HOW DOES A PARTY abandon neoliberalism? Even if the New Zealand Labour Party wanted to repudiate the ideology that caused it so much grief – could it?
Think about the scene in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings where Gandalf asks Bilbo Baggins if he’s passed on Sauron’s perilous ring to his nephew, Frodo. Bilbo is quite sure that he has – only to discover that it is still in his pocket. Parting with the Ring of Power is a great deal harder than Bilbo ever imagined. The same appears to be true of neoliberalism.
In 2013, for example, at the infamous annual conference Labour held at Ellerslie, there was an attempt made to repudiate the neoliberal legacy of Rogernomics. The party’s Draft Platform: a statement of Labour’s core principles and policies; actually contained a section condemning Labour’s fatal embrace of neoliberalism in the 1980s. By 2014, however, not the slightest trace of the anonymous author’s condemnatory prose could be found in the Party Platform. Somehow, the Ring had found its way back into Labour’s pocket.
I have spoken to Labour Party members about the fate of the Draft Policy Platform’s rejectionist section. Who re-wrote it? On whose instructions? Is there any official record of the original language – important for historians, if for no one else? No one has yet been able to satisfactorily answer any of these questions. It’s as if the 2013 attempt to repudiate neoliberalism never happened. (If any reader of The Daily Blog can shed more light on this murky business please do so!)
The furore over Jeremy Corbyn’s stunning sprint into first place in the race to replace Ed Miliband as leader of the British Labour Party is another indication of just how difficult jettisoning neoliberalism is going to be. The reaction of the British Establishment has veered wildly between loud guffaws and anguished squeaks. Politicians and journalists cannot make up their minds whether Corbyn’s success constitutes a joke or a threat. Not that it matters. If he wins, the MP for Islington North should prepare himself for the most unrelenting campaign of vilification and ridicule in British history. The members of the British Labour Party, like the people of Greece, are about to learn the hard way that “elections don’t change anything”.
As the veteran British political journalist, Andrew Rawnsley, put it in a recent Guardian article:
“The big truth that is being exposed by this battle is that Labour is really two parties and they can no longer stand each other’s company. The social democrats despair that those to the left always pull Labour into suicidally unelectable positions from which it takes years to recover before the party sees power again. The socialists rage that the pragmatists make so many compromises in the pursuit of power that it ends up not being worth it. Really, they’d be happier if they could go their separate ways. Then the electorate could choose between an offer from the centre-left and one from further left.”
Except that those who despair of the Left’s “suicidal” positions are very far from being “social democrats”. The people Rawnsley dignifies with the title “pragmatists” are actually the defenders of the neoliberal settlement. Their absolute determination to prevent the “socialists” from taking over the Labour Party reveals just how formidable the obstacles to genuine social-democratic change have grown.
Not even New Zealand’s adoption of MMP was sufficient to thwart the purposes of neoliberalism. The Alliance, NZ First and the Greens certainly offered New Zealanders a choice “between an offer from the centre-left and one from further left.” While Labour remains the dominant force on the left, however, the parties representing the “further left” face precisely the same conundrum currently taxing New Zealand’s TPPA negotiators. Yes, they can refuse to compromise and remain on the outside looking in. But, if they do, then other parties will, eventually, secure the concessions that would otherwise have gone to them. You gotta be in to win!
It’s a conundrum Andrew Little is finding it increasingly difficult to resolve. His caucus retains a good many hangovers from the Rogernomics Era who will be counselling caution on the TPPA. The country, meanwhile, grows increasingly apprehensive about an agreement negotiated in secret, and over whose content they have little or no say. What Labour needs to do is take a position. Either, reaffirm its support for free trade and get in behind the official negotiating team. Or, repudiate TPPA as neither a free nor a fair trade agreement. One or the other, please Andrew. Because announcing “bottom lines”, when your party will play no role in sealing the deal, really does sound a bit fatuous.
Like Bilbo, Labour understands that neoliberalism’s ring of power is perilous, and will forever be bending it towards the purposes of its dark transnational masters. And yet, though challenged again and again by the party’s left-wing to let it go, neoliberalism never quite makes it out of Labour’s pocketses.
