Hipkins endorsed

Written By: - Date published: 8:02 pm, November 7th, 2023 - 53 comments
Categories: campaigning, capital gains, Carmel Sepuloni, chris hipkins, election 2023, labour, leadership, tax - Tags:

It was never going to be anything else, but two positives  emerged. All policy options are back on the table, including tax, and there are the beginning of  a realisation that the main task ahead is to rebuild a strong and progressive party.

A very big task but the Caucus is starting on the right foot (no pun intended.) That’s a good sign but it is just the start. Its now about delivery. It won’t be easy or quick.

53 comments on “Hipkins endorsed ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. observer 1
    7 November 2023 at 8:55 pm

    It was the right decision today, simply because there is no point having a new caretaker leader over the summer break while Labour reflect and review. Have a proper leadership decision, a democratic contest of ideas and vision, in a few months' time.

    Calling for Hipkins to step down immediately only means a new leader being instantly tainted by defeat, and getting none of the publicity boost while the media focus is all on the negotiations, not the opposition. No gain for Labour.

  2. Thinker 2
    7 November 2023 at 10:42 pm

    The best thing that the left could do now is visibly hold meetings as a coalition of the opposition.

    To my knowledge, it hasn't been done before but it would put pressure on Luxon if the left was having 'coalition' talks to discuss areas of common ground in opposition to some of the likely government ones, then front foot the media to get the debate going before Luxon can even form a coalition.

    It would only take one meeting, provided it was known to the media, for the left to look organised and less like a 'coalition of chaos' than Luxon's lot.

    Getting the public primed ready for the government’s turning the clock back on diversity would be the low-hanging fruit, I think. Something the left is united about and the majority of NZers would side with them about.

    • Dennis Frank 2.1
      8 November 2023 at 2:36 am

      The best thing that the left could do now is visibly hold meetings as a coalition of the opposition.

      I agree. Late summer would be optimal. However I don't expect it to happen. Clueless dork syndrome still prevails. Too many leftists operate under the handicap of their ideological blinkers (unable to see the big picture).

    • Patricia Bremner 2.2
      8 November 2023 at 7:17 am

      That is my view also Thinker.

      They must go back to the membership and the unions, Green Party and Parti Maori to thrash out common ground values and policies, and use those features to fight the selfish Policy platforms of the right.

      I am glad to hear tax is back on the agenda. That has been the problem for years and Chippy made the wrong call there, and needs to own that, be a team player and listen and reflect, and put up a good case using all the work that has been done by Robertson and Parker and the other left Parties.

      Labour have become too managerial, and are not currently fighting for improvements in the lives of those hit by neo-liberal policies enough, because of austerity of income and unbalanced tax Chippy has to get some backbone, and carry through with the "moral choices".

      "Fair" is a good word to begin the rethink.

      • SPC 2.2.1
        8 November 2023 at 8:41 am

        Be grateful Labour did not campaign on a wealth tax and lose – look at the consequences of Goff losing in 2011 and Labour's hesitation ever since on CGT.

        • Incognito 2.2.1.1
          8 November 2023 at 8:58 am

          TPM and GP did have a WT and it didn’t seem to have harmed them in GE-2023.

          • alwyn 2.2.1.1.1
            8 November 2023 at 4:08 pm

            TPM and the Green Party got a total of 14.5% of the vote.

            That is about one half of the Labour Party vote which itself seemed to be fairly generally considered to be a disaster. Are you sure that you want the Labour Party vote to drop to fringe party type numbers?

        • weka 2.2.1.2
          8 November 2023 at 9:11 am

          hell of a lot of water under the bridge in the last 12 years. We're in a different age now where most people recognise the problems with the growing economic disparity in NZ.

          Going into the election, polling showed high support for some kind of wealth tax.

          The issue now is whether Labour can develop and present a wealth tax that people will have confidence in. Work by Labour MPs suggests there is potential, and I hope that those MPs are now free to further that work but I agree with others that it's hard to see how much can change with Hipkins as leader. It is a test for him I think, to front up and how he acknowledges that he was wrong.

