“I set out really to change the approach, and changing the economics is the means of changing that approach. If you change the approach you really are after the heart and soul of the nation. Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul.”
Margaret Thatcher 1981
WALK INTO the Opposition Leader’s Office with ideas about changing the heart and soul of the nation and see how long you last. Andrew Little’s advisers don’t really do souls. And the average punter’s heart doesn’t exactly lend itself to metrical capture. Try to run either of them through a computer and things are liable to get messy. No, Little’s advisers prefer polls and focus groups, and the joys of regressive analysis. They’re much more fun.
Much more fun, but, apparently, not much use – as the events of 7 May in the United Kingdom have just proved. South of the River Tweed, metrics proved to be one of the UK Election Day’s biggest losers. The pollsters, statisticians and data-crunchers, in which the British Labour Party had invested so much, got it wrong. Turns out that the heart and soul of a nation can’t be measured – it can only be felt.
North of the River Tweed, the politics of hearts and souls (as opposed to stats and polls) had triumphed in truly historic fashion. As the results were posted, it soon became clear that the Scottish National Party (SNP) had wiped the Labour Party off Scotland’s electoral map.
Throughout the campaign, Labour had equated the national fervour stirred up by the SNP with the worst kind of nationalism. Former Labour supporters were accused of succumbing to the SNP’s “rapture” – as if they were a bunch of slack-jawed American fundamentalists. It didn’t work. No matter how many times Labour demonstrated that the SNP’s promises could not possibly be paid for, the voters blithely ignored them. Their hearts and their souls were elsewhere.
Meanwhile, south of the border, the right-wing parties were only too happy to present themselves as the staunch defenders of England’s heart and soul. The UK Independence Party, UKIP, implored voters to stop the EU, and the mass influx of foreigners its rules continued to sanction, from destroying what it meant to be British. It was a message that resonated just as loudly on the Left as it did on the Right. UKIP wasn’t a threat to the Tories alone; in Labour’s heartland UKIP candidates were moving, ominously, into second place.
The Tories themselves needed no lessons in the politics of hearts and souls. England, they warned, was about to be squeezed. Labour, that great defender of the EU, was about to enter into an unholy alliance with the SNP. The English people risked being caught between Labour’s socialist internationalism and the demands of the independence-seeking Scots. The country was in danger!
Against these nationalistic battering-rams, the gates of Labour could not hold. It had asked the voters to stand with the poor and the underpaid; it had asked them to make the wealthiest 1 percent pay their fair share of tax; and it had pledged to defend the NHS. But, what it had not been able to do was convince those who were neither very poor, nor very rich, that Labour had the faintest idea what was going on in their hearts, or cared very much at all about what was happening to their souls.
Margaret Thatcher knew that true political success would only come when the Conservatives’ explanation of what it meant to be British proved to be more compelling than Labour’s.
“What’s irritated me about the whole direction of politics in the last 30 years”, she told The SundayTimes on 3 May 1981, “is that it’s always been towards the collectivist society. People have forgotten about the personal society. And they say: do I count, do I matter?”
Thatcher’s emphatic answer was: “Yes – you do!” To all those hundreds-of-thousands of “personal societies”, inhabited by the families and friends of the individual voter, the Conservative Party proclaimed the unequivocal message: “You do count! You do matter!”
Browbeaten by the boss; burdened by mortgages they could only just afford; resentful of strikers in the factories; frightened by unemployed youngsters on the streets: these Britons turned gratefully towards the one party that reassured them they were the heart and soul of the nation.
The great irony, of course, was that just 36 years earlier, in 1945, exactly the same message had been taken into every home by Labour. After 10 years of economic depression, and six years of war: when it had grown easier and easier to believe that individuals were no more than the dust ground out between the massive cogs and wheels of the economic machine; or, nameless soldier-ants, fighting in defence of the nest; Labour came into the lives of millions of fragile families and said: “You do count! You do matter!” And their hearts were warmed, and their souls soothed, and for more than 30 years the Tories dared not dismantle what the socialists had built in England’s green and pleasant land.
