Nigel Haworth on Labour at the crossroads

42 comments on “Nigel Haworth on Labour at the crossroads ”

• Comments are now closed

1. weka 1

   8 November 2023 at 9:13 am

   thanks for this Nigel.

   Can someone please post the details of the internal review that is meant to be happening?
2. Dennis Frank 2

   8 November 2023 at 9:37 am

   three factors – the loss over decades of a focus on “real” transformation, the effects of fifty years of neo-liberalism. and the impact of Post-modernism, a philosophical view antithetical to collectivism and traditional Left politics

   Interesting triad you got there! I agree with the first element – cosmetic rather than real is usually the Labour way. The second requires a considered balance of pros & cons – the obvious con is the one that ramped up inequality so far!

   The third requires clarity of thought, intellect, and the ability to distill cultural trends into a relevant essence. I'm confident nobody in the Labour camp has that combination. However if any were to give it a try I would encourage their effort.
   • Drowsy M. Kram 2.1

     8 November 2023 at 10:24 am

     I'm confident nobody in the Labour camp has that combination.
     However if any were to give it a try I would encourage their effort.

     Your confidence is not encouraging – does anyone have that combination – Dennis?
     • Dennis Frank 2.1.1

       8 November 2023 at 10:37 am

       Nobody I'm aware of! Not to say that contenders will never show though. Relativism has a large downside, so any effort to elucidate how thinking gets warped by postmodernism must address those consequences.

       Truth, for instance, is usually evaluated relative to oneself, despite the evaluator ignoring truth value – which is relative to the user's operational context. Any assertion in political context will usually seem true to like-minded others. So the principle that applies is relativity to group of belonging.

       Truth value in a political group is the basis of consensus decision-making, so an activist proceeds by ascertaining & explaining that basis. Since many players in the political game succumb to delusion at some point, it helps everyone to specify the sub-groups likely to share the relevant truth value. Normally players don't!
3. Johnr 3

   8 November 2023 at 10:12 am

   Good post Nigel,

   The international Green movement is based on 4 philosophical pillars.

   1. Leave the world a better place for our decendents

   2. Ensure the people of this world can live in dignity.

   3. Practice true democracy to the lowest possible level

   4. Promote peace through non violence.

   NZ Greens appear to apply these principles, sure there are a few grey areas.

   I see no philosophical intent from labour or indeed any other party except maybe TPM.

   It seems to me that labour need to go further back in thought to establish philosophical principles before they tinker around with reviews and future plans.

   In other words, what do they stand for, what is the purpose of their existence.
4. Dennis Frank 4

   8 November 2023 at 10:24 am

   She's from a farming family, achieved high ranking during her parliamentary career (Chief Whip, etc) and points to Labour's use of focus groups being a problem:

   "It looks to me like a lot of the [Labour's campaign] decisions were driven by focus groups perhaps of swing voters"

   The fact that Labour did not stand on a capital gains tax or a social investment insurance scheme during the election may have been because a lot of their decisions were driven by focus groups of swing voters, Moroney said. "The issue with swing voters is they actually don't know what they stand for and if you start to develop your policies around their views and their thinking then you also as a party start to look like you don't know what you stand for."

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/501923/hipkins-doesn-t-believe-ruling-out-a-capital-gains-or-wealth-tax-lost-labour-the-election

   Seems a valid technical point but it does make those centrists seem clueless. She doesn't seem to realise that many swing voters vote strategically – or tactically in response to polling shifts. Usually to limit any distasteful option that snowballs.

   Use of such folks by Labour is sensible but the way they do it may not be. It's a kind of weather-vane effect, in which timing is key factor during a campaign. A different psychodynamic applies pre-campaign. Contraversial policy switches ought to be sussed out via focus groups in the first year of opposition, then tweaked via consensus with prospective coalition partners during the second year. Then finalised, and formally adopted prior to the summer of the following year – the best time to publicise them.
5. Ad 5

   8 November 2023 at 10:27 am

   Unless you're a total insider, Labour party internal renewal isn't going to be relevant for anything until 2029.

   Time to focus on the mini budget and the 100 day plan.
   • weka 5.1

     8 November 2023 at 11:08 am

     Unless you're a total insider, Labour party internal renewal isn't going to be relevant for anything until 2029.

     Why not? Plenty of people are discussing this who aren't total Labour party insiders, and we all thinks it's important and relevant.
6. Anne 6

   8 November 2023 at 10:38 am

   "Adrian" @ 13, 7 Nov. on Open Mike (yesterday ) made some interesting comments that I think are also pertinent to this post. Sorry, but I've forgotten how to link to previous comments.

