WHAT I REMEMBER MOST VIVIDLY about “The Mother of All Budgets” were the tears. Among the dozen or so people crowded around a friend’s radio to hear Ruth Richardson deliver her budget speech on 30 July 1991 was a young solo mum. As National’s Minister of Finance set forth her radical plans to slash government spending – especially spending on welfare – this young woman slowly lowered her head. She didn’t sob, but her shoulders began shaking. Concerned, I murmured a few, inadequate, words of comfort. She shook her head, took a deep breath and tried to smile. But as she turned her face towards me, I saw – and shall never forget – the silent tears running down her cheeks.
The votes we cast can be used in many ways. Sometimes as weapons; sometimes as shields; and sometimes – in the best of times – as tools.
In 1999 Labour and Alliance voters deployed their votes as if they were Exocet missiles. Jenny Shipley and her disreputable government of turncoats were the target and the left-leaning electorate did not miss.
In 2005 Labour voters – especially those living in South Auckland – raised their votes as a shield against the prospect of a Don Brash-led National Government. The man Ruth Richardson was proud to call her friend had pledged to pick-up where the Mother of All Budgets had left off.
But, the last time the left-leaning voters of New Zealand Left took up their ballot papers to construct a better, fairer and more compassionate future? When was that? When were we last given the opportunity to use our vote as a tool – and did we take it?
Well. It’s been a long, long time since the working men and women who make up the core of the Left’s electoral support felt confident enough to use their votes constructively. I’d put it at 67 years: in the General Election of 1946.
The war was over, fascism had been defeated, and the returning servicemen were determined to make a better job of winning the peace than their fathers’ generation had a quarter-of-a-century earlier. Prime Minister Peter Fraser was less enthused about the prospects of expanding on the achievements of Savage’s pre-war Labour Government, but in 1946 he was still willing to be persuaded.
It is one of our great historical tragedies that the progressive policies born of the long period of Labour Party rule, which, by 1949, were on the point of being rolled out, were stopped in their tracks by the voters of the Right.
As one Labour MP remarked, ruefully: New Zealanders had walked to the polls to vote his party in, and driven to the polls to vote it out.
The truth is that between 1946 and 1949 Peter Fraser’s rampant political paranoia had fallen in step with the increasingly rapid march of Cold War hysteria. In those three years Fraser and his allies had managed to brand large chunks of their own labour movement as subversive, communist-inspired “enemies within”. So successful was Fraser’s red-baiting that the voters, wielding their ballots like broadswords, obliged the Left’s enemies by installing New Zealand’s first conservative government since 1935.
National’s conservatism had, of course, been significantly tempered by the success of Labour’s reforms – to the point where, until the Opposition Leader, Sid Holland, undertook to leave the Welfare State in place, his party simply could not win an election. What the Cold War and its unwavering hostility to the communist “threat” did succeed in doing, however, was to prevent any further elaboration of the radical social-democratic reforms of the 1930s. For the next 45 years our own Labour Party, and its sister parties in Europe and America, were effectively reduced to being the conservers of a political yesterday that, with each passing decade, had less and less to say about today.
New Zealand’s largest city was, arguably, the single greatest casualty of this failure to pursue the social and economic logic of social-democratic modernisation. The 1946 plan for Auckland’s future development: a product of some of the most imaginative minds New Zealand then possessed; was poised for implementation in the early-1950s.
Had the National Party not won the 1949 election, Auckland would have grown into a North-European-style city, expanding around a comprehensive public transportation network linking hubs of intensive public housing. This “Auckland That Never Was” stands as a ghostly counter-factual to the gimcrack Los Angeles Auckland ultimately became. A truly tragic testimony to the unholy political heft of property developers, construction firms, consumer goods importers and the tight coterie of politicians who have served their interests for the best part seventy years.
The constricted political space into which the Cold War forced the Labour Party (especially following National’s successful suppression of the militant unions in 1951) drastically limited the opportunities for its supporters to use their votes as tools. Labour could remind people of the good things it had done 20, 30, 40 years before. It could suggest that the National Party had outstayed its political welcome. But a radical elaboration of Labour’s democratic socialist principles was, for the most part, dismissed as electorally infeasible.
After 1946, the election of 1972 comes as close to a constructive political choice as New Zealanders have made in the post-war period. After 12 years in office, National’s demise was pretty much taken as read, and with the shimmering vision of the Values Party illuminating the myriad possibilities of a post-scarcity culture, even Labour felt confident enough to lift its sights beyond the routine maintenance of past achievements.
