Written By:
- Date published:
5:54 pm, April 21st, 2026 - 65 comments
Categories: Economy, Environment, International, labour, Left, political alternatives, socialism, uncategorized -
Tags:
We didn’t need the current imbroglio in the Gulf as proof that the world is in turmoil. The rise of populism and nationalism disrupts the doddering post-1940s rule-based model of global capitalist management. This disruption is fuelled by the destructive impact of neo-liberal policies. I’ve argued here on several occasions that, first, we face an extended period, two generations or more, of global disruption and, second, that small economies such as New Zealand must look to a reconstituted import-substitution model as a necessary defence.
Many will reject this view. Free market thinking sees many positives in this disruption, Certainly, believers in wealth inequality as a spur to growth are currently well-served. Orthodox social democracy is equally sceptical. It continues on a path laid down over the last half century, seeking to mitigate the most egregious effects of the disruption, whilst eschewing fundamental structural responses
There is a stricture within orthodox social democratic politics not to reflect on, or worry overmuch about, these structural challenges (at least, not in public, and not in any way that disrupts the orthodoxy). The contemporary hold of psephological thinking in an electoral system operating in a three-year cycle is fierce if bemusing. Social democracy’s sights have been narrowed to the task of winning power every three years, a focus in which “rocking the boat” is castigated, and fundamental challenges, economic and political, are downplayed.
One sees this is in the tardiness of the last Labour government to address “economic transformation.” COVID is not to blame for this. Apart from a few lone voices, the Party in power approached serious economic renewal as a second-order issue.
Towards the end of Labour’s second term in power, David Parker’s long commitment to changed economic thinking was supported by Grant Robertson, who had talked previously of economic transformation. That glimmer of hope was extinguished quickly, though its embers glow still in various corners of the Party. Meanwhile, both champions have moved on to new pastures.
The issue is not one of talent. Labour has very competent MPs and a committed and experienced penumbra of expertise in its Policy Council and elsewhere. Some exceptional new people are in the mix for the coming election.
The explanation lies in three factors – hierarchy, institutional constraint and intellectual narrowness. The Party’s constitutional changes in 2012 had the perverse effect of further concentrating power in the parliamentary party leadership, reinforcing a centralisation pf power and resources. Hierarchy and discipline are comfortable bedfellows.
Constraint is an effect of history. In the big picture, the Labour tradition has moved away from its radical socialist roots into an ever-more circumscribed “managed capitalism” mode. In the small, Piketty is correct in seeing modern social democratic parties as the locus of an educated professional, managerial elite, distanced from traditional roots in the working class. It is for this reason that post-modern ideas have also taken root in the tradition, at the expense of class-based thinking.
Intellectual narrowness follows. This is not for want of intellect, but tracks choices made. It follows seventy years (or more, depending on your choice of starting point) in which the array of alternative futures – alternative to Capitalism, that is – has been diminished to the point that the Labour tradition has few directions from which to choose. The idea that Capitalism had a beginning, and will have an end, and that what follows will be determined by a clash of ideas, is rarely present in discussion. The exception to this is the environmental challenge, which for many sits uneasily with managed capitalism.
The combination of an existential environmental challenge and a global capitalist system in turmoil has challenged Social Democracy to think urgently of alternatives. Broadly, three camps have emerged. The first appears to have looked at global and local challenges, decided it’s all too hard, and clung fiercely to the status quo, avoiding where possible Economics. It may be the dismal science, but It’s vital.
The second recognises the challenge and thinks it can be managed within existing arrangements. This is why the work of Mariana Mazzucato has currency, especially in NZ Labour. Her work on the entrepreneurial state is about reconfiguring current circumstances, transformation within the bounds of Capitalism, in order to revitalise the Left’s classical post-war mission. There is much in her work that makes sense, but is it too little, too late, and a restatement of the developmental state notion of the 1980s?
