In opening, I should disclose that I am an ardent leftist, activist, blogger and member of the New Zealand Labour Party. I’m a combination of things that the Labour Party says it could best do without in order to win the 2017 General Election.
After winning the 2014 New Zealand election, The National Government has gone on to roll out it’s programme for the country in accordance with policy that must have been in place prior to being elected but not disclosed. It has also faced a series of issues ranging from spying allegations to an Auckland housing bubble. Judging this Government by it’s actions, rather than by what it says, it is embarked upon a radical move to shift New Zealand from an egalitarian society, supported by strong social welfare and higher taxes, to a market driven, monetarist model that produces lower Government spending and lower taxes. In it’s purest sense the former has not existed for some time but what Key is overseeing is a fundamental change that will end the New Zealand that we grew up with.
The remarkable feature of what Key has managed to achieve whilst undertaking this programme is that he has maintained a perception, amongst many New Zealanders, that he and his government are more centrist than they actually are thereby maintaining a remarkable level of support. They have kept this support despite being hamstrung by vested interests in the way they have dealt with many of the issues the country has been faced with since the election.
Opposition political parties have been frustrated by what they see happening with the public support for Key, in particular, but also the National party and have concluded they have to adopt National’s approach if they are to make any headway i.e. appear to be more centrist in their policies and approach. As a consequence the two main opposition parties, Labour and the Greens, led by new leaders, are embarked on a new strategy that will see them occupy more centrist positions. This has emboldened the right leaning members of both parties and seen the parties considering the loosening of ties to ‘single interest groups’, activists, unions etc. and increasingly looking to appease middle New Zealand and businesses. The argument is also being advanced that the divide between left and right is outmoded and in particular party policy should not be driven by leftwing ideologies because that is off-putting for ordinary Kiwis.
The casualty in all of this is the leftwing. Within the parliament the voice of the left has gone to be replaced by an opposition ready to agree with the Government where it can and ineffectually fighting on issues where it thinks it can score points while still appearing responsible and ‘middle of the road’. Miraculously, Key and his Government survive crisis after crisis, in circumstances where serious consequences ought to have resulted, with barely a dent in their popularity. For the opposition to get up and beat National in 2017 it needs to make inroads into Government popularity especially in circumstances where it seems to do no wrong in the eyes of its supporters. One wonders if offering a slightly different version of what the Government is already offering will convince National supports to change their vote?
To me the adoption by Labour of its current intended strategy is unconscionable. Either we strive for a society that cares for the underprivileged and promotes equality or we allow a free for all where the ambitious clamber over the bodies of the poor in an attempt to reach the top. One can argue that there are degrees between those two extremes but in a nutshell that’s the two sides to the equation. I know what side of that equation I would like to see Labour on.
So what does the left need to do to get its voice back in politics? In crude terms the constituency that the left represents have the numbers to win any election. Some of my thoughts are as follows:
- Workers need to get organised. The idea that in general an individual worker can bargain with their employer on equal terms is ludicrous. Unionised workplaces have less accidents, are better paid and have better conditions of work. A good union/employer relationship leads to better training, higher work satisfaction and higher productivity. Workers, unions and political activists need to get their act together to sell the advantages of union coverage to boost numbers then use those numbers to vote for and fund political representation in Parliament – just like their bosses do
- Youth, beneficiaries, working poor and ethnic minorities have low voter turnout because they are disaffected, disengaged, feel powerless to effect change and have lost hope. To motive the non-voters within these groups is very hard but it has been done before. Dynamic representatives with ‘fire in their belly’ who will fight ‘tooth and nail’ on their behalf and offer relevant policies that help will motivate a far higher voter turnout in favour of the left
- The ‘baby boomers’ are now a minority and the generations that replace them have a different perspective and are motivated by an entirely different set of issues. They have been born into a world where issues such as sustainability, climate change, terrorism, internet freedom, gender issues, housing affordability, student loans and so on have replaced ‘make love not war’, ‘stop the tour’, ‘ban the bomb’ and so on. The left champion most of the issues relevant to the newer generations whereas the right is full of deniers and threats to some things held dear. Again, dynamic representatives with ‘fire in their belly’ who will fight ‘tooth and nail’ for these issues will connect with many of these voters, a number of whom would be described as middle New Zealand
- The proposition not to promote leftwing ideologies simply means you promote centrist, neo-liberal and rightwing ideology. The motivation for doing this is based on an instilled fear of leftism which is very hard to counter given the amount of time and effort that has gone into promoting this at almost every level of media. The left have to acknowledge that this is a real thing. Hiding in the shadows sniping away will only reinforce the stereotype. The left is being hurt by not having excellent, caring and honest people in the public arena promoting the ideologies, dispelling the myths and selling the benefits to ordinary people.
