Harden up, Labour

The more I think about Phil Goff and the events of the past few days the more unlikely it seems, in my mind at least, that Goff will be able to form a coalition government post-election. Ultimately, Goff does not have the ability to bring together and manage a coalition of competing and disparate interests. The Darren Hughes controversy and the Parekura/Nanaia rebuke indicates, in incredibly stark terms, that Goff is a political amateur.

For the sake of this post let’s say Labour’s coalition arrangement post election will be Labour/Winston/the Greens/Hone Harawira. Managing this coalition would be problematic for even the most competent political manager. The four parties share some common ground on economic issues, for example foreign ownership, yet in almost all other respects the four parties differ significantly. There is little ideological common ground between Winston (or should I say New Zealand First) and the Greens/Hone Harawira. The three will almost certainly be at logger heads on almost everything. Take the foreshore and seabed. Nationalisation of the foreshore and seabed is bedrock policy for Winston. The issue will form the basis of his campaign and, assuming he is re-elected, will probably feature in any agreement he signs. On the other hand, the Greens and Hone Harawira will be campaigning on the amending the current act with the intention of strengthening Maori rights. Hone Harawira will accept no less. Which brings me to the question, how will Goff, an appalling political manager, reconcile Winston’s position with the Greens/Hone Harawira’s position. That is assuming Goff even has the ability to pull together a coalition in the first place.

I am of the view that it is beyond Goff to even attempt to pull together such an incongruent coalition. If Goff cannot even form and maintain a functioning and effective opposition, how the hell is he going to form and maintain a functioning government, let alone an effective one.

The Darren Hughes controversy has shown, once again, that Goff’s judgement is poor. The Parekura/Nanaia rebuke illustrates that Goff is presiding over a divided caucus as well as an ill-disciplined caucus that is ostracised from the decision making process. The Goffice has adopted a top down approach to political management. The decisions are made at the top, by Goff’s advisors, while the party is informed after the fact and expected to swallow the political poison that results. No wonder there are whispers of discontent. If Goff were to continue this approach in government, he will soon find his partners on the cross benches. 

If Goff cannot control his own party he sure as hell cannot control Hone Harawira and Winston Peters. Ultimately, Goff does not have the political nous required to hold together a coalition of disparate and competing interests. Therefore, Goff needs to go. The left will need a skilled and intuitive political manager if we are to have any hope of forming the next government. I am hesitant to put forward any names, having said that I do like the sound of David Parker and Shane Jones as deputy, or even David Cunliffe at number one and Shane at number two. Broadly speaking, Parker and Cunliffe speak to identity politics while Jones speaks to class politics.

Sadly, Goff has been harshly criticised – I actually think quite unjustly at times. However, Goff is always one step behind and one step out of line with everything he does. The left cannot afford to go into the election with someone so terrible. Labour has nothing to lose and everything to gain. The party has polled at around 30-35% consistently. This indicates their base is solid and probably will not move. Goff is the problem. Labour’s policy resonates with the electorate, the problem is the face, and in some cases faces, of that policy. What is the harm in replacing a leader who is deeply unpopular with the electorate?

Balls up Labour. If not, you deserve to lose.   

Nanaia joins the revolt

Nanaia Mahuta has come out against Goff. From Waatea News:

Another of Labour's Maori MPs has broken ranks with leader Phil Goff over working with former Maori Party MP Hone Harawira.

Waikato-Hauraki MP Nanaia Mahuta says Mr Harawira has taken similar positions to Labour on issues such as the 90-day bill, raising the minimum wage, and greater protection for employee rights.

“But the real proof is what happens after election 2011 and I’ve been in politics long enough to know that the wind blows both ways and you can’t rule anyone in and out before that day. That’s the day that matters,” she says.

Ms Mahuta has confirmed she will stand again this year, despite stepping back in Labour's rankings for health and family reasons.

Goff needs to get on top of this – there is clearly a huge amount of dissatisfaction among the Maori caucus. As I blogged a few days, Parekura has already come out against Goff. This means Labour’s most senior Maori MP’s have openly defied the leadership and reneged on the accepted party position. This is nothing but sloppy political management on Goff’s part.

