Where Does Labour Rebuild? 

Written By: - Date published: 9:01 am, August 26th, 2024 - 48 comments
Categories: labour, maori party, political parties, Unions, workers' rights - Tags:

It won’t come from the working class. But we know where it will come from.

No one wants to be “working class”. It means “employed as unskilled or semi-skilled manual or industrial work”. None outside the chatrooms of an immaterial activist cabal now refer to themselves as working class. This may be discomfiting for those who remember Labour’s history, but … get over it.

We need to banish the phrase from future progressive activism. 

This is where Labour regains future votes, and finds the future MPs to regain power. They are specific, reliable groups that have won Labour to power before.

Let’s remind ourselves of the basics.

Unions. The Labour Party can and should still count on its base in union membership. There are still about 120 unions in New Zealand, covering about 360,000 people. So whoever is running the Labour Party at the moment needs to show they are keeping them sweet. Recommit to MECAs, recommit to rolling back 90 day trials, recommit to stopping low-skill immigration that suppresses wages. 

Women. There’s about 2,500,000 women in NZ and most are left-leaning. There’s  a massive overlap between women and unions, but they are not the same. Seen in the rise of Jacinda Ardern, putting a female in the number one slot massively expands the potential voter for Labour. People keep whispering about Kieran McAnulty because they like a straight bearded rural-accent non-intellectual country guy forget that on all of those attributes he is useless for bringing fresh women to Labour. By a long way, the most influential and attractive progressive leader in New Zealand over 30 years has been Helen Clark. Volumes more effective, more enduring in policy implementation, more internationally renowned than Ardern or Lange, she continues into her 70s with sustained activism through her Foundation. Find a commanding female that will electrify your base and Labour will win.

Maori. There’s about 900,000 Maori in NZ. Maori continue to be disproportionately voting for Labour than National by a comfortable margin. Without more Maori seats, it is close-to impossible for Labour to form government. That is why, even when Labour lose some Maori seats, the representation of Maori in caucus is high.  Te Pati Maori and New Zealand First have shown that Labour do not have a God-given right to Maori support. To regain those seats Labour will not only need to front more of Willie Jackson and Willow-Jean Prime, they also need clear and rational policy positions for a full-on constitutional debate about the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand society. When they answer that convincingly they also stop the drag of Maori votes to TPM and NZF. 

Pasifika. Deputy Leader Carmel Sepuloni said it best last year when she underscored how vital basic public institutions are for Pasifika peoples, and how Labour worked on those for the last six years.

“Health, education, wage growth, you know, all of those things that Pacific people are not necessarily alone on,” Sepuloni said. “But more often than not, because Pacific people often are represented in the low to middle income households. And these things matter. So many of the policies that we’ve implemented over the last six years have had a direct benefit on Pacific peoples.”

At very minimum Sepuloni needs to be locked in at Number 2.

Those are just the basic blocs that keep Labout afloat. 

Now let’s look for others. 

Volunteers. It’s over 900,000 people. More than 60% of New Zealanders donate to charities, and over 21% of us undertake volunteer work. Each attracts its own loyalty, if you can remember the number of Warriors games Helen Clark attended. Or the number of arts societies she supported. Volunteers can be as default right-wing as Rotary, or hard to pick where they vote as in the RSA or churches, or solid left as in conservation efforts. But all of them think about more than self-interest, and that’s the place to start when seeking to attract new enthusiasm. 

Conservationists. The conservation vote from the Green Party’s 330,000 voters is ripe for the picking: since Eugenie Sage left they don’t have a popular environmental champion. In 2024 they’ve become a weak and unstable collection of romanticised graduate sociology try-hards who crumble faster than Dracula under spotlight. A Labour Party that states clearly how the national interest of New Zealand is utterly tied to conservation land in particular national parks and marine reserves – and what we can do about it –  is a party ready to start eating the 10-12% popularity that the Green Party has. 