I have a dream – no politicians – no lies – no theft.
simple answer to part 2 of your question: “no”. And that blocks any attempt by the genuine left to educate the electorate that there’s more to life in Aotearoa than what is peddled by Wrong Key and Seven Shit.
Is the replacement of neoliberalism, socialism or old fashioned liberalism being the values that this country was founded on?
Chris
Is the rumour true?
That one can become a voting member of the Labour party in the UK for the princely sum of a pound and droves of Young Conservatives have been signing up in order to vote Corbyn into the role.
Knowing he will completely kneecap the Labour Party
And like so many other historic reformist movements of the past – will add momentum to ridding the neo liberal plague that kills democracy like a malignant cancer.
If it takes both the right and the Labor party in England to implode so be it.
Because that’s what social reform does – throws out the old and brings in the new….feeling scared now , buddy ?
Perhaps you should be.
@ andrewo..
no..that is a scare-rumour floated by the blairites..
..tho’ the labour party in britain is seeing a huge number of new members..(coming in to support corbyn..)
..and their average age is 18..
..so clearly..the many young people demanding change here – need to ape their british compatriots..
..and join ‘left’ parties to change them from within..
..with i would suggest..having labour here as a major target..
..labour is currently infested at all levels with blairites/clarkists…
..and nothing will change until they are cleared out..
..and sent on their way..
and in other corbyn-news..
..the ‘tory grandee’ ken clarke has told/warned fellow-tories that corbyns’ anti-westminster policies will see him as next prime minister of britain..if he is elected leader of the labour party..
..interesting times..
I have a dream, some whistle blower will come out of the woodwork and sink Planet Key with proof of corruption with that death planet soon.
Yesterday I was told that shonKey now secretly “owned Toll NZ!”
Kiwirail never owned this part of the trucking arm when the then Michael Cullen bought the rail company in 2007, and was never sold by Paul Little the Australian owner of Toll transport.
So if this is true how come Shonkey now owns at least some of it?
Key has already been caught out lying in September 2008 when he said he only had a few shares in Tranzrail the owner before Toll and he owned many more than that.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10533576
So it is highly likely he may just really own a chunk of the trucking arm of the former rail operator Toll NZ?
A charge of “Conflict of interest” perhaps.
Is this why he is allowing Kiwirail to die and get all that extra freight onto his road freight company now?
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/82468-Cunt-Key/page13
Key lied about ownership of Tranz Rail shares: Labour
National leader John Key National leader John Key
Mon, 22 Sep 2008 7:40p.m.
Labour has accused John Key of lying over his ownership of Tranz Rail shares amid revelations the National Party leader failed to fully disclose his interests.
Mr Key’s shareholding in the rail operator became an issue earlier this year when Labour claimed a conflict of interest because he had asked parliamentary questions about the Government’s planned buyback of the country’s
rail tracks while he still had a shareholding.
Despite his role at the time as National’s associate transport spokesman, he did not disclose his shareholding.
When Mr Key was questioned on the issue this year he said his family trust had held 30,000 shares in the company, but had sold them on June 9 and June 12, 2003.
He said his questions and comments never led to any gains from the company’s share value.
But Finance Minister Michael Cullen today released correspondence and share register information contradicting several of Mr Key’s claims.
The information showed Mr Key, through his trust and under his own name, had owned 100,000 rather than 30,000 Tranz Rail shares.
Questioned on the issue before he was aware the information had been released, Mr Key said his shareholding ranged between 25,000 and 50,000 shares up until June 2003.
But when pressed on the issue he admitted there were more shares.
“Actually maybe 100,000 from memory, sometimes 50,000, sometimes 100,000, yep,” he said.
“Yeah, sorry, there was 100,000 in total.”
Mr Key said no one had questioned him previously on exactly how many shares he had owned.
The papers released by Dr Cullen show Mr Key personally bought 50,000 shares in Tranz Rail in May 2003 after he had actively pursued information from the Government on the company.
He sold those shares five weeks later for $51,000 – more than double their $22,500 purchase price.
However, 50,000 shares bought by his family trust in February 2002, were sold in June 2003 at a loss of $132,000.
Dr Cullen said Mr Key should have declared his shareholding to Parliament and his failure to do so was unethical.
“John Key lied because he knew he had something to hide,” he said.
