Pagani is close to the Labour strategy team. She stood as an electorate candidate for the party in 2011, and her husband John has had various strategic adviser roles within the party. So it's reasonable to assume that she is articulating Labour's strategy.
There's nothing in itself wrong with wooing the soft "centre" vote, because major parties like Labour can only govern if they capture a sizeable chunk of the popular vote. But it seems as if someone within Labour has decided there are few votes to be had on the left, and that the party must move closer to National.
The strategy, as far as I can tell from listening to Pagani, appears to be to deliberately pander to the perceived prejudices of centre voters, at the expense of Labour's left. It's a strategy doomed to failure, for two main reasons:
- David Shearer's remark about the beneficiary on his roof angered many activist members of the party who follow his speeches, but will have gone largely unnoticed by the people to whom the message was meant to appeal. People like this. These activists are the people who keep the party running.
- The tactic of appealing to one group by targeting another is an age-old political ploy, but it is also a deeply cynical one. If the aim of Labour is to win at all costs, then the pursuit of that aim means anything goes, including attacks on groups that are already the target of widespread abuse and vitriol. The problem with this tactic is that it concedes that the right have won the debate on welfare, and that we do have a major problem with beneficiaries ripping off the system. It inevitably draws the party closer to National in the eyes of many voters.
I should make it clear that when I say "doomed to failure" I don't mean that Labour won't win in 2014, because they may still. I don't define failure as losing an election. A party can fail its members and still govern. The fourth Labour government was a good example of this.
Even so, it's hard to see how Labour can win well in 2014 if it burns off its supporters on the left. Many of them will go to the Greens, or just stay home in disgust on election day. Like they did in 2011.
The right have won the debate on welfare. Neither Labour nor the Greens have been able to land a blow on Bennett, Key or National in general over the course of this government when it comes to the welfare debate.
ReplyDeleteAt what point does the LP prioritise the views of Joe Public over those held by LP activists. Very rarely do the public hold the same views as the ordinary person in NZ
ReplyDeleteAt the point when they decide that the party has no future. Those activists run most of the party, apart from the caucus itself.
DeleteThat's all well and good, but if the LP wants to win in 2014 or beyond it needs to balance the two interests, I feel with a priority towards ordinary NZers. After all, if the LP wants to return to government it'll be ordinary NZers they are serving, not party activists
DeleteOf course it needs to balance both. It needs to appeal to both the left and the centre. Not play them off against each other.
DeleteBTW, activists are "ordinary New Zealanders" too.
Rob Salmond has done a good analysis of this issue using NZES data from recent elections
Deletehttp://pundit.co.nz/content/leftie-strategerizing
I prefer Danyl's analysis https://dimpost.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/more-armchair-strategising/
DeleteThe problem Labour has is that it is trying to appeal to "ordinary New Zealanders" but is treating those same people as ordinary New Zealanders.
DeleteEveryone likes to think they are ordinary but never wants to be treated that way. They want to feel extraordinary.
David Shearer does not make even his own members feel extraordinary. What chance with the voters?
It's funny Cactus, Michael Cullen once made that point very evocatively at a party conference. Who the hell likes being "ordinary" indeed? Not I. Nobody, in fact, likes that.
DeleteErm. But people stayed home in 2011 despite one of the most left-wing platforms in a long time. So it's not clear that a swing to the centre will make people stay home any more than a swing to the left.
ReplyDeleteI think whether Goff's was a coherent Left wing platform is debatable. It started off with Ax the Tax and a series of shockingly conservative speeches. Then Labour charged into the election with fiscal responsibility, a very conservative CGT (neither left nor right, really) and the extension of WFF to beneficiaries. It was a mess, and likely the product of Goff having no control over his caucus. I think voters partly responded (or failed to respond) to that - the very obvious weakness of the leader of a rudderless party.
DeleteLooking back I'm not sure Labour's policy platform was all that left wing going into the 2011 election. There was nothing much to appeal to poorer voters around housing, the cost of living, healthcare or welfare.
DeleteObviously it wasn't a coherent left wing platform in the sense that you would use the words Gio. (Or that I would use them either.)
DeleteBut it was, I think, a fair bit to the left of the run of Labour manifestos.
Scott --- the first $5k income tax free? GST off fresh fruit & veg? $15 minimum wage? WFF for beneficiaries? Come on, cost of living was one area we hit reasonably effectively policy-wise. Messaging and presentation not so much, no.
Of course, there's something pretty salient about those policies looking at them now.
Geez, I thought it was just bad luck that Josie Pagani had the same surname as John Pagani, but now I know better.
ReplyDelete