- Business, particularly small business ought to be open to ideologies of the left. Most sole traders do not even earn an average wage out of their businesses. SME’s have poor access to capital to fund growth and have an arduous PAYE, tax, ACC and administration burden. However, I do not see this group, apart from the odd individual, ever supporting anyone other than National but there may be ways to connect with more than we do.
The above is a sample of what I think on this topic but I have to concede to implement and get results may take longer than 2017. So do you sell your soul and move to the centre on the off-chance of a win?
I’m a business owner based in Whangarei and lifelong Labour supporter. Publish a leftwing blog under the pseudo name theM Blogger
A lot of what you point out is undeniably true and your solutions are “basic steps” which, I guess, is always a good place to start.
You do mention the fear of the centre/right to leftism but I would suggest it is a deeper and more entrenched problem than you realise.
I came to NZ in 1966 from Britain, and one of the first things that struck me was that whenever we were talking about health, education and politics I was constantly asked “You some kinda commie?” No I wasn’t talking Marxist/Leninist dogma, dialectical materialism and all the other communist jingo; I was merely pointing out that where I came from such things as health and education were socialised.
I encountered it in my last years of high school here, and in the workforce where I was always engaged with the trade unions. Even at union meetings many of the people there would respond with that self same rhetorical question simply by suggesting we should co-ordinate our actions and demands with our union in other centres.
Quite why there is this odd germ of hatred to the left, I don’t know. Perhaps because NZ was settled pretty much the same way America was: pioneers taking the land from the indigenous people and fighting government intervention. Jealously guarding their “hard won gains” so they can’t be taken away from them. Manifest Destiny…
Whatever.
America was settled by the rubbish of Europe who couldn’t wait to get back at the “old countries” but I wasn’t aware this was the case with NZ. From what I read of NZ history, NZ was essentially colonised by the English middle classes and therein may lie the problem. Maybe it’s in the Kiwi DNA.
Whatever.
NZ then at least gave a fuck. Nowadays it’s pretty much dog eat dog.
What really hurts though, is how the Kiwis lap it up and take delight in putting people down.
One thing’s for sure TheM Blogger, there has never been a greater need for an active and involved left in NZ than there is right now.
I would also implement a 100% company tax on all profits
Why?
The first rule of business is – to make a profit.
But, for whom the profit tolls? Normally the business owner.
A 100% company tax would incentivise the owner to put all profits back into the business. It would look like
– increased training budgets
– increased wages for staff
– increased expenditure on appropriate tools and resources for staff
Therefore, the incentive to make a profit is still there, but there is a 100% incentive to reinvest back into the business rather than as a profit.
All sorts of lovely little accounting tricks can be used to move money around and reduce profits.
At the same time, you reduce the personal tax rate, particularly in the sub $150K bracket, and bump it up (dramatically) on the over $500,000 bracket.
Institute a new “shares tax” on all employee share schemes. Those $2.5 million CEO salaries subject to a 15% tax on all shares afforded them as part of their total remuneration suddenly start to look a little less attractive for businesses to supply their employees. Share schemes are notoriously cheap for businesses to give their staff, particularly as many of them are only valid while you remain an employee.
