Missed this earlier in the week. Good piece well worth reading.
Thanks to DPF for alerting me. Might add photo later.
Missed this earlier in the week. Good piece well worth reading.
Thanks to DPF for alerting me. Might add photo later.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 20th, 2010 at 12:53 am and is filed under Labour Party, blogs, politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Man I wish you republicans would at least have a little patience.
I don’t know why you see the Monarchy as a bad thing when it isn’t. 
I wish Labour didn’t have republicans hoooowwwwl 
!
Republicanista? or What Labour Must do?
I know Jordan, I respect his views and intellect… But absolutely disagree with his piece on what Labour must do. Labour must clarify it’s vision, what it’s for and what you get by supporting it. Reflective listening only entrenches impotence more and at some point, Labour has to do some talking too.
I’m neither here nor there on that particular post from Jordan, but do enjoy most of the posts there, they’re not the rabid rantings you usually get from political blogs (of all kinds!)
2010 Monty on topic or go play somewhere else Trevor
Yeah, I’m not particularly fond of republicanism, doesn’t draw me to the party. I want you guys to win, but I don’t like that.
It’s about the only thing that I don’t like about your party. 
Spud, “I wish you republicans would at least have a little patience”
How long has it been Spud, 1000 years!
And I think you will find republicans on all sides of the political divide including the last 3 or 4 Prime Ministers
If we are ever to become a republic, now is surely not the time. We already have entrenched inequality which can only be made worse by placing the ultimate authority in the hands of our own elites. The British royals have the advantage of being genuinely disinterested. And remember that it was only after the French revolution that the working class learned that “fraternity, equality and liberty” did not apply to them.
Kaine T has a point as well – listening is good, but ineffectual if it is not followed by possible answers, which do require a clear vision. And while I think the collegial approach is good, we cannot assume that Key’s hands-off attitude will work so well for us: he was given, and continues to get, a sweet ride from the media. We are much more likely to be called to account, whatever we do.
@Kaine T and @Olwyn – maybe you missed this part of my piece:
“Our task this year, to be blunt, is to listen to what people have been saying, and to go beyond listening, and into reflecting back the things we are hearing and seeing what people think. Instead of listening and saying “that’s nice”, we have to say, “we’ve heard you and this is what we think.”"
I completely agree that we can’t just listen.
We had to just listen for a while because nobody really cared what we might have had to say – that always happens when you lose an election.
My argument is that we need to go beyond that. We should not yet be pronouncing, but we should be bouncing back at people and engaging them in a two way discussion, based on our values and our project to build a fairer society.
@Spud – I know this is slightly off thread, but have you read Brian Rudman’s piece in the N Z Herald this morning. I don’t have the nous to set up the appropriate link, but it says it all about why N Z should ditch those wacky royals – it reminded me of what an absolute twit Charlie is. The thought of him becoming King of New Zealand – sheesh!
Labour can say it wants to listen to what the people think, but it has to have a reasonable strategy for what it does when it finds out.
Too often the response is ‘OK, we hear what you say, but you’re wrong for these reasons. Go away and think about it, Mr(s) Public, and come back when you’re as enlightened as we are.’
That sort of attitude might give the activists a nice warm feeling inside, but it ain’t going to win an election any time soon. For a start is sounds so superior, and this was one of the main reasons people got peed off with Helen Clark’s government. We don’t want a collection of nagging mothers-in-law telling us how to organise every single aspect of our lives.
And the activists have also got to realise it’s all about perception. No use whinging on that there aren’t any bludgers if 80% of the public think there are. You need to do something, however symbolic, to address the commonly held view that Labour’s soft on the scrounger. May be a bitter pill to swallow, but sorry, life ain’t fair.
Understand that if a huge majority hold a view contrary to your own then many of these people are still potential supporters. So don’t call them “rednecks” for wanting to see criminals punished, or “child abusers” for saying they give their kids a spanking from time to time, or “greedy rich pricks” for wanting to hold on to more of what they earn and spend it as they (rather than you) see fit. If you engage in this sort of name calling it might make you feel a bit better, but all you achieve is to increase the amount of time it will take before these people even consider putting a tick in the Labour box again. And depending on how much resentment you create it could mean that they don’t look to the Left for a solution for decades.
