a calculated risk by the party, as while her dry brand of neoliberalism and conservativism may stem the flow to ACT, it might also hasten a drift to Labour. The liberal wing and supporters of the party, which has been latterly associated with Nikki Kaye, will doubtless feel alienated by Collins and Gerry Brownlee. In such a situation they may feel inclined to throw their support behind Labour and Jacinda Arden rather than support a neoliberally dry and morally conservative National party.
On a Facebook page, I follow, one of the supporters of the page made the comment that he thought that Collins will do to Labour what Muldoon did to the party in 1975. Her actions will be like Muldoon’s with the result that the outcome, which was a decisive loss for Labour will be similar. I demurred on that point and noted that this is not 1975, that the Sixth Labour Government is not the Third Labour Government and Jacinda is not Bill Rowling. Muldoon also had a year to prepare for the election.
I stand by those comments.
However, Collins should not be underestimated, and history amply demonstrates the ability of supposedly unpopular politicians to create popular support. Muldoon proved to be a master of building a popular movement in a very short time. Aided by the unrest in the Labour party caused by the death of Norman Kirk and, the economic turmoil caused by the oil shocks and the resulting recession, Muldoon barnstormed the Country speaking to packed meetings and offering an economic programme which resonated with voters.
Further, Muldoon had rolled National’s liberal leader, Sir Jack Marshall, in his leadership coup. The difference was that instead of resigning or stepping back (as Kaye and Adams have done), National’s liberal members and supporters rallied around the flag. Even Marshall supported Muldoon (abet grudgingly) during the election campaign. The result was that Muldoon, despite being reviled by a large section of the population in 1972, was able to mount a cogent, comprehensive and popular challenge that overwhelmed the Labour Government and turned a 23 seat deficit for National in 1972 into a 23 seat majority for National in 1975.
Collins does have the capability to do likewise. Like Muldoon, while she is polarizing, she is also pugnacious, in addition (and, again like Muldoon) to being calculating, intelligent and decisive. Unlike, Todd Muller who spend his first days mired in conflict around a MAGA hat, Collins hit the ground running. Stating her intention to stake out a new direction for the Opposition and promising to hold the Government to account.
She said there is no chance at all that she’s going to “let PM Jacinda Ardern get away with any nonsense”.
“I will hold her to account”. And then: “we will be taking the fight to the government. I can’t wait to do that.”
Like Muldoon, Collins has the capability to build such a movement. I doubt that she can do that in the remaining days before the election but, given a year and a declining economy, the Sixth Labour Government might well be in the same situation as its predecessor in 1975.
Since Collin’s election, my Facebook feed has been invaded by memes all directed at Collins. Snippets from her speeches are repeated, passages from Nicky Hager’s book, “Dirty Politics” are quoted and each quote or passage is accompanied with a picture of Collins, usually in an unflattering pose.
And, I have real problem with these memes – they are short sighted, often poorly researched and they actually empower their opponents by deliberately underestimating them. In short, and this is my main gripe, they are political discussion for the lazy.
There is a tendency by some in the left to underestimate, belittle and laugh at their opponents. In 1974, the left laughed at Muldoon. In 1978 they laughed at Thatcher and, in 1979 they laughed at Reagan. In all these cases, a year later, they were not laughing. History should teach us never to underestimate these types of people.
As Muldoon proved in 1975 (and it has remained consistently true since then), there is a significant number of voters who simply don’t care about contrary allegations, comments, quotes from books or unflattering photographs and memes. They care about material things – jobs, wages, the ability to feed themselves and their families, the ability to buy material possessions. These are the people that Muldoon, Thatcher and Reagan appealed to. These are the people that Muldoon labelled the “ordinary bloke.” Key appealed to the same audience as well with devastating effect.
In 2020, as in 1975, Labour should never underestimate a Tory with their back against the wall. The seemingly most unpopular and divisive leader is capable of building a movement.
The Return of Pygmalion
Posted: June 8, 2020 Filed under: economy, employment, History, Labour Party Leave a comment“What is middle-class morality? Just an excuse for never giving me anything.” – Alfred Doolittle from the George Bernard Shaw play, Pygmalion
There have been a number of articles written by commentators in relation to the 
immediate past Budget and the way forward. As most people are aware, the Government has implemented a series of programmes that are designed to stimulate and maintain employment. Foremost among these has been the implementation of a series of subsidies and the introduction of “special benefit payments” for those people who have lost their jobs because of the COVID 19 crisis.
