An Analysis of Labour’s General Election Disaster

For
the Labour Party the 2011 general election defeat was the worst since
1928. The main factor for this was the historic low turnout as many
workers stayed at home and were not enthused enough by the right-wing
leadership of the Labour party to go out and vote. The turn out was
down from (what was considered then a low turnout) 79.46% at the
2008 general election to 73.83%. This was the lowest turnout since
1878!

General
Election Results 2011 (bracketed result s for 2008)

*Christchurch
central electorate is tied and result dependant on special votes

The
Labour Party’s first major political broadcast of the general
election campaign was an attempt at a class appeal. It showed the
history of the Labour Party from its birth in 1916 to the present day
explaining what Labour had achieved to date. It made some good
agitational points. A lot of emphasis was placed on the class
struggle in the Great Depression of the 1930s with the election of
the first Labour government in 1935.

The
broadcast explained that Labour had introduced free health-care, built
state houses, created the welfare state etc. It even had Damien
O’Connor, the newly elected MP for West Coast Tasman, explaining in
simple terms what the trickle down theory of the right is about –
the rich pissing on the poor!. The problem with the broadcast was
that the Labour Party manifesto offered at best minor reforms and
indeed were not bold sweeping reforms like the 1935 Labour government
carried out. Therefore it was highly unlikely that portraits of Phil
Goff would be going up in workers’ houses like what happened to Micky
Savage, the first Labour prime minister, who on coming to power gave
the unemployed an extra week dole to the so that they could have a
good Christmas!

The
meagre reforms on offer were GST of fruit and veges, the first $5,000
earned tax free, more apprenticeships based on the fact that youth
would in effect be working for the dole, compulsory kiwisaver,
introducing a capital gains tax for the rich and opposition to the
partial sale of state assets. If workers were lukewarm to these
reforms they were certainly turned off by the announcement that
Labour would raise the age of superannuation from 65 to 67.
Generally workers saw it like this – If you want these minor
reforms then to pay for it you will have to work two years longer!
Raising the age of superannuation is contrary to Labour Party policy.
It was decided by the party bureaucracy at the last minute to
announce this to show that the right-wing Labour leaders have the
gall to make tough decisions in tough times and out do the Nats! The
truth of the matter was the right-wing of the Labour Party were
trying to work within the confines of capitalism and therefore these
reforms were mere window dressing for what would turn into a major
austerity programme. The manifesto was weak and full of
contradictions and it was aimed at appeasing international capital by
adopting their solutions ie the iron fist of austerity in the velvet
glove.

Phil
Goff was also a major liability to the campaign. Most workers do not
trust him. The simple fact is Phil Goff was in favour of Rogernomics
in the 1980s and he his well tarred with that brush. Therefore when
he repeatedly said that Labour had llearnt the lesson from the
mistakes of Rogernomics of the 1980s it just didn’t ring true in many
workers minds.

Rise
of the Minor parties

The
minor parties gained on the one hand at the expense of the Labour
Party due to the general mis-trust of the right-wing Labour
leadership and on the other hand because the opinion polls were
pointing to an outright win for the National Party. This scenario is
most usual under MMP as voters have an electorate vote and a party
vote to cast. The Greens picked up many of the party votes from
disillusioned Labour voters who were edging there bets hoping for the
possibility of a Labour / Green coalition government if the numbers
eventually stacked up. In essence it was both a protest vote and an
attempt at stopping a national government coming to power. The
interesting point here about the Greens is that they are moving to the
right. Already in the last parliament the Greens had a memorandum of
understanding with the National Party in government. The Greens
co-leadership have been manoeuvring the party into a position where
it may eventually do a deal with National. At the moment there is
growing discontent amongst green activists and this is being
expressed in blogs.

The
other minor party to benefit from such a sentiment was New Zealand
First that failed to win an electorate seat or get past the 5%
threshold to win a list seat in 2008. New Zealand First was polling
at about 3.2% until the “cuppagate scandal” boiled over. Winston
Peters, leader of NZ First, used the alleged contents of the taped
conversation between John Banks (ACT candidate in Epsom) and John Key
PM, from an election stunt to inform National voters in Epsom to vote
ACT, to his full advantage. Winston Peters exposed the attitude of
the National Party toward elderly voters the core voters to his
party. This lifted NZ First to close to the 5% threshold for list
seats. On seeing this some workers gave their party vote to NZ First
as a protest vote and as a way of attempting to stop a National
government. Certainly the petty nationalism against foreign
ownership of New Zealand and the populist opposition to partially
selling off state assets ensured the return to parliament of New
Zealand First.

Both
United Future and ACT had gentlemens’ agreements with the National
Party not to stand serious candidates against them and for the
National Party to campaign for the party vote only. This was a
tactical consideration on behalf of the National Party to ensure that
there were parties elected that they could form a coalition with on
the basis of supply and confidence if they didn’t secure an outright
majority (highly probable under MMP). Bomber Bradbury’s (political
satirist and commentator) television programme summed up the vagaries
of MMP when it was commented on the Epsom situation and said that the
National candidate in the safe National electorate of Epsom was the
ACT candidate and the Labour and Greens candidate was the National
Party candidate (the reason being a National win in Epsom electorate
may likely stop a National government coming to power as National was
most likely to need Act to form a government coalition with)!

Māori
electorates

Early
indications suggest that the voter turnout in the Māori
electorates went below 50%. On the positive side Labour did win back
the largest Māori
electorate, Te Tai Tonga off the Māori
Party and also reduced the majority of Pita Sharples, co-leader of
the Māori Party in Tamaki
Makaurau from over a 7000 majority to just over a 700 majority. The
Māori Party lost half of
its votes from the 2008 election. This is due to the fact that the
Māori Party have been
part of the National led government and Māori
workers have either become disillusioned with the Māori
Party and not voted or voted Labour or Mana generally. Already the
Māori Party are in
coalition talks with National. It is extremely likely that they will
go into coalition with National. If this is the case then the Māori
Party’s fate will be sealed at the next election. Pita Sharples is
on record as saying he supports state assets sales as long as Māori
big business can buy them.

