McCarten and Trotter at odds

Matt McCarten and Chris Trotter are at odds with each other after David Shearer’s big speech failed to really fire.

McCarten says it is good that Labour is moving to the centre:

 My Labour mates who didn’t support Shearer in their leadership ballot last year now feel justified.

But they miss the point. I believed Shearer had a better chance of becoming Prime Minister in the next election than any of his colleagues on offer. Under MMP, it’s not the biggest party that wins, it’s the leader of the main party who can form a majority coalition.

If Shearer went further to the left, he wouldn’t grow the coalition but merely succeed in taking votes off his potential allies – the Greens, Mana and NZ First. He’d lose the next election.

That’s why I can see why he believes he has to move to the centre. This opens up space on his left for those three parties to increase their support, promoting more progressive policies than his party does. These parties are already on the left of Labour, on economics anyway, and the Greens and Mana are also on social policy.

After the next election, if these three support parties expand their numbers, they can make legitimate demands that any Labour-led government would have to adopt. It’s called having your cake and eating it, too.

Chris Trotter is not so pleased:

But, is Matt justified in assuming that Labour’s coalition partners will be either inclined, or permitted, to keep their nerve and negotiate an agreement at significant odds with that of the dominant coalition partner?

If, as Matt concedes, Labour’s political trajectory is now firmly set; from Goff’s hesitant (and personally discordant) leftism, to Shearer’s eager embrace of the policies associated with the conservative Finnish prime minister, Esko Aho; then a 2014 “win” by Labour will be attributed (both by itself and the right-wing news media) to the electorate’s endorsement of the very same policies. In this context, the ability of the smaller left-wing parties to “force” Labour to embrace radical policy initiatives – policies already “rejected” by a clear majority of voters – will be extremely limited.

The other problem with Matt’s analysis is that it makes no allowance for the impact a right-wing Labour Party is bound to have on the national (with a small “n”) political environment. By reinforcing the Right’s overall ideological dominance, Labour will make it that much harder for all political parties to evince radical left-wing ideas.

This is likely to be especially true of the Greens, who, having broken through the 10 percent threshold in 2011, will be especially reluctant to revert, at least in the public’s imagination, to once again being a radical party of the political fringe. In other words, if Labour shifts to the Right, the Greens are much more likely to shadow them than they are to increase the ideological distance between them. New Zealand leftists should not forget that the Green’s dramatically improved their electoral position in 2011 by tacking to the Right – not the Left.

Trotter also suggests that the Mana party are too poor, dumb abd stupid to actually deliver anything either than an angry hone Harawira to parliament.

Matt’s thesis would be much stronger if the Mana Party could be relied upon to motivate and mobilise a significant proportion of the 2011 “Non-Vote” of close to three-quarters-of-a-million New Zealanders. But building a truly mass-party of the Left is almost certainly beyond the intellectual, organisational and financial resources of Mana. And even if, by some political miracle, Hone Harawira proved equal to the task of creating a massive new block of radicalised voters from harassed and impoverished workers and beneficiaries, the change his success would bring to the national political environment would, almost certainly, see Labour tacking back towards the Left. In the circumstances of an electoral uprising of beneficiaries and the working poor, the political centre would no longer be a safe place for Labour to be found.

No matter which angle is valid it is pleasing to see the left wing at odds with each other.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Adolf Fiinkensein

    Trotter is far more astute than McCarten.

  • GeorgeRomero

    I thoght Matt had died…?

  • Peter Wilson

    These sort of comments show the political bankruptcy of ideologies within the major parties. They believe their policies have to appeal to the centre of politics to enable their election.

    Instead, they need to work out what they believe in, and then attempt to shift “the centre” to their side of the fence. Yes, convince voters of the value of their ideas, rather than the other way around.

    It’s a disgrace that in NZ politics, there is no battle for ideas, just for popularity.

  • MrV

    Sometime you wonder if Trotter would be happy if Stalin himself gave the speech.

  • thor42

    “By reinforcing the Right’s overall ideological dominance, (a right-wing) Labour will
    make it that much harder for all political parties to evince radical
    left-wing ideas.” 
    Good. Radical left-wing ideas are loopy. It’s about time that Labour learned that.

    • James Stephenson

       Trouble is we’re already in a space where “the centre” has  been shifted so far to the left that ACT get routinely branded as “extreme” and “far right”.

      • thor42

        That’s true.
        Take charter schools (one of Act’s policies). They were introduced into the UK by, of all people, the Labour Party.

  • Johnboy

    Firing squads at ten paces are the usual leftie way of settling an argument.

    Bit academic for poor old Matt at the moment I guess.

    • ConwayCaptain

      Do they have thje capability of hitting a target at 10 paces??

  • David

    There is no possible way a coalition of the left will work. The Greens won’t self destruct by being a minor coalition party, Hone can’t mentally do anything constructive, Winston has learned the hard way that his party will only work in opposition. Shearer is deluded if he thinks his current batch of MPs and coalition partners can achieve anything.
    Let’s hope that is the result in2014 and the left then stay in opposition for a generation.

    • Kosh103

      Actually Labour is the only party Winston has worked with and not walked away from and the Greens will do just fine.

      • phronesis

        Which proves that the left craves power at any cost.

      • Kosh103

        What rubbish.

        Using that logic we can say the right crave power at any cost because they have a Govt made up of 4 parties.

      • MrV

        Were you comatose during the Owen Glen saga, and Winston racing industry payola scheme?

    • Peter WIlson

      Thats just silly. Of course they will form a coalition, strange how people can work together when power is at stake.

      I’d say National’s only chance is for ACT to start promoting true right wing policies and get up to 4-5% plus Banks getting back with the seat.

  • Cullen’s Sidekick

    Every newspaper, TV and radio station in this country is behaving as if David Shearer will be the PM in 2014. Shame really.

    • Kosh103

      And God willing he will be.

      • Whafe

        And pigs will fly backwards and do flips…..

      • Whafe

        And pigs will fly backwards and do flips…..

  • AnonWgtn

    Like Labour the Greenpeace Party will promise anything to anybody to get to the reins of power.
    The Greenpeace will pull the strings over Labour. They have more University brains 11/13 ? members. Labour have sweet f.a when it comes to brains (except Trevor of course).
    Left wing socialism by stealth, is Greenpeace’s motto.
    “Vote Labour Get Greenpeace”