   He offers the view:

   It would not surprise if in three years time ( or even quite likely, sooner ), that the barometer swings wildly back the other way. The electorate is becoming more skitterish, which is not surprising given the pandemic and the "deprivations" thereof,…..

   He points out: the British electorate dumped Churchill after "saving" them through 5 years of a most devastating war…..

   More importantly, he noted an enquiry was needed to:

   look at where the bloody money, huge money, illegal money, in a NZ context came from. Millions and millions of dollars mysteriously manifested from where ? China ?, through 3rd parties, we know National was deep in this under Bridges……

   The big mystery is where the vast amount of money for the Groundswell/ Freedom Fuckwits money came from to garner very few votes, it obviously didn't come from the 1% of the local deluded,…

   I, for one, would be very interested to find out where all the money came from. As "Deep Throat" told those intrepid journalists who brought down US President, Richard Nixon "Follow the Money".
7. newsense 7

   8 November 2023 at 12:29 pm

   Has anyone from Labour admitted that COVID interventions made inequality worse?
   • Louis 7.1

     8 November 2023 at 1:01 pm

     "COVID interventions" saved lives.

     New Zealand's restrictions during the pandemic saved the lives of about 20,000 people, according to new research.

     https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300983987/new-zealands-covid19-response-saved-20000-lives–research
     • Drowsy M. Kram 7.1.1

       8 November 2023 at 2:22 pm

       "COVID interventions" saved lives.

       Without border controls, lockdowns and vaccinations, more socioeconomically disadvantaged Kiwis would have been disproportionately 'affected', i.e. died.

       COVID-19 mortality and deprivation: pandemic, syndemic, and endemic health inequalities [November 2022]

       Which Curve Are We Flattening? The Disproportionate Impact of COVID-19 Among Economically Marginalized Communities in Ontario, Canada, Was Unchanged From Wild-Type to Omicron [23 December 2022]

       Waves of inequality: income differences in intensive care due to Covid-19 in Sweden [15 June 2023]

       Aotearoa NZ fared comparatively well, and every country can do better next time.

       Opinion
       The Worst Covid Strategy Was Not Picking One [15 March 2023]
       The lessons of the pandemic are clearer in a global comparison.

       New Zealand fared the best, teaching us that geographical advantages matter, but so does clear, consistent leadership.
       • Anne 7.1.1.1

         8 November 2023 at 4:00 pm

         Without border controls, lockdowns and vaccinations, more socioeconomically disadvantaged Kiwis would have been disproportionately 'affected', i.e. died.

         Precisely. Despite those vital interventions, Pacific Islanders and Maori were far more adversely affected than the rest of us. In other words, more of them died per capita than Pakeha.

         What those who criticise the Covid response are really saying is that Pacific Islanders and Maoris matter less than the rest of us.
   • Tom Hunter 7.2

     9 November 2023 at 3:10 pm

     @newsense.
     I think you will be pushing stuff uphill here on that one.

     Still, it seems you have support from two left-leaning authors, historian Toby Green and economist Thomas Fazi, have written a new book on the global response to the Covid pandemic, The Covid Consensus: The Global Assault on Democracy and the Poor? A Critique from the Left.

     How left-leaning? Well they rail against “authoritarian capitalism” in the same way that Thomas Piketty does. And so…

     There is no debate. The authors’ answer is unambiguous, and no reader of this book will die wondering what they think. The authors bring swathes of data and evidence to bear to argue that lockdowns were a public policy disaster of gargantuan proportions.

     They weaponised the police and flew in the face of data that was, in fact, available early on in the crisis. There was censorship, bans, shadow bans, fake and politicized “fact checking,” and the stifling of dissenting views, some directed at the most credentialed epidemiologists in the world. Not least among these were the three authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which argued for focused protection on the elderly and vulnerable and for leaving everyone else to get on with life and make his or her own choices; this was the gist of every pandemic plan before the start of 2020.

     Including our own MOH Flu Pandemic Plan, which Michael Baker – the same guy pushing the "we saved 20,000 lives argument" – is now keen on re-writing to enable lockdowns again in the future.

     Green and Fazi are hardly the only non-right folk to take a shot at the "success" of lockdowns. Here's none other than NYMagazine, with Lockdowns Were a Giant Experiment. It Was a Failure.

