Written By: - Date published: 3:03 pm, November 11th, 2008 - 94 comments
Categories: labour -
Tags:
As has been widely reported, Phil Goff is set to take the leadership of Labour with Annette King as deputy leader.
We’ll hear all kinds of nonsense about how this is a shift to the Right. Rubbish. We are not going to see Labour try to be National-lite.
First, while the leader of National essentially decides everything and the party trots along behind, Labour doesn’t work like that. Labour has a strongly democratic process for setting the policy direction and it learned in the 1980s that the leadership cannot abandon the ambitions of the rank and file.
Secondly, Labour doesn’t need to be National-lite. Voters did not reject Labour’s general policy programme of greater work rights, savings and investment, and greater environmental protection. Rather they responded to the ceaseless ‘time for a change’ rhetoric from the Right and Labour shot itself in the foot over what should have been minor issues. The failure of Clark and Cullen (and this is not to take away anything from their manifold achievements) was to not talk in terms of their vision for a more social-democratic New Zealand and keep the discourse focused on those big issues. It was not the policies that were the problem, it was a failure to communicate what those policies represent.
So, expect Goff, King and the rest of the caucus to keep Labour on the same policy track and promise to undo National/Act’s regressive policies like privatising ACC and slashing Kiwisaver. Hopefully, they will also be able to better articulate the principles that underlie those policies.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
I imagine the unionist faction of the Labour Party must be delighted with the Goff-King combination. King is already in her sixties, and Goff is not far from it. They are conservative, right-wing seat-warmers who will do little over the next year, but will keep Cunliffe and Street from the top spots until Andrew Little is in parliament to bring about a union reclamation of the Labour Party.
That’s funny, ‘cos that approach worked quite well for National
*sigh*
Tim Ellis
After you confidently informed us all that Roger Douglas would not get back into Parliament, I think we can confidently disregard your political analysis.
To repeat: Phil Goff is 55. When Jim Bolger won his first election he was … 55. He went on to win two more. “Seat-warmer” Don Brash was much older, when National decided he was the Future and young Bill English was the Past (before, um, he somehow became the Future again).
But then, National supporters forcefully arguing the exact opposite of what they believed a short while ago is nothing new, and is going to provide us with much entertainment over the next three years. Keep it up!
gingercrush: Just dug into the voter turnout figures for South Auckland You left out the specials.
Mangere
2002 – 25,022
2005 – 28,967
2008 – 21,688+6,429=28,117
forgot the specials!
Manakau East
2002 – 27,276
2005 – 33,193
2008 – 23,322+4,435=27,757
That is a significant drop from 2005 numbers. But dropped back to 2002 levels
Goff explicitly said that they will work WITH National on policies that they agree with, as well as opposing vigorously on policies like Kiwisaver they don’t agree with – hardly amounting ONLY aiming to be oppositional.
On Goff’s ideological bent, my take is that he was more of a pragmatic rogernome than an ideological fanatic. At the time (late 1980s), he tried to convince me that TINA, what with the terrible state of the economy in 1984, our inability to compete with the Australain labour market, etc. But then that could be because he knew that the ideological argument wouldn’t convince me.
Whatever, I get the feeling that he is very comfortable with the current “third way” policy settings, which represent more of a compromise with neo-liberlaism than a repudiation after all. If National try to change anything important like WFF, then they can expect a ferocious response.
Have to correct redlogix when s/he says, “Goff is decently articulate and has learnt from Clark how to express a complex argument with clarity and in relatively plain language.” As I recount on my own blog, Goff always had a clear-eyed approach and was able to articulate it well. He didn’t learn anything from Clark. They are *both* formidably intelligent.
I do have to agree with redlogix’s comment, “By contrast I get the impression that the novelty of Key’s sharp-suit exexcutive jargon, and slippery obfuscations is going to wear off with joe public fairly quickly.” Bring on 2011.
I guess Mr Goff will be as intrigued as I was at the feature on Morning Report this morning about Asian expectations in South Auckland. It seems that there is a general belief that National will act quickly to bring peace and safety to the streets and that dairy owners will be safe.
Promises over-stated?
Gobsmacked, I was wrong on Roger Douglas returning, quite right. I was not wrong on John Key ruling out Douglas from Cabinet if he did return, though. Do you also intend to disregard Steve Pierson’s political analysis as well? After all, he wrote:
Turns out National didn’t have any fatal problems. They won, convincingly, with the highest number of seats that any single party has achieved under MMP, and several coalition options to boot.
Or how about r0b, who wrote:
r0b was also very wrong when he wrote:
Turns out the polls were correct, and Labour’s support in the polls did reflect the reality of opinion in NZ.
LP was wrong when he said the polls weren’t accurate. They turned out to be the most accurate results in NZ polling history.
Felix was very wrong when he wrote, of National: “It seems [National] they’re determined to govern alone or not at all.” No, National has been very prepared to govern with partners. So too was he wrong when he wrote:
Oh, and who can forget how very, very wrong Mike Williams was when he was talking up John Key’s involvement in the H-Fee.
I think a very important issue that Goff and team need to sort out, was signalled on Nat Rad this morning by Matt Mcarten: ie Goff’s relationship with Maori & the MP. It would have been an angst-ridden area for Labour if they had led the government this term. In a way, it could work better for Labour to have Key negotiate with the MP in the first instance.
