Is identity politics destroying the Labour Party or is that just the catchcry of a bunch of old white guys trying to get their own way again? Is Labour really a broad church party? Here’s the third part of Simon Wilson’s analysis of Labour in 2017.

Identity politics

Shortly before Christmas a senior member of the Labour caucus told me that winning the election in 2017 requires his party to put an end to identity politics. He was a middle-class white male baby boomer and he said it without irony.

The identity politics debate is like a cancer eating out the strength and heart of the centre-left, and it doesn’t have to be like this.

It’s the debate that’s cancerous, mark, not the issues themselves. On the one side, in the wake of Brexit and Trump, we have the idea that the special concerns of women, ethnic minorities and other distinct groups have been given such prominence they have alienated the “mainstream”. That mainstream being largely white, poor and lower-middle-income people, especially men, especially outside the big urban centres. People for whom the left has stopped being a credible, let alone natural, political home.

On the other side, there are the activists of any number of progressive causes. They’re outraged at the suggestion they have caused the rise of the populist right and they’re appalled at its implications: stop talking about rape culture; casual racism really is just a bit of fun; the real problem is white men aren’t running things any more.

The right must really, really love this debate.

Read more in Simon Wilson’s series on the NZ Labour Party in election year 2017, including a 3-step plan to making Andrew Little an electable PM, here

In Britain, despite Brexit causing the fall of a Conservative prime minister, it is Labour, not the Tories, that’s been thrown into disarray. In the US, despite Hillary Clinton winning three million more votes than Trump, it’s the Democrats in trouble.

In this country, Labour struggles with the same debate. The party should focus on the things that matter to everyone, it is said: jobs and incomes, community safety, housing, health, education … Bills about abortion or euthanasia are a distraction, it is said: the party is not seriously concerned with the “mainstream”.

The biggest issue of all, the litmus test for the identity politics debate throughout the western world? Immigration. Inside the Labour Party here there’s a shit-storm brewing about it.

It’s particularly egregious that in most respects this debate doesn’t need to happen. The candidacy of Labour’s Michael Wood in the Mt Roskill byelection was instructive, in a good way. He focused on health, housing, transport, incomes: the “core issues”. But unlike the John Tamiheres of this world, he did it without feeling the need to dis feminism or other hallmarks of “identity politics”.

Wood joined the dots. A party committed to raising wages must also be committed to better parental leave, childcare support and equal pay for women. A party determined to resolve the housing needs of the destitute and the working poor must confront the complex issues involved on the basis of class and race.

Identity politics often exist within the core issues. Often, as with the examples above, they help define them. The task for Labour is to pursue the debates inclusively. Another example: marae justice panels have been running as an option for dealing with low-level offenders in three cities since 2014. They work pretty well. A Māori approach to something that disproportionately undermines Māori. They’re not the only solution, but they’re part of the mix. It’s not really hard to grasp.

A Labour Party that is bold and brave in advocating policies on those lines will do well. It will define itself as the party that fights on core issues in broad inclusive ways, and it will prevent identity politics disputes from corroding it from within.

As for rape culture, the debate is not going away and nor should it. If anyone wants to complain it hogs too many headlines, don’t blame the sexual violence campaigners. Blame the people who are not doing enough on the other issues.

And the euthanasia debate? Bring it on. Act MP David Seymour will be its promoter just as soon as his private member’s bill is drawn from the ballot and the vote will not be on party lines. National will not allow euthanasia to define it, so why should Labour? It’ll be busy doing the things it should be doing and not fretting about identity politics instead, won’t it?

The real problem for Labour in all this is that it doesn’t yet have a go-to policy to set the electorate alight. Last winter all sorts of New Zealanders were appalled to discover this is a country where some working families live in cars, but the opinion polls didn’t shift to Labour. Inequality and poverty are not hot-button issues – or not yet. They certainly could become so.

That’s why immigration is so important: it shifts the dial. And that’s why many in Labour are so anxious about identity politics: they want to talk about immigration but sensitivity to race issues has prevented them from having the necessary and constructive debate. That Labour MP I talked to before Christmas worried that “middle New Zealand” was missing out: “They blame immigrants,” he said. “Labour’s got to respond to that.”

True, it does. So, time to step up, Labour. Launch that debate. Own it, and conduct it with frankness, principle, facts and, above all, good ideas. Don’t say “names that sound Chinese”. Aim to unite the centre-left and all who might rally round with an economically useful and enlightened policy.

That, after all, is a core purpose of the Labour Party. Not to undermine the vital interests of some of its members and supporters but to build a broad coalition around a common programme.

The broad church

I’d have voted for Helen Kelly for prime minister. I’d have voted for David Shearer, too. I dearly wish I’d been given the chance to do both.

I know I’m not alone in identifying those two as pillars in Labour’s broad church. Or in thinking that everyone in Labour should value the breadth of membership those two reflect. That’s what broad church means: people with views as diverse as theirs, finding value in working out a common programme between them.