I say this as someone who, from the age of about 14, wore out shoe leather distributing leaflets in the pouring rain and spent hours and hours doing all the donkey work jobs for Labour (back ‘home’ in the UK). After a lifetime supporting the party I did the unthinkable in 2005 and voted Blue. I have done so ever since, locally and nationally. My alligence is still there to be won back, but it won’t be so long as the views of ordinary people are treated with such contempt by what seems to be the few engaged on a raft of personal crusades.
@Jordan: Thank you for your clarification. I did read the whole thing, but did fix on that one aspect. So I stand corrected.
George, I hope someone in the Star Chamber is listening to you. I fear they will just see you as a naive class traitor and sell-out, and get on with their own plans.
@Raymon – I know republicans are on both sides
1000 years since what?
“If we are ever to become a republic, now is surely not the time.” – Olwyn
@Jordan – Listen to the 45% who want a Monarchy too, you may not like it, but it’s a fact.
Prince Charles is not a twit, but he could be as crazy as the mad hatter and it wouldn’t matter, he doesn’t make our laws.
Nope, not a good enough reason for me to want a, choke, republic.
Spud – yes I have been away on holiday enjoying the benefits of my hard work. Now to find full time work will be my challenge.
Keeping on topic – Labour need to do a lot before they can regain the Government benches. At present Labour have become somewhat irrelevant as the National Government enjoy their well deserved lead in the polls. My impression of Labour is that they still carry their arrogance that lost them the 2008 election. A full clean-out of the deadwood may help along the way as it did for National in 2002.
“get the sense though that people are looking now for something a little different.”
Yes, we are looking for something different. It is about vision, and I think Jordan was saying this – active listening is what I have been bleating on about on red alert for awhile – combined with the clear strategic direction and vision – but you can not get that clear vision and strategic plan if you do not have the voice of the people helping to shape it.
I also agree that the party has had a ‘baby boomer’ track – and with the greatest of repect (honestly) to this particular way of working, we do not live in a world where it is appropriate anymore to only have that one way of ‘doing and thinking’. A mix of thought from the gen x, gen y and BB will and can only, make the direction stronger. I have also waxed lyrical on this for sometime.
@George – I do not disagree with some of what you allude to – it is time to make some tougher calls on some key areas – no longer can the labs be content to sit back and ignore what the public think – by all means re enlighten – this is half the problem I think. On many of the key issues, the public is not that informed (I being one of them) on the actual facts – I note that I made the point in a previous topic that some facts around it would be helpful, and no one was able to provide them. That does nothing to banish myths or reinforce an argument – and that is why active listening is impt.
Its not rocket science – in order to get the public to re vote lab – we need to know that the lab party is actively engaged, aware of issues from a multitude of pov, and prepared to re adjust some thinking if needed, or come up with some new solutions that show they take on board what is being said.
As for the ‘hand off’ key thing – tired of that ages ago – time he stepped up and did his job imo. His popularity on this basis is beyond comprehension.
Jordan, yeah… I get that much, but there is a step missing in between the listening and reflecting and it is a step that should have been created before the listening, during and on reflection… That’s a plan and a vision.
An opposition need only speak in Billions or Hundreds, it’s government’s job to speak in Millions – This should make the task a little easier, to talk about principle that is, so??
Also, Key being hands off is not a new approach as such, it’s something Key needs to take hold of or he runs the risk of his tilted Cabinet running away from him.
@George – I was talking about what might only honestly be described as the ‘cultural elitism’ of some parts of the Labour Party last night. Until we ditch that we won’t be able to get people listening to us again, because if there is one thing voters don’t and should not stand for, it is being patronised by the people who want to run the country on their behalf.
@Kaine T – Hmmm. I would not at all complain about a clearer and nicely tied down statement of our vision and principles being repeated by all Labour MPs and people. It isn’t happening all that widely. Maybe that’s something we should sort out sooner rather than later. Certainly agree that being fixated on the details isn’t going to turn things around.
Hey Spud, did Trevor completely remove restrictions from you, because I see you have commented 4x on this thread today?
I have plenty of things I might like to say here too, and respond later to others.
Trevor, is the restriction off?
Regarding “we heard you and this is what we think…” I think the Labour Party needs to encourage a *broad* range of ideas, test them with real debate, and let people know that even if their ideas are not going to be adopted, at least they got a good airing. In the past I have gotten some derisory responses from certain Labour MPs, and it left a sour taste. I did not feel taken seriously.
