Labour’s Long-Sightedness and the Opposition’s Opprobrious Omniabsence

52 comments on “Labour’s Long-Sightedness and the Opposition’s Opprobrious Omniabsence ”

• Comment on post

1. PsyclingLeft.Always 1

   11 January 2025 at 8:05 pm

   Without a strong and effective Opposition, the Coalition is strolling towards victory in 2026

   Summed. Even given, as you say, the despondency of the election result : enough; already.

   Our supposedly experienced, now opposition, Political MP's seemingly just…treading water?! Of course there are the notable standouts…but they are carrying the rest.

   My initial empathy for them….has gone.

   Replaced with feelings of disillusionment and..increasingly, anger.

   Where is the fight? The push back ?

   They are being paid to represent us !

   We have a common enemy...show us your resolve to fight them.

   Reply
   • Incognito 1.1

     11 January 2025 at 8:54 pm

     Yes, we have a common enemy because we have common interests; our values that are being threatened are common values that underpin this very nation – they are not the values and interests of overseas investors, corporates, and buyers, not even when they ’buy’ their way into NZ and obtain citizenship.

     Reply
2. Darien Fenton 2

   12 January 2025 at 7:36 am

   You sound like Verity Johnson.

   Reply
   • Incognito 2.1

     12 January 2025 at 11:07 am

     Good!

     Although I don’t know if you meant it as a compliment; please elaborate on your comparison.

     It’s been many years since I’ve read anything by Verity J.; her demographic was a little too different for my liking and I’ve given up on following/browsing Stuff and while ago [after a change of online format & content].

     More and more well-informed and articulated people are starting to criticise the Regulatory Standards Bill and the Coalition. Few, however, point to where the opposition needs to come from; it appears to be confined to raising awareness at grassroots level and not aimed directly at addressing the Opposition. Fewer even present an alternative and/or acknowledge that there’s at least some merit in some of the proposals in some places; it tends to be an outright rejection, without much debate, which leads itself to accusations of one-sided partisan attack & defence that are a far cry from constructive debate. [NB, ripping up a document in the House is a case in point although it was a great demonstration of the MP’s opinion but also equivalent to a ‘bonfire of regulations’]

     Reply
     • Darien Fenton 2.1.1

       12 January 2025 at 2:59 pm

       Didn't mean to be snarky, but it does get tiresome having celebrity journalists giving Labour and Chippy advice. Yes people range from thinking Chippy/Labour need to go harder, (I know how satisfying that feels) and those who want a well formed, well debated policy, driven by members, so they own it and can explain it. After all, they are people who will have to get on the phones, go door by door, raise funds sausage sizzle by raffle, I've been around a while, as you know and I have seen a few glorious decfeats, not least in Labour where people thought all you had to do is get the "message" right – or for that matter, the Leader.

       Reply
       • Incognito 2.1.1.1

         12 January 2025 at 3:13 pm

         Okay, thanks for elaborating.

         I agree that there’s a common perception and misconception that there’s a magical formula, a ‘right’ message, and a ‘right’ leader that’ll fix everything. My two points are that the Opposition has been missing in action on the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill, which requires immediate action, and generally been too absent, which requires no more than a ‘we’re still here’, at present.

         Reply
         • Darien Fenton 2.1.1.1.1

           12 January 2025 at 3:29 pm

           Ok get it ; but the Reg Standards Bill has a way to go. There is a consultation document out, which is what people are reacting to. It is not a Bill yet tabled or introduced in the Parliament for first reading. My bet is the Bill will go ahead as per Seymour's wishes and weak Luxon and Peters. It will come back to select committee and then we can go to town. We need to be organised. But not forgetting that this week, the Boot Camps Bill and Louise Mean Upston's Society Secrurity Bill closed for submissions to Select Committee. It's great people are engaged, but I hope they remember the other shit on the Order Paper, which are actual Bills before Select Committee. Right now.

           Reply
           • Incognito 2.1.1.1.1.1

             12 January 2025 at 3:39 pm

             That it’s called the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill is misleading because this Bill has been tried and failed many times before. Also, the implications are much wider and deeper than many if not all other recent and present Bills, the Treaty Principles Bill included. Therefore, this must be stopped in its tracks and not postponed and deferred to the Select Committee stage – it would be giving up valuable political battle ground that can never be claimed back, so don’t give even an inch.

