Has Labour become a cadre Party? Pt 1 Leadership

Written By: - Date published: 4:43 pm, November 2nd, 2023 - 18 comments
Categories: activism, campaigning, capital gains, chris hipkins, community democracy, democratic participation, election 2023, labour, leadership, Parliament, tax - Tags:

In 2021, I voted against Labour’s conference proposal for midstream leadership change to be determined by Caucus alone, saying that it risked Labour becoming a cadre party. A friend liked what I said, but thought few would understand what I meant. A series of posts will start with why I think the Caucus should not rush to a leadership vote.

The Encylcopedia Britannica defines cadre parties as

“Cadre parties—i.e., parties dominated by politically elite groups of activists ..with largely restricted suffrage.”

I’ll try to test the proposition in a series of posts under a number of headings, starting with the leadership, as it looks like there may be  a move to vote on the leader before conducting any Party review of a disastrous election loss.

The 2021 conference vote certainly restricted suffrage for the leadership vote. Moira Coatsworth when President had argued for and won a change to the Constitution to allow for a membership vote for Parliamentary party leadership.  It wasn’t one-person-one-vote (OPOV)  but had three houses, caucus 40%, members 40%, and unions 20%. That was the system used to elect Andrew Little in 2014, with the union’s 20% his hole card. A few unions put the proposition to their members, but most were decided by committee cadres. His preponderance in the union vote enabled him to squeak home narrowly ahead of Grant Robertson.

Surprisingly to me, Jacinda Ardern spoke in the 2021 debate, held on Zoom, stretching the truth by describing herself as ”just an ordinary member.” So I was totally unsurprised when she resigned as Prime Minister early in 2023. Nor would those close to her in the Caucus have been surprised. I don’t blame her; she had it tougher than most and responded extraordinarily well. I don’t think the resulting change to Chris Hipkins would have been any different in the absence of the amendment, as I doubt it would have been contested. But putting the amendment in 2021 spoke to lack of confidence then, and also explained the smooth transition in 2023. Not that it has worked out well.

There are strong indications that the depleted caucus cadre after the disastrous 2023 Labour vote want to move quickly to endorse Chris Hipkins. So Tova O’Brien reports:

ANALYSIS: Camp Chippy is feeling confidently chipper that their guy has the numbers to retain the leadership of the Labour Party and there’s a desire to call for a vote to cement Chris Hipkins’ dominance as soon as reasonably possible.

This will be in advance of any information provided by the Party’s review of the result. Chris Hipkins doesn’t seem to think that important, as he told Radio New Zealand’s Ingrid Hipkiss he has three years to develop new policies and when reminded said “Oh and there will be a review.” His concession speech sounded like one that should have been given in the campaign, and spoke of embarking on a “new and important task in opposition.” Opposition is only important in the parliamentary joustings, and of interest only to political tragics, MPs and the media. Kiwis want positive policies, not opposition.

Importantly, Hipkins’ speech offered no shred of accountability. A campaigner who promised to devote all his time to the campaign, and then dashed off to Papua New Guinea in the aborted hope of meeting Joe Biden, and to Vilnius to end up having to wait in the corridor to shake hands with Volodymyr Zelensky, seemed to be dancing to other agendas. The fact that he chose to announce no wealth tax ‘while I am leader’ from Vilnius rubbed salt in the wound and lost us votes.  The last thing we need now are fixed ideas, or cemented dominance.

After another disastrous Labour defeat in 1990, then President Ruth Dyson launched “Labour Listens.” It was the right idea then, and that is what Labour urgently needs to do now. An organisational review is also important: if 2023’s was the biggest door-knocking campaign in the party’s history, as Hipkins says, there can’t have been much listening relayed from the doorstep. There are tectonic shifts emerging in our politics just as in the world at large.

In my opinion, the Party caucus should not move to vote on the question of leadership continuation until after they have received the review report. There is much to consider, to deliberate on, and to debate.

The Party also needs to conduct its review transparently. We should all be involved in that debate. Present plans apparently are that the view of party members who respond to a questionnaire will be considered by a panel of as yet unknown persons, then reported to the Party Council but not made public.

More cadre behaviour.

18 comments on “Has Labour become a cadre Party? Pt 1 Leadership ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tiger Mountain 1
    2 November 2023 at 5:49 pm

    I have never been an NZ Labour member but nonetheless have had a bit to say about the party over many years. I was actually invited in the early 80s to join the Auckland “Industrial Branch” of the LP by some impressive unionists of the time–but resisted and kept on my involvement with a marxist party.