          Otoh, Roberton's two tier welfare system is absolutely shit and I expect a fair amount of push back from the left if Labour pursue that.

          • SPC 2.2.1.2.1
            8 November 2023 at 9:36 am

            Sure the game there

            1. sickness support to ACC levels (cancer treatment and the like etc)

            2. disability support to Super payment levels if single and base income support if with a partner

            3. income support for the non working partner when they lose a job (two income society etc)

            • weka 2.2.1.2.1.1
              8 November 2023 at 9:38 am
              1. 4. reinstate welfare as an actual safety net rather than a punitive tool for control workers and keep a pool of underclass.
              • SPC …
                8 November 2023 at 9:54 am

                In that regard

                a make debt to those on welfare repayable on finding employment – as we do with tertiary loan debt.

                b provide assistance to remain in the home (the state as mortgage payment partner) for a parent with children when they go onto the DPB. The cost of this claimed when the home is sold.

                c more effort to secure (buy) rent related to income homes on the market for those on welfare (and with children).

                • weka …
                  8 November 2023 at 11:06 am

                  sorry, what? You want to charge poor people for being poor?

                  • SPC …
                    8 November 2023 at 11:26 am

                    Surely you are aware that advances to those on benefits are currently repaid by deductions out of their benefit income?

                    https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/on-a-benefit/debt/index.html

                    Or if

                    b at the moment – if a person cannot pay the mortgage on their home while on the DPB despite assistance with AS they lose the home. They then struggle finding rentals and children go from school to school etc. And the parent ends up facing retirement without property ownership – working after 65 to pay rent.

                    In those cases, it would be better for the children and the partner if home ownership was sustained via government becoming involved – on later house sale the parent would realise some capital (sans share of sale to government) so they can make a deposit on a place for themselves on townhouse/apartment/flat (and seek to pay off any mortgage by 65).

                    • weka …
                      8 November 2023 at 11:40 am

                      I am aware of how successive governments push beneficiaries into debt and worse poverty via the advances system instead of giving them enough to live on.

                      You appear to be wanting to make that situation even more worse by charging people for being unemployed, and putting caveats on their homes because of AS shortfalls. Wtaf?

                • lprent …
                  8 November 2023 at 11:53 am

                  a. So after being on a starvation income (ie the unemployment benefit) as housing and kid costs usually get paid before adults feed…

                  1. after having been forced to exhaust any redundancy and savings by WINZ who seldom give the benefit without extended stand-downs,
                  2. and then going on to a relatively low wage (as typically happens after even moderate periods of unemployment otherwise they would have been employable earlier),
                  3. you are expecting them to pay not only their costs of getting back into a job (often expensive for things like deferred transport maintenance or work required clothing, but even bus fare to get to work is a big upfront cost after a benefit), their day to day living costs – but also pay back a loan to the government on top of any other loans that they took out maintain accommodation.
                  4. and I'm not going into how costly managing and collecting that 'unemployment loan' would be. We only have to look at how much overhead it adds to the IRD and virtually every employer payroll system for student loans.

                  Umm – you are an complete and utter economic idiot. Very sloppy in your thinking

                  The effect of what you are suggesting is to make taking almost any job to get back to work becomes uneconomic to do for anyone hit with transitory (< 4 months) unemployment. They'd be better off staying on a benefit and/or turning to crime. In effect you're saddling the people who are laid off by companies in economic downturns with extra debt to pay off when the economy swings upwards

                  Lets try this instead. The economic benefit of having unemployment benefits and the flexible labour force if generates (so beloved of classical economics) is for companies and indirectly the government. It allows companies to move quickly pulling people in and off their payroll as demand changes. It allows the whole economy to adjust to changing circumstances and effectively to get the governments PAYE and company tax take return faster.

                  So charge the recipients – the employers – for the benefits of that economic flexibility.

