Between The Wars: New Zealand Labour and the Corbyn Revolution

17
9

unnamed

NIGEL HAWORTH emigrated to New Zealand from Scotland’s Strathclyde University in 1988. Teaching now at the University of Auckland’s Business School, his whole career has been one of unwavering commitment to the cause of organised labour – up to an including being appointed to the International Labour Organisation’s Century Project. When he was elected President of the New Zealand Labour Party (NZLP) in February 2015, there were many of us on the Left who offered up an elated “Yesss!” The party organisation, which has spent the last seven years defrosting itself from the long winter of Helen Clark’s absolute rule, seemed to have chosen an indisputably safe pair of hands.

So why has the NZLP President had so little to say about the extraordinary victory of his compatriot and fellow trade union champion, Jeremy Corbyn? Haworth is a smart fellow – a professor no less – so he needs no instruction concerning the enormous political significance of Corbyn’s extraordinary win. Does his silence indicate that he shares the same haughty disdain for Corbyn’s peasants revolt that has been such a disappointing feature of The Guardian’s, The New Statesman’s and The Observer’s coverage? Or, is he deliberately suppressing his elation at the demise of Blairism, in the name of maintaining the fragile peace between the NZLP organisation and its parliamentary wing?

No matter which explanation turns out to be correct, the situation is far from encouraging. If Haworth, in spite of his impeccable CV, turns out to be one of those left-wing mandarins who consider the common folk far too dim to be entrusted with the complexity of twenty-first century electoral politics, well – that’s bad. But if he’s a secret Corbynista, who, for some unknown reason, is unwilling to blow his cover, well – that’s worse!

A Labour President’s job is not an easy one. Under no circumstances must he or she become a rubber-stamp for whatever unmandated policy the parliamentary caucus deposits on his desk. It is not the President’s job to meekly translate the wishes of the Leader and his colleagues into orders binding on the party’s rank-and-file. But neither is it wise for a President to set himself up in opposition to the parliamentary wing – not unless the latter is secretly planning to subvert everything the party stands for, as the infamous “Fish ’n’ Chip Brigade” (Lange, Bassett, Douglas, Moore) was doing throughout 1983 and the early months of 1984.

unnamed-1

 

I wonder what Haworth was doing in 1983? Did he back Michael Foot and Tony Benn and their socialist crusade? Or did he secretly cheer on the right-wing splitters who’d broken away to form the Social Democratic Party? Did he agree with the critics who called the British Labour Party’s 1983 manifesto “the longest suicide note in history”?

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

That’s the thing about Corbyn (who entered the House of Commons as a strong supporter of Foot and Benn in 1983). His victory has disinterred all those questions that the Blairites thought safely buried under the tarmac of the “Third Way”. Even here, 18,000 kilometres from Westminster, those same questions have shaken off their shrouds and are walking abroad in the daylight, arms raised, fingers pointing. Wasn’t it in the mid-80s that Billy Bragg penned his brilliant version of “Which Side Are You On”? The Miners’ Strike was raging. The Police were manning road blocks, barring the way to unionists heading north to join the strikers. Did they stop you, Nigel? Which side were you on?

Jim Anderton was President of the NZLP in 1983. He’d held the position for six years, and in that time the membership of the party had swelled to an astonishing 85,000 New Zealanders. Anderton’s “Victory For Labour” fund boasted an additional 12,000 regular donors. There were regional organisers on the payroll and the NZLP owned (and occupied three floors of) the multi-storied Fraser House on Wellington’s Upper Willis Street. Labour was the only truly effective political game in town and it was attracting left-wing activists from across the labour movement.

I well recall sitting in the University of Otago’s student union cafeteria with a couple of activist friends. Naturally we were talking politics and, as the conversation progressed, it turned out that all of us were working on the campaign committees of Labour candidates. That wasn’t so odd in my case, I’ve never been anything other than a democratic socialist. But one of my comrades used to be an anarchist and the other a Trotskyist. It inspired me to pen a little good-natured satire (set to the tune of Cliff Richards “Summer Holiday”).

We’re all working for a Labour victory,

No more Trotsky, no more Lenin or Mao.

