NZ: Alliance and ACA

[Philip Ferguson <plf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Scott wrote:
>I don't think that the way that the ACA was set up
>encouraged other groups to get involved. Basically,
>revo and WPNZ decided on a platform of six points and
>made agreement on them the citeria for membership. I
>think, too, that there were quite a few groups which
>revolution and WPNZ did not at all want to be
>involved. All in all, then, it's not surprising that
>other groups have not rallied to the banner.


This somewhat gives the impression that Revo and the WPNZ just discussed
between ourselves in private about an electoral coalition and then
presented a fait accompli to everyone else.

But the discussion for an electoral coalition didn't actually start between
WP and us, let alone in private.  The WP proposed it on the
antiwar/anti-capitalist e-list which unites most of the far left elements
which were involved in anti-imperialist campaigning over the West's assault
on Afghanistan.

Open discussion went on for some weeks on the list, with any and every body
able to participate.

However, it became clear fairly quickly that the closest positions were
those of the WP and Revo, despite our different political backgrounds.

The basic other position put forward on the list was that of the Communist
Workers Group, which wanted its programme to be the programme of the
campaign.  They put forward a platform which, added up, came to 48 points -
ten headings and a load of points under each.

The Workers Party pointed out that, thank you very much, they already had a
programme and they were quite happy with it and intended to campaign on it
during the elections, but they were proposing that the revolutionary left
unite around 4-5 basic points of agreement which would leave each group
free to campaign in whatever way they chose.  Revo accepted the WP's basic
points, added one or two, and suggested we not make GST (goods and services
tax) one of the slogans.  WP agreed.

The CWG not only wanted to virtually trial run the Transitional Programme
as the election campaign, they also wanted to organise a conference
inviting the whole far left to a bun fight.

We said, fine, you want a conference, go and organise it.  In the meantime
we will get on with our limited election coalition.  Needless to say,
nothing has been heard of the CWG's 'broad' conference since.

At one point, the leader of the CWG also declared he wouldn't be in any
coalition with me as I opposed making graduated tax one of the main
slogans.  (Actually both Revo and WP opposed making this one of the maion
slogans.)

Given that everyone knew there was likely to be an early election, the
notion of trying to organise a broad conference, inviting every wrecker and
crank on the left to such a bun fight, was, in effect, a recipe for
ensuring that there would be no electoral coalition.  The election would
have come and gone before such a conference had even been gotten off the
ground.

We (Revo and WP) several times asked how preparations were going for the
broad conference, and found that nothing at all had been done.  To us, this
merely showed that such a conference was a non-starter and that the people
who had proposed it were well aware of this fact.

It was also clear that neither the CWG nor anyone else disagreed with our
(Revo and WP) 6 points, whereas we disagreed with parts of their 48-pt
programme.  So the simple thing would have been to go ahead on what we
could all agree with.  It is unfortunate that this didn't happen, but at
the end of the day, if we hadn't gone ahead the reality would be that there
would still be a bun fight going on about the platform and there would be
no coalition.

As it is we have signed up at least 100 people nationally to ACA, which is
more than the entire far left put together, and we will get over 200 before
election day.  This puts us in a good position to reach the 500 financial
members needed to get on the national ballot in 2005.

After the election, the WP and Revo will also be broadening our joint work,
and hopefully involving other forces - including in future elections.

In the meantime we certainly look forward to support for the ACA from
people like Scott, with whom we - WP and Revo - work closely in
anti-imperialist campaigning.  Scott also writes for 'revolution' from time
to time.

I think campaigning work in Auckland could be really exciting, I almost
wish I was there.  Through the campaign of the ACA, and the work of the
Anti-Imperialist Coalition we are all involved in, we can hopefully turn up
some real heat on Labour in general and Clark in particular.

Lastly, just a comment on the Alliance party.  Yesterday, Alliance leader
Laila Harre spoke on campus here at Canterbury University.  The place was
covered in posters for the meeting.  Harre is also not only the party
leader, but a cabinet minister, moreover minister for youth and women's
affairs.  She's also only 37, and very personable (to put it mildly).
Given her high profile and the nature of her portfolios, you might have
expected quite a big turnout.  But there were only about 35 people there -
about the same number as Revo gets to its most successful meetings on
campus (ie generally we get a lot less).

Of these 35, two were right-wing cranks, one was SWO and two were Revo.  So
she got maybe 30 'ordinary' students.  This indicates the Alliance doesn't
really have much pulling power - although obviously the party was hardest
hit by the Anderton split in Christchurch, as this is Anderton's
stronghold.  On the other hand, the student Alliance members here all seem
to have stayed with the party and Harre.

I thought Harre's speech, although laced with references to it being a
'left-wing' party was quite conservative.  The economic policies she
outlined were somewhat to the right of Rob Muldoon, the Tory prime minister
from 1975-84, although obviously she's more liberal than he was on social
issues.  Her line was "this has been a good government and with the
Alliance getting enough seats to be in coaliton again, we'll have an even
better government."

During question time I pointed out that under this "good" government the
people on the NZ Rich List have seen their wealth rise by 17 percent in two
and a half years, while the massive cuts in benefits for solo parents, the
unemployed and widows made in the 1991 budget have been maintained.  Plus
the government has tried to impose a mere 5.5 percent increase spread over
three years for teachers, lower than the rate of inflation.

Immigration had also come up in an earlier question from an Asian woman in
the audience, so I criticised the 'anti-people smuggling' law rushed
through this week by the government.  It imposes prison sentences even
longer for those of murder!  I said there would be no people-smuggling if
there was an open immigration policy, and that this nbew legislation was
draconian.  She, however, staunchly defended it.  (She did say there might
be an argument for open borders, but that was a different issue; in the
meantime we had to clamp down on 'people smugglers').  This is particularly
a diversion, given that there aren't even any trucks and boats arriving in
NZ with smuggled people anyway.  It is just a typical ratshit piece of the
Labour Party's law and order, moral panics and immigrant-bashing.

Anyway, I sold five copies of the MidEast bulletin and signed up one person
to the Anti-Capitalist Alliance.  This was actually someone who had been
involved in the Alliance, in the absence of a more left campaign, and who
had helped them poster for the meeting.  As soon as he heard about the ACA
he joined us.

Perhaps things are different for the Alliance in a few other places, eg
Auckand, where the leadership is now concentrated.  But they really don't
seem to have much left on the ground and hearing Harre speak - and she's
certainly one of their most pleasant people and undoubtedly quite sincere
for a politician - you realise that this is not a radical political party.
In fact, there wasn't even anything specifically social democratic in what
she said.  Apart from the fact that she is much younger, less pompous and
better looking, it could have been Muldoon or Holyoake or Norm Kirk.

She never once mentioned extra-parliamentary activity in her speech.  It
was only after my question that she made a bow to pressure from the
'public' being important.  Her attitude on union stuff was really more
state interventionist activity (ie corporatism) - nothing about the need
for any kind of fighting labour movement.

It reminded me of a point made by Huw Jarvis and Jane Wire in their article
on the Alliance meltdown.  namely, that most of the left in the Alliance
was actually pushed out in the early-mid 1990s.  The Harre/McCarten group
is not really left in that sense.  They are the 'leftwing' of the Alliance
centre/right faction around Anderton, not the historic left of the Alliance
which had already been removed, apart form one or two individual survivors
like Len Richards.

Philip Ferguson










~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.