                  Add a specific payroll tax on all employers to pay for a unemployment fund. Much simpler to manage and administrate, far more transparent, and doesn't condemn people thrown out of work in a changing economy to a life in penury to pay back loans that are caused by decisions of employers.

                  We could even go so far as to tailor the collection so it is like ACC. Unsafe employers and industries who cause a lot of employment from poor management decisions pay higher levies. That would help encourage employers to invest in productivity improvements and would be a force for both upskilling employees and improving overall economic efficiency.

                  Throwing punitive loans on those least able to pay them back is simply economically daft and economically inefficient.

                  b. is just weird. The most common reason for someone to own a property while going on to the DPB is because of a relationship breakup. In which case the property is going to be a joint asset. This is typically why the property would get sold – to realise value for both parties as they move to more appropriate accommodation. So to do what you are suggesting would require that the state first purchases the interest of whoever is not on the DPB. But somehow you don't appear to have factored any consideration of property rights into your costing.

                  c. that has been ongoing ever since the last National led government got the boot. It is what Kāinga Ora does. All of their housing is income related rents and designed to have a longish life. In effect Kāinga Ora's other economic impact is in providing a base of affordably sized homes for the economy because they pay for them to be built.

                  Most free-market builders and property developers won't create affordable housing without a major incentive normally because they are trying to maximise the improved value to land purchases. So they buy up cheaper land that has limited infrastructure and transport links to work (and expect tax and ratepayers to put in the capital for the infrastructure) and then build slightly cheaper mansions. Or they upgrade brownfield sites and produce really high end high density housing. Or they try to produce shoddy and pretty useless housing for a quick profit grab to produce instant slums.

      • bwaghorn 2.2.2
        8 November 2023 at 9:42 am

        That has been the problem for years and Chippy made the wrong call

        The footage I asw of Parker entering the meeting looked like chippie was about to get a stern talking to. !

    • SPC 2.4
      8 November 2023 at 8:39 am

      Sure and not just to find common ground on policy, but also common ground in opposition to the new government programme.

      Housing, incomes, worker rights, taxation.

      Environment, conservation, three waters – flood prevention and recovery. (including coastal shipping). Paris Accord commitment planning. Public transport.

      Tiriti, UNDRIP, Co-governance – 2040 planning.

      Defence of the institutions ACT is targeting (HRC, Women's Ministry Pacific etc).

      Education, health and aged care.

      Immigration and worker accommodation, industry training etc

      • Patricia Bremner 2.4.1
        8 November 2023 at 9:27 am

        Yes, SPC, a fair chance at housing/ good wages and salaries/ holidays and sick leave/ Education and Health/ Environmental protections and plans/ etc.

        What ever policies a settled on, they should work for the majority not just workers. imo.

  3. DS 3
    8 November 2023 at 3:54 am

    I remember the (justified) pushing of David Cunliffe in 2014. 2023 was worse, in electorate terms, than 2014, and yet people are still willing to tolerate Mr Captains Call. The fact that Hipkins is not being held accountable for this disaster – and the fact that caucus lack all gumption to challenge him – is utterly criminal.

    In 1990, Mike Moore was a stop-gap. No-one could blame the result on him in particular. It was a different world in 1975, and Rowling did not make the election about him the way Hipkins did in 2023 (no Captains Calls in 1975).

    Honestly, I feel like I'm in a hijacked party, 1980s-style. The membership never got the chance to vote for Hipkins (that 2/3 of caucus amendment truly was insidious), and he has led the party to one of the all-time terrible Labour results. And we are still stuck with him.

    • Ghostwhowalks 3.1
      8 November 2023 at 8:05 am

      And did the previous merry go round of 'instant leaders' achieve anything.

      Its bizarre that the leader gets all the blame so that a few can feel better . Theres a whole swath of cabinet ministers who were below par

      How about a suggestion of who should replace him as just wanting to be part of firing squads doesnt achieve much

    • SPC 3.2
      8 November 2023 at 8:22 am

      The party vote was 26.9%, it was 25% in 2014.