For the past forty years the English-speaking nations have been working through the political consequences of the possibilities first glimpsed in the early 1970s. For the most part, these years have been about a capitalism in extremisextinguishing whatever loyalty the dominant groups within the British, Australian and New Zealand labour parties and the US Democratic Party still felt to the social and economic achievements of their predecessors.
The Right has always known how very dangerous it is to suggest that the ballot can be used to construct a bettertomorrow. Capitalism’s future is more secure when voters can be frightened into using their ballots as a shield; or, goaded into using them as a weapon against those they have been encouraged to despise as dangerous enemies or parasites.
Like that young solo mum, weeping silent tears as Ruth Richardson flattened her future. Tears which Labour never dried – in spite of many promises to the contrary – through nine long years of subsidising the bosses’ wage bill in preference to feeding the children of the poor.
Does it really require a decade-and-a-half of depression and war; or thirty years of unprecedented prosperity; before Labour is ready to construct an election platform around the conviction that if you’re willing to entrust ordinary people with the tools of democracy, they will prove more than capable of finishing the job?
“Had the National Party not won the 1949 election, Auckland would have grown into a North-European-style city, expanding around a comprehensive public transportation network linking hubs of intensive public housing. This “Auckland That Never Was” stands as a ghostly counter-factual to the gimcrack Los Angeles Auckland ultimately became.”
Sigh, yes, what if, this could indeed have been a very different place, also if a former retirement savings plan had been maintained, building up national savings, which could now be available to invest in infrastructure and other projects, that are needed.
What many fail to realise, when they give in to the scare tactics of National, ACT and their allies is, that this country is amongst a few in the world, that are despite of all troubles still held in high regard, and seen as a place with great potential.
In an overpopulated, widely polluted, raped and exploited world, where many countries suffer economic, social and environmental challenges much worse than what New Zealand so far faces, there are millions who would love to migrate and live and work here.
Despite of all the threats, warnings and intimidation by right wing lobby groups and parties, that foreign investment will only come here if we accept virtually “sell out” terms, the truth is far from it, as businesses and individuals from various countries would be keen to invest here, same as banks.
New Zealanders should realise this, assert themselves, as it is only fair, reasonable and indeed totally possible, to get better terms than what this present government wants to make us believe. Also can more be done and made here, to cater for more local development, than has been happening.
Scandinavian countries are not leading in so many areas, in living standards, incomes, education, health and welfare, just by accident, but because they realise there, and dare to stand for it, that you can set the terms and conditions that best suit the widest possible base within a population.
This is also possible here, and more can and will be done in New Zealand, than just growing grass for cows to give milk for milk powder, growing raw logs for exports, catching fish for processing in China, and than serving tourists beverages and meals at low cost wages.
It is up to people to be courageous, to see their own potential, be ready to put in their best efforts, and also vote for governments that actually include and involve them, to create the system and framework, that serves all for a better future, less dependent on the primitive economic realities New Zealand now faces.
So hope is there, and it is time to stop listening to the right wing propaganda, that makes all feel rather than liabilities than people with rights and potential. A change of spirit is needed, and it may be about to happen, in 2014. It is up to all out there to decide whether this will happen, or whether living in fear, suppression and dis-empowerment is to determine your future.
Beautiful. Thank you, you are right.
The more I think about it! the more I like the idea of some sort of Grand Alliance. Labour, Green, NZ First, Maori, Mana. There are hurdles in the way of personalities to overcome, but in a lot of policy there is not that much difference. And if the right can be shut out for more than four elections, what’s not to like?
First rate, thank you so much for insight,
If the 800,000 voters who sat on their hands last election can be encouraged to vote Key is history. It’s not rocket science!
Game over JK !
Labour doesn’t have to go to the bother of writing the policies NZ needs. Just copy and paste from here: http://mana.net.nz/policy/
“Like that young solo mum, weeping silent tears as Ruth Richardson flattened her future. TEARS WHICH LABOUR NEVER DRIED – in spite of many promises to the contrary – through nine long years of subsidising the bosses’ wage bill in preference to feeding the children of the poor”.
Tears which Labour never dried.
