Everyone has heard a variant of the story of the student who goes to the guru in India to ask how long it will take to reach enlightenment. The guru says, “It often takes three or four years but, because you are working so hard at it, it will take 10.”

There are lessons in this for the Labour Party.

There is no surer bet than predicting Labour will be in government once again. The only questions are “When?” and “With whom?” If Labour over-reaches, it is likely to take longer. And it may well end up needing more bedfellows than comfort would dictate.

Enough ink has been spilled to stain a party manifesto on what a bad March – or rather a mad March – it has been for leader Andrew Little. Even staunch supporter Chris Trotter recently described it on the Paul Henry show as “baffling.”

Mr Little needs to put it behind him. The country needs a strong opposition and, when it does come to power, a Labour government that knows what it stands for.

Mr Little has good instincts. Coming from the trade unions movement – where the Labour Party began a 100 years ago this year  – he, as much as anyone, knows the importance of a job.

He understands wealth has to be created before there can be any talk about redistributing it. As a result, he knows that business – especially employers – are the best friend of the poor. And while he placed himself on the workers’ side of the negotiating table, he knows the benefits of free bargaining – and he is good at it.

His instincts served him well when he started off as Labaour leader. He distanced himself from his predecessor’s inequality rhetoric.

Instead, Mr Little’s focus became the Future of Work, a topic that is commanding attention across the political divide.

A real concern

Whether from left-wing political activist Jeremy Rifkin in The End of Work or George Mason University’s Tyler Cowen’s Average is Over, the loss of unskilled jobs has become a widespread concern. Unfortunately, what has emerged to date from Labour’s Future of Work Commission has not yet lived up to its promise. This week’s second background paper, A Universal Income Benefit, does not improve the assessment. Rather than focusing on how the education sector can meet the challenges of providing tomorrow’s workforce with the skills needed for tomorrow’s jobs, both have focused at the bottom of the cliff on issues of job and income security.

These are important topics. But they will not have voter appeal – especially when the consequences for tax rates become apparent.

In any case, as Mr Little knows, equipping the young with the skills they need to enter the workforce is the first order priority. Tomorrow’s Schools has not proved up to the challenge. Much more radical thinking is needed about how to achieve better outcomes.

Encouragingly, Labour under Mr Little has shown a willingness for the bold. Who could doubt this after its housing spokesman, Phil Twyford, wrote jointly with The New Zealand Initiative’s Dr Oliver Hartwich late last year that planning rules are a root cause of the housing crisis in Auckland?

The same boldness can be seen in Labour’s support for Local Government New Zealand’s funding review recommendations. These include experimenting with new forms of infrastructure finance, including Houston-style infrastructure bonds. These positions are principled and supported by research. They are also pragmatic. They play to what will be one of the next election’s big issues – the Auckland housing affordability crisis.

While the crisis was not of National’s making, the John Key-led government has not done enough in its seven years in office to solve it.

Plenty for voters

Labour has plenty of scope to make inroads with voters here. And it does not rest on its previous gung-ho promise the government would build 10,000 houses a year, a task almost as fanciful as Donald Trump’s Mexican wall.

There is also mileage for Labour in education but not with free tertiary education for middle-class students. That won’t solve any pressing social issues. But the big education reforms in the UK and Australia in the past decade have all started under Labour governments.

In New Zealand, Labour has allowed the teachers’ unions too much sway. Union opposition to partnership schools is a good case in point.

This experiment deserves the Labour leader’s support. The Maori Party understands the need to try something new when old solutions are not working.

Override dogma

Mr Little needs to show leadership by over-riding the teacher unions’ dogma. The under-privileged – particularly Maori and Pasifika students – deserve better. Doubtless some in Labour are looking wistfully at Jeremy Corbyn’s attempts in the UK to resurrect the Fabian Society’s 20th century ideal of state socialism. Mr Little knows better than to go down this path, which can only play into the hands of new Greens co-leader James Shaw.  He is ready and willing to claim the economic centre-left if Labour shows any signs of relinquishing it.

Equally, threatening interest rate controls or expounding into anti-immigration and anti-free trade rhetoric does a disservice to Labour. New Zealand voters do not need populist bombast and or feel alienated by a detached political elite.

If Mr Little wants to channel the early 1980s when both he and Mr Key spent their formative years at university, he would be better to be more  like Bob Hawke than Rob Muldoon.

Mr Hawke was the leader of the trade union movement before entering Parliament. Like Mr Little, he was strongly consensus-driven.

Mr Hawke was also Australia’s longest serving Labor prime minister – a record recent experience suggests will not be beaten any time soon. He led an ambitious and progressive reform agenda widely credited with reviving a moribund Australian economy.

If Mr Little needs a guru, this is where he should turn. Either way, he should trust his instincts. That is his best way to enlightenment.

Trying to be something he is not will simply make for a longer journey and, under MMP, require too much baggage.