      The electorate seat situation had 3 factors – loss of the Maori seats, a decline in Auckland (lockdown, and crime related) and loss of seats in the provinces only won in 2020 (with 50%).

      Under Little the party was polling 24% in 2017 before it bumped to 37% under Ardern (in part because of decline in the Green vote over over 4%) but National and ACT (0.5%) still had a 57-55 seat lead.

      In 2017 Labour/G/TPM 44.35% in 2023 41.58% This time NACT ahead 60-55.

      Given the nature of decline in support in government and the cost of living/business stress an unsurprising decline

      You blame captains calls – which cost Labour support on the left. That is itself not a problem. Greens on 15% and TPM on 5% would be good.

      And remember the consequences of campaigning on tax and losing – Goff proposed a CGT in 2011 and Labour abandoned the policy after defeat.

      For mine his main mistake was not supporting the Greens 3% rent cap (cost of living action) and the 2023 budget not applying a windfall profits tax on banks and supermarkets to finance an adjustment to the IETC (which had been neglected for years).

      • Patricia Bremner 3.2.1
        8 November 2023 at 9:32 am

        SPC, I agree with your final sentence. Windfall profit tax would have helped greatly in the fight against inflation, and would have been fair.imo

        However, our first task is to keep the right accountable and keep checking the “fairness” of actions if they do cobble a Government together.

      • Corey 3.2.2
        8 November 2023 at 9:40 am

        Whenever people say that it's fine if Labour loses the left vote because the left will go to the greens forget one thing:

        When the left ditches Labour, Labour drops below 30% and when a major party drops below 30% it's written off by the center.

        Without the left Labour can't win the center. Period.

        Labour needs to compete with the greens and national.

        • weka 3.2.2.1
          8 November 2023 at 9:47 am

          this is an important point that is often forgotten. I'm not sure if 30% is the magical number or not, but it must be somewhere atm.

          However, there is also the potential for NZ to mature MMP and break out of the two party duopoly. There's no technical reason that we couldn't have a L/G/TPM government that looks something like 25/20/7 %. The barrier to that happening is political culture, and the Overton Window.

          The Greens are obviously going to keep building on their achievements, including working in the electorates and building their party vote.

          I don't actually care how the left wins in 2026 except that it must be moving leftwards and greenwards. So if Labour can get its shit together and increase its vote, that's great, but I'm also ok with the Greens doing that instead. And TPM.

          Best outcome for NZ would be three strong left wing parties.

        • SPC 3.2.2.2
          8 November 2023 at 10:02 am

          They’re at 41.58% now.

          I'd put it that Labour needs to be at 30% and reach that as a partner to Greens to 15% and TPM to 5%.

          All three need to do better, and they do that by working together.

          That is what building a centre-left wing government with a 50% mandate looks like. Because Greens and TPM are not going away.

          • Craig H 3.2.2.2.1
            8 November 2023 at 12:04 pm

            Agree with wanting 50+% but 47-48% is probably enough to win since there are always some votes for parties that don't make to Parliament e.g. TOP.

            TPM at 3% but 6 seats would also produce a favourable overhang, so even 30/15/3 would easily be enough to have a workable majority.

      • Craig H 3.2.3
        8 November 2023 at 11:55 am

        Labour campaigned on CGT again in 2014 under Cunliffe. I joined Labour after the 2014 election defeat and was at my regional conferences in 2015-16 where it was pretty clear that even the activists who go to conferences to debate policy remits had concluded that CGT wasn't electorally palatable.

        That's why the 2017 tax policy was a working group – there were so many tax remits on other non-CGT options at our regional conference that a wise soul suggested sweeping them all into a working group which was agreed as a remit and taken forward to the annual conference where it passed and carried on into the policy process. Obviously it made the 2017 Labour manifesto, but with a rider that any policy proposals from the tax working group would be taken to the following election as manifesto commitments before implementation.

        That the working group then recommended a full CGT showed their independence from the government, but also was a totally useless outcome in terms of the origin of the election policy to have a tax working group.