     But Green and Fazi especially emphasise the following:

     They show that the biggest losers of the lockdown response to Covid-19—to be clear, not of the virus itself but of the governmental response to it—were the young, the poor, and the non-laptop class of workers. The lockdowns and other governmental responses amounted to a massive transfer of wealth (not to mention life opportunities) from the young to the old. Likewise, these policies shifted money from the poor to the rich. The massive increase in the debt and incredible printing of money delivered big-time asset inflation which benefited (no surprises here) those with the most assets. The pandemic years were the best years ever for billionaires.

     I'm no billionaire but it certainly lifted the value of my only house, as I knew it would, to the grim response of my teenage kids, who remarked that without selling the place even the Bank of Mum and Dad wouldn't be able to help them much in buying a home of their own, together with all the other negative impacts on their young lives for the better part of three years.

     Perhaps there are good internal polling reasons why Labour did not boast about the lockdowns or saving 20,000 lives during the recent election?
     • SPC 7.2.1

       9 November 2023 at 3:46 pm

       Basic facts

       Both lockdown and let it spread policy have impact on the working class – those who cannot work from home/isolate.

       A lockdown to save lives of older folk has more impact on the young.

       A lockdown to slow spread is more useful where the public health is not good (high levels of diabetes) and the public health system has capacity stress.

       Comparisons need to be cogniscant of these factors.

       And then another, if a lockdown can secure elimination – then a border barrier can be applied and that will save lives with no impact on the young people or the working class.

       The rising value of property had nothing to do with lockdowns (or income support payments during periods of lockdowns), but with the decision to channel money through banks (at very low interest rates).

       Stop spreading misinformation.
     • gsays 7.2.2

       9 November 2023 at 4:52 pm

       Thanks Tom, that looks worthy of a read.

       I will have to dust off the credit card and investigate.
     • newsense 7.2.3

       9 November 2023 at 11:36 pm

       I'm seeing that I wasn't clear. I'll find some things and restart the conversations below. There were plenty of INTERVENTIONS beside the health motivated restrictions.

       I'm talking about assistance given particularly.
     • mikesh 7.2.4

       11 November 2023 at 1:05 pm

       House prices were already considered excessive even before the pandemic. The pandemic may have exacerbated the problem, but presumably did not cause it.
8. John 8

   8 November 2023 at 12:48 pm

   The biggest issue Labour faces is the lack of credible people in their ranks, how they go about fixing that will be a large determinant for their future.

   They need to decide what their core principles are because at the moment no one really knows.

   A clean out of the career politicians and recruitment of people who identify with every day issues a good start.

   Chippy can only be a caretaker until a suitable successor is found.
   • Louis 8.1

     8 November 2023 at 1:02 pm

     Would say anyone who chooses a career in politics is a "career politician"
     • John 8.1.1

       10 November 2023 at 11:06 am

       I take your point Louis but there are people who choose politics as their life long job whereas others come to politics having worked in other professions.
       • Louis 8.1.1.1

         10 November 2023 at 11:28 am

         As pointed out, going into politics is a career move.
       • Obtrectator 8.1.1.2

         10 November 2023 at 11:45 am

         And it's the ones who choose politics as a life-long job whom I distrust, especially the second-raters with more energy than sense. Lenin was that sort, so was that German feller, and the so-called intellectuals who hatched up the Year-Zero plan for Cambodia in their Parisian exile. Extreme examples, of course, but one thing they and nearly all "professional politicians" share is ignorance of the real world of people, and of how wealth is actually created and distributed.
9. feijoa 9

   8 November 2023 at 2:34 pm

   In addition to all the above comments, I would like to add, from my reading of Brene Brown a human emotions researcher

   To gain power, you only need to do 3 things

   1) Make them afraid

   2) Give them someone to blame

   3) Sell them certainty

   National did all of those things extremely well. It didn't matter about their policies particularly.

   Labour needs to sell socialism. It needs to tell people why we should be very, very afraid of neoliberalism. And it needs to understand human emotions a lot better.
10. Steve Bradley 10

    8 November 2023 at 8:42 pm

    After reading feijoa's and others contributions I was moved to write the following.

    Reciprocity is needed between leadership and membership. Good leadership is that which encourages & enables members to join together in furtherance of some global goal(s).

    Labour Party members can refer back to the basics contained in its lists of Principles and Objectives printed in the first couple of pages of its Constitution.

    As written they reflect the hands of literate party members at certain periods in history. They still make sense today, but will not galvanize a younger generation.

    For wider audience consumption and to set strategic goals that will inform policy long-term a thorough democratic debate and re-work is required. We need to be able to demonstrate consistent approaches to solving perennial problems.

