Doomed?

Written By: - Date published: 7:03 am, October 21st, 2024 - 62 comments
Categories: capitalism, Economy, Keynes, workers' rights - Tags: , , , ,

“We’re doomed” was Private Frazer’s inevitable response to any crisis in “Dad’s Army”. It echoes the Aberdonian farmer in “England, their England”, who thought it was just conceivably possible that a man of exceptionally powerful brain might be able to imagine a state of things just a fraction worse than they then were.

One might stray into such despondency when considering the external context in which New Zealand finds itself, then considering what we are doing as a nation to respond.

The last fifty years have seen a constant erosion of the gains made by working people during the post-1930s Keynesian Accommodation. Since the early 1970s, wealth differences have been exacerbated by the decoupling of the financial sector from the productive sector, which in turn fostered a series of devastating financial crises. The taxpayer repeatedly bailed out the finance sector, which continues on its merry way.

Meanwhile, the productive sector, restructuring, off-shoring and on-shoring as the whim took, taking advantage of China’s and elsewhere’s cheap labour, supported by taxpayer funding of research, training and exports, demanding (and getting) reduced worker protections and voice, promising pie in the sky if just another jot of flexibility can be squeezed from the workforce, swithers between chest-beating pride and desperate calls for support.

Working people – excoriated and blamed for their laziness and inflexibility, on reduced rations as the wage share falls and as welfare cuts amass, denied voice by legislation designed to vitiate trade union power, distanced evermore from the levers and instruments of political power, shorn of an effective voice in a “Just Transition” – are told to know their place. Varoufakis’ invocation of a new feudalism has a powerful ring.

One does not have to entertain the Apocalypse to see that the world has permanently changed. This is the essential point in Piketty’s work; it is glaringly obvious to any student of political economy. There will be no return to the old Keynesian model. Its institutions – domestic and international – are in disarray. Apart from a beleaguered Northern Europe, the 1930s accommodation between State, Labour and Capital at its heart is moribund.

If we are to create an alternative, fairer, sustainable alternative to a chaotic world ordered by buccaneering supra-national magnates, progressive voices must, first, recognise that the future cannot be “business as usual”. A new political and economic alternative to chaos must be defined. Second, its scope must be, initially, national, that is, a space in which democratic voice may exist and be protected. Third, priority must be given to two things. There must be a new “economic” accommodation that reduces wealth differentials and offers a decent life to all. There must also be a deepening of democratic voice – in work and in the community. Without such economic and political change, the future for working people is bleak.

What does this mean for Labour? First, Labour doesn’t have choice if it is true to its historical role. It must develop and proselytise around a new vision. Its starting point will be wealth – its distribution, taxation and production. A sustainable society – one in which people have sufficient stake that they willingly abide by its norms and practices – will have a flatter wealth structure as a result of taxation and successful economic activity. These two go together. Overarching their relationship, and providing a third term in the equation, is environmental sustainability.

Second, democratic voice is weakening. Multiple factors contribute to this challenge. Neo-liberalism’s market focus never placed great store in democracy. The vote was always a political concession, wrought out of struggle, and used to deflect concern away from the main prize, economic democracy. Anti-democratic populism is on the rise, ably supported by a new relativism in truth, fostered by technology and the Right. Universal suffrage at the national level needs to be supported by increased local democracy and, above all, voice in the workplace beyond collective bargaining. A recasting of wealth may involve initiatives such co-ops and other forms of social enterprise.

Third, Capital must be drawn into the mix. This is by far the most challenging aspect of a new accommodation. The division between finance and productive capital in the early 1970s hampers progress in this direction. Productive capital is usually more willing – self-interest will out – to see the logic of an accommodation. Finance capital, wearing its austere Patrician garb, sees little interest in change that might challenge its pre-eminence. This is why political measures to curb the power of financial capital are necessary, and so feared by that sector. The “Bank of Dave” offers pithy insights. And watch carefully bankers supporting a CGT!

Some in Labour will disagree with much of this. They tell me so. Often. Frankly, I’m not even sure that it’s achievable, and it may be that the man from Trier will be proved right. Critics in Labour usually take a Fabian line – move carefully, tweak the system when we can, understand a changed world, getting into power is everything, don’t rock the boat. Unfortunately, the boat is rocking madly already, after fifty years of tempests. Those tempests will intensify if the Left fails to offer a comprehensive alternative. And isn’t it the Left’s job to change history?

62 comments on “Doomed? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Mike the Lefty 1
    21 October 2024 at 7:52 am

    This seems to echo what Barbara Edmonds was hinting about when she reportedly said that Rogernomics was actually beneficial, although I am not sure of the context of that comment.

