In the wake of the Labour Party’s dismal election result last year, and its recent internal review, some commentators are suggesting that Labour’s in terminal decline. Reports of the party’s death are, however, decidedly premature.
No political party enjoys going backwards in Opposition, but last year was not the first time this has happened to Labour. In 1949, the first Labour government was tossed out with 47% of the popular vote. In 1954 Labour’s vote fell to 44%, but the party won government in 1957 with 48%. Labour also lost ground in the 1960s, with its popular vote falling from 44% to 41% in 1966, the party’s first election with Norman Kirk as leader and after six years in opposition. Six years later, Norman Kirk was Prime Minister.
I am not suggesting that the Labour Party should simply wait for the pendulum to swing. While that might in due course deliver a spell in government, without a clear vision of why the party exists, there is little point in being in office. One of the British Labour Party’s more successful leaders, Harold Wilson, once observed that ‘this party is a moral crusade, or it is nothing’, and the same applies to New Zealand Labour.
The years in Opposition—unwelcome though they are—provide an opportunity to reflect on, and develop, policy. Reflection and development should be consistent with the party’s fundamental values.
It is important for all organisations to recall why they were founded. The Labour Party was formed in 1916 to improve the lives of working people, to defend democracy and to promote international solidarity rather than chauvinistic nationalism.
Improving the lives of working people—of the majority—meant some redistribution of wealth. It meant care for the vulnerable. It meant well-resourced public services, particularly in education and health. It meant decent housing. It also meant sustainable economic development, based on an intelligent analysis of New Zealand’s economic situation. Above all it meant creating a climate of solidarity, where people understand that everyone is diminished by living in an unjust and unequal society.
Defending democracy meant challenging a government’s heavy-handed security policing. It meant ensuring that all could speak their mind and participate as freely as they wished in their communities and their nation.
Promoting international solidarity meant challenging New Zealand’s participation in imperialist war. It meant asserting New Zealand’s independent voice. It meant advocating for the peaceful resolution of international disputes. It meant active compassion for those struggling against poverty and oppression overseas.
Plenty can be said about how the world has changed since 1916, 1935, 1972 or even 1984. What hasn’t changed is that when Labour has been most successful, it is because it has been able to persuade many people beyond its hard core to its way of thinking. To persuade others of anything, you first have to believe it yourself and then you have to make your case in ways that resonate with the audience. The arts of political communication are many and include consistency, coherence and emphasising big issues rather than sideshows. Effective communication is about integrity, which means an evident commitment to the good of the organisation as a whole—or, more bluntly, loyalty. Effective communication also means not allowing your opponents to define your own position or the ground on which you campaign.
The Labour Party is far from finished. Its premature obituarists forget that even last year’s dismal result represented a significantly larger share of the vote than National received in 2002. Labour’s interest will not be served by simply waiting for the wheels to fall off the Key government (which may or may not happen in 2017—Labour underestimates John Key at its peril). To fulfil its purpose, Labour has to lift its share of the vote well above 35%. Non-voters are one target. Parts of National’s ‘soft’ vote are another. Rather than the sometimes facile suggestions that Labour’s current troubles are the consequence of being either excessively or insufficiently left-wing, increasing the vote means convincing enough people that the party’s fundamental values are meaningful to them today and in the future.
Dr Jim McAloon teaches History at Victoria University of Wellington. He is currently working on a history of the New Zealand Labour Party with the independent scholar Peter Franks, for the party’s 2016 centenary. Dr McAloon is a member of the Labour Party.