Reasserting progressive values: the Labour Party edition

In addition to my last blog post, The Left must have the courage of their convictions, I am writing a short series of posts on the need for the parties of the Left to reassert progressive values in order to offer a credible alternative to John Key and the National-led Government. First up; the Labour Party. 

David Cunliffe needs to reassert both working class and progressive values 
while modernising Labour's political platform

The democratisation of the Labour Party’s leadership election processes have provided an opportunity for party members, the union movement and the broader left to push for the reassertion of progressive values and the repudiation of the Third Way agenda of the Clark era.

Both newly elected David Cunliffe and his primary opponent Grant Robertson took to the campaign trail with promises of significant industrial relations reform, a new-found commitment to the environment, and pledges on women’s political participation and increased student support. They would “end neo-liberalism” and even distanced themselves from Helen Clark’s legacy. Even Shane Jones in some ways promoted progressive values; he committed to supporting a universal student allowance and a pushed for a breakup of the supermarket duopoly.

This has reinvigorated Labour's base to a significant degree. It is these kinds of bold ideas that will drive greater participation and involvement in the political system. 

But the media consensus proclaims that this high-minded progressivism is fit for the campaign trail, but will be discarded at the earliest opportunity; that Cunliffe will default to the centrist direction that the Labour Party has been previously heading down. This highlights two things; the media are hostile to the interests of genuine left-wing politics, and many in the media are disconnected from the realities of those struggling to survive in this land of plenty.

At Cunliffe's first press conference as leader, he distanced Labour from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and said "my challenge to John Key and his government is to put that information in the public domain so the debate can begin". This is a radical change in the direction of the Labour Party caucus, as was put so well by TPPA expert Jane Kelsey over at The Daily Blog.

So already Labour's new leader has stood up to the proponents of liberalised free trade, many of whom are a part of his own caucus. Will he continue down this path? How far will he go? What other progressive values will he reassert? 

Inequality and markets 

Inequality is at the highest point it has ever been in the history of this country. This proves the necessity for a reassertion of progressive values and there is a great opportunity for these values to resonate widely. A fundamentally new direction in the economy is sorely needed. As fellow working class New Zealanders will know, poverty and hardship are only getting worse. Helen Clark's government stabilised things in the wake of Rogernomics and Ruthanasia, but the fundamentals of her economic management allowed for continuing unemployment, high power prices, low-wages and shocking rates of child poverty.

David Cunliffe will need a great deal of courage to steer a fundamentally new course of economic management. He leads what remains a largely moderate Labour caucus; his newly elected deputy leader David Parker is on record saying "competitive markets don't need regulation", while newly appointed Shadow Leader of the House Grant Robertson said around the same time that "as we said on the day we launched NZ Power, we have no plans to intervene in any other markets."

While I'm sure Cunliffe is in favour of the market economy where it works, if he wants to significantly reduce poverty and inequality then he will need to regulate other markets as well. Competitiveness does not always lead to positive outcomes. To ensure that his vision and convictions lead the party's economic platform, he will need to take an active role in finance and economic development and not leave everything up to the likes of Parker and Shane Jones.

Social welfare

Low benefit levels, and the toxic nature of WINZ, contribute hugely to the ongoing poverty and deprivation in this country; we know that two-thirds of children in poverty are living in benefit dependent households.

But there is a deep reluctance in the Labour caucus to provide real and increased support to beneficiary families. Given National's succesful strategy of pitting communities against each other by beneficiary bashing, it's a political minefield for Labour. But this is an issue that should be above political posturing and electoral calculation.

Social welfare is a core progressive value and was at the heart of the First Labour Government's working class agenda. The welfare system itself under that government didn't have to be a huge drain on resources, as the government ensured pretty much full employment. While it does have significant financial implications in this day and age, we must also remember that we are spending $6 billion a year on preventable crime, illness and lost educational opportunities – the direct cost of keeping kids in poverty.

Thousands of families will continue to live in deprivation if the government doesn't step in. Employment must be the key aim, but children are not impoverished because of any fault of their own. They deserve compassion.

The policy for universalisation of the working for families scheme, which has been Green policy for over a decade, was adopted by Phil Goff before the 2011 election but then abandoned again under David Shearer's leadership. This is a policy that will go a long way to reducing poverty among families on welfare and should be part of a welfare tool kit for an incoming centre-left government.

Promoting both employment and social welfare as progressive values, and convincing the public that they aren't mutually exclusive, will be a real test of David Cunliffe's leadership.

