Or so the refrain from some of the contributors to this blog goes.
It’s true that Labour had nine years in government and there were things we didn’t get around to doing. We can all be critical about that.
Before I became an MP in 2005, I often joined the chorus of frustration that “Labour hadn’t” or “Labour should….”, particularly when it came to fixing obvious problems relating to workers’ rights, even while recognising that Labour had done a lot.
But once I became an MP, I learned that there are only so many House Sitting days, only so many Select Committee days for hearing submissions and that passing laws doesn’t just mean coming up with an idea and barging forward.
I also found out about the realities of numbers. In the 2005 Labour-led government, the truth is that we couldn’t always get the support we needed for the things we wanted to do.
While theoretically, the votes of the Greens and the Maori Party gave the Labour-led government a 1-vote majority in the house, it was unreliable. The Maori Party were often not there in the numbers required to vote full strength because they were off doing other things.
This is not intended as a criticism of them, but an observation about the priorities of small parties, which may be different to Labour’s – and their responsibilities both within and outside of Parliament.
That meant Labour had to win additional support from NZ First or United Future or both, to give a buffer to legislation we wanted passed. I know that took a lot of effort. I was involved in that effort with the help of then Minister of Labour Ruth Dyson to try to win the numbers for my bill to give minimum wage to contractors.
Time and again, I had to postpone the second reading and committee stages because of the lack of Maori Party votes in the House.
After Taito went Independent, he withdrew his support, and as a result, my bill did not get through in the last parliament and failed in this one.
The point of this post is to say to all and sundry who like the mantra “Labour had nine years…” is that it’s not that easy. I wish it were.
And surely that doesn’t mean that we should never come up with new ideas and policies for the future?
In the next Labour-led government, we will be in the second decade of the 21st century, facing new challenges and a changing country.
Labour’s history in government is one of taking the country forward.
It’s how we do that in the next ten years of a Labour government I’m interested in.
Darien, what on earth is a “Youse”?
Such ghetto speak cannot possibly come from the centre-right contributors. One suspects that your uneducated ghetto supporters are leaving Labour and going, well to Hone.
Excuse me, Kate, since when was Lynn of Tawa ghetto? Since when were literally all of my aunties friends undereducated? I know HEAPS of people who say “youse”, it’s part of the broad kiwi accent, kind of like how I apparently say “milk” like “miwk”. You shouldn’t generalise like that.
*educated. That was a massive LOL on my behalf. Oh the irony
I heard it’s becoming mook, the L is dying in our accent. It’s hard to say how you’re going to lead the country in the next ten years, it all depends on who your bedfellows are. Now that’ll be interesting.
Well it goes without saying that there are always a number of steps that governments have to go through to progress public policy. And, yes, to some extent there is a limit to how much a government can achieve in about a decade in power. I don’t think anyone is going to disagree with Darien Fenton about that.
What is at issue is the *priority* that governments give certain issues. And generally the Fifth Labour Government gave a very low priority to anything that might be seen to be leftwing. I think that’s probably a better characterisation of the complaint of “youse”.
Despite all the difficulties of progressing public policy, the Fifth Labour Government seem to have no problem with prioritising the military invasion of Afghanistan, taking part in the occupation of Iraq, lowering corporate taxes, legislating silly and rather draconian electoral finance laws, keeping out immigrants, increasing police numbers, locking up more and more people, etc, etc.
Bryce
I think Darien is absolutely correct here and why I have always refrained from saying the whole 9 years bit… The alternative is to ram through a whole heap of badly written laws…
With that said there was/is a perception that Labour was more interested in committees, studies, reports and commissions than it was in legislating… I also think Clark’s priority was as many terms as possible above evrything else and that fact wasn’t/isn’t lost on the public…
It’s hard work getting laws passed, even with NZ’s easy (by worldwide democratic standards) legislative process, as they say there is two things you don’t want to see made, laws and sausages…
“since when was Lynn of Tawa ghetto?”
Answered your own question there.
Probably acceptable in NCEA and at LEC meetings but not in the general business or professional community.
I do not know (or want to know) anyone who uses it.
