GUEST BLOG: MBlogger – The Problem With the Labour Party

10
0

unnamed

The title of this blog “The Problem With the Labour Party” was recently addressed in the UK by young 20 year old SNP MP Mhairi Black. She used her maiden speech to Parliament to offer some advice to UK Labour that should resonate with many NZ Labour party supporters and indeed the entire left wing of  New Zealand Politics.

Mhairi Black, 20, said she came from a “traditional socialist family” but felt that Labour had rejected her and her beliefs.
“Like so many SNP members I come from a traditional socialist, Labour family. Like so many, I feel that it is the Labour party that left me, not the other way about,” she said.

“The SNP did not triumph on a wave of nationalism – it triumphed on a wave of hope – hope that we could have an alternative to the wave of Thatcherite neoliberal policies from this chamber, hope that representatives could genuinely give a voice to those that don’t have them. …”

“I mention it in order to hold a mirror to the face of a party that seems to have forgotten the very people they’re supposed to represent – the very things they’re supposed to fight for.”

I and, I am sure, many people on the left strongly identify with these sentiments. We too come from traditional socialist families and feel the NZ Labour party has left us.

Mhairi Black went on to quote Tony Benn, a great battler of the left, in order to identify the type of politician we all hope for but rarely seem to find:

“…in politics there are weathercocks and signposts. Weathercocks will spin in whatever direction the wind of public opinion may blow them, no matter what principle they have to compromise.”
“Then, there are signposts – signposts that stand true, and tall, and principles. They point in a direction and they say ‘this is the way to a better society and it is my job to convince you why’.”

“Tony Benn was right when he said the only people worth remembering in politics are signposts.”

The similarities between the situation the UK Labour Party finds itself in and NZ Labour is stark. The adoption of a weak ‘populist’ or ‘centrist’ electoral position combined with discredited neoliberal policies has not won them the popularity they hoped for and in the absence strong uncompromising principles their candidates ‘spin in whatever direction the wind of public opinion may blow them, no matter what principle they have to compromise’.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

As I have contended in previous postings there is a vacuum on the left of New Zealand politics and an absence of representation with strong uncompromising principles. The time is ripe for a movement to rise up and sweep all before it. It will be people like Mhariri Black who will do it. Ms Black was elected in May in the SNP’s landslide victory. She unseated former Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander by 50.9 per cent to 38.5 per cent of the vote. She is only 20 and she achieved this in one electoral cycle.

Note: Source for quotes and UK information ‘The Independent’  

10 COMMENTS

  1. I couldn’t agree with this more! So true but are the weathercocks that make up our current Labour party clever enough to realize that. Unfortunately, I think not!

  2. Labours big problem is differentiation from National. They appear as just a lite blue variant and as such National appeal as a known quantity. Labour do, however, have an election win ( or possibly even an early dumping of National ) presented to them by vocally opposing TPPA. By taking a stand, loudly announcing what TPPA could do to NZ and how National are prepared to sell NZ out to the large corporations, losing Pharmac, being sued by large corps in secret tribunals, how companies like Monsanto will swoop in and take over agriculture etc etc. Scare the hell out of the country and lay the blame on the National Government. But they sit on the fence and all they will win is splinters in their backsides.

    • Absolutely !

      It is suprising that they’ve backed Phil Twyford in this latest arena of National party pecuniary interests regarding the speculative property market versus the hollow and inappropriate calls of ‘ racism ‘ coming from those with vested interests in that speculation of our Auckland properties from National…

      Quite suprising indeed…

      It remains to be seen if they build on this in a new found sense of national priorities or whether they lose momentum through cowardice and become weathercocks once more.

      • Given the general attitude to ‘Asians’ in this country I’d say that Phil would be a weathercock as in

        “Weathercocks will spin in whatever direction the wind of public opinion may blow them, no matter what principle they have to compromise.”

        A ” signpost” politician would focus us on the real issue which is the massive sell out to foreign interests that has been going on for years in this country and have some kind of solution in mind as well.

        Does it matter what country these foreign buyers come from?
        I don’t think so.

        I think Phil found an easy target and he exploited it. Well good for him but I wouldn’t trust him or his ilk to get us out of this mess they’re just blowing in the wind.

        And if you think only “those with vested interests in that speculation of our Auckland properties” are disgusted in this latest blurt from Labour your wrong. I for one have no vested interests whatsoever in Auckland and would never ever consider voting for National, ACT or NZ First.