Environment and sustainability
A core progressive value of the 21st Century is environmental guardianship and sustainability. However, it has not traditionally been a value that Labour has embraced. Water quality was incredibly bad under the Fifth Labour Government and has led to the current situation of 60% of monitored rivers being unsafe for swimming. Also, the process for granting risky deep sea oil permits was instituted under Labour.

Environmental protection and sustainability represent very fundamental issues that Labour must grapple with. For example, reducing river pollution to sustainable levels is going to require a rethink of the continuing intensification of the agricultural sector, one of the nation's most economically productive industries. This reality challenges not just river pollution but the very idea of never-ending economic growth.

Deep sea oil drilling and the future of wider extractive industries is another kaupapa that Labour needs to provide clarity and consistency on. There are clear divisions over this issue. On the hand, Shane Jones promotes oil drilling and mining as a solution to youth unemployment while on the other hand, MPs like Moana Mackey and Grant Robertson are much more hesitant to support these risky ventures. A massive deep sea oil spill could effectively destroy New Zealand's economy. David Cunliffe needs to make a stand on this.

And of course this all ties in with the climate crisis and our need to significantly reduce emissions and play our part on the global stage. A weak and ineffectual carbon trading scheme like our ETS will not achieve this. New thinking and innovative solutions are required.

David Cunliffe was dead right when he said:

"the nature of this crisis is far deeper and more fundamental than the standard environment-economy trade-off thinking might suppose. The coming crisis threatens more than just marine biodiversity. The species we are trying to save could be our own."

Cunliffe's Challenge 

The forces of reluctance, moderation and conservatism will do their very best to hound David Cunliffe's leadership and the opportunities for true progressivism that it represents. We need to expect more of Patrick Gower appearing on the 6 o'clock news attacking Cunliffe for stumbling on a word. He will also continue to promote the idea of Labour disunity.

Cunliffe must have an iron will and unify his caucus behind his economic and environmental vision. This will be the biggest challenge of his entire leadership in the lead up to the 2014 general elections.

Those of us who believe in a compassionate, sustainable and socially just future need to be vigilant in our support for a new direction and as equally vigilant in our critique of the forces of negativity and conservatism that inhabit both the major political parties, the mainstream media and elements of the business community.


Post by Jack McDonald

Shane Jones: the wedge politics edition

Jonesy

I'm stuck in a half way house. Somewhere between the progressive left and the tino rangatiratanga movement. Shane Jones has put me there and I'm afraid to move.

Jones' bid for the Labour leadership has opened a divide between the left and the tino rangatiratanga movement. Maori politics exists apart from the left-right divide, apparently. But I don't think that's true. Maori politics exists beneath the left-right divide.

Maori political history isn't rich with choice. Asking or telling us to wait for a more "progressive" candidate is deeply offensive. Maori have waited - and with relative patience - for the opportunity to elect a Maori prime minister for more than a century. The Maori renaissance and (more recently) the emergence of the Maori Party and the Mana Movement signals that Maori political patience has built to its limits. Carrie was right when she wrote that "the insistent hating [of Jones] overshadows a potentially major historical moment in NZ".

The Maori approach to power is changing and Jones is the most recent personification of that approach. When the left denies Jones, its denying Maori political power. It's uncomfortable. In some respects it smacks of the politics of the 20th century. When Maori stepped outside of the political role that society had created for them - as mihi men, singing women and glorified lapdogs - they were shut out. See Matiu Rata and Tariana Turia about that.

I remain ambivalent about Jones - partly for, partly against. The self aggrandising attacks against feminism grate. The struggle for gender equality shouldn't and can't be divorced from the struggle for ethnic equality. Attacking feminism doesn't empower the tino rangatiratanga movement, but weakens it. Solidarity works best when it's solidarity with all marginalised groups - whether it's women, the disabled, the LGBT community or other Polynesians - and equality works best when it's equality for the whole and not the parts.

What I'm getting at is this: I tautoko Jones because of what he represents - Maori political empowerment. But his approach to empowerment, well, not so much.  

Tangata takahi manuhiri, he marae puehu - a person who mistreats guests has a dusty Marae. The saying captures the idea of manaakitanga. It captures the approach the tino rangatiratanga movement - and by extension Jones - should take towards friends in the left. But that works in reverse too: the left should keep in mind why Jones' run is important to our movement.

Post script: According to the latest Te Karere poll Maori prefer Jones by a large margin. And again for transparency: I endorsed DC earlier in the race.  