             My guess is that the Coalition, not just ACT, will continue with this ram raid and have this become Act before the end of this term. It’s highly likely that they’ll win a second term in office and embed & entrench it.

             Reply
             • Jenny …

               14 January 2025 at 4:29 pm

               '

               When an irresistible force meets an immovable object.

               Immovable Object:

               Regulatory Standards Bill—First Reading

               https://www.parliament.nz/mi/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20210804_20210804_32/

               David Seymour: Never give up.

               CHRIS PENK: "Never give up" is the exhortation from the member himself, and, look, I'll take at face value that the bill might have the opportunity to proceed at select committee, and so it would be worth sort of highlighting a couple of issues that we would look to thrash out at that stage, or certainly examine if the bill were to proceed that far…..

               Irresistible Force:

               Incognito @2.1.1.1.1.1

               12 January 2025 at 3:39 pm

               ……this must be stopped in its tracks and not postponed and deferred to the Select Committee stage – it would be giving up valuable political battle ground that can never be claimed back, so don’t give even an inch.

               I agree, It must be stopped in its tracks

               My view: We can learn from the Maori Party, and our own history.

               All politics is pressure.

               There was a time, when Rob Muldoon was the immovable object and the LECs were the irresistible force becoming centres for organising protests and marches against nuclear ship visits, this mass public pressure gave Mike Minogue and Marilyn Waring the courage to cross the floor to vote against their own government.

               We need to keep the pressure on this government and their MPs and coalition partners with protests and marches to make sure that this bill never gets past the select committee let alone its second reading.

               Just like the Maori Party, with their Hikoi against the treaties bill, which pretty much guaranteed that National and NZF would not support that bill getting past its first reading. We need to do the same if we want to stop this bill.

               Democracy is more than just choosing an elected dictatorship to rule over us, for three or four years.

               This is what democracy looks like;

               Reply
               • Incognito …

                 14 January 2025 at 5:26 pm

                 Just like the Maori Party, with their Hikoi against the treaties bill, which pretty much guaranteed that National and NZF would not support that bill getting past its first reading. We need to do the same if we want to stop this bill.

                 No. The commitment of the coalition is fundamentally different between the two Bills and National had already said it would not support the TPB beyond its first reading.

                 From the National-ACT Coalition Agreement:

                 • Introduce a Treaty Principles Bill based on existing ACT policy and support it to a Select Committee as soon as practicable.

                 Reply
                 • Jenny …

                   15 January 2025 at 8:54 am

                   All politics is pressure.

                   "The commitment of the coalition is fundamentally different between the two Bills and National had already said it would not support the TPB beyond its first reading."

                   Just means more pressure is needed.

                   From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia:

                   Coalition agreement and 2024 leak

                   [edit]

                   Following the 2023 New Zealand general election, a National-led coalition government was formed with the support of the ACT and New Zealand First parties in late November 2023.[34] As part of ACT's coalition agreement with the National Party, the parties agreed to introduce a Treaty Principles Bill based on existing ACT party policy and support it to a Parliamentary select committee.[35] In return, ACT dropped its election demand for a referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi.[36][26]….

                   At the time of its signing, the Nats and NZF had made no hard commitment that they would not support Act's ‘Treaty Principles’ bill beyond the select committee stage.
                   Public pressure from below on National and NZF by Maori, but also many Pakeha, made certain that they would not support the Treaty Principles Bill, beyond the select committee stage. The question is; Would they have made that commitment without that pressure from below?

                   The point I am making is that political direction is not just decided in the corridors of power, but in society in general.

                   In any genuine democracy protests and petitions are part of that democratic process. Otherwise we are just governed by a bunch of elected dictators.

                   

                   Hīkoi mō te Tiriti departs Parliament after petition presented

                   Last updated November 19, 2024

                   SHARE

                   https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/11/11/live-national-toitu-te-tiriti-hikoi-travels-the-country/

                   From the American Constitution:

                   The right to public assembly and petition is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. And is considered a fundamental right.

