Dutch Lessons For New Zealand Labour

11
2

Dutch OvenLast September I was in the Netherlands shortly before the elections. There was excitement in the air as the Socialist Party with a strong social democratic programme was ahead of both the Labour Part y (PvdA) and its government coalition partner the right-wing (very) Liberal Party (VVD) in the polls.

The electorate was reeling from the austerity measures placed upon the population after the 2008 crisis. Going, going gone were many of the measures that had made the Netherlands a world leader in developing a more just and equal society with equal opportunity for all. The Dutch were learning what Marx meant when he said that the only part of the collective wealth that capitalism delivered to the people was the national debt.

So while the governing coalition was telling voters that the only way out of crisis was for them to have their living standards lowered and accept rising unemployment, the Socialist Party was emphatically declaring that there was an alternative. And that alternative was for the wealthy, of which the Netherlands had no shortage, to take the greatest share of re-investing in the economy and not to find that money by shrinking the public sector and decimating the social services.

The Labour Party, in complete panic at being outflanked on the left, stressed that its role would now be to preserve the gains of the welfare state and to put the brakes on its coalition partner’s austerity plans.

In foreign policy and in the EU the Labour Party would see to it that the Netherlands acted more independently and considered the national interests of the Dutch. There was even a hint that the Netherlands would no longer be an accomplice in the NATO nuclear weapon game.

Thus with a new social democratic face the population was assured that although there would be some austerity measures with the Labour Party they did not have to rely on an untested Socialist Party or face the enmity of foreign governments and that the reliable and solid Labour Party would be their guarantee in government of a less draconian solution to the economic crisis.

The ploy worked and the coalition of Labour and Liberals retained power. Ten months later, back to visit my son who works in Amsterdam, I was able to see the results. My son counts himself lucky that with rising unemployment, particularly among t. he young, that he has work .And what about the austerity measures that a strong Labour presence would curb?

Well in the coalition agreement they did get a commitment that animals would be treated much better.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

But that was about all.

Otherwise it was the VVD that rules the roost. The landscape is bleak. Cutting social services and public spending, apart from the NATO commitment, is the name of the game. And the VV D partner, whose leader Rutte is Prime Minister, far from being restricted by Labour is letting his ministers loose on even more bold austerity measures.

One that raised both my eyebrows was a newspaper report that care was to be taken back to the community. What did this mean in practice? It meant that the level of paid professional care was to be drastically reduced.

The elderly had once had a guarantee that due to frailty, illness or some other cause of incapacity that government funded care would be available to help with the daily household chores and their own care. The minister has announced that this policy let family and community off the hook. So now to build community spirit before any state assistance would be given the elderly would have to prove that family or neighbours would not provide that care and assistance. Sounds like austerity in practice to me.

And wherever the voter lured away from the Socialist Party to support a restraining Labour Party influence looks austerity is king. Whether it be in health, education or public services the national debt is handed over to the people.

Labour is part of policies that more and more seek to punish and blame migrant communities for the ills of Dutch society and a government that talks of a time when the Netherlands was not blighted by multicultural ideals.

The Socialist Party while not actually saying “we told you so” in its daily paper the Tribune, are able to ensure that its readers are saying “they did tell us “. Consequently Labour is now w ell behind the Socialist Party in the polls and losing support daily.

Message for NZ Labour:

New_Zealand_Labour_logo-cdnSo what should the New Zealand Labour Party make of this crisis for its fraternal party in the Netherlands? If it is to offer a genuine alternative to National it has to have a clear set of coherent policies that are not undermined by any potential coalition partners whether in succumbing to laying the burden of the economic crisis on the most vulnerable or giving in to a Party that finds the source of our problems in the percentage of Chinese migrants in the population.

It is not the politics of compromise that Labour needs to adopt but the politics of refusing to be enmeshed in coalition alliances which corrupt the basis of being able to govern in the interests of the many and not the few.

11 COMMENTS

  1. ….. and to achieve any or all of that, Labour needs to shed itself of any adherence to neo-liberal thinking.
    There Are ALWAYS Alternatives: TAAA not TINA

    – The free market never was
    – The private sector is not always more efficitient
    – rather than ‘competition’, we get delivered monopoly and duopoly
    – less accountability through means such as outsourcing responsibility
    – the growth of greed and avarice in the hands of fewer
    – the fortress society (behind pin-accessed gates) and the lack community spirit.
    If the experience of the past 3 decades is not sufficient evidence – it never will be.