“Mr Key was in fact commenting publicly on Tranz Rail, meeting with bidders for the rail track and vigorously pursuing the release of commercially relevant information all while being an undisclosed shareholder in the firm.”
Dr Cullen said Mr Key had spent a lot of time attacking Prime Minister Helen Clark’s credibility over the New Zealand First donations scandal, but had covered up his own actions.
“For him to have in effect grossly misled both the media and the public on this I think raises that issue of trust yet again,” he told reporters.
“Clearly Mr Key was not simply not forthcoming, he actually lied.”
Timeline of National leader John Key’s Tranz Rail share dealings:
* February 15, 2002 – Mr Key’s family trust buys 30,000 shares in Tranz Rail for $108,000;
* February 19, 2002 – the trust purchases 20,000 more Tranz Rail shares for $72,000;
* July 27, 2002 – Mr Key is elected to Parliament;
* October 30, 31, 2002 – Mr Key asks parliamentary questions relating to Tranz Rail and the future of the rail track without disclosing his shareholding;
April 9, 2003 – in Parliament, Mr Key questions Finance Minister Michael Cullen about secret meetings between the Government and Tranz Rail;
* April 14, 2003 – Mr Key seeks dates and details of government meetings with Tranz Rail in written parliamentary questions;
* April 23, 2003 – Mr Key seeks copies of minutes from Government meetings with Tranz Rail from Dr Cullen, but is declined on commercial secrecy grounds;
* May 7, 2003 – Mr Key purchases 50,000 more Tranz Rail shares in his own name for $22,500;
* May 20, 2003 – in his role as National’s associate transport spokesman Mr Key meets Rail America to discuss its views on Tranz Rail;
* June 10, 2003 – Mr Key sells the 50,000 Tranz Rail shares he purchased in May for $51,000;
* June 11, 2003 – under questioning by Mr Key in Parliament, Dr Cullen expresses his view that Tranz Rail is carrying hundreds of millions worth of liabilities;
* June 13, 2003 – Mr Key’s family trust sells its 50,000 Tranz Rail shares for $48,000 — a loss of $132,000.
* June 18, 2003 – Mr Key again attacks the Government’s plans to buy back the rail tracks.
* October 16, 2003 – Mr Key makes an apparent hypothetical reference in the debate over Pecuniary Interests Legislation to a possible shareholding in Tranz Rail. (end)
Again I say, that though Key lost money in no way excuses his shabby dealings. If you see something else in this………so be it.
Skyryder
Nats leader accused Labour of running distraction for Peters
2005 Dominion Post
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/640818/Key-laments-failing-to-come-clean-on-shares-font-size-1-video-font
“Key laments failing to come clean on shares” (+video)
Nats leader accused Labour of running distraction for Peters
Key is a lair again then and now we are sure.
Great research C Green, you’ve been learning from the maestro, Frank.
However, Key’s downfall might just be something as simple as saying a Maori Language month would be “boring” to a school and a Maori student. It alienates the young and Maori. The Natz laisser-faire property speculation by Chinese and other investors is also alienating the young from Natz. How are the young, and especially young Maori meant to compete with 0% interest speculators from China?
His glib “blokeiness” let him down on this one and added to the flag debacle, it shows a callous disregard for, and disconnect from young, modern Kiwis.
Selling us out to be a USA pawn or 51st state for a seat at the UN Security Council (then McCully omitting to slap the Russians with a wet bus ticket for shooting down a civilian plane); TPPA; pulling ponytails, kneecapping John Campbell – it’s just a long litany of loutish disregard for caring kiwis.
Better to be rid of Key next election, or the sooner the better so that National can try and win 2017, instead of being out in the wilderness till 2026.
Get rid of Key National, it’s your only hope.
Great analogy Chris. Let go of the ring! Non-governmental ways of being political from the margins of the state are what matters when Neo-liberalism is the new empire.
I think the emissaries of Mordor in the form of Treasury and the Reserve Bank long ago pulled certain of the Labour neo liberal caucus aside one dark night to talk about monetarism.
The implications would be clear…
It is to stay at all costs. A new Order has arisen. And for your acquiescence ,…you will be richly rewarded…just close your eyes…and you will see the eye of Mordor…relax…
And that is what happened to your Draft Policy Platform , Chris…
They were warned off it.