I used to think that the Natty reforms (post Lange/Prebble/Douglas et al) would take a generation to reverse, and have always been utterly disappointed in the opportunity lost with Labour’s re-election 2005? when they simply chose to have a lay down and reward THEMSELVES with a mighty fine time – the third term – the complete and utter waste when the ABC club and the careerists really came to prominence.
“Tears which Labour never dried.”
The best hope has come with Cunliffe’s appointment – and its a damn good hope that I hope his colleagues are now beginning to appreciate.
I sincerely hope Labour realise they are on notice: 2014 – do the right thing (the correct thing), or face oblivion and the demise of the Labour Party.
Take note Mr Cunliffe!!
I’ve often thought that the Cold War was a tacit agreement between elites on both sides to prevent unwanted social progress. The level of paranoia on display in the late 40s and early 50s is so ridiculous it is hard to think that anyone could have really believed it.
[…] https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/10/21/gives-us-the-tools-and-we-will-finish-the-job-voting-constructi… […]
Sigh. This article fails the population of New Zealand because you offer nothing constructive. While you have done a good job of looking back over history, what have you offered the public to help us move into the future?
You talk that Labour (or any political party worth their weight) should offer up a platform which will enable us (the New Zealand public) the ‘tools of democracy’ so that we can ‘finish the job ourselves’, yet you offer nothing in that respects. There is a large portion of the public which would like to see some real change, yet have been so bombarded with the ‘perception management’ (propaganda) machine that recognising what political platform will bring real lasting change (social, ecological, and environmental sustainability) can be difficult to do.
We have seen, over the last 20 years, swings back and forth between labour and national governments with both parties demonstrating that they are really just two sides of the same coin (or profit over all else machine). Unless we, bloggers and the general public, define what issues we are concerned about, unless we set the platforms of our political parties, we will once again be stuck choosing between different heads of the same beast (working for private interests over the public good).
So, what does it actually mean to give the tools of democracy to the New Zealand public? Well, democracy is the ability for people to have their ‘voice’ heard. It is no secret that our society has been created, through economic policies and legislation, so that our voice is equated with money (the only freedom we have in this current system is the freedom to spend – and given that our ability to ‘earn’ money (i.e. the means of production) is increasingly monopolised by a (relatively) small pool of private corporations (whether that be the need to work for an employer, or the need to take out a loan to start your own small business), our ‘freedom’ is, at the end of the day, firmly controlled by the few who control our debt/credit supply. Because of this reality, in order for us to move toward democracy in New Zealand (under the current constraints of this capitalist system), we must take control of our debt/credit supply from private corporations and return it to the New Zealand public. If you care about the situation in our nation this issue, of private v public control of our debt/credit system, is the number one issue for any intelligent voter to consider coming into the next election. By not doing your part and helping to educate the New Zealand voters about the core issues we face you are essentially taking a progressive medium (blogging) and using it to perpetuate the type of soft minded diatribe commonplace within mainstream media (in other words, you are part of the problem, and not part of the solution).
It will be nice to see the day when bloggers stop reacting to politicians (especially the contrived dualistic debates, the focus on personalities over ideas, and the manufactured distractions) and the mainstream media, and begin to function as conduits of information and discussion about how our society will move from here toward a nation of social, ecological, and environmental sustainability.
I think we do need to look at the past to see what we might begin to imagine a future could be. Chris Trotter takes a far more optimistic view than I do, at several levels.
Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to re-live it, said George Santayana. ‘Roger’-nomics was a disaster to this country. ‘Ruth’-anasia was a disaster to this country. ‘Key’-conomics will be a disaster for this country. So stupid is this Government’s policy is that it is no policy – and in my view ought to place it under the Fiscal responsibility Act. I’d like to see those buggers hauled up before the beak…
Cheers,
Ion
Luke, where can I find your blog?
“We have seen, over the last 20 years, swings back and forth between labour and national governments with both parties demonstrating that they are really just two sides of the same coin (or profit over all else machine). Unless we, bloggers and the general public, define what issues we are concerned about, unless we set the platforms of our political parties, we will once again be stuck choosing between different heads of the same beast (working for private interests over the public good)”
Absolutely nails the essence of why so many don’t bother to vote at all. Labour under Clarke spent all that time in office and did sweet fanny all to repair either their own damage from 84-90 or Nationals.
Is there any indication that a future Labour or Labour/Green government will actually reverse the 1991 benefit cuts?