The Left must have the courage of their convictions

At the launch of his leadership bid in New Lynn, David Cunliffe was handed a bunch of roses by a supporter. He held them aloft and proclaimed in a hesitant, unsure-of-himself kind of way that: "the red rose is the international symbol of socialism!”

The mainstream media seem unable to entertain the idea that David Cunliffe and Grant Robertson might actually be honest in their critique of neo-liberalism and the economic orthodoxy. By extension it seems that they believe that socialism is a defunct ideology in 21st Century New Zealand. But in ideological terms, the history of the New Zealand labour movement is relatively typical of its counterparts in other Western liberal democracies. It is a history of socialism. It’s rise, it’s dilution and it’s near death.

The First Labour Government was a truly socialist government, and is the benchmark of democratic socialism in New Zealand. But with the collapse of the post-WWII economic boom, social democratic parties found it increasingly difficult to enact further socialist reforms due to the restraints they placed upon themselves within the capitalist framework. This led to the economic liberalisation and financial deregulation of the 1980s and eventually the Third Way agenda under Helen Clark. These historical trajectories have divorced the Labour Party from its socialist traditions and its grassroots support base. Voter engagement has plummeted. Political apathy and cynicism has never been higher among working class New Zealand.

In the wake of the Global Financial Crisis and considering the climate crisis, peak oil and resource depletion, New Zealand is ready for its next ‘big change’ moment.

Evolutionary socialism: The First Labour Government
The evolutionary socialist school of thought has been the dominant and only viable socialist framework since the collapse of the USSR and the moral failures of violent revolutionary communism.

Democratic socialism was founded upon the belief that to achieve social gains, one must work within the democratic system of Parliament. Gradualists, as they were known, including the Fabian Society and Eduard Bernstein, believed their vision was inevitable because of the qualities of the democratic system itself and the truth of their ideas.

Many social democratic parties were formed across the Western world to utilise this democratic approach. The New Zealand Labour Party was established in 1916. From this early period of its history, Labour broke free from the communist movement to pursue a social democratic agenda; in 1925 a membership pledge was signed to affirm the Party’s commitment to democratic constitutional processes of governance. Yet it was clearly a socialist party; this is shown by its 1922 election manifesto which describes the Party’s key aim as the “socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange”. When Labour was elected to Government, with Michael Joseph Savage as Prime Minister and Peter Fraser as his ministerial workhorse, it enacted a wide range of socialist reforms including legislating compulsory trade union membership and passing the Social Security Act 1938, which effectively provided welfare cover from ‘the cradle to the grave’. The welfare state was expanded and entrenched under the premiership of Peter Fraser.

The second and third Labour governments continued down the same path of evolutionary socialism; egalitarianism became a mainstay of New Zealand politics from both right and left governments up until 1984. This was due to the entrenchment of social democratic principles in politics by Labour governments.

The death of social democracy: Rogernomics and The Third Way
Social democratic parties in the late 20th and early 21st Century have been embracing neo-liberal economic policies to fit within the framework of capitalist democracy.

As Dr Ashley Lavelle, an Australian political scientist, has pointed out, the solutions to the world’s problems that are being put forward by social democratic parties barely differ from the solutions of their conservative and liberal counterparts. Furthermore, the fundamental reform plans that they put forward in the 20th Century "to challenge entrenched power and privilege or redistribute the wealth have disappeared"*. 

Lavelle notes that the primary cause of the death of social democracy is the collapse of the post-war economic boom so that the return in the 1970’s of low economic growth led to the removal of the economic base used by social democrats to enact their social reform. This reform relied upon high revenues and incomes to reduce inequality and raise living standards without undermining capital accumulation. This reality required Governments and therefore social democratic parties to “remove the constraints on capital” and to create opportunities for business*. Social democrats were forced into this approach, as these were the boundaries set by economic democracies, which was the framework in which social democrats were pursuing their socialist goals.

Both David Cunliffe and Grant Robertson have pledged
 to repudiate the 'Third Way'

In the New Zealand context, it was the fourth and fifth Labour governments that implemented both the initial market liberalisation and the more moderate Third Way agenda that followed. By implementing this approach of neo-liberal policy, Labour has faced significant political consequences. They have suffered major electoral setbacks as a result of voters’ discontent with their neo-liberal economic policy and inability to stick to manifesto pledges.