@Spud
I totally respect your loyalty to the Monarch. But you have to respect that others want more democracy here. If Chris can go off to other countries to help their democracies, surely the topic of electing the head of state here at home is worth considering. I am always going to support democracy over hereditary rule. Democracy, limited government, separation of powers, entrenched bill of rights…it’s all good.
And yes, the Monarch is disinterested. Her disinterest is why Maori are not adequately protected. If they go to her and ask for assent to be withheld from a discriminatory law and she ignores them, what are they to do? Her Royal Protection is gone. The UN can condemn it, and they do sometimes. Should Maori be expecting more from the UN than their own Treaty partner? Perhaps they need to make a treaty with the UN…
Her disinterest is one reason for change. Maybe we want a head of state who actually advocates for us, who responds to us because we elect that person.
Compared the GG/Monarch to Barack Obama. That is the comparison you should be making. Both are heads of state. One is a figurehead, and the other actually has a mandate and works to improve society. The risk of a George Bush is there, but that is no different from Labour/National in Parliament. People get to choose.
On the other hand, what do republicans want a head of state to do here? If signing or vetoing legislation is the only function, then it isn’t so much of a change. There have to be more powers than that.
Also, I think the Queen should retain some kind of presence here. The way I understand republicans is that they just want all decision-making positions to be elected. Can’t the Queen have an ex-officio status in Parliament? We don’t hate her, after all, or her son or grandson. I think the GG should remain, but the duties should be changed. It should be a purely advisory role.
Post #1 Jan 20
@ Jordan – I think it has a lot to do with the composition of the party these days.
When I was young it seemed (at least in my constituancy) that party members and activists were mostly working class, and mostly actually working (or retired from manual work). They (or their parents) had lived through the thirties and devoted their lives to ensuring a society where that sort of injustice wouldn’t happen again.
BUT – in welfare they wanted a decent safety net, not a lifestyle option. They knew that some people are workshy and they had contempt for those who played the benefit game. AND in education they wanted schools where the brightest could get on, not where everyone was dragged down to the same level in the name of equality. They knew that their kids could be terrors at times, so they were happy that teachers ran schools with an iron grip so that their kids could ‘get on’ in life.
Nowadays it seems that the left is dominated by the middle classes – teachers, social workers, civil servants – who know a lot about the theory of everything but little about what it’s like at the sharp end. They paint idealised pictures, for example, of those on benefit (who are never rorting the system) or of kids in school (who are always little angels, eager to learn and never disruptive).
They *appear* to show contempt for ordinary people by excusing crime, poor performance in school and a whole raft of other things on the grounds of poverty (which they define in a way they see fit which often has no real meaning). I have news for them. Being hard up doesn’t make you a bad person. It doesn’t make you want to mug people. Or steal things. Being a bad person does that.
These ‘New Left’ paint an image of the working class man which is as idealistic as that of the peasant on the collective farm in a socialist realist painting. And when those who live the working class life rather than pontificate about it tell these people they’re wrong they’re just ridiculed or abused. No wonder people are losing the faith!
I’m going to agree to disagree with you about the Queen Andrew. I’m not gonna convince you and you’re not gonna convince me.
I know your position, Spud. You support the Queen. What I was trying to say (towards the end of my comment) was that we don’t have to completely kick the Queen out to be republicans. We keep the GG, but just rearrange the duties a bit. Can all this be about his power to assent, which he never uses? He *always* assents. That makes it virtually a rubber stamp.
Wouldn’t you like to reform that position so there is democratic input there? So that veto power actually gets used on bad legislation. What if National goes crazy and decides to abolish ACC, national health care, public education, and sell all SOEs? The GG will just sit there with the rubber stamp and let it all breeze through. If there were a president, those extreme positions could be vetoed.
The GG has a number of other duties, including receiving reports on a wide range of topics to keep the Monarch appraised of what is happening here. All of those sundry other duties could remain with the GG, and *OF COURSE* the royals could come be involved with celebrations here. That doesn’t hurt anything at all. I am sure they are welcome in the USA as well. Could William pitch the first pitch at the World Series? Of Course! We would love that.
How about being present at a new public agency like a court. It would seem a little strange that he would even be interested in that, but I’m sure he could come.
I am not against the Queen per se. This isn’t Boston, 1773.
The Queen does not have to go, but the GG position just needs a little reform.
Don’t you other republicans feel the same?