Nationalists. The New Zealand First Party got 173,000 votes  and 8 seats in 2023. Winston Peters and Shane Jones both represent a deep belief that New Zealand needs strong centralised economic planning and direction similar to that from the 1920s to the mid-1980s. New Zealand’s economy is now controlled by a very small set of large companies who generate a narrow band of mostly low-value products and services, and a relatively weak state with poor and incoherent leadership. NZF over three terms have gained substantial regional deals that are stabilising regional economies while all other forces drain them away. Labour will only have a convincing government in power again when it has leaders and policies that inspire that older generation to believe that there is a thing called New Zealand that exists outside of ANZAC Day and the Olympics, and that there really is an answer to economic decline.

Aucklanders. That’s about 1.7 million people, and again 2023 showed Labour can’t win power without it. The legacy of weak unified regional government in Auckland over 15 years, rapidly rising gang and gun violence, collapsing retail confidence, and a donut central city, has dispirited Aucklanders on top of their usual pains of housing unaffordability and traffic jams. There are so many quick wins to turning back the voter preference of Aucklanders, including: free public transport (for whatever journey stage), real devolution of funding and responsibility, regulating Air B’n’B and unoccupied housing to force availability of flats, a long term deal with central government that might include free civic amenities like pools, free bicycles, etc, and proper state highways that finally start to share Auckland’s capital with the regions north and south, is the way to start turning heads back.

LGBTI. There’s about 170,000 roughly in New Zealand who are LGBTI. They aren’t all snowflake hyper-liberals, and they are a mighty political target. Like many, they find success attractive, and fitness, sport, glamour, professionalism, and human rights respect with a large need for mental health support. Like many activist groups including Maori, there’s a towards excessive theatricality which can be eye-roll inducing. But again they were most closely aligned with Labour under Helen Clark who brought the disparate and fractious LGBTI subsets into policy focus, with real success. Labour, it’s pretty difficult to regain power without LGBTI so they need targeted attention.

Oldies.  There are 800,000+ New Zealanders over 65. And Jesus do they vote. Anything Labour can do in the volunteer sector, health sector in particular for those in care, any feint towards national pride recalling a more unified and effective state, anything that enables them to pay their power bills and their rent, anything that assures them of the inflation-adjusted NZSuper, is something that helps bring back older people. This is the long tail of hidden poverty and daily oppression that is poorly covered in the media but is one of New Zealand’s fastest-growing voter groups. They intersect with a lot of the above, but just imagine setting the political goal of getting Grey Power off the fence to support Labour. 

Wealthy Kiwis. Labour were massively outspent in 2023 and lost. The targeting the Greens, NZFirst, and ACT did of wealthy couples cracking over $350k a year has a really simple lesson: romance them and flatter them and they will share sufficient to pay those ads. 

Don’t anyone be fooled into thinking that a working class hero will save anything. Remember, old leftie “working class” darling Jeremy Corbyn got 24,000 votes in his electorate and lost Parliamentary power for Labour, and Keir Starmer got 18,000 electoral votes and led them to the handsomest electoral victory since 1832.

Forget “working class”. 

We already know where the numbers are that form the MPs to regain power.

48 comments on “Where Does Labour Rebuild?  ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. gsays 1
    26 August 2024 at 9:32 am

    When I saw the post title, I immediately thought Blokes.

  2. Champaign Socialist 2
    26 August 2024 at 9:35 am

    A small correction:

    In the 2017 UK election Corbyns Labour party got 12,877,918 votes in total.

    In the 2019 election Corbyns Labour party got 10,269,051 votes in total.

    In the 2024 election Starmers Labour party got 9,708,716 votes.

    Corbyn created a very effective coalition on the left including most of the groups mentioned in the article. In a proportional voting system Starmers Labour would be a minority party – the popular vote for the right was much higher.

    In the UK the popular vote does not reflect the parliamentary make up by a considerable margin.

    • Ad 2.1
      26 August 2024 at 9:49 am

      No one gives a damn about some other system. Hillary Clinton woulda been in power, Marine Le Pen woulda been in power. Whatever.

      Focus on the democratic system you've got and win it. In the UK it's the number of electoral seats you win.

      Starmer's seat 2024 18,884

      https://www.bbc.com/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001290

      Corbyn's seat 2024 24,120

      https://www.bbc.com/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001305

      Who is in power?