                   

                   

                   The right to public assembly and petition is a right protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It protects the right to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

                   Explanation

                   • The right to public assembly and petition are two separate rights, even though they are often referred to as a single right.
                   • The right to petition became prominent in the early 1830s when petitions against slavery were sent to Congress.
                   • The Supreme Court treats the right to assembly and petition as part of the "freedom of expression" right, which is often considered an expansive "speech" right.
                   • The right to assembly and petition are not absolute, but they must be exercised in a way that is consistent with peace and good order.

                   In my experience, when political activism and parliamentary activism are joined do we have the greatest chance of enacting change.

                   If we are serious about wanting to stop this legislation being enacted then the opposition parties, (just as the Maori Party did) need to call on their members and supporters to start organising mass peaceful protests on the steps of parliament and around the country. Starting with a nationwide petition against this bill explaining its dangers and calling for its recall.

                   If this legislation, is to be "stopped in its tracks", this is the task we must undertake.

                   Reply
                   • Incognito …

                     15 January 2025 at 6:59 pm

                     Just means more pressure is needed.

                     No, that’s too simplistic; not all pressure is equal, and different targets require different approaches – same with our Opposition; yapping at every passing car is neither efficient nor effective.

                     National had already indicated at the time of coalition negotiation that the TPB was a soft target that could be taken off the table at any point and sacrificed for political expediency. They are political opportunists and pragmatists and have shown to want to work with TPM when it suits them. They also don’t have the same ideological hangups about the Treaty as ACT. In any case, the RSB will take care of everything for National and ACT, so it’s win-win – TPM et al., think they’ve scored a major win, but the war isn’t over yet by a long shot.

                     Why did you add US noise to your comment? The First Amendment of the United States Constitution and SCOTUS are irrelevant to the NZ context. Cite the BORA if you feel you must ensure a certain scroll length of your comment.

                     In my experience, when political activism and parliamentary activism are joined do we have the greatest chance of enacting change.

                     I don’t know you from a bar of soap, so this carries little weight. What is ‘parliamentary activism’?

                     Personally, I think it’s too early to start calling for and organising mass protests although a petition might be an idea. This is a proposed Bill at this stage, which makes it a less tangible target to hit and fight. However, raising awareness and pressure go hand in hand and there’s no time to waste.
                 • Jenny …

                   16 January 2025 at 8:23 am

                   "What is ‘parliamentary activism’?" Incognito

                   Parliamentary activism can be a lot of things, it can be histrionics, even theatrics, it can be lobbying, and not just your own party but other parties. But to be successful parliamentary activism must have a movement behind it.

                   Let me elaborate;

                   My inspiration is Rod Donald. Rod Donald as a political activist and member of the Labour Party, Donald turned the opposition LECs into organising hubs to protest against nuclear ship visits. Donald left the Labour Party in 1993 to campaign for a more fairer electoral system, Building a campaign that couldn't be ignored. In a televised debate with the Prime Minister Rod Donald wrung out of Jim Bolger a promise to hold a referendum on MMP. Donald's links to the Labour Party kept Bolger and a reluctant National Party to Bolger's promise to hold a referendum on MMP.
                   At the time, it was commonly accepted that the referendum on MMP would fail to achieve its goa.. An anti-MMP campaign led by millionaire Peter Shirtcliff spent millions of dollars to try and get the public to vote against MMP in the.referendum.
                   Our strength on the left is numbers.
                   Outside of parliament Donald organised a mass public campaign that achieved the referendum result that gave us the MMP system we enjoy today.

                   Another famous activist/cum/parliamentarian is of course Sue Bradford, who though never being in government, holds the record for the number of private members bills enacted into law. This success was partly due to her links to activist community that gave her the political pressure she needed to lobby MPs across the political spectrum and get a hearing from them to support her bills.

                   "…a petition might be an idea." Incognito

                   A petition alone cannot stop this bill, protest action alone can't stop this bill, parliamentary action alone can't stop this bill.
                   But all three actions, integrated strengthening each other, could.

                   "I don’t know you from a bar of soap, so this carries little weight." Incognito

                   Strangers are friends we haven't met yet.