Another major issue that is affecting social democratic parties is a decline in membership. This is an issue for all parties in the 21st Century but there is evidence that social democratic parties have lost members specifically in response to capitalist entrenching policy. This disconnects parties with their own history and the ideological base which gave them the mandate to exist in the first place.

The Third Way agenda of Helen Clark failed to address environmental degradation, carbon pollution and resource depletion. Centrist social democratic parties like the current Labour Party are unwilling and ill-equipped to tackle the underlying problems of our capitalist economic system.

Can Labour, on the back of the democratisation and re-invigoration of their party, redefine 21st Century politics in New Zealand by bringing its traditional values to the fore, while at the same time modernising it's policy platform?

Eco-socialism: democratic socialism in the 21st Century
Eco-socialism, which is an ideology that has roots as far back as the mid 1800s*, has the potential to become a dominant ideology in the 21st Century. Eco-socialism draws on both the ecologist and socialist opposition to capitalism.

Ecologism is founded upon the basic reality that there are natural limits to growth as we live on a planet with finite resources. This is a complete contradiction to the structure of capitalism that promotes never ending economic growth and labels environmental protection and social equality as “external dis-economies"*. Eco-socialists assert that the world is interconnected and that the economy is based on the health of the environment and those living within it.

The Greens have led a change in the political climate and
ensured that eco-socialist ideas are firmly on the agenda

It is evident that eco-socialist ideas have been gaining traction in the Western world, especially since the Global Financial Crisis. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has over the last decade lead a change in the political climate and ensured that eco-socialist values and solutions are firmly on the agenda in this country. While no longer radical in tone and appearance, the Greens champion a future economy and society that is far from the status quo.

But it's no longer just the Greens that are talking about transformative change; Labour leadership front-runner David Cunliffe, and to a lesser extent Grant Robertson, have also been articulating a vision that is starkly at odds with the capitalist orthodoxy.

Cunliffe's rhetoric in speeches such as 'The Dolphin and the Dole Queue' and 'Get your invisible hand off our assets!', represents a kind of thinking that is remarkably similar to prominent eco-socialists and the Green Party's co-leaders.

The clean tech revolution can build resilience in our economy, while protecting the environment and under the right settings could ensure full employment for our people. The scale and pace of change that we require is even greater than the situation that the First Labour Government faced. Harnessing a revolutionary ideological base combined with a democratic approach to fulfillment, the eco-socialist movement proves that socialism is a relevant ideology in the current political climate.

The real test lies ahead
For New Zealand's progressive leaders, both Red and Green, the real test lies ahead. If they follow through on their bold rhetoric and abandon the weak social democratic agenda, then the First Labour-Green Government could be as historically significant, world-leading and revolutionary as the First Labour Government that was sworn into power over three-quarters of a century ago.

While some in the media are probably right in that many see the word 'socialism' itself as an "instant turn-off"*, that does not mean that the ideological underpinnings of the candidates and the movement that they are seeking to lead won't have a huge effect on the outcome of not only this election, but also Labour's electoral platform for the next general election.

Its a no-brainer that New Zealand will remain a mixed economy, with the private sector playing a large role in our economic future. For example, both Labour and the Greens favour market incentives and price signals to address certain economic and environmental problems. But the time has come for the Left to reassert the fundamental values that built this nation.

Radicalism has for a long time been seen among the media as both a cardinal sin and a sign of electoral oblivion. But with the economic and environmental crises that engulf the world, and the massive skepticism of many people towards the political establishment, there are so many issues that require radical solutions. It could well be just what's needed to get disenchanted voters to turn around and listen.

The Left faces a host of challenges, not least of which is the courage of their own convictions. It seems that they themselves are aware of that. In the words of soon-to-be Labour leader David Cunliffe:

"We must also have leadership that has proven it can stare down vested interests – because make no mistake, the beneficiaries of neoliberalism will not give up their privilege quietly."*


Post by Jack McDonald

---

* Ashley Lavelle, The death of social democracy: political consequences in the 21st Century (Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited), pp. 1-2

* Lavelle, The death of social democracy, p. 2

* Bradley J. Macdonald, ‘William Morris and the vision of ecosocialism’, Contemporary Justice Review, Vol.7, No.3, 2004.

