Chris Trotter sees defeat on the horizon

Chris Trotter spells out just how broke the Labour Party really is, and compares Labour's failure to get their debts funded by the taxpayer to the fall of Singapore in 1942, thus trying to create a myth of the good guys (Labour as the British) being overtaken by the bad (National as the Japanese). He also continues with Labour's $800,000 election overspend a "fine" imposed by the auditor-general (he started using the word "fine" last week).

Trotter finishes off with advice for Labour on getting the public behind them again (referendums, scrapping student loans and helping young people get into their first home courtesy of the taxpayer, etc), with the alternative being that if Labour won't fight, they should at least sack Michael Cullen and replace him with someone who will.

That's the summary, but, as always, Trotter's exact words are pure gold, so here they are:

The enemy is at the gates

Oops! There goes another piece of Government legislation. Much more of this and we'll have to start calling it a trend.

We might also have to stop referring to NZ First and United Future as the Government's "support parties".

Because, I'm sorry Dr Cullen, but refusing to back Labour's push for state-funded election campaigns just doesn't sound very supportive to me. And your response to their lack of support which has, so far, amounted to not much more than a cheery, "Oh dear, what a pity, never mind" strikes me as just a little too sanguine. Your party's coffers are empty, and by "empty" I mean penniless, cleaned-out, skint, busted, and stony-flat-broke.

If $1.4 million isn't going to be stumped up by the taxpayer, exactly who is it going to be stumped up by? The party membership? Think again. They are still financially fund-raising to pay off the half-million-dollars-worth of debt the party ran up of it's own account in 2005, and the $800,000 fine imposed by the auditor-general in 2006. The unions? Nope. They're still trying to pay off the costs of their last big bargaining round. The corporates? Don't be silly. Why would they give their money to Helen Clark, if they want to be ruled by John Key? As Elrond says to Gandalf in The Fellowship of the Ring: "Our list of allies grows thin."

So, yes, you probably should say, "Oh dear". Because it really is "a pity". And though it might be a case of "never mind" now, it bloody well won't be in 2008.

How to explain this laid-back, "What, me worry?" approach on the part of senior cabinet ministers? Have they simply given up? Did they secretly expect to lose in 2005, and so neglected to refill their emotional tanks? Has Labour's third term always been running on empty?

I don't think it would be fair to say that of Helen Clark, but I'm not quite so confident about her colleagues.

I'm hoping we're not looking at a situation akin to the fall of Singapore. In January and February of 1942, with the Japanese army advancing rapidly down the Malay peninsula, the British commanders of "impregnable" Singapore simply would not see the perilousness of their position. By the time the Japanese reached the city's outer defences it was too late.

Though enjoying a large numerical advantage over his enemies (who, after advancing 800 kilometres in just 50 days, were close to exhaustion and operating without artillery) the British commander, Lieutenant General Arthur Percival, fell into a fatalistic funk. With the result that, following a brief but furious assault, the Japanese commander, General Tomoyuki, was astounded to receive the surrender of the 90,000 British and Commonwealth troops under Percival's command.

Helen Clark needs to keep a sharp eye out for any sign of similar fatalistic funks among her senior colleagues. Because even if Labour should find it impossible to refill its coffers for a conventional campaign against National in 2008, there are always alternatives to abject surrender.

She could, for example, take a leaf out of Mickey Savage's book and transform the next election into a referendum on matters very dear to the the hearts of Labour's core constituents. This might take the form of a state-backed scheme to get young people into their first home. Or a promise to eliminate the student-loans scheme (and recompense those who have already paid them off with a special tax rebate). Young workers could be promised the abolition of youth rates, and their older counterparts offered the legal authority to strike against "outsourcing", and in defence of their political, economic and social rights.

Better still, the prime minister could introduce all of these legislative reforms immediately and dare her "support parties" to vote against them. If the Greens, NZ First and United Future refused to back the Government's programme, then she could ask the governor-general to dissolve Parliament, and seek a positive mandate for change from the people.

The alternative to rekindling the labour movement's fighting spirit, is for this Government to sit and wait for its right-wing enemies to progress to the very gates of "Helengrad". And the finance minister's "Oh dear, what a pity, never mind" response to Labour's repeated legislative defeats is unlikely to slow their advance.

If Dr Cullen persists in playing General Percival to John Key's General Tomoyuki, then the prime minister must replace him with someone who is not only ready to fight but who is determined to win.

See this post translated from "commie speak" : More Courageous Corruption