A year in opposition teaches you a lot of things. Any commentators who might like to think that Labour does not understand that it lost can rest assure that it feels very real. Most especially for me it feels real when I see things like this and this.
In these circumstances there is an understandable desire from supporters or would-be supporters to hear from Labour ” what we would do”. This refrain also comes from those on the other side of the spectrum, usually when we criticise the government and they know that their guys have stuffed up and they can’t think of anything else to say!
The reality though is that, for now, we don’t get to make the big calls. The government gets to decide what to do. They won, and they are the ones who have to come up with the ideas. Our immediate job is to hold them to account, challenge the assumptions and ask the questions.
Its tempting to want to respond to every issue and say we would not do that, or we would fund that, but we aren’t at this stage in the process. We will be definitive on some things- eg restoring the Adult and Community Education cuts or not sending the SAS to Afghanistan. But for some other things we are going to take some time. This means that we may not have a definitive alternative to articulate on every issue.
This is in part because we have to take the time to re-assess where we got to in government, and what needs to stay and what needs to change. We also have to deal with issues that cut across geographic and policy boundaries. Traditional assumptions about how we create sustainable wealth are no longer tenable. Practically we have to focus on how we support people as they pay their bills and seek to improve their and their families lives.
Labour will have much more to say in terms of definitive policy in time, but we have to be patient, and we have to be open to new ideas. This does not mean that we are silent, nor does it mean we are open to any old idea. Phil Goff puts it this way- we face new and different challenges, but our values endure.
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.
What Labour has been doing is listening and talking to groups and individuals all over New Zealand about their ambitions and how we can create policy to support that. The Party policy committees are hard at work. As we move into next year we will have more to say about some of the big themes and where we stand and some more detailed policy. By 2011 you will see a comprehensive programme and a plan. But for now, its the job of the current government to provide those, and from all sides, the question is being asked, where is that plan?
I think you guys are doing a great job, I get sick of hearing “what would Labour do?” – they should vote for you and find out
One year down, two to go, goodluck 
“We will be definitive on some things- eg …. not sending the SAS to Afghanistan.”
Did you type this with a straight face?
If Obama asked PM Goff for our SAS, what do you think would happen?
@Pat, I definitely did write this with a straight face. Have a watch and listen to Phil’s speech on this in Parliament http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFiwLaOsIAY
Labour did not join in the invasion of Iraq when the US wanted us to, and this would be the same.
I don’t agree with your prescription for opposition – I want the opposition to be out there acting as a shadow government, giving a clear and obviously better alternative to those in power.
You say that Labour shouldn’t/can’t be doing that yet. I would be more prepared to accept that if Labour was at least communicating their values and philosophy (I’m going to assume that they have some).
I’m with Beagle
@ Thomas Beagle:
I completely disagree. We voted Labour out. They should not be presuming to be an alternative govt. They need to take their medicine.
That kind of attitude, that they should arrogantly presume the voters were wrong, is part of the problem both major parties have.
Labour needs to do a lot of work before they are ready to govern again. But I’ve been glad to see that they have avoided the risk of just being negative. In fact I think they’ve voted for more of National’s agenda than they’ve opposed. And so they should. They lost. As their former leader said they need to eat it.
David, do you think that ACT ‘arrogantly presume that the voters got it wrong’ when they advocate for their policies?
About 1 in 3 people voted for Labour. Did they get it wrong? Should they not be represented?
The problem is that while Labour has been listening and talking to individuals and groups (which is what they should be doing) the poll ratings are plummeting. If this trend continues then it will inevitably create a negative perception which will take a long time to turn around. I know it’s hard when the media are ignoring them, but Labour has to respond a lot better and sharper to issues as they arise, and become sufficiently noisy that the media can no longer ignore them. While some Labour MPs are doing well, generally speaking it’s just not happening.
@Thomas. The point I am trying to make is that I think expecting the total shadow government at this stage in the process is both unrealistic and and the wrong approach.
Firstly we do have to acknowledge we lost, and re-assess our policies in that light. We do have to listen to people and we are doing just that. Secondly we simply do not have the resources of government to fully analyse everything and come up with costed policies on the hoof. Responses that do not take account of the costs of policies and the prioritisation against other things is not a responsible way for opposition to behave.