We’re all working for a Labour victory

I’m glad the comrades cannot see us now!

Labour was a mighty broad church in those days, welcoming everyone from former Trots to members of the World Anti-Communist League. And, by God, was it alive! Full of energy, unafraid of debate, and absolutely determined to not only be rid of Rob Muldoon, but also to construct a happier, more prosperous, and more inclusive New Zealand. It was big and boisterous and confident and – from the point of view of Roger Douglas and his neoliberal backers – extremely dangerous. That’s why they destroyed it.

But, it’s the sort of party that Labour can become again. Big and boisterous and unafraid of debate. And, yes, Professor Haworth, that means making yourself something more than the invisible Chair of the party’s NZ Council. No, I agree, it would not be helpful to have the rank-and-file and the caucus at daggers drawn again. But that doesn’t mean you have to keep silent about something as vital to the health of the international democratic socialist movement as Jeremy Corbyn’s historic reinvigoration of the British Labour Party.

The ice-flows of Neoliberalism are breaking-up, Professor Haworth. Have you nothing to say? No advice to give? No inspiration to offer? If ever there ever was a time to shout out, as Jim Anderton did to the 1983 Labour Party Conference: “Theirs has been the Winter – but ours shall be the Spring!” Then, surely, it is now.

 

17 COMMENTS

  1. Not sure what you want here. One moment you’re making reference to “splitters” and ideological purity and the next you’re praising a “broad church” and saying you’re “unafraid of debate”.

    Pick a song and sing it.

    I think Dr Nigel is wisely quietly watching and waiting, avoiding publically backing a man who is likely to crash & burn at the earliest possible opportunity.

    • Well, it’s hard to explain to a crying child
      Why her Daddy won’t go back
      So the family suffer but it hurts me more
      To hear a scab say, Sod you, Jack

      There you go – just picked a song for you. Enjoy.

  2. Andrew, Chris didn’t refer to “ideological purity” – those words are yours. Stop trying to put words in other peoples’ mouths – you will be called on it.

    You’re also deliberately misrepresenting how Chris used the word ‘splitters’ – it was used for people who stepped outside
    of the broadchurch that you and Chris mentioned. To spell it out for you, and draw you a pretty crayoned picture, if you’re inside the broadchurch, ipso facto, you’re not a splitter.

    If this is the best critique you have of Chris’s piece, then you haven’t really addressed anything he said. Just a bit of silly spin that on inspection, is meaningless.

    Try again.

    • At least it seems like “Andrewo” has skimmed the article he’s replying to this time, thus proving they are not a bot, just a sockpuppet:
      http://sockpuppettheatre.com/

      Just to clarify, I’m not calling “Andrew(O)” names here (my use of the term “sockpuppet” has caused confusion in the past), I’m describing their pattern of posting on this site:
      * they use an effectively anonymous pseudonym, which they has every right to do IMHO, but it ensures that no real flesh and blood person will ever have to take responsibility for the comments the sockpuppet makes here. It’s not necessarily the same person operating the sockpuppet each time.
      * their comments are always 1-3 sentences, enough words to make a dismissive remark, but never enough to engage in the discussion with any depth of analysis
      * their comments reiterate one or two from a set of “key messages” (see ‘The Hollow Men’ and ‘Dirty Politics’). The full set can be teased out by looking at the pattern of comments over time. In this case, the key message they want us to absorb through repetition is that Corbyn is “likely to crash & burn”. Key messages can also be ideological axioms, like the myth that neoliberalism is about “individual freedom”, rather than corporate collectivism (Mussolini’s idealized marriage of “state and corporate power”).
      * their comments are always delivered in a snide, self-satisfied, hectoring tone, which is calculated to upset people, get them defensive, polarize the discussion, and prevent slow, deep, thoughtful discussions which could lead to consensus, and then to collective action

      More on sockpuppet strategies here:
      http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/trolls-guide-internet-disruption.html

  3. I say wait a bit before casting judgment. I have thought from the outset that Andrew Little would stay fairly quiet until he has determined a position he feels able to defend. It may well be that Nigel Haworth thinks similarly. The NZ Labour Party has been through seven turbulent years, and a way forward has to be found before it can be taken. While I am not willing to accept warmed over third way triangulating bullshit from Labour, I am willing to wait a bit longer to see what they do finally come up with.