      • Champaign Socialist 2.1.1
        26 August 2024 at 10:10 am

        Yes – we have proportional representation here in NZ. That's my point – rather than dismissing the Corbyn teams strategy and policy platform it might, instead, be something that provides insights into how you build a popular (as in number of votes) left wing coalition of the type you are proposing. The dismissal of Corbyn by the left does a major disservice to the real electoral impact he, John McDonnell and others made. This impact is ignored because the UK has FPP.

        • Subliminal 2.1.1.1
          26 August 2024 at 12:57 pm

          You've nailed it there. The energy of a Corbyn campaign in an MMP environment with a commitment to the policies of the many before the few would be unstoppable.

          Hipkins already sounds deflated and appears to lack the energy to stand firmly in front of the current havoc with clear statements that everything that is currently being done will be overturned by a Labour govt along with all the new and necessary planks towards a green future in electricity, taxing of wealth, creating access to health and education, and re embracing Maori co governence.

          He appears to have accepted the destruction but plumping for the lesser evil is no longer good enough. If he can't energise himself then he should step aside and let somebody through who can.

      • DS 2.1.2
        26 August 2024 at 10:14 pm

        Starmer's victory is entirely due to the giant split in the right-wing vote, and anti-Conservative tactical voting.

    • Tiger Mountain 2.2
      26 August 2024 at 9:51 am

      Mr Corbyn was essentially sunk by his own party–HQ crawlers and careerists–and his own basic decency by not going in hard and deselecting a number of dodgy MPs. Plus Brexit…he overthought it when all he had to do was say…we will respect the people’s decision on Brexit and implement our “For the Many not the Few” and renationalisation programme.

  3. TeWhareWhero 3
    26 August 2024 at 9:50 am

    This is about as clear a statement of commitment to being nothing more than the left of Neo-liberalism as I've ever read. I'll reply when the steam has cleared from the room.

  4. Tiger Mountain 4
    26 August 2024 at 10:06 am

    The fact is “working class” encompasses most people in society. It hinges on your relationship to capital and whether you exploit others labour or not. Are you an actual business owner or do you essentially just sell your intellectual and physical labour whether it be by contract or hourly rate?

    Self employed often think they are their own boss–but are usually brutally beholden to banks and finance companies.

    These days after 40 years of neo liberalism NZ style, few might self identify as working class, concentrations of hundreds of manufacturing workers are lesser apart from a few examples in meat processing and the likes of Rio Tinto at Tiwai Pt. But an IT worker, film industry worker, service worker or public servant are all workers none the less. Some like interns just do not get paid!

    NZ Labour will not make a substantial comeback until they repudiate Rogernomics and boot all of Roger’s Acts (no pun etc) for something more modern and suitable as we approach the end of the first quarter of the 21st century.

    • James Simpson 4.1
      26 August 2024 at 10:59 am

      ChatGPT: Define "Working Class"

      The working class refers to a social group consisting of individuals who typically engage in manual labor, industrial work, service jobs, or other forms of employment that do not require advanced degrees or specialized professional skills. Members of the working class often earn wages rather than salaries and may have limited job security, benefits, or opportunities for upward mobility. They are typically involved in occupations such as factory work, construction, retail, clerical jobs, transportation, and other similar fields. The term can also encompass individuals whose economic conditions and lifestyle are shaped by their reliance on wages earned through labor.

      I agree with you though. When I think working class I think it captures anyone who works for someone else. Selling your labour.

      • Tiger Mountain 4.1.1
        26 August 2024 at 11:49 am

        Yes, at the dawn of the modern neo liberal era some academics predicted the “atomisation” of the working class, whereby collective thought and organisation would gravitate more to individual identity and aspiration.

        There has long been speculation about why people vote against their own material best interests and oppose raising the minimum wage for low paid workers say, “Last place aversion” was an explanation of why in several US studies.

        In reality we all work whether paid or unpaid, caring, volunteering etc. But…if we all went on strike society would come to a grinding halt, whereas if CEOs stayed home who would notice?

      • Karolyn_IS 4.1.2
        26 August 2024 at 12:25 pm

        That's the difference between a Weberian-influenced and a Marxist analysis of class.