    It is also what Chris Trotter has been saying, effectively the left must grow up and move on, it is too late to go back to the good old days now.

    Anyone who tries to recreate the past will get shafted by the economic powers of the rest of the world anyway.

    But personally if Labour tries to go back to Rogernomics then they will lose my support irrevocably. The pain inflicted by Douglas and his cronies is a crime that I will never forget nor fully forgive.

    • PsyclingLeft.Always 1.1
      21 October 2024 at 8:46 am

      Barb on Roger…. Tone deaf.

      "I'm not saying everything that he did was good, but I'm saying that it is part of our Labour history, and we need to look forward from there."

      And…yea, personally knowing, and so many People who suffered (and still, as it has been generational : (

      Barb Edmonds lost me completely.

      A self-described pragmatist, Edmonds also defended the economic reforms of Sir Roger Douglas, acknowledging there may be members of Labour today who "will frown upon" her for doing so.

      Under the Labour government in the 1980s, "Rogernomics" removed government controls on prices, privatised government-owned companies and floated the New Zealand dollar on the world market.

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/530964/labour-s-barbara-edmonds-to-national-why-are-you-so-afraid-of-a-capital-gains-tax

      Absolutely some good People in Labour, but this ? Roger and what he wrought was not so bad ? FFS.

      Wonder what she personally thinks of..ACT, Atlas Network, Gibbs et al?

      • Karolyn_IS 1.1.1
        21 October 2024 at 9:46 am

        You need to listen to the whole interview, rather than rely on a journalist’s summary of it.

        Edmonds was walking a fine line. Trying not to upset anyone, stressing she was a team player, and saying that on any given issue, Labour was still working through the pros and cons and she doesn't yet know where they will land on it.

        On Rogernomics, she was careful not to be openly critical of the Labour Party on it, thus saying, 'what happened, happened'. She just picked out that one positive point from Rogernomics. Doesn't mean she agreed with most of it. This maybe part of her short time in a spokesperson role, and relatively short time in parliament.

        It's hard to tell where she sits personally on any issue, which is frustrating. She seems to put the wider caucus views ahead of her own, saying where ever Labour 'lands' on any given issues (eg CGT), she will work to make it into a viable policy.

        She does however, seem quite emotional about those in poverty and seems committed to try to do something about it.

        • PsyclingLeft.Always 1.1.1.1
          21 October 2024 at 9:52 am

          And there we have your summary of it. No matter whether ..

          She does however, seem quite emotional about those in poverty and seems committed to try to do something about it.

          Barb still said what she said. And..until I and thousands of others hear different? Labour is going nowhere….

          • Karolyn_IS 1.1.1.1.1
            21 October 2024 at 10:21 am

            Of course it's just my summary. Which is why I recommended listening to the interview. At the moment, I can't tell what Edmonds' views are or what her policy positions will be in the future.

            She left the ball in Labour's court on both Rogernomics and Labour's future economic/finance policies. At the moment she is taking Labour's 'don't rock the boat' line that Haworth is critical of.

            So, it's back to Haworth's post: Labour needs to come up with an alternative to the incrementalism they have been following in recent years.

            • PsyclingLeft.Always 1.1.1.1.1.1
              21 October 2024 at 10:35 am

              At the moment we have..

              At the moment, I can't tell what Edmonds' views are or what her policy positions will be in the future.

              Labour need to show both Who and What they stand for.

              A thin layer of paint over Roger ? Not gonna work. The stain will still show. He did some good? Major damage was done. Roger and cronies need to be exorcised.

              • Tony Veitch …
                21 October 2024 at 11:11 am

                yes

              • Drowsy M. Kram …
                21 October 2024 at 2:08 pm

                Roger and cronies need to be exorcised.

                yes Where Roger and cronies ended up is a big clue.

                After Labour lost the 1990 election in a wipeout and its neoliberal faction lost influence, ACT was built mostly by Douglas' former party supporters as a new political party for 1996.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT_New_Zealand

                I agree with Hager – ACT’s raison d’etre is “ Defend Division by Wealth ”

              • Karolyn_IS …
                21 October 2024 at 5:05 pm

                As the Haworth post indicates, Labour need to show a new direction rather than the soft neoliberal incrementalism that Labour has been guilty of in recent years.

                I have never been on board with it. It has always resulted in Nats making more sweeping pro corporate, anti low income people change each time in power. it's been 1 step forwards with Labour, 2 steps back with the Nats, and with the CoC currently, multiple steps backwards.

