The 40 Percent Solution: Chris Trotter responds to Phil Quin.

37
4

image003

PHIL QUIN writes a mean political column. His long-standing connections to the right of the New Zealand Labour Party are extensive and strong. When he writes about politics, especially electoral politics, it is from personal experience and with considerable authority. His contribution to the Dialogue Page in this morning’s (30/7/14NZ Herald is a case in point.

Under the heading “Inept Labour needs to aim higher” Quin argues strongly that “Labour’s strategists are misguided in their conviction that fewer than 30 percent of the vote is sufficient to form a viable government.” Ranging himself alongside his fellow dissidents, Shane Jones and Josie Pagani, he urges Labour to “lift its sights to become a 40 percent party, capable of winning a broad spectrum of voters from all parts of the country.”

For a history graduate from Vic’ this is a pretty disappointing analysis. Between 1990 and 2011 Labour has managed to be a “40 percent party” only twice (2002 and 2005) and on both occasions Labour’s success owed more to the condition of the National Party than it did to its own.

In 2002 the National Opposition was in more-or-less total disarray and slumped to its lowest ever result of 20.9 percent of the Party Vote. Just three years later, however, National’s new leader, Don Brash, stood at the head of a no-holds-barred, far-right crusade to re-ignite the neoliberal bonfire of everything Labour voters hold dear. Unsurprisingly, its core supporters flocked to the polling-booths in pure self-defence.

Even with these “advantages” Labour only just made it over the 40 percent line, winning 41.2 percent in 2002 and 41.1 percent in 2005. The average level of support for Labour since 1990 is, however, much lower. In the eight general elections since that year it has won, on average, just 35 percent of the popular vote.

In other words, Rogernomics long ago put paid to the “40 percent party”. Labour ceased to be “a credible party capable of winning a broad spectrum of support from all parts of the country” the moment its parliamentary leadership succumbed to (in Phil’s own words) “corporate interests and right-wing politicians”. The very same people whose “fierce determination to defend the prevailing political and socioeconomic orthodoxy that shapes New Zealand’s capitalist system and delivers its beneficiaries ever-expanding wealth, power and privilege” split the party, put an end to FPP, and opened up the political space to Labour’s left for all manner of radical challengers.

An historian ought to know this sort of thing. Just as he ought to realise that Labour itself, by steadfastly advancing what were regarded, in the 1930s and 40s, as extremely radical policies, constructed a new social and economic order which the National Party, in order to be elected, was required to preserve intact. Labour’s social-democratic state had become “the prevailing political and socioeconomic orthodoxy”. To remain electorally competitive National had to accept the role of the “other” social-democratic party.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Roger Douglas’s singular achievement was to effect a transformation of the social and economic order every bit as radical as Mickey Savage’s and Peter Fraser’s – but in the opposite ideological direction. Neoliberalism was now the new orthodoxy which the leaders of both major parties, under threat of severe economic sanctions from the international financial markets, were obliged to preserve intact. So strong was the grip of the neoliberal “Washington Consensus” that even when Helen Clark was in command of a “40 percent party” she did not dare to challenge it.

And it is right about here in the discussion that Phil’s argument for Labour to become a “40 percent party” begins to fall apart. What he is actually saying is that, just as National in the 1950s, 60s and 70s was forced to become the “other” social-democratic party, Labour in the twenty-first century must accept the role of the “other” neoliberal party.

What’s more, a closer examination of the Labour Right’s constant exhortations for Labour to embrace “the centre” reveal them to be cruelly disingenuous. What Phil and his comrades are really urging Labour to do is pitch its primary appeal to those New Zealanders who are still holding their own (or even prospering) under the prevailing neoliberal regime. The people whose precarious position of privilege vis-a-vis the working poor and beneficiaries renders them unashamedly reluctant to redistribute even a little of the wealth they have “worked for”. Beneath a superficial “concern” for the disadvantaged, these voters conceal a visceral contempt for the poor. They are terrified of being forced to share their resources with the “underserving” and will have absolutely no truck with any political party which suggests that, as citizens, they have a moral obligation to put an end to inequality and poverty.