Although
Hone Harawira won the Te Tai Tokerau electorate for the Mana Party
with a much reduced majority – with Labour a close second – it was
not the spectacular night that they thought it was going to be for
the so called left split-off from the Māori
Party, which gained only 1% of the party vote. The Mana Party does
not have much of an appeal to workers with its sectarian and Māori
separatism approach. Even former Green MP, Sue Bradford and activist
John Minto had derisory votes in the general seats for Mana. This is
a far cry from what Mana told its activists. Mana thought that they
could secure 7 or 8 MPs and win significant party votes in the
general electorates. The likely perspective for Mana is that it
will split and fracture into its disparate groupings that formed it
or perhaps a few more!

Christchurch

The
National Party is jubilant that it did so well in earthquake ravaged
Christchurch. The National Party and the right-wing media are
putting this down to how they are handling the earthquake recovery.
The truth of the matter is that the National Party polled well for
two reasons. The first being a low poll which always favours the
right. ie the National Party. The second is (and more important
point ) that the working class areas of Christchurch are hardest hit
by the earthquakes and the Labour voters have to some extent
dispersed as their houses have been red stickered and are not
livable, or their jobs have gone, or that after more than 6,000
aftershocks they have had enough and left the area. The National
led government’s response to the recovery is to offer a market
solution. Home owners in red zone areas are being compensated by the
government at 2007 prices, and homeowners are left in a situation
that it is difficult to buy a new section to build on or a good home
because of the carpet bagging antics of property speculators putting
housing out of reach of ordinary workers. For those trying to rent,
they have found that private rents have rocketed. Just to give an
indication of the population movements in Christchurch it has been
reported that 25% of school teachers in Christchurch are expected to
made redundant due to falling school rolls.

The
Labour Party had an attempt at a land nationalisation policy and
indicated the need for state backed insurance for Christchurch
residents as the private sector insurance companies are reluctant to
re-insure as it isn’t terribly profitable to do so now!. The issue
here is that Labour was mealy mouthed about it and should have spelt
it out clearly in straight forward terms that they were going to
nationalise the land to stop the speculators.

Because
of these reasons we have a dead heat in Christchurch Central: an
electorate that has been solidly Labour since 1948, and National
leads Labour by 400 or so votes in Waimakariri (due to “working
class” Kaiapoi being devastated in the earthquake). The results
here will be determined by special votes and it is difficult to call
because of the above reason.

A
Brighter Future?

The
National Party hoardings with a picture of John Key smiling like a
Cheshire Cat with a slogan of a brighter future were seen up and down
the country. What type of bright future are they talking about? The
evidence of the last three years is that living standards have
fallen for the vast majority with annual wage rises to date being at
2% whilst inflation is at 5.1%. Additionally the unemployment rate
is about 6.5% of that 44% of the unemployed are under 25. That’s
65,700 young people officially out of work! It’s no wonder that
workers have voted with their feet with record number emigrating to
Australia and other countries.

The
only people who to date have had a bright future under National are
the wealthy who have had significant income tax cuts which the
government borrowed to pay for them. It is worth mentioning the very
people who have had the very brightest future so far under National
last year. They are the wealthiest 150 families and individuals who
increased their wealth by $7 billion.

The
National Party has let slip that the next three years will be tougher
than the previous three. Therefore planned to give us all a
“brighter future” is major legislation to attack workers rights
and unions. This is already being expressed in the union struggles
in Ports of Auckland over the collective agreement and the meat
worker in Marton who are locked out as they refuse to sign individual
agreements, to accept longer hours and a massive pay cuts.

Already
planned is further decimation of the public sector despite the fact
that the public debt is one of the lowest in the OECD. Added to this
is the plan to part-privatise state assets. Naturally the 5
state-owned enterprises (SOE) that are proposed for partial sell
downs is just the beginning we can expect more being put on the
block. The government isn’t even clear how much it will make from
the sales! One thing is clear that the profits from these SOE will
be lost and the public services will suffer.

Finally
there will be a “brighter future” for beneficiaries has the
National led government will attempt to get rid of the last vestiges
of the welfare state and go back to “charity.

Labour

Already
the Labour Party is being urged to abandon the non-voters and move to
the right by the media. The media indicate that the Labour Party is
too close to the unions and some media commentators advocate getting
rid of Labour’s unionist MPs! If the right wing leadership of the
Labour Party, which ever David (David Cunliffe ot David Shearer in
the leadership contest since Goff’s resignation) wins the leadership
race, takes this advice then the party will remove itself even
further away from the workers they are supposed to represent.

The
question for the right-wing leadership is how do we secure a brighter
future when we are faced with the biggest ever “economic tsunami”
since the Great Depression? This “economic tsunami” is heading
our way from Europe and America. Certainly there will be no
“economic tsunami” protection coming from Asia as they will be
consumed by the tsunami too. The first realisation is for the
leadership to understand that capitalism is crisis and no amount of
tinkering will solve the problems faced by workers.

This
leads us to the logical conclusion that the only way to guarantee a
brighter future is for Labour to break with capitalism, rediscover
its socialist roots and fight for a socialist society here in New
Zealand and internationally. This means nationalisation of the big
corporates, the banks and insurance companies that dominate the
economy and for democratic worker control and management. This is
how to make New Zealand an actual paradise for the 99% not just for
the 1%.