Key in for the long term?

Written By: - Date published: 10:33 pm, November 22nd, 2014 - 38 comments
Categories: blogs, brand key, David Farrar, election 2014, election 2017, john key, labour, national - Tags:

John Key’s election as chair of the International Democratic Union, decided at its Leaders’ meeting in Seoul this week, is a significant event, not just a compliment. Key succeeds John Howard, who has led this organisation of 80 right-wing parties for the past 12 years. Key’s acceptance signals that like Howard he sees his future career in global politics, and also like four-time winner Howard Key plans a long career as Prime Minister of New Zealand.

The International Democratic Union is a much more effective organisation than its left equivalent, the Socialist International. While the Socialists focus on passing high-flown resolutions the IDU shares up-to-date campaign ideas, and the difference shows up in the results across the English-speaking world. Key’s electoral success has made him the darling  of the IDU – Daniel Hannan an English Conservative MP who came to the IDU meeting in New Zealand in 2012 described him as his “new Anglosphere hero.”

Hopefully this news will provide an additional wake-up call, if any were needed, for the Labour Party’s review of its election organisation and party structure. Labour has tended to benchmark itself against its own mythology – turning out the missing millions – rather than its opposition. National and other parties of the right do not make that mistake – while a crucial innovation for Labour in 2005 increased turnout then,  in the last election it likely all went to National.

In their polling, communications, opposition research and discipline the IDU parties are well ahead – much better resourced and much more effective. And the international connections are close, at the leader level and elsewhere.  The IDU’s Treasurer is billionaire Lord Ashcroft, now a polling guru and blog and part-owner of the ConservativeHome blog. He flew out in his private jet to see Key before the 2008 and 2011 elections and is well known to David Farrar, Key’s regular and frequent pollster. Mark Textor is still advising National on communication strategy, and his partner Lynton Crosby is managing David Cameron’s campaign in the upcoming UK election.

Labour has quite a mountain to climb to regain government. Steven Joyce’s review after National’s disastrous defeat in 2002 focussed their organisation and almost pulled off a win in 2005. While Labour’s attention has been on  its leadership contest, the upcoming review is absolutely critical if we are to have any chance of winning in 2017.

The Chinese strategist Sun Tzu has a saying:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

I agree with those who say it is time for an honest debate in the Labour Party about ourselves – and if we’re to beat them it would also be wise to get to know John Key and the National organisation much better than we do. They’re not mugs.

 

 

38 comments on “Key in for the long term? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Clemgeopin 1
    22 November 2014 at 10:46 pm

    Excellent post.

    This International Democrat Union is an international union of right wing capitalist cabal, working to usher in a greedy, selfish, pro-capitalist, pro-wealthy, pro-corporate culture by coordinating policies and powerful governments around the world, entrenching the ordinary people and the poor to be their ever silently suffering slave workers for their own unlimited uncontrolled monetary gains. People with conscience, care, intelligence and common sense should reject the machinations of these RW parties that work directly and indirectly for the callous capitalist cunning crooks of this world. That Key has now been selected/elected as their chairman is not something to be proud of, but something to be afraid of.

    • Kevin 1.1
      23 November 2014 at 12:04 pm

      Good on ya John! Further confirmation of your already wide acceptance as a true international statesman. No Little achievement…

    • johnm 1.2
      24 November 2014 at 11:11 am

      Hi Chemgeopin
      100% right. You took the words out of my mouth. One of the IDU’s admired figures is Thatcher who started the whole privatisation train wreck in the UK. Also the Republicans are members. I wouldn’t be surprised if this organisation is a cover for the U$ in its soft propaganda efforts and is primarily funded by them. Most of the EU states are slavish vassals of the U$ who parrot what Washington says and does.

  2. Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 2
    22 November 2014 at 11:00 pm

    International Democratic Union

    gawd … unbelievable.

    where is the demos in the democratic?

    and union? of what? union of tories and corporatists?

    that grouping is like an international roundtable of conmen (they are usually men), rabid rwnjs and tories.