                Labour has disavowed the Rogernomic neoliberal shift more than once in recent years, but their policies and performance in govt say otherwise.

                I'm more interested in seeing a major shift in policy and values direction, than any superficial lip service to disavowal.

                • PsyclingLeft.Always …
                  21 October 2024 at 5:38 pm

                  Hi Karolyn_IS, this comment. i am sorry if I had taken you the wrong way earlier ? As I said previously, I have had Labours back…many times.

                  But lately…apart from some standouts (Ayesha Verrall, Kieran McAnulty who I have linked to previously)… I am feeling kinda disillusioned.

                  I sincerely hope….there is some Left direction and Leadership coming.

                  • Karolyn_IS …
                    21 October 2024 at 6:47 pm

                    Oh. I have been seriously disillusioned with Labour this century. I like a lot of the Greens' policies, but I have had more recent concerns with their strategic failings, and their candidate selections. Both tend to appeal too much to middle-class liberals at the expense of the struggling classes. I have switched between the 2 of them a few times.

                    Currently I am in despondency mode. I do see some positives with what Edmonds says and see her as being a bit different from Robertson. But, she is currently in a newbie position of kowtowing to Labour's party lines, and trying not to commit herself too much to what Labour's policies will be in future – and I find that frustrating.

                    However, I was more focused on what I saw as RNZ somewhat misrepresenting what she said – which is not helpful.

                    ATM I am pretty disillusioned and want to see something more truly left wing and strategically and tactically sound from Labour and the GP.

          • gsays 1.1.1.1.2
            21 October 2024 at 12:22 pm

            Karolyn is right, those quotes are limited lens to view the gist of the interview.

            Edmonds struck me as intelligent, compassionate, unscripted and an appropriate wealth redistributor.

            I think it would serve you well to listen or watch the whole interview with Guyon Espinor before making up yr mind . It's on the 30 minutes podcast

      • thinker 1.1.2
        21 October 2024 at 1:57 pm

        Yeah, made me see 'not red' if Edmonds view represents her party's view. If not, she should be reprimanded for saying it.

        Noting she was 3 years old when Douglas took office so presumably wasn't one of those personally affected (I finished uni in 85 and had 9 first year jobs in 9 years because either the people with more experience were getting the jobs that would normally go to me or I was trying to keep one step ahead of the bacon slicer). I found Edmonds naive and offensive and like others considering where my party vote should go next time.

        Anyone close to Barbara Edmonds, suggest she watch Someone Else's Country and/or In A Land of Plenty. Both were on YouTube last I looked. And, no, they don't tell it worse than it was.

        • gsays 1.1.2.1
          21 October 2024 at 3:22 pm

          Hi thinker, have you watched the interview?

          • thinker 1.1.2.1.1
            21 October 2024 at 6:02 pm

            No. That puts me in with many New Zealanders (some of whom are in this thread) who also didn't.

            Whether or not it was taken out of context (which I guess is your point) it was the saying of it that allowed it to be so.

            It's not something that needed to be said, in or out of context, I think.

            But I respect your right to a different view.

            • gsays 1.1.2.1.1.1
              21 October 2024 at 8:48 pm

              Yep all good.

              I'm surprised as I am an ardent critic of Labour/neo-liberalism/incrementalism. When I got the opportunity to hear her with Espinor I was expecting to be disappointed. Yes, she is a pollie and a junior one at that. Hence the 'tow the cabinet line' phrasing. I think her voice will carry weight at cabinet.

              I am pleasantly surprised by her.

              That doesn't mean Labour is all good suddenly. They have a LOT of work to do to regain my enthusiasm for them.

              To judge someone by a select few lines from half an hour of korero is doing both parties a disservice.

    • Mountain Tui 1.2
      21 October 2024 at 2:23 pm

      Mike the Lefty

      PsyclingLeft.Always

      Based on your comments I went to watch the interview and don't see it her comments as I've read here:

      7:32 to 10:!5

      I think it's really important – in my own opinion – to be judicious and careful in understanding the people in the party – lest we make an error in not only judgement, but also perhaps….how willing we are to throw our own side under the bus if they don't meet our moral judgements.

      On that note, I'm personally not sure Trotter has any viability to be quoted as a reliable voice 🙂

  2. mikesh 2
    21 October 2024 at 8:25 am

    We need to ensure that finance sticks to its role of supporting production. I think that trading banks should be stopped from creating money, and that that privilege is transferred to government. If the banks need money to lend they could borrow from the government at a low interest rate, with the proviso that that money should be lent for productive purposes only. Only money borrowed from savings should be lent for non productive purposes; though government might lend directly for housing and other infrastructure.