        The UK Registrar General's classification was influenced by Weber and allocated classes in terms of a hierarchy of occupations. It has various problems, including the way it originally tended to be based on male occupations and their status, power etc, and women didn't fit in so easily, being allocated to their husband's or father's occupation.

        Also, the Marxist view that tends to allocate class according to position in the paid work force has been re-worked by Marxist/socialist feminists who have added unpaid labour of women, and their role in reproducing the work force to the exploited working class.

  5. Dennis Frank 5
    26 August 2024 at 10:16 am

    I agree that identifying those categories and measuring them is an excellent way to prioritise political marketing strategies (even though you didn't specify it as such – as an amateur mind-reader I detected it in your sub-text).

    Will Labour be sensible enough to follow your advice is the question. If so, they face an immense intellectual challenge: design a set of policies that will secure mass approval from each category. Labour hasn't even got close to doing that historically…

  6. Kay 6
    26 August 2024 at 10:52 am

    A group you left out- As of June last year, there are 351,759 people receiving a main benefit. That's a significant voting bloc, but the trick is getting us all out to vote.

    Given Labour made it quite clear in 2000 exactly what they thought of us by not unwinding the damage done during the 1990s, those of us who remember those years have not forgotten, and most of us who still vote do not vote Labour. 30+ years of continual beating down is enough to stop anyone engaging in the electoral process.

    Labour continue to make it crystal clear what they think of us, eg completely ignoring the Welfare working group report, and not using their majority to create fundamental welfare reform. There's no real difference between the Nats and Labour, except the former don't hid what they really think, and we know exactly where we stand with them.

    The Greens (and TMP) are the only parties that have remotely sided with us, but there's no real sense of representation, and between all the bashing and just trying to survive, of course voting isn't a priority. if the majority of this group voted, parliament makeup would be very different. It really does begger belief that Labour ignores us as a voting bloc- one can only assume they don't want to upset their middle class voters.

    So how to engage with a large voting bloc who have given up?

    • weka 6.1
      26 August 2024 at 11:26 am

      I noticed this glaring omission as well. It is consistent with Labour strategy of work being the solution to all things. To me the most damning thing the Ardern government did was not separate SLP off from the dole and make it liveable. There really is no excuse for that apart from ideology or ignorance.

      I do think Labour are between a rock and a hard place on welfare, and disagree that they are the same as National. Benefits did go up, sanctioned lessened, that isn’t nothing. But Ad’s post appears to be predicated on the same strategy that basically says we will prioritise preventing people falling into the underclass, and we will try and lift up some people already there, but mostly the underclass are on their own and we will have to work around the various fall outs from that. Imo it won’t work for a range of reasons including that NACTF will continue to actively court the underclass via the culture wars while keeping the boot firmly on its neck.

      • Karolyn_IS 6.1.1
        26 August 2024 at 12:52 pm

        It's also where Ad's voting blocks tend to point to middle-income people, including middle income women in stable jobs, and excludes a focus on men and women on low incomes, in precarious work, single parents, those with disabilities, and many Maori and Pasifika people, etc.

      • Kay 6.1.2
        26 August 2024 at 2:26 pm

        Yes, fair enough that there's a bit of a difference to our lives, depending on who's in power. Although the token benefit 'increases' only really stop them going as far backwards in real terms. But life in general is much less stressful.

        I guess my point was Labour spouting off about all these wonderful things they're doing for beneficiaries, and I'm sure to the general public it all sound very excessive. But the public don't hear about all the clawbacks, so think that we've all received the full increase amount, which as you know is total BS. National are sadistic bastards, but at least they don't pretend to anything they're not. Labour pretend they're our friends, which they aren't.

  7. Bearded Git 7
    26 August 2024 at 11:44 am

    Disagree that the Greens are "weak and unstable"…..give me Chloe as leader rather than Hipkins anytime. Unlike Labour they have clear policies and goals….for instance their Wealth Tax.

    But there are green votes to be had….if Labour were to roll out, as a central policy, seriously subsided rooftop solar I think people across the spectrum would be impressed….votes would follow.