The right have never been shy about making changes to disproportionately push their view point and often irreversible ones such as asset sales or Richardsons “fiscal responsibility”.
Yet when Labour have been in power what do they do to redress the balance? SFA
The truth is that many in Labour are still closet fans of Douglas and his back stabbers and there is no genuine will to follow through on any concrete redressing of the imbalances that have been steadily built on in this country.
An example, employment contract act changes would be “gone by lunch time” if they had any resolve to make genuine changes.
That remark about ‘walking to the voting place to vote Labour in; and driving to the voting place to vote Labour out’ was related to me as a prediction made by a member of the Labour Party after one of the 1930s or 1940s elections. That said something about the roots of the Labour Party, roots from which that that Party severed itself long ago. The 1972 election was the last time I ever voted for something – and ironically enough, that was the first opportunity I ever had to vote at all. In 1975 I was toying with voting Values, but a deeply uneasy feeling led me to vote Labour – to keep the Nats out. Not that I had anything much against Labour at the time. Voting Values seemed (for a brief while) to be a luxury I could afford.
The Fourth Labour Administration turned its back upon the constituency that supported it and brought it to power – an act of breath-taking political ingratitude that is ever a feature of Right Wing political attitudes (The Hon. John Banks ought to take the lesson from this. Were it not for his own monumental ingratitude, he would probably not be facing criminal charges right now). But this kind of ingratitude is endemic to Neo-Liberal (Palaeo-feudal) thinking.
The Neo-Classical economic ‘theory’ (Hah!) assumes that ‘Economic Man’, acting ‘rationally’ in ‘his’ own interest, has no use for altruism except insofar as it benefits him personally. He’ll take the hand-out, but, seeing no percentage in real gratitude, will thank the giver only in the prospect of receiving more.
It was the author of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal – no, not the President, but his adviser who designed it and made it work – who observed that Capitalism is its own worst enemy. It doesn’t know when enough is enough, will carry on ripping off everyone else, even against its own interests, until it collapses under its own excesses. I don’t recall this guy’s name – merely that he himself was a big-time capitalist. But, fat cat though he was (I think he was a billionaire even in 1930s dollar values, in today’s money he certainly would have been), he knew where his wealth came from, and who made it for him. He said as much.
He was one who knew that the health of a modern economy was predicated upon the purchasing power of the populace at large, and the brisk movement of money. This elementary fact was beyond the grasp of the likes of Milton Friedman, be it noted, who took an entirely contrary view. But who was the practical businessman, and who the ivory tower academic? What’s worse about this particular ivory tower academic was his total ignorance of the dynamics of a real economy, an ignorance shared by his Chicago School acolytes and the governments they advise to this day. Ignoramuses (Ignorami?) with power – the likes of Roger Douglas, Ruth Richardson, and now John Key and Bill English – have destroyed New Zealand’s economy to the tune of billions, eviscerated the vulnerable manufacturing (value adding) sector; destroyed careers, livelihoods and futures of millions (bearing in mind New Zealand doesn’t have very many millions); obliterated the state-led education and training structures that led to expertise and experience feeding into the private sector; depleted the scientific and social research structures that might have led (and used to lead) to economic value to this country.
I would be fascinated to know not only the population flows in and out of the country, but also the job flows: Private sector companies that shifted their operations overseas, State-run operations that fetched up in foreign ownership and location, services required by New Zealanders in New Zealand being carried out by faceless call-centre operatives in Manila or Calcutta (i.e. exported jobs) – for sweat-shop wages, mark you; lost opportunities for young people who have to take a punt on tertiary education with no real job prospect at the end of it, yet a mounting debt to pay.
The utter ignorance, purblind stupidity, and arrogant crassness of the country’s leadership, of global leadership, passes all belief that anything different will happen in favour of humanity at large … ever. I don’t hold out any hope that a sixth Labour Administration will achieve much, even if it wanted to (and I don’t have much belief it has the will anyhow).
I think I know what it would take to bring this country, this whole planet, around to a place where everyone had work to do and an income to match; where real enterprise was rewarded, but at realistic levels, not the bloated excesses at everyone else’s expense – a world fit for all human beings. But it would require a monumental and selfless will by its leadership. Simply leadership would go a long way towards such a goal. But leadership – where leaders actually lead – is what this world presently lacks. Name one person on this entire planet who genuinely deserves the appellation: Leader. Damned if I can.
Comments are closed.