It was to placate these citizens that David Shearer waxed eloquent about “the beneficiary on the roof”, and why even David Cunliffe forbears from speaking out too forcefully about the lives of the poor and what Labour proposes to do to improve them.

Unfortunately for Phil and his ilk, Labour’s rank-and-file have no desire to become a “40 percent party” if, as part of the process, they are required to give up all hope of ever again becoming an organisation brave enough to challenge and transform the existing economic and social order.

The Labour Right regards this stubborn refusal to abandon principle in the name of power as evidence of utter fuckwittedness. So much so that he concludes his column with a frank call for heads to roll down at Party HQ.

“If Labour fails to break well into the 30s, the party president and general secretary should resign and party council members should convene urgently to consider their own positions.” Back in the old Soviet Union this would have been called a purge.

And don’t for a moment think that Phil has forgotten the party leader.

“As for David Cunliffe, he should resign with grace and alacrity as soon as it becomes apparent he is unable to form a government, which might be far earlier on the evening of September 20than any Labour voter would wish to contemplate.”

Clearly, the Labour Right, utterly inadequate to the task of slaying the party’s dominant left-wing faction itself, is resorting instead to demanding its collective suicide. What Phil refuses to contemplate, however, is that the Labour Left, having concluded that the long and difficult journey towards social justice might proceed more efficiently without the constant nay-saying of those unshakably committed to the “prevailing political and socioeconomic orthodoxy”, might decide to engage in a little blood-letting of their own.

The proposition that Labour would be much improved by losing the 40 percent of its membership who no longer believe that radical change is either possible or desirable may yet be tested.

37 COMMENTS

  1. Yes Mr Trotter, this would once have been called a purge. It may be necessary because Labour’s rank-and-file have neglected to elect themselves a Robespierre: someone to oversee the ruthless beheading of the ancien regime.

  2. I think, barring some huge corruption scandal, Key’s National Party was always going to be a 2 or 3 term government. That’s the international trend in comparable democracies. But can he crack the 4th term? Recent NZ history and international trends also show that to be unlikely.

    In my opinion, there really is no need for the Labour left to panic. As with all PMs, the shine will come off, and Key will be voted out in this or the next election. It’s then that the Labour left can hope to make some real positive changes, and the likelihood is that there will be 6-9 years to do it in.

    • Take a look at the world around you. We really dont have 6-9 years to play with. The time for real change by Labour was in 2009.

    • Phil, You wish! 3rd or 4th term?
      The smoke screen is dissipating revelling the Nat’s as a broken canoe with no paddles, and arrogant double dealers.
      Didn’t you see todays poll? Roy Morgan.
      Nat’s down 6% Labour up greens NZ First can take the benches.

  3. There is no reason why Labour cannot be the 40 per cent party, if they only wanted. And it is the biggest failure by Labour to cling to the over cautious line to not upset the neoliberals.

    Labour as it is is still not reformed, have NOT got back to their roots yet, and are indeed trying to have it both ways.

    We have a party that is fighting over the “centre”, but that middle ground is shifting further down to the bottom, as the middle class is breaking up and in part moving into working poor territory.

    Nothing will be gained by Labour to stay in the low neoliberal, “centrist” ground, trying to please too many, they have to steer totally clear from the past two to three decades, and make a firm commitment to a socially inclusive, fair, more equal and new society, of which we all are members, no matter what ethnic, social, religious or whatever origin.

    I also dare to say, they must include those least fortunate, and that is ALL of them, also those that are not able to work for whatever reasons, not just the ones with young children, but also sick, disabled and underqualified on benefits.