But perhaps the most interesting aspect of Nanaia’s statement was confirmation that she will stand again this year. This will disappoint the Maori Party. Although Nanaia’s grasp may be more tenuous than previously thought. Make no mistake, Nanaia is an extremely dedicated electorate MP and a well connected and respected member of Tainui, but nothing lasts forever. Fatigue may begin to settle in and a good candidate may, keyword may, clinch an upset. Nanaia can run on her record as an electorate MP (bar her record on the foreshore and seabed) and cruise to victory. So often though there is no correlation between performance and re-election. Success is often a combination of incumbency, personality, reach and circumstance. More often than not ones chances of re-election are situational. Is the public generally favourable towards my/my party’s brand? Does society currently value what I espouse etc… 

Ultimately, I am picking Nanaia will retain her seat based partly on name recognition and partly on the perception that she is a dedicated electorate MP. This time around her connections to the Kingitanga may prove to be a black mark against her given the trouble surrounding the Kingitanga. It is almost certain that Nanaia will not be re-elected on the basis of her involvement on the national scene. She is silent on most if not all issues affecting Maori. I haven’t seen anything from her since I started blogging some three or four months ago. To be fair her focus is her family and good on her for that. 

In any case she will probably win given the state the Maori Party is in. In 2008 the Maori Party brand was at its apex and the party ran incredibly aggressive campaigns in all of the Maori electorates. Even then they could not unseat Nanaia who was, following the seabed and foreshore controversy, exceedingly stained. If politics is indeed situational, and if Nanaia cannot be unseated in the most unsympathetic situation for Labour, then I am not sure she will be unseated this time around. The tide is turning against the Maori Party.    

Goff needs to step up

An interesting piece from Waatea News:

Labour's Maori affairs spokesman Parekura Horomia has indicated Phil Goff's blanket refusal to contemplate Hone Harawira as part of a future coalition government isn't supported by all his colleagues.

Mr Goff says while he made the decision himself, it was unanimously backed by the Labour caucus.

Goff should be worried that Horomia, a senior figure within the party, has decided to essentially break ranks.  This signals that there is a significant amount of dissatisfaction among caucus, especially the Maori caucus, in terms of the decisions Goff is making. A capable leader can in most instances contain dissatisfaction, however Goff is struggling to keep caucus onside. Ultimately, it is a failure of political management on Goff’s part. On current calculations Goff will need the Greens, New Zealand First and Hone Harawira to have any hope of forming the next government. However Goff cannot expect to manage a coalition of competing and disparate interests when he cannot even control his own caucus. MMP requires deft political management skills – Goff is yet to display such skills.

Goff has had a hard time over the past two and a bit years. I know I would hate to be him right know. Having said that the flak he has received is in many cases justified. He is always making the wrong call, stepping in the wrong direction and slaving away behind public opinion. Goff is applying the smile and wave principle. The problem is smiling and waving is the province of John Key. New Zealanders don’t want two John Keys. They want a genuine choice - an old fashioned contest of ideas if you will. Sadly, Goff is far to timid to offer that. Goff is opting to play it safe. Recycle the standard PR lines, apply the standard theories, play by the book essentially. The standard approach to propaganda is insufficient. One would think that Goff and his idiot advisors would have realised this by now. In any case I hope they wake up before the election. Don’t just gift the election to John Key.    

National mismanagement?

The current government has an incredibly well managed image. Yet, they do not appear to possess the political management skills to complement this image. By political management I mean campaign management, strategic management (e.g. choosing what policies to implement and when) and managing ministers and caucus members. The current government’s negative press has, for the most part, revolved around failures of political management.

In terms campaign mismanagement there was the Mt Albert byelection disaster -a template on how not to run a campaign (that been said the Mana byelection was a template on how to run a campaign).

Poor political management on a policy level does not necessarily equate to unpopular policy rather policy that came about at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons and in the wrong form. In politics you can justify almost anything if the timing is right (the political climate is right), the reasons seem genuine and there are some parts, if only one or two, that the electorate considers reasonable.

National Standards is an example of policy that was pushed through at the wrong time and in the wrong form. There was no great appetite amongst the electorate for change in the education system, although the electorate appreciated the government’s intentions, and the education sector believed that the policy took the wrong form. If the government had been willing to approach implementation of the policy differently they probably could have come away with a win. There were parts of National Standards many parents seemed supportive of. Like having a single measure of achievement as opposed to a range of different measures. So the timing was wrong, the reasons and the sales pitch was poor. Political mismanagement 101.

Some of the failures of political management on a personal level include the Bill English housing rort, Pansy Wong’s abuse of travel perks, the Phil Heatley saga, the stupid Richard Worth affair and now the David Carter controversy. The PM should have a close finger on all his ministers. His hands off approach has led to more than a few ministers been caught out for activities that weren’t legit. These failures, on the part of the PM, will probably be the most damaging in the long run. They feed the perception that this government is “loose” with standards of behaviour. The opposition can easily build a narrative around this idea and I imagine the media would be fairly receptive given it is an easy angle. Policy is much harder to pin down because it is such a subjective thing whereas most people can agree using taxpayer money for personal purposes is wrong.