Friday, September 26, 2014

Election and Labour reckons...

Around the 2012 US Presidential Elections (while I was working in the Labour Leader’s Office), I took a holiday to the United States. Somehow I found myself at a debate watch party for the first debate between Romney and Obama in Denver (where the first debate was being held, which Obama bombed) with a bunch of youngish Republicans. One guy asked me, “So you work for the Labour Party in New Zealand – that’s the equivalent of being a Democrat right?” My response was, “Well actually, the ‘right wing’ party in our country is arguably more left wing than the Democrats here, and I work for our ‘left wing’ party, which is too right wing for me.” He was confused and I think he definitely thought I was more dangerous than a communist.

What this story shows is “the left” and “the right” is pretty arbitrary. It makes a difference which country you are in, what the political climate is, what the economic climate is, and at what point and time you are speaking. There’s been much discussion about National’s lurch to the right to increase support after their 2002 showing and the need for Labour to do the same. People have all sorts of ideas about “what Labour should do”. A friend of mine told me that Labour needed to focus more on “the economy”. When I pressed him harder as to what he means by “the economy”, he didn’t seem to have an answer. So let’s make one thing clear:
  • Poverty and income inequality IS a product of the so-called “economy”.
  • Housing crisis IS a product of the “economy”.
  • Inability to access adequate healthcare IS a product of the “economy”.
  • Inability to access higher education of choice IS a product of the “economy”.
  • Employment opportunities limited to part-time or low-wage IS a product of the “economy”.
  • Climate change effects are a direct result of actions taken in the name of the “economy”.
  • The privatization of law enforcement and access to the justice is an “economic” decision.
  • Even mass surveillance is presented as necessary to protection our “economic” interests.

There are many more but in essence, the difference between public good and the protection of private interests is ALWAYS about the economy. The question is, whether a government should engage in the former or the latter? I see no evidence that National won because of “the economy”. I do however, believe that they have successfully presented themselves as good managers of “the economy” and that’s what won them the election. They didn’t need to have a policy; not having a policy WAS their policy. Perhaps we as a nation no longer believe that Government should intervene in “the economy” because all of the things I have mentioned above are not associated with “the economy”.

Let’s go back to the story I told you at the beginning of this post. You might be wondering, if Labour doesn’t reflect your political views, then why would you work for them? I not only worked for them but I’ve also voted for them – party and electorate. I have also voted for other parties and candidates from other parties. I’m not a member of the Labour Party and I don’t feel I have to always vote for them. BUT, and this is a big but (not butt), I am generally a pragmatic person. After I left Labour, I worked in the public service of NZ under a National government – it wasn’t the end of the world for me. If I were to talk one of those compass tests, I would bet that it would tell me to vote Greens or Maori Party. Because I put a lot of emphasis on environmental and indigenous issues. I also care a lot about civil rights and social justice so Labour would be up there too. But truthfully as much as I love Greens policy, I don’t see them mastering enough support of the nation to be running this country so when I do/did vote for them it is usually tactical.

The way that Labour MPs behaved last week was absolutely despicable. They essentially told all Labour voters that they were lying this whole time. That they didn’t support their leader and that they didn’t support the policies they campaigned on. That the entire campaign was a self-interested endeavor to get Ministerial positions. It was wholly unprofessional. (This obviously doesn’t apply to the MPs who managed to keep their mouth shut.)

The fact that:
  1. They obviously knew that Labour would lose the election and did not have a post-election messaging strategy is a failure of the leadership.
  2. David Cunliffe didn’t manage to unite the caucus and garner their support is also a failure of his leadership.
  3. Labour and Greens weren’t presented as an alternative government is a failure of both parties. (Note: I said parties not leadership)
  4. Labour isn’t united internally is not going to change just by changing leadership.
  5. The failure is being attributed to identity politics or far left policy is insulting to those who have supported Labour for addressing those very issues.

As it stands, I have no one to vote for in 2017. Greens election results is troubling to me. It is also interesting to me that their ‘failures’ haven’t been translated to a leadership failure whereas Labour’s ‘failure’ has. The Labour caucus is deeply divided and the actions of some of the MPs on Sunday morning also left me troubled. That they couldn’t stand behind their leader after his pretty impressive debate showing and a campaign that was extremely volatile was disappointing to me. Labour MPs should take responsibility for their policy position collectively. It isn’t like David Cunliffe held a gun to their head. I know for a fact that this so called “lurch to the left” is not just a DC position.  I say “so-called” because it really isn’t a lurch to the left. Labour’s policy positions are a reflection of where the government has been – ie largely a response to this Government’s policies. National have cherry picked when they go left and when they go right and on issues they have gone slightly to the left has inevitably forced Labour to mimic that movement.