Scottish Labour may scorn its former supporters for succumbing to the rapture of the SNP, but New Zealand Labour could learn a lot from the Scottish experience. The amazing collapse of Labour’s vote in Scotland was about much more than the SNP. Somehow, out of the thwarted referendum and its aftermath, a majority of Scots came to the collective conclusion that the heart and soul of their nation, for so long forsworn, was theirs to save.
As with the British people in 1945 (and the New Zealand people in 1935) such historically charged moments are capable of transforming a political party into a vehicle for both national salvation and cultural renewal. And the reason why so many voters are willing to climb on board is that from some place deep within, unreachable by polls, focus groups or data crunchers, the conviction arises that, together, they and their party have come to represent, if only for one brief breath of history, the heart and soul of the nation.
Nationalism was the winner of the day. You can have progressive nationalism (SNP) or whatever it is UKIP stands for (I honestly have no idea apart from the anti-EU thing).
In New Zealand nationalism would work too, and has for NZ First. Nationalism is not inherently bad – as the left often sees it – and could easily be used to manipulated Kiwis into voting for the better choice (progressives).
Such a shame that it appears to be anathema to the Greens and Labour, it doesn’t need to be. I guess the left will have to continue to rely on whatever Winston is feeling like on the day (see 1996).
A great weakness with nationalism is that like racism it is indiscriminate.
Truly spoken from the heart. Thank you Mr Trotter.
I think the underlying message to the victory of the SNP is not nationalism, but classism.
Workers in Scotland found a vehicle in the SNP already in existence as the alternative to Scottish Labour that had been part of the leadership of Blairite/Brownite Labour, so they dumped Labour.
The heart and soul of the Scottish workers is the struggle to survive economically.
It cannot be undone by promoting Scotland’s independence because that leads to the breakup not so much of Britain but the British working class.
Labour Parties under their current centrist strategy of appealing to the middle class are doomed to extinction as we have seen in Spain and Greece.
The solution is to fight for the heart and soul of not only Scots, but British, workers unity against all the pro-austerity parties in the EU, joining forces with the anti-austerity struggles from Greece to Spain.
The SNP and Syriza which try to reconcile antagonistic classes in national populist parties are not the answer.
New mass workers parties that address the heart and soul of the 85% that work for a wage are the answer.
They can advance a socialist program that empowers those who produce the wealth to take control of their hearts and souls.
Your claim, that the real motivator of the SNP voters is class not nationalism, shows a lack of understanding of the Scots in my opinion. I am not of Scots descent but I live in Dunedin, the Scotland of the south and I have no doubt at all that in this city being of Scots descent matters. Dunedin was created by the Scottish Presbyterian Church, in the way that Christchurch (the most ‘English’ City) is founded of the Anglican church. But Dunedin is a good deal more Scottish than Christchurch is English.
I dont believe that the SNP voters were thinking even briefly about a class struggle. I believe they are seeking their national destiny – the vote was so overwhelming that it defies belief that they could be so moved by a idea so abstract as class warfare.
And dont believe that Scotland cannot afford what it dreams of. If the workers are willing and the materials are there, and if the Scots had their own Scottish National Bank, saying “Where is the money?” simply shows ignorance of what money is.
Thank you Chris Trotter for understanding human nature. I no longer vote Labour because in the depths of their DNA all the candidates are logical positivists.
Andrew Little’s advisers don’t really do souls.
Very droll Mr Trotter very droll.
The point to be extracted, willfully overlooked by most comments above, is that a shopping list of popular, or at least unexceptionable promises is rarely the recipe for someone’s vote. It is counter-intuitive to the jaundiced or cynical but it is true.
What can win a vote is the belief that someone “gets you”.
This is not much to do with Nationalism or, indeed any other ism.
What connects the dots is that in a wide society – and this also includes comparatively small nations like New Zealand – the individual is usually ignored, patronized and ends up being used as cannon fodder of one sort or another.