                   Reply
3. Res Publica 3

   12 January 2025 at 8:47 am

   I completely agree with your analysis and share your concerns about the Opposition’s lack of a coherent and forceful response to the Coalition's agenda. Labour’s hesitation and apparent unwillingness to challenge the neo-liberal consensus head-on is deeply frustrating.

   The 2023 election loss was brutal, and the 2024 aftermath has no doubt been exhausting. But the reality is, there’s no room for rest when the Coalition is aggressively reshaping New Zealand’s constitutional and regulatory framework. Labour’s current strategy—or lack thereof—feels like they’re chasing every car that passes rather than focusing on what really matters.

   A scattergun approach to every terrible government bill only distracts from the bigger picture. What Labour desperately needs is a clear vision, a set of core principles they stand for, and the courage to articulate these consistently and unapologetically. People need to know what the party represents—not just that it opposes the government.

   The Coalition’s efforts, led by David Seymour’s political tactics, have created a narrative vacuum that Labour is failing to fill. They seem so afraid of alienating the “center” that they’ve forgotten to inspire the base or offer a compelling alternative. Kowtowing to a neo-liberal consensus does nothing but reinforce the Coalition's position, leaving the electorate wondering whether Labour even has a real plan.

   Now, more than ever, Labour needs to stand for something. It needs to find its voice and focus its energy on challenging the Coalition’s deeply damaging policies—not piecemeal, but as part of a broader vision for a fairer, more inclusive Aotearoa. If they don't, the Coalition's "blitzkrieg" will leave them, and the country, scrambling to repair the damage for decades to come.

   Time is short, and the stakes are high. Labour needs to decide if it’s willing to fight for the New Zealand it believes in—or watch as it slips away.

   Reply
   • Incognito 3.1

     12 January 2025 at 6:14 pm

     Excellent points, thank you.

     Chris Hipkins gave his state of the nation speech “Values Matter” in March 2024 and clearly articulated Labour’s values and principles. Few would not share these, IMO. However, the focus was clearly on the medium-long term and on the 2026 general election, of course.

     https://www.labour.org.nz/news-speech_chris_hipkins_values_matter

     In May 2024 Hipkins built on this with another speech “New Zealand in 2040 – A vision worth fighting for”; the year in the title speaks for itself.

     https://www.labour.org.nz/news-release_chris_hipkins_speech_new_zealand_in_2040_a_vision_worth_fighting_for

     In July 2024 the Labour Party President Jill Day reiterated Hipkins’ speeches, again underscoring the long-sighted view of the party, its leader, and its president.

     https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/07/15/labour-makes-way-for-community-voice/

     The interview write-up had this excerpt:

     Column inches have been dedicated to asking: ‘Labour, wherefore art thou?’ But party president Jill Day tells Newsroom sometimes political parties need to stop dominating the space to make way for lesser heard voices

     So, Labour’s absence has been felt for some time and their ‘excuse’ is rather poor, IMO, and seems to suggest a continuation of identity politics and culture wars that bogged them down and cost them the election, at least in part.

     In December 2024 Hipkins’ speech to the Labour Party Conference again talked about policies, goals, et cetera.

     In 2026 Labour will be ready. This will be a one-term National government.

     https://www.labour.org.nz/speech-chris_hipkins_labour_party_conference_2024

     In short, Labour stands for something, its values and principles are common and likely widely shared with many if not most New Zealanders, I’d imagine, although quite fundamental/partisan differences of opinion and disagreements arise about interpretation & implementation, but they’re currently missing in action – they cannot drop everything until the Policy Council has laid its golden egg(s) [for the 2026 election campaign] because there’s no rest for the wicked.

     The same applies to the Green Party and TPM is otherwise engaged (aka distracted). So, who/what’s the actual Opposition in NZ??

     Many predicted a short life for the Coalition, not even one term – many (still) believe (!) that Winston Peters is going to break the agreement or that David Seymour will be stupid enough to piss off his coalition partners enough for an early demise. My guess is that they will cruise to another term in 2026 unless something changes.

     Reply
     • Res Publica 3.1.1

       12 January 2025 at 6:29 pm

       My concern is that strategy appears predicated on the belief that the coalition is so patently and obviously useless and toxic, that the muddled middle will come back to Labour by default in 2026.

       I know it's long been axiomatic that oppositions don't win elections but governments lose them, but the current incoherent mess lacks both popular cutthrough, or any serious policies that will deliver any kind of change.

