The best and most insightful analysis and deep thinking I have read. Yes, there are many, many, complex reasons for the creation of the environment Sapphi has so brilliantly framed out and described for us. At the very core of Sapphi’s proposition lives an indelible truth about Labour, which is 1000% correct in my mind. Labour are in fact the handbrake of change. They are getting in their own way trying to resuscitate a dead-on-arrival portfolio of ideas. This need for renewal is the self-reflection the party under Hipkins appears to be avoiding or obfuscating or trying to hide from or whatever it is. Bottom line: they are not listening and not learning. The poor response to the policy bonfire should have screamed a red alert to the Labour Party. Nothing less than systemic change was / is required for success. Removing GST from fruit and vegetables was a very desperate, forlorn, and sad act. In my view, it represented the last gasp for Labour in its present guise. As Sapphi eloquently points out, pandering to the centre isn’t going to work anymore. It won’t be enough. Securing our collective futures means some horses will need to be spooked, but therein lies the biggest opportunity too. And that is, just advocate for (with evidence and integrity) what is right.
The people will see that and they will follow, but the case for change has to be made and made brilliantly. It will not be easy. Stamping out ignorance is hard. Quick tip: bring your digital marketing A-game and combine it with an incredible ground game. Do the mahi. Excite us. Engage us. Give us some hope. We are right here. And the even bigger, better, news is…the current coalition is infused with moral decay. That decay is malignant. They are hanging by a thread. Luxon and his unprincipled coalition government have managed to become a national (and global) disgrace. They are far, far, far from being ‘on-track’. Alarmingly, their ethical failures and easily traded values are actively destroying New Zealand’s once cherished social norms. Their moral compass could not find ‘True North’ if it tried. Knock, knock, knock. Hello Labour, that’s opportunity at the front door….but…you will need to embrace your inner Bernie, whilst channeling the exceptional Elizabeth Ann Warren. Then, be prepared to stand on the hill of what is bloody right and fight for a better future. Neo-liberalism needs to be consigned to history. Kia Kaha.
Blimey! That's a lot to absorb and process. I'm exhausted. Your comment concerning voters being motivated by 'the vibe' seems to accurately sum up the trends we see. MMP has saddled NZ with the promise of greater representation when arguably it has ushered in exactly the opposite. The net result hasvseen policy and legislation hijacked by unrepresentative minorities in the form of ACT and NZF since 1996 and the country has lunched ever more to the right as a consequence. Regarding US options. There has never been a choice between the left and right in real terms because the electoral system is rigged to favour the status quo. The result of a more convincing second Trump victory where his share of the popular vote actually fell since 2016 is a clear indication that many voters simply gave up and stayed at home, recognizing that a choice between a bumbling octagenarian and his side kick or a raving sociopath was really no choice at all. This as history shows us always favours the right since they always turn out. Returning to local politics. Labour us a dead dog in my view, attempting to be all things to all people. Hipkins is an insincere fool and those on the real left will never trust a man who needs to find 'the vibe' of Aotearoa over CGT before he commits to any 'radical' (??????) tax changes. I haven't voted Labour now for the last two elections because they masquerade as a left party when in truth they are centre right and have been ever since the first Lange government.
You perhaps hit the nail the head with your description of labour vs the dems…. economically neoliberalism IS on the right side of the aisle as a system. The political conversation and ideas of the overton window shifting or stagnating have entirely lost sight of the fact that in the 1980s, the global right (including Roger Douglass) installed their preferred economic system across the western world and we have been dutifully following it ever since, left wing parties included.
Imo this resulting ‘ideological divide’ we see splitting the nation on social issues is a result of this economic double-think, NOT a cause!
Fair enough. Would you agree that the more progressive politics double down on intersectionalism that this undermines solidarity along class lines or is this a simplistic characterisation?