    In doing this Labour needs to explain clearly that solar power would become a primary source of power (as it has in Oz). As such solar (including grid storage batteries) will enable less permanent dependence on hydro. Hydro would become a flexible power source varying from say 50% to 80% of total power needs. This option would be cheaper than Nationals LNG importation policy.

    • Tiger Mountain 7.1
      26 August 2024 at 11:51 am

      yes

    • James Simpson 7.2
      26 August 2024 at 11:58 am

      I think Energy policy can be a winning strategy if a well thought through policy can be developed.

      We are in the midst of an energy crisis which isn't going to be fixed by this government. Businesses are already shutting up shop as a direct result of the crisis.

      There is a risk Labour will be blamed for it to a degree, so it is important that it develops some robust proposals over the next 12 months so they can go to the election with a credible plan that will show business, that Labour is the way forward on this critical issue.

  8. bwaghorn 8
    26 August 2024 at 12:54 pm

    Forget “working class”.

    We where forgotten years ago by you and your ilk ad,

    but if I'm starting to get a deep burning rage at the shit whole this country Is becoming then I bet there's plenty of others,

    Jobs decimated in my area due to useless governments, the best I can get for my unwell child is a ph call to a Dr in who knows where,

    Apart from 2 years over seas and 6 months on the dole I've held up my end of the deal , worked hard paid taxs ,

    It's a damn shame,

    • weka 8.1
      26 August 2024 at 1:14 pm

      thanks b. Kind of stunning to see a post on TS saying forget 'working class' that then goes on to forget the working class.

  9. adam 9
    26 August 2024 at 2:25 pm

    FFS Ad, and this is why you will lose.

    You have to work with Te Pāti Māori, not this b.s of getting the seats back. Look at how the party votes fell. You want Te Pāti Māori to go for party vote as well? Because this BS from you, will leave no other way.

    It's labour as the only dog in town that caused the problems in the first place. Work with people – that's the answer it MMP FFS.

  10. thebiggestfish7 10
    26 August 2024 at 4:28 pm

    Really good article and some good points.

    Disagree with your take on the wealthy and Labour needing to raise and spend more. Labour spent more money that any other political party for the 2023 election including spending over 1 million more dollars than National!.

    https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/historical-events/2023-general-election/party-expenses/

  11. TeWhareWhero 11
    26 August 2024 at 4:31 pm

    Your depiction of what constitutes the working class is so crudely reductionist it's hard to know whether you’re being serious, or taking the proverbial. Assuming the former, the core question is whether the NZLP continues to be the left of neo-liberalism, ie doing NL capitalism’s housework, or it refocuses & opposes it.

    You list all the sectors (the memberships of all of which overlap to varying degrees) which the LP could mine for votes by identifying & promising to address issues that matter to that sector. Like a political Christmas present list.

    The unions, the largest membership of which currently is in the public sector & much of it in the “white collar” sector of the working class, should get a recommitment to MCEAs, removal of 90 day trials, & “stopping low-skill immigration that suppresses wages. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt & assume you actually mean preventing employers from abusing migrant labour in order to suppress wages, but I’m curious why the unions’ gifts don’t include such things as raising the minimum wage, or requiring all employers to encourage/facilitate union membership…

    Many of the people in the white collar TUs will have done quite well out of NLsm, to date at least, & what appeals to them will not necessarily appeal as much or at all to the large number of the employed & unemployed members of the “precariat" who aren’t on your list despite most of them buckling under various forms of debt & living from one pay or benefit day to the next all too often in sub-standard, expensive housing. (Also excluded are all the previously directly employed people who've been forced or conned into becoming self-employed contractors, consultants etc.)

    There aren’t 2.5m women; half the total population is female but quite a few are still girls. That aside, you claim, “Most women are left leaning” … In what universe, pray tell? As we're not even allowed to talk about sex-based issues, good luck with recruiting & retaining women.

    BTW, your statement that Labour needs to“find a commanding female” sounds like you’re looking for some sort of political dominatrix.

