The Labour Party is now decidedly middle-class, and even its electoral hold upon working class voters happily appears to be diminishing. This is a point that is seldom acknowledged by academics or political journalists – and it’s an area I hope to do further research, blogging, and publishing on. To start off this process I’m posting the below article entitled ‘Labouring for capital’, which I wrote in 2001 for ‘revolution’ magazine about how Labour has lost its class alignment, and working class politics in New Zealand is dead. I intend to update in the future. [Read more below]
Since the 1970s there has been a dramatic breakdown in the alignment between New Zealand’s political parties and classes, and the main parties no longer simply obtain their votes from their traditional sections of the class structure. Such was the case that by the 1984 election "almost 36 percent of manual wage earning trade unionists had not voted Labour for three consecutive elections" (Vowles, 1987: p.17). On the other hand, Labour increased its support amongst the middle classes, winning the 1984, 1987 and 1999 general elections with such cross-class support.
In the postwar decades, the Labour Party consciously attempted to reconfigure its support base after realising that the old division of party support between it and National had never served it well in electoral terms. Party leaders and strategists attempted to gain a monopoly on middle class support. In adopting new right economic policies in the 1980s, the Fourth Labour Government, therefore, was looking for a major pay-off in terms of a renewed electoral appeal from non-traditional Labour voters, especially the new urban liberal professionals, a powerful middle-class subset that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. Chunks of this subset flooded into Labour during the Muldoon era (1975-84), when National became overly identified with socially illiberal policies which were actually archaic from the standpoint of capital. Labour leaders and strategists believed that appealing to the new middle class was a "comparatively low-risk strategy" in that there was little electoral disadvantage in failing to act in the interests of the working class because workers had no-one else to vote for anyway.
At the 1987 general election the reconfiguration strategy was particularly evident and successful. The re-elected government had fused together an electoral alliance of urban professionals and liberal social activists, while retaining a still-significant base of working class support. This support of former National and New Zealand Party voters, and even an influx of them into the Labour Party, meant that the 1987 election was so characterised by class dealignment that one voter survey showed that there was no correlation between household income and party choice in the election. Labour came close to winning Fendalton, one of the snootiest and richest seats in the country, while its support in some traditional working class seats declined. The result was that "blue-collar and white-collar workers divided fairly evenly between National and Labour, (and) professional or senior government officials tended slightly more to Labour" (Davidson, 1989: p.346).
Workers not enthusiastic
At the beginning of the 1990s the Labour caucus voted self-styled ‘working class hero’ Mike Moore as leader in an attempt to attract back the traditional Labour vote. However, the fact that the working class was no longer terribly enthusiastic about the Labour Party was illustrated in the results of a 1990 election survey in which "Labour’s normal lead over National among manual workers had wasted away to nothing. Thirty per cent of the manual group supported each party" (Aimer, 1992: p.334). Unsurprisingly, in that same election "a quarter of manual workers did not vote, by far the highest proportion of any occupational group" (Aimer, 1992: p.334). Labour actually lost one of the poorest working class seats in the country, Otara, to National, as the openly Tory party was seen to be less anti-working class by a significant section of working class voters. Labour, in fact, turned in its worst electoral performance since 1918, gaining only 25 percent of the vote and losing half its seats. Clearly, the big majority of workers did not turn out for the party.
In 1993, the Alliance secured 18 percent of the vote and, along with Sydenham, which it already held, captured Auckland Central off Labour. In the 1996 general election a number of surveys showed that the Labour Party continued to attract its votes from across the broad socio-economic spectrum, rather than from mass working-class support. Political analyst Alan McRobie concluded from the survey evidence that "Labour’s transformation from a party of the working class to a party supported by better educated, more highly skilled and better paid voters. . . is clearly in evidence" (McRobie, 1997: p.173).
An extensive Massey University survey in the late 1990s that dealt with political party support showed that although there were still differences between the support bases of Labour and the other parties, these were much less than they used to be. For example, ‘Employers or Managers with more than 10 employees’ - a category that used to vote virtually exclusively for National - now only slightly favour National, giving the party 39.1 percent of their votes compared to 31.9 percent for the Labour Party. Similarly, the category of ‘Professionals’ only give Act 3.8 percent of their vote and National 31.8 percent; they give Labour the largest amount - 33.9 percent. When it comes to the category of ‘Unskilled Manual’ workers - a group with a fairly strong tradition of voting Labour Labour no longer get even half of their votes, having to settle for 39.1 percent, while National get 17.4 percent of their vote, Act 4.3 percent, the Christian Coalition 4.3 percent (Perry and Webster, 1999: p.28).