The third might be illustrated by “erratic Marxist” Yanis Varoufakis. His analysis of “techno feudalism” suggests that Capital is reconfiguring itself into a new, oligarchy-controlled world. The answer is a radical re-think of Left politics, anchored in, for example, a Green New Deal, revitalised and transformed Bretton Woods institutions, class politics prioritised over nationalism and populism, and deepened democratic institutions. The question here is: if it’s true, how do we get there from here?
The range of debate about how to respond to global and local disruption is present, if muted, in the Party and in the membership of key committees, especially Policy Council. It is also understood by many MPs. The scale of the challenge requires that debate to develop further and to be heard. If Labour is to develop policy on environment, tax, savings and investment, population, innovation, trade, resilience, for example, configured to meet the challenge, it must also seek to win public support for a sea-change in policy.
The current “small target” model cannot address the scope of change that must be advanced. The issues facing New Zealand are of a magnitude that requires serious public debate and understanding. Their discussion requires confidence in the community and sustained public engagement. It requires leadership by a Labour Party confident in a multi-decade vision for economy and society.
Good on you Nigel. I'll do a think overnight and respond.
We can hope for any or all of those changes you offer, Nigel, but we are hampered/hamstrung imo, but the invisible tethers/reins of foreign governments and institutions that require our tiny island cluster to continue along the path they have subtly guided us on for many a year. Not only do we have to do battle with "agents" in our own country, we have also to grapple, if we can find something to grip, with those abroad.
I think it is clear after reading this excellent post that ideology rules the day. If the tasks facing new politicians were viewed in a different way, such as defining what outcomes were wished for, and which approach was most affordable and possible and one or two considered and compared for method and personnel, then different results could happen.
I consider the whole of government has been mesmerised by elegant arguments and narrow specialisation that does not care to consider what the broad mass of citizens need or can afford.
As Professor Jane Kelsey warned – the tightness of the trade agreements that we have made will be hard to undo. Hopes and plans will meet hard legal walls, resulting in citizens' practical requests to govt being ignored or fudged. The permanent agreements mean that NZ can not introduce laws that prevent trade for the bigger partner companies.
There are listings for Professor Jane Kelsey on Google and a 1999 one from Converge (PMA-Peace Movement Aotearoa) sets out our situation then very fully. Bridget Williams Books backgrounds her and lists her books. bmartin.co on The Closure of Critique answers questions of how did we lose the gains made by our polity which I thought were permanent. Prof Kelsey has illuminated the disadvantages from our political experiments with large nations in the world regularly to little avail tof action from our mesmerised leaders.
The whole economic approach is so tilted that we will slide off eventually, or be washed off as another possibility.
New Zealand’s political parties are never going to be accused of overtly theoretical policy frameworks or too much thinking. But New Zealanders do have a facility for dealmaking – borne both of necessity and is set within our foundation. I’d encourage Labour to recognise and build on the capacity that we do have.
Economic historiographers like Judt or our own McAloon and Easton wistfully opining the loss of large scale state intervention aren’t helpful. We’ve had bailouts by the dozen since Labour and National were invented, some more organised than others sure, but bailouts every decade nonetheless. We’ve also had a rapid expansion in the kinds and forms of state-to-industry partnerships, from import substitution to Think Big, to Regional Growth Initiatives, Provincial Growth Funds, state super funds, PPPs, Alliances, large-scale masterplanned real estate, state companies, we’ve legislated big business into existence, and since 2023 the Fast Track 149 list; a whole fractal universe of state-industry instrumentality from the left and right of Parliament.
New Zealand land development is just one of them. In the phrasing of economist Mariana Mazzucato, the state “has not just fixed markets, it has created them…”. In fact, the New Zealand state making markets has been at the very origin of the states’ existence when in the Treaty of Waitangi it formed the real estate market, and then underscored that at speed and scale within 12 months with The New Zealand Company and the Free Church Company in Dunedin.
Sure there are perils to our codependent state, but that too is in our 1840 foundation.