    • The private sector is not always more efficitient

      Actually, the private sector is always less efficient.

      • Also management that’s made up of know how to run dry corporate structures is less efficient than having workers there

      • >> Actually, the private sector is always less efficient. <<

        Woah there. What are we actually talking about here? Organisations which are publicly-funded are always more efficient than those which rely on user-pays? Organisations which are accountable to public agencies are always more efficient than those which are accountable to customers? Command hierarchies run by the state are more efficient than command hierarchies run by corporations? What do we actually mean by efficiency, and is it actually an important value in social organisation anyway?

        • The private sector always carries the dead weight loss of profit and it’s payment structure is more cumbersome resulting in it costing more to do the same thing. Throw in the added costs of “competition” and it gets really expensive.

          What do we actually mean by efficiency, and is it actually an important value in social organisation anyway?

          Good question.

          I look at efficiency as doing the same thing with less but it must also meet the needs of the community. If it’s only meeting 90% of the needs of the community then we’re losing efficiency. The poverty that is endemic to capitalist societies is indicative of the inefficiency of capitalism.

  2. That can only mean Labour should not go into a coalition with New Zealand First as Labour is more to the right than either Greens or Mana. However, the biggest conservative block is in the Labour Party itself, it seems – and therein lies the real problem which is actually a lot more difficult to remedy than who Labour chooses as its coalition partners – you can choose your friends, but you can’t choose your relatives.

  3. It is not the politics of compromise that Labour needs to adopt but the politics of refusing to be enmeshed in coalition alliances which corrupt the basis of being able to govern in the interests of the many and not the few.

    Too late, Labour has been governing for the few and against the many since 1984.

    Look elsewhere if you want to find a party for the many.

    • Accepting for the sake of argument that all possible political positions fall on a single left/right axis, I agree. I think the lesson is that the Dutch should have seen through the faux-left rhetoric of the “centre-left” party in the grand coalition, and actually voted for the Socialists. The lesson here is for voters who might otherwise be conned into thinking that any “centre-left” party led by unreformed neo-liberals like Shearer (or old school conservatives like Peters) is part of the “left”. NZ Labour (and NZ First) in their current form are actually part of an undeclared grand coalition with the “centre-right”, and like the Clark government, Shearer’s Labour is only willing to offer business-as-usual with the sharper edges filed down a bit. The only way to drag them to the “left” is, as Fambo says, to vote for parties to the “left” of them.

      Taking into account a two axis analysis of political space, we can see that unless we vote for a party not currently in parliament (hint, hint) the choice that leaves us is between a leftish party leaning slightly towards the authoritarian (Mana), and slightly further left party leaning slightly towards the libertarian:
      http://politicalcompass.org/nz2011

  4. I know you served admirably with the 5th Labour government Matt, but do you seriously think they will move away from liberalism or pragmatic mentality that is defeatist? They and their Labour brethren globally have been a true sucker punch vote for many working people. It is a party of political insiders serving the interests of the inside over the interest of the people. I had hoped the factional rifts inside national would tear them asunder – shame it is Labour who has let factionalism win and allowed the other vice to rule their heart – the beast of liberalism.

  5. Any parties that have any spark of left in them should be very careful about going into coalition with Labour – Labour already has the right within it. If things get worse, or the workers (etc) begin to organise effectively, my bet is that more than one Labour MP will jump towards National. Looking at where ACT came from, it’s easy to see that austerity is the first instinct of many of them.

  6. agree with Fambo above,Fambo says: July 24, 2013 at 8:57 am
    about possible coalitionsJuly 24, 2013 at 8:57 am That can only mean Labour should not go into a coalition with New Zealand First as Labour is more to the right than either Greens or Mana. However, the biggest conservative block is in the Labour Party itself, it seems – and therein lies the real problem which is actually a lot more difficult to remedy than who Labour chooses as its coalition partners – you can choose your friends, but you can’t choose your relatives.

    The matter has been resolved Fambo, and I think you know the answer, NZ Nat Govt 50%
    Many of us will move to the right, we will take at least 3 per cent votes with us

Comments are closed.