I think that’s been my major frustration… I remember a couple of days after the murder of Nia Glassie, they hosted the MP for Rotorua (Steve Chadwick?) and were discussing it. When asked what the government could look at to try and solve our horrendous child abuse and murder problem, the reply was that a bill was being raised to form a committee to look into it!! In the end, nothing.
I mean, OK, I understand that nothing in politics happens quickly, but over the last decade it was death by red tape.
Funny though that you mention that there’s only so many sitting days. Bit rich to bring that up, when the recent complaint is that National are pushing bills through under urgency!! Could you not have done the same? As a matter of interest, how are sitting days scheduled? Does the government of the day make the D as to when they’re held?
Youse weren’t too busy to put up retrospective legislation to legalise your theft of $800k. No wonder some really important things which are just being passes now languished in ‘the system’ for five years.
Quite right Cactus. The Unprofessional pandering to the uneducatable.
Adolf Fink, perhaps the word you want is ‘ineducable’? Reflect on the implications.
And Cactus, snobbery is your choice. I mix widely with people whose language style is as flexible as their social context at any given moment. No doubt your ‘general business or profesional community’ is a very buttoned up group whose education prohibits adventurousness in language? It obviously excludes teachers who, having academic degrees in law, chemistry, literature, music, mathematics,accounting etc etc would attend NCEA meetings as suitable places for their Manglish practice.
Hard to see why campainging for $15 an hour minimum is so important now when you found time to rush through under urgency bills as important as the civil union bill, and other matters put forward in normal time such as the EFA and the section 59 bill. yes, workers rights are right at the top of your list of things you couldn’t “get around to” in power. for a “labour” party it sure is strange you treat workers rights like the light bulb in the unused spare room.
I think the main reason was that after 2002 Labour had to rely on more centre-leaning conservative parties for support. That stopped a lot of the more progressive policies from happening I suspect.
Which means that the whole GE debate of 2002, and the foreshore & seabed debate (which effectively cost Labour quite a few seats to the Maori Party) were the two issues that prevented a very progressive Labour/Greens government between 2002 and 2008.
I wonder if Labour would have done things differently in hindsight on those two matters, if they realised what a profound effect they would have?
Sorry Darien, there are quite a few examples on how quick the last administration was in some matters. Remember that sad dog attack I think in Chch within weeks I think there was a new law enacted. Constitutional issues to change the residential requirements for Harry Duynhoven, Privy Council, EFA It is all about priorities, and within the last 3 years this was lacking. You also have the annual budget whereby there is athe ability to signal future direction/ strategic planning for the future, and unlike almost all other governments within NZ history Labour were not constrained regarding the health of the Govt accounts. 9 years with the same faces and limitied new ideas in the last term just displays that 6-8 years is as long a natural period of time a regimes lifespan should last. This could be extended by an internal change of SENIOR players, which could reinvigorate the party with new ideas. YOU NEEB TIME IN OPPOSITION IMM to work out what Labour really means, as for many of us you have lost your way.
A lot of these comments overlook the fact that any government can only do what is possible, and the right has the advantage of having the endorsement of the rich and powerful from the outset; a Labour government, at this time in history anyway, if it cannot exactly win their support, has at the very least to refrain from scaring them too much. I think that Labour’s approach: to diversify our trading partners and at the same time encourage saving via Kiwisaver, was intended to create the preconditions that would make change possible. Unfortunately they were ousted too soon, by a government that was not really ready to govern, in part because the rich and powerful did not want to see a left wing government let loose with an economic crisis, and campaigned all the harder for their own guys.
I think Labour did a great job in the past 9 years, on the whole. I don’t think it needed any new ideas, I felt safe in Cullen’s hands, good sensible management. I think some pretty manjor changes happened in the last ten years, such as the civil unions bill.
Yes Spud, and that is something else that it is easy to forget, unlike the government before them, they were not a font of nasty surprises, and you did not have to try and figure out the agenda behind the PR – Helen Clark said what she meant and meant what she said.
Spub, Cullen stated many times that we were in such a strong position that we could survive the rainly day. It only took the gathering of the clouds for his controls to be destoryed. How were we to cope with the targets Cullen set for Govt debt as a % of GDP?