That variety of state-industry market making has real limits with the public however. Both sides of the house have had ugly and corrosive attempts to recentralise health, and to regionalise and corporatise water as if everyone finally had to pay some rent for it. It will take years if ever before we see good come out of either of them.
Labour doesn’t have to reinvent a bicycle wheel of interventionism, or apologise for it, or even reach for a new theory about it. What a good NZ state needs to do is help write and form deals that stick and that are good for us. Grow the capital that our market can never do by itself. It does need to foreswear the Fast Track legislation and recognise that Labour’s Parker was wrong to pull that genie out in the first place. Acknowledging the complexity and necessity of New Zealand always being in Wade’s phrase a Governed Market emphasising capital accumulation rather than a Free Market, would be a start.
Labour needs to not just fix markets; it needs to create them.
Bloody good read.
always the nub of the problem. Transition culture posits that big change happens at tipping points. We can't change the energy/momentum but we do have choices about which way we tip. The pandemic was one such point, a brief window that collapsed for a range of reasons in NZ. This year's oil crisis is another opportunity.
People are scared and stressed and ready to change. Will our political leaders on the left meet them and present a different pathway? NACTF's path is towards fascism. The centre left win the election path is 'let's get through this crisis and then re-affirm neoliberalism.
Problem is, there's another set of big waves on the horizon. Thinking and acting as if the ground hasn't fundamentally shifted, that we can go back to normal, just stops us taking real action.
Agree 100% the COC Government have definitely progressed down a Trumpian Right Wing Agenda.
Will also note, that while the oil crisis is a slow tidal wave that may or may not hit us badly, it has the potential to be catastrophic. Meanwhile, the left commentariat would rather focus on Luxon (observing this on TS and twitter)
Agree 100%. Labour appear to be concentrating on National's weaknesses, ie Luxon, however, we want to hear about Labour's strength's for the years going a head, rather than just being a version of National light. Like National, Labour promise so much, however they fail to deliver. They all seem to get distracted with BS rather than focusing on the Big Issues.
I was talking about the commentariat on TS and twitter, not political parties (who presumably are busy preparing for the budget and election campaign)
Something to entertain while we await the collision.
the privilege of the well prepared, but I suspect it's the response of many others who either don't know what to do, or are not sure yet how bad it's going to get.
Much of this post touches – consciously or unconsciously – on the themes traversed in Enzo Traverso's 2016 book "Left-Wing Melancholia". Traverso argues that the rise of neoliberalism, the Fukuyama-esque end of history and the collapse of the USSR saw the left retreat into the "politics of melancholy." The left has spent the last forty years mourning past defeats, and feeling a sense of guilt for what it failed to achieve. The key shift Traverso argues was a loss of the Marxist belief in the inevitable progression of history. Our historical consciousness is shaped by loss and we have spent four decades wallowing in memory, nostalgia and reflection while the "left" was reinvented as post modern identity politics by a the centre – the liberal managerial elites.
But Traverso argues that if the left is shaped by defeat then we ought to embrace that in order to reopen our radical imagination. "If not that, then what else0?" Stop wallowing in the melancholia of defeat, instead we need to start thinking about the lessons learned and the embers of hope to inform our critical memory… In sum, the left needs to be doing exactly as is proposed and come up with a way that gets us from dull centrist managerialism no longer fit for even the now, to using existing arrangements to plant the seeds of vanguardism to lead us to a radical new politics.
Yes. We've seen repeatedly how it goes wrong, now let's act in a way that brings success and avoids the traps we've experienced. Plan for success, test every action with: "Will this have the effect we want?".
that is excellent. Thoughts on how?
Thank you for the reference. I don't know the text, perhaps because in the 2015-2020 period I was less diligent than before when it came to reading. My own writing is always heavily influenced by English, rather than European, Marxism, by the Labour Process debate, and by critical international political economy. Mighty shoulders on which to stand, as always.
Yes I bathe regularly in Left Melancholy every morning.
