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!
bobo, I don’t want to be in politics so we can have National policies under a red banner. Honestly, fuck that.
In any case, Clark has shown you can push a social democratic economic agenda, push the centre leftwards and still win elections.
Anyway, I’m confused. If you don’t want a left-wing union leader in charge why are you pumping Andrew Little?
MikeE, it’s called pragmatism. You pick your battles. Now is the time to fight on economic issues. Later the time will come to fight on social issues.
Politics is the art of the possible, forget that and you’ll doom yourself to irrelevance.
Not only is Nash to the right, he isn’t very smart but sadly thinks he is. If he ever became the leader of Labour, members would leave in droves.
Most people strike me as going into politics because they have values. With him the word opportunist springs to mind
I don’t think Labour lost because of over-prioritisation of social reforms. They lost because they couldn’t articulate the fundamental message behind their social reforms. Like in America, the left have to learn how to appeal to a largely emotion driven voter. They have the best message but have to learn how to package it. Years of right-wing think tanks paid off in this area and the left are far behind
SP – I know I can’t badger anyone to post a topic, but where to for the Greens is a fascinating issue and I’d be interested in your perspective (you don’t have to provide any graphs
)
I’m not sure whether to say the Greens did well to go against the trend or whether they disappointed given the polls and their expectations.
Moreover, I’m not sure given their current policies how they can grow their vote without cannibalising Labour.
Just a thought ..
I’m saying what I think might happen not what I would like to happen.. I don’t want Labour here to end up like UK Labour, maybe i’m more of an Alliance end of the spectrum in my own views , and I do remember the days of Goff in the 80s and I hope Goff keeps the Labour party where Helen has taken it over last 9 years too.
Daveski, you’re very right a green discussion would be more than interesting. To be honest I think the greens need to take a serious look at their campaign stratagem. They polled incredibly well but pulled a lot less than they would’ve expected. I’m in the Epsom electorate and did not see any campaigning – i know this is a Act/National stronghold but still, nothing, i mean nothing at all. I wonder if it was different anywhere else. They really need to find a way to “get the vote out” to borrow from SP.
Labour do have a sucession issue but it is unwise to rule Goff out, he is the same age as Clark and whilst 6-9years in opposition would put him in his sixties as McCain showed even at 70 you are still a contender, maybe not as energetic but wisdom can more than make up for energy – pity McCain didn’t manage that. As for Jones & Cunnliffe they both have personality flaws that may make them unacceptable to electors so perhaps grooming Darren Hughes would be a sensible move.
“Well, I agree with Key on this. They don’t make a very inspiring leadership choice for the next election. I reckon they should stand down after a year, and put in another pair with a more positive future-looking approach.”
Carol, don’t you think that inspiration in a leader is a little overrated? I mean Clark was probably the most effective PM most people can remember, but I don’t think she was seen as particularly inspiring.
I think Goff could also be very effective, he’s smart, a good debator & respected.
Daveski/Vinsin,
Re; Green vote
Two words: Bradley Effect
It’s cool to say you’ll vote green when the cold-caller rings your phone. When you’re in the booth with the piece of paper and a magic marker, it’s a different story.
—-
Another theory is that the greens were viewed as a ‘protest vote’ against the two major parties. Their announcement to side with Labour will have turned potential voters off. How their decision comapres to the slide in polling, I don’t know.
—
BenR,
We haven’t had a single ‘charismatic’ PM since Lange. Muldoon before him… maybe.
Phil, two very good points. I do wonder if the announcement that they wouldn’t go with National was a bad one. I would’ve thought the greens would’ve moderated the Nats a lot more then Peter Dunne is ever going to do.
Fully in agreement.
The NZ Herald’s anti-Labour campaign continues unabated. Goff is the wrong man and look at all the money the Velas gave to Labour.
Who gave money to National? Not a word.
Tane,
I’m interested that you say that Goff has been rehabilitated from his right-of-Labour days, because I was pretty horrified by what Goff and King says about the 2009-2011 Labour Party.
Is there any evidence/discussion about Goff’s shift lieing around you could post or point me to? It would be lovely to think this is more than a Key-style rebranding, but at the moment I’m pretty nervous
Goff is an excellent choice for Leader, be it caretaker or longer term. He’s hard-working, personable and very competent.
All we need now is for the Two Mikes to follow the honorable lead of Clark and Cullen and Labour will have a real chance of making Key’s administration a one hit wonder.
