Labour’s Achilles Heel

Grant Robertson is an excellent politician (one of the best) but is this centrist skill set best suited in a world that calls for visionary leadership to get us out of the serious problems we have? And remember centrist approaches are a key reason why we have serious problems like the climate crisis.

Achilles of course was the invincible champion of the greek army outside the walls of Troy. His passion and fearlessness in battle was such that when he was offended and stormed off to sulk in his tent; each greek leader in turn came begging he return to battle. And though he did eventually, (we know from another story he died from an arrow to the heel) he is not mentioned at the final Greek victory over Troy.

Chloe Swarbrick was very reasonable in expecting backing for her bill to remove alcohol sponsorship in sport, due to the huge social problems alcohol creates. But Grant was concerned by the disruption to funding and potential budget impacts. But why this debate? Each issue stands on its own merits, not a false relativity or one or the other.

The debate shows the fear at the heart of a centrist approach, an unwillingness to deal with consequences from taking a rational action. Because consequences mean disruption and that means political risk, i.e., you might get blamed at a later date. It is risk averse stance i.e. put up with existing problems (you can’t be blamed as you didn’t cause it). Future problems from change are overplayed and benefits are underplayed.

And where is this centrist approach learned? It is supposedly political wisdom from observing how conservatives parties approach problems when in government and (against all logic) are highly successful at staying in power.

On  issues that are not core to them, conservatives try to be seen to do something, but do minimal e.g. The bright line test for taxing property sales, but only if sold within 2 years. Hardly an effective action to cool house prices, and it didn’t (an outcome great for their property owner voters). But the pressure came off. The media move on looking for action.

So Labour mimics this and tries to play down real action. Not do too much; gun shy and cowed by mostly the right wing press pantomiming risks, but also the rest of the press can latch onto actions and that can get tough.

But does this centrism really work for Labour? Labour is positioned as a party of change, a party that wants to look after those who are disadvantaged; ‘the bottom feeders’ as Mr Luxon so callously called them.  What are the centrists doing for their voters? Or are they just holding power?

GST on Kiwisaver funds could be seen as taking on the big boys.  Armageddon was predicted by the same people who haven’t said much about the colosal share markets loses over recent years. Labour backed off, lesson learned – don’t rock the big boy boats or you could lose elections.

But Labour/Green centrists have a limited policy vision of how the economy could work, e.g., they could be investigating a public option for Kiwisaver using the power of government with really low fees. Less profits would go to overseas based providers. Private providers would quake in their boots but this is no revolution, it’s just providing a very good choice beneficial to New Zealand in a market framework. It’s done elsewhere in the world.

Centrist Labour believes it can deliver for its voters while holding a core belief that the role of government is to facilitate business and not be in any market. This is a supposed learning from previous decades of government inefficiency, rather than a learning that some governments did calculated sabotage of government efficiency. This core belief means Labour has its core strength, the power of government, tied behind its back, unlike the so successful first Labour Government. The first Labour government shifted the middle.

And their reliance on the market to deliver makes fools of them, as they are still accountable for the obvious failures of private enterprise e.g. electricity market, grocery prices, price of oil.

By having this core belief and avoiding the possibility of a government option creates a key problem for a Labour/Green centrist; trying to satisfy two different sets of voters. It’s own constituents (with the need for change). And trying to appease the big boys, the other sides voters. Because if you’re doing any meaningful change you will always upset the big boys. So doing nothing/little/guiding seems palatable because you might win voters with less controversy.

And note — conservatives don’t have to do this. They just have to look after their own. Just think of Bill English’s 2010 budget bragging about $15 Billion of tax cuts. Completely ruinous to our economy and the ability of government to function. But he delivered for his voters.

Centrists misunderstand the dynamic of what actually gets conservatives elected. Conservatives are actually visionary extremists who will say and do anything to win. A history of racist campaigns e.g.  iwi/kiwi; calling compulsory super communism (we lost hundreds of millions because of it);  the mother of all budgets that striped millions out of provincial New Zealand. A ‘think big’ pile of shit. An invented $9 Billion hole in Labour finances. Conservatives have more in common with Rasputin, yet the centrists fret over doing something wrong, all while our civil society is attacked.

But the most disgusting result of this centrist thinking, is it means punching down on your own supporters, to ‘balance’ the two positions. Currently Labour/Greens are punching down on local democracy to encourage bully building up to 6 stories so you lose your sun and privacy, with your  rights to complain removed.  These will be built in suburbs where labour/green voters are. Do they think there won’t be voting consequences? They are walking into a trap of their own making once buildings start going up. Developers have been given an almost open book to destroy heritage. Centrists claim without evidence it is about building affordable housing. Centrists relying on the market did this because they listened to businesses and want to appease them.

Yes, there are Labour/green supporters who need affordable housing; but these changes do nothing to deliver affordable housing, they are about maximising profit for developers. Affordable housing can only be filled by government (there may be a few non-profits). Centrists are about punching down rather than punching the businesses who need to use their central city lands more efficiently. Proper planning is needed.

Labour currently looks weak and directionless on policy. And this is despite Willis and Luxon showing their own gaping policy void with hysterical hyperbolic ravings on GST and Kiwisaver that only look like something was being said.

So the greeks 10 years outside the walls of Troy with their great champion Achilles were at a stalemate going nowhere. The hero Achilles is not mentioned anymore in the story (perhaps there perhaps not). But the greeks changed, they had to be clever, a new idea, a direction, a vision, to fight and win. A Trojan horse, a government role. Because otherwise they knew they were slowly but surely losing.