A successful strategy will give the feeling of validation, control and respect to as many voters as possible. Give them the feeling that their contribution matters, and a way to make real choices about the present and future of their community and society.
And if it also gives the substance it might just get you re-elected.
Good post, Chris.
New Zealand’s Heart and Soul. This is probably going to sound racist, but it’s how things look to me, personally.
Maori have collective land and agricultural capital. That’s great, I don’t begrudge them that. The Chinese who come here aren’t your fish’n’chip shop Wong’s just trying to make a buck and survive like everyone else anymore, they’re cashed up and they’re buying land and businesses. I’m white, I have no land, I don’t belong to anything that I feel could be called a “collective group”, I have no bargaining power beyond my vote. To me, the heart and soul of NZ is tied up with the land. I feel like white gypsy here. It’s not necessarily what I want for myself.
Rootless, I guess you could say. With diminishing interest in putting down roots because, why would you? The whole place is like a gambling table.
That’s right Janice .
We are now one giant casino!
No surprises there when you look at the bunch of ‘wide- boys’ running the country and their respective backgrounds.
And if you don’t give people some sort of stake in their future and society, whether it be through owning land or having some sort of job security, then we as a culture are doomed.
The way it’s currently tracking everyone will be a tradeable ‘world citizen’.
Dog eat dog will become the norm.
It’s going to get ugly in New Zealand because National haven’t got a f***ing clue on how to run a country.
They possess no lateral thinking and like the joke about accountants goes,.. they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
What New Zealand did to deserve this I do not know, but the only thing that will stop the rot is if Labour shows some real courage, gets radical and displays a true point of difference.
David Cunliffe , one of the few with real guts wanted to make this step, but a section of caucus, who should belong in Jurassic Park, were way too ideologically compromised.
Softly , softly catchy monkey just ain’t gonna cut it!!
I was also a Cunliffe supporter. His crime was flair, he had well developed verbal skills, a death-blow in NZ. He had an “old-fashioned” sounding background, with too much intellectual stuff going on like theological commitment on the part of the father (parents?) who were probably also not materialists. He had too much breadth to his personality. Probably acceptable to the average NZer as a “really great teacher” at an Intermediate school, but not much else. They don’t want “the thought” to actually start touching society.
Janice, I am in a similar situation, white, without a chance to ever own my own property, and poorer probably than many Maori, given my unemployed status.
But ownership of land should not be the only core criteria where we identify ourselves with. That is going down a dangerous track.
I saw on the weekend on the television news how a real estate agency was basically handing out property in East Auckland on a first in first served basis, so long as that they met basic criteria, and could make a small down payment.
It was almost run like a “raffle”, I felt, where every person was given a “ticket” and had to be on the site early in the morning. People slept in their cars over night. Then they were allowed onto the site and only twelve out of two or three dozen that turned up were “lucky” and got what was deemed affordable property for new developments there.
The persons that were interviewed were mostly greedy looking, materialistic, selfish people, you could see it written all over their faces. One Indian immigrant missed out, as he did not ensure his car stayed there, as that was a condition to get in. He let his wife take the kids to the football, that was his mistake. So he was furious when he missed out, and said, he never expected to be treated like this in NZ, as he had only been here a few months.
Now he looked like one of those professional, well qualified Indian migrants, he was not poor, as he could afford to buy a property costing well over 400k. Also he looked very selfish and greedy, it was all about him and his family, nothing of his talk and gestures showed any interest in “collective” well being.
We let in many migrants on the criteria of qualification and what they have in assets, and some are much better off than locals born and raised here.
But I do not want to blame migrants for the status quo, NZers voted for governments that brought in all these policies, for housing, employment, migration and so forth. Sadly the majority have voted in “me first” propagating politicians and parties, and we can now see the result of it.
There is little social cohesion, and while Chris Trotter may suggest the heart and soul is tied to what we own and have, what we are and want to be as individual persons, I think that one day the pendulum will swing the other way again, as collective spirit is needed. But I fear until we get a change, much more harm needs to be done, so that more will realise the foolishness they have supported.
