State Of It: Labour Bleeds As Election Year Looms

Selwyn Manning argues that before the Labour Party can seriously pitch to occupy the Beehive, it must reconnect with voters, present as true advocates, and display a skill for opposition politics. While it fails on these points, and it continues to bleed in public, it simply will not be seen as a cabinet-in-waiting.

As its annual conference looms the Labour Party appears determined to languish in the polls. And at a time when an election year beckons, when a strong opposition party ought to have moved on from internal faction battles, ought to have sorted out the pecking order of its elected members, allocated significant portfolios to those within its ranks, presented a throng of politicians that the party is confident will attract voters - in essence present a cabinet-in-waiting vision for voters to chew over - this Labour Party is doing its best to erode any chance it once had of taking office in 2011.

In an ideal world, after a part-term in opposition, the Labour Party would enter into a calendar election year able to confidently present a united team that demonstrated depth, front-foot a team of members who appear to own the party's policy, ideas, solutions that are conceived from having identified problems in the community, society, the economy, and demonstrate a commitment and connection to those communities, provinces and cities around the nation.

In simple terms, the opposition ought to take the best of the incumbent party's policy, and expose the worst, be able to hold it to account, and become advocates for the nation's people, to insist their needs be addressed, position to strike when the incumbent fails to act in the nation's interest resting distant, tired, and reliant on mere ideology to govern.

But Labour this week has demonstrated that it has not faced up to the fact that it needs to first be a good opposition party.

That concept of being a Cabinet-in-Waiting is beyond this Labour Party, this term. If it was, this Labour Party would determinedly demonstrate order, control, present leadership backed by tiers of political talent. In contrast, this Labour opposition continues to air its internal mess in public.

This week, the public is left to figure: is Chris Carter a lone dissenter? Or is Carter merely the 'Lee Harvey Oswald', the fall-guy, for a cabal that used his demise as a means to ascend the order some two months ago to positions within striking distance of the leadership.

If you look at the factions in play here, it presents an interesting vista. You have members of the rainbow faction striding ahead arm in arm with the unionists, promoted by a leader from a faction now in minority, that once was dominant, but now represents a loose group of mates, some of whom have long since been friends. Phil Goff is clearly the leader amongst the party's members. He's talented and experienced. But a leader can only truly claim the handle when he represents a united team. And there lies the problem for Phil Goff's Labour Party. It is not just his problem, it is their problem.

As the New Zealand Herald's John Armstrong wrote this week, Goff has dissension in his ranks: “How else to interpret yesterday's leaking to some media of Carter's written testimony at Monday night's meeting of Labour's ruling council at which he failed to prevent his expulsion from the party. If it wasn't leaked by Carter, it must have been leaked by an ally.”

Indeed, in evidence is a strategy employed to apply pressure on a leader, in preparation for him to be replaced. It appears a faction is demonstrating its muscle, applying a twist to the tourniquet, holding the leader in place, semi-oblivious of his fate, until just the right time when the brutal final act is played out.

Consider all this Carter affair as par for the course. This is the week when the Labour leader ought to advance forward with pomp and stride to the podium of his party's annual conference. Once there he ought to herald the policies that will distinguish his party from its opponents, and present a team that is primed to take the treasury benches. But that is all fantasy.

The reality is his party's council elected to chose this week to expel its first former Cabinet Minister, a member, since the time of John Lee. For pundits, that point is worth pondering on several levels, destabilisation among them.

In reality, Labour is still in transition. It has been slow to rid itself of its old-guard, members past their peak. It is happening, but by degrees. The Mana by-election looms. Te Atatu LEC has announced the nominees for its candidature. Manurewa has yet to be sorted. Will George Hawkins leave office prior to the 2011 election? If so, can Labour afford the costs of another by-election? Manukau East's member has long passed his political potential. And the party appears to have given up on seats it lost to National – seats like Maungakiekie, Napier, TukiTuki, Taupo, Northcote.

There are signs of impressive talent among Labour's ranks: Phil Twyford, David Shearer, Stuart Nash are among them. And there looms an interesting battle between two impressive MPs for Auckland Central in 2011.

But no, the Labour Party is in transition. It is a good term away from being a strong opposition, a state it must become before the public will afford it support in numbers needed to topple the National-led Government.

For transition leaders, it never ends nicely. In the end, even possibly after the 2011 election, the leader is rendered hapless, he's dropped exhausted before his opponents on all sides of The House, in effect exsanguinated of any honour or perception of confidence that was once his strongest political asset. Once that inevitable act of theatre concludes, the hidden cabal takes centre-stage, his successors smile victorious before the cameras, the punters and the public are asked once again to demonstrate their loyalty, to support the party's new leadership. And we pundits then see with clarity what is taking place in stages, by degrees, right now as we write.

But that's all for the future to demonstrate. It is such a pity, as a good opposition would see opportunity to exploit the frailties evident with this National-led Government.

This week alone, we have seen the Prime Minister too timid to indicate a commitment to the very policies he campaigned on in 2008 – I'm taking about National's grand campaign infrastructure plan. The Auckland public last week voted in support of a new mayor who presented a vision to invest in solutions to Auckland's transport (and by de-facto, economic) challenges. Rail is a solution which the voters signaled as worthy of such investment. But within 24 hours, the Prime Minister was ducking and diving seeking to retreat from commitments he made in 2008.

Last week, the Paul Henry fiasco provided Labour with an opportunity to display how the National Cabinet contributes to a government that does not want to govern. At a time when the state-owned broadcaster, TVNZ, issued statements in defence of racism, airing in public a private culture abhorrent to the kiwi way, its broadcast minister Jonathan Coleman sat silent. All this minister could muster was the old tired line used by ineffective ministers that it is an operational issue that TVNZ's management must resolve. What rubbish. As the state's representative ultimately responsible for TVNZ's governance, Coleman had every right to reinforce the standards, the benchmark, that this Government insists the managers of its broadcast asset must meet. Coleman ought to have done so with haste especially as the whole sorry mess became an international issue that was damaging to New Zealand's cultural reputation (the Sydney Morning Herald was reporting on the Henry racist slurs for days, not to mention the BBC, the US press, and the highly offended Indian press). Labour, as an opposition - with significant support from minority cultures whose contribution to the wider New Zealand community is considerable - failed to expose the Government on these terms.

This is a note marking a sorry period in New Zealand's political history where the National-led Government allowed New Zealand's reputation to be tarnished abroad by the absurdities from one insignificant man. The mess festered away leaving an impression that Paul Henry's worst excesses was representative of us all. This came at a time when New Zealand voters were shifting focus from local Government elections, to enjoy a brief pause before embarking on an election year. All this came at a time when the opposition Labour Party failed to hold the Cabinet to account, but rather was more focused on airing the nastiness of its internal squabbles in public.

Is it any wonder its poll ratings are sinking.

See also:

© Scoop Media