JOHN MINTO : PUTTING HIS TRUST IN THE MAORI PARTY

John Minto rejects the politics and polices of the Labour Party and the Green's but he still wants to see Labour re-elected. He's putting his faith in the Maori Party to turn things around for the left. But this is a misconceived and forlorn hope.

JOHN MINTO'S first column for 2023 is a contradictory and ultimately misleading one. Strangely, he gets his analysis right but proposes an entirely different strategy to one that his analysis actually demands. While I don't doubt Minto's sincerity he still ends up adding two plus two and getting five.

He rightly observes that, for the progressive voter, there's little to get excited about as the country heads toward a general election. It's an arid and featureless political desert out there and we can expect little relief from a mainstream media which will, as usual, treat the election campaign as something akin to a horse race. Minto predicts that the media will '...breathlessly tell us every couple of weeks who is in front in the latest poll, who is in front in the preferred PM stakes and which parties could or could not form a government. It will be politics by media distraction rather than by policy.'

Unlike some other 'progressive' commentators Minto has long recognised that the two major political parties have inexorably converged both on policies and philosophies and there is now minimal difference between them. And again, unlike some other 'progressive' commentators, Minto has consistently rejected the politics of 'lesser evilism'. He writes:

'Progressive voters will of course be assailed by tribal Labour supporters who will paint National/Act as a horror show – “you mightn’t like Labour but National/Act would be dreadful”. Yes, they would. But more awful than Labour? Could three years of National/Act have increased inequality as much as Labour has?'

And for liberal voters who think they can protect their fading progressive credentials by embracing the Green Party, Minto is also direct and to the point. He comments, accurately, that two terms of uncritically supporting the Labour Party produced a 'comfortable and complacent' Green Party that is 'happy with virtue signalling' but has 'no strategy to drive real change despite their supposedly ideal position to hold Labour to account. '

Minto suggests that the declining politics of Green co-leader Marama Davidson are symptomatic of the failure of the Green Party to be anything other than Labour's convenient footstool: 'Marama once had a political edge. Like Carmel Sepuloni, who was great on a loudhailer when National was in government, Marama in government has been lethargic. The fire has gone out in the Greens, leaving just a few warm embers.' 

Of course, the two Green co-leaders were also provided with a substantial personal financial incentive to continue supporting Labour.

But seemingly having rejected the failed strategy of 'lesser evilism'- supposedly supporting and voting for the least damaging option - Minto makes a curious decision. Apparently travelling down the road that leads to the conclusion that a new progressive party is required, Minto makes a turn into the familiar dead-end street of 'lesser evilism'.

Having rejected both Labour and the Green's Minto contradicts himself and argues that campaigning for a Labour-led coalition government is the only viable strategy. Eh?

All is made clear when Minto reveals he is placing his trust in the election delivering a Labour-led government that would allow the Maori Party to be the progressive  counterweight to Labour's centrism. This, of course, was the role that the Green Party was supposed to play. But despite the failure of the Green Party, Minto thinks we should give this 'strategy' another go. He insists ' If we want a coalition government with at least a reasonably progressive political outlook then the Maori Party is the only sensible place for a progressive to put their vote.'

I think the most sensible option is not to vote at all. Why should a determinedly centrist political party like Labour suddenly adopt 'a reasonably progressive outlook' (whatever that means) simply because Te Pati Maori is in government?  Won't it just be bought off the way the Green Party has been? 

John Minto also has an unrealistic and optimistic view of the Maori Party. It has shown little signs that it has any fundamental disagreement with capitalism - not enough to oppose it. It's not opposed to capitalism - just that there aren't more of the Maori elite running it.

It's worth considering the class interests that the Maori Party actually represents. John Minto neglects to do that. But commentator Bryce Edwards observed last year:

'Contrary to the myth that Te Pati Maori only pursue the interests of working class or poor Maori, the party has historically often represented the interests of Maori middle class and business. In fact, this was why MP Hone Harawira split so spectacularly from the party in 2011 to set up his more working class orientated Mana Party. He complained that Te Pati Maori had become dominated by the elite forces of te ao Maori. The two parties have now reunited, but the underlying tension that caused the split remains.

Similarly, there is a myth that, unlike other political parties, Te Pati Maori doesn’t have access to wealthy backers. But records show that for many years the party, and its current president John Tamihere, have received large donations from wealthy individuals and organisations to use for campaigning.'

Is this really the 'progressive party' that John Minto wants us to vote for in the hope it might deliver a third term Labour-led government? There is nothing inspiring about this. This is the counsel of despair.  At this dangerous time there is no 'lesser evil', just different threats.