Keeps me weary and nostalgic which is entirely age appropriate.
Just remember South Australia! if you need perking up.
NZ on it's current path, and the Neoliberal Agenda of National/ACT & NZF, is on a path of a train wreck, for the middle and lower classes here in NZ. Maaori and the lower socio-economic groups her in NZ, have been disadvantaged by this current Government.
Good Post but the crux of the matter in the last two paragraphs leaves me somewhat confused, so this comment may not be very helpful.
The conclusion is that there’s a serious local and global disruption, which requires debate about the way forward.
I assume the “it” refers to an understanding and acceptance of that requirement for debate rather than understanding the disruption as such (which would be rather preposterous).
The author then mentions a “sea-change in [Labour] policy” for which Labour “must win public support”, which sounds like common sense. However, since we cannot presume to know the outcome of the public debate, which is neither inevitable nor predictable, Labour cannot launch a full-scale progressive policy platform, as this would be putting the cart before the horse, IMO.
This leaves me with the question what the author suggests the Labour Party ought to do for the upcoming election with regards to policy. My premise is that voters would rather prefer answers & solutions over questions & issues for public debate after the election. So, how much policy can and should Labour release and how much suggestion (vision) for future debate?
The backdrop is, under MMP, how much potential coalition partners would be willing to accept, as they may have a different ‘understanding’ and reading of the lay of land, locally and globally.
Addressing the polycrisis needs us to recognise that there are real limits to growth, that we are using natural resources in Aotearoa as if our planet is at least 1.7 times bigger than it really is (resource overshoot), that at least 6 of 9 basic planetary biophysical thresholds are breached, and inequality is increasing. A move to adopt the economics of enough/degrowth is the other option, additional to the three given above.
yep.
I like to be optimistic but the pattern is that, nothing realistic is going to be done.
Just look at the opposition to the rather mild tinkering, the Greens propose to the current business as usual.
We have an economic system that relies on infinite growth. Just one facet in New Zealand, Kiwi saver, needs growth in resource use and "productivity" for savings to remain the same value as the initial investment. Repeat through our entire economy.
As for the necessary spending, even though it will be cheaper in the long run to adapt or mitigate for AGW, and as a bonus provide a positive effect to employment, business and well being, there is no political will to do it.
The most powerful lobby group in the country, and largest single source of pollution, farmers, react hysterically to any attempt to limit the harm caused by their activities. "Swimmeable rivers" anyone?
Then there is the large and vocal minority who think that electric cars, trains, climate science, cutting down hydrocarbon use, diminish their dick size.
The current Coalition of Cockups has shown their preferred response, to anything, least they be accused of doing something effective in a crises like the last Government, is to stick their heads in the sand, carry on as usual, and hope for magic beans to save us. Supported by around half the voting population, who prefer fairy stories to harsh reality.
Labour is better, but not by much.
Greens are the only party, so far, to have advanced credible, costed and worth considering, plans for longer term solutions. But, even the Greens cannot see past present economic paradigms.
Indeed. If the situation requires significant shifts in thinking and policy, how do we get there? My worry is that history tells us change of this magnitude usually requires, for want of a better word, revolution, political, economic, social. In my darker moments, looking at the existential environmental challenge and tipping points, things look bleak.Then my Pollyanna clicks in and I look to human capacity to see us through!
"…how do we get there?"
That's the question. We have to ask our poets, artists, storytellers and visionaries, in my opinion. Fact is, they've been answering for a very long time now. Political parties however, will never offer a policy based on that advice 🙂 The further away from the solution a party is, the greater their efforts will be to extinguish the development of poets, artists, storytellers and visionaries and that tells us (me) a great deal about what we are facing and where we need to go.
"…even the Greens cannot see past present economic paradigms."
I think they can but are constrained by "what's in fact, do-able", as we all are.
You and I know that plastic is bad for the environment, but we continue to buy products wrapped in it. We both know burning petroleum exacerbates climate change, but we drive (assuming a bit here).