With Labour, though, you get the impression the party members who would have loved Kelly to become leader didn’t support Shearer, and vice versa.

This is because when it comes to party leadership, many Labour people are partisans: they vote for the candidate whose views most closely resemble their own. They don’t vote for the candidate whose skills and personality make them most likely to win the next election.

They forget that Shearer and Kelly were not poles apart. It’s David Seymour and Judith Collins who are poles apart from both of them. The enemy is not within. The enemy is the right. Inasmuch as there is an enemy within, it is sectarianism.

Labour people tend not to rate personality. They think it has corrupted politics. Policies are what matter, they say, and we need to return our political discourse to the realm of ideas, not obsess about the people who promote them. Helen Kelly believed this. In an interview played at her memorial service in Wellington last year she said politics should be “about values”. She added, “There’s far too much attention on leadership.”

It sounds sensible but sadly it’s not. It’s the idea that has done more damage to the Labour Party than any other since Rogernomics. Why? Because it keeps them out of power.

Helen Clark knew this and constantly tried to reinforce it: the primary goal of a political party is to win. You’re not there to watch. Being in opposition sucks.

National knows it, too. When they choose a leader they look for the person with the best chance of winning them the next election.

Of course it can be dangerous: the people who are really good at winning elections are demagogues. And for the ideologues it can also be disappointing: a lot of National’s more right-wing supporters wish John Key had governed with more purpose. On the whole, though, putting popularity ahead of policies has served National very well.

Helen Kelly herself was the best example on the left of why she was wrong. She wanted to enter parliament and become leader and she just might have been the member of her generation with the best chance of winning an election for the centre-left. She was a true leader: principled, determined and above all possessed of a likeable, admirable, trustworthy personality. People would have been thrilled to vote for her.

Andrew Little has very similar values to hers. And yet. People listened to her in a way they don’t to him.

The leadership of the Labour Party is not in play right now. But if they don’t do very well in the Mt Albert byelection it will be. More immediately, they’re deciding their electorate candidates and their party list.

What should guide them? All the candidates in winnable positions should be front-bench material and several of them should be potential leaders. Labour is short of top-tier talent and they need to address that right now.

This makes the broad church even more important. They won’t get enough talented, ambitious, likeable people who could become stars without actively promoting and supporting people across the breadth of the party.

The point of a broad church is not merely that it contains people with diverse points of view. It is that members embrace the breadth: that they support the talent whichever part of the organisation it comes from. Is Labour going to embrace that?

This is the third in a series on election year and the Labour Party, which will continue with: the great challenge of “social investment”, the lessons from Trump (they’re not what you think), and National’s Index of Shame.

If Andrew Little hopes to lead the centre-left to victory in the election later this year, he’s got a lot of work to do. In the second of a six-part series, Simon Wilson sets out the task.

Everyone who’s thinking of voting for any of the parties on the centre-left this year faces a central question: do I think Andrew Little has the chops to be prime minister? Right now, the polls reveal not nearly enough people answer yes.

Labour people like to say it’s not crucial, because Helen Clark won in 1999 with a low personal poll rating. But that was six elections ago and the world is different now. In 1999 there was a decisive mood for change. And what if Clark was an anomaly, the exception that proves the rule? Besides, does anyone seriously suggest that if Labour just ignores the problem it will go away?

The fact is, what Andrew Little does now doesn’t work. So he has to change. He has to become the new, improved Andy. Especially as National will be doing the same thing, turning Boring Bill into the Entertaining Mr English.

Think of Labour’s A game as the Andy Plan: the plan to make Andrew Little the leader the country realises it needs and wants.

It’s not about the message. Labour has already signalled it will go into the election with a campaign theme based on building more houses, making schools better and putting more police on the beat. Simple, clear and resonant. It’s a good start. But if no one’s listening to the messenger no one is going to hear the message.

1. The spotlight and Mt Albert

It was unfortunate that Little declared he would not be standing in the Mt Albert by-election, scheduled for 25 February. That election offers him a golden opportunity to raise his profile and build his credibility, his campaign skills and his confidence, not least because it would show that he can win something in a public vote. Remember, he’s a list MP who’s lost two electorate campaigns in New Plymouth, which used to be a Labour stronghold. A big win for him would be immense.

But there’s much more. National isn’t standing a candidate, so Labour will get two months of free hits on the government. Two months in which it can hog the headlines, road-test campaign messages, announce policy and show us how well the agreement with the Greens can work. As well as making Little look good. Two months for Labour to turn itself into the appealing senior partner of a government-in-waiting.

It would create momentum, for the party and, decisively, for the leader.

So why not do it? It’s not too late – Labour’s own deadline for nominations is January 12. Are they scared he might lose or win badly? So what? If that happened, it would reveal he can’t go on and win a general election, so that’s another a good reason for him to stand in Mt Albert. The centre-left needs to know how good Andrew Little is now, not wait till the general election to find out.