       We have to remember a lot of the voters we need either don't trust us, have spent the last 2 years being told how dangerous and radical and unrealistic we are, or don't care enough to follow politics closely.

       The other night I had a catchup with a long time friend: an intelligent, hardworking, young mum with two kids, a husband, and a mortgage.

       She hadn't heard a thing about the Treaty Principles Bill, The Regulatory Standards Bill, or the ferries.

       Her reason? She was too busy just trying to get by, raise her kids, and pay her mortgage to pay attention.

       Political life is a luxury a lot of the people we are fighting for do not have the time or energy for.

       Reply
       • Incognito 3.1.1.1

         12 January 2025 at 6:44 pm

         I share your concern, obviously.

         Clearly, Labour needs to find ways to reach your long-time friend and this will probably only happen through clear relevant policies that they’re working on and with a short and narrow window of opportunity – time is precious for people treading water, as you say.

         My present and main concern is that whatever policies the opposition parties will produce and present [in the lead-up and during the election campaign] will be trumped by a Regulatory Standards Act implemented & controlled by the Ministry for Regulation – one ring to rule them all. It’s akin building a software program/app for a platform technology that will become obsolete and suffice to say, that business/software company will have few client-customers and go under.

         Reply
         • Res Publica 3.1.1.1.1

           12 January 2025 at 7:15 pm

           I guess the best time to release those policies is November 2023, not August 2026.

           In an attention economy where eyeballs are a precious resource, taking 2 years to come up with a coherent policy platform is nothing short of criminal.

           Reply
           • Incognito 3.1.1.1.1.1

             12 January 2025 at 8:47 pm

             Vying for people’s attention is as much a policy as well as a PR/Media/communication strategic issue.

             Whether it is criminal negligence, or dereliction of duty, or somethings else, it sure isn’t going to be a winning strategy in 2026.

             Reply
       • Jack 3.1.1.2

         13 January 2025 at 7:05 am

         Show us the billboard that will get the young mum's attention next election.

         Reply
         • Res Publica 3.1.1.2.1

           13 January 2025 at 9:15 am

           How about a massive billboard on every motorway promising 40 hours free childcare and free dental paid for by a CGT?

           The right will no doubt start frothing at the mouth and start talking about the politics of envy and the ruination of all these hardworking kiwi mums and dads.

           But in reality, a lot of families can barely afford one house, let alone 2 or 3.

           If all the working and middle classes see is a left made up of professional politicians paralyzed by political calculation and unable to take any kind of risk, why would they take a chance on voting for them in defiance of the veritable torrent of right-wing propaganda being pumped into our public discourse?

           Reply
       • Obtrectator 3.1.1.3

         13 January 2025 at 10:18 am

         We've been talking recently – on a purely social level – with a local Labour Party member and delegate to the recent conference. They're apparently still arguing as to whether there should be (a) a wealth tax, (b) a CGT, (c) both, or (d) neither.

         Also, they've yet to settle on a candidate in our seat for 2026. I took the chance to say: whoever it is needs to have been a resident of some years' standing. Don't parachute in another liberal economics graduate or lawyer. It's not the sort of electorate to take to that type. (Our previous MP, hard-working, connected well with people on a personal level, but … lived just outside the boundaries and was regularly accused of "not being visible".)

         Finally I added: if they find themselves in office again, show some fearless integrity. No more poncing around with focus groups or analysis of poll results. You'll know what needs doing. Do it!

         Reply
         • Res Publica 3.1.1.3.1

           13 January 2025 at 11:29 am

           At least it sounds like you live in viable electorate.

           I happen to be a progressive living in a district that hasn't voted for a non-National Party candidate in over 40 years, is home to the rabidly ACT Assistant Minister for Pies Agriculture, and would gladly elect a donkey as MP as long as it had the right coloured ribbon pinned on it.

           Reply
         • Craig H 3.1.1.3.2

           15 January 2025 at 11:57 am

           I'm not sure why any political party would start selection processes this early? That doesn't mean that the local LEC doesn't have any ideas if the current MP or last candidate is stepping down, but first they have local government elections to worry about.