Does intersectionality undermine class solidarity, or is class solidarity used to enforce the status quo and undermine intersectionalism? Both, probably. And highly a matter of perspective. They are competing interests at times, but they also can be complimentary interests.
The real problem with identity politics (the ideological left I think in your analysis) is that they have co-opted any real class struggle. Especially in the US the “progressive” movement is obsessed with identity politics and gatekeeping or cancelling those who aren’t. Leftists who want to focus on class are called racist or sexist or class reductionist (one of the epithets the Dems hurled at Bernie). No matter that a class politics would benefit the various slivers of identity way more than a focus on getting a few more black and female CEOs will. The modern progressive movement has been wholly captured by the neoliberal worldview.
Identity has always been the cause of cracks in the class divide, it just wasn’t called identity politics and it took a different form. E.g. see James Connolly’s final letter to the socialist party about national identity, or the Socialist Woman magazine from the start of last century.
I don’t think Sanders is reductionist but there are plenty of people only interested in classism who are and their desire to “focus on class” often actually means “ONLY address class”, which is why people working on behalf of marginalised groups who do have problems outside of class have had such an issue with that rhetoric. All that said, the Bernie/Hillary campaign was more divisive than any of the actual Trump elections have been, and people forget that most of what Trump used as ammo against Hillary was begun during the primaries by Bernie supporters. There was shit slinging from both sides, so much so that it actually took down the selected candidate. So I dont think those accusations are particularly representative of the cohesive left’s views on Bernie or economic equality, as most recognise economic and systematic change is of key important, and most do understand the need to put class politics first when the opportunity arises.
but as with all politics, it is a conversation between different stakeholders. They don’t always go perfectly.
I don’t think that the fact we haven’t been able to fix the class divide in the past 40 years is because people were too focussed on making black women CEOs. I think any attempts failed for mostly unrelated reasons to do with complex power structures and information systems, and hey, at least there was some progress achieved on the ‘identity’ fronts, because it sure as hell hasn’t happened economically.
The best and most insightful analysis and deep thinking I have read. Yes, there are many, many, complex reasons for the creation of the environment Sapphi has so brilliantly framed out and described for us. At the very core of Sapphi’s proposition lives an indelible truth about Labour, which is 1000% correct in my mind. Labour are in fact the handbrake of change. They are getting in their own way trying to resuscitate a dead-on-arrival portfolio of ideas. This need for renewal is the self-reflection the party under Hipkins appears to be avoiding or obfuscating or trying to hide from or whatever it is. Bottom line: they are not listening and not learning. The poor response to the policy bonfire should have screamed a red alert to the Labour Party. Nothing less than systemic change was / is required for success. Removing GST from fruit and vegetables was a very desperate, forlorn, and sad act. In my view, it represented the last gasp for Labour in its present guise. As Sapphi eloquently points out, pandering to the centre isn’t going to work anymore. It won’t be enough. Securing our collective futures means some horses will need to be spooked, but therein lies the biggest opportunity too. And that is, just advocate for (with evidence and integrity) what is right.
The people will see that and they will follow, but the case for change has to be made and made brilliantly. It will not be easy. Stamping out ignorance is hard. Quick tip: bring your digital marketing A-game and combine it with an incredible ground game. Do the mahi. Excite us. Engage us. Give us some hope. We are right here. And the even bigger, better, news is…the current coalition is infused with moral decay. That decay is malignant. They are hanging by a thread. Luxon and his unprincipled coalition government have managed to become a national (and global) disgrace. They are far, far, far from being ‘on-track’. Alarmingly, their ethical failures and easily traded values are actively destroying New Zealand’s once cherished social norms. Their moral compass could not find ‘True North’ if it tried. Knock, knock, knock. Hello Labour, that’s opportunity at the front door….but…you will need to embrace your inner Bernie, whilst channeling the exceptional Elizabeth Ann Warren. Then, be prepared to stand on the hill of what is bloody right and fight for a better future. Neo-liberalism needs to be consigned to history. Kia Kaha.
