Labour’s leadership

Written By: - Date published: 10:06 am, November 3rd, 2023 - 34 comments
Categories: election 2023, labour, leadership, Left, Politics, uncategorized - Tags:

Now that the dust is settling it is time for the Labour Party to think about its future.

The last election result was a disaster. Special votes due today may get the left a few electorate seats and another seat in total but Labour looked like this election would be a walk in the park 18 months ago.

Things were worse in 2014. That result did include acts of gross disloyalty from MPs who sniped at the leadership at the time and who refused to campaign for the party vote. They used leaks to the media as one of their weapons.

It was an awful time. This campaign had none of the disunity that was on show then.

Of course the current Labour Party does not want to engage in the factional battles that raged then.  But the victors of that battle are still around. They are trying to cement their power.

Compared to previous Labour Governments the last government did not fare so well.

Helen Clark’s Government lasted for 9 years and fought all of the way.

The Lange/Palmer/Moore government ended abruptly after the party burned through most of its activists.

Its campaign launch was filmed in front of about 8 MPs who cheered and gave a standing ovation at the end. They were too afraid to book out a big hall because no one would have shown up.

The third Labour Government crashed and burned under intense economic pressures and rising fuel prices. It also lost its leader part way through.

The last Labour Government was something of a mix of each of these.

It achieved some good. It was not ideologically compromised the way that the fourth Labour Government was. But the rush to back away from anything contentious i.e. good during this year hurt.

Now is the time to look towards the future.

The leadership should accept that the tactical decisions made were pretty bad.

GST off fresh fruit and vegetables as a policy was a loser as was a watered down version of the Green’s free dental healthcare.

Ruling out a wealth tax and/or a capital gains tax robbed activists of their desire to be involved and a chance for the party to say that it was different to National. All we had was two parties looking somewhat similar with the right wing party having a pile of rich donor cash behind it to make it look better.

There is a need for inspiring leadership. Someone like Norman Kirk, David Lange, Helen Clark or Jacinda Ardern or good old Michael Joseph Savage who can provide inspiration and hope.

Liking Sausage rolls and spending most of your working life in Parliament will not cut it.

Of course the Caucus has a desire for stability.

But there is also a need for Labour to change and quickly adjust. Right now we need to be reorganising and planning and getting ready for the National Party onslaught that they are surely planning right now.

Labour needs leadership that makes good calls on tactical decisions and who will energise the base.

They need a narrative about how they will address child poverty and climate change.

They need to declare what they believe in and what they are proposing for our future.

They need to provide support and hope for ordinary people.

If the caucus revert to a Wellington focussed view of what is important for their careers combined with a desire to not rock the boat too much then the party will miss the opportunity to address its problems.

Hipkins has a choice. He can resign as leader and then take part in a leadership campaign. He can bring the fire and determination he showed in the last couple of weeks of the campaign and see if that works.

The members and affiliates can then decide if they want to grant him the privilege of continuing as leader.

Whoever the leader is for the next election they will need these foot soldiers to campaign for the party. Without them Labour will struggle against the well funded onslaught resourced by the very wealthy who are afraid of losing their privilege.

Right now the left needs real leadership. Mike Smith is right.

34 comments on “Labour’s leadership ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tsmithfield 1
    3 November 2023 at 10:56 am

    Looking at this as objectively as I can, trying to put aside my own right wing inclinations, I think, in the short to medium term anyway, Chippy will stay on as leader.

    One of the big problems for Labour is who they should replace him with. And I have seen various commentators voicing a view that he will be excellent in terms of functioning as a leader of the opposition.

    Two I have been quite impressed with have been Carmel Sepuloni and Ginny Anderson. Carmel Sepuloni, given her recent status, could be a logical choice.

    From my perspective of having seen previous Labour governments, it seems to me that Labour had lost its soul to a degree over recent years. It looks to me that they had gone too far in the woke, ideological direction and lost connection with a lot of their traditional voting base which I see as the average working person.

    Also, I think they need to look at how they can actually deliver on promises they make. Under promising and over-delivering is always a good strategy. But, it seems to me that Labour did the opposite, and must have resulted in a lot of disappointment for those who were inspired by promises such as 100000 houses.

    • bwaghorn 1.1
      3 November 2023 at 11:39 am

      I'm leaning Sepuloni too, deems intelligent and solid, also labour needs south Auckland to vote, and any one offended by a poly politician wouldn't vote labour anyway.

    • Belladonna 1.2
      3 November 2023 at 4:57 pm

      One of the issues with Sepuloni is that she spectacularly achieved virtually nothing in the Social Development portfolio. One where a Labour Government should shine.

      I don't know if she wasn't strong enough to wrestle enough of the budget away from Little (Health) and Hipkins (Education). But she didn't even carve off the low-hanging fruit from the WEAG report.