* Bradley J. Macdonald, ‘William Morris and the vision of ecosocialism’, Contemporary Justice Review, Vol.7, No.3, 2004, p. 287

*Jessica Williams, 'It's just a jump to the left...', http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Its-just-a-jump-to-the-left/tabid/721/articleID/37768/Default.aspx, Radio Live, accessed 09/09/2013

*David Cunliffe, 'David Cunliffe', http://thestandard.org.nz/david-cunliffe-2/, The Standard, accessed 09/09/2013

Shane Jones: selling out the kaupapa edition

Willie Jackson ripped into Nanaia Mahuta, Moana Mackey and Louisa Wall on Marae Investigates. Willie argued that they're guilty of "selling out" the kaupapa. The kaupapa being supporting a Maori leader of the Labour Party. He was unkind, but he might be right.

There seems to be little point in having a Maori caucus if it isn't going to support a Maori leadership candidate. (Honourable exception: Rino Tirikatene). Surely that's the guiding kaupapa. But does solidarity demand that they support Shane? Thoughts.

History: the Shane Jones edition

Sir Michael Joseph Savage, father of the Labour-Maori alliance

In 1932 Eruera Tirikatene won the byelection for Southern Maori. Tirikatene became the Ratana movement’s first MP. In 1935 Haami Tokoru Ratana secured Western Maori – the movement’s second seat. When Tirikatene took office the movement instructed him – and later Haami Tokoru Ratana – to vote with Labour. Recognising the electoral potential, Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage and Tahupotiki Wiremu Ratana (the movement's founder) met in 1936 and established the Ratana-Labour alliance.

In an effort to sanctify the relationship, TW Ratana presented Savage with five symbolic gifts:

1. Three huia feathers. The feathers represented Maori. The huia is extinct – killed by introduced species and habitat loss – and its death represented the struggle of the past century.
2. A pounamu hei tiki. The pounamu represented mana Maori. 
3. A kumara (or potato depending on the source). The kumara represented the land taken from Maori (i.e. the loss of the Maori sustenance base) and ongoing poverty. 
4. A broken gold watch. The watch represented the broken promises of the Crown including the broken promise of the Treaty. 
5. And a badge shaped as a whetu marama (crescent moon). The crescent moon represents te tohu o te Maramatanga – a sign of enlightenment. 

If Savage could restore the mana of the Maori people (the pounamu), eliminate Maori poverty (the kumara) and rectify the broken promises of the Crown (the broken watch) then he would earn the right to wear the three huia feathers. The gifts had an enormous impact on Savage. It’s said that before he died he left instructions to have the gifts buried with him. Cynics say that Labour's commitment to Maori was buried with Savage and the gifts.

I don't believe that. Well, not entirely. Maori have a 77 year relationship with Labour. But despite the depth and symbolism of that relationship, it's been one-sided. Maori voters awarded Labour with a 50 year monopoly in the Maori seats. In 2011 Labour won more than 40% of the party vote in the Maori seats and more than 50% in previous elections. But that loyalty has often been sacrificed to expediency.

How Shane Jones is treated when he (inevitably) loses the leadership race will determine the health of the Labour-Maori alliance (it's no longer a Labour-Ratana alliance). Maori are watching closely. 

It's argued that right wing governments have helped Maori to climb the greasy pole better than their Labour counterparts. Sir James Carroll was a deputy Prime Minister and Acting Prime Minister in the Liberal government in 1909 and 1911. The Liberal Party was a precursor to the National Party. In 1996 Winston Peters secured the deputy Prime Ministership in a National government. There's also Ngata and more recently Parata, Bennett, Bridges and so on. A similar tradition of Maori leaders is harder to find in the Labour Party. 

But Labour has done more for Maori as a people, apparently. I take that view as correct. It was Norman Kirk who appointed Matiu Rata Minister of Maori Affairs - the first Maori to hold the position since Ngata - and the third Labour government that created the Waitangi Tribunal and the fourth Labour government that empowered the tribunal to investigate historical claims. The establishment of the tribunal and the Treaty settlement process has done more to influence Maori development than, say, Winston Peters holding the deputy prime ministership ever did. 

But symbolism can't be ignored. There's historical context. If Labour continues to refuse to put Maori in positions of power and leadership, the perception will strengthen that Labour treats Maori as vote fodder. With the Maori Party to the right and Mana and the Greens to the left, Labour is in danger of destroying the Maori-Labour alliance. There's choice in the Maori seats now. Labour can't rely on being the best of a bad lot. 

