In a Parliament where the Governments majority looks shakey and decisions may get through on a slim margin of just one vote can we operate differently in Opposition?
On the opposition benches there will be a number of Parties who will vote against Asset Sales. Labour was unequivocal at the 2011 election SoEs were Not For Sale. But the country has voted and National will drive ahead with its agenda, despite widespread concern from Maori about inadequate protections as affirmed in s.9 of the SoE Act.
Rather than delve into the debate, I wanted to raise whether there was an opportunity for a culture shift in the way opposition parties attacked the Government on specific BIG ISSUES like Asset Sales, like Growing Inequality, Like Children Living in Poverty. Some may consider this a broad coalition of the opposition, and to be frank post-election it will be an organic exercise.
Could it be an opportunity for doing things differently in opposition in an MMP environment – your thoughts?
I wonder if there is some measure to be made in pitching for a lesser private shareholding where Maori interests would be protected to a greater extent. 25% instead of 49% . More directorship opportunity for Maori.
Why doesn’t someone take a pragmatic middle ground and draft legislation that gave Maori corporates first right of refusal on a certain percentage of shares in sold in state owned entities? Most of the furore about Maori seems to be the usual ‘handout, something for nothing’ stuff, but offering them at the same rate seems like a pretty fair and logical way for everyone to show they can be reasonable.
A culture shift is critical, and I am glad that you have identified the need, Nanaia. Firstly, it is vital to take charge of the languaging.
A highly financialised economic language always favours the neoliberal framework which it emanates from. Some simple ideas are important here: the economy is here to serve the needs of society; not the other way around. Government is here to do things that the narrowly profit driven private sector could never accomplish or would never accomplish. Workers need a larger share of the economic pie and profits a smaller share. And Labour is the party which understands small and medium enterprise whereas National is only focussed on big money interests while paying lip service to entrepreneurs and owner operators.
And of course…operationalising all these concepts within a framework where the opposition parties work much more closely together to make clear National’s failing neoliberal weak points.
Lastly, congratulations on your senior position in caucus.
Do you realise that you don’t have Helen Clark to `sort of’ keep Winston Petetrs in line? I cannot see the present Labour leadership being able to keep him to any agreement made in such a coalition.
Russel from the Greens will want to lead it and then of course there is Hone and his lot.
Let the games begin.
You’ll fall into the unity/distinctiveness dilemma minor/major parties face once in Government in an MMP environment.
Start with a close study of Jeanette Fitzsimons brand of politics ( I use the term brand in its loosest sense because she was anything but a brand). She refused to “stoop” when the debate deteriorates, she has left behind a party very capable of surviving without her. THAT is true leadership. HOW many parties falter when the leader loses or steps aside because no succession plan is in place and the party is built around leader’s image. Disagree with passion and consistency, and people will admire your principles. Disagree for the sake of it and your passionate messages will be lost too.
Now you’re talking Nanaia: division of any kind is electoral poison and the bane of the left forever. Remember Helen’s millenium triumph when she and Jim finally buried the hatchet – and the converse when the Alliance split over frack-all and went from 13 MPs and a solid base to oblivion in a second.
Broad and organic are good words: just bite the bullet and call a Hui Hoariri. No agenda, no seniority, Chatham House Rule and see what develops. If parties are incapable of this tiny step, then they’re incapable – and certainly undeserving – of ever forming a government: and those they purport to care for are doomed.
Why should the other parties give up their identity and individuality? We all oppose asset sales, but the issue is not that black and white.
Good question Nanaia and I believe the answer is an unequivocal yes …
Now is the time for all good parties to stand up and oppose the privatisation of our property …
Values-based, pragmatic thinking from you again. Yes, there is absolutely a possibility for this kind of collaboration in Parliament. It’s been asked for over a long period of time but no one has stepped up to it. Labour’s dominance of the opposition has deteriorated, for whatever reasons, and it must realise it isn’t the only game in town.
Problem is, while some of us would trust someone like you to engage in a process like this, there are those who cannot and should not be trusted to play along. The politics of identity, self-interest and politics itself has to be set aside for a values-based approach and that is a statesman’s game, look around you and tell me if you see many?
It makes sense to cooperate where the objective is the same, but there is always a but. And, is the sale of assets the only thing on which you can do this? I think there are other opportunities too, problem is too many are focused on their internal agendas and not on the people they are elected to advocate for and that leaves us stranded.
Collective responsibility be damned, go and do it anyway. But, that’s just not sensible. If only..
Tracey +1
Easy – NO partial sales,
so
Cancel Working for Families
and
Introduce interest on Student Loans.
That should go well towards helping the
financial crises.
These two items alone helped to get us to the current position.
Why not for the parties in opposition to come together as a coalition or coalitions on common ground(s). To strategically plan cooperatively on such imperative issues as asset sales, income inequality and poverty.
The Labour and Progressive Party’s had a Coalition in opposition and worked cooperatively and collegially. Repeat it with a greater grouping.
This does not mean that parties compromise their individuality. Also most of the opposition parties have worked well together before. Example the Labour-Progressive Coaltion with The Greens, NZ First and United Future in supply and confidence. It was stable, and constructive work was achieved.
Fortran – yes lets penalise those under 40 years of age, those with kids and student loans. Let the power weilding elite who own most of NZ continue to skip along nice and free and rich.
“A highly financialised economic language always favours the neoliberal framework which it emanates from”
That’s a pretty funny sentence.
As a keen observer of question time I have a few tips from this week. The opposition will be allocated roughly 7 primary questions each day. They, and the supplementaries need to be used wisely. As an example, question 11 on the 8th should have been “Does he stand by [his] statement that “if you look at the vast array of appointments we make, I think the balance is about right”?”. Supplementaries could then have dealt with McElrea and Catherine Isaac. Don’t waste a supplementary the way Shane Jones did.