It’s tough on Jacinda Ardern, sure. She deserves better treatment. But is that the issue?

2. Goodbye, Angry Andy

I was in parliament the day he shouted “Cut the crap!” at John Key, in his first week as party leader, and it was brilliant: a jolt, a jumpstart to his time in charge. But it’s been all downhill from there, and here’s why.

Anger has its place: the government regularly exhibits such a callous indifference to suffering, lost opportunity and long-term planning, we should all be angry.

But in politics, anger has to come with hope. You have to project you’ve got a better way to do things, and you have to do it with tone just as much as with words. Little’s anger doesn’t carry a promise that he knows how to fix things. It sounds like the anger of the aggrieved, as if he’s angry not just with the government but with voters for continuing to support the government.

Blaming the voters never, ever works.

Angry Andy sounds like he doesn’t have a decent sense of humour. He’s constantly making jokes about members of the government, delivering zingy one-liners and acting the goat (seen his Gangnam styles dance?). But they always sound like angry jokes. Little scorns his opponents with bitterness instead of ridiculing them with a deft wit.

Bitterness is the most unattractive of all human traits. It doesn’t much undermine its object but it always demeans the person who has it.

He could do with a more contemporary haircut and general styling, too, but not because those things are so important in themselves. Little looks tired. Anger – being fed up – has aged him, and the problem with his styling is that it doesn’t counteract that. Before he gained the party leadership he seemed to promise Next Gen. Now he looks like a man who thinks he’s 65. He’s only 51.

There are three essential traits for a successful politician. The much touted “being yourself” and integrity are not among them. Nor are loyalty, decency and kindness. Nor is passion, in whatever form it might take. If any of those things was essential, neither John Key nor Donald Trump would have got very far.

Instead, if we’re going to vote for someone, we need admire them, trust them and like them. Key was admired for his success in the realms of the super-wealthy. He was trusted, especially as time went on, because his government delivered the economic conditions it promised, and because he knew how to behave in times of crisis, and because he maintained some high-profile trust benchmarks, notably not raising the retirement age for national super.

And he was liked because he successfully managed to sound like – and therefore appear to think like – an ordinary bloke. John Key was the richest PM we’ve ever had, but somehow he was still one of us: you really could talk to him, and get a selfie, and everyone who met him knew this to be true.

These are not by any means the only ways to be admired, trust or liked in politics. But ask the question, what do we admire about Andrew Little? As a former unionist he’s been on the side of the underdog, but not in the convincingly admirable way that Helen Kelly was. He hasn’t worked in war zones like David Shearer. He isn’t a woman putting up with all that shit, the way Helen Clark had to.

I don’t think we distrust him, but what about him do we actively trust? What do we even like? He doesn’t seem interested in selfies and especially not in the inherently appealing goofiness they often invoke. He hasn’t made any of these things part of his purpose.

But he could. What could we admire, and trust, and like in Andrew Little?

For starters, how about some Obama-level speechmaking? Articulate, heartfelt and also considered, folksy and high-blown, self-effacing and yet quietly confident. Embodying the politics of decency and hope. When Little starts inspiring us in those ways, we’ll admire him and we’ll like him. When he shows us he knows how to be happy, we’ll like him even more. Just don’t be angry, Andy.

As for the trust, could he make some pledges we can hold him to over the next few months, and then follow through on them? Difficult things, like shaking up the party list to get more really great candidates into high places.

He could also make some longer-term campaign pledges – especially in the fight against poverty – that will be easy to track and measure over time. Specifics carry the promise of trustworthiness.

3. A new crew

It can’t be business as usual. Some things have got to change, and that probably includes some of the people close to him.

Little needs a small crew of high-powered advisers to take charge of his public appearances. I’d say, five. First, a director of theatre and television to train him in oratory and compelling presence, on stage and on screen. Seriously, he needs to rehearse with an expert.

Next, a writer for those inspirational and confidence-building speeches, with the rhetorical skills to craft phrases that set news bulletins and social media alight. Third, a stylist. Fourth, a media trainer to work on how to give better answers to journalists. And last, overseeing it all, someone who will make him take all this seriously.

Of course, he has people in some of these roles already. But it’s not working, guys. You need to up your game or step aside.

The field is wide open. Led by John Key, New Zealand politicians have largely abandoned the aim of making great speeches. They deliberately try not to set our hearts aflutter, preferring semi-articulate dullness in the belief that it is reassuring. What a crock.

What’s the A-game, the Andy Plan for Labour? Learn from the Obamas.

This is the second in a series on election year and the Labour Party, which began yesterday with this post on Bill English and Andrew Little. Still to come: the great challenge of “social investment”; identity politics and the failure of the broad church; the lessons from Trump are not what you think; National’s Index of Shame.