So here's the call: there's no need to elect Shane Jones to reaffirm the Labour-Maori alliance. David Cunliffe seems to have some mandate from members of the Maori caucus and he has made noises around the importance of winning a mandate from tangata whenua. But if Shane Jones isn't given a leadership position after the race - top 5 or better top 3 - then Labour can expect another decrease in its vote in the Maori seats. And who could blame us. It's sometimes a one-sided relationship. 

Post-script: here's an earlier post I did on Shane's run. And again for transparency: I've already declared for DC, but I want to keep putting context to Shane's run. He might be sexist, but his run represents far more than an egomaniacal sexist running for the sake of his own perception of self importance. 

Power: the Shane Jones edition

Labour leadership candidate Shane Jones

If you’re interested in Maori history, one of the most accessible books is Struggle Without End. But if you’re interested in the tool shed account...

Reducing it to its bones, our post-Treaty political history can be divided into four stages: the mid to late 19th century and the imitation of British political institutions, the late 19th century to the early 20th century and the flock to religion and its leaders, the mid to late 20th century characterised by urbanisation and unionism and the Treaty settlement phase with the adoption of a Maori model of Anglo-American capitalism.

The Treaty settlement phase hasn’t ended. But Shane Jones and his bid for the Labour leadership signals that that phase might be closing. The Treaty settlement era is characterised by the adoption of the neotribal model. Accumulating economic power was and is seen as the most effective way to achieve tino rangatiratanga. That might well be right, but Shane’s run for the leadership signals a new approach.

“Power is a lot like real estate. It’s all about location, location, location. The closer you are to the source, the higher your property value”.

That sums up Shane’s approach to achieving tino rangatiratanga: you have to get to the source of power. In this case, the Prime Ministership or a position close to it. The Cabinet controls the executive and (in our Westminster system) the Parliament.

The Maori Party has adopted the approach as well (in watered down form). Two of their MPs might hold ministerial warrants, but they’re not members of Cabinet. They’re on the periphery of power and their value is low as a result. In the government, the heavy lifting and influence is held in the top, say, five members of Cabinet. In the current government power seems concentrated in the Key/English/Joyce tripartite. Shane is aiming to form or be a part of an equivalent power group.

Shane’s run can’t be understood without the help of history. A supporter of Shane’s bid made an outstanding point this morning - Shane is the successor to Sir Apirana Ngata’s legacy:

E tipu e rea, mo nga ra o te ao,
Grow up o tender child in the days of your world,  

Ko to ringa ki nga rākau a te Pākehā,
In your hands the tools of the Pākehā,  

Hei oranga mo to tinana.
As means to support and sustain you.  

Ko to ngakau ki nga taonga a o tipuna,
In your heart the treasures of your ancestors,  

Hei tikitiki mo to mahunga.
As a plume for your head.  

Ko to wairua ki te Atua,
Your spirit given to God,  

Nana nei nga mea katoa.
The source of all things. 

Shane lives that. For that reason alone – casting aside the strategic significance of the bid – Shane might be worth supporting.

Post script: although I tautoko Shane’s run, I’ve already declared for Cunliffe. I’ve set out my reasons at The Daily Blog and I don’t retract them. This post is an attempt to put Shane's run in its proper context. Shane is polarising. My politics aren’t closely aligned with his (except on Maori issues) and I'm unsure how he will change the left. "Geldings", too. Enough said.  

Should a Māori MP stand for the leadership of the Labour Party?

Haare Williams, the Māori Vice President of the Labour Party, appeared on Marae Investigates this morning and made it very clear that it was time for a Māori leader of the party:

He was also clear that the party needs to embrace the Treaty partnership. In his own words:

"E rua ngā wāhanga kei roto i Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ko te taha ki te Pākehā, ko te taha ki a tāua ki te iwi Māori. Whaia te maramatanga e puta ai te houhoutanga o te whakawhanaungatanga; tēnā iwi, tēnā iwi, te iwi Pākehā me te iwi Māori, ā me ngā iwi e noho horopani ana ki Aotearoa. Mā Te Tiriti, e kukume mai te iwi kia whakakotahi i a tātou."

At present Māori issues aren't being considered in this leadership contest. But the beauty of the new rules adopted by the Labour Party is that a democratic selection process is being used, a primary election.

The process is similar to the rules used by UK Labour Party. In the leadership election that followed the resignation of Gordon Brown in 2010, a healthy and robust selection process was used. Diane Abbott, a long serving Labour backbencher, stood in the election and was consistently dismissed by the mainstream media and political pundits. But she brought issues to the fore that needed to be heard in the Labour Party itself. As a black woman and a staunchly Left MP, she represented a huge part of the population that is consistently marginalised in British politics. She didn't win but when Ed Miliband won the election he appointed Abbott as a front bench Shadow Health Minister.