    Labour loyalists often don’t like outsiders commenting, tough I say if we are part of the working class movement, and the fact is NZ Labour has long had the power hierarchy upside down. Fraser House, the Parliamentary Wing (Caucus & MPs) lording it over the ordinary members. And…the “captains call” what the? it amounts to a veto over even the cabinet, Chippys call torpedoed David Parker and Robbo’s wealth tax proposal which would highly likely have won the election for Labour given the IRD report showing the inequity of the tax system.

    A review of the 2023 debacle prior to a leadership choice sounds a sensible measure.

  2. Mike the Lefty 2
    2 November 2023 at 7:34 pm

    I think it would also be relevant to ask what kind of party Labour was in the three preceding decades. In the 1980s it became what we now know as the ACT Party, not because everyone wanted it way but that those with vested interests were clever enough to hide their true intentions until they could take power over the branches and voting processes.

    And that's what led to Labour's most shameful era – Rogernomics.

    Labour might like to forget all about it or pretend it doesn't really matter any more but in reality we are still living with the fallout.

    So it seems to me that Labour was a cadre party a lot earlier than that.

    I look forward to the next part in the continuing story of a party that has gone to the dogs. (paraphrase the Muppet Show).

  3. mickysavage 3
    2 November 2023 at 8:20 pm

    Thanks Mike a good and brave post.

    In 2021 the good people of the New Lynn LEC put up an amendment to try and strengthen members' ability to have a say in who the leader was by tweaking the original proposal by increasing the threshold for the caucus veto to count.

    It was put up in good faith.

    I was amazed when Jacinda popped up first in the debate and spoke against it.

    My respect for her was diminished by this.

    The current mood amongst members is that there needs to be a deep review of what happened. Questions of who should be the leader should wait for that process to happen.

    MPs may choose otherwise but there will be a number of grumpy members if they do this.

    Out west good people threw themselves into the campaign. The result is not a judgment on them but a judgment on current leadership in the party.

    There needs to be a deep review. Then all of us, members, affiliates and MPs need to work out the future of our party.

    • Anne 3.1
      2 November 2023 at 9:08 pm

      A brief account of a conversation, in which I was a part, with a former senior Labour parliamentarian during the early 2000s: We were asking what kind of candidate does Labour prefer?

      The answer…" well, first of all you need to have a university degree or two."

      I had just rejoined the Labour Party after an absence of some 15 years and this was not the Labour Party I had previously known. Some specialist careers still required education and training not provided by the university curriculum at the time (which was certainly the case in my chosen area of work) and it also cut out those who had proven ability in other spheres of endeavour.

      It is a form of intellectual snobbery and I suspect a number of potentially very good MPs never made the grade due to this mindset within the party.

  4. Ad 4
    2 November 2023 at 9:28 pm

    Looking forward to the next post Mike.

    Unfortunately The Standard may be the only remaining place we will see open loyal thoughtful critique of Party and Leader performance.

    Ardern was a Guy Fawkes rocket; enjoyed and forgotten. The purest Cadre product.

    I was shocked Hipkins ruled out NZFirst when it remains an anti-neoliberal party.

    Also shocked he never bothered to court TPM. Lazy, senseless inability to form government from the start of the election shows zero statesman-brain.

    But not shocked at how hard Hipkins ratfucked his own team from Mahuta to Robertson to Little to Parker. Hipkins is a value-free vindictive asshole of the lowest order. Proved it for years.

    He and King were responsible for the rise of Ardern and between them have brought us to a mess as bad as 2014. We may actually never recover from him.

    Push Hipkins out fast before he fully destroys this party.

  5. Dennis Frank 5
    3 November 2023 at 3:05 am

    Marketing itself as an alternative National party has been a flawed strategy from the start. Why would anyone buy the sham when they can vote for the real thing?

    They always seem like a bunch of people who haven't got a clue about what's going on in the world surrounding them. They just think "The Nats are so awful the people will vote for us next time." Time proves them right, which entrenches their belief.

    Terminal vacuity. Hipkins exemplifies that airhead thing. The polls had seemed to show that his staunch campaigning attitude was producing a dead cat bounce for Labour but election night showed the bounce wasn't actually there!

    Unless the specials validate the bounce scenario then Labour will have to face the fact that their campaign didn't impress anyone apart from the percentage who voted for them. Undecided floaters didn't buy Labour's message that incremental trickle down is what they're in it for and that's better than all other options.

    A true political leader tells it like it is: realism acknowledges common ground. Then you build your aspirational plan on that ground. Neoliberalism is a recipe for increasing inequality because capitalism is designed to minimise the number of winners according to the 19th century social darwinist prescription. An economic system that maximises the number of winners is the sensible alternative to this chronic recipe for failure that Labour remain addicted to. Clever people don't keep on doing something that doesn't work – they learn from their mistakes. I don't believe Labour is capable of learning the lesson of the failure of neoliberalism. Their drug controls them totally. Thick as pigshit.