      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/weag-welfare-overhaul-update-govt-defends-146b-programme-while-anti-poverty-campaigners-say-woefully-slow/HYL5CB5O7ZHFXMBQDQHG2E4N34/

      My picks – longer term would be McAnulty and Anderson (it would have been Kiri Allen, but that boat has sailed).

      • newsense 1.2.1
        4 November 2023 at 1:05 am

        So she was able to defend and straight bat ( to mux metaphors) the hospital pass she was given. She carried water and was loyal.

        She doesn’t seem to ever put up with much BS and there might be a time when that’s exactly what the country wants in a leader.

        She’s had plenty of parliamentary and party experience.

        I don’t see this as prejudicing a leadership bid. She ran the portfolio as her leaders asked and as previous Labour leaders have asked.

        • Belladonna 1.2.1.1
          4 November 2023 at 10:57 am

          That doesn't make her an inspirational leader – which is what the OP was searching for. Plenty of other time-servers around.

          They need a narrative about how they will address child poverty and climate change.

          They need to declare what they believe in and what they are proposing for our future.

          They need to provide support and hope for ordinary people.

          Based on her track record, Sepuloni is not well placed to do this. Why should anyone believe her? She had the chance to fix things, and did nothing.

  2. SPC 2
    3 November 2023 at 11:04 am

    Not having been a party member, or ever voted for the party, feel free to ignore this response.

    Norman Kirk was Labour leader in 1966 and 1969 before becoming PM in 1972 – only after Holyoake retired (a bit like Ardern winning after Key retired) – this shows that both patience and timing are important.

    One term administrations are rare – the 1957-1960, 1972-1975 and 1990-1993 (sort of as Bolger sacked Richardson and they still only won a FPP election with 35%, saved only by the division between Labour (34.7%) and Alliance (18%) and not even NZF with 8% could have saved them under MMP).

    We forget how Peters campaigned as part of the opposition in 1996, and then saved National. This is why Key chose the boil the frog option 2008-2016.

    If National forget all of this, they can be taken in 2026.

    Moore came in late 1990 and nearly won in 1993. There is the template for Labour in 2026. Clark lost in 1996, then won in 1999.

    Labour has tried the change leader option – 2011 Goff, 2014 Cunliffe and the Little to Ardern option only worked because of the Key hand over to English.

    It's about the party membership, the party vision and the caucus being united, it's not about brand "Trump", having the right front person in marketing.

  3. Patricia Bremner 3
    3 November 2023 at 11:48 am

    Go to the grass roots and actively listen.

  4. weka 4
    3 November 2023 at 12:47 pm

    There is a need for inspiring leadership. Someone like Norman Kirk, David Lange, Helen Clark or Jacinda Ardern or good old Michael Joseph Savage who can provide inspiration and hope.

    Sure. But how does that happen? I don't know the party well enough to have seen the potential in Ardern. Is there someone else waiting in the wings already? And if not, how would Labour bring someone in in the next three years?

  5. AB 5
    3 November 2023 at 1:10 pm

    One-term governments are rare, so any younger talent should not be expected to burn down their political careers by trying to win 2026. A caretaker is needed to take 2026 on the chin – possibly stepping aside about a year before that election if NACT are so dreadful that they could actually lose. (Ironically, Winston's presence might make them less beatable by sidelining Seymour).

    Plausible caretakers have to be people who are known to the public and are broadly respected – Robertson is the best candidate but doesn't want it. So that leaves Hipkins, Sepuloni, Megan Woods, Parker (maybe). If the long-term goal is to do anything about making the tax system more just, then that may count Hipkins out – the leader must be broadly in sympathy with an economic policy evolution towards a greater redistributive (and even predistributive) approach.

    At this stage McAnulty seems to me like the best longer-term candidate if for no other reason than his potential to win male voters back to Labour. He is also articulate and funny, and seems to be capable of getting a coherent grip on the details. Labour's Maori caucus also have work to do. The Maori Party's near-destruction in 2017 after their strategically silly coalition agreement with Key, now looks like a temporary reprieve for Labour who may now have permanently lost their historical stranglehold on these seats. Finding enough common ground with the Maori Party to have a long-term understanding of what workable coalition agreements will look like is important. They have already managed to do this with the Greens.

  6. barry 6
    3 November 2023 at 2:26 pm

    So with final counting the result is almost the same as 2017 when Labour/Greens could govern with NZ1st. yes this is not good for the Labour party (or NZ) but lets keep it in perspective.

    Labour needs to find its mojo, but really NZ likes National for some reason.

    • Adrian 6.1
      3 November 2023 at 4:27 pm

      A lot of people are "ashperationel " and hence have a tendency to believe any old shit a oily grifter tells them. Remember its a loss of only 10% or so of the vote to the Nats and given the huge tax promises I'm surprised it wasn't more.