As well as Mercurio's point about what is in fact doable constraints, they're also constrained by the reality of needing votes to be in parliament.
But they know. It's written into their charter, and I see it in policy kaupapa sometimes.
Marama Davidson made the point on BHN last night that they've been talking about these things for fifty years (presumably from Values Party formation 1972).
The left's issue with working class vs the environment is a big part of why we don't change imo. Very strong attachment to a certain standard of living as acceptable and ideal.
that last point is why some lefties pivoted to adaptation rather than mitigation. Better to keep our standard of living for now and then crash, than to make the change now and be ok with less.
Impossible, in a democracy, to have environmental sustainability without social sustainability.
The Greens are the only party in NZ that are aware of that.
Which is why I stay with them despite their faults.
same
"We" already recognise those needs. It's how to manage those who don't, or won't that's our real challenge. It's all very well keeping a clean sheet, but if someone insists on fouling it every day, you/we have to attend to the matter decisively in order to extinguish the behaviour.
I think the biggest hurdle to overcome in moving away from a neoliberal policy framework is inertia.
Currently many in the MSM and other commentators are mired with in the neoliberal framework and can't see the need to move outside this mentality. Asking a political party to overcome this inertia is a big ask, especially in the 3-year election cycle in NZ.
We need a wider societal push away from neoliberal thinking that a political party can amplify and use to it's advantage.
Even with the turmoil in the world that's providing drivers to move away from neoliberal thinking, there still needs to be a greater amplification of these yet IMHO.
Transition Towns founder Rob Hopkins says our imagination is declining (and cites research). It seems very hard for people to imagine what post-neoliberalism is other than nasty brutish and short. I think this is part of the inertia. I see myriads of theory and practice of other models, but I move in those circles and the ideas excite me. Some people seem to have a negative emotional reaction to the very thought of steady state or degrowth.
Imagination can be built, all that is required is practise; a warm, quiet environment where no interruptions are expected, an intention to "see what comes up" and to take note of what does emerge and you're on your way!
Inward is the way forward.
it can!
Hopkins talks about children a lot. Kids playing on the street, no TV, not phones, no structured activities, their imaginations go wild. Play builds imagination (in adults too, same conditions).
Politics is so brutal, I'm wondering now if in its current form it suppresses imagination. Bring back Morris Dancing!
Adults should play in the street?
Dance and play are one side of the imagination coin, but nurturing and attending-to your inner ear and eye; that's where imaging/imagination sit. I'd link to Jung, if I thought it helpful.
I expect that if every MP in the House closed their eyes and looked inward, very, very few would see or hear anything at all, save the sound of Winston grinding his teeth.
I'm sure you know of mindfulness. Practised for many thousands of years. The study of Philosophy has much of, but really anyone can become mindful. Go for a walk…or a Bike, and (carefully) observe your surroundings : from the big…to the little : )
Re ..
Or the drip… drip… of sweat from Luxo's brow….
Luxo's brow? Hard to pinpoint exactly where that begins and ends.
I see…beads of sweat above beady eyes.
Yes.
Some of us are more kinesthetic than visual or audial. Imagination from the body, moving. (I also meditate).
https://theconversation.com/pretend-play-is-a-magical-part-of-childhood-new-research-suggests-it-can-also-help-mental-health-281121
I’m glad that I grew up before mobile smart phones became an extension of our anatomy, physiology, and psychology.
A smattering of shattering shiny screens?
I think about this a lot. Bad enough there was a TV at home after school. On the up, there were no adults! And nature very close by.
Yesterday, I read this interesting article in The Conversation about [visual] imagination.
https://theconversation.com/how-does-imagination-really-work-in-the-brain-new-theory-upends-what-we-knew-280803
It’s tempting to extrapolate this to the imagining of complex ideas and concepts, as there may well be many similarities in the underlying brain processes, I’d imagine.