    People will have more faith and hope if they see that — no matter what the Tories say, whether we are in government or not — our consistent approach is at a fundamental level always consistent

    I offer the following small stack of building blocks as an example of what I mean.

    Universal Social Security – houses, welfare, health care, education & training. Jobs.

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

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

    I also offer a syllabus of education to provide for the induction of new members and to provide starting points for discussion with other parties and community organisations about shared common goals.

    Understanding and Tackling the Big Challenges of Our Times: A programme of education and action

    Understanding and regulating the mute compulsion of capitalism

    Understanding and rectifying the one-way expropriation of mother earth

    Understanding and curing causes of disease, be they physical, mental, or spiritual

    Understanding root causes of conflict: work for domestic & world peace and justice

    Understanding causes and degrees of inevitable failures: rectify with specific actions

    Understanding and supporting indigenous peoples' return to care for ancestral lands

    Cheers
11. Ad 11

    9 November 2023 at 6:48 am

    Well, a decision on the Labour leadership was made. It was the same one that Republicans are doing with Trump which is to reward comprehensive electoral failure. This will be underscored in a couple of weeks time with the Port Waikato by-election in which we will likely come fourth.

    Hayworth complaining about postmodernism is a wee tad late: MMP promotes active ideoological splitting and that mirrors factional societal identity splitting. Accelerating drift to 'minor' parties and splinter factions requires reasons to unify us all in common cause, and that won’t be found in narrow-bore policy targets like dentistry,

    I also paused when I saw this line from Professor Hayworth:

    a national strategy to build a modern version of the 1930s Keynesian Accommodation is the only option.

    Even at the height of our popularity and a full Parliamentary majority, Labour's ability to generate a national strategy on anything was not possible without the Greens. And that was on the climate change legislation in which they worked to get bipartisan support. Last time we tried it was under Clark's Growth and Innovation Strategy – at least she had the intellectual and political heft to try. Who in this caucus would imagine such grand strategy let alone execute it?

    Labour cannot generate a national strategy or a new version of a Keynsean accommodation because they do not have the internal or intellectual capacity. I do not for a second trust Chris Hipkins to either attempt one or to follow through on major policies since he simply kills them off at will.

    Hipkins stating that "we start with a blank piece of paper" is a disgusting betrayal of 100 years of Labour history, policy delivery and national leadership. The policies we need to work are all there for the very large part, already implemented for decades. Hipkins is the complete antithesis of strategy, and his time in leadership should reflect that same short term thinking by leaving as soon as possible.

    Thankfully we don't need to concentrate on Labour's caucus vacuity or its appalling failure of a leader. This is fruitless energy now. We can now concentrate on opposing the new government.
    • Incognito 11.1

      9 November 2023 at 9:08 am

      This will be underscored in a couple of weeks time with the Port Waikato by-election in which we will likely come fourth.

      Nope, LAB is not standing a candidate, so no placing at all.

      https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2023/port-waikato-by-election-candidates-announced/
      • Ad 11.1.1

        9 November 2023 at 2:00 pm

        Even worse to not even show up.
        • Incognito 11.1.1.1

          9 November 2023 at 2:37 pm

          LAB is not the only party that thought it wiser not to act like Monty Python’s Black Knight tilting at windmills. This by-election is simply a formality and not a real contest by any stretch of the means.
        • observer 11.1.1.2

          9 November 2023 at 2:45 pm

          No, it's the right decision. What would Labour campaign on? Reversing the election result? How?

          The only consequence would be a series of policy statements on the record (a candidate can't campaign and then take a vow of silence!), which would undermine the review.

          "Do you stand by … ?". "No, we're reviewing everything."
        • Obtrectator 11.1.1.3

          9 November 2023 at 5:19 pm

          I'd give them marks for demonstrating a degree of hard-headed reality that's not always been evident in some of their recent actions.
    • Obtrectator 11.2

      9 November 2023 at 9:32 am

      "Labour cannot generate a national strategy or a new version of a Keynsean accommodation because they do not have the internal or intellectual capacity."

      Has any party got said capacity? Apart from possibly the Greens.
      • Ad 11.2.1

        9 November 2023 at 9:35 am

        Comes with practise. The state has faced enough national-scale crises and national-scale reorganisations to be match fit for it should a political party try one.
    • Craig H 11.3

      9 November 2023 at 3:45 pm

      Labour cannot generate a national strategy or a new version of a Keynesian accommodation because they do not have the internal or intellectual capacity.