    There have been a fair few comments re this by others, and some links provided, and the reading of the following post on Public Address must wake more up, that this government is hiding too much, is totally dishonest, is short changing those least fortunate, and is not even wanting to be accountable.

    Shame on them, shame on Paula Bennett and her MSD underlings, read this, read the comments and spread this news, please, as the people are not being informed by the mainstream media:

    http://publicaddress.net/speaker/how-is-government-evaluating-its-welfare/

    And one link also previously presented by Marc and so:

    http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/16092-work-ability-assessments-done-for-work-and-income-%E2%80%93-partly-following-acc%E2%80%99s-approach-a-revealing-fact-study

    There seems to be much more, and Labour same as Greens must look at this and offer honest answers and solutions, or else they cannot be trusted.

    • Not everyone votes from unreformed self interest. there are plenty of economically “privileged” citizens who understand and agree with the need for social and economic reforms. they need to be encouraged and courted. This can be done without compromising principle. You might even find a few farmers who would like to see clean rivers running past their land. If the entire debate is couched in terms and concepts of warfare and antagonism, the prospect of genuine progress may be lost. A better plan is to find time to invite the well meaning members of Nationals “natural” catchment directly and to remember to offer a rose, not just a fisted glove.

  4. This is a very good piece Chris. In it you have hit on the most damaging and disgraceful aspect of the Douglas legacy – these people think they can treat the Labour Party as an empty shell, there to be filled with whatever they see fit.

    Yes, National had to adjust to a social democratic paradigm, but within it they were still able to represent their constituency. You cannot, however, represent Labour’s current constituency at all within an unquestioningly accepted neo-liberal paradigm. Moreover, it is not in any way their prerogative to take the party as a shell, and run around looking for a new constituency with which to fill it.

    • I Left NZ in 1987 after robbernomics took affect, and came home in 1998 and saw the terrible human cost of his ruthless plans. That man should have been arrested and tried as an enemy of the people.

  5. Labour has always been elected to govern when the Nats right wingers have stuffed things up, Labour comes in and cleans up the mess and voters have Labour govts to thank for all the good things we have like pensions, child benefits, doctor subsidies, and free hospital care. All the safety net provisions are Labour socialist initiatives and voters should not forget these.

    • What makes you think that “insider” was actually part of labour? Because a lying complicit media said so? it had national/whaleoil all over it.

  6. Chris always blames Roger Douglas.
    In the UK only 1 in 5 whites votes for labour. The agenda is very clear here:

    Fantastic piece. Thanks so much.
    Vancouver’s experience is probably like Canada’s on the whole. Trudeau brought in multiculturalism by federal directive in the 70s (“Although there are two founding peoples there is no founding culture…” and that mirrored Laurier before him…) Then in 1982, multiculturalism was enshrined in the Charter. Then in the mid-80s a Conservative PM enacted the “Multiculturalism Act”.
    Now in Canada’s large cities it’s somewhat amusing to hear people speaking English. Fourth generation Canadians are seen as an amusing relic. Do you eat roasts? Do your parents wear sweaters to dinner and talk about classical music, ha ha ha?

    http://publicaddress.net/speaker/what-diversity-dividend/

    Labours reforms aimed to change who we are. You can’t get more insidious and narcissistic than that?

    • Yes, Robert Putnam has investigated these phenomena fairly thoroughly. Like the illusion of supermarket choice, the ‘melting pot’ society exhibits lower social participation. But the task of creating or consolidating national cultures is often better left to artists than politicians – they spill less blood – unless someone actually wants to stand up and lead as Savage did.

    • Do you think that 30 years of neo-liberalism has not changed “who we are”? We have become more selfish, more violent, less empathetic, less caring, more unequal, more indifferent to others, and more greedy and more prepared to tolerate greed, selfishness etc in others.

