Whither the (parliamentary) Left?

When I got back from my travels and back to blogging I said that one of the things I wanted to focus on more was the future of the NZ left, in particular in regard to the parliamentary path.

Since then I've written twice about my doubts about Labour, in particular about the lack of vision the party seems to have. No Right Turn and Just Left have also contributed to this debate, along of course with many valuable commenters. But recently we've all been a bit more focused on other matters. I'd like to get back to this subject because I really want to find a way forward for myself and possibly for others.

There are many non-parliamentary, non-party outlets (& inlets) for those interested in changing NZ for the lefter. But few hold the attractions that a political party does, as I am searching for a vehicle that not only covers a spectrum of issues but also has a structure that invites real member involvement in decision-making.

Let's look at the current options, party-wise. Since I last looked at them things have changed significantly, in terms of Rod Donald's death, the growth of the Maori Party, the election result and all the fall-out from that, the continued decline of the Alliance, etc.

In Parliament:

• Labour - Pros: the biggest cab on the rank, with the most resources, highest profile, and the biggest political impact. The core of all future left-of-centre governments of the foreseeable future. Cons: quite simply, not left enough now and difficult to shift to the left in the medium term. No clear successor to Helen Clark who is on the left of the party, suspicion abounds after the 4th Labour Govt, plus hasn't treated other left parties well in the past.
• Greens - Pros: politically the most left in Parliament in many areas, both in policy and in action. Some key left activists already members, eg Sue Bradford, Keith Locke. Structure-wise probably easier to get involved in than Labour. Has 5% plus following so likely to be safely in Parliament in medium term. Cons: environmental issues are priority and significant proportion of membership more Blue-Green than Red-Green (although National's shifts in this area might change that) or just Green-green.
• Progressives - Pros: Small and possibly easy to get involved in. Cons: Jim Anderton, ambitions to be the party for small business, socially conservative in some areas eg marijuana, abortion, reliant on Anderton's seat so medium term future gloomy, policy-wise and media-wise not seen as separate from Labour. Quite old-fashioned left.
• Maori Party - Pros: Tariana Turia hates Labour and thus maintains distance, new growing party with different approach to politics in some ways. Cons: Turia hates Labour and thus often motivated by this in a destructive way (eg how she cast her votes in the last Parliament). Focused on Maori, so appropriateness of tau iwi left being involved is questionable? Not clear whether they are left-of-centre as have little policy and seem to decide voting pattern bill by bill and even MP by MP(eg 90 Day Bill).

Outside Parliament:

• Alliance - Pros: existing brand, mostly good left policies, some key activists with track record amongst left and valuable experience. Cons: Spent force? History. Profile members have left and media ignore those who remain. Few resources and possible struggle to maintain registration.
• Workers Party - Pros: novelty factor, should have good left policy. Cons: likely to be seen as revolutionary and thus too fringe, some activists are not known as good at playing with others, no resources, no registration yet.
• Socialist Workers et al - all small groups that have not succeeded in the past, and many don't actively seek votes.

Is there a possibility for a new vehicle, a new parliamentary party? There are many old players who I suspect it will be necessary to get back in the same tent again, eg Laila Harre, Jill Ovens. Many of the personal rifts that grew amongst some of those activists in the 1990s and early 2000s seem to be healing, but the deeper rift between those that left Labour in the late 1980s and those who stayed seems unresolvable for a large number.

I'm not sure that the Alliance can be the party to bring everyone back together and to enthuse and attract new people. I doubt that any of the existing parliamentary parties will work either, or it would have already happened. The only way I can see that changing is a major personnel change in Parliament, for example if Laila Harre got the vacant co-leader spot in the Greens when Jeanette Fitzsimmons goes (possibly for the 2008 election).*

Then there's the money problem. As the current funding system works there is effectively nothing for those outside parliament. Labour has signalled they may look at state funding of some sort, but the public would be highly cynical about such a move given events in recent months, and it would be a very unpopular move. Even if there was a system it would be highly skewed towards the major parties, which I think is unfair (but I've ranted about that before). Finding big pocket backers is not so hard for those on the right, but on the left it's all pensioners sparing you $1 a week off their pension and the odd union giving you $10,000 at election time if they haven't spent it all on Labour already.

But the biggest hurdle of all to a new party is really the 5% threshold. It effectively holds new left parties out, meaning the only possibilities are:

• Capture a seat - best done by seducing an existing MP away from another party (Labour probably), or building around someone who leaves of their own accord (as the Maori Party did). But then you become beholden to them and many with a past in the Alliance would be wary of going down that road again.
• Plug away for years and years on the outside pouring in resources (no taxpayer funding except for a small amount of broadcasting money every three years) and asking people to commit to possibly wasting their votes for several elections before success. Risky in the extreme, and likely to churn through a remarkable number of activists. Parties outside Parliament end up playing electoral catch 22 at the business end of the cycle, particulary with the media and thus with the public. It's a frustrating game to play and activists and members will only do it for so long before they look elsewhere.

All in all, it's not looking all that hot for some magical new left party to fall out of the sky and fulfill all my dreams. Or even give me something to get excited about and work tirelessly for.