I have spoken before about the Labour party needing a leader like ‘ Blood and Guts ‘ General Patton. Someone with some mongrel that just will not back down.
They need to be mentally dexterous , fully informed , able to refute all nebulous neo liberal counter arguments, ruthless, humorous , a team player . a charismatic speaker …and finally …a person who only cares about national sovereignty.
This country’s national sovereignty.
Uncompromising in this nations sovereignty.
If you doubt this ?… then this population is so low key about everything they are sitting ducks for a charismatic leader. They are easily led , they think only of their immediate wants…to present them with a real leader – one who actually has a viable and strident set of ideas – and delivered with an aggressively assertive and strong manner …would blow mealy mouthed types like Key out of the water.
In many country’s globally can be found these leaders where life’s issues can mean life or death…it has the peoples imaginations…
Andrew Little , to be fair…although I perceive a strong man in himself – and likable – I would suggest needs to develop just that sense of boldness … he has quailed before the job before him. So far.
He just needs to realize he is indeed the boss of that party.
It is not caucus that he should fear but recalcitrant neo liberal member’s of that caucus that fail to get in step with where he is taking the party.
If this seems too severe , too harsh , too brutish….then ask yourselves this :
Were the destructive neo liberal reforms of the 1980’s and 1990’s pleasant or beneficial to a huge portion of this population ? Have the lots of people generally improved under them save for the rich becoming incredibly more so and the poor becoming increasingly marginalized?
I think most would agree this country has now plumbed the depths of societal ills that we have not experienced since the early colonial days or the great depression…
That indeed the neo liberal effort has been an overwhelmingly negative experience for most on modest incomes…in fact…severe , harsh ….brutal…thusly… it would be a tall order to fight that negative ideology in ones own party on the same war footing …. because that’s what is raging in this country at the moment : an ideological war.
Giving it and its adherents no quarter , hearing no excuses but instead handing down an ultimatum.
When you that happen …you will know you are in the presence of a captain who runs a tight ship. When you see that happen …you will see the people of NZ perk up their attention. For a leader to actually STAND for something in that party – would ensure the country/s attention.
And that includes the arrogant monetarist stance of the Reserve Bank and the Treasury included.
You mean something like this @ Cleangreen ?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/03/former-city-trader-tom-hayes-convicted-of-libor-rigging
When Labour fronts up and admits openly that they were infiltrated and steered NZ down the neoliberal path in the 1980s, then they may have a chance of regaining some credibility.
Rogernomics from a team happy to follow the planted ringleader Douglas who pushed the corporatisation of Govt departments and services, closed Post Offices around NZ with resulting die off of so many small country centres, treating company tax as an evil while opening NZ up for transnational control.
Accepting that the “Market Rules” ( as opposed to the people ) became their mandate driven from a blossoming neoliberal clique.
Lange the egotist was easily let to implement the beginning of destroying our school system , in venting his anger at the teacher of his daughter. Picot a private schooler joined with Lange advising him of the steps to destroy Education Boards and full state responsibility within the Education system. Erosion of the system has happened ever since and we see it step by step heading for further privatisation. Tertiary Education fees climbed and this has devolved into a yoke of debt for thousands each years.
We have seen steady deterioration of State NZ ever since and labour has avoided addressing the mistaken direction the party took and also have allowed to happen since.
Labour appears to be unable to revoke their past breech of trust with the people of NZ and continue to remain within the neoliberal conversation.
The selling off of NZ is happening in every sector and Labour pays scant rhetoric in addressing this crime of theft and imposed servitude.
When free trade, globalisation has hundreds of factories producing stuff other factories produce spread all over the world. This dynamism is what’s killing the Labour Party. When things get hot in one part of the globe you can just shift production to another on the peripheries.
Labours problem is there rhetoric no matter who pops out as leader is set in the past. Not able to deal with the dynamic globalisation. A new labour leader should be learnt in globalisation but most importantly that person has to be able to here’s an example.
I was speaking to my really good friend who is a lefty fiscal liberal, I’m a right wing fiscal conservative. He was speaking to me about low wages, housing problems, all that. After he finished speaking I said to him what you are really saying is jail bankers.