  7. You provide very good historical context, as always, Chris, but I’m not sure whether you are saying you agree with him, or not.
    It is true that Rogernomics did a lot of damage to Labour, perhaps that damage will never be entirely healed. For me personally, it changed the way I regarded politics. As a young fellow I was pretty solid Labour and Norm Kirk was my hero. You knew where you stood with Labour then, they were the democratic socialists and National were the Conservatives. Then along came Douglas, Prebble, Caygill, Moore, etc and within a few short years turned NZ politics into turmoil. You had the bizarre spectacle of a supposedly centre-left government practising neo-liberalism and a supposedly centre-right conservative opposition actually taking the centre-left stance in opposing them. I was very bitter about Labour’s betrayal of its founding principles and I largely switched off politics for years. I thought National and Labour were each worse than the other and it was only the rise of the Alliance that gave me any personal joy. Meanwhile we watched the rise of New Labour in United Kingdom, Tony Blair – popularly tagged as the new face of democratic socialism but he only seemed like that by comparison with Margaret Thatcher, in reality he was nearly as Tory as the Tories. Labour seems to have gone in a similar direction in New Zealand. They like to think of themselves as democratic socialists but the socialist aspects of their policies are very lukewarm at best, and only seem so by comparison with their opponents. I would venture to say that Mana now represent the old Labour socialist values better than any other current party.
    So what does Labour do now, consign its socialism to history, concentrate on becoming a slightly more benign version of the National Party and go for the centre vote or does it stick with its founding principles and diminish its chances of electoral success? Why would it diminish its chances by staying left? because as you point out the political norm in New Zealand has shifted markedly to the right since Rogernomics. What we used to call democratic socialism in the sixties and seventies would now be regarded as something near Marxism in todays terms.
    As you rightly point out, Labour still has not really come to grips with the opposing forces inside. Is a party split imminent? I don’t think so, I think the initiative has already shifted to the right because that is the overall trend in the world democracies nowadays, with the exception of South America. In essence I think the Labour centre or centre-right have already won, and they are just waiting until after the election (which they have already given up on) to begin the purge.

    • @Mike the Lefty..you said I was very bitter about Labour’s betrayal of its founding principles and I largely switched off politics for years. Ditto x100

      The real key to the whole thing is the desertion of the Labour party from its founding principles that still outline the original concept of social democracy. It is a litmus test for being a Labour Party person, read this link and see where anything neo liberal fits in?
      http://campaign.labour.org.nz/about_labour

  8. Should “underserving” read “”undeserving”?

    Apart from that, I think Labour should keep Cunliffe as leader even if they lose the election.

  9. I am one of what Mike Williams described as ‘the kamikaze wing’ of the Labour Party – I rejoined after nearly 30 years – and came on board a few months before David Shearer resigned as leader.

    The leadership election did two important things, it gave a glimpse of a broad party able to recognise its common cause at the same time as accepting we are not all exactly of one mind, and it prompted a huge surge of people to join in the effort to change the government via Labour.

    Underlying all this is the possibility of finally reneging on the monster known as Rogernomics. A broad effort from the left that could and should include Greens and Internet/Mana is an inspiring vision, not a shabby compromise, and when the ‘Labour Right’ realise this they will also see that Davide Cunliffe is an excellent choice to lead it.

    • David Cunliffe addressed a most ardent group of right wing businessmen (NZ Institute) and told them that neoliberalism has failed New Zealand over the last 30 years. And he is right.
      That was not only brave, it took guts. It also shows that Cunliffe is prepared to move labour away from it, to bring those core labour values, he holds close, into play. I agree, David Cunliffe is an excellent choice to lead and I firmly believe, he will do a very good job of it too.

  10. I have been a worker during Rogernomics.
    At the meat works it was obvious that unions were just too negative.
    When I left I joined a company that was one of the first in NZ to put employees on a flat rate of pay. If it wasn’t for the employement contracts act I would have had to queue up in that job. Back then pay wasn’t bad but over 20 or 30 years I have seen NZ trashed (developed); a new class of wealthy land owner develop and wages have flatlined. As I mentioned above Labour (progressives of the internationalist tradition) decided no one should see NZ as their country, we welcome our ragged brothers from armpits overseas.
    Me thinks we need more diversity in the universities, jouranlism etc (Campbell Live/ TV One, RadioNZ are all too white).