Cullen was the right man for the first 5/6 years of Labour, but IMM the time that was right for Cullen had moved on, and as a consequence the country did not progress as well as it had the potential to do so within the last 2/3 years.
@Olwyn –
Like shifting to the left.
Why does everyone dwell on the past? The 9 years are gone.. they’re never coming back so why doesn’t everyone focus on what’s hapening now. Everytime something happens it’s just “labour had 9 years” well that’s great you can count! but what is National going to do about it? Everyone seems to get suckered in by this 9 years line. I wanna know what’s going to happen next!!
As for the use of “youse” it’s pretty harsh to say that “I don’t want to know anyone who says it” because a lot of people say it… It’s a word I hear a lot in my decile 4 high school…
I agree about the 9 years thing. I personally don’t like youse, cringe, I don’t judge people who use it though. I don’t mind slang and new words being invented as long as alongside that kids are being taught correct English and know the difference.
People, people – lighten up about youse. I used it in a tongue in cheek way and at least I didn’t say “us Kiwis” on national TV.
@Cactus Kate – I promise to speak proper ENZED from now on!
@others – yes, it is about priorities, because there is only so much time. And I understand the frustrations, because we each have things we care about and want to see progressed. The trick is to organise within Labour to ensure the priorities are there for the next ten years and way to do that is within the party and membership. Right now, policy groups are working flat out and members are thinking and debating about future Labour policy.
@rightyleftout – The Civil Union and Section 59 bill were members bills. They were not put through under urgency. One of the problems with urgency is that members’ days and bills get put on the back burner and that’s what we’ve seen in recent weeks. And I’m sorry, there were many workers rights issues Labour “got around to” – try four weeks annual leave, time and a half on public holidays, protections for vulnerable workers, stronger collective bargaining rights, mealbreaks, improved ACC for casual and seaonsal workers, an increase in the minimum wage from $7 to $12 an hour, or from $4.20 an hour to $12 an hour if you are under 20, just for starters. My bill would have delivered minimum wage to contractors, but thanks to the numbers game, it couldn’t be done.
@nOexit and Olwyn : Thanks for your comments and I agree that it’s time to look forward. Your ideas all welcome on what needs to be done.
RE: Youse – I’m with Cactus Kate on this – at least in the title use it like this “‘Youse’ had nine years to do it”. I don’t consider myself in any way shape or form a snob, but I have to say I am not keen on it being used as an appropriate form of speech. For me it is far to casual and I don’t like it. Just my thoughts – not to say I am not guilty of using is – there is a time and place.
@Herodotus – I agree Labour needs this time in opposition, and I felt that Labour had forgotten its roots, and what it really stood for. New blood is also important – to bring a fresh perspective. I felt Labour had left the public – esp their supporters – behind as they introduced things that the general peoples were not happy about. It comes down to listening, and that seemed to have been left behind in the last few years of a Labour led govt. In saying that – there were numerous things that were much better – and Education was run a hell of a lot better than the Nats will ever be able to aspire to. It was one area Labour seemed to understand most of the time and the work they govt did with the sector were mostly for the betterment of students and the country in the long term.
HOWEVER – Labour team, ‘youse’ guys need to ramp it up and start injecting the team with passion, vision and get the message out – otherwise you will continue to play bridesmaid and this country will be sold off and ruined before you ever get the chance to stop it, let alone rescue it. As long as our PM is the smiling ‘nice guy’ with the good PR firm they use, Goff is really going to need to shake out his personality and get some charisma going – because nice he may be, but against Key he just does not have the same ’sparkle’.
@Paul – thanks for the comments. Suggestions as to how to get the message out?
Thats the hard part isn’t it Darien… I havn’t seen or heard from Mr. Goff in a while it’s hard to get the message across when you’re not in the media… I assume that Labour is keeping it’s policies close to it’s chest so the Nats don’t steal them… But maybe trickeling out policy ideas on some of the smaller issues might get you guys some much needed face time…
Also I suggest you stop nitpicking… critisizing every move National makes just makes you look desperate… Maybe you should try to point out that both parties agree on something (that isn’t anitsmacking) it might just balance the scales and reduce the feeling that Labour is clutching at straws… the helicopter thing with Key is a good example, Labour might be right about Key wasting air force time and you may feel hard done by because of the flac Helen copped but I think with the honey moon Key is on right now, Labour is going to come out of it looking worse off…
@Darien – I agree to some extent with nOexit – it has been sometime since Goff was seen – I am sure he has been busy doing things, but we never hear about what those things are.