    • Yes I agree with that. But how do you know when it’s time to decide? Prevarication is not a steady state.

      And I’m not just “hassling” YOU, Olwyn, this is a question I have to ask myself too. When do I choose?

      We all do.

      It’s absolutely critical…

      • It’s understandable that Andrew Little should proceed cautiously – he will not want to give away material for turning him into caricature in advance. But hopefully we will see a bit more of what he intends with his cabinet reshuffle in November, and a bit more still over the coming year as the groundwork is set for facing the election. That’s how I read it anyway.

        • When I say ” a way forward must be found before it can be taken” this is roughly what I mean. When people howl for a NZ Jeremy Corbyn, they seem to me to overlook the fact that managerial politics cannot do what mass movement politics can. Both Cunliffe and Rudd across the ditch tried to bring about changes that need a mass movement behind them within managerial systems and look what happened to them.

          We are at a bit of a cross roads here, where Labour members and voters have rejected the third way but have not formed a mass movement of any force. Andrew Little and his advisers need to translate this into a practical plan of action. It cannot be done overnight and it cannot be done on the hoof. Corbyn has the swelling ranks of the People’s Assembly behind him – we currently lack an equivalent.

  4. Fair enough to ask where the Labour President stands on Corbyn, it need not be an “outing” just a reasonable enquiry as Chris has begun

    In 1988 Nigel Haworth was a supporter of a 10 week strike at Nissan Manufacturing in South Auckland, the combined unions were going for standard improvements plus battling union busting micro management methods such as “teamworking”

    Fast forward to 2008 and Haworth was on the foundation advisory board of the “Centre for High Performance Work” along with Craig Norgate and Print NZ CEO Joan Grace.
    “The Centre is a joint venture between the two unions that will work with New Zealand businesses to develop work practices that lead to increased productivity and business growth by integrating workers’ shop floor knowledge into day-to-day production decisions.” Very much like the employers 80s spin on the “Nissan Way”

    EPMU national secretary Andrew Little said in 2008 “the Centre shows unions are taking the productivity challenge seriously”. Which is interesting given the ECA prompted parting of the ways between NZ productivity and wage increases.

    The practical implementation of this type of thing known at Fonterra as “ME”–“manufacturing excellence”–and various other names, has largely failed because middle management fear letting go power and workers are suspicious of buying in to the class collaborative nature, though they may not always articulate it that way.

    So, my take is Nigel Haworth has incrementally gravitated to “third way” politics as his academic pursuits–APEC etc indicate

  5. This will be the last chance for the masses to overthrow the yoke of neo-liberalism. If they fail to support Corbyn, the consequences for them will not be pleasant.

    As for Andrew’s comment above, the word stupid doesn’t begin to address his supposed argument (which as Frank points out, is largely based on stuff he’s made up).

  6. Broadly speaking …it would seem there are two types of politicians.

    Those who are ideologues….and those who only move with the sway of public opinion.

    Both types can be either an incredibly positive influence for good…or an incredibly powerful influence for evil.

    Of the former we can contrast Hitler with our own M.J.Savage…people who either were ideologues or at least those with strong moral/values convictions.

    Then we have Chamberlain of England..a people pleaser ….contrast this with our own long list of ineffectual politicians…of which there have been many. They are fickle….and stand for little if not nothing in particular.

    If we could accuse Labour of anything it would have been to be hijacked by a subversive group led by Roger Douglas during the 1980’s. Douglas…an ideologue…backed by the then Business Roundtable , and supported by a small group – including the then PM David Lange – set in motion a rampage of neo liberal ‘reforms’ that continues to this day.

    Labour continues with this foundation of neo liberal ideology…particularly as you say…in its ‘ parliamentary wing’ …this is in total contrast to Jeremy Corbyn.

    Corbyn adheres to an ideology as well…but moreover…like Savage…is guided by morals and values – and those morals and values are not the jaded and pantomime ones of the neo liberal…and this is WHY he is now a threat to the Tory’s.

    People recognize truth when they see it.

    And no amount of lies or deceit ever dims the light of truth and goodwill.

    Our working populace is much smaller and now atomized than that of England…so naturally there is an air of caution for any ideologue to step forwards. In some ways this demonstrates a kind of cowardice here in New Zealand.

    But rest assured… Corbyn is not going to just disappear overnight… and as more politicians of the Left are inspired … then we will see the less ‘ plucky ‘ left leaning politicians showing a new found courage…and less inclined to just simply muck on with the current neo liberal status quo.

    Remember…it was only a small handful of people in key positions that caused this country’s destructive march into neo liberalism…

    This can be undone and overturned by an equally small number of bold political leaders who adhere to social democracy. Those who are not like leaves driven every which way by the wind – but who have sound social democratic conviction’s as their base ideology and strong community based morals and values.

    But it is a fact : someone has to have the courage to start the ball rolling. After that…the momentum will grow. As it did for M.J.Savage.

    • Wild Katipo:
      >> Douglas…an ideologue…backed by the then Business Roundtable , and supported by a small group – including the then PM David Lange <<

      It annoys me when people lump Lange in with Roger's coup. If he was part of their clique, he wouldn't have been booted when he and Anderton tried to reverse the neoliberal coup, to be replaced by Palmer, then Moore.

      Lange's Tomorrow's Schools was a brilliant piece of legislation, entrenching things like public ownership of schools, and central registration and employment of teachers, and school zoning, while giving parents and school communities greater input into the way their local school was run. This was a bold move, which helped fend off privatization, bulk funding of teacher salaries, abolition of zoning etc throughout most of the Bolger government.

      The few neoliberal tweaks Bolger's various education hatchet-persons managed towards the end of the 90s were incredibly unpopular, and immediately rolled back the incoming Clark government (just as most of her final term changes were rolled back by Key's). Key's hatchet-persons have had to resort to back-of-the-bike sheds tactics like closing schools, so they can hock off the real estate or re-open them as Charter Schools, and replacing elected Boards with Statutory Managers, under direct orders from El Presidente.

      Sadly, too many people now associate Tomorrow's Schools with the Bolger government's bastardization, and fail to appreciate what Lange did for our schools as Douglas and co were burying their knives in his back.

  7. Very good Chris. Ah! I remember it well! The NZ Labour Party was truly a very large very broad church of the left. And we had some political clout then too. We knew what it represented and supported that representation all the way to Parliament. It was the Bastille all over again!

    It was also the last time ever I voted Labour.

    After the hatching of the Douglas cuckoo I could never again find it in my heart to trust Labour.

    I was then a working man and a representative in my small union and I could see the logical conclusion of the turn (betrayal?) Labour had taken.

    But in my analysis of the situation, I saw the subsequent fragmenting chaos of the left ensure we would never again see a return to those democratic-socialist principles the ordinary Labour Kiwis once held dear.

    The arrival of MMP seemed to make permanent this fragmentation.

    Labour was now neo-liberal, the Greens were the middle class wankers trying to ease their precious consciences by focusing on the planet rather than the people, and the further left left broke into an assortment of “correct” but ineffective groups, New Labour, Mana etc etc.

    The assembling of The Alliance gave some unity back to the left but with the Greens going their own strange way and Labour resolutely hanging onto the neo-liberal dream, there was no group big enough or strong enough to oppose the neo-liberal hegemony.

    (And the Greens latest moves seem to indicate that they too have bought into this hegemony.)

    National and Labour, supposed opposites were in fact essentially, at least as far as the worker was concerned, two sides of the same choice: ie no choice…

    The Labour caucus control over Labour ideology will continue to deny Labour to the left.

    If there is, as you say Chris, a rank and file groundswell against the neo-liberal caucus, now is the time to show it. And they show it by settling for once and for all, who in the NZ Labour Party determines the ideology to follow and WHAT LABOUR WANTS TO REPRESENT!

    Coz it certainly ain’t representing nuffin’ at the moment…

Comments are closed.