When a group of people refuse to accept they have made a poor choice – even as it threatens to destroy them – then it is a reasonably safe bet that they are in the grip of dangerously delusional thinking. Cult-like thinking, some might even suggest. But is it credible to suggest that a mainstream political party could fall victim to delusional thinking on such a scale? Is Labour really crazy enough to put its long-term survival at risk?
It is certainly possible. And those in need of convincing have only to consider the destructive impact of Brexit upon the British Conservative Party, and Donald Trump’s malign influence over the United States’ Republican Party. If a majority of Tory MPs could be persuaded that leaving the EU was a good idea; and House Republicans that the 2020 Presidential Election was actually won by the incumbent; then the idea that Labour is hellbent on trashing New Zealand’s unwritten constitution suddenly doesn’t sound crazy at all.
The British Tories were tortured by the fear that remaining in the EU was tantamount to conceding that the days of global hegemony and imperial splendour were finally beyond recall. For the Americans, the fear was remarkably similar: that their fate would be the same as the Brits’; being edged off the world stage by larger emerging powers. Brexit offered the opportunity to “Take Back Control”. Trump promised to “Make America Great Again”. Big ideas. Crazy lies.
What idea is big enough to derange the Labour Party into courting electoral suicide? The answer would appear to involve a radical revision of New Zealand history. Something along the lines of the colonisation of Aotearoa being a heinous historical crime. In this narrative, the colonial state is identified as the institution most responsible for the criminal dispossession of Aotearoa’s indigenous Māori population. Labour’s big idea is to facilitate a revolutionary reconstitution of the New Zealand state.
Now, where would Labour get an idea like that? Putting to one side Labour’s Māori caucus, whose interest in such an historical project is entirely understandable, how could Labour’s Pakeha MPs have picked up such a self-destructive notion? Well, the university graduates in Labour’s caucus (which is to say nearly all of them) are highly likely to have come across arguments for “decolonisation” at some point in their studies. The lawyers among them would certainly have encountered and absorbed “the principles of the Treaty”. So, too, would those coming to the Labour Party from the state sector.
It would be interesting to know exactly how many members of Labour’s caucus have, at some point in their past, attended a “Treaty Workshop”. Over the course of the past 40 years these have become virtually compulsory for members of the professional and managerial middle-class. The version of New Zealand history conveyed to those attending these workshops is remarkably consistent: colonisers = baddies; the heroic Māori who resisted the colonisers’ ruthless predations = goodies. Only by giving full effect to te Tiriti o Waitangi can the wrongs of the past be righted: only then will equity and justice prevail.
Many of those attending Treaty workshops will have been invited to “check their privilege” and “confront their racism”. This can be a harrowing experience for many Pakeha, leaving them with a strong inclination to keep silent and step aside whenever those on the receiving end of “white privilege” are encouraged to step forward and speak out. In the most extreme cases, Pakeha are actively discouraged from sharing their opinions, lest their higher education and superior facility with the English language overawe and “silence” those denied such privileges.
When Labour’s Māori caucus (the largest ever after the 2020 general election) sought to take full advantage of the party’s absolute parliamentary majority to advance their Treaty-centric agenda, it is entirely possible they found themselves pushing on an open door.
It is even possible that, formally or informally, the Labour caucus arrived at its own version of co-governance.* What the Māori caucus decided upon as its priorities were not to be overridden or gainsaid by the broader Labour caucus’s Pakeha majority. An arrangement of this sort would certainly explain how the Māori Health Authority and Three Waters became such immoveable items on Labour’s legislative agenda, and why the rising unpopularity of Nanaia Mahuta’s Three Waters project has, so far, proved unable to shift the Prime Minister and her Cabinet from their position of unwavering support.
Labour’s been here before. In the 1980s, the “big idea” that seized the imagination of most of the Labour caucus was what was then called “free-market economics”. By the end of the Fourth Labour Government’s second term it was clear that the consequences of the Rogernomics “revolution” were going to be electorally fatal. Desperate to negotiate an economic policy U-turn, the Labour Party discovered that the Labour Government was, like Margaret Thatcher, “not for turning”. Indeed, many MPs proudly declared that they would rather lose their seats than repudiate the economic reforms they had helped to introduce.
In 1990, Rogernomics was the hill Labour decided to die on. And die it did – at least as a recognisably social-democratic party. The party’s left-wing departed with Jim Anderton to form NewLabour and the Alliance, leaving behind a curious mixture of neo- and social-liberals. It is, perhaps, unsurprising that Labour’s Māori caucus has found the party’s Pakeha majority so easy to cajole into backing what, from its perspective, is an entirely legitimate constitutional agenda. Led by Nanaia Mahuta and Willie Jackson, the Māori caucus has taken full advantage of the fact that their Pakeha colleagues’ lack of constitutional conviction has never been a match for their own passionate intensity.
Three Waters may be the hill Labour dies on, but when the victors survey the field of battle, the only corpses they’ll find will be Pakeha. Each one clutching the “Big Idea” for which their party has paid the ultimate price.
