rumours of our demise III
It's in the news now - Matt McCarten, Laila Harre and some other officers from the Alliance are not seeking re-election at our National Conference at the end of the month, and some are actively leaving the Party.
Matt and Laila have indicated to the members that they will be going to the Maori Party - personally I believe that both of them find it hard to operate without the profile and money that Parliament provides, and the task of rebuilding the party has been too hard for them. Both have been busy with their union work - Matt with Unite, Laila with NZNO - but in reality this has been an excuse, as I have seen neither of them show much commitment to actively rebuilding the Alliance after 2002. I am glad that they are now moving on - it happens to all of us from time to time, and I appreciate that they are being honest and not pulling the Alliance down behind them.
Some of the other officers have said they will maintain their Alliance membership and support for the party, but that they are not prepared to be active anymore. But there is a solid core of the activist leadership, those who hold office and those who do not, who are staying and already actively taking tasks over. The National Conference will go ahead, organised by those who remain, including many who have been very disillusioned by the actions of the current leadership but now have a sense of hope again.
I don't have any illusions that the Alliance is going to get back into the House in 2005, and I don't think any others in the activist leadership do either. But we have a responsibility to rebuild this party of the Left - whether it be for the Alliance to have some success in 2008, or for the party to be the core of a future Left party that may develop. I for one am excited about the opportunities ahead of us now - we have actual contests for many of our leadership positions (something never before seen in the Alliance) from members who want to work and campaign.
It will be hard, but now that we no longer have a leadership who were always on the lookout for easier options the task is more achievable.
More comment from me on this later (when I'm not at work).
11 comments:
Just take heart from the fact that however bad it has been for the Alliance, it will be a hundred times harder for ACT ;)
I think the Alliance will have to rebuild starting from the grassroots. (Well Duh)
Even though I'm a Labour party member, and the elders are watching, Hi Jordan ;) I'm trying to organize a more formal "club" of lefties at Auckland Uni, and would love to have the friendship of new Alliance people, espicially if they are as nice as Joseph Randall...
This year has seen us all working together anyway, so I think having an actual organisation would just be cementing what already exists, and could give us the oppurtunity to reach out to those who want to participate in student politics but don't know how.
To put it bluntly, you need an electorate seat or to be consistently polling over 5%. Otherwise, the Alliance contesting the list actualy hurts the chances of a left-wing government.
Bloody threshhold...
Well by that rationale IS no party that is outside parliament should really contest the list, as they damage the chances for the big right or left parties. Which would mean new parties could only be formed by MPs splitting from existing parties. Not ideal imho.
I'm quite realistic about the Alliance's chances. I also think that if Labour wants to get re-elected they need to do the work, not rely on other parties to help them necessarily. If the Greens look wobbly to make the threshold and the Alliance is polling enough to make a difference (but not enough to make the threshold), a few weeks out from the election, then I for one would advocate that we endorse the Greens and ask our supporters to give their party vote to them instead.
But to not contest at all is effective to winding up the party - what do political parties exist for if not to contest elections??
I think the Alliance has as much chance of getting a seat in Parliament as the Christian Heritage Party has.
The Alliance not only needs some good leadership, I understand it also needs a campaign manager. Good luck,I hope the Alliance does well and splits the left vote.
Dave
I'm more in line with span's area of thinking. As it currently stands, I will not vote for Labour (talking party vote specifically) in a million years, and while there are people I like in the Greens, the Alliance is still significantly closer to my beliefs (although still not exact) and I would far prefer to vote for them.
Under Idiot's thinking, what we would essentially end up with is an American-style system, with parties simply fighting for the middle ground, which a) isn't what MMP is about, and b) is surely not a preferable place than where we are currently.
Stephen - I've been giving thought to attempting to start up something similar (including those on the left side of Labour, Greens, Alliance, Unionists, and general lefties) in Wellington next year...we should talk.
Span,
please do not blame me for the undemocratic threshhold put in place by the major parties to preserve their hegemony. If I had my way, we'd be rid of it, allowing a fair contest for electoral representation and a greater diversity of views. But the fact is that it's there, and it will influence both the Alliance's chances and people's voting behaviour. And as a left-wing voter, the last thing I want is for a possibly crucial 2% to disappear into oblivion. Which is why I appreciate your talk of endorsing another party if you don't think you're going to make it.