    Māori people aren’t a monolithic Labour-voting bloc, & like Pasifika people, they’re disproportionately concentrated in low to middle income households. Ah, that pesky intersection between class & ethnicity again, some of the complications of which are illustrated by your statement about “low-skilled immigration that suppresses wages", a lot of which comes from the Pacific. (A claim about “excessive theatricality” among Māori activists is not a vote winner, BTW.)

    The intersections between class & race that need to be addressed are also to be found in the grossly skewed, in terms of class & ethnicity, prison population & the numbers held on remand about which Labour should’ve done more when in office. If it’s to do so in future, it will have to confront the police & the judiciary as well as that bastion of reaction, the law & order lobby.

    You note the wide disparity in the political leanings of the large voluntary sector & your notion about gaining votes there is nothing more solid than an appeal to their better natures, given, “all of them think about more than self-interest”. It’s easy to shelve or appear to shelve self-interest when you are financially & socially secure; watch what happens if a party proposes anything which even appears to threaten that security.

    The voluntary sector as a source of Labour votes was a hard act to follow but you managed to surpass it with the proposal to poach the conservation-minded members of the LP’s natural ally, not passing up the opportunity to crudely caricature that ally’s current leadership. You pitch conservation as being about protecting existing land & marine reserves which avoids the thorny wider issues of the reliance of the country’s primary industry on a vast array of imported chemicals & energy-hungry irrigation, & our continued reliance on extractive industries that yield short term, private profits while stocking up immense, long term social costs, eg. such phenomena as the world’s leading loss of topsoil, pollution of soil & water….

    No populist appeal is complete without a foray into nationalism. Neo-liberalism has global reach & aspires to total global domination. At the same time as it has worked towards total globalisation, it has promoted forms of hyper-nationalism, from breaking former federations into tiny, often barely sustainable nation states, to fomenting appeals to an always idealised former greatness, or a simpler, more stable past, etc.

    Your argument in relation to Auckland can be summed up as buying votes by making life a bit nicer for Aucklanders eg, free public transport for Auckland when most of the country outside the main centres has almost no public transport at all.

    I’m not at all sure LGBTI people – those disparate, fractious, excessively theatrical people who aren't all snow-flake liberals & who find success attractive but need loads of mental health support will vote Labour if you’re a measure of the understanding of the issues.

    The oldies – FFS, if you want to pull more of that bloc into voting Labour, may I politely suggest you dispense with disparaging terminology.

    Finally, the wealthy. The only way people wealthy enough to swing elections would fund a Labour campaign is if Labour intended to do nothing that would threaten their wealth, which is hard to square with the LP doing things that would make a tangible, long term difference to those at the other end of the wealth/power spectrum.

    • Karolyn_IS 11.1
      26 August 2024 at 5:04 pm

      Well said. To me Advantages post seems focused on a vote-getting strategy, while jettisoning any principles or aims Labour and the labour movement ever had eg: including making life better for those struggling on low incomes, restoring much need public services so they provide adequately for all Kiwis who need them, re-vitalising the unions, etc.

    • Darien Fenton 11.2
      26 August 2024 at 5:59 pm

      At a first glance, I agree with your comment.

    • weka 11.3
      26 August 2024 at 8:21 pm

      👏

    • Ad 11.4
      26 August 2024 at 10:15 pm

      Good on you for responding.

      "Working class" was defined at the top. The rest are categories out of census data.

      On unions. I identified them as a group not an exhaustive policy list. It was long enough.

      Maori are indeed identifiable as both group and as interests. Don't be squeamish, the stats are super-clear and the Treaty quite unique.

      On the Greens and conservation, stop whining, the Greens are weak in it and they've split on precisely that faultline multiple times.

      Yes, you buy Auckland votes. It's called redistribution and you need to educate yourself on it.

      Yes appeals to nationalism is populist. Democracy really is a popularity contest and it's also about winning votes. Clearly you don't know that. Learn.

      If you haven't noticed the departure of LGBTI from Labour to National you have been asleep. Wake up.

      You don't like terminology. No one gives a fuck about your feelings. In politics feelings are for losers.

      The Greens and NZF and ACT understand you don't win withh VFL and raffles. Rich donors is how you win, and yes, winning in politics is everything.