Dave, do you watch it live online?
Kia ora Nanaia,
Thanks for your post – I hope we hear much more from you on the BIG ISSUES…
The challenge as I see it for the Parliamentary Labour Party and its leadership will be to quickly establish Labour as the leading opposition party. I think we need a collaborative approach with the other opposition parties, and need to be thinking positively about coalition arrangements before 2015, growing relationships with MPs across party lines.
The imminent Labour review provides an opportunity to recharge the party, and calls from the rank and file membership for more democracy within, for example with Labour Party members voting to elect the Leader and Deputy Leader will be required, in order to keep the faithful faithful, and to grow the membership among Maori, Pacifica and other working class NZers…
As a Maori woman I am hopeful that there will be more cooperation between Maori MPs across opposition party lines also. Metiria Turei has proven leadership abilities and has really come a long way since becoming co-leader of the Greens.
Despite a disappointing General Election result, it came as no surprise. We need to be building a manifesto to put to the people early in 2015, and something like Helen’s pledge card is a proven winner. In my view the haphazard, slow and drip-feeding policy release approach was a key element in Labours lacklustre showing at the last election. Frankly hopeless.
An example I could cite was the excellent draft Maori and Treaty policies I saw – which if released would have made a big impact. However the bureacracy stymied that, the policy was watered down as to be a soft-sell, and Labour lost a key opportunity to campaign on a central point of difference – justice for Maori, Tuhoe etc.
It’s of great concern to me that some people seem to be accepting the asset sales regime as a fait accompli. Cunliffe explained in simple terms, quite excellently, the economic irrationality of Nationals 49% so-called partial asset sales plans, and why ultimately foreign entities will end up owning our public assets.
In my island – Te Waipounamu – coal producer Solid Energy and Meridian are on the hocking block. Aside from the demerit points pointed out by David Cunliffe on the economic idiocy of public asset sales full-stop, the sale of our South Island assets raise other serious problems. I am thinking of the environmental impacts of West Coast coalmining, and lignite mining in Southland, and the risks associated with other non-government owners exploiting our natural resources. In terms of Meridian, selling off taonga like the Waitaki hydro scheme is in my view an act of treason by the Nats-Act-Maori-Done Dunne lot. This was the last major infrastructure project carried out by thousands of NZ working men using pick and shovel, to alleviate joblessness and hardhip during the last Great Depression.
In Christchurch there is already talk that the Council and Govt are colluding to hike power prices and rates in order to meet the local Govt component of the cost of the Quake rebuild of the city.
I look forward to hearing the terms of reference of the Labour review and participating in the process.
This must be a priority to ensure electoral success in 2015.
Heoi ano, na Iri
Yes I do Tracey.
Good idea Nanaia – if iPredict is right, and Labour and others are on to win in 2014, the time to build relationships and a coalition of interests is before the election not after. Re asset sales, we need a broad-based campaign asap.
No no no I must disagree. Not that the policy releases were slow (which they were) but on your assumption of the magnitude of impact on the electorate.
To contrast, National won on practically no policies whatsoever, and lots of unlikable policies like Asset Sales.
To recap. People voted against tax cuts for themselves ($5000 tax free, GST off fruits and vegetables) and voted against pay increases for themselves ($15 minimum wage). They voted against stopping asset sales, which surveys suggest 3/4 of people don’t like at all.
The only conclusion possible is that the disconnect Labour had with the electorate in 2011 was ***at most*** only peripherally to do with the timing and content of policy releases; the net net of all of that is still something that has barely been identified let alone addressed, and it is quite disturbing IMO.
Colonial Viper – As recent events have shown, Maori & Treaty issues are the BIG ONES – s9 SOEs Act/privatisation plans of the Nats etc.
Iri
A cohesive, clear and succinct policy programme ie a manifesto or pledge-type card is crucial if electoral success is the aim.
A look at Labour history in NZ clearly shows this.
Labour history also shows all too clearly how crippling factionalism within the party is a recipe for a long time in opposition. It also holds pertinent lessons regarding past dis-connects between the parliamentary labour team, and the rank and file membership. Hard lessons, but lessons which must be learned if Labour hopes to become the lead partner in a coalition left-leaning progressive Govt in 2015. That’s my aspiration
Your points are well made, but I’ll put my position another way: policies don’t win elections (any more), psychology does. And the Tories get NZ psychology way better than Labour does at the moment.
Until Labour understands why people vote against their own interests for starters – as I detailed above – the detail of policy and policy timing will matter minimally. IMHO of course.
Further to my post above. Its not presidential/personality politics either. That’s just a subset. The real overarching game is in the psychological.
Must decline to agree with you Col V in re your analysis that the big-picture game is psychological. It is political. Albeit Freud and Marx make a good combo burger. Upsize me.
Oh yes the final objectives are political power we agree there. But the overarching strategy to win the electorate over and convince people to vote against their best interests is totally psychological. The heart rules the head. Which is why policy detail won’t win many more fights in the broader electorate. Again IMHO.
Oh yes tautoko! But voters want & need to know what specific policies the party stands for, and this needs to be spelled out simply for the masses. In order for the message to get through, a party manifesto, or clear policy messages are needed to be broadcast widely to the electorate, so people have time to consider, compare & contrast the different parties policies. This is especially important today with the centre-left pretty crowded Cl Klink (oops I mean Cl Viper)Ha ha
“Further to my post above. Its not presidential/personality politics either. That’s just a subset. The real overarching game is in the psychological.”
Agreed, the goal is political power but psychological manipulation is the means