BenR, there are up and downsides to an inspirational leader. They can carry the country with them in doing difficult things, but could also divert attention from the bad things they do.
Goff ‘n’ King (I think I’m going to be tempted to start singing “Some Kind of Wonderful” everytime their names are linked) came across quite well on TV One tonight – Goff especially. I didn’t know about his long-haired youth protesting days, or his working class roots. It’ll be interesting to see how he does as leader. Does he have the political intelligence that Clark has?
Or will we be singing “I’m Into Something Good” or “Wasn’t Born to Follow” with these 2 as leaders come the next election?
What did Goff ‘n’ King say about the 2009-2011 Labour Party, Anita?
Carol,
To me, a Goff-King leadership team says that the 2009-2011 Labour Party will fight for the centre and hold onto its neoliberal ways rather than returning to a true _Labour_ Party.
But I’m happy to hear from Tane that Goff has changed, I hope he’s right, I hope Goff will turn Labour into something the Labour Movement can be proud if.
Vinsin, 2 more words – lazy fucking hippies. (ok, 3 words)
If all the people with green slogans on their cars and t-shirts had gotten off the couch and actually voted…
David Beatson has been critical of Goff’s handling of NZ troops in Afghanistan – ie turning over captured people to possible inhumane treatment by the US, and fudging it to the NZ public:
http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/afghanistan-%E2%80%93-where-is-the-exit
The main reason why Goff looks uninspiring or lacking charisma at this point is that he has spent many years loyally serving the Labour caucas. Not all capable people are willing to set aside their personal ambitions for the sake of a wider cause, and that is a quality which earns quiet respect
The man is competent, hard-working and disciplined.
He now has many decades of experience at the coal-face of NZ politics.
His judgement is cool and considered, he does not get into shit fights he cannot win, and so far has not really put a foot wrong.
It now remains to be seen if he can step out from behind the shadow of Clark and Cullen, and inspire the same loyalty they did. It is his big opportunity, just as it is now for Key.
Agreed RL.
Goff’s well capable of of stepping out of that shadow. Only reason he occupied shadows in the first place was a dedication to unity, and the wisdom to wait his moment.
The right would be wise to be concerned about what Goff can do, and what he will do to Key in the House. Amazing what political talent and an additional 21 years of experience on top of Key’s ‘service’ can do for a leader.
Anyone know where we can place bets on NZ politics (er, legally, your honour)?
I want to put a pile of dosh on Phil Goff being Prime Minister for longer than John Key. Two terms versus two years.
felix, yeah I know, Hippies. You wouldn’t believe the bullshit I heard as an excuse not to vote on Saturday. I still think there’s a problem with the greens endgame though, I haven’t seen or heard of any presence of them inside Auckland around election week. There probably was but i didn’t see or hear of any.
“until Nash is groomed to take over”
That’d be a cold day in Hell.
Although I am definitely not a Labour supporter, I actually quite like Goff. He has got a bit of the common touch and seems very enthusiastic, not unlike Key. So he should connect with the public quite well. Probably his biggest problems is that age is not on his side and he is a bit of a blast from the past. So, its a line call as to whether or not he will make it to the next election IMO.
He’s a pretty young 55.
And 3 years from now people will be hankering for the past, yearning for a leader that clearly knows what they’re doing, and voters will be WELL over things that appear bright shiney and new. All in Goff’s favour.
Another thing to bear in mind about this changing of the guard is that it is voluntary.
One thing that is notable about the last nine years has been caucus discipline, through different governments and against different styles of opposition. Apart from in the fevered imaginations of some commentators there has never been any hint of leadership challenges, nor has there been any collapse of a government through coalition dramas. Most put this down to the wide support Helen Clark and Michael Cullen had, and the faith caucus had in their leadership.
Clark was quite happy to have Goff at #3. By stepping down that was a fairly clear signal that Goff was ok in her books, given that Cullen was not really wanting the job. If she didn’t have faith in him, she would have been grooming a successor, no?
The fact that she stood down voluntarily means that there is no factionalism apparent, and she retains a rather healthy dose of mana within caucus. A quieter public role obviously, but does anyone think that if Clark and Cullen weren’t happy with the succession that it would have happened this easily?
If this is correct, that Goff-King have Clark-Cullen’s blessing, then I doubt that there will be any change of direction on policy, and I’m sure that the incoming MP’s will show the fullest of support for the new leadership.
From Goff’s comments today, it seems to me that the ‘this one’s about trust’ theme is not done with yet, though he won’t be mentioning it by name.