  11. Very well-reasoned post, Chris. I enjoy the historical perspective.

    Karl Rove, architect of the American Right electoral victories for Dubbya (and poster boy for some modern Kiwi bloggers and advisers) insisted that the swing voters were not to be found in the middle – they were usually out on the fringes, and moving policy from the centre to the marchlands at the extreme edge brought electoral victory because the outliers then voted, whereas centrist politics kept them at home. It’s worth studying US politics as a predictor of how the action in Godzone is developing, especially under National: but I wish the Labour Party had the courage of its original convictions and stopped trying to occupy the centre – it’s quicksand, it’s already occupied and it’s best left to its present owners to struggle in and sink thereby.

    Look at the results of The Daily Blog “Who would you vote for?” poll for confirmation of the Left’s frustration with Labour’s centrist, please-don’t-define-us-as-radical once-were-workers’-party temporising. Labour’s losing because it’s lost contact with its base: but the base is still out here, waiting. It craves mobilisation. An American commentator summarised the argument:

    “Karl Rove got this. He understood that you can get the right-wing voters roused up to come to the polls by moving Republican politicians to the right. Instead of “moving to the center” he got Bush and the Republicans to stand up for conservative principles and refuse to compromise, and the result was that more of “the base” enthusiastically showed up at the polls.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/democrats-who-move-right_b_5209935.html

    What’s good for the right-wing goose is good for the left-wing gander. Cunliffe’s election by, I would suggest, a finally-empowered party electorate convinced that a lurch to the left would follow as night after day should have sent home the message to Labour policymakers. Is there more progressive policy to come to vindicate the party vote? God, I hope so. Leftist fringe party policies become more seductive by the day and my morals are weakening…

  12. Labour was (almost fatally) damaged by Douglas and his group. In my humble opinion I believe that Douglas’ actions will turn out to be the worst thing to happen to New Zealand – ever. If you want to find out why society is so disjointed in NZ at the moment – one need to look no further than Roger Douglas.

    And the electorate will take a long time to forget what Labour was responsible for. Douglas got into the position he needed to make the changes because the factions inside labour werent watching what was going on and he just slipped past them while they tried to slaughter each other.

    My mother (who is 94) always has – and will continue – to vote Labour becasue of the 10 shilling Xmas gift that the labour government gave everyone back in 1935 (or maybe it was every family). That was a lot of money back then. And she hasnt forgotten what it meant back then.
    My guess is that it will as long for the effect of Douglas to be forgotten.
    And that means that because of Douglas, labours damage has allowed the likes of the Greens andNZ First and even the loonies (Mana, Internet etc) to get a foot hold.

    On the other hand National (where one would have expected Douglas to emerge from) have kept control of the extremists to their right – thus not letting them get a foothold in their own name.

    The Douglas actions are the very reason why we need to have some form of voter control of these un-announced policies – thus some form of binding referendum would be wecome.

    • only a loon would refer to the party that has as policy all the old pre douglas principles as looney… im getting heartly sick of neo liberals pretending to be labour… at best you are wannabes.. nothing but middle ground bludgers

  13. It is evident that the Labour caucus is sticking with Rogernomics even if it means staying in Opposition. Its members realise their perks and entitlements depend on appeasing the “business commmunity” that runs the agenda of modern governments. Caucus members seem to have calculated there is nowhere else to go for Labour rank and file – the Greens are too loopy, Winston First too racist and xenophobic, while Kim Dotcom resembles Hermann Goering. They may be right, too. I predict a record low turnout on 20 September that the Labour Right will blame on the Party not being National-lite.