I am not going to presume to know the answer. I don’t know the answer. Those who presume to know the answer are kidding themselves. But any answer, I believe, should be based on reflection and evidence. Show me the data and not just your frustrated outbursts. The next three years will be interesting. Some believe we have already handed National their fourth term. Those people ought to be proven wrong. I myself am going to think some more. There will be posts here and elsewhere but for the sake of my degree I will be off Twitter for a tiny little bit. 

My final thought is that the Labour Caucus should consider having open dialogue with each other and coming to some kind of understanding of support and compassion for each other’s position. There are a lot of personalities and points of views, which is good. But their anger and denigration of each other not only hurts the party but is costing the country. 

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

A sexy three-step guide to voting


1. Ignore policy: Yes, everyone wants to assert their superiority complex by talking about policy and the economy but really what’s the point? You know what Labour stands for broadly and you know what National stands for broadly. That hasn’t changed and it aint gonna change anytime soon. If a party all of a sudden has a big idea, then maybe we could focus on that. Asset sales – that was National’s big idea. Except they did it in the 90s, so whatever. Capital Gains Tax – that’s Labour’s big idea – pretty much a no-brainer given our housing market. National would implement it if it hadn’t backed itself into a stupid corner by virtue of John Key. Whether you are a single issue voter or a multi policy stud, I say you go with your gut but don’t vote on an empty stomach. Hangry voting is like hangry grocery shopping. But let’s be honest here, you are not going to look at party manifestos, you aren’t going to go watch interviews and Parlmentary speeches, you aren’t going to make a pro-con list. You are going to go with what you have heard and seen while browsing Stuff.co.nz at work. And that is ok. It’s ok to vote National because you think John Key is a swell guy. It’s ok to vote Labour because David Cunliffe’s Harvard education appeals to your sapiosexuality (might be a real word). It’s ok to vote Greens because you think Metiria is really cool. It’s ok to vote Internet-Mana because they are a flash new toy and you are curious. It’s ok to vote ACT because you pride yourself on being a heartless libertarian. It’s ok to vote CrayCons (Colin Craig's Conservative Party) because you like hitting children. Wait… that’s not ok. Nope. Not ok at all. I don’t know why anyone would vote for them. Seriously.

2. Strategery: That’s not a real word. That’s a G W Bush word. But I like that word a lot. Anyway, moving on. We live in a MMP world. We have to break ourselves free from the prudish FPP outlook on our electoral life and embrace the free-spirit world of MMP. You no longer have to subscribe to the monoga-vote (also not a real word) but you have the freedom to biga-vote (not a real word, but should be). Two votes! At the same time! Sexy! Think about what you are trying to get out of your vote. In some electorates, it will be a straightforward two ticks. But in some places, you could get adventurous. Consider it. Think about the boring voters in Cluth-Southland and their lack of choices. Election after election, it's the same two ticks. Boooooring. If you are on the social conservative or ‘libertarian’ side you have to think about whether or not you should give your party vote to the CrayCons (Colin Craig’s Conservative Party) or ACT. Will Epsom get David Seymour in? Will the CrayCons get to the 5% threshold? It’s anyone’s guess really. Trust the polls? It almost feels like Game Theory here. What will the other prisoners do? If you are on the left, you may have to consider voting for a National candidate in a place like Epsom. Scary. But strategery. What is the end game here for you?

3. Have fun: Whether you go to the polls on election day or you choose advance voting – have fun. Take your kids. Take your friends. Get a coffee. You are exercising your democratic right that many people in this world still don’t have. There are people who literally risk being beat up as they go to the polls.  Even if you subscribe to that school of thought that says “your vote doesn’t count” – who cares? It might count, it might not but you have a teeny tiny role to play in choosing who governs this country. Make it fun. You don’t have to vote National or Labour – there are all these other parties unlike the United States where people have to choose between 'really horrible' and 'kind of bad' candidates. The government makes laws that govern every aspect of your life. You might as well try to put in some constraints. Tick those circles! We may end up with 9 political parties in the 51st Parliament - SUCH FUN! 
There was an error in this gadget