The Post: After the defeat a reckoning must follow

Read the original article in the Post

People of all stripes should feel at least some compassion for the Labour caucus right now: whatever one’s political views, it is not hard to see that such a stinging rejection from the electorate, and the loss of so many colleagues, will hurt people who are, after all, humans like the rest of us.

But Labour must also work to earn that sympathy. That, in turn, requires an honest account of its mistakes in government and how to avoid them next time.

This matters not just ethically but politically, because impressions are quick to set. After Labour’s 2008 loss, National convinced voters that Michael Cullen and Helen Clark had “spent all the money”, even though the pair’s fiscal record was almost immaculate.

It is, admittedly, understandable that ex-ministers are in a foul mood and, in the case of Damien O’Connor, telling a reporter to “f... off”. But not only are such remarks wrong, they risk cementing a perception that Labour is angrier with the world at large than with itself.

The party is of course allowed to point to past victories. The Zero Carbon Act – albeit in large part the work of the Greens’ James Shaw – is an era-defining piece of legislation. Emissions, finally, are falling.

Meanwile some 77,000 children were lifted out of poverty, on one measure, and 13,000 places added to the social housing stock, after years of National neglect. The initial pandemic response was a triumph.

Moreover, and counter to the narrative National spreads, many economic fundamentals are sound. Debt is low (arguably too low), jobs are plentiful, and our GDP growth since Covid arrived has, at 9%, outpaced that of most countries.

Our remaining economic woes have been either, like inflation, largely beyond Labour’s control or, in the case of the trade deficit and poor productivity, problems that long predate its time in government.

Labour can – indeed must – spruik its successes. But it must also own its failures.

The temptation, on losing power, is always to insist that one’s record was spotless. But tread that path and Labour will not be allowed back in office any time soon.

The biggest rat to swallow, but a necessary one, will be to admit that, yes, there was wasteful spending. Consultancy fees spiralled out of control; millions were spent on projects that went nowhere; centralisation – of polytechs and health services, notably – was excessive.

This admission could help regain the trust of voters, who generally accept that mistakes get made and will forgive those who committed them, provided there is honesty – and a clear plan for how to do better next time round.

Labour will need to explain how government can work more efficiently and more effectively. That might involve being both bolder – by setting the “missions” that economist Marianna Mazzucato touts – and humbler, by working more closely with communities, and doing things with them, not to them.

Chris Hipkins and colleagues will also need to do more, and better, policy work in opposition. So much of the drift and vagueness of Labour in government stemmed from its failures out of government. Whence came the almost comical reliance on working groups, taskforces and reviews that marred its early days.

Personnel will be another issue. Does Labour, a party overly staffed with former student politicians and ministerial advisers, still have the connections with the working-class voters it is supposed to represent?

That, in turn, points to perhaps the greatest challenge. Beyond “kindness”, Labour never had much of a governing philosophy, and while the importance of ideology can be overstated in an era where few people follow policies closely, such a lack of clarity ends up costing parties politically.

National’s own message is clear, and has been for years: grow the economy, then you can have the health and education services you desire. John Key and Bill English repeated it like a mantra; so do Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis.

Labour needs a message that unites the coalition that, at its best, it speaks to and persuades – the working and middle classes combined. It also needs a clear theory of how wealth is generated as well as distributed: what, in other words, a vibrant and flourishing economy looks like.

One part of the puzzle may lie in an idea that Labour has superficially endorsed but never made real: the Just Transition. While climate change renders economic disturbance – and the disappearance of some industries – inevitable, states must – in this worldview – ensure the transition to a new economy doesn’t harm the most vulnerable.

Combining middle-class environmental sensibilities with working-class employment concerns, the Just Transition points parties towards tough climate action but also massive investment in skills and retraining programmes for the newly unemployed. It charts a course towards high-skill, high-wage, climate-friendly incomes.

The phrase “good green jobs” is, of course, a Green Party coinage. But so what? Sometimes something borrowed can become something new