    • aaron 2.1
      23 November 2014 at 4:54 pm

      Knowing that the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers actually represents rich people who don’t pay tax and also that the Taxpayers Union is the exact opposite of it’s name, I just laughed when I read that John Key had become chair of the international Democratic Union (somewhat mirthlessly I’ll admit).

      The only surprise is that the word ‘International’ is actually used according to it’s dictionary definition.

  3. dave brown 3
    23 November 2014 at 12:28 am

    There was once the BRT
    and the Maxim Institute
    Now the true blue IDU
    we’ll give then all the boot

    History is on our side
    the bosses time has come
    boot them in the backside
    cause its time we workers won.

    We have our labour unions
    we have our general strikes
    and come the revolution
    we’ll have our bloody pikes

  4. bornleft 4
    23 November 2014 at 1:45 am

    Yep, absolutely right. Key is not going anywhere. Howard is his mentor, and he wants to exceed his term. This is not beach cricket, which is why Little is the right leader for today

    • srylands 4.1
      23 November 2014 at 4:11 pm

      “Howard is his mentor”

      Do you have any evidence to support such a claim? It seems extremely unlikely. They have different styles, beliefs, and their Governments have run very different economic and social policies.

      I would be surprised if Key had met Howard on more than 10 occasions. All of them brief.

      So what evidence do you have that he is a mentor?

      It is this making shit up habit and chasing shadows that leads the Left in NZ up the garden path. You have this belief system about Key that is founded on false premises – this is just the latest one. “Howard was a mentor”. There is nothing I have seen in public or read in Key’s biography or anything that Howard has said that gives this any credence.

      • Weepus beard 4.1.1
        23 November 2014 at 4:15 pm

        Again, evidence required by Srylands in triplicate when it’s a criticism, or even a comment, on the current govt, but no such detail is required when women are harassed at work by National party appointees such as dodgy Rodger Sutton.

  5. Ad 5
    23 November 2014 at 7:29 am

    Fully agree Mike and well said.

    It’s pretty easy to feel defeated by history and project our current state forward into inevitability.

    I mean, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, there have been multiple crises for the left in which there have been few victories, many compromises, (e.g. Blair administration), and a whole bunch of over-hyped false starts (e.g. Russian democracy, Occupy, Arab Spring).

    But we don’t have to start tabula rasa.

    Just to confine ourselves to New Zealand, the most effective Labour governments have been those who were not radical, but were principled, and did set out clearly to the public what they were going to deliver, and delivered it.

    We do need to accept that being or appearing radical gets us nowhere. Like many overeducated lefties, I have far too many radical paradigms revolving in constellations around my mind. We are consigned to being reformers, because that is the entire space we are now allowed.

    But we must be principled, and concrete. Maybe the “Pledge Card” won’t work again, but it sure did last time we won. It was clear, it held the government to account like a contract, and it became a report card on delivery.

    The media’s corrosion and distortion, and the Right’s attacks, can be defeated if we re-form that vital political contract with the citizen public.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.1
      23 November 2014 at 12:15 pm

      Just to confine ourselves to New Zealand, the most effective Labour governments have been those who were not radical, but were principled, and did set out clearly to the public what they were going to deliver, and delivered it.

      What a load of bollocks.

      The most effective Labour government was the First Labour Government that changed the entire system from one of greed and rewards for the rich to one that almost worked for everyone. That one was most definitely radical.

      Then there was the 4th Labour government that changed the system again. It may not have lasted as long as the 1st or the fifth but nobody’s changed the system back.

      I agree that the Left should set out what they want to achieve and how and stick to that but that doesn’t exclude radical change because without radical change we won’t actually change the system as it needs to be.

      • Ad 5.1.1
        23 November 2014 at 1:48 pm

        I just didn’t think of the Savage government as radical, in its historical context of the left parties being installed throughout Britain, France, Italy etc.
        Each to their own.

        I don’t think there’s much room for manaoeuvre for the left in terms of installing radical change. And by that I mean, for example doing away with student loans, or eradicating GST, or nationalizing Wingnut Films or similar.

        The combination of MMP, the overpowered Right, and the disposition of the mainstream media don’t make that possible for the left. Maybe for the right, but not us. Plus, projecting utopias can be exhausting and dispiriting.