For those, very few, people who are unaware of the situation a large number of people will have access to these new special payments due to them losing their jobs as a result of COVID 19. However, if you were made unemployed or were on the job seeker benefit prior to the COVID lock down your benefit rates do not change.
With New Zealand staring down the barrel of an economic calamity unseen since the early 1930s, these payments could be perceived as a generous and well-meaning intention by the Government to alleviate genuine economic distress to a large number of newly unemployed people because of a dramatic and unforeseen event.
However, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the result of this proposal will be to implement an unjust two-tier system that penalizes existing beneficiaries. Simply because a number of them were unemployed prior to COVID 19.
Worse, the payment of the additional money to the new unemployed is a tacit recognition by the Government that the existing levels of unemployment benefit are simply inadequate for people to live on. Additionally, the suggestion of the implementation of a social insurance scheme sounds suspiciously like what happens in the US, where people are paid a high rate equivalent to their job for several months and then drop down to a subsistence level payment afterwards. If this is the case, then such a scheme should be definitely opposed as it would cement in a two tier system.
Of course, the obvious solution to unemployment is employment and the Government’s role in creating employment. In the past, Governments recognized that they had a 
responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of its populace. Part of that responsibility was the maintenance of employment and the right for people to work. (The early Labour party was an advocate for full employment. Its leaders and members knew (often firsthand) what economic and social damage could be done to workers individually and in a wider economic context by unemployment or underemployment. Hence, the demands from the Party for full employment, the 40 hour week and adequate compensation).
Currently, private firms are doing what you expect private firms to do in the face of a recession. They are cutting costs. They are retrenching and this means cutting wages and jobs. The outcome of that will be a drop in employment, wages and effective domestic demand. As an example, people who are paid less, spend less. They spend less in the shops and in cafes with the result that cafes and shops face falling demand. So, they eventually cut costs. They cut people’s wages or make staff unemployed. The result is that people then spend less in the shops …. and, so it goes.
The final outcome is that under these sorts of circumstances a recession can very easily turn into a depression as Walter Nash observed in Parliament in 1931; “I know that the Government has a fairly difficult task to face. I know that that what it has to face is two major problems. The first is to arrest the decline in income by stimulating production and to eliminate waste in production and in marketing. The second problem is how to distribute that income in such a manner as to obtain a legitimate return for the various parties associated with production, primary and secondary production and distribution.”
My suspicions are that the hold up in the Government taking up a number of reforms in the employment area to deal with this situation are due to the conservative political brake on the coalition Government that is New Zealand First. For example, NZF shut down the options of additional holidays and, the move toward the implementation of the Fair Pay Agreements. Both, of these decisions were done on the basis that these were perceived as being unfair to small business.
However, I think that the NZ First opposition to new concepts is creating a disadvantage to those same small businesses that it seeks to champion. For example, the opposition to the fair pay agreements has effectively meant that there is no wage stabilization across sectors at the time when wage increases, and stabilization could be very useful economically as a means of ensuring ongoing demand.
(It is for this reason that I do not support the proposed helicopter payments which have been suggested in some quarters. I do not believe that they will have the ongoing effectiveness that their supporters believe that they will. They are a one-shot solution to economic recession. Once the helicopter bullet has been fired that is it, the chamber is empty).
A fully funded and accessible benefit system can be an exceptionally useful companion to wage increases. Not only allowing people and families to meet their immediate bills but to continue to contribute to society until employment can be created.
Too often over the past decades the debate over social security has been mired in a conversation about morals. It is very reminiscent of the debates that used to rage in the 19th century about the deserving and undeserving poor. It is not a helpful debate. It minimizes the subject and removes blame from the role of the overall economic system in creating and maintaining mass unemployment and hardship. (Actual long-term unemployment was exceptionally rare prior to the rise of neoliberalism).
My own thoughts are that there needs to be significant work done in the Social Security area to restore the idea of benefits to what they were originally envisaged. This was a means to provide suitable support to those who require it during a time of need. Benefits should be Universal (as they were originally intended) and the payments need to be increased to 2/3 of the average wage.
Those on benefits or allowances should not be penalized for being unemployed or sick or old or have a disability etc. This was not the intention of those who originally designed the scheme. Benefits should be based on the need to ensure that people who have suffered an economic or personal misfortune.
