Labour needs new ideas for credibility
Party’s fragility exacerbated as ‘their own come out against them’
In business, it’s the equivalent of being shifted sideways. It’s always a difficult thing to have happen to you. But political life is cruel. Very cruel. When you lose, you don’t go sideways, you go downways.
Such is the life of the Labour Party front bench, all formerly in positions of power, with public servants at their call and media waiting in their hallways, and now with little to do other than oppose the new Government. It was not so long ago they were adored by the media and voters alike. Now they are left to wonder what might have been.
Irrespective of our political views, we have to acknowledge politics is hard work. We might not agree with the policies of a particular party or parliamentary member, but we should respect the fact they are there, doing their best to develop and support the initiatives they believe in, in a difficult and sometimes hostile environment.
The past Labour Government was more radical than others. Their policies around water management, health, education, and crime were more extreme than we had seen before and as a result, drew criticism from many. Their approach to issues of race was difficult to fathom. The ability of many of their ministers to execute policy was shown to be inadequate and sometimes incompetent. Their spectacular failures around housing, mental health and child poverty will not be easily forgotten. Their financial mismanagement was such that some four months after their departure, the fiscal surprises are still being unearthed.
Against this backdrop, it must be difficult sitting in opposition, watching the policies you introduced, but couldn’t execute, get unravelled by a new Government. Many of those unpopular policies, such as Three Waters, Te Pukenga and The Ma¯ori Health Authority, have been undone. The Ute Tax is in the past, and primary school education is in for a massive overhaul. Gang patches in public and taxpayer-funded cultural reports are on the way out.
And so it is difficult to understand the strategy the opposition parties are bringing to their revised role. It’s almost embarrassing to watch as the same old faces talk about the same old stuff. The stuff that saw them leave the last election beaten and embarrassed.
In the past few weeks, we’ve seen them lamenting the loss of their policy framework, much of it idealistic and ultimately undeliverable. They’ve been given plenty of air time to sound off about how disgraceful are the policies of the new Government. They would prefer to see their old policies retained. Of course they would.
But here’s the problem. In doing so they are defending their policies of the past, policies that resulted in them being voted out.
The challenge for the opposition parties is to put up new ideas. The same old faces might get away with it if they had new ideas. But new faces and new ideas are even better. The voter, or the viewer, is much more likely to be interested if they are saying something different.
The faces might survive if the rhetoric changes. In the meantime, it’s looking tired and embarrassing.
In the case of the Labour Party, their fragility has been exacerbated this week by a couple of their own who have come out against them.
David Shearer, one of the more sensible Labour Party leaders of the past 15 years, suggested Ginny Andersen’s attack on Mark Mitchell during Mike Hosking’s breakfast show was inappropriate. In fact, he said her claims were “divorced from reality”. He even suggested she sit down with Mitchell so she could understand what he did. Shearer knows plenty about operating in the war zones of the world and his opinion carries plenty of weight.
To her credit, Andersen apologised to Hosking, his listeners and later to Mitchell himself, live and on air. That apology was a long time coming. But apologise she did.
Then, former police minister Stuart Nash came out in favour of National’s policy surrounding the Criminal Proceeds Act, and in particular the reduction of the minimum threshold of assets for seizure from $30,000 to zero. Nash claimed that, on his watch, he tried to reduce the threshold to zero, just as National are now proposing to do. According to Nash, his efforts were rebuffed by ministers Chris Hipkins and Kiri Allan.
It’s a claim both Hipkins and Allan have rejected. Hipkins even claimed Mitchell was on the select committee that ‘unanimously’ supported the $30,000 threshold. Mitchell subsequently stated he didn’t vote for it. But Labour had a majority on that committee. There’s a difference between a unanimous decision and a majority one.
So there you go again. As mouthpieces, these people just don’t ring true anymore. It’s not their fault, it’s just they’ve had their time. There has been so much said over the past five years that has turned out to be inaccurate or false that the credibility has gone. It’s time for fresh faces.
Meanwhile, the new Government is getting on with it. Largely untroubled by the opposition’s predictable approach of opposing everything, they’re getting stuck into the mess they’ve inherited. Their first 100 days are nearly up and they have made good progress on their 100-day plan. Are they there yet? No. Are they close? Closer than many, including me, thought they would be.
Winston is playing ball. Seymour is predictably unflappable. And while he still trips up every now and then, the new Prime Minister seems to be getting more right than wrong.
His team looks comfortable, too. Erica Stanford looks controlled as she seeks to clean up Jan Tinetti’s education mess, and Shane Reti is doing a good job fronting the very difficult health portfolio, including the unravelling of the incomplete reforms of his predecessors. Nicola
The faces might survive if the rhetoric changes. In the meantime, [Labour’s] looking tired and embarrassing. Bruce Cotteril
Willis has a few big weeks ahead and we’ll get to see how she handles that. But, for the moment, despite the depth of our troubles, everything feels a lot more comfortable than it has for a long time. Competence, confidence and a clear, wellcommunicated plan can do that.
They have plenty of headwinds, too. Inflation is not yet back in its box and interest rates, while thankfully on hold, are not likely to be coming down in a hurry. Too many KiwiSaver contributions are on hold and too many homeowners are struggling with the mortgage. We’re yet to fully recover from the flooding over a year ago, and we have way more government-employed bureaucrats than we either need or can afford.
And let’s not forget the surprises left behind by the former Government in November.
They include the bloated cost structures and long-term contracts at the Three Waters agencies. Then
there is the ridiculous amount of money spent on the now-cancelled light rail projects that went nowhere, and the need to sell down properties such as the old Kiwi Bacon factory in Auckland’s New North Rd, purchased immediately before the election, for the utopian-yet-unaffordable railway vision.
This week we’ve learned about the extent of property projects languishing in the education system. Projects unfunded and now, I suspect, unaffordable. But they were projects that, in many cases, had been promised to the schools and the communities they serve. Stanford is already across the problem. We need “standardised, repeatable buildings” she said. Hallelujah. Since when did school buildings need to be contestants in the annual architecture awards anyway?
The state of New Zealand is a sad reflection of the past six years. There is a massive job to do in turning this
country around. The new Government has made big promises. And in the current landscape they are challenging to deliver on. It’s hard to get excited about unravelling the past. I’m guessing that we have to do that to create a platform from which to deliver a desirable future. It’s that future we should be interested in. And a vision that tells us where we want to go and how we can help to turn the ship around and get there.
In the meantime, those remaining in opposition need to reflect and learn from their mistakes.
And as for the people, the voters, we must never forget how we arrived in this position. Fortunately, we have the nonsensical antics of the morally and financially inept Wellington City Council to remind us of the decisions only left-leaning politicians can make.
Not limited to the repeated and embarrassing cost blowouts on the Town Hall refurbishment now costing more than double its original budget, and despite a water infrastructure that is so poorly maintained, they seem to have gone one better this week. Their latest act will see the council bail out the international owners of the Reading Cinema, buying the land for $32 million and leasing it back to the owners in the hope that they will spend that money on refurbishment. The mayor was interviewed on Newstalk ZB immediately after the decision. She said the deal was fiscally neutral. It sounded like she didn’t know what that meant.
If that’s what our capital city wants, it’s up to the voters there. As for the rest of us. let’s not return such incompetence to the Beehive any time soon.