Labour's Leadership Crisis

The Labour caucus is still having trouble with deciding how to deal with this new government.

David Farrar over at Kiwiblog posts how inane the opposition's attacks are regarding the Governments planned fibre roll out strategy to better serve our broadband infrastructure. As was posted on Kiwiblog a wee while ago, they were having a little trouble deciding a)how to attack JK et al and b) how to be an effective opposition. This proves once again that they still have issues (aside from rampant socialism that is :-)).

In the past, all oppositions did just that: the opposite - sometimes whether they agreed with a policy or not. Now, with JK at the helm and a more open and results (rather than politics) orientated government that is bi-partisan in it's approach, the traditional rules no longer apply. As exhibited with Clare Curran's approach to s92a, there is a glimmer of hope. Unfortunately, you still have A King and P Goff at the helm who authorise these "attacks" because they know nothing else. Thats how they have been taught. In politics when you resort to blatant untruths, such as we have here, you can tell that the party is failing to get any traction. They tried this in the election campaign (remember Mike Williams' little side trip) and the strategy didn't work then and, in the face of a disciplined government, it won't work now. This is another great example of where leadership is being tested for Labour and is failing. Bring on the likes of Shane Jones who is far more credible, focused and able to adapt while bring the likes of Jacinda Adern up with him. While not being a Labour supporter, New Zealand still needs a credible opposition for things to function well. I hope Phil Goff can get past his own hubris, see this problem for what it is and act upon it or, god forbid, he may end up having to be moved involuntarily.

Make no mistake, Andrew Little, for all his conciliatory words on Q+A two weeks ago about supporting Phil and Annette, is just the bloke to enact change when needed and be prepared to step on toes if he thinks it is in the best interests of his party. He is cognizant of the fact that to achieve a result for your point of view, a conciliatory approach works a lot better than an adversarial one. You only need to look at his style of leadership in the EPMU for that. Many employers have a great respect for Andrew and give him credence where the likes of the old guard such as Ken Douglas, would never have achieved his levels of success for his people.

The whole Labour movement needs to smarten up in this new era. It's spokespeople are still living in the wrong century - or at least their politics are.

One just needs to go to Chris Trotters lament of the demise of that era to realise that they are still beholden to the past rather than to the future.

The Labour Party is in a crisis, no matter how much they deny it. The current leadership just can't get a grip on the reasons why people changed their vote in such numbers and why the National Party retains such support post election. People want results - no matter who initially thought up the idea. National is delivering this. Labour is still stuck in the mindset that if it isn't our idea then it isn't an idea at all.

Phil Goff should remember Plato's Repuplic - that in the absence of any leadership at all, a new leader will emerge - whether he wills it or not.

Hat Tip: DPF, Kiwiblog

I Miss Agenda.

I've just experienced my first Q + A and I'm not impressed. Not impressed with Holmes at least.

Paul did well to bow out when he did however his half hour, magazine style of interview just doesn't cut it. A great example was the interview with Andrew Little. Andrew did well I thought in the face of a badgering questioner that seemed more intent on getting him to trip up rather than allow him to put forward his views which, surprisingly enough, he managed to do with a certain amount of style and credence.

The show was too rushed without giving the panel to give deep analysis. All on the panel are competent commentators however the format just doesn't allow for them to display their smarts.

There are a few things that need to happen to ensure Q+A's success.

Firstly, poor old Paul needs to slip back into retirement. This is no slight on his intellect. More that the show just doesn't suit him and I think he is past it.

Secondly, the format needs to be paced better. It might have been me but it felt rushed.

And lastly, they need to retain Therese Arsenaeu. Mmmm.... political eye candy :-)

The New Worker

I have just finished reading Chris Trotters new op-ed piece at his blog site Bowalley Rd in which he gives voice to his opinion of Andrew Little, the new Labour Party President, the Labour Party's current situation and also yearns for the old days when the Labour Party was full of passionate debate united by a common thread of a socialist path for New Zealand.

Since I started The Home Office, I've been investing a lot of time in reading more of the leftist blogs such as Bowalley Rd, The Standard (always a staple), Socialist Aoteroa and the Workers Party.

What has come to mind has been that the militisicm of old, that stereotypical waterfront worker staring the police down on the waterfront in 1951, that kind of violent say-with-my-fists-what-my-mouth-can't passion seems to have gone. Sure, there are traces of it here and there. And the "about" tabs of some of these blogs seem to be transposed directly from Marx's Communist Manifesto. But even Chris seems to lament that core stereotype of the New Zealand worker.

What defines a new Zealand worker as we grow older as as a nation?

We are in a world full of Gen - Y's (Gen Y Neos, they tell me now) where the Ipod is king, consumerism is rampant and communication is on a scale never seen before. In fact my 14 yr old niece's cellphone appears to be hardwired to her fingers, she doesn't need to look to string a text message together and she can even converse in a somewhat meaningful way while she does it! We are moving to a more knowledge based economy that means more and more people are moving from the factory floor or the waterfront to the air conditioned office and the computer keyboard. There seems little room for the old stereotype of the militant socialist - or even the vociferous one at that. Chris Trotter comments himself on the fact that the Labour Party, with it's roots deep in the workers heart, now numbers perhaps 2000-odd paid up members. Where have the old days gone? Why are there not more people struggling to rise from the grip of the imperialist fist?

Perhaps the question should be: Is the socialist movement in New Zealand keeping pace with the changes in society? Who is "The New Worker"?

There will, I hope, always be a Left and Right - two opposing opinions on how the state of affairs should be run. Democracy requires this so that consensus is reached and the will of the people is acceded to. There is no doubt, if recent polls are to be believed, that the Left is in a state of tatters while the Right is in the ascendancy. This is reasonable I guess given the fact we have had a significant shift in thinking as evidenced in the result of the last election.

However, sometimes I wonder about the relevance that the socialist side has to todays world and is that movement answering the question above: Is the socialist movement in New Zealand keeping pace with the changes in society? Who is "The New Worker"?

I think Andrew Little has an idea who that new worker is? Chris bemoans the fact that he is respected by the people he represents and the people he purports to battle. I would have thought that this was a good thing; consensus being the way forward and all that democratic type of stuff.

I apologise in advance if I malign anyone with the stereotype of "the worker" painted above or indeed their views and opinions. However I think it valid to point out that while such an able bloke as Phil Goff languishes at the bottom of the polls, perhaps some stereotypes the old left may have need to be broken and the needs of the New Worker identified.