National’s New Clothes
Posted: May 25, 2020 Filed under: General Election, History, Labour Party, National Party Leave a commentIn the aftermath of the recent National party leadership coup, I quickly skim read a popular blog which discussed the various reasons as to why the spill was abnormal. The conclusion was that right-wing National members (and voters) had previously tended not to worry about who was the Leader of the Party. It was an interesting post and, it was well researched and argued.
However, it was not strictly correct.
For most of its history National’s parliamentary leadership has been largely stable. However, National leaders certainly did face leadership coups (and, these coups were supported by the membership). But there were distinct differences in how the Party perceived them and how they were dealt with.
Firstly, National, was one of the most successful conservative parties in the Western world from 1935 until 1993. (This period covers the election of the first Labour Government in 1935, the establishment of the National Party in 1936 and ended with the final First Past the Post election in 1993). During that fifty eight year period, National was in Government for thirty two years, compared to Labour’s twenty six years. It was because the party governed New Zealand throughout the 1950s, 60s and 70s (aside from a brief 3 years from 1957 – 1960 and 1972 – 1975) that National considered itself the natural party of Government. And, you stayed as the natural party of Government by not rocking the boat ie. by launching bloody coups against your leaders.
Secondly, National (and, indeed, Labour party) leaders tended to be masters of their respective Caucuses. Muldoon, after “disposing” of Sir John Marshall in 1974 ruled his Caucus and the wider party with an iron fist. Sir Kei
th Holyoake, despite his demure appearance and personality, had done likewise. National’s leaders, despite their commitment to individualism and the seemingly laisse faire approach to caucus membership and authority, have been ruthless in imposing strict discipline that would put the democratic centralism practiced by Marxist-Leninist parties or groups to shame.
My father once said to me that there is nothing more vicious than a Tory with their back against a wall. When leadership coups have occurred within the National party they have tended to be when National’s electoral backs have been against such a wall. The only exceptions have been Sidney Holland, who was replaced by Holyoake as he was ill and could not fulfill his responsibilities and, Holyoake who stood down from the leadership in 1970. (Holyoake’s leadership was being challenged in the late 1960s. But he saw off potential interlopers. However, after leading National to a 4th term in Government, he saw the proverbial writing on the wall and retired). Muldoon, after biding his time as deputy leader, to Marshall, ruthlessly disposed of him in 1974. A coup which had the support of both the caucus and the wider party. This situation came about due to Marshall’s inability to match Norman Kirk. The hapless and luckless, Jim McLay who ‘succeeded’ Muldoon, was likewise ruthlessly disposed of by his predecessor and his deputy, Jim Bolger in 1986. McLay was no match for either David Lange or a vengeful and resentful Muldoon who had rallied a significant section of the National Party (Rob’s Mob) behind him. Bolger was later rolled by Jenny Shipley in 1998.
Modern National party history, since 2000, is equally replete with such spills.
So is the modern Labour party. For the most part, aside from Kirk’s coup against Arnold Nordmeyer in 1965, Labour leaders remained in place for considerable periods despite electoral losses. The first leader of the Labour Party, the Marxist Harry Holland was leader from 1919 until his death in 1933. Labour finally became Government in 1935. Walter Nash was leader from Peter Fraser’s death in 1950 until he retired after 1963. (Na
sh was Prime Minister between 1957 – 1960). Bill Rowling lost the Prime Ministership in 1975 and, likewise led Labour to electoral defeat in 1978 and 1981. Both, particularly 1981, were narrow loses with Labour polling ahead of National on both occasions but losing because of the First Past the Post electoral system.
In 1989/90 and in the aftermath of Labour’s loss in 2008 there have been a succession of leaders until stability was restored by Helen Clark in 1994 and, by Jacinda Arden in 2017.
The reason I think that leadership spills occur far more frequently in both parties now is due to the problematic proximity of the parties to electoral power. The MMP system and the need to connect with sympathetic voters and potential coalition parties means that both the major parties are more readily able to form a Government. MMP has meant that National can no longer perceive of itself as the natural party of Government. Unlike the winner take all approach of the First Past the Post system, MMP requires convincing voters and potential political partners to support you. It relies on you and your coalition partners being able to achieve 50% and more of the total parliamentary vote to become the government. (Previously, National had 45% but no coalition partners. Labour, might have had 40% support but it had coalition partners who shared its general policy outlook. The result is that National loses and Labour governs as it has over 50% support in Parliament). Consequently, parties have become more ruthless in terms of decerning who their leaders are – not only in terms of selling their respective policy but, (and, more importantly) in ensuring that they are able to connect with voters and potential partners.