It tends to be the progressive or left parties that get voted in after disaster strikes, when the economy and so forth are in a total mess, when war struck and so forth. That is why Labour got into government in the UK after the war.
But the neoliberals calculate their majorities, they only need a small majority to run the show, and no matter how destitute and disowned the underclass may be, as long as they get most the middle class on board, they have won the election.
That is how the Conservatives in the UK and National here operate. If needed they come with some bribes, like a bit more maternity leave and free health care for kids, and they also have most of the media go along with what they do, so no matter who owns property and homes, they get it their way anyway, until the show really hits the shit one day. But that day may be nearer than most of us think.
If you are white and middle class, you are already one leg up on any other race in the country. You are sadly mistaken if you think Maori have control over land and agricultural capital. Ultimately, the system is designed by Pakehas for Pakehas and will remain so for many decades to come. There will be incremental change at the edges as the population becomes more brown and yellow but the systemic bias for the white middle classes are fairly entrenched. I think the feeling of dislocation and disengagement is more complex than feeling affiliation to one’s ethnicity – rather, it is the fragmentation of community brought about by the commercialization of our values, amongst other things …
I’m not middle class. I did go to school with some middle-class kids though, they were, for the most part, really nice people. And generally curious about others, some had extremely well-developed social consciences. The odd bout of snobbery from their parents, but more often, a very inclusive generosity.
The relations change when you become an adult and start competing for the same or similar positions in the workplace. That, in my experience, is when the differences start to show.
What is this if not “ownership and control”?
http://www.tgh.co.nz/
Like I said, I don’t begrudge, but pretending it’s not there is tactical, rather than honest.
Well laid out Chris,
“a majority of Scots came to the collective conclusion that the heart and soul of their nation, for so long forsworn, was theirs to save.”
And if NZ First and Labour combine with this anthemia also as they are best fitted to be real “Nationalists they may trounce the nasty’s next time around, as real Nationalists who finally will take us forward together (not the Key paper tiger type of phoney nationalist)
The SNP has been around since 1934. So much for ‘overnight success’. They’ve worked for it.
Devolution was the best thing to happen to Scotland in a long time. It’s one of the few good things that quisling Scot, Blair, did for the nation. The top came off the bottled genie.
Robert Burns asked in 1790, ‘What are all the advantages which my country reaps from the union that can counterbalance the annihilation of her independence, and even her very name? Nothing can reconcile me to the terms.’
And many Scots remained unreconciled, reminded too often of what they had lost.
Whether it all ends in tears and the end of the ‘union’, no one knows, but Nicola Sturgeon is right: Westminster will find it hard to ignore Scotland and Scottish ways now.
In the best of all possible worlds – perhaps this is the end of the exclusive, patronising, self-serving Westminster system. We can only hope.
“To me, the heart and soul of NZ is tied up with the land”. That comment is true not just of Kiwis or Maori but of all people and indeed of most advanced animals. Defending our territory is fundamental to the survival of the clan and the individual.
When we see speculators from abroad buying our land we feel insecure and desperate. This must eventually lead to violence when they have so much land that we can no longer ignore it. This is not racist – white immigrants have no more (or less) right here than others but, when we have formed a nation, the first duty of our Government is to protect our land against assault from outside.
There is only on way to do this.
The land should belong to all those who legally belong here and should be held in trust for all its citizens by our Governments. In short the land itself should not be for sale to anyone, ever. That was Maori’s big mistake.
Land should only be available for long-term tenancy. A house buyer buys only the house and improvements. The land value is not to be part of the sale value of the property and is to be accoiunted for by annual rent to the government. Anything less brings us eventually to our present predicament.
Chris does with this post basically tell us that the “me first” mentality and society is what appeals to voters. That is the crux of the matter, when you analyse it. And the conclusions that Chris likes to draw here are not really so relevant to New Zealand. The winner of the UK elections was “First past the Post” – the UK election system, and those who knew how to take advantage of it.
