I see that Jordan Carter has written a piece in response (I presume) to Stuart Nash's blogpost about Labour's "mistake" in focusing on issues like marriage equality.
Nash writes that, while he's a supporter of marriage equality, the whole issue has been a distraction to Labour, and that Labour should be focusing on "the issues that matter".
I'm aware that a number of people within Labour believe that the party came unstuck during the Helen Clark era over a perception that Labour were more interested in social engineering and identity politics than, say, improving the lives of ordinary New Zealanders.
Like Jordan, I really struggle with this viewpoint. Marriage equality is important, because to progressive and liberal-minded people it is unfair that gay couples do not have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Marriage equality may not be the single most important issue of the day, but for many people it is an important one. It should not be written off as a "side show".
If Labour Party strategists (although it should be noted for the record that Stuart Nash is no longer a member of Shearer's strategy team) cannot see any benefit in supporting legislation that promotes equality for a group of people in our society who experience discrimination, then the party really does have problems.
And they should be able to draw lessons from the success of Louisa Wall's campaign and apply those learnings in other policy areas. One thing marriage equality campaigners did well was frame the issue in a positive way that most people could understand and identify with (and this post by Lew Stoddart is a must-read on the framing of the campaign messages). The fact that so many people got behind the campaign and were motivated to get involved proves that marriage equality is one of those "issues that matter."
Progressives want a Labour Party that stands up for people who experience unfairness and inequality through no fault of their own. Labour strategists may worry about the party becoming unfavourably associated with "identity politics", but it's hardly a surprise when most of the messaging from Labour on the "issues that matter" goes over the heads of the average Labour voter. If people cared so much about asset sales they wouldn't have voted in such large numbers for John Key. And while I like some of the policy work being done by the party in the area of economic development, it's all a bit too intellectual to be understood by the average voter. Simple messages work, as do appeals to fairness and community. That's why the marriage equality campaign was a success. Labour ignores those lessons at its peril.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
6 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My blog post was in response to Mike Williams' comments on the radio yesterday morning actually, but thank you for the link! I hadn't really taken heed of Stuart's piece.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with identity victories such as marriage equality is not that they conflict with conservatism on the left, it is that they have been used so often as a way of retaining left wing credentials while moving economically to the right. This was true of the nuclear ship ban for example; never mind that we are helping our friends to rip the ground out from under you, you do not have to put up with nuclear ships in our ports. Isn't that great!
ReplyDeleteI do not think that Louisa Wall's bill has caused any great rifts, having as it did Obama's imprimatur. In fact it had a lot of cross party appeal.
What is causing rifts is Labour's ambivalence over the things it claims matters. It is not just that their talk in this area is couched in technocratic language, it is also the sense one has that not scaring the horses is more important to them than addressing economic injustices, when these injustices have reached the level where they cannot be addressed without raising a whinny or two from the horses.
Jordan's description of "reverse wedge politics against ourselves" is spot on. It should be written in big bold letters and plastered on the wall of the Labour caucus room.
ReplyDeleteLouisa Wall has done the Labour leadership a great service, if only they could see it: Stand for something, believe in it, articulate it, argue strongly but reasonably, stay on message, and win public opinion. If the likes of Shearer/Mallard don't know how to do this, then they should hand over to the MPs who can.
And yes, what Olwyn said.
To be fair to Trevor Mallard, he said on Facebook yesterday that he agreed with both me and Jordan.
DeleteNot particularly comforting given that Mallard is one of the architects of the NZLPs strategic misfortune - unless of course it was some sort of left field mea culpa?
DeleteMPs fight on their various political "fronts" in their war for the treasury benches. Clark on the minimum wage, Wall on marriage equality, Ardern (along with Tapu Misa, Bryan Gould, and Susan St. John) on child poverty. The purpose of the senior party leadership (I am looking at you David Shearer) is to provide the over-arching ideological narrative that binds these fronts into a coherent, easily understandable whole, In this case for example framing it as part of Labour's age old war on unfairness and inequality in society. Louisa Wall and co putting their case persuavively and arguing for marriage equality in terms that no decent New Zealander who believes in a fair go can object to is fine; the story of a bludging beneficiary roof painting is not. One has been woven into the weft of the wider good-news Labour story, the other discordant attempt at clumsy political triangulation.
ReplyDelete