Consequently, National’s past might be useful in determining its potential future approach. National’s new leader, Todd Muller has realized that appealing to sympathetic voters and parties such as New Zealand First will not be achieved by adopting the approach of National’s first leader, Adam Hamilton and its most recent, Simon Bridges to simply “oppose, oppose and oppose” the Labour Government. The electoral success of the Holyoake Government lay in the ability of that Government to reach a consensus between different parties and different groups. Consensus is reached between those parties who have common principles or policy. It is seldom reached between those who have substantially different views and approaches.
It is not by accident that the new leader of the National party, Todd Muller has seemingly adopted a more collaborative approach and has reached out to New Zealand First as part of the new direction. He recognizes that there is a commonality between both parties and where there is commonality there might be a political consensus. Tracey Martin has recognized the new approach and responded warmly to National’s new overtures. As the old saying goes, “You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.”
Social Democracy (and JM Keynes) rides again…
Posted: May 19, 2020 Filed under: economy, employment, History, Labour Party, Social Democracy Leave a comment
With the hullabaloo about the budget finally dying down it is probably time to reflect on what it meant and, what it portents for the future of the country (and, the Labour party).
I want to make the point that it is probably the most sweeping budget for the past 40 years. Effectively, turning its back on the market, the central role for planning and development was conclusively given back to the State. Further, the Government openly declared that it would not be pursuing surpluses or balanced budgets. Instead, it would deficit finance to minimize the coming recession. In one fell swoop, the Government turned its back on 40 years of neo-liberalism and market led economics. .
It was a budget, that certainly reset the scene for the re-introduction of social democratic principles and policy.
But, it was also a budget designed to reassure both the business community and the voters that the Government had a plan and that plan would not be the heralding in of the red dawn.
The budget instead opted for the principle that the Government had to be responsible for ensuring economic growth, stability, and demand. It also clearly indicated that Government was determined not to throw people into the fire pit of austerity – which had been suggested by some economists, business people and political commentators. Among the suggestion to come from that quarter was to simply let struggling business go to the wall, lower wages and, then, simply wait for a market correction to deal with the resulting unemployment. One of them even suggested that the wage subsidy be turned from a subsidy into a loan which workers would later pay back. The most common refrain was that the Government was placing new generations of people into debt. (Ignoring the simple fact that private debt has considerably risen in this country since the advent of neo-liberalism in the mid-1980s and succeeding generations are poorer than the preceding ones).
Thankfully, the Government ignored the bleating from these people. Listening to them would have had the effect of worsening New Zealand’s overall economic condition, turning solvent workers into insolvent unemployed ones , damping domestic demand and turning a bad recession into a truly terrible one (or worse).
Of course, as Jacinda Arden and Grant Robinson observed we are not out of the woods yet and, I would suggest that the Government might have to delve more deeply into its social democratic/democratic socialist traditions (and bag of tricks) to find policies and procedures to cope with the coming international recession.
As I suggested in an earlier post, one of these means is to have the Government lead and coordinate economic planning and development. However, as a friend of mine observed, Government’s ability to plan has been substantially weakened in the past 40 years. Instead, Government’s have allowed the market and private capital to determine outcomes and the market has proven itself to have an appalling tendency to either think tremendously short term and if it does think and act long term, as major Corporations do, then that thinking and acting is to benefit themselves and not the wider community.
The tendency to let the market determine goals has permeated the public sector to a degree that the State Sector CEOs are little better than state paid business people. In the past, Governments, both National and Labour were far more ‘hands on’ in their management of state sector development and they will need to be so again. I am aware that the State Sector Act is being rewritten by the Government. The redrafted Act promises such an approach and the restoration of parliamentary oversight and democratic control into that sector. This needs to happen.
The other thing that needs to occur is the creation (or recreation) of a coordination and planning Ministry that can spearhead development. A suitable name for this new agency could be the Ministry of Works, Development, and Infrastructure. It could have its own responsible Minister in Cabinet.