As various people have been saying here, Key has a mandate to govern as ‘Labour plus’. Where National is following Labour’s centrism they will have Labour’s support, and why not. Should they break with that mandate by lurching to the right, or going all tranzrail eyes on it and undoing the ‘stealthy communism’ Key now claims to love, Goff will call him out on it. Loudly and repeatedly.
When Labour came into power, they had a mandate to move left, that’s what they campaigned on. They did so, and ended up 9 years later quite a bit to the left of where they were when they came in. That is the new centre, there are no ‘do overs’.
Key has not got a mandate to move right very far at all, the fact that his coalition partners, caucus, and base want him to doesn’t change that fact. That’s his problem. He either has to move his party to the new centre that gave him the votes to govern, or those voters will be reminded by Labour about what Key was saying during the election campaign, certain tapes will be talked about, the reactions to those tapes from Key will be played again and again, there is no secret agenda, we are all centrists now, trust me.
If Labour can keep the centre where it is now, it’s all on in 2011.
As far as the age factor goes, and all this talk of a `new generation’, it’s mostly perception rather than reality. The age difference, as they correctly pointed out on Checkpoint today, is eight years from Key to Goff and 13 years from Key to King – hardly a generation gap. Key has been in parliament much less time. This means he’s younger in the eyes of the public than Goff, King, et al, who’ve been in for ages. That matters – but perhaps not as much as people think.
I don’t think the age/freshness/etc is going to be the Goff/King team’s main weakness – it’s the fact that they’re both patrician honkeys, which puts them at the disadvantage to National who, although they’re also patrician honkeys, are reaching out to the mÄori party and may yet come to an agreement with them. Clark had quite a lot of credibility with MÄori in particular. She earned the nickname `Aunty Helen’ not from the derisive KBR, but from kaumatua who deeply appreciated Clark’s two-year kanohi ki kanohi tour of hui from 1999-2001 when she first took the role of PM. (This was also why the Foreshore and Seabed rankled so). Anyway, my point is, nobody in the immediate leadership team has that credibility or history of engagement with MÄori. Parekura and Shane will have to come very much to the fore to change that.
L
Good analysis by PB there.
Goff is going to fight one election as opposition leader, at the head of a caucus that has moved left with its new intake, and without a Winston/Dunne party to drag him right.
If he wins, he’ll govern with the Greens. If he loses, he’s replaced. Clark has every reason to feel relaxed about Goff taking over.
(King may well step aside before the election, but that’s of no consequence really – she’s not doing Cullen’s job).
well said Pb.
Goff is decently articulate and has learnt from Clark how to express a complex argument with clarity and in relatively plain language. Sure he has no gift for oratory, but when I listen to him I come away with a clear idea of what he was saying.
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.
Anyway, my point is, nobody in the immediate leadership team has that credibility or history of engagement with MÄori.
True, but Cullen has, and while he may never be Finance Minister again, he may well have another role yet to play. He is just too good to loose yet.
Have to add my agreement with PB too, nicely put analysis.
Anita, nothing solid, sorry. It’s from a lot of discussions I’ve had with senior unionists and Labour Party figures over the last couple of days over exactly those concerns.
The overwhelming response has been that Goff repented his sins long ago and is firmly committed to continuing Helen Clark’s legacy. The word people have used is that he’s a ‘moderate’. You might not see the same progress on social issues as we did under Clark, but on the economy he’ll be good. And as I expressed earlier on, that’s what we need right now.
And seeing as the caucus and the wider party has moved to the left in recent years I think Goff will be fine. Of course,I could be wrong, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
gs, Centrebet I guess, though that’s in Aussie. They took $200 of me recently for my bet that Helen would be PM post-election.
Anita, having said that, of course, I don’t think Goff will drag the NZLP to the left of where they were under Clark. But given the lack of alternative contenders from the left that was never going to happen anyway. From the makeup of the caucus I’d say that’s a job for the next leader.
Sorry Off Topic : After reading this http://www.stuff.co.nz/4756635a11.html tonight about lots of calls to the police on Election night from beneficiaries worried about if National was cutting their benefits made me sick reading the comments on stuff. NZ is certainly turning into a mean spirited me generation if the feedback is anything to go by. “Beneficiaries” could mean vulnerable pensioners, mentally ill , but oh no we put them somewhere in between child molesters and terrorists in our social standing.
Bobo, yeah it’s a real shame and it’s incredibly irresponsible to allow commenting on that story on the site. I read the first few comments and felt sick.