I THOUGHT OF DAVID CUNLIFFE THIS WEEK. Well it was hard not to with his Red Labour Campaign almost rivalling the wall to wall coverage of the corporate Red Socks boat race.
But unlike who wins between two technologically laden sea-craft it does matter a damn who won the Labour Leadership race and then what he does with the spoils.
Because while the boats cannot hit the water without crony capitalists to fund them, David Cunliffe has issued a clarion call to Labour supporters and would-be supporters that he is “going to be taking on the Key government and exposing the crony capitalism erosion of democracy and [the] widening inequality it represents”.
At least that is what he promised me in an email newsletter with a bold headline saying Hello Matthew to someone who hasn’t paid a membership sub. So I gave him full marks for being inclusive.
Admittedly the rest of the newsletter was less bold with the bland statements that with David we would “build a fairer, more inclusive society “and that the other David as his Deputy has an “understanding of the economy …second to none”. But what is that “understanding” and do the Davids see the economy as a machine independent of any particular framework to be tinkered with or a set of social and economic relationships which under capitalism ensure that the owners of capital call the shots?
I hope we do build a “fairer and more inclusive society”. Who but Bob and Shane Jones and their property magnate circle don’t share that noble aim?
But Cunliffe’s rivals in their campaigning newsletters also offered that “fairer and more inclusive society” without any details and just urged a vote for them because they were, well, more photogenic, charismatic, unifying etc. etc.
Supporters and builders of a social democratic alternative want not only an exposure of crony capitalism (what other sort of capitalism is there?) but explicit policies that expand the public economy and ensure that the market is a servant not a master. That in turn requires a coherent socialist philosophy to counter not just crony capitalism but the whole shooting match of privatisation, user pays, regressive taxation and a continuation of the “accumulate , accumulate” philosophy which fuels (no pun intended) the headlong rush to global warming.
That is not a call for a return to some mythical glory period of protectionism and state subsidies where favoured cronies got the monopoly on import licensing or some other preference but a move forward to wider and wider public and democratic involvement in the choices of how our cities are planned , how public transport is developed, how our environment can be protected and developed, who should be our friends on the international stage and how the public part of the economy can be deepened and strengthened to allow for a sensible and coherent balanced economic growth.
It is not good enough to proclaim that David Parker has an “understanding of the economy (that) is second to none”. It is important to know what that “understanding” is and how it differs from the Chicago School and whether he will puncture the compuncture of that woolly(neo) liberal Fran O’ Sullivan who smugly reported in last Saturday’s Herald from the comfortable business world she loves so much that :
There is considerable room for doubt over whether Cunliffe really embraces socialism. Or whether it is just convenient window-dressing to boost support in the Labour Party at large to make up for the considerable distrust he faces within the caucus.
This can be interpreted as a nudge, wink, wink, to O’Sullivan’s conservative following that like so many Labour leaders before him, here and abroad, Cunliffe can be relied upon to have a face for the masses and a face for the real world of business.
This is where the Party steps in. It already has seared into its consciousness the complete collapse of the Labour caucus into the arms of Roger Douglas as it placed pelf and place over principle. It has the awful example of Blair, the friend of Berlusconi, for whom Margaret Thatcher was a heroine.
If members look across the North Sea they can observe the miserable state of Dutch Labour, a prisoner of its conservative coalition partners in the Austerity programme. New Zealand Labour, chastened by those betrayals which have had such calamitous results, can hold David Cunliffe to his Victory newsletter promise to me that “we will … build a fairer, more inclusive society.”
“Supporters and builders of a social democratic alternative want not only an exposure of crony capitalism (what other sort of capitalism is there?) but explicit policies that expand the public economy and ensure that the market is a servant not a master. That in turn requires a coherent socialist philosophy…”
Here, here. But we are a long way from winning the battle of ideas, let alone putting a game plan into action. Russel Norman makes some mild comments about QE and is wildly denounced by all as some sort of heretic. The trade unions continue to decline. All the universities indoctrinate their students with neoliberal theory, while left academics get the sack – in the entire region, only a couple of (Australian) universities will teach undergrads left economics in any depth. Without serious outside pressure, I can’t see all those Blairites in caucus suddenly marching back to Mickey Savage for forgiveness.
In this environment, one can only imagine what would happen if David tried to reopen the Clause IV debate. Does Cunliffe have the academic credentials and rank-and-file support to try and lead such a shift in thinking? Perhaps. But we’re a long way behind those elsewhere in the world, not helped by a docile electorate yet to feel the full brunt of the global economic crisis.
“The trade unions continue to decline. All the universities indoctrinate their students with neoliberal theory, while left academics get the sack – in the entire region, only a couple of (Australian) universities will teach undergrads left economics in any depth. Without serious outside pressure, I can’t see all those Blairites in caucus suddenly marching back to Mickey Savage for forgiveness.”
I share your concerns, and while I do not support to teach “politics” in economics or whatever at universities, we certainly need more of a fair balance, which does no longer exist.
The same applies to the medical training now, where young students are taught stuff that is not at all clear cut and proved, and this mad science approach that a Professor Mansel Aylward from the UK has been allowed to push, and which has been taken up by even the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and the Royal NZ College of General Practitioners, is inexcusable.