  3. Matiri 3
    21 October 2024 at 8:41 am

    Something that Steve Bannon said has stuck in my mind, yes that Steve Bannon. Things happen in roughly 80 year cycles and we are at the end of the welfare state, government looking after us cycle which started in the late 1940s.

    • Obtrectator 3.1
      21 October 2024 at 9:30 am

      Might be something in that notion. Go back 75 years or so, and you find this:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873

      Taking a very broad-brush view, the ensuing period of global instability could be said to have lasted until its culmination in World War II left everyone exhausted.

      • lprent 3.1.1
        21 October 2024 at 1:44 pm

        If you just look at European history, as I am sure that Bannon only does, the logical previous instability would have been the French Revolution and the associated mayhem starting in 1787, which only really died in 1815.

        However the widespread revolutions, revolts, famines and associated economic disruption in 1848 and its repression doesn't fit well with that 80 year historical cycle model.

        That is the problem with cyclic history models. They usually manage to discard significiant events while trying to jam history into a box.

        • alwyn 3.1.1.1
          21 October 2024 at 5:35 pm

          I would expect Bannon to be looking at events in the Americas rather than Europe.

          If you consider the existing cycle to have started in 1945 then 80 years earlier would be the US Civil War in the early 1860's and the one before that to be about 1780 and the American Revolution. As a US citizen he is very likely to regard them as being much more important events than some trivial happening in Europe. That doesn't mean I agree with him of course.

          • lprent 3.1.1.1.1
            22 October 2024 at 10:50 am

            Good point.

            Of course that does miss out the events like the war of 1812 that walked all over large parts of the northern ex-colonies and caused extensive economic damage, the 19th century territorial wars against Spain and Mexico, and the various traumas of the expansion westward – including that of the civil war.

            Which means that regional cyclic viewpoint has extensive cherry-picking as well.

            But I suspect that since 1945, we have shifted to a far more global and less regional linkages anyway. Which tends to make this kind of regionally based theory of history somewhat moot.

            That was the intent of the post-war international order. In a large part, at a economic and cooperation operational level, that has succeeded brilliantly compared to what happened before 1945. Especially the trade legal level – think contract law and supply chains compared to imperial/colonial economic models.

            It is the political level that is somewhat retarded (cough – security council veto), and incursions like the completely stupid "coalition of the willing" in Iraq.

    • Belladonna 4.1
      21 October 2024 at 10:40 am

      The Reign of Terror isn't something that I'd actually look forward to recreating. Not to mention two decades of dictatorship and wars of aggression under Napoleon (who promoted himself to Emperor)

      Clearly, your mileage varies.

      Most of the people who died during the Revolution weren't aristocrats, or even wealthy bourgeoisie – they were ordinary men and women caught up in the fundamental destruction of their society.

      https://theconversation.com/the-french-revolution-executed-royals-and-nobles-yes-but-most-people-killed-were-commoners-200455

      As is always the case. Ordinary people suffer a heck of a lot more during revolutions than elites (most of whom have the opportunity to just leave)

      Was France better of in the 19th century because of the Revolution – difficult to argue 'might have beens' but it doesn't seem likely. The 19th century French standard of living wasn't noticeably better than the rest of Europe (including those bits of Europe which retained their monarchies).

      • Kay 4.1.1
        21 October 2024 at 11:12 am

        Yes, it is always the plebs that suffer the most with these things. And we wouldn't fare off any better in a modern-day revolution. On the contrary, it's probably even more difficult to get a revolution/uprising going in the first place.

        The system has made it impossible for lower waged and unemployed to protest, even signing some types of petitions or make public comments online, such is the ability for people to lose their precarious employment, create problems with gaining employment and accommodation or face repercussions by the welfare system. Illegal or not, it's been made pretty clear in a subtle way that these things can happen.

        In other words, it's safer on an individual level to keep one's head down (note how, even the art of protest has moved from being the collective to the individual). Personally, I rarely sign petitions when RWs are in power.

  5. Macro 5
    21 October 2024 at 10:06 am

    Country's Buggered! No Offence.

  6. Tiger Mountain 6
    21 October 2024 at 10:14 am

    There will never be a grovelling apology from NZ Labour for Douglas’ crimes against the working class. Including the sell off to international capital and finance capital, of the fruits of the intellectual and physical labour of generations of New Zealanders–power gen. & supply, Telco, Forestry, Coastal shipping, Rail, AirNZ, State Sector Act, Reserve Bank Act etc., it was a comprehensive rape and pillage on behalf of the parasite class.
    IMF, OECD and World Bank long ago admitted “trickle down” was not a happening thing, quite the contrary.