In the 1990s and into the new century, it seems that while many workers may still vote Labour, the difference in worker support for the party is not all that much bigger than for the more honest and open parties of capital. More often than not working class support for the Labour Party is not deeply felt, nor necessarily any indication of any real ‘political support’, but occurs simply due to their reluctance to vote for the other avowedly right-wing parties. This lack of enthusiasm is apparent in the fact that today, very few workers bother to become members of the Labour Party - let alone activists for the party. A trend which became evident as far back as the first Labour government is now overwhelming. Even most of the old trade union affiliations no longer exist. Little is left of organic links between the party and the working class; the main organic links are now between Labour and the professional middle class, Labour and business, and Labour and the state.
Business support
During the 1996-99 parliamentary term, Labour regained the trust and support of the business community. An important indicator of this was the landmark 1998 business survey carried out by The Independent business newspaper. It reported that business now endorsed the election of a Labour-led government. In the survey all but three of the 30 business leaders said they were "resigned to - or comfortable with - a Clark-led Labour Government" (McManus, December 16, 1998: p12). Business could see, according to the report, that "While there will be a major shift in rhetoric, a major economic shift is unlikely" (ibid: p.13). The survey reported that the business community had lost faith in the National government, saying that "the government must go - and the quicker the better". McManus continued:
In short, most of the business community now appears prepared to give Labour a go. Said one respondent, an Auckland investment banker: "A large number of quite senior business people are completely relaxed about a change of government and the (political donations) will reflect that. We are inevitably going to get a Clark administration" (McManus, 16 Dec 1998: p.12).
The donations disclosed to the Electoral Commission for the election year did indeed support the idea that the business community was providing substantial funding for Labour. The party declared that they received a total of $1,179,731 during 1999 — the vast majority of this in the form of ‘anonymous’ donations to the party head-office. Of the known donors to the head office, all were businesses (AMP, Brierleys, Clear, Lion, Natural Gas, Saturn, Tower, Transalta, TV3) apart from one trade union (NZ Engineers Union). Meanwhile the National Party head office disclosed donations of $1,232,000 in the 1999 year - only about $50,000 more than the Labour Party.
Ironically, the NZ radical left by and large supported Labour in 1999, keeping up the pretence that was still some kind of party of the working class. In doing so, they, as in 1984, helped NZ capital get the government it wanted and needed for the current round of capital accumulation.
Elite social composition
The membership of the early Labour Party was solidly working class. In fact the party started life with a membership arrangement that only allowed working class members. It was not until the 1920s, in an attempt to involve Labour’s middle class supporters, that the party organisation allowed people to join the party as branch members rather than just union members. Yet until the 1960s the party remained overwhelming made up of its traditional constituency. According to Gustafson (1989: p210), eight or nine of every ten party members were manual workers, although this kind of view of the party has been strongly challenged by other research (see, for instance, the research paper by Shane Hanley in the last issue of revolution).
In stark contrast to today, where the social composition of National and Labour caucuses are quite similar — except that the Labour leader is higher up the social scale than the National leader - Labour s parliamentary representatives historically differed markedly from National s. The Labour caucus normally derived from its trade union and manual worker backbone. Unionists made up ten out of thirteen ministers in the first five years of the first Labour government (1935-40), and there was only one minister with a professional background (Hanley, revolution#14). This did not change markedly for the following nine years of the first Labour government (1940-49). By the time that Labour came to power again, in 1957, the working class and trade union component of the cabinet had substantially dropped out, and "only five of sixteen ministers had trade union backgrounds" (Webber, 1978: p.183).
Proportionally things got worse for trade unionists in the third Labour government, when ministers with trade union backgrounds were outnumbered twenty to six (ibid). Furthermore, since the death of Norman Kirk in 1974, the Labour Party has had only one working class leader - Mike Moore. Moore was only acceptable to the party s middle class because he was so right-wing economically and, even then, his reign as leader was the briefest in the party’s history.
The MPs in recent Labour governments have increasingly come from the middle classes. The Fourth Labour Government contained very few MPs who were not from the professional middle classes: "In the 1984 Labour caucus almost three out of four MPs came from the professional class, including nineteen who had been teachers or university lecturers and ten who had law degrees" (Gustafson, 1992: p.277). The Cabinet itself "contained, among its twenty members, seventeen from professional/semi-professional occupations, including eight former teachers and six with law degrees" (Gustafson, 1992: p.277). The last two presidents have been millionaires.