 

A run in the primary election by one of the Māori MPs could produce similar outcomes, and may end up with that candidate being elected Deputy Leader. I’m not of the view that Shane Jones could do this effectively as he is despised by other minorities in the party and probably most of the female members. It’s unlikely if even the Māori caucus would unite around Shane Jones. Nanaia Mahuta appeared on Te Karere and said she thought David Cunliffe was ready to go as leader and that she didn't see Jones as one of his supporters. This made it clear that she wasn't pushing for a run by Shane Jones. 

But in my view, she and the other Māori MPs should consider a run. Louisa Wall and Moana Mackey would also be well placed to do this. As John Tamihere pointed out in the above video, they aren't going to realistically win the election. But they could ensure kaupapa Māori and Te Tiriti o Waitangi are firmly on the Labour Party’s agenda.

Māori have supported the Labour Party for over 80 years, but in recent years Māori support  has been taken for granted. It's time for a Māori voice in a leadership position.


UPDATE: Duncan Garner has announced on Twitter that Shane Jones is in the race. While it's pretty clear I'm not one of his fans, good on him all the same. At least one Māori MP is in the race. It will be interesting to see if the Māori caucus support him.


P.S - this also raises another question; should Haare Williams stand for Parliament? He would be an ideal candidate for Labour and add real depth to their Māori caucus. He may feel that his efforts are more needed on the organisational side of the party, but he could be an excellent Labour MP if he wanted to be. There are rumours going around that Shane Jones may not stand in Tāmaki Makaurau. Is this because Williams is considering a run, or is Shane Taurima angling for it?


Post by Jack McDonald

Shearer needs to do better to win back the Māori seats

David Shearer's reshuffle of his caucus was a bit of a mixed bag. There were positive changes but the renewal didn't go far enough. The decisions to promote David Clark and Phil Tywford were good ones; both are talented MPs who have a lot to offer in Parliament. I accept that they needed a change in their education spokesperson but Chris Hipkins doesn't really seem like the best replacement. It has also been noted that his purge of David Cunliffe and his supporters will probably led to even more disunity within the Labour Party. Charles Chauvel predicted this in his valedictory speech on Wednesday.

From my perspective their lack of change in their Māori caucus line up was disappointing. The only Māori MPs in his shadow cabinet are Nanaia Mahuta and Shane Jones, who has a front bench spot waiting for him pending the Auditor General’s investigation into his dealings while Immigration Minister. Shane Jones is exceptionally intelligent and the best orator in Parliament, but does represent a conservative Māori perspective that is at odds with younger generations. Most of his time recently has been spent attacking environmentalists and Green MPs. He is a big supporter of extractive industries that produce few jobs and negative environmental conditions while locking us in to a carbon dependent economy. Labour needs more diversity to counteract the 20^th Century approaches to economics that Shane Jones represents.

Where’s Louisa Wall? She’s been left on the back benches. Both her and Moana Mackey are very intelligent and hardworking MPs and should have positions in Shearer's shadow cabinet. They along with Metiria Turei and Denise Roche represent a new generation of Māori politicians in Parliament.

The other disappointing factor was that Parekura Horomia still has the important Māori Affairs portfolio. Horomia is by all accounts an excellent electorate MP but I don’t think that he should continue in the Māori Affairs role while being on the back benches. This is a stark contrast with the Greens and their co-leader Metiria Turei who is a very effective Māori Affairs spokesperson. If David Shearer wants to achieve his goal of winning back all of the Māori seats then for a start he needs to appoint a strong frontbench spokesperson for Māori Affairs. Nanaia Mahuta would probably be best suited for this in the current Parliamentary lineup. At the moment Hone Harawira, Metiria Turei and the Māori Party MPs dominate the discourse in Māori politics. Labour has struggled to produce a post foreshore and seabed platform for the Māori seats and I think this is in large part due to Horomia and his involvement with that confiscatory legislation.