Only apply GST where the total value of a purchase is over $10,000. Increase the rate of GST to 20%. This basically means it would become a ‘luxury tax’ and houses, cars, boats etc would all have it applied. Yes, even the family home when it is sold / purchased. No exceptions.
This would go a long long way to reducing wealth inequality and help the bottom 70% afford food, power, etc and be able to pay their rates and rent each year.
And finally,
Remove all incentives to invest in residential property. The interest and maintenance deductions that residential property investors love? Take that away and only allow that to be applied on commercial investment property.
In return, allow for owner occupied residential dwellings to claim back up to $10,000 per year in interest and maintenance deductions for the first 7 years. That will go much farther in resolving the first home buyer crisis than any amount of tinkering around the edges, especially when there is a potential pool of $70,000 that could be obtained which could most likely be applied straight onto the mortgage.
Since the fast track passed.
You try and of that. And your government gets sued. The fuck sued out of it too. By every major corporation.
Not just one!
Every single lawyer will be handing you papers… It will be a definite 30 year legal battle….. And you will lose due to TPPA…. The corporations get a look at it first so they may word it the way they want. So as to fuck any government… I am so disappointed with that result today…
I have voted Labour all my life, and thats quite a long time. As they stand now I will never vote for them again. I forgave Their neo-liberal foray in the 80s as a phase but I know now that i was dreaming. They shouldn’t be allowed to disrespect the people that went before the 80s by calling themselves the Labour Party.
But I will say I can’t help but wonder if I’m not somehow being managed by that same machine that runs National.
You guys crack me up!
I keep checking back to see if I’m still reading The Onion or The Citizen.
Keep up the good work – it keeps me smiling.
“The remarkable feature of what Key has managed to achieve whilst undertaking this programme is that he has maintained a perception, amongst many New Zealanders, that he and his government are more centrist than they actually are thereby maintaining a remarkable level of support” A remarkable comment because I think you have by default identified what is wrong with the left. The left has maintained a perception that it is actually more left that it really is, thus alienating the middle voter.
The ‘middle’ means ‘middle class’ which in NZ means “classless” i.e. neither workers not bosses.
It’s a social status based on a mass delusion (ideology shared by right and left) of capitalism as it appears as an equal society in which we can all buy and sell our way up or down the social scale. The measure of success is money.
This delusion hides the reality that wage slaves cannot be equal with capitalist monopolists who own all the productive assets and live off our labour.
So if we fail we are held to blame not the monopolists and the punishment is the “underclass”.
Of course Key’s success is in keeping this mass delusion alive.
As Mr Money Man he personifies this delusion as ‘above’ classes and even ‘above’ politics.
He can don different hats and pull rabbits out of them while at the same time operating as head of the finance capitalists sellling off NZs productive assets to his cronies, the big banks and slush funds.
The pack that leads doesn’t change, so after a while they stop doing what they came there to do in the first place and start doing what it takes to stay on top. This is what you wrote that resonates with this thought:
where it thinks it can score points while still appearing responsible and ‘middle of the road’.
Of course, they are going to sell their soul. Having power is like climbing a straight ladder. You can only go up because there is someone already climbing right below you. So it all comes to this: you either climb up or fall down.
I completely agree with the points that you have made in this article. However, these are just thoughts. What and who exactly can do something about all of the raised issues. Surely everyone tries to be “centered” to try and get more people on their boat. What would you do in their place?
I think that one of the main problems with voting is the reason that voters have for choosing one party amongst all others. This is like going all-in for a football team because you like their goalie, but do you like the rest of the team? Moreover, it’s like going all-in because the opposing team has won too many times, not minding that they are just a stronger team. For example Juventus vs. Barca, I honestly have heard that people were placing bets on Juventus because they thought that Barca had won too many times.
A government that fails was put there by voters who simply fail to think critically when it comes to choosing a party/candidate to take a place on the power ladder above everyone else.
Comments are closed.