Uber deserves special attention because it’s business models are suppressing wages, there rent seeking, skimming off the NZ economy sending wages off shore. How can labour possibly deal with this global trade problem if they don’t understand it.
Attack the rent seekers. Not the trade.
Jailing bankers would be a good start, Sam, especially after the GFC fiasco.
Considering Goldman Sachs role in Greece’s financial problems, we can start right there with that company. And move on up from there.
I’m not sure I want to pay for banker’s to enjoy the delights of prison ‘marriages’ – hit them in the pockets – it’s all they care about.
If Key ran a scam on NZ to profit on Tranzrail shares, then forfeiting the shares and the profit is basic to the legal principle that wrongdoers shall not profit from it. See how long Key’s celebrity lasts without the wealth he acquired by stealing public assets.
Rent seeking is an inevitable consequence of an unregulated economy.
1000% Frank,
Jail Goldman Sacs and IMF/World Bank and all the Bilderbergers and we would all be in a safer place globally for sure.
Long reign BRICs as a way of kicking these criminals out of their slimy business and Key is also part of this as he is now doing to NZ what they did to Greece.
Bankrupt a small country and go in & buy it for fire sale prices is their rule of business.
I agree with everything you’ve said Chris except for this bit:
“While Labour remains the dominant force on the left”.
I don’t think Labour are left.
Labour gave birth to Act for God’s sake! That’s about as far right as you get in NZ.
Labour are right wing. They’re not left. They’re National Lite.
The left needs to let go of Labour if it wants to be cohesive. Allowing a right wing party to parade as left is probably the biggest problem the left in NZ has.
Labour has done so much damage to this country and while it pretends to be a viable left wing party attracting left votes it will continue to do damage.
I hate Labour with a vengeance. And I used to be a Labour voter. I have a Grandfather who was a Labour MP and my family are still members involved in the party.
I hate them because they are dishonest and weak. And because they won’t front up and own their betrayal of 1984. They won’t do it because some of the architects of that betrayal are still in charge of Labour’s bloody caucus!!
Hear! Hear! Lara. Thanks for summing up how I feel about the “current” Labour Party. I believe Mana have taken over the mantle of the original Labour Party.
Yep you’re dead right there Lara.
There are still maggots in the fruit.
Maybe we could irradiate ’em?
Cheers.
I think we need to toss the entire fruit aside.
There are left wing parties we can vote for and join. Greens and Mana come to mind as real viable left alternatives.
Let Labour go.
But first, stop calling them left!
Perhaps Bilbo at the beginning of LOTR is in a similar position to the NZ liberal party in 1911, where possession of the ring of power will only corrupt them (perhaps John A. Millar could play the part of Saruman). The Liberal party then went on form some questionable alliances with characters like Davy, eventually finding ‘in darkness bind them’ with the formation of the National party in 1936.
I think both Labour and National are descended from the 1890s to 1910s Liberal party. This was NZ’s longest serving and most successful government. The long depression of the 1880/90s was NZ’s most severe and the Liberal’s through progressive economic and social policies steered NZ out of it.
The Liberals failed when they succumbed to status quo conservatism. The First Labour government in the 1930s took up the cup of progressive liberal social and economic reform. National is more of a descendent of Massey’s Reform party (which despite its name, seems to be just a Tory conservative party), but you could argue that National has defended the Liberal’s land reforms and pastoralism economic policy, so is a legitimate descendent of the Liberals too.
Great language Chris: “neoliberalism’s ring of power is perilous” “dark transnational masters”. The gutsy thing to do would be for Labour to make a clean break with the ‘Neo-Liberal Project’. To spell out how the ‘Free Market’ project was designed (in part through the ‘1980s Project’), its field-testing stage, how the banking cartels, tax haven jurisdictions, media propaganda, military violence, color revolutions, drug money and CIA black operations are vital to its success, and lay its callous intent bare for all to see, because at its core is economic warfare (AKA The Shock Doctrine), as you well know. In other words, if the mass populaces of the world knew about The Shock Doctrine, as Naomi Klein says in the documentary (see link below), it would lose its power. In short, Klein is talking about deal-breakers for society – corruption, collusion, and conspiracy.
The evidence is all laid bare.