It is an indoctrination that is taking place, and it is all done to serve governments to cut costs, at the expense of sick and disabled, and who will be put beyond of what is acceptable, to pressure them into trying to do any kind of work that will get them off benefits. They are not even properly consulted and involved, and in the UK thousands died early or committed suicide, due to wrong assessments by supposed “experts” on sick and disabled, who in some cases were bedridden in hospitals.
Shame on such policies, and I expect Labour to bloody well clean up this attack on the weakest and poorest, unable to defend themselves.
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/
Do a search on Mansel Aylward on the website of Black Triangle Campaign and see what that man is all about, who the government and Paula Bennett accepted as “advisor” re welfare reforms.
He was also a mentor of Principal Health Advisor Dr David Bratt, the one working for MSD and WINZ, and that one has his own (bad) reputation. I suggest a Google or other search on him, and his comparisons of benefit dependency to drug dependency are appalling. He was hired by MSD under the reformed welfare system then in 2007, by the last Labour led government!
I have long thought that what social democratic politicians actually do depends totally on the pressure that organised movements can put on them. Politicians like Blair, Goff, and probably Shearer, allowed themselves to take their cue from Capital. They bowed to the pressure of the Business Round Table and the representatives of mammon, while the workers and those who voted for them got anti-terrorist squads and austerity. I hope that Cunliffe will listen more to our movements. Even though I wouldn’t expect him to unleash the GCSB and ATS on the speculators and troughers who have moulded our society in the image of a 19th Century lunatic asylum, I do expect him to be more receptive than anyone since Rowling. The rest is up to us. We can never again rely on government to legislate for us with such two-edged swords as compulsory unionism, under which the FOL/CTU turned out to be such an empty shell. Basically, we don’t deserve what we don’t fight for. It’s up to all of us.
Politics is all about pressure.
“This can be interpreted as a nudge, wink, wink, to O’Sullivan’s conservative following that like so many Labour leaders before him, here and abroad, Cunliffe can be relied upon to have a face for the masses and a face for the real world of business.”
I must agree with Matt here, and I have serious concerns and doubts about the “change” within Labour. Of course, the first comments and statements by Cunliffe and the new leadership team seem to be promising, but we must wait and see what they will really stand for. I am still hopeful, but expect some further clear statements, especially on social welfare or social security policies, and it dismays and disappoints me that David Cunliffe has avoided a clear positioning on this.
We have as of recent years had a government that appears to be hell bent on stigmatising, harassing, chasing and pressuring beneficiaries, to get them off benefits no matter what. The benefit system is such, that it is hardly designed to offer “lifestyle choices” and an easy option to get onto. I know nobody who is on a benefit and enjoys their life like that. Yet the selectively reporting media and the government tell us the opposite. For most people on benefits do virtually NOT exist.
As for Labour’s future policies, I expect a strong distancing, and departure from what we are getting now. I expect a more inclusive, respectful and fair approach to beneficiaries, most certainly towards those too sick and disabled to work, on the open market that is, as the policies we have now are all geared to “usher” those into jobs on that open job market, to compete with fit and healthy for hard to get jobs.
I expect Labour to accept TRUE science, and to distance themselves from pseudo-science and the draconian, inhumane system that has now been introduced:
http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/15188-medical-and-work-capability-assessments-based-on-the-bps-model-aimed-at-disentiteling-affected-from-welfare-benefits-and-acc-compo/
http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/15264-welfare-reform-the-health-and-disability-panel-msd-the-truth-behind-the-agenda/
http://sciblogs.co.nz/griffins-gadgets/2013/09/03/gluckmans-audit-finds-patchy-use-of-evidence-in-government/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciblogsnz+%28SciBlogs.co.nz%29
http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/The-role-of-evidence-in-policy-formation-and-implementation-report.pdf
Sadly it seems, no-one in Labour is that much interested in the fact that poor science is being used and applied by government departments. At least I hear and read none about this.
Is it perhaps that Labour – even under Cunliffe – are too concerned about potential costs for a better and fairer welfare system, so they rather stick with the more stick than carrot approach, or is it, that they cannot bother reading stuff informing them about what is behind it all?
In any case, I as a beneficiary with health issues am worried and not satisfied with what Labour and Cunliffe have presented me so far on future policies. Welfare needs to be addressed, and until some convincing new policies have been presented by them, my vote is likely to go elsewhere.
I’m interested to see how Labour fares against KFC’s discriminatory policy against its long-term specialist workers.
Most employers in NZ are SMEs. They simply don’t have the inhouse capacity to offer employment to variously disabled people, however much they may feel socially concerned to do so.
Government departments, who used to offer employment to people with disabilities – and training – are no longer able to do so because of downsizing , and are now probably incapable of doing so because the depth and range of work being done by them has been whittled away over the years.
The actual means whereby people with disabilities, who have been warehoused for years by successive governments, are given the ongoing training, financial and social support to enter the workforce – fragmented and lacking.
Most people with disabilities don’t have strong and experienced advocacy groups to persist through the indifference to get them a fair break for employment. Too many are still needing support simply to get treatments in an affordable and timely way (think mental health issues).
So far I haven’t seen any politician actually ‘get’ disability. No one at all…
Comments are closed.