Labour needs to look the future of Te Ao Māori. Too many of our people, especially us taiohi, don’t vote. I stood in Te Tai Hauāuru last election for the Green Party and it reinforced my view that many, maybe most, young people around my age are disconnected from our politics. Only 59% of the enrolled population in Te Tai Hauāuru voted in 2011. This is at a time when we have an expanding youth vote in Māori communities. It is sometimes hard to see what politics offers for us, especially for the many of us that live in poverty with low wages and few employment opportunities. Incremental change is not inspiring and not good enough in these times of severe economic hardship. We need vision, we need engagement and we need action. It’s time for Labour to thoroughly repudiate Rogernomics and the confiscatory treaty policy of Helen Clark. If David Shearer can do this then he might have a chance at all the Māori seats. Until then he’s dreaming.

JT on Nanaia

Oh dear. From Stuff.co.nz:

Former Labour MP John Tamihere has criticised David Cunliffe's choice of running mate for the party's leadership, saying he picked Nanaia Mahuta because she is female and Maori.

''The only thing she's lacking is she doesn't have a limp. Then he would have got the disabled [vote] too. That's the truth of it and that's the way it smacked as soon as I saw it.''

You can always rely on John Tamihere to call it how he sees it, and that’s a good quality, but sometimes the way he calls things is unnecessary. The point JT is trying to make is that Nanaia was selected on tokenistic grounds. A fair point, no doubt, but the way he phrased his point was low – offensive basically. He may have got a laugh out of a few racists, ableists and fuckwits, beyond that his comment didn’t serve anyone. JT continues:

Tamihere said Cunliffe's choice of deputy was ''smarmy'' and typical of him.

''I'm the type of Maori that doesn't back dumb Maori, so I'm not saying she's a dumb Maori. I'm just saying if she was awfully meritorious, I'd back her 100 per cent, that has not been my experience.''

Nanaia was the standout in the Native Affairs Kowhiri 11 debates. She defeated her opponents by a Waikato mile in the debates and was, in my opinion, the best communicator of all the Maori candidates who fronted in the different debates. Nanaia is, in my experience, fiercely intelligent too. I don’t know how JT missed that. He must never listen to her I guess.

Jones was a better choice despite not having run a strong campaign in Tamaki Makaurau, Tamihere said.

''Out of the two of them you'd have to rate, on Labour Party values and on the street bringing the men's vote back and a whole bunch of other things, Shane all day long; if he can get over in his own mind the self mutilation that he conducted in that hotel room,'' Tamihere said.

I think this comment gives a hint to where JT is coming from. It seems to me that a little bit of sexism is at play.Yes, Nanaia is a woman and Shane is a man. That doesn’t make Shane the superior candidate.

JT has overstepped the mark. He didn’t need to launch an attack against Nanaia to prove his point. She’s a strong candidate. She deserves respect not this sort of marginalisation.

triple threat

A few thoughts on Closeup’s interview with the main contenders for the Labour leadership:


Cunliffe:

Easily the strongest. Cunliffe was the most relaxed, concise and prepared. He also varied his tone and expression well. Cunliffe wisely played to his strengths intelligently identifying one of his weaknesses as a tendency to call “a spade a spade”. Of course this isn’t a weakness in the eyes of 90% of New Zealanders – it’s only a weakness in the eyes of Labour’s, and I hate using this term, PC brigade. However, Cunliffe could be perceived as smug, but hell he’s nowhere near as smug as Simon Bridges and the high priest of smug Steven Joyce.


Parker:

Parker stumbled early. A little stiff, which is to be expected, but unlike most he didn’t seem to loosen up as the night progressed. Strangely Parker kept claiming he can “touch people”. I thought that was a strange way to say he can connect with New Zealanders. Surprisingly, according to Parker he has no weaknesses as a leader. Wow. In the face of Labour’s massive defeat humility will go a long way. Someone should tell Parker.


Shearer:

I love Shearer’s story, but he didn’t look ready tonight. Under prepared and not very good off the cuff. That can be fixed though. Easy. Ultimately, he didn’t seem to ooze, for want to a better description, gravitas. Cunliffe and Parker looked and sounded more like leaders in waiting. Shearer, rightly in my opinion, focussed on the fact he’ll be different from the Clark government and he brings a fresh face. But I don't think that was enough in the face of his constantly stumbling. He was always searching for answers rather than firing them out.


Sainsbury:

He conducted a very blunt interview.

Finally, the txt poll had Shearer on top with 50%. Understandable. Cunliffe polled second and Parker third. On tonight's performance I'm backing Cunliffe. Shearer a close second and Parker a distant third. For me, the ideal ticket is Cunliffe as leader, Shane Jones as deputy, Parker at finance with Robertson, Ardern, Mahuta, Shearer, Twyford, Hipkins and Dalziel rounding out the top 10.