We will build to our full programme and we will respond vigourously as we go along, but it will happen
I do, however agree with you that while we are in this part of the process we need to be crystal clear on the values that drive us (see post), and respond to issues where we do not have a specific policy alternative in that light. I think Phil’s speech to conference was a good example of this.
@Anne: I accept the point on the need to respond sharply as issues arise. Where we are not in a position to provide a specific alternative this must be on the basis of Labour values. I am not sure, however, that being “sufficiently noisey” will mean the media will take notice. We have to find many channels, not just mainstream media, to get our point across.
“A year in opposition teaches you a lot of things”
Just think how much you will know in another 8 years.
I been critical of the lack of running alternate type opposition government, alternative budget etc…
You say you can’t do that know, well that’s fine but I don’t think you guys can wait till the election campaign to release new policies if you wanna win, it’ll take longer than that to get through and you should start now…
Also those who say you should vote with National because they won or because Labour was voted out are barking up the wrong tree, the first job of opposition is to oppose, I think Labour’s policies weren’t the biggest downfall, people just got sick of the scandals, EFA, Winston Peters funding, etc, found John Key very trust worthy and that NZ sense of fair play kicked in…
Taking the focus off some of the social enginnering stuff and onto universal Health and Education should help, I think Goff gets that but he needs to be in the public eye more…
Ah, don’t worry. National will screw up. Treat it like a comedy troupe that you can watch.
Yes. Your job is to oppose – at every possible opportunity. This National Ltd® government is so bereft of ideas that any alternative proposal you put up runs the risk of being stolen and used by the government as its own. Rather, let the record show that Labour pointed out the flaws, inconsistencies, excess costs, disparity in effect and all other manner of weaknesses in anything the government puts up.
You say:
What question did you ask and what assumptions did you challenge when you gave the government a free ride on the DNA samples legislation?
Ah, don’t worry. National will screw up. Treat it like a comedy troupe that you can watch.
Then we can watch the next comedy troupe take the stage. Though after awhile it starts to seem like a tragedy.
This National Ltd® government is so bereft of ideas that any alternative proposal you put up runs the risk of being stolen and used by the government as its own
Well Labour could, maybe, put up a left wing idea?
Is it left-wing to say immediately raise all university salaries to Australian levels and fund quick increases in the TEC caps so students can up-skill and drive our economy?
Or maybe that is a right-wing idea. Investing in something that you *know* is going to yield high dividends is something that an investor like Key would know something about. There is nothing to “speculate” about when it comes to education. It’s a sure thing.
Hm. Maybe running a high deficit for a while to do that would drive down the value of the NZD and then help exporters.
This puzzle does not have 1,000 pieces, John Key. It is more like a 30-piece puzzle. C’mon, you can do it.
You’ve got like 4 committees working on productivity, so says the Listener. Do you really need that?
May I quote In Search of Excellence, principle #1?
“1. A bias for action: a preference for doing something–anything–rather than sending a question through cycles and cycles of analysis and committee reports.”
I have an idea for you. Give all of them members of those committees $1 million dollars, send them on their way, and then make some executive decisions.
Setting up all those committees is a cop out. If what they say fails, you can just blame them for their bad advice.
You are the leader, John. Lead.
This is how I see Labour’s mission:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kicking%20ass%20and%20taking%20names
Is it left-wing to say immediately raise all university salaries to Australian levels and fund quick increases in the TEC caps so students can up-skill and drive our economy?
If funded from just increasing debt levels, then yes that’d probably be left wing.
So Ronald Reagan was liberal. Huge deficit spending, with an immediate exit from the recession.
John Key is reining in the budget during a recession. What a dope.
It would be funny if so many people weren’t hurt by it, including his precious economy.
Your raise wages by increasing productivity. And you do that by educating people and making sure the good teachers don’t leave.
Running a deficit to do that is like investing on margin in a company you know for certain on insider knowledge is going to expode.
Or maybe investing on margin and using options is a liberal thing to do.
That’s right, John Key is about shorting New Zealand and its economy.
@ Jeremy Harris at 12:37 pm & @ BLiP 1:20 pm
I’m glad Labour hasn’t taken the oppose everything approach.