The Scottish nationalists would never have had the same success under an election system that is more representative of votes cast, like the proportional representation we have. They only got just over 5 percent of the total votes, and only beat Labour and others in Scotland, because they managed to have their candidate lead in almost all electorates.
And Labour actually gained a few seats, but lost more than that, but nevertheless won a few more votes in total. The Conservatives only got 0.8 percent more votes than in 2010, hardly a success.
Now quoting Margaret Thatcher, Chris does not present the whole picture, as she won in 1981, because the people did in their majority worry about the labour unions then claiming too much power, and this led to ongoing strikes and so, that were not good for the economy. As unionism was until then still very common and strong, and membership high, society was in a different situation as it is now. So naturally some people thought this needs to change, and Thatcher just exploited the opportunity to then change society to degrees formerly unknown, basically thrashing the unions and with that also Labour, who still depended a lot on union support. Hence Blair came with a new approach in Labour, after so much had been lost for Labour.
What Chris seems to say also is, that John Key got it right, as he caters for the same minded people, who want to put their individual, personal interests before the interests of the whole society. We now have a society here in Auckland, that is becoming more dog eat dog than it has ever been in my lifetime, and selfishness and greed seem to rule, and collective action is not taken, certainly not for the interest of all of Auckland or the country.
Look at housing and employment, it is all about number one, and what the individual can gain, hence most property owning middle class people do not seem to protest about the housing price escalation, it serves their interest. The ones that now cannot even make it onto the ladder, they are facing ever higher rents, and instead of standing up and protesting, all people do is adjust somehow and put up with it, with overcrowding, with living in garages, in caravans and boarding houses.
Employment is also now an environment of me first, as every worker tends to see the colleagues as competitors, for better pay and conditions by getting better positions, for advantages and perks and for getting the jobs there are.
Migrants are also tied in, as they want to prove themselves as being worthy to get residence, jobs and homes, and they rather compete than stand up for workers’ rights for other rights and so forth.
I am sorry, Chris, you do not convince with this post.
Nationalism can stir up emotions, and in New Zealand it is now difficult to even get such emotions come up, as the society is so diverse, where one in four or at least five residents and citizens was not even born here, and many have diverse cultural, religious and other values.
So what advice can Labour or any opposition party take out of this? Damned little, I fear. What happened in the UK is similar to what happened here, the opposition is divided, into different kinds of separate parties, and Labour are just the biggest party in opposition.
It is divide and rule, and that is what Thatcher turned the UK into, and here Chris wants to suggest the opposition here may learn from that?
Further to my comment, when you think of it, Not only NZ First, but also Labour tried in past elections to gain votes by warning about asset sales (also to foreign companies and investors), about foreign farm land sales and the likes, which can be seen as being “nationalist”, but despite of this the people did not vote for them.
Housing policy by Labour also tried to entice the middle class into voting for them. Yet the voters seemed little impressed and did not vote for them. Mana told us about the NSA spying, the dangers of free trade agreements like the TPPA and so forth, and that did not gain many votes either.
So the cause for Labour’s and even Mana’s malaise lie somewhere else, and I am sure that many here will know enough about what the reasons for this are.
I would dread the day the progressive parties in NZ try to sell us cheap nationalism, with flag waving and the likes, and with slogans, telling us about how great we are.
Or do we turn politics into a rugby game, which the media is already doing at times?
There was a considerable amount of community engagement taking place at grassroots level in Scotland in advance of the independence referendum.
This movement was non-partisan and while unsuccessful in the referendum, was very effective in making people politically astute, aware and active.
This political awareness of a large percentage of the Scottish population means that those voters have a different perspective on what politics should be delivering, and are sufficiently knowledgeable to be immune to Crosby/Textor machinations, and MSM bias and propaganda.
If we want the same level of progressive politics in NZ, we must promote community engagement and discussion at grassroots level – regardless of party support.
Do you have a catalyst in mind? You wont get far without one.
It depends on your faith in others doing what is right.
Community development methodology commits to providing access to inform, discuss and connect people without defining outcomes.
What I propose is not dissimilar.
Comments are closed.