    But…there could indeed be some recompense made with legislation rolling back the neo liberal state, PPPs, SOEs and wiping restrictive debt to GDP ratios.

    • Tony Veitch 6.1
      21 October 2024 at 11:13 am

      yes

    • Bearded Git 6.2
      21 October 2024 at 1:23 pm

      Agree Tiger, and as the post says, it's "the Left's job to change history."

      Only this time we need a history changing radical agenda that undoes many of what you term "Douglas's crimes".

      These crimes resulted in the top 2% becoming massively richer; because of this a Wealth Tax is the first obvious tool that comes to my mind as part of this radical agenda.

  7. Darien Fenton 7
    21 October 2024 at 2:09 pm

    This is a superb post Nigel. It is disappointing to see some comments here still going on about Rogernomics and having a go at Barbara Edmonds. FFS that was 40 years ago! Barbara would have been around maybe 3 years old. Maybe people don’t see what is going around them in the rest of the world, like the takeover by Oligarchs in the US election? Elon Musk after all – who needs $200 billion in wealth except he thinks he can buy an election. Or the rise of the Oligarchs in Russia? There are huge questions about our little country, our world and our planet. I welcome open discussion and thinking. I will be defensive of Labour, because that is my upbringing, the politics I grew up with and took into the union movement and into parliament and day by day we see the alternative with this awful government, but I will not be afraid to criticise. We have a huge mission ahead of us.

    • Nigel Haworth 7.1
      21 October 2024 at 2:40 pm

      I will admit that Roger Douglas and his times never crossed my mind as I wrote this. He’s not someone to whom I would even hint. I was trying to point the debate forward to new conditions and responses that at least delayed the French solution. So some of comments, well intentioned, I’m sure, went in an unexpected direction. The delight of debate!

      And I sincerely believe that it will be Labour at the front of the necessary changes. DNA.

      • Mountain Tui 7.1.1
        22 October 2024 at 10:57 am

        One thing I have learned writing is sometimes conversations can veer off – but the key messages you portray are always there.

        Thanks for the writing here.

    • Nigel Haworth 7.2
      21 October 2024 at 3:01 pm

      I’ll admit to being surprised about the direction taken by some comments – I thought I was signalling a need to look forward, but I guess for some I missed the mark. Anyway, debate is good and I must write more clearly.

      My Labour DNA tells me that the way forward lies with Labour, once again doing hard yards and taking people with them. We are at one on this !

      • Incognito 7.2.1
        21 October 2024 at 6:33 pm

        It occurs to me that conservatives tend to look backwards with fondness and that progressives look backwards with anger. In both cases though the past is mostly a mirage of assumptions and ignorance held tightly together by bias and wishful thinking. In other words, people who cling to the past cannot move forward.

      • weka 7.2.2
        21 October 2024 at 7:26 pm

        Nigel, a couple of your comments got caught in the spam filter because you're not logged in but are using the same email address as your author login. I've changed your not-logged in email, so on the same device it should just go straight through from now on. If you use a new device, just use the same second email address (it doesn't have to be real) if you are not logged in. Please let us know if that doesn't make sense. cheers.

    • PsyclingLeft.Always 7.3
      21 October 2024 at 4:21 pm

      Darien…I quoted her as in the link. Is that not what she said? Some of us had suffered quite a lot in those 40 years. So what if she was 3 years old. Maybe she should read up on history..so she knows where Labour went..and where it should be going.

      Being defensive of Labour is allgood. I have been the same. Back in the day, because of that same rogernomics , I quit Labour. Voted and supported the Alliance. TBH I am finding now….I really need to see Left Leadership. And Left Direction.

      I have options.

      • Karolyn_IS 7.3.1
        21 October 2024 at 6:09 pm

        The link quoted Edmonds correctly with the first sentence you quoted:

        "I'm not saying everything that he did was good, but I'm saying that it is part of our Labour history, and we need to look forward from there."

        but failed, IMO, to show the full context. It is RNZ's statement as follows that I had a problem with, and it is not a quote from Edmonds:

        A self-described pragmatist, Edmonds also defended the economic reforms of Sir Roger Douglas, acknowledging there may be members of Labour today who "will frown upon" her for doing so.

        Under the Labour government in the 1980s, "Rogernomics" removed government controls on prices, privatised government-owned companies and floated the New Zealand dollar on the world market.

        Espiner asks about Roger Douglas at just after 7 mins into the YT video.