Comments and thoughts please.**

* The rumour does NOT start here. I'm just speculating and have no inside info whatsoever.
**Obviously those on topic will be more appreciated than comments that merely seek to attack the left, lefties or left wing parties.

CHP close up their church

Release on Scoop that the party formerly known as Graham Capill's Christian Heritage Party has decided to call it a day.

Leader Ewen McQueen is quoted as saying:

“For any Christian political party to succeed it needs to be a vehicle that will
unite the Christian vote. We do not believe that Christian Heritage simply
carrying on under its current banner (or even under a different name) will
achieve this. It is time for something completely new.”

Apparently there was a discussion by their National Council, a recommendation to wind up to members, and then a postal ballot amongst the membership. Ninety seven percent voted to end the party.

McQueen also indicated that the key issues of abortion (as in let's not have any) and marriage (as in everyone ought to be in one) were not being addressed by any of the current political parties.

I wonder if this term will see the wind-up of a relatively large number of the minows (ie those outside Parliament). And if many of those from Christian Heritage will seek a new home in United Future or National?

Update, same day, 4.01pm: Posts up on this at No Right Turn and Kiwiblog as well.

manifestly not the Only Poll That Counts

Further to About Town's poll asking which of four named parties is least likely to get (back) into Parliament in July/August/September 2005.

As I pointed out in comments, it's not really an Apples and Apples Situation - it would be fairer to compare the major extra-parliamentary minnows than compare one of them to three minor parties who are in the House already.

So to that end:

Who do you think is most likely to break the 5% threshold in 2005?

Choices are from, in alphabetical order:

- Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party (ALCP)
- Alliance
- Christian Heritage Party
- Destiny NZ
- Libertarianz
- NZ Democrats
- National Front (not yet registered)

Votes in comments please.

You might also want to speculate about who will get the lowest share of the party vote too...

he's a party person

Well I was away, from NZ and from the internet, when the news about the schism between Matt McCarten and the Maori Party broke. It's taken me a while to get up to speed with the goss on it - I've been back since Sunday arvo and it still isn't making much sense despite my numerous sources (none of whom are McCarten himself).

What I do understand:
1. McCarten was working on a second party whilst being Campaign Manager for the Maori Party. The Maori Party wouldn't put up with that. (Interesting that they were fine with him working on their party whilst still being Leader of the Alliance though, isn't it?).

2. Also there were allegations reported in the Herald about one of the nominees to stand as Maori Party candidate against Parekura Horomia having access to a party membership list when none of the other nominees did. This bit is quite confused as the nominee who seemed to have complained to McCarten later forced the Herald to retract most of their story. McCarten left his position with the Maori Party during a conference call the day after the original of the Herald story (prior to retractions) was published. (Of course the article and retraction aren't in the online Herald and as I was out of the country at the time I have only heard about them second hand).

So we have two possible reasons why McCarten left the Maori Party:
A. He preferred to work on the New Party
B. He was caught doing something dodgy in regard to internal party stuff

What I don't understand is what the New Party is. McCarten has a lot of friendly media contacts, and mentions of him in MSM are usually quite positive, and yet his absence has been conspicuous on both the issue of his leaving the Maori Party and the new party. My experience of McCarten was that he loved being a rent-a-quote guy, so the lack of talk is fascinating.

What we know about the New Party:
1. The Herald refers to it as "a new blue-collar political movement likely to contest this year's election" and "the yet-to-be-launched political party Aotearoa New Zealand" and also said that McCarten "said discussions were still being held about the formation of the party but there was a groundswell of support for a party that represented the country's 'growing poor.' " (Note that only the words "growing poor" were in quotation marks in the Herald article - McCarten didn't give any other quotes except those two words.)
2. However Stuff says "the party would represent blue collar workers but supporters had not yet decided if candidates would stand for this year's election." It seems to have had quite a lot of contact with McCarten, including quotes in response to negative comments from Tamihere and Rod Donald, although McCarten has a column with the Herald on Sunday (not the Sunday Star Times competitor that is from the same publishers as Stuff).
3. McCarten has had close links with Socialist Worker (previously known as SWO, they have recently dropped the O) through Unite Auckland City and RAM. Socialist Worker are currently revamping their organisation around their paper which they have renamed Unity (oh the irony) and are intending to turn into a nationwide weekly.
4. As the party hasn't been registered yet it is now ineligible for broadcasting funding as you had to be registered by mid February to qualify - bit of a handicap and one that McCarten will be very aware of.
5. There was an "Aotearoa New Zealand Party" registered in the mid 90s but it has since been crossed off the Electoral Commission register.