However, what Mcarten pointed to was the fact that Goff has not develoed much of a relationship with Maori. I tend to agree. To me the main thing Clark/Labour did wrong in government was in their reactionary response to Orewa, it’s racist dog-whistling and the subsequent foreshore and seabed legislation. At the moment it ironically looks like National has benefitted from that chain of events.
However, if Maori benefit in the long run from a deal with National, then I would commend it. Nevertheless, it remains a fraught area, and one I think Goff and Labour need to apply some attention to. They need to get back on track in their relationship to Maori. OTOH, I am not keen on some of the social and economic conservatism amongst some key figures in the MP – makes the whole issue a bit of a mine-field. But I think there needs to be some dialogue and thought put into this.
The National-MP relationship may, ironically indicate a way forward for the relationship between Labour and the MP – and The Greens may have a role in that too as having been the closest ally for the MP so far..
I do hope that Williams leaves. Mike Williams has been nothing but trouble for Labour since 2005 – constant media gaffes have left a poor impression
Carol: I agree. In my view the race (heh) is on to see which of the main parties can do right by MÄori, having suddenly realised that they’re an important electoral bloc. It’s been a long time coming, and if Sharples and Turia continue to take the consultative line of principled cooperation they’ve signalled, I think it can only be of benefit to their constituency.
L
Bah, that was me above, not PB. Seems turning off cookies isn’t a failsafe way to fix it.
L
“I do hope that Williams leaves”
True, but when it comes to the major structural failures within Labour it’s only the resignation of Smith that will open the door to improvements there.
Williams might have made some serious cock-ups but he never had much to do with the Party organization. As long as Smith stays the Party organization will be remain just as moribund, unresponsive and dismissive at is ever was.
“However, what McCarten pointed to was the fact that Goff has not developed much of a relationship with Maori. I tend to agree.”
True, but then Goff never developed much of a relationship with any group. While Clark was assiduously building networks in the late 1970s/early 1980s, Goff wasn’t.
I thought that this might prevent him one day from taking the leadership, and the lack of a support base does make his position just a little more tenuous should he have trouble demonstrating effectiveness. But I don’t expect that to be a problem — witness his comments on the EFA this morning.
In short, the lack of relationships with Maori doesn’t reflect a lack of interest in Maori, but rather a lack of relationships full stop. I don’t see any impediment to Goff building good relationships with Maori. Quite the reverse.
Or how about r0b, who wrote: I can’t seriously believe that the polls at their worst (for Labour) ever reflected the reality of opinion in NZ.
I wasn’t wrong about that Tim, the polls at their worst were much worse than the final result.
r0b was also very wrong when he wrote: This I think is the narrative that will win Labour the election – Labour’s policies work, National’s don’t. In the end, that’s what matters.
I was wrong about that – turns out that having the best, most effective policy doesn’t matter after all. Bugger! You’ll also find, if you look, me consistently saying that Labour could lose the coming election.
I could reply with a list of your quotes and occasional lies for you to defend, but really, got better things to do.
I just listened to Goff on Bfm and i gotta say I’m incredibly impressed so far. If you listen to him you realize just how talented he is. Wonderful can’t wait for 2011.
r0b my post was not intended as a dig at you, but the nonsense of gobsmacked choosing to dismiss everything that somebody says, based on one wrong prediction. The polls at their worst (for Labour), as you wrote, weren’t considerably worse than Labour’s final result. The polls accurately reported Labour’s support levels, evidently even at their worst. This election really was a vindication of polling methodologies, especially in predicting the actual support of major parties, who each fell within the polls’ margin for error.
Goff doesn’t do a bad Muldoon either
Link’s here:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
The polls at their worst (for Labour), as you wrote, weren’t considerably worse than Labour’s final result.
Three polls in May / June had Labour on 29%, and National on 55 or 56%. This certainly didn’t reflect the actual result on election day.
Both Labour and National have had polling giving them more than 50%. Fo Labour that was before the 2002 election, while National had polls saying so in 2008. There may also have been other times where either Labour or National has polled 50%.
Minor parties typically do not poll well until the election is three months or out. Likewise both National and Labour saw the polls tighten where neither party got more than 50%. In 2002, the centre parties New Zealand First and United Future got a share of such votes. In 2008, it would be natural for National to fall below 50%. The country isn’t ready for either a Labour party or a National party to have a majority.
2005 polls were fickle and highly inaccurate pretty much because there was not a huge gap between Labour and National thus the polls were volatile.
By the time the election is called, polls tend to tighten up. In 2002 the centrist parties got larger share of the votes. In 2008 National’s polling fell while Labour’s rose. The polls during the 3 months of this election, showed that there was more probability for National to govern than Labour. And the last set of polls proved rather accurate. Still Greens always seem to poll higher than what they receive at the election. This year I think had Labour not stuffed up in regards to the H-Fee scandal and had John Key done poorly in the debates. The polls could have said otherwise. National always looked likely to receive more votes than Labour. The real question was whether Labour couldn’t somehow come up with the numbers to govern. This year that proved impossible.
That’s a pretty long winded way of saying, “what r0b said”.
I sadly can’t be concise. I’m not sure I make sense half the time either.
Concise is overated,
Sorry for the apparent dig at you, that wasn’t what I meant . Just needling Tim. ‘Cause he deserves it.
‘In the disputes between Roger Douglas (the reformist Finance Minister) and other Labour MPs, Goff generally positioned himself on the side of Douglas, supporting deregulation and free trade.’ – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Goff