        Speaking of captain's calls that almost backfired, in 2017 near the election date when polling was even (both Labour and National were around 40%), Grant Robertson and later Jacinda Ardern confirmed interview that if elected, Labour might implement tax working group proposals before the next election, including CGT if that was recommended. National turned that into rampant speculation on CGT (and land tax, inheritance tax etc), and there was a late swing of ~3.5% from Labour to National, with final votes of around 37% to 44% respectively. Bernard Hickey commented on it the day after the election on Newsroom.

        • SPC 3.2.3.1
          8 November 2023 at 12:40 pm

          Yes, there is a certain wisdom in Clark's response to the winter of discontent – a government has got to do/does what it received a mandate to do.

          It saw off the rabid right then but constrained government to its mandate (except when (Key manufactures a GST increase to enable a pretence at affording a tax cut plan).

          There is a cost to going off script in a campaign, as per 2017.

  4. Darien Fenton 4
    8 November 2023 at 5:15 am

    I'm not into blood letting for the sake of it and putting the boot in. Labour has been here before. – several times, including as recently as 2014. We wasted years on factional in-fighting and leadership challenges from 2011 on. We have lost some good MPs who are now looking for other jobs, along with the cut down Parliamentary, Out of Parliament and Ministerial staff. Sure, Labour has work to do, but a rebuild will take all of us. It won't and shouldn't be a hurried process. Please give those of us who are Labour the time to do so. Meanwhile, we have huge fights ahead of us. Stay political, but stay classy and focus on what's coming with a new government – because it is gonna to be very ugly.

    • Ghostwhowalks 4.1
      8 November 2023 at 8:06 am

      Great thoughts , as always Darien

    • Corey 4.2
      8 November 2023 at 9:46 am

      What good mps has the party lost?

      The few good ones are still there along with a mountain of hangers on, primarily in leadership.

      This is a caucus afraid of its membership which is why it's spent the last three years taking as much power as possible away from it and it won't work in the long run.

    • Louis 4.3
      8 November 2023 at 1:30 pm

      yes Darien.

  5. Mike the Lefty 5
    8 November 2023 at 8:28 am

    I have to say firstly that I have no personal issues with Chris Hipkins. I regard him as a decent person, and a better PM than history will judge.

    But how credible does it look for Hipkins to re-invent Labour, starting with adopting a policy of a wealth tax, when Labour have for the last six years strenuously denied that they had ever seriously considered it? For me, Hipkins is too far identified with the National-lite Blairite form of Labour and I have doubts that he can do any such transformation.

    One swallow does not a summer make.

    • SPC 5.1
      8 November 2023 at 8:56 am

      starting with adopting a policy of a wealth tax, when Labour have for the last six years strenuously denied that they had ever seriously considered it?

      Except GR did do some work on it. As a possible policy for the 2023 election.

      Hipkins merely rejected it as a policy for the third term of the outgoing government, not as one for a future Labour (4th term or otherwise) led government (and he never said, not while PM).

      There are indications that a wealth tax has enough popular support (more so than CGT).

      Politics 101. Labour campaigned on a CGT in 2011 and lost.

      Key allowed a bright-line test of 2 years – Labour took it to 5 years then 10 years and added the end of the mortgage cost deduction against rent income (on all but new builds to incentivise them).

      This was becoming a major constraint on speculation on borrowed money for CG. And increased tax on rent income (as an alternative to CGT on property held for over 10 years).

      National have brought in a 15% stamp duty on foreigners buying property valued over $2m.

      Labour, Greens and or TPM, or all, could look at a 5% stamp duty on property over $2m for local buyers – it is this rate in Australia.

      • Mike the Lefty 5.1.1
        8 November 2023 at 9:41 am

        It was my impression that the work on a possible wealth tax was done by the Tax Working Group rather than Robertson specifically. In any case it was a moot point because Jacinda had already sworn on the bible (in effect) that there would be no CGT or wealth tax on her watch.