What confuses me is just what Labour does stand for now? Sometimes, it is important to articulate the vision – for that vision to be something that has been developed after listening to what people are after.
If I think about how gathering info to shape a strong vision operates in other sectors, and then how that might translate into gathering peoples ideas from the ground up, if it was me, I would think some of the following may help. (I am sure you already do this, but I would like to know what it is that your team does to shape vision)
1. First and foremost – when you have your hui with all the party, are the MPs consulted on what that vision is, and what they think the 5 or so most impt things are? (bit like the promise cards) – or does only the top few mps decide and then send it out?
2. Does the vision shape the strategic plan? Is there a strategic plan and where do people like me get to see it and comment on it?
3. Do the MPs go out into their electorates and canvass the voters (in many different forums, using the relationships that Labour developed with each sector when in Govt – eg: if you want to get business world comment on what the most impt things are and how to make them happen then I guess you would jack up some kind of hui via the chamber of commerce for each area, if its health, you use those systems and if its education, than you access teachers and principals ideas by getting STA, Unions and Principals associations to sort out a meeting…etc Does this happen in each key portfolio area, across the country, at a similar time? eg: You set aside 3-4 mths for the mps to collect the feedback and then you all come together to share the results…that shapes the vision and the strategy moving forward?
4. I am not sure what the rules are on public notices, but having online surveys and getting the message out, would be another way of gathering info.
I think, and this is just my thoughts, that the vision has been lost and I am not sure that Labour can say it engages the public. Do not get me wrong – I do not think the Nats do either, but in order for Labour to win the next election, it will really have to pull out the big guns – you may need to consider the following:
1. Doing what the Nats have done and get some really good media and pr training in.
2. Pick your battles – instead of sweating all the small stuff, keep a list of them somewhere, and refer back to them later – fight the bigger battles and engage with the public.
3. The nats are into divide and squash – many of the things they are doing are on the quiet – the advisory service cuts in education are an example. These started to happen months before it happened – if Labour could have broken this to the public sooner, it would have been good – it is something teachers and principals need to hear about. Keep your ears open, and (sorry for saying it again) engage with people and find out what actually is happening in the wider world and expose it – if there are cuts in MSD, but we don’t know about it, then let the public know. I suggest this because otherwise all these little cuts just keep mounting and before we know it, much is lost. An example of this would be John Key this morning talking about minerals and iron sands, on Q&A, and saying something will be coming out about it at a later date. It left me wondering if next year they are going to start mining conservation land…well, what contacts does Labour have to dig around and find out what really is happening?
Sorry – its a bit long – and just thinking off the top of my head.
I agree with a lot of what Paul says. Even thought I am a Labour/Greens supporter I roll my eyes and feel like switching the channel every time I see a Labour MP coming across as “outraged at the horrible thing National has done!” for the 5278032790th time. Yes, we know they’re messing the country up, but seriously the outrage is a bit boring now.
Pick the battles, come across as constructive, develop a vision, improve with the PR/media, and yeah… please stop with the outrage.
5.2 billion outrages, Jarbury..? Is that the State Highway budget for the next 3 years..?
I like seeing the opposition objecting to stuff the government is doing, it shows that they don’t approve and it points out that this government is far from perfect. They can’t just be silent why NACT does its crazy stuff.
@Spud – agree they need to be outraged, but there needs to be more articulating of the vision as well – I am hoping that Darien will reply back with some insights into the vision we are all seeking…
@Paul – thank you for making the time to respond so fully to my question. Because “how do we get the message out” is the $64 million question and that’s why I asked it. Every week I hear 100 different views, from party members, supporters and members of the public. Some think we’re not doing enough to slam the government, others don’t like the “nitpicking” – some think we need a whole makeover and others think we just need a nice leaflet or two. While times have changed, Labour’s values haven’t. Phil Goff described them well in his speech to our conference.