  3. The Natz are cunning weathercocks.

    Currently they are bringing every dirty trick out to punish Labour for outing Chinese non-resident buyers. National Party appointed Race Relations Conciliator; Barfoot and Thomson, Shane Te Pou and tame talkback hosts are all getting stuck into Labour and diverting the non-resident speculators issue into a race issue.

    Watch this space for how they “fix” the Chinese names buying houses. It will be a better ‘get out of jail’ card than all the Monopoly boards in the world (in any language – especially Chinese Monopoly)

    Labour can’t be true signposts of Kiwis because they started the neoliberal shite in 1984-90 which exacerbated the inequality and planted the seeds of the corporatisation agenda contained in the current TPPA.

    By refusing to exorcise,expel or cauterise the remnant Labour Party neoliberal members who are a cancerous, malignancy of neoliberalism, Labour cannot even think of signposting a viable alternative to the weather-cocks currently in power.

    • Absolutely Winnie. You don’t have to remember too far back to when the Labour “caucus” went against the rank-and-file Labour voters to throw out David Cunliffe for being too “left” (whatever the hell that means).

      Some serious amputation is needed in Labour before they can hope to become a signpost party.

      Perhaps once the Labour neolibs have returned to their mother ship in orbit around the Earth…

  4. Hmmmmm…..the moneyed elite are a minority and have become a burden to the taxpayer.

    An elite group of individuals and corporations that have for too long been given welfare hand outs.

    A pampered group that have cost this country excessive borrowing by this govt wishing to furnish them with tax cuts.

    Perhaps a better use of this borrowing would be to axe the tax cuts , force the elite to pay a proportionate amount of their fair share in taxes , then use some of that borrowing to ensure first home buyers receive a financial boost from govt to enable them to buy a first home. Also…a special financial assistance for those who wish to have a home built….this also would have the knock on effect of employment opportunity’s…

    The system works well in Australia.

    There is no reason it cannot work here save the leeching of the rich elite and corporations going on at present.

    This and of course the introduction and implementation of a Foreign Owners Register coupled with laws to prevent foreign land acquisition for speculative purposes.

    Right there is a significant departure from the sort of skulduggery that National have been indulging in for the last 7.5 years.

    That is…if Labour truly mean business in looking after the interests of their fellow New Zealanders above and beyond those of the National party.

    • The obsession with home ownership is part of a deep-seated ideological defence of houses as “marketable property” rather than “homes for humans”, and it’s not the solution to inequality (I refuse to call it poverty). A home owner scraping by on a benefit or minimum wage job might seem better off because they don’t have to pay rent. However, when you add up paying a mortgage (plus interest), rates, and maintenance costs, anyone without either a generous income or significant DIY skills would probably be better off with the predictable weekly cost of renting (disclaimer: I’m on a benefit and renting, not a landlord).

      A better solution to inequality is public housing (socially responsible, not-for-profit entities, renting out properly maintained housing). Even more threatening to the status quo than capital gains tax would be abolishing market rents, so anyone who rents our property can only charge income-related rents. This would be particularly helpful in post-earthquake Ōtautahi (ChCh) where a combo of market rents, a shortage of housing, and a surge in demand from incoming rebuild workers, are resulting in ridiculously high rents.

      >> Perhaps a better use of this borrowing would be to axe the tax cuts , force the elite to pay a proportionate amount of their fair share in taxes , then use some of that borrowing to… <<

      …lift benefit levels to the living wage (about $800 a week before tax for a family of 4, about $300 for a single person), and abolish the obligation to take unsuitable jobs. We could then scrap the minimum wage, as in order to attract employees, businesses would have to offer either:
      a) pay at or better than the living wage
      OR
      b) a workplace or job description which is so satisfying/ challenging/ socially useful/ whatever that a worker would accept less than the dole to work there.

  5. The difference between signposts and weathercocks, is that the latter points in the direction that the people want to go, ie the prevailing wind. The weathercock does not say “we know better than you, so go this way instead of the way you want to”. That’s what signposts say.

    After all, who’s decision is it which direction to take in a democracy? Not the signposts. The signpost should simply offer an alternative direction, but if the prevailing wind is strong enough, and that signpost is not pointing generally in that prevailing direction, that signpost will be knocked flat to the ground.

Comments are closed.