It requires balls and ovaries to confront this massive Global Neo-Colonial Project. we cannot rely on political parties to do it. They only move on issues when the ground under them has shifted. we are talking about our governments’ involvement is this conspiracy (as you know ‘free market’ economic shock treatments were introduced here by stealth and came with a cover story that we would all eventually prosper) to use speed, suddenness and scope against their citizenries for the benefit of the top 10th percentile of the 1%.
So, it is Amazing People (misnamed ordinary people) who need to come together fast. why fast? Because the Global Debt Crisis is going to wreak havoc everywhere. The coercion that occurred under the Bilderberg-NATO Nexus engineered Oil Price shocks of the 1970s (that fuelled the world debt crisis as countries resorted to borrowing) will look like mild-stress following a weekend spending spree at the mall in comparison to what’s coming soon. Just don’t expect news outlets to report the real big picture.
Under this Neo-Liberal-Neo-Con Project, which includes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, sovereignty and wealth is set to be further transferred, as I make clear in my latest article, “Almost Fully Operational: The Mega Cartel Death Star” at: https://criticl.me/post/almost-fully-operational-mega-cartel-death-star-3595
The Shock Doctrine
https://vimeo.com/26718047
This phone interview with Varoufakis by an Australian Greek author, tells you something of the difficulties involved in standing up to the neo-liberals: http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2015/08/03/9698/#more-9698
A couple of quotes ““…in order to forge the future you have to sacrifice unproductive people who are good for nothing. Now, the smarter ones…They could see that the program they were implementing was catastrophic. But they were cynical. They thought, I know which side my bread is buttered.”
And “The Troika did challenge the previous governments of Pasok and New Democracy…But not once did they threaten to switch off liquidity to them because the governments had failed to sufficiently tax the oligarchs…The Troika would only threaten to withdraw its liquidity if the lowest of the low of pensions were not cut, if the minimum wage was not cut…”
The NZ Labour Party is most unlikely bring about the end the neo-liberal hegemony, whose headquarters are in Washington, Berlin and the City of London. It can, however, put up a genuine fight and set modest but meaningful goals for itself, reversing the “pitch to the punters but commit to the markets” framework, which everyone is now able to see through anyway. Seriously addressing the housing issue, rebuilding essential industries and ending the practice of heaping contempt on the poor might be good places to start.
Great analogy Chris – its one of those if only I had thought of it ones!
The genius of Hayek, Freidman and fellow travellers such as the Mount Pelerin Society (Ruth Richardson is a member) was to insinuate in the minds of the public, beginning with academia, a conviction that irrespective of intent, “all” government is inefficient, a drag on the economy, an inhibiter of freedom and stealing from the worthy to give to the indolent. The cold war, patronage, irresponsible unionism (arguably a variable of patronage), academic / governmental intellectual rigidity all played into the neoliberal agenda. So entrenched in accepted wisdom has the neoliberal philosophy become that even in the face of evidence showing its flaws and the unintended(?) consequence of the erosion of inclusive society, that comes from an unrelenting emphasis on the self, the dominance persists.
As Blair so glaringly demonstrates the desire for power will slowly erode principal if not it is not treated as an errant child requiring constant supervision.
The western social democratic movements, including the NZ Labour party, have the evidence, academia has partly come around, what is now required is a relentless publicity campaign attacking the claims of the neoliberals.
History, both social and economic, clearly supports the contention that it is under an inclusive well managed “mixed economy” that most progress is made – in short the neoliberal emperor is bereft of clothes.
A final comment I don’t entirely agree with your stance on the TPP. I have yet to see conclusive proof of the efficacy of all the FTA’s we have joined up to. One would not be surprised to see that much of the claimed benefits are similar to those claimed for great sporting events – i.e. Pie in the Sky.
Little is right to state a position but he must be prepared to walk away from the deal when gaining power.
Labour is working at cross-purposes with respect to TTPA: If adopted, it would most harm the core of Labour. Labour needs to find the courage to break with their past because National can do Neo-lib better than Labour ever will. With respect to TPPA, the vast majority of Kiwis hate it. The very first ISDS suit filed against NZ would be an albatross hung around the proponents necks, and the end of their political future.
And as usual, National would default to Blame Deflection #1.
https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2014/05/09/national-under-attack-defaults-to-deflection-1/
Comments are closed.