        This came after Edmonds talks about her background in the 80s, in a family that had come from Samoa for a better life. At one point they had over 20 people living in their home. It was a very difficult time for them. She had an uncle who worked in a factory and was deported back to Samao under Muldoon's regime. She says they came out of that time to better circumstances as a result of some Labour policies.

        IMO, Edmonds was not really making a major defence of Roger's reforms, but just pointed to one aspect that had a bit of a positive outcome. She says capitalists say it was a time of major structural reforms as a result of specific challenges at the time. She says that Labour sees the challenges now coming down the pipeline mean that another major structural reform is required. She does not elaborate on what sort of structural reform they are looking at.

        She says:

        I think the main thing that I acknowledge about Roger Douglas is that there's no point, ah, sort of, being shameful of our past. It happened. The major thing for us as a Labour Party is understand that that did happen and looking forward. But you can't dismiss that it happened.

        There have been some good things that have happened as a result of that, with the result of our dollar being floated to help our export market, which then creates jobs and that's, fundamentally that is a Labour value around work and jobs. Whether I am saying that there are members of the party that will look, will frown upon me – I'm not saying that everything he did was good, but that is part of our Labour history and we need to look forward from there.

        Then she says tax, productivity growth and job growth are part of what they need to be dealing with in looking at structural reform

        In the post, Haworth says that capitalists need to be brought into the mix, particularly differentiating financial businesses and productive ones. Edmonds says she is currently listening to business leaders. Towards the end of the video, she says there are some things that might be helpful, eg the positive sides of the regional development fund. She's been asking owners of relatively new businesses, and those of more established businesses, about what helped them to get over the crucial, make or break, 3rd year of business. Some say the R & D tax credit has helped them: eg goldsmiths who were helped to developed new technology that now they're taking to the international market.

        The vid ends with Edmonds getting a bit emotionally choked up talking about wanting to provide opportunities for underprivileged children to develop.

        I don't know what sort of politician she will be. However, I do think she's a change from the current Labour MPs who have been locked into incrementalism and who have been targeting the vote of the liberal middle classes, at the expense of those on low incomes.

        She also comes from a more working class background than many or most of them. While Ardern and Robertson were very good at anti-poverty rhetoric, they did not seem to have the first hand knowledge of the struggles of low income people that Edmonds has, which seems to have had a deep impact on her.

        • PsyclingLeft.Always 7.3.1.1
          21 October 2024 at 6:21 pm

          Hmm. Barbara Edmonds is Labours Finance spokesperson.In your opinion..(and you seem to vary) her background, quoted out of context etc etc… doesnt change that fact.

          Was/Is she really that unaware..or naive about Roger Douglas and what happened to NZ?

          As I say..it does NOT give me any confidence.

          I will leave you to your opinion. I have mine.

    • Tiger Mountain 7.4
      21 October 2024 at 4:22 pm

      Yes Darien, 40 years back but it haunts and impacts still. Rodger the Dodger oversaw the creation of a generational underclass in this country via the mass sackings of the time. People discarded from manufacturing and other jobs and never retrained seriously as might happen in Scandinavia.

      The key feature is the Reserve Bank Act and State Sector Act etc. have rolled over each election ever since-baked in. Greens and TPM get it if you read their policies-so it is up to NZ Labour to get in step and finally retire Rogernomics. And I use that old term because it is an ideology that is past use by in this era of climate disaster.

      • Darien Fenton 7.4.1
        22 October 2024 at 6:33 am

        Thx Tiger. I know. I was there. We were refugees from the Marsden Point lockouts, I will write about that some day because I have the inquiry docs into that. I remember saying if Jim Bolger becomes the Minister of Labour, we will leave. We did, but we were appalled by what was going on back home when Labour was elected. I came home determined to reclaim our party. But the seminal kick in the guts for the Labour movement was the ECA and Ruth Richardson's mother of all budgets. That was the killer blow for the union movement, and at least the Lange government never went there. The challenge now is to make the debate relevant to those who weren't even born back then.

    • Mike the Lefty 7.5
      22 October 2024 at 7:16 am

      The fact that it happened 40 years ago doesn't change the fact that it irrevocably changed NZ from a society where equality was at least aspired to to a society of survival of the fittest. If Labour can't admit that then they are not Labour and should change their name.

    • Brenda Pilott 7.6
      22 October 2024 at 2:41 pm

      Well said Darien and I also thought it was a constructive and thoughtful post from Nigel. I'm so over people going on about Roger Douglas and the problems of that period. Nor am I interested in an apology from Labour, as one contributor to this thread demanded. Pointless and performative and we have too much of that nowadays. There are huge questions for the Labour Party right now and its past time for a reset of its policy framework. Myself, I am glad to see debate that focuses on class and economic fairness and want more of that from Labour.