That might be fun for political junkies, but in the real world we need an opposition that will oppose the bad ideas vehemently (for example ACC privatisation and ACE cuts which Labour has been all over) but at the same time welcome good ideas and support the business as usual of government.
That shows real political maturity. Good on you Grant. Keep it up.
JK is a politician and he knows psychological warfare. He will bide his time and let people hurt, then offer a blowout, deficit-bloated budget right before the election.
Squeeze people a bit, and when you let go it feels like you are better off than when you started.
Got any psychologists on board, Labour?
@Thomas – when Labour did talk alternatives they were criticised for thinking they were still in government, plus I think it’s too soon, would be better to roll out the big guns closer to election.
@Anne – I agree about the responding to issues thing, important. Labour has to listen at this time, good for them. I do think though that in the first year of opposition the polls mean very little.
@Grant, I agree Phil’s speech very clearly laid out Labour’s vision. I’m just not sure how many people actually got to see it.
@Andrew U D Straw (12.40) – LOL
I think Labour do acknowledge when they like stuff that the government (still feels weird to think of them that way) does.
please excuse the typos
So Ronald Reagan was liberal.
Somewhat, yeah!
John Key doesn’t get any political points out of shorting New Zealand. He made some money elsewhere, right?
Is someone else going to benefit from shorting New Zealand’s economy? What is the relationship of that person/persons to John Key?
Follow da money.
Some people are more like cats. I like cats a lot, but I’m more of a hound dog myself.
If you’re gonna catch a rabbit, you gotta get you a hound dog.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5JALwwaASg
Hound dog, prosecutor… whatever.
@BLIP We put up a number of amendments on the DNA Bill that would have put more safeguards around how the Police use their powers, but sadly these were defeated by the government. We were then faced with the decision of losing a valuable crime fighting tool or goign with it, seeing how it develops and making our call on how it works for when we get back into government.
@Jeremy H As I said in the post we are putting up definitive alternatives on some issues now, and more will come progressively over time. It will not be some big bang in 2011. We have said we will not oppose for the sake of opposing, but we will not support things that we do not think are for the good of New Zealanders- and there is plenty of that coming from the government.
@Andrew UD Straw Thanks for your contributions, its great you are interested, but maybe consider limiting your replies to one or two for each post. cheers
lol
ok
Probly a stupid idea, but one I’ve always wondered. If you think of something that might be of benefit to legislation in progress or a current issue being debated, do you ever approach the government (or do they when in opposition approach you) and suggest it on the quiet? I mean, everyone in Parliament has (or should have anyway!!) NZ’s best interest at heart, right? Maybe a less confrontational approach could work out for everybody?
And please don’t flame back “Awww, National never does that, so why should we?!” lol.
@Grant and Harry Renouf, you guys misinterepted what I said or I did not make myself clear enough, I was disagreeing with those who said Labour lost so should support what National does by quoting the old saying, “the first job of an opposition is to oppose”, not everything but it should pick it’s battles wisely and things that resonate with the public, yet to happen in my humble opinion…
@Nathan, they’re called Supplementary Order Papers, the government can then be lobbied by the opposition and support changes if they are convinced (in a perfect world)…
Nathan – yes we do – sometimes with National and sometimes with Act in Select Committee.
My first example is a discussion I had first with Steven Joyce and then Nathan Guy on drug driving and the use of blood samples taken from drugged drivers who are hospitalised. He was interested sent a team to talk it through with me and helped improve the amendment I had drafted. He was generous with the credit he gave me for the change.
Second example was a plainly stupid amendment to the rules around who can be appointed to govern schools when boards can’t cope. The problem was pointed out to Anne Tolley by the Nats but they were instructed to continue to support the bill as introduced. While it might surprise some people Roger Douglas looked carefully at the issue and supported my amendment.
And there were plenty of times when we took Nat advice while in government. People like Wyatt Creech, Murray McCully and surprisingly Alan Peachey were good at identifying issues and helping work them through.
Glad to hear it, cheers for the explanations! That’s I guess a side of parliament we never see, and it’s a real shame TBH. Frankly, I’ve switched off watching PTV, it’s like watching a bad soap with the childishness that goes on! (from all parties