  7. adam 7
    3 November 2023 at 5:44 pm

    If you want to use the name redfed mate you need to show more than you have shown in this piece. Like Class War, and we have a ruling executive out of touch with reality. Red feds need more balls and back bone than was written here.

    • Incognito 7.1
      3 November 2023 at 6:06 pm

      A reminder for you:

      A partial list of these self-martyrdom offenses include:-

      • Abusing the sysop or post writers on their own site – including telling us how to run our site or what we should write. This is viewed as self-evident stupidity, and should be added as a category to the Darwin Awards.

      https://thestandard.org.nz/policy/#banning

    • SPC 7.2
      3 November 2023 at 6:21 pm

      There is nothing wrong being a "Menshevik" who practices democracy in the party, because it's part of the path to wining a majority of the voting public.

      • SPC 7.2.1
        3 November 2023 at 6:31 pm

        And the issue of what policy direction the party should take, as per recognising the class war programme of NACT and proposing a clear alternative, was not part of the post topic.

      • adam 7.2.2
        3 November 2023 at 6:35 pm

        "Menshevik" may be fine, but the redfeds were no menshiviks when they cherished the name. Example: Fraser didn't start out a by not talking about the state of play in relation to wealth and ruling executives. Nor Holland, Nor Webb.

        • SPC 7.2.2.1
          3 November 2023 at 7:05 pm

          They learnt they could not do it all on their own. They had to build a network of alliances to grow.

          https://teara.govt.nz/en/unions-and-employee-organisations/page-4

          • adam 7.2.2.1.1
            4 November 2023 at 12:22 pm

            That was after they actually were powerful, and in control of what they wanted to do to change in society. Most of the left in this country are besotted by liberalism (your a good example) and that is not what the Redfeds were in love with. They understood the problems of liberalism. Now it even more important, as most on the left are not even aware they are spouting nothing but a shade of liberalism.

            • SPC 7.2.2.1.1.1
              4 November 2023 at 12:58 pm

              It's you're – you are… .

              And there is a difference between neo-liberalism and liberalism. And this does matter.

              Liberalism does not allow either fascist or communist regimes, it's about civil society and about the means to the empowerment of people, not rule over them.

  8. Ed - do not use this user name 8
    3 November 2023 at 6:31 pm

    Hipkins said as long as he was leader there will be no capital gains tax.

    For me that signaled just how much this Labour administration were neoliberal apologists with zero taste for any structural change to address structural inequity. The last government was really only interested in making neoliberal policy a bit nicer for those who still own their homes. The current cowardice and failure to outright condemn genocidal Israel is another moral bankruptcy.

    I noticed that despite disastrous results, Hipkins has expressed no responsibility for his part in the destruction of Labour.

    Until Labour has a leftwing leader and demonstrates some commitment to structural reform, they can rot while I put my energy into actually progressive parties.

    [You are all over the place with user names and e-mail addresses when you comment. Stick to the combination that you’ve used before and that has been approved: https://thestandard.org.nz/that-was-not-as-good-as-was-hoped-for/#comment-1972945. If you don’t then you’re making unnecessary work for the Mods. In any case, the user name “Ed” is already in use by a regular commenter.

    Please acknowledge that you’ve read and understood this Mod note, thanks – Incognito]

  9. newsense 9
    4 November 2023 at 12:54 am

    Like it or not Luxon had several narratives going for him, true or not-

    a) an association with Air New Zealand, a patriotic and public good corporation crucial to our economy.

    b) his electorate at Botany is a new and growing one, linked to our key export market. It’s fairly dynamic.

    c) he was following John Key as upper management business figures done good who were coming home. Though Key’s story was much better, let’s be honest.

    d) didn’t really have much else of a backstory in NZ.
    There weren’t too many spoilers or associations that might lose people. Though for me an evangelical church was one. But it was dusted behind the mantle piece as best as possible.

    Ardern and Clark had that timeless country kid came to the big city. Sorry sorry provincial kid! But they knew their way around a farm. Goff excelled in the things he turned his hands to. Grant should have had a go, imo. Chippy, the safe pair of hands who liked sausage rolls and spreading legs fell apart as the party had. (And no one focused on the polytechs..! Sadly enough it wasn’t even needed to tear through Labour.)

    There needs to be some association with positive upbeat parts of the country or sectors. The role is partly symbolic. We have to like what we see in our leader as a bit of a mirror or someone we might know. But also they have to have qualities that make them better than us as well or trusted to ‘bat for our lives’. Quite literally.

    A key question is can we have a provincial or rural leader? Up to them to articulate, but hard to argue for in recent times…though maybe we will see a rural leader on climate change and infrastructure rise. The future is all stranger than we can imagine…

  10. John 10
    5 November 2023 at 8:53 am

    Labour have to explain what they stand for,currently they don’t seem to know. The electorate certainly doesn’t know.

    Chippy has to go but there is no obvious successor.