  8. feijoa 8
    21 October 2024 at 2:48 pm

    Is it time the Labour Party was honest, and split in two?

    We have MMP now, after all, the old 2 party model of Labour and National is gone.

  9. John Chapman 9
    21 October 2024 at 5:02 pm

    The problem for Labour is straightforward in its simplicity lose the politics of identity and culture wars and focus on the economy of inequality that is developing now that you have given birth to the coalition of chaos with your Foucaltian pretentions. Look at the US. Identity and culture are almost certainly going to give us Trump. Here we have NACT and NZ First. What the f**k were you thinking?

    • Dolomedes III 9.1
      21 October 2024 at 7:54 pm

      I couldn't agree more. Stop the war on the "white heteronormative patriarchy", go away and spend some time in the wilderness, and come back with a genuine national-building project, and practical measures to improve the lives of ordinary people.

      • koina 9.1.1
        21 October 2024 at 8:47 pm

        I notice those who support the White hetero normative Patriarchy are

        99% White hetero normative Patriarchs wanting to keep their 5000 year

        dominant bullying hetero malecentric position.

        The fact they are crying because they have had to give up 3% of their

        privilege shows how selfish greedy and entitled they really are.

        I suggest all White hetero normative Patriarchs go away and never come back.

        The world will be a much better place without you.

      • Drowsy M. Kram 9.1.2
        22 October 2024 at 10:40 am

        Stop the war on the "white heteronormative patriarchy"…

        laugh I feel (for?) you, but it’s easier said than done, especially as they keep making themselves such targets – ‘the patriarchy’ is self-serving, and not very self-aware.

        I am writing to formally lodge a complaint regarding the unacceptable behaviour I experienced at the hands of Andrew Bayley during his ministerial visit…
        https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1g6x30u/heres_the_complaint_letter_against_commerce/

        Donald Trump isn't just playing dumb, but what's Andrew Bayley's excuse?

        "Don't you know who I am? I'm an important politician."

        https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/apr/23/john-key-new-zealand-hair-pulling-video

        They indeed frequently refer to a so-called golden age of the 1950s, a period also cherished by Trump. If the 1950s were characterized by a strong economic prosperity and an American hegemony over the world, they were also marked by racial segregation and sexist and homophobic discrimination. It is thus the nostalgia of an uncontested male domination and of an unequal sexual order between the men and women that is expressed.

        From a golden age (the 1950s) to even simpler times:

        Meanwhile, attacking Māori is as old as European settlement. Here is James Richmond, a future member of parliament, writing in 1851. He looked forward to the day, he said, “when the preposterous Treaty of Waitangi will be overruled” and the “ridiculous claims of the natives to thousands of acres of untrodden bush and fern will no longer be able to damp[en] the ardour and cramp the energies of the industrious white man”.

        Well, that's another nice mess Richmond and his ilk have gotten us into.

    • Ad 9.2
      21 October 2024 at 9:34 pm

      The entire left consists of minorities. The left simply doesn't exist without them and neither does any alternative government.

      So suck it up.

  10. Maurice 10
    21 October 2024 at 5:45 pm

    The politics of identity and culture wars were lost by Labour/The Left because KINDNESS …. the Right are simply prepared to be nastier and destroy those and that which are outside their tent. Niceness does not combat that.

    The last Labour Govt invested so much in (fake?) kindness that it will struggle to divest itself of the remnants.

  11. Ad 11
    21 October 2024 at 8:58 pm

    Thanks for trying to inspire, but I'm too depressed by Labour and Greens failing to hit open targets in most Ministries, Ministers, and deep social and economic deficits.

    I'm going to stay hunkered down until political leadership turns up.

    Way too brutal to do otherwise.

  12. Champagne Socialist 12
    21 October 2024 at 10:50 pm

    Democracy – voters chose this government and it's nasty anti Maori, anti public sector rhetoric. NZers – of their own free will – elected a government that stated in advance that it was going to slash public services and remove unemployment as a mandated consideration of the reserve bank. As unemployment rises sharply towards 6% and the NZ economy drifts in and out of recession the current government remains very popular – in fact possibly more popular than when it was elected last year.

    The right are masters of the political dark arts – a tanking economy and austerity can be easily obscured by an artificially generated culture war over Maori rights and progress.

    For all Luxons re-assurances I expect the Treaty principles bill to be the foundational platform on which the government divides the electorate over the next 2 years and campaigns in 2026.