      • TeWhareWhero 11.4.1
        27 August 2024 at 10:48 am

        "Working class" was defined at the top.

        Your definition was reductionist to the point of caricature, and illustrated everything that is wrong with being simply the left of Neo-liberalism which, in essence, is a capitulation to Neo-liberal political and economic dogma.

        On unions. I identified them as a group not an exhaustive policy list.

        Why are there still unions if there is no working class any more? Why are so many of the most vulnerable workers not in unions? Why has the precariat grown so much as advances wrested out of capital and compliant govts by organised labour have been rolled back? Why did Neo-lib compliant govts collude with or even lead attacks on organised labour at precisely the same time as they conceded formal rights to women and marginalised sections of society? Whatever happened to internationalism?

        Maori are indeed identifiable as both group and as interests. Don't be squeamish, the stats are super-clear and the Treaty quite unique.

        You’d have to clarify your meaning for me to respond to this.

        On the Greens and conservation, stop whining, the Greens are weak in it and they've split on precisely that faultline multiple times.

        Your insulting tone aside, you sidestep the point I made about the distinction you drew between conservation and wider ecological issues. If you are advocating competing with National in poaching the blue-greens, say so.

        Yes, you buy Auckland votes. It's called redistribution and you need to educate yourself on it.

        No thank you; it holds no political or critical appeal because it is short termism – expedience over-riding political and economic logic, and natural justice. Buy affluent votes in Auckland; lose more elsewhere.

        Yes appeals to nationalism is populist. Democracy really is a popularity contest and it's also about winning votes. Clearly you don't know that. Learn.

        Crude nationalism is the refuge of political scoundrels. Democracy is certainly staged as a popularity contest by people for whom it is a means to an essentially un-popular (in the sense of benefitting only a few) political end. For people who purport to be on the left to emulate that level of manipulative cynicism is unacceptable.

        If you haven't noticed the departure of LGBTI from Labour to National you have been asleep. Wake up.

        If you want to win back those who have seen an advantage in voting for National, I suggest you take account of my comments on the nature of the words you used to describe this diverse group of people, who’ve been lumped together largely for purposes of lobbying for political influence and funding. You should also reflect on the reasons why socially conservative members of the LGB+ aggregation might vote for a right wing party but that would require re-opening a debate which has been banned from this platform.

        You don't like terminology. No one gives a fuck about your feelings. In politics feelings are for losers.

        Says he with great feeling…..

        The Greens and NZF and ACT understand you don't win withh VFL and raffles. Rich donors is how you win, and yes, winning in politics is everything.

        Rich donors is almost invariably the way you sell out all those at the ever increasing polar end of the wealth/power spectrum.

        When people resort to peremptory instructions – learn, wake up, stop whining – it’s usually evidence they’ve reached the limit of their capacity to construct a reasoned response. Resorting to foot stamping, toy tossing, bullying, and ad hominem attacks is lazy and self defeating behaviour because it generates angry responses, which are never productive, it promotes division, it distracts from the essence of critically important debates, and it stops people engaging. You know, all those things we have to promote in order to build an effective opposition.

        • Karolyn_IS 11.4.1.1
          27 August 2024 at 11:56 am

          Agree with your statements, TWW.

          This:

          Why did Neo-lib compliant govts collude with or even lead attacks on organised labour at precisely the same time as they conceded formal rights to women and marginalised sections of society?

          Good question.The neoliberal shift was a time of reconfiguring society in the interests of the dominant classes (patriarchal and capitalist).

          It was at a time when more women were entering the work force and higher education. Partly it meant a lot of women, especially in lower paid and more insecure jobs were appropriated as a reserve army of labour. This was at a time when it became necessary for a families with children to have both parents working in order to continue to participate in the increasingly consumerist, user pays, neoliberal society and economy.

          Popular feminism also began to be reconfigured around the sexualised, increasingly athletic and gym-honed body displays of girl power. Seemingly breaking previous sex-based stereotypes, while actually marking out women as still being secondary to men and on display for the benefit of heterosexual males.

          This was also part of a wider shift to a focus on working on bodily presentation and body modification as a way of creating an identity – something that required increasing consumption of products and services, as predatory capitalists looked for new areas of life to commodify and extract profits from.