        Hipkins made some noises about reviewing this when he took over as PM but in the end nothing changed and it was left to the Greens to take it up.

  6. Ffloyd 6
    8 November 2023 at 8:46 am

    Give Chris Hopkins and his party a chance. They have just come out of months of turmoil. Not all of their making. Not fair to try to second guess anything at the moment. Susie F was abysmal this morning. Just shocking! Just let them breathe and exhale. ……
    Why aren’t we hearing more from The Three Stooges across the room?
    They should be being held accountable to the country for their pussyfooting around so much. Why aren’t they? I thought luxon had everything ready to go!

    Maybe the msm should be putting them under more scrutiny. They’re like a bell without a gong. Dead silent.

  7. weka 7
    8 November 2023 at 9:00 am

    All policy options are back on the table, including tax

    How do we know this is true? Has Labour stated this publicly?

  8. Sanctuary 8
    8 November 2023 at 9:08 am

    It occurred to me this morning while reading of Winston Peter's erratic behaviour vis a vis ACT that there is a possibility he is approaching some form of senility and that there is at least a chance the nascent new government will collapse and a new election be required with the next 6-12 months. Keeping Hipkins until at least the smoke has cleared, whilst signalling the policy slate has been wiped clean, is potentially not a bad strategy for the next little while.

    • weka 8.1
      8 November 2023 at 9:12 am

      what were you reading?

    • Ghostwhowalks 8.2
      8 November 2023 at 3:47 pm

      It wont be Peters that causes the Coalition collapse.

      Its Seymour a hard person from the right who wants to make sure they dont get tossed under the policy bus like Key did to Hide and his fellow Actorhhoids

      Mr Congeniality Luxon will have his work cut out for him and I dont rate his chances

  9. Mac1 9
    8 November 2023 at 12:23 pm

    What's in a headline? "Hipkins still Labour leader" says my morning paper.

    How else could that have been framed? "Hipkins re-elected Labour leader" or "Hipkins re-endorsed as Labour Leader"?

    "Still" has connotations of 'finger-tapping frustration', or 'boredom', or 'surprise that he got back against the odds'.

    It also means 'even now as formerly'.

    Which, or all, of these meanings did the headline creator intend?

    But what of the article by another journalist who likens Hipkins in an extended comparison to the Terminator? Really?

    Again note the headline …"Congratulations Chris Hipkins-you're the winning loser"

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/301004242/tova-obrien-congratulations-chris-hipkins-youre-the-winning-loser

    The Stuff article by O'Brien has the following by-line."Tova O’Brien hosts Stuff’s whip-smart politics podcast holding the powerful to account".

    Or is it more like 'chipping at Chippie'? Or whipping Chippie?

    The media do have an important role. Are these examples of the journalism we need?

  10. John 10
    8 November 2023 at 12:27 pm

    There isn’t anyone in the current Labour Party capable of putting together a coherent manifesto.They need new leaders with new ideas and principles.

    • Craig H 10.1
      8 November 2023 at 4:21 pm

      There are definitely currently members of the Labour Party who could put together a coherent manifesto, not least because Labour has done so in the past and at least some of the members involved are still members.

      Whether such a manifesto would survive the electability test, however administered, is another matter.

  11. Ffloyd 11
    8 November 2023 at 5:38 pm

    If Tova Obrien is all that Stuff have they can get stuffed. I do remember for some reason watching her interview with Zelenskyy. It was excruciatingly embarrassed. Done up like Fox bimbo and doing lots of crossing legs in a tight skirt and twinkling and batting eyes at him. The poor man was totally bewildered. She ended up asking if he would like to come to zNZ and he just looked at his interpreter in a WTF eye roll. Tova said she would put in a good word for him to zJacinda and she could make it happen…In so many words. She was totally inappropriate in every way for an interview in a war zone. All about image but has no substance. Scary that she,Jessica and Jenna are all we’ve got when there is much more educated talent out there. I’d tell them all to feck off as well.