I can imagine an idea put forward by an academic or professional or unending deviser, catching on and becoming an accepted even overwhelming idea for the masses. This morning on the Concert program the 'musico' talked a little about the influence of 'St George and the Dragon' on our world psyches.
Wikipedia on this says that there is a Saint Theodore Tiro with a dragon story, but it got connected to actual St George in 11th century. St George is interesting in himself. His renown spread in the 3rd century and got connected to the dragon later. (Wikipedia on St George now)
Perhaps we can turn Anzac Day into St Georges Day, a fine and just warrior! I think careful use of imagination is absolutely necessary to understand the sort of contretemps we and our bloody minds and ways (varied meanings) can get into.
There will be moves to dismiss the use of imagination from those who are fixed on monetarism, tech control and AI. We must use our imagination to understand ourselves, our history, our minds and tendency to weave stories based on posits (perhaps economics), and wishful thinking with imagination plus bits of facts, and then believe in them as a whole or as a sacred text.
Well fiction and story telling apparently does help:
" interesting article in The Conversation about [visual] imagination."
100%, Incognito. Silencing brain activity isn't difficult, if approached the right way. Eastern meditation methods make the job onerous, imo, as their aim is to extinguish "chatter" but it's focussing on a certain part of the chatter that is the aim of the seeker of creativity and that emerges once linear, "anxiety-producing" self-talk is put to bed, through exhaustion or practice. Lots of artists have done and are doing this to tap into the great sea of creativity that heaves and billows below us all, in our subconscious/psyche. Get drowsy on it, I say, and stay alert but not excited and wait to see what presents.
I tend to approach things/life too cerebrally – lifetime habit of mine.
It's the Western Way. Have you read Jean Gebser – "Structures of Consciousness"? Asking because I know you'll want to intellectualise the topic 🙂
This is a specialist topic for me. I ratite "Most Important" but it's probably not a path suitable for exploration on a political blog 🙂
In truth though, it IS a path suitable for exploration. I am happy to share.
The poorly-named "Hypnogogic state" is the fascinating marker on the path to unveiling this field of creativity. Jung was all about it, as was Hillman, Stiener, Blake et al. Direct access to the seething plasma of creativity. Not for the faint-hearted. The Gnostics and the Hermeticists were/are all about it. The Christian mystics. Just about everyone searching for the centre 🙂
how is that done?
A little bit of "how to" – setting and expectation, then trial and success. It's one of those things that is subtle at first, then profound; an exciting mix of the sublime and the ridiculous. Anyone, any where who can settle themselves calmly and who knows what to look for (the introductory experiences are subtle) can begin their personal journey through the limitless realms of pure and amazing creativity. Do I sound like a salesperson 🙂 Nothing to buy. I can email The Standard's "back-end" if required 🙂
An example for you, weka.
Counting sheep – we all know it doesn't work; sleep won't come with linear thinking. There is though a genuine link to sheep. The Tetris effect describes what happens as you approach sleep following a day of repetitive activity; berry-picking etc. – images of berries being picked play on your inner-screen until you fall asleep. Shepherds in former days, in fenceless environments who needed to be assured none of their flock went missing, would count their sheep regularly. They experienced the Tetris effect as they dropped off to sleep of an evening and associated the counting with falling asleep. In fact, the counting didn't produce/cause the sleep, it rather, signalled it's proximity. At least, I believe this is what has happened; I "saw" the explanation while dipping into the Ocean of Creativity one recent evening ( I wanted, just then, to write, "one enchanted evening" but felt it was a bit much too soon, however, you'll get my drift 🙂
Andrew Riddell @9 and weka @10.1 mention 'degrowth, which is anathema to govts. A(t)las, degrowth as an option won't remain on the table forever – better be nimble!
Overshoot = falling living standards. Even the sorted may feel a 'pinch' or two while trying to stay ahead, let alone Kiwis struggling to keep their heads above water.
That elusive surplus must be part of the CoC's multi-decade vision for our economy. Be warned – Nicky No Boats delivers her turd and hopefully final austerity fudget on 28 May.