  6. Tricledrown 6
    3 November 2023 at 9:30 am

    Chippy is the best option going forward but he has to bring in competent loyal MPs and be brave with policy.

  7. Reality 7
    3 November 2023 at 10:54 am

    Some interesting observations from commenters. Rather contradictory in some cases. As in highly critical of Chris Hipkins as having been a Parliamentary employee for many years, so not worthy, likewise Jacinda. No criticism now though of some very young new MPs newly elected who fall into that category. With Jacinda suddenly resigning there were not many options to take over who were well enough known or who had enough personality.

    The scrapping and complaining by some commenters will not heal the party, or enhance the party in the public's eyes. Loyalty and working together to do things better could be an option, for a change! Time to forget about the rogernomics era. Half the population probably weren't born then.

  8. Corey 8
    3 November 2023 at 12:10 pm

    Yes it absolutely has and it's becoming worse and worse, don't you love how Ardern only used her political capital to kneecap the left?

    Whenever she went up in the polls, she would immediately rule out some sort of left wing policy or vision. Everytime.

    Then after 2020, she and her gang used her clout to to change the party rules to disempower the smelly membership, so that caucus would always be far more powerful than the grunts.

    The leadership election process was changed all so the Labour party would always be led by a third way robot who would always rule out any kind of wealth or capital gains tax.

    Labour is a party of academic robots shit scared of the people they are supposed to represent.

    Chris Hipkins should not be a leader long term as he has made too many captains calls ruling too many things out and during the rebuilding of Labour everything should be on the table.

    • That_guy 8.1
      5 November 2023 at 9:11 am

      I agree apart from the “long term” thing. “No wealth tax while I am leader” means chippy cannot be leader. That change will inevitably be a bit messy. Better to get the mess over and done with ASAP so Labour has at least two years to change course, clean out the dregs of Rogernomics and move forward as an actual left wing party.

  9. Steve Bradley 9
    3 November 2023 at 2:00 pm

    Some commentators are justifiably bitter about our defeat. But the measure of a potentially good team is how sustainably can it rebuild a cooperative winning culture. This takes time and cannot be rushed.

    We have seen the breakdown of Cabinet collective responsibility. [Captain's Calls may be needed in an emergency; but the recent calls just created an emergency.] We have also seen the reduction in membership democratic debate. We've ended up with a party in which 'Daddy (or Mummy) knows best' and the elders have 'beans in their ears'. The proof is in the pudding – a complete disaster. The way back requires the reverse.

    I've been working on a slim paper to help my thinking forward in our up-coming review in our Hub area. It's a rough cut designed to provoke thought and debate. Here goes. {It's easy to say, not so easy to do}

    Renew the inner Party's democratic mandate and refresh the hegemonic vision*

    Convene as many small membership meetings as possible between now and later in 2024

    Avoid the side-shows of constitutional reforms and concentrate on building a cooperative culture

    From all the possible issues concentrate on the top 3-5 policy headlines of general impact

    The building blocks for campaigning to be put in place – membership detail update.

    Regional party bodies to convene meetings with sympathetic community allies to talk mutual priorities

    Recognition that Opposition frees up time for campaigning on issues of importance to our people

    Reaching out to Greens, Te Pati Maori /, and others seeking common ground on issues

    Set up Councils of Experts (cf. W.E.A.G.) to help build public consensus on responses to gnarly issues

    Party to set up systems for management of political responses and the people who will deliver

    We have to fully know ourselves before we can change the system

    *Hegemonic Vision Elements

    Universal Social Security — jobs, houses, welfare, health care, education & training

    Universal Social Justice — domestic historical reconciliation and repair, world peace & justice

    Universal Infrastructure — repair, rebuilding, restoration future-proofing both built and natural

    Cheers

  10. That_guy 10
    5 November 2023 at 8:34 am

    For me it’s really simple.

    Resources must be devoted to the climate crisis and management of a just transition.

    Money is how we allocate resources and there is no time to develop an alternative way of allocating resources.

    Wealthy people have the money. That’s what that word means.

    Tax is how wealthy people like myself will allocate resources to the climate crisis at sufficient scale.

    Chippy has said “no wealth tax while I am leader”.

    Therefore he cannot be leader. I’ll consider voting for labour once he’s gone.

  11. John 11
    5 November 2023 at 9:05 am

    Chippy can remain as interim Leader but must be replaced soon.

    The conundrum is reply by who?