        Already, we see Little settling into a media honeymoon because he appears more compromised and grounded from the beginning, compared against Cunliffe who allowed himself to have all kinds of unrealized expectations projected onto him, with destructive results.

      • DS 5.1.2
        24 November 2014 at 6:03 am

        The First Labour Government was not radical. Savage, Fraser, and Nash represented the moderate faction of the party, and made a point of shooting down anything they thought would frighten the horses (I’m not just talking John A. Lee either – Lee’s problem was his personality, not his ideas, which attracted a fair amount of caucus support).

        The most radical Government we have ever had in this country was the 1890 Liberals. Their forcible break-up of the large estates was simply breathtaking in its audacity.

        • RedLogix 5.1.2.1
          24 November 2014 at 6:45 am

          Very much so DS.

          I argue that prior to Massey’s war government – New Zealand was a generally much more liberal place than the drab Victorian/Edwardian image we have of it. In particular there was a lively intellectual, arts and literature presence in the public domain.

          But when it showed signs of resisting Massey’s crude jingoism and propaganda – needed to fulfil his side of the ‘troops for butter’ deal he had made with Britain – it was suppressed ruthlessly. Could be thought of as the roots of the rather fat and nasty anti-intellectual streak so obvious in New Zealand life.

          @Ad Two very fine and thought provoking comments. Thanks.

  6. Marksman33 6
    23 November 2014 at 7:29 am

    Excellent Dave.

  7. felix 7
    23 November 2014 at 9:06 am

    Well you know what they say about any organisation that has to insert “democratic” into its name.

  8. sabine 8
    23 November 2014 at 9:16 am

    I have been saying it for a while that we need to change how we speak about dear Leader.

    He is not

    stupid
    naive
    ignorant
    not knowing
    forgetful
    etc etc etc

    anyone who believes in that myth is buying his bumbling likeable middle management type, and frankly anyone who believes that one who makes million in the currency trade by being a bumbling likeable middle management guy is dreaming. Dear Leaders nick name is smiling assassin, one does not get a name like that because they have great bbq.

    We should use, indifferent to poverty, callous in regards to the poor, the downtrodden and the hungry, self serving, cruel, cheap and easy to buy (does not cost much to get his services served says the chinese dear leader ) etc. etc. etc.

    and above all, it is time that Labour stops having an issue with being Labour. And those within the Labour Party that are unhappy about Mr. Little, about Humpty Dumpty and the seven dwarfs should maybe ask themselves if they are in the correct party.

    Unity and solidarity, and a Mr. Little who is not afraid to laugh the joker out of town.

    • travellerev 8.1
      23 November 2014 at 11:19 am

      He was the guy Merrill Lynch sent in to convince difficult clients to buy their crappy financial products. He put on his best middle management Kiwi lisp and sold them whatever he wanted because he was so good at playing the bumbling idjit from down under. NZ mums and Pops didn’t stand a chance!

      • srylands 8.1.1
        23 November 2014 at 4:04 pm

        “He put on his best middle management Kiwi lisp and sold them whatever he wanted because he was so good at playing the bumbling idjit from down under. ”

        What evidence do you have to support that? In fact what evidence do you have that Key was responsible for selling any financial products? He was not in ML’s retail division. Or are you just making it up?

        • Weepus beard 8.1.1.1
          23 November 2014 at 4:10 pm

          Funny how evidence is required by right wingers here but in the case of, say, Sutton’s trivialising of sexual harassment, implication is all that is required.

          Two different standards.

  9. Marty 9
    23 November 2014 at 9:29 am

    Excellent post Mike. Unfortunately, I think the finer points are lost on some.

  10. RedLogix 10
    23 November 2014 at 9:51 am

    In their polling, communications, opposition research and discipline the IDU parties are well ahead – much better resourced and much more effective. And the international connections are close, at the leader level and elsewhere.

    Read this over and over.