Post #2 Jan 20
Exactly… but as, I think it may have been Andrew who said it, not sure, someone said it anyway – it can’t be “oh yeah, we should do something about it”.
Something actually has to be done. Who’s going to do it? What are they going to do? and when will they do it? A little less of the pontification of liberal morality and a lot more clarity around what my vote is going to lead to.
We’ll sit, discuss and come up with every defence possible for NOT making significant changes to whatever plan exists, rather than acknowledge “it’s NOT working, so, lets fix it”. Maybe it’s a winning final strategy, maybe it’s not, but tolerance for the meandering is wearing thin.
I’m tired of being asked for an opinion and seeing nothing come of it. Sure, there are a lot of opinions, but don’t ask, listen and then do nothing because no one is sure on the direction right?
A bit tricky for a blog I guess.
Running through the contributions on this post reveals just how deep the detachment and discord within the party runs.
It is all about process and nothing else.
You are all supposedly on the same team yet you bicker with one another, which merely serves to entrench your own personal views about how the party should re-engage. You often reach the point where you get to the nub of the issue and then run out of ideas. There is so much “i know best” in many of these posts, but absolutely no substance – precisely the problem affecting the Labour Party. Too much hand-wringing. It is all “perhaps we should do this, maybe we could do that”, without ever reaching a decision.
Where on earth is Labour on the major story of the day? – Tax.
Silent [tumbleweed…)
@Banksie: open discussion is not the same thing as discord. The thread is largely about process because in this instance, that is for the most part what is under discussion.
Actually Banksie, you’re right.
Olwyn, and that’s the problem. What ever happened to leadership? The consensus cult is precisely what got them into this mess. They would rather spend the next two years debating every fine nuance to tick all the PC boxes and not offend the most marginal hand-wringing viewpoint, only to come up with a disconnected, complex and unexplainable policy. But the process will have been immaculate, so job done.
@banksie – umm – same team sure, but its ok to have a team that is diverse – that’s the real world. I am not sure its about ‘handwringing’ – more that people are getting a chance here to say what it is about vision and strategic planning that can/will make a difference. Where is that with the Nats? I don’t know I agree with you about the ‘I know best’ argument either.
@george “Nowadays it seems that the left is dominated by the middle classes – teachers, social workers, civil servants – who know a lot about the theory of everything but little about what it’s like at the sharp end. They paint idealised pictures, for example, of those on benefit (who are never rorting the system) or of kids in school (who are always little angels, eager to learn and never disruptive).”
One needs to be careful about painting a picture about what people know about the ’sharp end’ – seems to me to be a bit of a wide sweeping statement. The teachers, social workers I know that actually work in the ‘trenches’ know full well that its a less than ideal world out there – in fact, I hasten to say that there are too many ‘middle class’ who have no idea what some people struggle with in this country, and by not understanding it, are ignorant of the reality – which in turn leads them to make sweeping statements about people on benefits ripping off the system, everyone on the dpb are doing it on purpose, if you are poor you will steal etc…and for the record, much of this is further feed into by the right who like to hype up the reality and put a smokescreen in place to further their agendas. And without giving out the real facts, these ‘misguided’ middle class kiwis buy the bull and further feed the hype.
For me, its about making sure we debunk these myths – and that the good things that Lab stands for is dusted off, made more relevant and we unite as a country for the good of all of us – not just one group or another.
Andrew – National could do worse under a republic. Not convinced.
@Kaine T – I hope neither party will touch republicanism in their next term.
@B anksie – yeah, but Labour wants to hear public opinions.
@Jennifer
It may amaze you to know that most of us posting are not MPs. I am sure you can find “hand-wringing” within the National Party membership as well–or shall we call it “teabag-wringing?” God forbid any hand-wringing in the Act Party. They can come to a wrong decision quickly with no hesitation or debate at all.
The debate goes in 10 different directions because there are 10 different people talking. We are not dittoheads. We get to disagree and argue over even minutiae if we want to. Trevor keeps us on topic and keeps us nice, but it seems we are pretty free beyond that.
If, out of this blog, a couple of good ideas emerge that get integrated into party policy, then the whole process would have been worthwhile.
If all you have to offer is bashing Labour and you don’t want to engage with the debate here, what is your point? Why are you here? Are you trolling?
@ Paul – “where is that with the Nats?” Simple answer: in the Beehive.
I am all for talking about a vision and strategic plan, but to have that discussion there needs to be some leadership (there is currently a vacuum), and a basis from which to start refining the vision – there is none of that here. It is all process related.