"turd" and "fudget"in the same sentence – bluuurgh!
Willis fudging and Winston sitting on his 3-legged stool – such a crap coalition!
The problem facing the left today isn’t a lack of ideas. Nor is it simply a failure of courage or imagination. At a theoretical level, there is no shortage of diagnoses of what has gone wrong with neoliberal capitalism, or proposals for how the economy and society might be organised differently.
The real problem is strategic.
We are operating in a world where the material and geopolitical conditions that underpinned post-war capitalism are beginning to fracture. The assumptions of stability: globalisation, cheap energy, secure supply chains, and a broadly rules-based international order, can no longer be taken for granted.
That raises the stakes. Incremental reform looks increasingly inadequate to the scale of the challenges we face, whether economic, environmental, or social.
At the same time, politics has not changed nearly as much as the world it is trying to govern. We still operate within democratic systems that require persuasion, coalition-building, and consent. People do not vote in neat ideological blocs. They do not necessarily understand politics in terms of class. And they are often motivated less by systemic analysis than by immediate concerns. Hip pocket issues like the cost of living, security, stability, and a sense of control over their lives.
This creates a fundamental tension for the left.
On one side, there is a growing recognition that deeper, structural change is required. On the other, there is the reality that such change can only be delivered through democratic means, within institutions shaped by the very system being challenged.
That means engaging on contested terrain. It means using the language and mechanisms of the existing paradigm (markets, investment, growth, productivity) to make the case for change, even where those concepts are themselves part of the problem. It means persuading people who may not share your framework, and accepting that they are free to disagree, vote against you, or simply opt out altogether.
For a tradition that takes democracy and freedom seriously, that constraint is not optional. It is the condition under which any change must be achieved.
This is why the familiar divide between social democracy and democratic socialism, while still relevant, is not the whole story. The more important question is not simply what the end state should be, but how to move toward it in a way that is politically achievable and durable.
If social democracy treats reform as the destination, and democratic socialism treats it as a staging ground for something deeper, both still face the same practical problem: how to win and sustain enough public support to enact meaningful change in the first place.
That is the core challenge.
The task is not to choose between purity and compromise, or between reform and transformation in the abstract. It is to develop a strategy that can deliver structural change under democratic conditions.
One that is grounded enough to win consent, but ambitious enough to meet the scale of the moment.
That requires the left to operate on multiple levels at once: to hold onto a clear sense of direction, while working pragmatically through existing institutions; to speak in a language that resonates beyond its own base, without losing sight of its underlying values; and to accept that progress will be contested, partial, and never final.
Left politics, in that sense, is neither a fixed destination nor an endless journey without direction. It is a sustained effort to move society in a particular direction, under conditions that are resistant to change.
The question is whether it can develop a strategy equal to that task.
Paradoxically, the Right, which is supposedly associated with ‘the establishment’ and law & order-loving conservatives, seems to have no qualms in taking short-cuts in the democratic process and causing disruption & distrust (esp. with regards to state & government). Intuitively, and traditionally, the Left treats hard-fought democratic institutions with more respect, even trying to strengthen them. Strategically, I think the (progressive) Left should focus more on strengthening the democratic process at grassroots level, especially, and aim to increase participation in local/community politics, before they can attempt to take on the Right in areas such as globalism & immigration, foreign affairs & defence, and centralisation & governance, for example, as these are all viewed through the same doctrine lenses and dominated by fiscal-economic dogmas. The micro-economics and micro-politics in and of communities & local institutions are less constrained and therefore more open & suited to [experimenting with] change. In my humble opinion.
Building stronger democratic voice in community and work is fundamental in any response to te current disorder.
Whatever convoluted and painstaking efforts he Left make the Right will, at the critical moment, smash in order to win. Whatever it takes to win, they will do. How many smashing will we have to take before we recognise this behaviour, I wonder?