Throughout the 1990s the embourgeoisment of the party continued. Nineteen out of the 52 current Labour MPs are former teachers and university lecturers. Today’s Labour caucus is characterised by a middle class narrowness which means that there is a distinct lack of commonality between those workers who still vote Labour and their ‘representatives’.
Few Unionists
The proportion of Labour MPs with union backgrounds remains low. Former trade unionists Rick Barker, Lianne Dalziel, Taito Philip Field, Mark Gosche, Graham Kelly, Mark Peck and Paul Swain together made up 13 percent of the caucus, which compares to almost 90 percent after the first general election that the party contested in 1919, and 27 percent in 1972 (Webber, 1978: p.183). Thus although a few ex-trade unionists still exist amongst Labour’s caucus, there is certainly no identifiable trade union faction in the party caucus and not much that is ‘labour’ about the Labour Party.
Particularly noticeable among Labour MPs today are those from a background in community or social work of various kinds. There are nine such MPs in the current parliamentary caucus — people like Tariana Turia, Tim Barnett and Janet Mackey. This new type of Labour Party MP is interested in managing rather than representing the working class. As Chris Trotter, has argued, such MPs see working people as dangerous, weak, and unimportant, rather than a social force that can change society:
This professional-managerial stratum of society specialises in telling workingclass people what to do (how else does one define social workers, counsellors, probation officers and union officials?)’. Politically speaking, Labour no longer regards the "proletariat" as the solution to history’s ills; on the contrary, the working class is seen as the prime source of society’s problems’.. Rather than defending the capitalist establishment from the "revolutionary proletariat" through timely (and genuine!) concessions, the new social democrats seek to compete with the corporate elite in managing the working class (Trotter, 11 Aug 1995: p.6).
Conclusion
Strangely, some commentators suggest that Helen Clark has returned Labour to its leftwing roots. The evidence, however, suggests that having once electorally represented the working class (if not the interests of the working class), the Labour Party has now become an empty electoral machine like any other. In fact, it not only has all the hallmarks of a middle-class centre party, but these trends are strengthening. Labour’s chief connections now are to the professional middle class, the business sector and the state — these are where it gets most of its funds and its members and they are also the social groups and institutions to which the party is most committed. Clark, who hails from an impeccable Tory background, became a member of the professional middle class and is utterly committed to the rule of capital, is the perfect representative of this embourgeoisment of the party.
This process shows that the old working class politics in New Zealand is dead. Its fossil remains should be left for future palaeontologists. People interested in serious social change need to move on to new forms of working class politics and organisation.
References:
Peter Aimer, ‘The Changing Party System’ in New Zealand Politics in Perspective, third edition, Gold (Ed), Auckland: Longman Paul, 1992
Alexander Davidson, Two Models of Welfare: The Origins and Development of the Welfare State in Sweden and New Zealand, 1888-1988, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1989
Barry Gustafson, ‘The Labour Party’ in NZ Politics in Perspective, second edition, Gold (ed), Auckland: Longman Paul, 1989
Barry Gustafson, ‘The Labour Party’ in NZ Politics in Perspective, third edition, Gold (ed), Auckland: Longman Paul, 1992 Shane Hanley, ‘Labour: a middle class electoral party’, revolution #14 (Xmas 2000-March 2001)
Jenni McManus, ‘Business Abandons Sinking Shipley’, Independent, 12-13, 16 Dec 1998
Alan McRobie, ‘Raw Statistics and Raw Facts: An Aggregate Analysis of the Results’, From Campaign to Coalition: New Zealand's First General Election Under Proportional Representation, Boston, Levine, McLeay and Roberts (eds), Palmerston North: Dunmore Press, 1997
Paul Perry and Alan Webster, New Zealand Politics at the Turn of the Millennium, Auckland: Alpha Publications, 1999
Chris Trotter, ‘Cullen Scuttles Prospects Under MMP’, Dominion, 6, 11 Aug 1995
Jack Vowles, ‘Social Structure and Political Attitudes: A Report of 1984 Election Voting in Three Auckland Marginals’, Political Science, 39(1), July 1987
Douglas C Webber, ‘Trade Unions and the Labour Party: The Death of Working Class Politics in New Zealand’ in Politics in New Zealand: A Reader, S. Levine (ed), Sydney: George Allen & Unwin, 1978