I think the Alliance should try and make a serious go of it, and the departure of those who think you should just give up at least gives you a chance. I just don't have much hope, that's all. MMP is stacked to make it difficult for new parties to enter the system, and sadly there's no real pressure to fix it :(
Oliver - I'm amazed you could endorse Anderton and co....I'd definately take the Greens or Labour over them any day.
Jordan - I'll fire you off an email later today.
As for the threshold, at the moment somewhere around 17,500 votes equates to 1% (assuming that 3 out of the 4 million people are eligible to vote, and 70% of them do - both vague estimates on my part), I would have no issue with removing the threshold...although I do think there are benefits to Jordan's suggestion of a 2 or 3 seat minimum.
Lower is better - 5% is simply too high - but I think the ideal is 0.83% - the amount required to get exactly one MP. But then, I want more small parties in Parliament, because it will result in shifting majorities rather than permanant blocs, while representing a broader swathe of opinion.
i do agree about the threshold - 5% seemed low when we were safely polling high above it, but now it seems so far away!
i tend to think that if you get enough for one MP you should get one MP. but i know how hard it is for one MP to make any meaningful difference - not just be another money waster for an electoral period or two. but if you can get just one MP through winning an electorate seat then it seems only fair you can get one MP if you get enough on the list.
i suspect that a lot of people have changed their view about the threshold (as in think 5% is too low) because of what has happened to the Alliance and now to Act. love us or loathe us, we are part of the NZ political scene and it seems a shame to have these views and ideas cast out into the wilderness. Please have no illusions about how hard it is with no parliamentary money or profile. you effectively have to do more work with much less money to get your issues up, and even then you get written off quickly, and someone in parliament picks it up and they get the attention from there on in.
in terms of endorsing the Greens, or the Maori Party, or whoever, that will be up to the membership and is a decision for mid - late next year. i don't think i'd be alone in advocating an endorsement if the Greens, or another party we felt our supporters would vote for instead of us if asked, were threatened, but i'm not sure i'd be in the majority - it depends on who stays in the Alliance, and who joins, over the next few months. And of course how successful or otherwise we are.
There's also the issue of where you decide that you have enough to really go for it. I think that polling at 2% would be too low, but what about 3%? I tend to think less than 4% and we should endorse (at least informally - voters can actually work this out for themselves you know, they did last time).
in regard to general leftie networks, regardless of parties, i tend to be supportive of them, but i also think that people need to leave their arrogance at the door. this is going to sound harsh, but there is a peculiar arrogance that often attaches to Labour people, from which YL members are definitely not immune, that gets my goat up everytime. i know that sometimes Alliance people like myself can get high and mighty too, but with Labour people I feel that it partly stems from feeling that they are in the "natural party of Government" and an old FPP mentality to a large extent. i guess i've had some pretty negative experiences with Labour people, having been in the Alliance during the Coalition Govt, and also finding that at functions that i go to with the Man In The Comfy Chair i get ignored once people realise i'm not in the Party. honestly it really puts you off.
jordan, interesting comments. I think I might pick up on some of them
I guess I don't spend enough time with National people to compare their "born to rule" attitude with that I perceive in some Labour people, however I don't think my comment is without basis (obviously, or I wouldn't have written it to start with).
Labour people often see their party as the leading party in any leftish coalition, and I can understand that - after all that will certainly be the case in terms of Parliament, for some years to come. However this tends to infect their relations in other coalitions - City Vision is an obvious example - with often quite negative and sectarian outcomes.
I'm not sure precisely who you are talking about when you refer to the breathtaking venom you encountered from Alliance people at AUSA, but I do remember a very taught phone conversation with you in 2001 (I think), but that wasn't about the fact you were Labour.
You said:
"We in Labour are all too well aware that the 'born to rule' party is National, and we are trying to wipe that out of them. It's not done yet and it may never be; they believe they are entited to power in this country and that the left is an alien interloper. I am not quite sure how that leaves Labour as being somehow the enemy."
It makes Labour the enemy if rather than just exploding the myth that National is born to rule it actively tries to _replace_ National as the "natural party of government". There will always be changes of Govt and no one party should really take rule for granted.
It's an attitude that is as simple as referring to the "Labour Govt" as opposed to "Labour-led". Of course there is a continuum, but it's a slippery slope (to mix metaphors).
Post a Comment