A further coordination step would be the recreation of a body bringing together unions, local government, central government, and the private and public sectors to plan and coordinate projects on all levels. This body could be like the old New Zealand Planning Council.
Of course, how far down the social democratic track we go depends on what shape the Government takes in the next term. If Labour wins an outright majority of over 50% (a feat unseen since 1951) then we might expect more far reaching reforms. The same is true is if Labour goes into a Government with the Greens (and, not New Zealand First, which is acting as the conservative handbrake (and footbrake) on the current Government). A Labour-Green Government would be a true Green social democratic government which would probably look at taking some of the more necessary steps in economic, social, environmental, and industrial reform and policy.
Bruce Jesson once observed that New Zealand was a conservative social democratic country and most people had conservative social democratic principl
es and a strong belief in equality. New Zealander’s were so enamored of equality for example, that one overseas observer in the early 20th century said that he could envisage the erection of a statue of Equality and its placement in Wellington harbour. Eugene Victor Debs, the great American socialist was apparently once asked if he could lead the masses to socialism. He responded that he could, but that someone would simply lead them out again. In 1984, New Zealander’s were led away from social democracy into the far harsher and more cruel set of beliefs and principles of neoliberalism.
Necessity will make the majority of us, at the very least, social democrats again in the immediate future.
Falling down the Rabbit Hole – Don’t Scrimp on Wages
Posted: April 28, 2020 Filed under: economy, employment, Labour Party, Uncategorized Leave a comment
Over the past weeks, Jacinda Arden made news with her statements that she intended to take a short term salary decrease as a means of showing solidarity with the thousands of workers who now face unemployment or reduced wages and conditions as a result of the COVID 19 crisis. The aftermath of what was an altruistic measure by the Government has been the call by other members of the community to cut public sector wages as well. (Ignoring the fact that many public servants are not paid significantly high wages. The benefit for public servants is that the public sector is highly unionized and, as a result, public sector workers do have better terms and conditions than private sector workers).
The other option that has been mooted is that public service wages are simply frozen. However, this will also essentially lead to other problems down the line. Simply, if wages do not increase while the cost of living does – then workers have had an effective cut in their wages. (Like a number of people, I still remember the chaos that resulted from the 1982 Wages and “Price” Freeze).
Additionally, the public sector drives wages and conditions in the private sector. A move to restrict or to lower wages in the public sector will have flow on effects in the private sphere as well. Those private sector employers who were driven to match public sector pay increases will no longer feel inclined to do so. The result will be a stalling of wages across both the public and private sector and a decrease in demand as people cut back.
Simply, a cut in one area will directly mean a cut in another.
Already, the ranks of the neoliberals in the business community and their political allies are being rallied. Their prescriptions are very simple, cut costs, reduce spending, lower taxes and return to sound business practices as soon as possible. Paul Goldsmith, the Tory finance spokesperson spelt it out very clearly by stating that “… the core engine of growth will always be private sector investment.” (Ignoring the fact that historically public investment has always led economic recovery In New Zealand with private investment cautiously and reluctantly tiptoeing behind).
They are promoting a policy of austerity. It is largely the same austerity programme as practiced by other conservative governments internationally and, was practiced by governments in the 1920s and the 1930s. The effects of that package are, and were, economically and socially dismal.
When Jacinda Arden announced the COVID 19 alert level process that the Government would be following, behind her was a picture of Michael Joseph Savage, Labour’s first Prime Minister. Savage’s government was one of the few in the western world which was at the forefront of confronting the “business as usual” classical approach pursued by western Governments in the 1930s. It was the classical approach that saw the curtailing of wages and government spending and led to the prolonging of the Depression. As the economist, John Maynard Keynes observed at the time, the financial approach of Governments to depress wages and investment was folly, “ …everyone who hates social progress and loves deflation, feels that his hour has come and triumphantly announces how, by refraining from every form of economic activity, we can all be prosperous again.”
The government needs to invoke not only the ‘picture’ of that Labour Government, it needs to invoke its spirit and practice its actions as well.
For most of its term, I have never thought of this Government as being transformational, despite the statements that it was. However, it has reacted incredibly well to the crisis, saving lives and jobs in the process. It now does have the potential to be truly transformational in its next actions. There will be ongoing effects as a result of the COVID 19 crisis which will require direct government and community involvement. The Government does recognize that the state is the only institution that can “kick start” the economy and that public resources need to be directed toward that goal.