          This opened the way for liberal feminism to shift away from a sex-based movement, to one of identity construction – open to change and focused a lot on bodily presentation.

          These are just part of the widespread changes that occurred in the context of and in concert with the neoliberal shift.

          • Karolyn_IS 11.4.1.1.1
            27 August 2024 at 12:24 pm

            What policies would Labour develop to truly support women in lower paid and more precarious work, and to support single mothers on benefits in significant ways that would attract their votes? And to change the culture and economic system so a lot of women are not so pressured to do more domestic duties than men, while also giving birth and nurturing babies, holding down a job, and not being financially dependent on their partners?

  12. Policy Parrot 12
    26 August 2024 at 9:50 pm

    Voters can be simplified into largely four types in the New Zealand context (specifically over the last decade):

    1. The rusted-on voter: Who will vote for their favoured party come rain or shine, and will be disappointed (or even angry) with those who they know (and are/were friends with) if they vote differently.
    2. The single-issue vote: Be it the environment, SNAs, tax – thats their only concern. Often somewhat similar to the rusted-on voter in their voting pattern and attitude towards those voting differently.
    3. The swing-voter. Some of these are often derisively referred to as voting for personality over policy, the Key then Ardern voters. Another sub-branch of this is the "whats in it for me" voter.
    4. The non-voter. For some, if their party is going down the gurgler, or they are sufficiently angry with their normal choice, they will choose not to vote. For others, its a pox on both their houses.

    Labour won many of the 2, 3, and 4 categories in the 2020 landslide, but most of them disappeared in 2023. Why? Several reasons, but its increasingly clear that it wasnt a vote for National (and their coalition partners).

    This same phenomenon, to an extent also happened in 2008. Labour has not delivered in the spirit which it promised. It promises to be transformational, but honestly has not inspired the voter loyalty that would deliver multiple majorities. It has to abandon this incrementalism approach and deliver real results for a great majority of people, and stop being afraid of the opposition – they will still campaign against them regardless.

    For example, Labour should be promising to nationalise the generation of electricity, with the aim to providing affordable, clean energy to households and businesses throughout the country. Declare that “the Bradford reforms have failed“. Adding both the Onslow pumped hydro project (which needs to be shovels in the ground within 2 years of coming to power), and a commitment to put solar panels on the roof of Kainga Ora properties and government departments, this is a realistic possibility.

    The next government needs to focus reducing the cost of utilities, be it electricity, water, rates, insurance etc; in addition to housing. When people can't afford to pay these, they and their families quality of life is harmed.

    • Ad 12.1
      26 August 2024 at 10:19 pm

      Agree on electricity. Starmer's plan to base the new national electricity company in Scotland is also v serious devolution. Imagine that applied to Taranaki.

      Onslow isn't coming back. Taranaki wind is the play. With the Danes, Germans, Infratil, Australian plsyers, and NZSuper.

  13. DS 13
    26 August 2024 at 10:29 pm

    I'll ignore the jibes about the working class (hint – ever wondered why South Dunedin is so Labour? You know, the electorate that produces more party votes for Labour than anywhere else in the country?).

    But I thought I'd laugh about this in particular:

    Aucklanders. That’s about 1.7 million people, and again 2023 showed Labour can’t win power without it.

    Auckland is economically right-wing, socially conservative, and obsessed with culture war. It voted for National/ACT overwhelmingly in early voting, which implied it had made up its mind far quicker than the rest of the country. And yes, Auckland has plenty of people. But most New Zealanders still don't live there.

    The South Island has a quarter of New Zealand's population, and is not obsessed with culture war. It traditionally votes to the Left of the North Island, and it swung to National much later in the 2023 campaign, which implies it was willing to give Labour a go.

    It's also worth remembering that the Luxon Cabinet is 95% North Island, and is also very Auckland-heavy. Which rather suggests that if Labour focussed on provincial alienation, there are opportunities. Leave the culture war nonsense for the Greens, and realise that appealing to rich right-wingers in Auckland is a lost cause. The key role for Labour in Auckland ought to be getting out the South Auckland vote.