* Acknowledgement is due, here, to NZ Herald journalist Fran O'Sullivan, who first raised the possibility of Labour having become a co-governed party. - C.T.
Chris Trotter is a political commentator who blogs at bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz.
The British Tories were tortured by the fear that remaining in the EU was tantamount to conceding that the days of global hegemony and imperial splendour were finally beyond recall. For the Americans, the fear was remarkably similar: that their fate would be the same as the Brits’; being edged off the world stage by larger emerging powers. Brexit offered the opportunity to “Take Back Control”. Trump promised to “Make America Great Again”. Big ideas. Crazy lies.
What idea is big enough to derange the Labour Party into courting electoral suicide? The answer would appear to involve a radical revision of New Zealand history. Something along the lines of the colonisation of Aotearoa being a heinous historical crime. In this narrative, the colonial state is identified as the institution most responsible for the criminal dispossession of Aotearoa’s indigenous Māori population. Labour’s big idea is to facilitate a revolutionary reconstitution of the New Zealand state.
Now, where would Labour get an idea like that? Putting to one side Labour’s Māori caucus, whose interest in such an historical project is entirely understandable, how could Labour’s Pakeha MPs have picked up such a self-destructive notion? Well, the university graduates in Labour’s caucus (which is to say nearly all of them) are highly likely to have come across arguments for “decolonisation” at some point in their studies. The lawyers among them would certainly have encountered and absorbed “the principles of the Treaty”. So, too, would those coming to the Labour Party from the state sector.
It would be interesting to know exactly how many members of Labour’s caucus have, at some point in their past, attended a “Treaty Workshop”. Over the course of the past 40 years these have become virtually compulsory for members of the professional and managerial middle-class. The version of New Zealand history conveyed to those attending these workshops is remarkably consistent: colonisers = baddies; the heroic Māori who resisted the colonisers’ ruthless predations = goodies. Only by giving full effect to te Tiriti o Waitangi can the wrongs of the past be righted: only then will equity and justice prevail.
Many of those attending Treaty workshops will have been invited to “check their privilege” and “confront their racism”. This can be a harrowing experience for many Pakeha, leaving them with a strong inclination to keep silent and step aside whenever those on the receiving end of “white privilege” are encouraged to step forward and speak out. In the most extreme cases, Pakeha are actively discouraged from sharing their opinions, lest their higher education and superior facility with the English language overawe and “silence” those denied such privileges.
When Labour’s Māori caucus (the largest ever after the 2020 general election) sought to take full advantage of the party’s absolute parliamentary majority to advance their Treaty-centric agenda, it is entirely possible they found themselves pushing on an open door.
It is even possible that, formally or informally, the Labour caucus arrived at its own version of co-governance.* What the Māori caucus decided upon as its priorities were not to be overridden or gainsaid by the broader Labour caucus’s Pakeha majority. An arrangement of this sort would certainly explain how the Māori Health Authority and Three Waters became such immoveable items on Labour’s legislative agenda, and why the rising unpopularity of Nanaia Mahuta’s Three Waters project has, so far, proved unable to shift the Prime Minister and her Cabinet from their position of unwavering support.
Labour’s been here before. In the 1980s, the “big idea” that seized the imagination of most of the Labour caucus was what was then called “free-market economics”. By the end of the Fourth Labour Government’s second term it was clear that the consequences of the Rogernomics “revolution” were going to be electorally fatal. Desperate to negotiate an economic policy U-turn, the Labour Party discovered that the Labour Government was, like Margaret Thatcher, “not for turning”. Indeed, many MPs proudly declared that they would rather lose their seats than repudiate the economic reforms they had helped to introduce.
In 1990, Rogernomics was the hill Labour decided to die on. And die it did – at least as a recognisably social-democratic party. The party’s left-wing departed with Jim Anderton to form NewLabour and the Alliance, leaving behind a curious mixture of neo- and social-liberals. It is, perhaps, unsurprising that Labour’s Māori caucus has found the party’s Pakeha majority so easy to cajole into backing what, from its perspective, is an entirely legitimate constitutional agenda. Led by Nanaia Mahuta and Willie Jackson, the Māori caucus has taken full advantage of the fact that their Pakeha colleagues’ lack of constitutional conviction has never been a match for their own passionate intensity.
Three Waters may be the hill Labour dies on, but when the victors survey the field of battle, the only corpses they’ll find will be Pakeha. Each one clutching the “Big Idea” for which their party has paid the ultimate price.
* Acknowledgement is due, here, to NZ Herald journalist Fran O'Sullivan, who first raised the possibility of Labour having become a co-governed party. - C.T.
Chris Trotter is a political commentator who blogs at bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz.
10 comments:
I'm absolutely certain that having a national referendum on which the majority of Brits chose to leave the EU is in no way comparable to forcing unmandated co-governance on New Zealanders, Chris.
Neither is a US election in which a right-wing president is elected.
Clearly, Chris strongly objects to both DEMOCRATIC decisions. Too bad.
There is nothing democratic about our current government and nothing legitimate in our racist Maori caucus enacting legislation which favours only them.