Plenty to chew on here. I'll add one or two comments. Nigel Haworth has one of the bigger brains in the social-democratic family, coupled with a huge and varied international experience. His contribution(s) require thoughtful responses.
Just to keep it simple I'll pass on, for what it's worth, words of wisdom given to me 40 years ago (slightly edited).
If we are to make changes of substance to the monolith under which we live, labor and die we need to cooperate around a composite program that encourages maximum support at the highest level of unity.
Very few of us are purely this or purely that. Most of us can see a spectrum of failures and possible remedies. Bringing theory and practice together at the highest level of unity possible, from time to time, is the precursor of continuing progress.
Cheers
Great thread with lots of ideas.
My rambling thoughts…..
One thing I think Labour or Greens need to hone in on, is a focus on youth. I have one adult offspring unemployed, another about to leave. Families are breaking up.
To truly be a party of the future, we must nurture our young people. I think voters would understand this.
In addition we must strengthen democracy, stand up for the environment, move the green transition along quickly, restore our public services, foster scientific progress, be brave with tax.
We must stand for peace, for tolerance, for a bicultural society.
And we must push back against the casino economy and push back against the oligarchy and tax havens. Keep our money in the real economy, circulating.
I am really against that 12% Kiwisaver thing of Nationals. That is just going into the casino of pension funds. Working people's money being sucked away to be played with, and all the risk that entails. There is no government guarantee of Kiwisaver, yet there IS for NZ Super.
And as for AI- it will bring change, and we need to be light on our feet.
As Darwin said Survival of the fittest. But he didn't mean the strongest. He meant those most able to adapt to change. (I think that was part of the problem with COVID the virus was changing, the public mood was changing, and the government didn't keep up.)
And at the moment, things are changing pretty fast. National aren't keeping up. They just double down with more austerity.
There IS a mood for change, but remember change never stops.
Nigel, you said "The Party’s constitutional changes in 2012 had the perverse effect of further concentrating power in the parliamentary party leadership, reinforcing a centralisation of power and resources", How so? You were President at that time. Also if you want a feel for the task of building broad based consensus for change spend a little time reading the FB comments from CoC supporters on Labour FB pages. It gives me a reality check.
I wouldn’t read too much into comments on FB and take them as a ‘reality’ check. Social media are a known and proven megaphone for outrage & fringe ‘facts & fantasies’ and there’s more experimenting & manipulation going on there than in an unregulated GMO lab.
Thanks. I do realise that.
At the risk of being pedantic, I was President January 2015 to September 2019. I was, however, on Policy Council from 2011. The excellent Moira was President when we held that memorable 2012 Conference (through which, I remember, I sat for much of the time with Helen K.). I believe that the attempt to increase member influence over Caucus and Parliamentary Leadership had the perverse effect of alerting the Parliamentary leadership to a perceived risk of member influence, coupled to a growing "professionalisation" of the parliamentary process. This is universal in social democratic parties – just look at the state and experience of the UK party, for example. Subsequently, for example, we saw the role of the Party Manifesto – the voice of members – diminished, on the grounds that we must keep our powder dry in elections. There is much more to be said on this.
I understand well the challenge facing any move to radical change round an economic transformation package. One has only to reflect on the recent tax debate to understand the challenge. To build a consensus, one must have a clearly-stated, well-developed and convincing alternative. Numbers of people have been arguing for this across many policy areas. And we have international commentaries highly relevant to such work.
I believe that the LP is capable of the thinking and policy development needed to meet the challenge of the coming period.
Thanks. Apologies. I remember that 2012 conference well and Helen Kelly's presence when she met with affiliates. I also remember John and I paid for the musicians during the day and at night, but many MPs couldn't bear to go to the social because the atmosphere was so toxic. It was left to John to support our musicians. One outcome of that process was the newly elected leader told me I shouldn't stand again and removed the Whips role and the Employment Relations role from me. I did as I was told. Just a small story from a couple of working class supporters who probably haven’t done the wide reading you have.