But, if it is to truly succeed then the reforms and the programmes need to be more far reaching than that – this will mean the rolling back and replacement of many economic and social policies and programmes put in place from 1984 onward. It will mean the rewriting of the Reserve Bank Act, the renationalization of parts of the economy, the creation (or recreation of) new Ministries, such as a Ministry of Works, Development and Infrastructure and the reintroduction of controls and import barriers to protect jobs and investment. (I note that the Greens have put forward an investment programme that would be labour intensive and productive if parts of it were implemented. It would also put us ahead of the curve in terms of dealing with climate change – which has not gone away).
One of the things that the Government cannot do is to scrimp and cut back on wages and conditions. It is at this point that I would urge the Government to implement the Fair Pay agreements promoted by the CTU and the Unions. By establishing wage and salary guidelines and implementing national Fair Pay agreements, the Government can ensure well being across the private and public sectors at a national level. Hundreds of thousands of workers would be guaranteed of good wages and conditions while the domestic economy would be guaranteed of economic demand.
It is recognition of a simple economic fact that in a capitalist economy one person’s wages do indeed make up someone else’s income or profit. A simple decrease in wages will have the effect of curtailing spending in a shop or a café. This downward spiral leads to the cutting back of expenditure in the form of services, wages or jobs.
It would be too easy to fall down the economic rabbit hole as Governments in the 1920s and 30s did. If the current Labour-led Government does not want a rerun of the 1930s then it needs to be as brave as its 1930s predecessor was. Like that Government, it has a world to win.
Reflection on the Elections – Labour’s Loves Lost
Posted: September 21, 2014 Filed under: General Election, Labour Party, National Party, Parliament, Uncategorized 2 CommentsIt’s been a long time since I have written a blog. My thesis got in the way and I made a promise to my Supervisors not to write a blog as it took time away from that. I was, I admit, bad at keeping some of the other promises that I made to them but I did keep the one about the no blogging – until now.
After one of Nationals’ inevitable victories when I was a kid in the 1970s, my father, who was a railway worker and Labour supporter, said to me; “You know I often think that the working class is its own worst enemy.” Doubtless, if he was still alive he would have said that last night as well. While I feel it’s an overstatement, there is a large amount of truth in that observation. After all, in 1931 in the depths of the Great Depression, the majority of people marched to the polling booths and voted for the Tories. In 1935, the majority of people again marched to the polling booths and voted for the Tories. The difference was that in 1935, the Tory vote was split and the FPP system favoured Labour which won its first election. In 1938, after three years of a Labour Government, the majority of people finally marched to the polling booth and voted Labour.
Not blogging and not being, until relatively recently, politically active has allowed me time to think. To be honest I am really disturbed by the lack of progress that the left has made in the past decade. Certainly, the Labour party needs to have fingers pointed at it. Simply, the party appears to have lost the plot. It does not seem to have any sort of coherent programme or vision. A friend of mine made a similar observation today on his face-book page commenting that once Labour stood for workers. Back in those far-flung days, when my father supported it, Labour did support workers and the poor and it used to get over 40 percent of the vote. We have been informed that times have changed and as a result Labour needed to move and so it therefore adopted neo-liberalism and the ‘third way’ or as the former deputy leader of the UK labour party, Roy Hattersley described the third way “a series of cliques looking for a coherent thought.” Yet, horribly for David Cunliffe his most successful moments as labour leader was when he was actually contesting the position and in the immediate aftermath of his win. This was when he actually had stated positions on programmes and actually renounced the ‘third way’ liberalism of his predecessors. However, this success stopped at his first conference as leader when he fudged over free trade and then continued to fudge thereafter.
Of course, Labour is not alone in its sins and, in this breath, I could mention certain left-wing bloggers who regrettably appeared to spend their time inventing or promoting conspiracy theories or scandals. Certainly, the allegations behind Dirty Politics need to be fully investigated. However, the most annoying thing is the extent to which Dirty Politics and the ill-named ‘The Moment of Truth’ were promoted by these bloggers as legitimate alternatives to serious debate and analysis.