Yes, Chris. Labour has become a co-governed party but that was obvious well over a year ago, mate.
It's finally dawned on you. Better late than never, I suppose.
Scary stuff. Keep up the good work Chris.
Well said Chris.
However, I think you’ll find that Labour’s defences will be marshalled on at least a couple of hills where they are forced to fight two different battles - both of which they will lose emphatically. It will be death by a thousand cuts.
You have correctly described the delusional obsession with their revised version of our nation’s history which has been rejected by most kiwis as beyond the pale. New Zealanders of all political persuasions are a fair minded bunch who have demonstrated they will accept the need for reconciliation and compensation for past misdeeds during our colonial history.
But they will not accept the distorted version being promoted as the truth. That is one hill on which Labour have chosen to make their last stand.
The other is here in the provinces where issues like Three waters is seen as theft by stealth.
Although the number one problem for the government in rural New Zealand is their refusal to stop the sale of prime grazing land to investors in the carbon economy. This issue is made worse because it is one that didn’t need to happen. Ironically, the ideological zealots within the party refuse to accept that they could easily reach their zero emissions targets by 2050 without the destruction of our agriculture industry and the associated human cost in the rural service towns that become collateral damage of this mindless commitment to a foreign cause.
We simply need to limit the planting of exotic forests to what is known as class 6 and 7 land - the marginal hill country where forestry serves the only useful purpose, especially with its added benefit of erosion control.
So, Labour will almost certainly lose both battles on two different fronts. “A house divided against itself cannot stand”
Co governance NZ style implies two equal groups working cooperatively to a more or less common goal. If each group is of opposing view and implacably unyielding the system fails. Parliament for example would be unlikely to work with two exactly equal parties. Stalemate could be common or the norm. In practice, where one group acts as a co ordinated bloc and not all the other party oppose, then the united group totally dominates. That is the situation now being set up in a myriad organisations throughout NZ. Some or many of the dissenting party will defer to the wishes of the coordinated party if they perceive personal advantage, or are fearful of consequences of dissent. The great majority of persons, not being of totally independent means, are terrified to oppose any proposals by maori for fear of cancellation and other utu. An early example demonstrating the basic flaw is the Auckland Tupuna Maunga Authority. Within the Labour Caucus it is doubtful if there are even two broadly matched groups. The maori/fixedly pro maori bloc seems to be the overwhelming majority. The situation is not analogous to co governance NZ style, but with not even nominal balance, far worse. Except as viewed by persons part of the maori elite now on course to rule NZ.
The msm, conscious of the might of the maori economy and the advertising spend of the government, is also afraid of cancellation. It studiously avoids labouring the main characteristic of co governance. So the great majority of citizens have little grasp of the disasters being assembled around them.
Chris, it's time to stop labelling Maori as indigenouus. Their oral history tells us of the great migration. They like all NZers are immigrants. RC
Finally woken up there Chris.
Where is it all heading, here’s my thoughts.
Co Governed water and infrastructure but in reality totally controlled by a Maori elite.
We all will pay rates as per normal but they will be higher and a portion given to the Māori elite. It’s basically the rentiers of old England taking our earnings and enriching themselves. The country becomes full of serfs. Working to pay the rentiers.
It’s a recipe for civil disorder and I know this because history tells us so. The Labour movement was born out of the need to get rid of the rentiers and in this country we have Labour trying to reinstate the old feudalism.
It won’t work it mustn’t work and Labour and the Greens need to be stopped before it causes mass disorder.
They think they are enlightened, I think they are blinded by a goal that can never succeed.
I think some of the other commentators are unkind. If my memory serves me correctly, you Chris, long ago highlighted He Puapua as Labour's undoing and 3 Waters will certainly be that. My concern now is the fortitude of National in opposing the underlying co-governance issue. Luxon appears to be no leader in that regard.
Hi Anonymous 8.14.He Pua Pua would be very damaging to Labour if its provisions were widely known. But thanks to merely fleeting and uncritical coverage in the msm the vast majority of citizens do not know what it is. Apparently Labour are now playing it down but if they win the elections it will promptly re appear. Similarly, I do not know what the gist of most of the 3 Waters submissions was. Many would object to the passage of asset out of Council hands. Very many are afraid to criticise maori with their name attached to the comment, as in Submissions. Fear of cancellation or worse extends to near all. Again the msm have barely mentioned the effective total control by maori aspect and very many citizens will not be awre of this. With our current blatantly partisan msm, all biased the same way, democracy struggles. The Nats seem only able to counter with paid advertisements, but they seem afraid of of positive policy and associated cancellation too.Labour may survive.
Incredible to think that there are 64 MP's that all think the same as Mahuta and Jackson, or is that they are all willing to sell their souls and destroy our once great country for a few measly dollars in their monthly pay packets.
Hi Colin
it is more than a few dollars. And if they incur cancellation their options for further employment anywhere will be very limited. Certainly not in medical care, education, police, local bodies, govt departments, large firms.And not in maori corporations or myriad sub companies..
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.