    1. The disparity in resources is well beyond a joke. Especially their very well paid propaganda units.

    2. The right has not hesitated to globalise those resources and reserve that space for themselves. Imagine the uproar if Helen Clark had been elected Chair of say the Socialist International – while still Prime Minister. (Or something similar – my example is probably flawed.)

    While the Greens are connected globally (to what degree I’m not familiar) – overall the Left in New Zealand seems trapped in a local ghetto of it’s own making with little money and somewhat in need of having it’s intellectual gene pool stirred up a little.

    But otherwise a timely and excellent post – and a lot of agreement with the comments so far.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1
      23 November 2014 at 12:25 pm

      While the Greens are connected globally (to what degree I’m not familiar) – overall the Left in New Zealand seems trapped in a local ghetto of it’s own making with little money and somewhat in need of having it’s intellectual gene pool stirred up a little.

      Perhaps the Left parties in NZ need a Union of Democratic Parties where they can discuss strategy and policies.

      And the only reason why the Left parties don’t have any money is because they keep telling people that they can get change without spending any. All of them need to start charging reasonable membership fees and then we’d be able to fund the things that we need to do.

      • Ad 10.1.1
        23 November 2014 at 1:50 pm

        Membership-based political parties are no longer the answer.

        The most viable dialogue for a strong Left is the one you are writing in right now. That may not be sufficient on the medium term, but it’s a necessary part.

        • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1.1
          23 November 2014 at 10:52 pm

          It comes down to that socialisation that I mentioned a couple of days ago. This forum is great for some but I suspect most others still prefer face to face.

          And then there’s the money. People are going to need to pay over a regular amount to ensure that there’s enough money to do anything with and they’re going to want to have a say in how that money is spent.

          And all of that means the rise of the mass party again.

      • aaron 10.1.2
        23 November 2014 at 4:59 pm

        In keeping with true doublespeak, wouldn’t that be a Corporation of Democratic Parties?

  11. travellerev 11
    23 November 2014 at 10:41 am

    I’m not surprised. Scum always floats to the top and he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he had made it to the top by hoodwinking the NZ populace that scum politics is the way to go!

  13. RedBaronCV 13
    23 November 2014 at 11:39 am

    We certainly need to reform political party funding to prevent the buy up of parties by offshore interests and strip parties of previous ill gotten gains.
    In the meantime if you have a little of the folding stuff give some to the left. $100 by
    10,000 of us is $1m. $10 by 100,000 is the same, $1 by 100,000 is $100,000. Every little bit counts

  14. ghostwhowalksnz 14
    23 November 2014 at 12:20 pm

    FIrst thing Little can do is negotiate with Greens over them getting out of running for electorate seats.

    They have no chance of winning one, and it holds back their ability to get above the 11-12% they are stuck at.
    The reason why Labour needs this is that they need more electorate MPs, they can build the party vote in their electorates

  15. cogito 15
    23 November 2014 at 2:53 pm

    “you will succumb in every battle”

    A case of Gee(we’ve been)Had by John.

  16. One Anonymous Bloke 16
    23 November 2014 at 6:15 pm

    Nice to see you citing Sun Tzu, Mike. Also see Lao Tzu – “Govern a nation as you would cook a delicate fish” – for some of the underlying precepts that inform Sun Tzu’s magnum opus.

  17. Tom Gould 17
    24 November 2014 at 10:02 am

    Wasn’t it Warren Buffett who said ‘there’s class warfare, alright, but it’s my class, the rich class, that is making war, and we’re winning’? So, unless the ‘left’ professionalise the fight and work out who the real enemy is, they will continue to win. Maybe it’s just not in their nature to unite behind a common cause for mutual benefit?

  18. EricColbert 18
    27 November 2014 at 3:45 pm

    Politics is never an easy topic to discuss about. There are many factors we can list down for everyone to debate on but there is always more disagreements than there is any mutual understanding. A similar situation can actually be seen everywhere we go like at our workplaces. Here at our self storage, we try our best to avoid any miscommunication amongst staff members but if there are indeed any misunderstandings, then we sought out the answer as soon as possible.

  19. Tracey 19
    27 November 2014 at 3:53 pm

    Would he keep this new position if he resigned or retired?