All of this leads me to ask what precisely is it that the left actually stands for? People on the left used to talk about the ‘grand plan’ or ‘grand narrative.’ Essentially that they (we) had a set of ideals for a better society which set them (us) apart from the Tories or the capitalists. This grand plan used to be generally referred to as ‘socialism’ and/or social democracy. While, socialism is a term which I am comfortable with, but which has many unwelcome connotations for others, it nonetheless promoted a society which accepted social justice, equality and economic democracy as its basis. Social Democrats tended to opt for the phrase ‘equality of opportunity’. However, the idea was that in this society people had the equal opportunity to achieve their various aspirations.
I have been told that the social democratic project is over. I would argue that it barely got started in New Zealand and that we adopted a conservative version of it. The Welfare state with its emphasis on full employment, free health care and education, decent standards of living, etc are an important part of such a society. But, they are only one part of the programme. The other part which guarantees economic and social democracy and participation remains untapped. A recreated social democratic grand vision needs to turn its back on neo-liberalism and agitate instead for the restatement of social, economic and democratic justice as a central part of its programme. It needs to restate the ideal that people’s aspirations are not achieved through the ‘free market’ but through the ability of equality of opportunity.
An integral part of socialism (and of Sesame Street) is the concept of co-operation. This is something that the left (and yes, the Labour party) has particular trouble with. To be fair, so does the National party. Peter Dunne and the new forgettable ACT MP for Epson are not co-operating partners with National. Rather, they are vassals to a feudal lord. National has effectively cannibalized the right-wing vote which will cause it problems at some point in the future. But, quite frankly, having partners on the left is not, as many in the Labour party appear to believe, a bad thing. It is, particularly in an MMP situation, a good thing. It is something that should be encouraged. The reason for this is because such parties can actually contribute to building and strengthening the left. They can go places, engage with people and suggest things that might be an anathema to some of Labour’s own supporters but nonetheless shore up a left-wing vote and actually help develop an alternative programme. It has to be remembered that most of the reforms that we have today – the welfare state, employment rights, public healthcare and education were all someone’s radical and revolutionary idea at some point.
It is, therefore, disconcerting when you decide to ‘kill off’ your potential partners. Last night, Labour killed Internet Mana. It may deny that, but that is what it did. For Laila Harre, it would have been a situation of déjà vu, as she was the leader of the Alliance when the Labour party decided to kill it off in 2002. The outcome of that killing was Labour coalitions with Jim Anderton, Peter Dunne and Winston Peters.
Simply, the days of the Labour party being the only major force on the left is over. Subsequently, it should (needs to) embrace other parties on its left as perhaps bothersome, but nonetheless useful potential allies.
This is already occurring in terms of the party vote. Although, the campaign slogan is “only two votes for Labour can change the Government.” People largely know that this is not true with the result that people are casting their electorate and party votes for different parties. This I feel explains some of the discrepancy in votes in various seats. The media, fixated as they are on simplistic reporting, overlook the combined votes of the Greens and Labour in a seat and instead decide to focus on the single large National vote. Mostly, because the vote for National’s right wing partners are virtually non-existent.
Lastly, there remains the need to engage with people. I have been told, but am yet to check that the turnout in this election is low. If it is low then National’s grand victory is illusionary and that the engagement process has failed. People remain disengaged and feel that the current electoral system does not have a place for them within it. It is little good to encourage people to advance vote if the only people who do so are those who would have voted anyway. If the turnout was reasonable then the left has simply failed in its attempt to engage with people. Certainly, the National party has a simple message to engage people by tying their aspirations to those of its leader. He is a self-made man and you can be too. National’s message is like a Tony Robbin’s advertisement or a verse from Hot Chocolate, “Everyone’s a winner, babe, that’s the truth.” Only, it ain’t.
It would be best at this point to reflect on the attitude of Labour’s first (and only Marxist) leader Henry Edmund (Harry) Holland. Holland knew that the progress of a party was based on more than simply an electoral cycle. It was a long-term project which required patience and education. To conclude this is not the time for fear. Now is the time for reflection and rebuilding. To quote the old catch phrase, “Things are always darkest just before the dawn.” The dawn is coming. It might be a while, but it is coming. People just need to have a little patience and a little faith.
How Labour Won in 1996 – How Helen Clark was not Michael Foot
Posted: April 6, 2011 Filed under: Labour Party Leave a commentSeveral 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 CommentSeveral 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 CommentsThe 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 commentPeople 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.
newmasses.wordpress.com 
Recent Comments