    The opposition parties are not setting the agenda and are completely sidelined – hapless bystanders. How do the opposition parties appeal to voters who are very happy with what is happening in NZ right now and are comfortable with the backward trajectory the country is taking – socially and economically?

    If you want some idea of what could happen to the NZ Labour Party look at the current UK Labour Party. A horrifying prospect for those of us on the left.

  13. Jack Vowles 13
    22 October 2024 at 9:20 am

    The 'new relativism in truth' comes as much from the left as the right.

    • Nigel Haworth 13.1
      22 October 2024 at 10:09 am

      Indeed it does. I’ve long thought that post-modern relativism is the response of Foucault et al to Althusser et al and their stultifying structuralism. The Left has, to an extent, lost its “realist” roots, in part because of an unwillingness to accept the political consequences of a realist understanding.

      • Dennis Frank 13.1.1
        22 October 2024 at 10:44 am

        Any focus on truth makes the user susceptible to being sucked into the ancient paradox. No progress has been made on this front since the issue emerged 26 centuries back:

        Epimenides was a Cretan who made the immortal statement: "All Cretans are liars." A paradox of self-reference arises when one considers whether it is possible for Epimenides to have spoken the truth.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox

        That could be due to the problem being hard-wired into the human condition, huh? Makes recent trends touting a `post-truth' era seem pretentious. If truth has value other than utilitarian incantation (make it up as you go along to suit your situation) it would derive from a collective sense of the commons.

        The left did use that notion well in the distant past. Problem is, capitalism hollowed out the US middle class in the gfc, and that failure of the neoliberal model was a teachable moment for the left – which they still refuse to learn from. Seems to me realism requires a surge into such learning. Better late than never.

  14. Stuart Nash 14
    22 October 2024 at 11:57 am

    This article epitomises the problem with the (centre) left: an interesting and worthy post, but written in a way that screams intellectual superiority and, therefore, will never be circulated or read by the majority of politically active people.

    Nigel – your message could have been written using a third of the words and in a way that might have had the chance of resonating with those who attend monthly Labour LEC meetings. This won't be. Labour, once again, regressing to the party of the liberal intellectual elite. NOT at all where it needs to be!

  15. Michael who failed Civics 15
    22 October 2024 at 12:42 pm

    Wasn't Haworth President of the Labour Party when it was dominated by public sector union bosses and did nothing but build bureaucratic empires in central Wellington (and was duly rewarded by an electorate there who voted for a Greens MP)?

    [lprent: Aren’t you a right little dimwit.

    Party presidents for all parties in NZ have nothing much to do with the operation of government. They are presidents of their respective parties, not of the republic or parliament, as it appears that you seem to think. At best they can can advise their MPs in parliament, they cannot command.

    However I find this attack on an author to be egregiously stupid. So I will respond in kind.

    So you now have a new handle. On this site henceforth and in the past, you will change from being ‘Michael’ to ‘Michael who failed Civics’. I’ll reverse it back if you can prove to me that you understand how our civics work – or at least have made an attempt to find out. My email is in the Contact page.

    Attacking authors personally and is a extremely risky move. Inventing some stupid lie as justification demands a excessive response. ]

    If Labour is serious about adopting a policy platform fit for the needs of the mid-21st century (and I don't believe it is), it could start by looking at Thomas Piketty, "Capital and Ideology" (2019, Belknap Press). In particular, Chapter 17, "Elements for a Participatory Socialism for the Twenty-First Century", where Piketty makes a host of recommendations, inlcuding progressive taxation of wealth, not just income.

    Piketty adds more urgency to his recommendations in his latest, much shorter, book: "Nature, Culture and Inequality: A Comparative and Historical Perspective" (2024, Other Press), where he writes: "[T]here can be no resolution to the global warming crisis, no possible reconcilitation between man and nature, without a drastic reduction in inequality and without a new economic system that is radically different from the current capitalist one".

    Of course, Piketty is not an oracle and he's not the only person thinking along these lines. But it seems that the Labour Party has no appetite for new ideas (its failure to implement any of the recommendations from its Future of Work conference in 2016, or those of Welfare Expert Advisory Group in 2019, are cases in point). As long as Labour remains committed to neoliberalism and centralised bureaucracy, it has nothing relevant to offer the people of Aotearoa.

    [Despite recent warnings not to attack Authors you decided to start your comment with an attack on the same Author. This time, however, there was some substance to the rest of your comment. You also seem to think that you can continue trolling with impunity (e.g. https://thestandard.org.nz/wheres-the-opposition/#comment-2014132). Take three weeks off; next ban will be much longer if not permanent – Incognito]