Other relevant gossip:
- I have heard that Unite Auckland City had to move offices recently due to low finances, suggesting McCarten doesn't have a steady flow of financial support for his union activities. Seems unlikely in that situation that he could get the readies from his usual backers for a new political party, especially when there are rather a large number of other electoral options for those people. (I also heard that Unite is sharing their new office with the Maori Party!?! The office is in the same building as ASTE and the PPTA)
- McCarten was observed asking old comrades in the Alliance (some current members, some ex-members, not me) about joining an unnamed new party at Bill Anderson's funeral.
- I have also heard the name the Red Party being bandied about in relation to McCarten, some months ago.
- One of my sources asked McCarten's partner Cathy Casey if he was starting a new party and her reply was allegedly "pass".
- Oh and by the way McCarten is in fact still a member of the Alliance, although membership renewals are currently happening so he may not renew. He certainly hasn't resigned to date. His comments in the Stuff article suggest he never actually joined the Maori Party.

So some questions:
Is the new party to be totally McCarten centred, as Bhatnagar suggests?

Will the Maori Party miss his skills, as DPF claims, or be relieved to not have to worry about his internal hustling and expensive tastes?

Why was he unhappy with the Maori Party as an electoral vehicle? It would have been a good chance for him to get back into the big parliamentary expense accounts I would have thought. (oh I know, I'm such a bitch) (and as an aside, why is their policy taking so long to come out? wasn't it supposed to come out in February?)

Does the New Party have anything to do with the late Bill Anderson's party SPA (Socialist Party of Aotearoa)? Allegedly they have some dosh. But they are not registered with the Electoral Commission.

Is there in fact a New Party at all? Perhaps he was pushed from the Maori Party before he was quite ready to jump? Is McCarten simply a serial party hopper, as Sagey proclaims? Except this time he missed the waka...

The Green Party is looking for an Auckland Campaign Manager - is this where McCarten will pop up next? (My sources say definitely not) Especially as Rod Donald said on Stuff:

"Having been one of the main protagonists in the Alliance split with Jim
Anderton, and then going off and helping establish the Maori Party at a time
he was leader of the remnants of the Alliance Party, and now deserting the
Maori Party to form this party he's not going to engender a lot of
confidence on the part of voters that he's got stickability."

All very interesting. Comments or fresh goss much appreciated.

it's all relative

There's been some speculation lately, on some nz blogs that I am too lazy to link here (might come back and do it if I get a chance), about the youth wing of United Future. Thanks to Google, I managed to find this link to their site which doesn't give much info about actual people or members. There doesn't appear to be a link to it from the UF homepage at all (the Party site or the Parliamentary site).

But for kooky nz youth wings you really have to check out Y4NZ, the young of the Christian Heritage Party.

I remember having a good look before the last general election, when I had lots of spare time, and recognising a few fundie christian foes from my days as a student politico. Their strong link to Student Choice, a pro-VSM group, is clear, given that Glenn Peoples and the Flanagans are prominently involved, and of course they are pretty into SOUL (the youth wing of SPUC) as well. Their "Debate Us" forum has had some genuinely scary arguments on it in the past, not sure how it is these days, although they do remove "blasphemy and abuse". I wonder if they still post pictures of aborted foetuses?

PS people in glass houses etc, but at least most of the Staunch contacts listed on the Alliance website are actually still around and contactable. I'm hoping to update it v soon as we do have some new people to add.

should minnows contest the list?

In my recent post about the Alliance's current situation, we got into a bit of a discussion about whether or not small parties should contest the list, if they have little chance of making the threshold (5% of the vote).

Parties outside of Parliament find it very hard to reach the threshold, or win an electorate. Without the money and profile that an MP (or more) provide it is difficult to garner list votes, especially as NZ voters seem very canny about "wasting" their vote on a party that won't make it (witness the fate of the Alliance in 2002).

While some minnows are single issue parties, those take a broader approach must inevitably take votes off bigger parties that are almost guaranteed representation. For the Alliance the obvious parties are the Greens and Labour, and possibly the Maori Party. (We have also historically contested the "grumpy" vote with NZF). But the policies and principles, not to mention the personalities, of these parties are in fact quite distinct - so should minnows with little change of representation not run in the interests of securing power for bigger parties that they don't entirely agree with?

Part of my reason for supporting the continuation of the Alliance, and the strategy to contest the list in 2005, is that without the Alliance I will simply have no party to give my list vote to. I will, simply put, be disenfranchised, as I would find it nigh on impossible to vote for Labour or anyone to the right of them, and I would only vote for the Greens if I had absolutely no other options.

I suspect there are others like me - not a vast percentage of the total vote, but people who believe that one of the minnows is the only party that really represents their vision for NZ. Without the minnows many of us would not vote (on the list) or would do so in a very grumpy and unhappy manner. We can in fact think strategically for ourselves, and decide whether we would rather "waste" our vote on a minnow, or vote for the lesser evil to return the kind of Government we prefer. In addition the minnow parties can make a collective decision, given how the polls are shaking out in the lead-up to Election Day, to ask supporters to give their list votes to one of the bigger parties instead.

Without the minnows I believe our political environment would be poorer. Sure sometimes minnows put out bizarre policy, but one person's bizarre is another person's ideal. Diversity of opinions should be encouraged - no one person has all the answers, so best we share the ideas we have. If we were minnow-less the big parties would also be less vigorous - they keep an eye on what the minnows say, and pick up on the ideas that appeal to the public (some might call this stealing!! ;-)

Surely it is better that the minnows run and voters be left to make up their own minds?