And Grant Robertson, in his post “being in opposition” also describes it well :
“Our values are based on a belief that we are stronger when we act collectively, that for a good days work you should get a good days pay, that we need to invest in people and redistribute wealth in order to create opportunity for all and that we must always act to protect and support the vulnerable.”
As for our processes – well there’s a question. We are a membership-based organisation, which means that party members play a big role in policy development. Many party members join because their values align with Labour’s, and they want to be able to influence Labour’s direction to ensure those values are implemented in policy. The role of MPs is just part of the process, and the role of engaging with the public is something we are doing, but can always do a lot better.
I should add that I have a great faith in face to face contact – in talking with people. There’s nothing like some good old fashioned conversation to find out where people are at and the question for Labour is how we do much more of that. Yes, PR is important and many people get their opinions from the mainstream media, but working through issues with people, listening and questioning is a far more powerful way to engage.
There’s much to think about and much to do. Thank you again for your thoughtful post – this could be a whole topic of discussion on its own!
@Darien – I am going to read Goffs speech and then most likely come back for further info
The reason I asked about process is because its all well and good to have the party membership decide, but it has to be based on informed data – the only way to get that informed data is to ask the people. Vision needs to be developed with strategy and that vision needs to have a strategic plan to complement it. There are skilled people in Labour from a wide spectrum of backgrounds, including education – perhaps using them a bit more to help develop this strategic thinking would be helpful. I asked if you have a strategic plan – do you? If so, where is it and how do people like me get to see it?
It seems to me that Labour is busy running around without a clear idea of where to next – perhaps still gobsmacked after losing the election. Time to get over that hurdle and get some clear strategy in place – the next year or so will fly by and IMO, Labour can not afford to be fluffing around wondering how the heck it got into this position. Otherwise you will lose the next election and by crikey we as a country can not afford that to happen.
My thoughts on this are:
1. Yes, you lost – tough – learn from it and realise that the NZ pubic were sending a clear message – now find out what that message really is and fix it.
2. Use the time in opposition wisely – further strengthen networks and find out from people what they want to see happen – the vision needs to be worked by all – it cant just be Goffs – it has to be shared or it will fail – and it has to have a basis on what the people outside of labour think – the strongest position you can come from is when you can say – we asked you and together we agreed on this, that or whatever…
3. It needs to be underpined by the labour values – or its not worth doing – and by strategic policies that will make a difference for all – seek feedback from experts in each area about possibilities and then get further feedback from people in each sector that have to actually do the work – they can tell you really quickly if a policy will fly or not. You must have access to people who can cost things out – use this years budget as a guideline and go forth…
Anyway – I am not a politician and I know squat all about how the beehive actually works, so what do I know. I do however know vision and strategic planning and the theory should hold for pretty much all sectors – and I know that I am a labour supporter feeling a bit lost about what the heck is going on. Your teams knows more about this than me – so if I am telling you things you already know – sorry – not intending to tell you all how to suck eggs – just getting pretty brassed off about where our country is heading and feeling powerless to stop it.
I’m just going to say, I think they’re doing their best and that it isn’t just Goff’s vision at the present time. Liked a lot of stuff in your post
I’m happy with what they’ve done so far, good work guys 
I meant @ Paul Liked a lot of stuff in your post
@Spud – thanks; sometimes we need to hear that too.
@Paul – yes there is a strategic plan for the Labour Party. It’s an internal document worked on by all constituent parts of the party. However, agree with you about strategic thinking. Politics is dynamic. No one day is the same and that requires constant thinking and planning and yes, sometimes reacting. We have many good strategic thinkers in the party – and I can assure you that we are working our butts off at all levels of the party to engage, to listen, to formulate ideas across the caucus and the party and to test those ideas. I think the main thing at the moment is to be patient – there isn’t going to be one thing that will change the current situation but an accumulation of frustrations and concerns over time, matched by Labour’s development of its plan for the next ten years. Thanks again for your comments and I understand the feelings.