Jordan Carter’s comment at 13:20 is simply staggering to me. On the subject of a Labour Party vision he says “maybe that’s something we should sort out sooner rather than later.” Heavens to murgatroyd…
Andrew, ironically, and most likely inadvertently, you have proved my point by providing some leadership to the debate. Now go the whole hog and tell us what one of those “good ideas” might be.
Aw, come on Banksie, Phil’s a great leader.
@andrew – “If, out of this blog, a couple of good ideas emerge that get integrated into party policy, then the whole process would have been worthwhile.”
Agreed.
@Banksie – exactly what do you define as ‘leadership’. As Andrew states, we are not MPs – we don’t get to formulate policy – at least in this forum we can make some points about issues.
I did find your flippant comment – ‘in the beehive’ funny – thanks for that. Its true – they are in the beehive – shame that – the mistakes they keep making will with some vision and strategy from lab, ensure they won’t stay there too long. (to quote you..Heavens to murgatroyd…)
@spud – lets not start the phil is a good leader debate again!! lol
Aw Paul
Doesn’t matter anyway, I’m going to drown my sorrows over the senate soon. 
@Banksie – It’s just one blog post. And I’m just one member of the Labour Party. I’m not sure why you find irony staggering, would you like to expand on that?
@spud – have a few for me too
@Jennifer
My goodness, you are asking me to be the judge of all the good ideas? This is not my blog.
I thought Clare’s support of republicanism was a good idea. It may not even have majority support within the party, and if that is the case, I have a lot of respect for her going out and speaking her mind like that.
It doesn’t have to be a Glorious Revolution or anything. I am sure the duties of the GG have been adjusted in the past. In fact, you know what? You don’t even have to remove him or change *any* of his duties. Just tack on an elected president and provide that person with a veto power and some other duties (some from different portfolios).
So, one “good idea” to me is more democracy.
Increasing the minimum wage is also a good idea. I happen to think removing the taxes and using tax credits would be more effective, but it is hard to form a left-wing slogan composed of “lower taxes and give tax credits.” They may do that when in government, but “raise the minimum wage” is catchier and people will rally around it.
EFTPOS cards for food for people on welfare of any kind. I just imported that idea from the States, but I’ll take a good idea from anywhere.
So, there are three:
1. more democracy by having an elected head of state
2. higher income for those on the lowest wage
3. more food benefits for those on welfare
Those seem like pretty concrete ideas to me. Oh, that’s right, you just wanted one. Take your pick.
@ Jordan – Sure. If your comment at 13:20 was intended to be ironic it was lost on me. Perhaps it was a bot too subtle because I certainly didn’t read it that way.
@ Paul – leadership comes from the top, not from a blog.
aye, leadership does come from the top – but leadership takes many forms, and a good leader listens to those that place them in that role, distributes the leadership, uses information to strengthen a position and that which is most effective is not top down driven. That would be a dictatorship, nor does the leader abdicate all their responsibility with a ’she’ll be right as rain as long as I smile and ‘wave boys’’ attitude.
Andrew, thanks for exceeding my expectations. Perhaps coming up with ideas that work for real people who might be convinced to vote Labour might catch on? For what it’s worth, I’m not convinced that republicanism is a political ‘game changer’ for Labour. Plenty of Nats are republicans, too. The minimum wage rant is more mantra than policy. I’m interested in the EFTPOS idea, though. Is this an electronic food stamp?
@ Paul – I’m personally offended by your barely disguised attack on Helen Clark’s leadership style, which was very much top-down, and proved successful with three election wins.
@Paul – will do.
@jennifer – andrew supports that protest. That protest aint no vote winner.
Where’s that drink…
@Banksie – if the shoe fits…lol. Note, I never said whose leadership styles I was highlighting – but it does go alongside the baby boomer tact that Jordan was talking about – and my point of its not the world we live in – the top down approach needs to change.
In saying that – there are times where the leader needs to switch style to suit context – but a 21st Century leader does not play in either of the highlighted styles on a full time basis.
@Banksie – let me be a little clearer then. Message discipline is vital to getting your point across in politics, and repetition is at the core of it. If I said “we aren’t that good at it” it would be a further example of ironic understatement.
The Labour Party is not in any doubt about what it stands for but it sure seems unwilling to talk about it at times.
Clear as?