Blimey! That's a lot to absorb and process. I'm exhausted. Your comment concerning voters being motivated by 'the vibe' seems to accurately sum up the trends we see. MMP has saddled NZ with the promise of greater representation when arguably it has ushered in exactly the opposite. The net result hasvseen policy and legislation hijacked by unrepresentative minorities in the form of ACT and NZF since 1996 and the country has lunched ever more to the right as a consequence. Regarding US options. There has never been a choice between the left and right in real terms because the electoral system is rigged to favour the status quo. The result of a more convincing second Trump victory where his share of the popular vote actually fell since 2016 is a clear indication that many voters simply gave up and stayed at home, recognizing that a choice between a bumbling octagenarian and his side kick or a raving sociopath was really no choice at all. This as history shows us always favours the right since they always turn out. Returning to local politics. Labour us a dead dog in my view, attempting to be all things to all people. Hipkins is an insincere fool and those on the real left will never trust a man who needs to find 'the vibe' of Aotearoa over CGT before he commits to any 'radical' (??????) tax changes. I haven't voted Labour now for the last two elections because they masquerade as a left party when in truth they are centre right and have been ever since the first Lange government.
You perhaps hit the nail the head with your description of labour vs the dems…. economically neoliberalism IS on the right side of the aisle as a system. The political conversation and ideas of the overton window shifting or stagnating have entirely lost sight of the fact that in the 1980s, the global right (including Roger Douglass) installed their preferred economic system across the western world and we have been dutifully following it ever since, left wing parties included.
Imo this resulting ‘ideological divide’ we see splitting the nation on social issues is a result of this economic double-think, NOT a cause!
Great writing. Time someone said it. Now you have. Well done.
Fair enough. Would you agree that the more progressive politics double down on intersectionalism that this undermines solidarity along class lines or is this a simplistic characterisation?
Does intersectionality undermine class solidarity, or is class solidarity used to enforce the status quo and undermine intersectionalism? Both, probably. And highly a matter of perspective. They are competing interests at times, but they also can be complimentary interests.
So yes and yes.
The real problem with identity politics (the ideological left I think in your analysis) is that they have co-opted any real class struggle. Especially in the US the “progressive” movement is obsessed with identity politics and gatekeeping or cancelling those who aren’t. Leftists who want to focus on class are called racist or sexist or class reductionist (one of the epithets the Dems hurled at Bernie). No matter that a class politics would benefit the various slivers of identity way more than a focus on getting a few more black and female CEOs will. The modern progressive movement has been wholly captured by the neoliberal worldview.
Identity has always been the cause of cracks in the class divide, it just wasn’t called identity politics and it took a different form. E.g. see James Connolly’s final letter to the socialist party about national identity, or the Socialist Woman magazine from the start of last century.
I don’t think Sanders is reductionist but there are plenty of people only interested in classism who are and their desire to “focus on class” often actually means “ONLY address class”, which is why people working on behalf of marginalised groups who do have problems outside of class have had such an issue with that rhetoric. All that said, the Bernie/Hillary campaign was more divisive than any of the actual Trump elections have been, and people forget that most of what Trump used as ammo against Hillary was begun during the primaries by Bernie supporters. There was shit slinging from both sides, so much so that it actually took down the selected candidate. So I dont think those accusations are particularly representative of the cohesive left’s views on Bernie or economic equality, as most recognise economic and systematic change is of key important, and most do understand the need to put class politics first when the opportunity arises.
but as with all politics, it is a conversation between different stakeholders. They don’t always go perfectly.
I don’t think that the fact we haven’t been able to fix the class divide in the past 40 years is because people were too focussed on making black women CEOs. I think any attempts failed for mostly unrelated reasons to do with complex power structures and information systems, and hey, at least there was some progress achieved on the ‘identity’ fronts, because it sure as hell hasn’t happened economically.