      They definitely have the intellectual capacity among the membership. Whether the output would be electable is a different matter.
      • Ad 11.3.1

        9 November 2023 at 3:59 pm

        It would take more than a regional remit put through that's for sure.
        • Incognito 11.3.1.1

          9 November 2023 at 8:05 pm

          They can outsource it to consultants – EY comes to mind.

          When it comes to implementing and delivering the strategy, they can seek help from experts – Trotter and Pagani come to mind.
12. Anker 12

    9 November 2023 at 1:07 pm

    Thank you Nigel/. I quote you

    "

    and the impact of Post-modernism, a philosophical view antithetical to collectivism and traditional Left politics, owing more to 1960s pluralism than to traditional Left analysis, and, in my view, a successful way in which to stifle and divert discussion of transformation."

    I would be drawn back to the party if they

    1. dropped the identity politics. Like really dropped it.

    2. apologized to women such as myself who presented to the select committee on gender seld id. The Labour women in attendance were a disgrace. Treated gender critical women with absolute and contempt and hostility. Even Nicola Willis who I am no fan of commented on this in parliament and said she had never seen people making submissions treated so badly. Seeing how captured the likes of Deborah Russell, Rachael Boyack, Louisa Wall were, I started to think, I can not vote for a party who believes this nonsence and thinks they can bull doze through unpopular legislation. And it turns out it is deeply unpopular. Latest Talbot Mills poll shows that only 14% of the population support trans identifying males being allowed to use women's bathroom. 50% of the population don't. TIM in womens sport is even less popular (60% don't support it).

    3. the He Pua pua document that was kept secret before the 2020 election was another disgrace. In the document it talks about transformational constitutional change. How dare Labour hide this from the public and the Deputy PM at the time (Peters). Then try and bring in thngs like the Rotorua Admin Bill. As Jim Bolger said if Jacinda Ardern has a policy of co-governance, then she needs to explain to the country where she is going with it. This was never down. And the controversial Three Waters legislation had a name change under Chippy, thinking this would appease any dissenters (who are regularly called racists or as is the case with gender, Terfs)

    4. the think big approach (i.e. centralisation of health and the poly tech merger). Huge expense, to date no benefits. During this time the health workforce was in a perilous state which Andrew Little refused to call a crisis. Oh yes and he dissed the nurses union (all this I posted links about at the time)

    5. The legacy media who accepted the public journalist fund and started censoring what they published on the Treaty (it was stipulated that they had to describe the Treaty as a partnership). And their lack of balanced reporting on the trans issue.

    5. The education sector suffered from continued falling standards and increased truency. In reposnse to the truency problem Jan Tinetti spent money of a get kids back to school add (I saw it in the add break while watching Prime News). Nothing says out of touch more than this.

    6. Crime

    6. Inequality got worse.
    • SPC 12.1

      9 November 2023 at 5:26 pm

      Two takes on inequality.

      https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/opinion/the-inequality-debate/

      https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/12-06-2023/the-two-poverties

      https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/13-06-2023/has-labour-worsened-inequality
      • pat 12.1.1

        9 November 2023 at 6:03 pm

        One take looks at the causes and the other the mitigations…..which is the better strategy?
      • Anker 12.1.2

        9 November 2023 at 7:36 pm

        Thanks for the article SPC. Read one, will do the others soon.

        Yes I think if people have affordable housing, good healthcare and great education, that solves a lot of problems. Had all three growing up, even though we were poor.

        If that was all the govt focused on and it was successful, things would be a lot lot better…
13. newsense 13

    9 November 2023 at 11:38 pm

    From the debate above inequality was bad going into the pandemic, but the economic support given made it worse and inequality increased over this period. In other words we can afford to funnel money up, but f- sending a bit of it back down after we admit we f-d up.

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/money/06-12-2021/the-real-impact-of-new-zealands-economic-response-to-covid-19

    Here’s one piece of Bernard Hickey analysis from nearer the time.

    “The effects now evident in asset values and bank accounts nearly two years after the outbreak are simply astonishing. They show asset owners, who have been the beneficiaries of almost all the government’s direct support and central bank actions, are now astoundingly more wealthy.

    Working families and beneficiaries who pay rent are now mostly worse off or barely treading water since the first lockdowns in March 2020. Food banks are seeing record demand and the waiting list for public housing has risen 65% to 24,475 since the beginning of Covid. It has trebled in the last three years.”
    • Tricledrown 13.1

      10 November 2023 at 10:57 am

      Newsense 100% agree with your analysis except the one's paying for the $50 billion quantitif easing ie printed money subsidy for the already well off and super wealthy class will be paid for by wage and salary earners not the tax dodging investor class who pay little or no tax.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS