If one looked at New Zealand in isolation from events internationally one could be forgiven for thinking we are a permanent bastion of neo-liberalism where struggling low and middle income families are happy with the rich running the country at everyone else’s expense.
We have a right-wing Prime Minister and government which is apparently very popular. National has won the past three elections supporting policies which have grown income inequality while wealth inequality has become more extreme year by year. Despite New Zealanders saying they don’t like the growing divide between rich and poor there is no sign of any big disturbance to this unhappy situation. The main opposition party, Labour, has no plans for any significant change to the neo-liberal status quo which it introduced from 1984.
On the other hand countries overseas are being shaken by a growing restlessness about inequality. The Occupy Movement was a sign of that but indications of discontent are everywhere around the globe. Jeremy Corbyn’s election as leader of the Labour Party and the Bernie Sanders phenomenon in the US are the most high profile but we’ve also seen the rapid growth of radical left-wing alternatives in many countries around the world.
Why not NZ?
One of the media myths we live with is that John Key is a special Prime Minister, that he’s a great communicator and has the common touch. Many political commentators say we haven’t seen the likes of a PM like him for many decades. He has certainly survived myriad personal political scandals that would have brought most leaders down several times over.
So why does National and Key continue to have big support in public opinion polls?
I think there are two reasons. Firstly because huge numbers of people are so disengaged from the political process they follow issues and developments at a very superficial level – something encouraged by the likes of right-wing commentator/journalists Mike Hosking, Paul Henry and Sean Plunkett. It’s not that most people are apathetic. They are interested in politics but they are disillusioned with the politics of the mainstream parties. It’s the kind of mood summed up well in the political graffiti I saw around Auckland in the 1970s courtesy the Communist Party (or was it the Anarchists?) “Don’t vote – Fletchers always wins”.
Secondly and more importantly has been the absolute, crippling failure of Labour to show any direction other than what they’ve delivered for the past 35 years – the rule of the 1%. Labour survives as a political party because of its brand recognition. There’s nothing else left. Despite its rhetoric the differences in economic policy between Labour and National are cosmetic. Labour has no policies to reduce income inequality – NONE!!
Within Labour there is a battle going on between some more progressive members and a small but powerful group of MPs linked to the 1980s who stifle any moves to shift the party away from neo-liberalism. Ironically Labour’s last two election defeats have left this group in a stronger position within the party as a larger minority in a smaller caucus. They occupy safe Labour seats and/or are high on the party list. This group involves people like Phil Goff (who introduced GST and tertiary education fees back in the 1980s) Trevor Mallard, Clayton Cosgrove, Annette King and Damien O’Connor.
Goff is now the corporate choice to run Auckland as city mayor – a place his fellow former Labour MP Lianne Dalziel now occupies in Christchurch as the corporate pick for mayor.
This minority within a minority party are an enormous roadblock to change – a position reinforced by the fact the mainstream media see politics as left Vs right in terms of Labour Vs National. That’s the political context whereby the news is presented to New Zealanders and the mainstream media follows it religiously. (Take for example Radio NZ using Michelle Boag and Brian Edwards as their right Vs left commentators)
The Greens and New Zealand First I think of as niche parties which will never develop a mass base to become the government. In the case of the Greens their policies are much more progressive than Labour but in the public mind the Greens are linked with concern for the environment which for struggling families appears as a secondary concern to holding body and soul together.
Let’s be honest
New Zealand is still going backwards as we have every year since the 1984 Labour government wreaked havoc with the economy and lives of working New Zealanders. The rich are still winning the class war with Labour and National firmly on their side. The wealthy grow ever more bloated while the share of wealth going to low and middle income families continues to diminish.
National is continuing down this path with the likes of charter schools, selling state houses, privatising prison contracts, contracting out public services and a thousand other attacks on families on low incomes.
From here on…
Change will come to New Zealand – just as it is happening in other countries – and when it does it will be broader, deeper and move more quickly than we expect. It will be either the Donald Trump variety or the Bernie Sanders variety or possibly both. It will take us all by surprise.
I therefore think the future is very hopeful and the challenge for the left is to have in place the vision, the campaigns and the policies which will give hope to the missing million voters and struggling low and middle income families in particular. If the left is not ready to respond with radical political messages of hope and optimism then we will be leaving the country open for fascism.
These political messages have to be set in reality so the left must be actively engaged in campaigns which support the living wage with guaranteed hours of work; better public services; the end to privatisation of our public assets and contracting out of public services; opposition to user pays charges; opposition to privatisation of state housing; high quality affordable housing for everyone; swimmable rivers and polluter-pays policies etc
I have always believed that political activists can be more effective outside parliament than in it because politicians rarely lead political change (except on behalf of the 1% when they use the rhetoric of helping the poor to advance the agenda of the rich).
However I’m a member of the Mana Movement and it’s the only parliamentary party I’ve ever joined or wanted to be part of. Unless Maori are at the heart of a broad movement inside and outside parliament promoting radical change then whatever it is it won’t be socialism. Maori are the indigenous people and are at the heart of the New Zealand working class. They have suffered the most through the last 30 years in particular from successive National and Labour governments.
If we get things right for Maori we get things right for everyone.
Socialism in New Zealand will be different to what it looks like in any other countries because each country has a different history and different realities. However the principles of socialism are common everywhere and will be reflected in the kiwi socialism for which we are striving.
I thought the article was surprisingly good until getting to the end when I realised your NZ utopia included apartheid.
Well, your first post after a TDB OP. Wow, what an opportunity for you to rack up the “Likes”. I must be witty in my response for this one and explain in a single phrase how much your reasoning sucks, kiddo.
Oh, wait, I’m already beyond one phrase in this reply, so no memetic wit for me here. Hmm… maybe a post-modern reaction where I go fully meta (not fully retard, that’s for Yourself)? Yeah, I’ll do that. Or will I?
What’s a TDP OP?
It means please delete TDB account
Pakeha dominated social democracy led to the Maori protest movement. It was a racist system. It was also sexist.
If you think 1950’s mono-culturalism is the answer, then go vote for NZ First. The rest of us have actual solutions.
Apartheid is a gutter insult and it shows you have no argument.
Socialism has failed in every country it has been introduced to, but every country that introduced it have always thought along the lines of… ‘It’ll work here as we are different, we have seen where and how it hasn’t worked and we will do it better’, NOPE!
Venezuela with it’s huge Oil revenue and oil surplus is broke (and not because of the falling price of oil, but socialist ideologies of Govt), Greece, Spain and so on and so on. (please supply a Socialist Govt that has increased it’s overall wealth internationally and made the people wealthier and happier) NZ voters are not interested in socialism and especially not interested in Maori seperatist policy that Mana would bring, it wasn’t just .Com that sank Mana/Hone but their policy was not acceptable to the voters, and never will be.
Wasn’t aware you have such a deem view of health and education
Greece and Spain are capitalist countries.
Venezuela applies a state-socialism approach, but they are in a unique position because they have to fight off USA’s imperialistic violence. When Chávez called George W satan, he was right. It’s sad that you’ve sided with a war criminal, but there you go. That’s capitalism for you. You don’t count the dead Arabs do you?
Your last point about Mana’s policies being unpalatable to the NZ electorate is correct, but you’re simply repeating the message of the post. Why did NZ fail to tick Mana? Kim Dotcom is little more than a convenient excuse – he sank the party, yes, and even he admitted that. But Mana never made any traction with voters in the their first 3 years. The question is why.
BTW, that question is not for you IM RIGHT…we’re looking for some insightful answers please.
But Mana never made any traction with voters in the their first 3 years. The question is why.
As Anne Elk had, I have a theory, which is mine.
It’s not because of Mana’s core message, it’s how Mana is perceived by the populace (and how it is deliberately portrayed by MSM).
Like it or not, NZ Sheeple don’t vote for angry faces. Angry frightens them. Too many on Mana’s list are perceived of as being angry, with a history of being angry.
Yes, I think you’re right Richard. The angry / protest image was never going to be accepted by most Kiwis.
However, I would say that many Leftists don’t mind a bit of left-wing protest anger. And this is something I’ve been scratching my head over. I doubt anyone involved with Mana expected to attract centrist voters, but surely Mana could have, and should have, received more support from the Left?
I have been involved with Mana events since 2013. I helped to campaign for Mana in 2014, and I voted Mana in 2011 & 2014. I don’t regret it – it was enjoyable and a valuable learning experience. I’d do it again, be that with Mana or a new Left party, but I cannot answer this: why did the Left ignore Mana? And would the Left ignore a new Left party?
IM RIGHT:
“please supply a Socialist Govt that has increased it’s overall wealth internationally and made the people wealthier and happier”
Well, the first part of your question doesn’t really make sense (what would an increase in “overall wealth internationally” mean?), but I can answer the second part. Most obviously, there are the European social-democratic states; Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Iceland etc. Looking to the global south, to compare apples with apples, we need to compare people’s happiness and wealth under more “socialist” governments to their experience under whatever feudal or cult-of-personality capitalist dictatorships those governments replaced, not to the standard of living in former “first world” countries that are the beneficiaries of generations of colonial wealth transfer. By that measure, we can add to the list all the Latin American states that have been experimenting with a more socialist direction since the catastrophic failure of neo-liberalism in their countries; Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Aregetina etc. Then there’s Cuba, which has one of the best and most accessible health systems in the world (see Michael Moore’s film ‘Sicko’), and nobody homeless or starving, despite decades of living under economic blockade by the US. Most exciting to me is Ecuador, which has been in transition to a political-economic system based on free, libre, and open knowledge (FLOK) and commons-based ownership:
http://commonstransition.org/a-new-evaluation-of-the-flok-experience-in-ecuador-whats-next/
Good reply. One could also point out that the wealthy countries happen to be Capitalist, but Marxist-style Communism has only ever been tried in poor countries (that includes Russia) with no tradition of moderate, inclusive, democratic government. The repressive dictatorships that ensued were inevitable, and that inevitability means that there has never been a fair trial of true socialism. The wealthy have always rushed to ensure that left-wing governments would fail economically, if not be overthrown by coup d’état…
STRYPEY:
It’s a common mistake by lefties to think that the Scandinavian countries are socialist. They’re not. Not anymore anyway.
With the exception of Norway whose economy was until recently propped up by oil revenues, all faced economic head winds in the 1980’s and slashed their cradle-to-grave welfare systems.
All now have low, flat, company taxes in order to remain competitive. All have gone down the privatisation route to improve efficiency.
For the future, these countries look to be faced interesting problems caused by the PC approach to life. They’ve recently acquired a lot of imported ‘diversity’, with a consequent enormous increase in violent crime. Let’s see how they deal with that!
Oh FCOL! DENMARK!!! Look it up – I’m pretty sure it’ll cover you ‘supply’ issue. Really this is such a sad old sausage that I think you right-wing neolibs have a physical mental blindspot to Scandinavia and just can’t process anything about it.
Totally agree. It’s like we need the best people from Labour, Greens and Mana to get together in a true Left party, a real opposition.
“Greens are linked with concern for the environment which for struggling families appears as a secondary concern to holding body and soul together. ” Quite: Good, but not enough.
I struggle to understand how Mana got involved with such as Mr Com. (Hardly a ‘dot’ on the economic landscape!) The money, at any cost?
The Left needs a new brand. It needs to re-phrase its original ideology if it is not to be thought of as pushing ‘tired old ideas’ onto a modern world.
Neolib thinking has become part of the natural mindset of modern society…how can we, as opposition, highlight the inevitable negative results of neo-liberalism without constantly ‘being negative’?
KAM we 1000% agree there.
“Within Labour there is a battle going on between some more progressive members and a small but powerful group of MPs linked to the 1980s who stifle any moves to shift the party away from neo-liberalism.”
Progressive members? Are you sure? I don’t see much of a difference between those who were around in 84 and those who are newer. They all sing from the same song sheet, but I’d like to be proved wrong.
” If we get things right for EVERYONE then we also – we get things right for Maori ”
Call me a weirdo but anarchy seems pretty appealing.
Absence of government – absence of an unfair two party monopoly which many see as part of ( if not all of ) the problem.
Absence of corporations owning and dictating to most worldwide governments and lobbyists writing most laws.
Definition of Anarchy – a state of disorder due to the absence of nonrecognition
of authority – absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual – without chief ruler.
Many think of mayhem and uncontrolled chaos when the word anarchy comes up. Maybe there is a different and more open minded way of looking at an alternative to the govt. worldwide structures that have caused much pain and greed and suffering and perpetual wars for profits.
Maybe most govt.s are not worthy of supporting now in the structures they operate in presently.
Most in Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east see the U.S. as the enemy now so maybe our military domination
and trying to spread – so called – democracy has been a failure and should stop.
Why does the absence of government have to mean disorder and mayhem ? Maybe it doesn’t if we work together to avoid it. Maybe it does not have to mean a fear based ( and greedy based ) conscientiousness and maybe we can find a way based on absolute personal freedom and cooperation and sovereignty and equality and well – being for all.
Why does the absence of the very thing that causes so much chaos and corporate greed and environmental catastrophes be a bad thing ?
Just some food for thought and a few questions to ponder.
http://www.dennisfox.net/papers/4reasons.html
http://cavern.uark.edu/~dksander/anarchy.html
http://proliberty.com/observer/20060301.html
http://www.seesharppress.com/anarchismwhatis.html
Parliament has always been the servant of the comfortable and elite. Always. Even under Oliver Cromwell.
It was never meant to serve Everyman.
Think how long the full adult male franchise was denied. How there were conditions aplenty put on ‘the right to vote’.
And think how useless that ‘right’ actually is. How difficult it can be to access an MP, or implement the will of the people.
Ponder on the increasing unaffordability of getting justice and redress.
Think about Belgium of recent times: when the parliament couldn’t settle and the country trundled on WITHOUT a parliament for blessed MONTHS. No civil war between the Flemings and the Walloons. Just like the summer break here.
Of all the ‘laws’ made in this country by over-paid non-representatives – probably a tenth are used/enforced.
And the idea of stitching together the best of the best parliamentarians to actually be law makers, revisers and exterminators of obsolete laws – instead of factional servers – yes! (They could keep their present pay, and actually benignly work for it.)
Good think piece John.What are the Labour Party’s core values anyway?
It’s years since I’ve read or heard of them
Labour’s core value is to be in government in order to be in government. That’s it.
See, for instance, this piece on their new general-secretary: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/new-labour-party-general-secretary-indicative-of-partys-managerial-capitalism/
On the problems with NZ ‘democracy’: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/the-limitations-of-nz-electoral-democracy-and-the-need-for-a-political-alternative/
Labour’s core value is to be in government in order to be in government. That’s it.
See, for instance, this piece on their new general-secretary: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/new-labour-party-general-secretary-indicative-of-partys-managerial-capitalism/
On the problems with NZ ‘democracy’: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/the-limitations-of-nz-electoral-democracy-and-the-need-for-a-political-alternative/
Comments are closed.