  14. So Labour must continually be punished for the sins of Roger Douglas of over 30 years ago, while national who tears this country apart, time and time again, remains completely untouched and unscathed?

    • WORD – you havent given consideration to history.

      1. Labour are a party of action. They have made some major changes in New Zealand over the Years. The original welfare system was a labour initative. Free education (although earlier than the formal labour party came from what one would call the left). I think the Hydro programme was a labour initative (where would we be today iof we tried to build those dams now)
      Other labour initiatives are working for families. Labour also bought in the Rogernomics era, and Labour managed to con maori into voting for Labour for the Maori seats. And recently Labour signed up the Novopay system…..

      So – labour are active – BUT half of what they come out with are very good – the other half are absolute & complete disasters.

      National on the other hand have taken the pathway of hands off (except perhaps Muldon who was interventionist – and almost sent the country broke. His actions were labour-like). This way they are unlikely to dream up any major disasters .

      Generally people dont remember the good bits – but they certainly remember the disasters.
      Believe me – if my old Mum remembers the 10/- handout almost 80 years ago – then you can believe that many will remember Rogernomics 80 years after it was dumped on the populance. It was (and remains) a disaster and it was so un-labour like. Its this last thing that people are so unforgiving about.

      • Its a pity national’s drum beater doesn’t give a similar historical treatment of the national party instead of continually trying to demean Labour at any given opportunity. Learn from history sure, but living in the past doesn’t do much for the present or the future. Its time certain people moved on.

        • Oh – WORD. READ the thing. Im not praising National (in fact I dont think Ive ever voted for them) – Im stating a fact.
          National have been hopeless in the last few years – theyve missed lots of opportunities to do things following the Chch earthquake. Chch rebuild hasnt really started – but napier was rebuilt in 2 years (back in 1931). The Chch earthquake was 3 years ago.

          Its just that if you do nothing then its unlikely you will get it in the neck for doing something stupid!!. Labour did something really stupid back in 1984 – and people remember it.
          National have done nothing stupid (or for that matter they havent done anything at all really) and thus they dont go into the lineup of dumb things done by political parties.

          Really simple.

          And you can see the remanants of the Labour brain in Cunliffe. I mean – fancy bloody apologising for being a man. Fancy bloody apologising for wearing a red scarf – etc. People remember these things. But no one will remember Key for not saying anything….!!

      • Do you scorn national for the damage they have done over the years? what about sell out John key and his bunch of crooks? Don’t they deserve scorn?

  15. Well put. There is no better description of modern Labour than the “other” neo-liberal party.

    Since the 1980s, the Labour Party has been thickly populated by what you might call New Right Social Democrats – those who accept the liberal economic order but try to palliate its worst effects. You only have to look at Working for Families, which is both a subsidy to employers and a hat-tip to the deserving poor, to get the point.

    If there is a neo-liberal consensus in this country today, then Labour is performing a perfectly valid function by serving as an alternative party of government, just as National did so successfully during the social democratic consensus of the post-war years.

    Given the history, it is easy to understand why the left wants to take back the Labour name and the institutional advantages the party still enjoys. But the circumstances and that turned Labour and the country on its head in 1984 do not exist today. Instead, a quixotic attempt to impose a leader on a caucus that did not want him has had entirely predictable results, disappointment not the least. Public squabbling and threats of purges succeed only in keeping the left locked out of government.

    The activist and principled on the left are better employed putting their effort into the creation of a new consensus.

  16. If, as I believe, Labour’s vote will reach into the mid-30s on election night, and Cunliffe forms the next government, I hope Phil Quin decides to “resign with grace and alacrity”…

    • Doesn’t the governor general get to invite the winning party to form the next government? I’m still convinced that our current GG is a bought man and if the result is tight he will be as impartial as the current speaker of the house. I hope I’m wrong and he really is just a figurehead.

Comments are closed.