           There's also a reasonably prescriptive process in the Labour Party constitution that they have to follow and it doesn't start this far out.

           Reply
   • Antonina 3.2

     15 January 2025 at 3:50 pm

     Thank you for that. I should like to see Labour stop doing nothing more than trying to ameliorate the worst effects of the neo-lib policies. Continually trying to capture the votes of 'the centre' and trying desperately not to ' frighten the horses' is not enough.

     Reply
4. Champagne Socialist 4

   12 January 2025 at 9:20 am

   Your article highlights the great paradox of democracy. If you are voted out by the electorate in favor of parties that decimate your legislative achievements, push the economy into recession and stagnation, slash spending on health and transport infrastructure, and deliberately stir up racial division all while maintaining high levels of popularity in the polls, what do you do as the political party recently brutally dumped into opposition?
   Do you push back against that electorate and highlight their ignorance and stupidity or are you forced to modify and adapt your positions to meet a new electoral environment in order to win votes?
   Consider the UK Labour party – finally achieving electoral success after 14 years of Conservative government. Now in power after shifting dramatically to the center right, their economic policies – in particularly – are (literally) an unchanged continuation of the previous government that they opposed. If you listen to Reeves (UK Finance Minister) and Willis in NZ you will be astonished by the almost word for word similarity of their messaging.

   Having decided that being on the center left was not going to get the UK media on their side the Labour Party chose to change what they stood for and what they supported.

   So what is the paradox? Showing leadership, vision and courage in a democracy is not necessarily going to bring electoral success and most modern leaders avoid this in favor of following the whims of the public mood and its media generated concerns.

   Reply
   • Kay 4.1

     12 January 2025 at 10:47 am

     Only 71% of people voted in the last election, that's over 800,000 enrolled that didn't bother to.

     So are the CoC the real choice of the voters, or are just there because so many people have given up on the democratic process? Had there been a voting turnout in the 90's like there was back in the day, would our makeup of parliament be somewhat different?

     https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/historical-events/2023-general-election/voter-turnout-statistics/?electorate=All+Electorates&descent=All

     Reply
     • James Simpson 4.1.1

       14 January 2025 at 2:12 pm

       Every party looks at that number with interest and strategises as to how they can attract those non-voters to vote for them in the next election.

       But I am yet to see any real research on where those non-voters sit on the political spectrum. Is there anything that you are aware of that suggests they would vote differently on a proportional basis to the 71% who did vote?

       Reply
   • Incognito 4.2

     12 January 2025 at 12:22 pm

     The relationship of political parties and media is as complex as any. Of course, they should have a professional working relationship, but the point isn’t to get the media on your side necessarily, but to get your message out, your [side of the] story, and your narrative. Pandering to the media is mug’s game and carries the risk of coming across (i.e. sounding and looking) inauthentic, slippery, and not particularly trustworthy. I’m no PR/communication expert, so I’m speaking as an interested ‘target recipient’.

     At every opportunity you hammer down your values and principles, or at least the most relevant one(s) in and for that context – the Right does this very well and efficiently [pun intended].

     If only parties would have more direct lines of communication to and with the people. For example, Chlöe Swarbrick did weekly updates on Facebook and encouraged feedback that she actually took into account. But look at the Blogs of the opposition parties now and it’s all empty space & silence. BTW, this is a killer of blogs and a sure way of losing connection with your community/audience fast.

     Reply
     • Gillian 4.2.1

       13 January 2025 at 2:33 pm

       Naive. Most media is controlled by their rich owners.

       [Despite being on your last warning from me (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-08-01-2025/#comment-2020804) and another warning from the SYSOP yesterday (https://thestandard.org.nz/president-bidens-accomplishments/#comment-2021032) you show no signs of improvement in your commenting.

       Provide a list of NZ mainstream media and their ownership structure, e.g., RNZ, TV1, Stuff, NZ Herald, Newsroom, et cetera.

       Explain why my comment, or which part of it, is naïve.

       Failing an adequate response will be reciprocated with an appropriate response as per recent warnings – Incognito]

       Reply
       • Incognito 4.2.1.1

         13 January 2025 at 3:09 pm

         Mod note

         Reply
   • Darien Fenton 4.3

     12 January 2025 at 3:24 pm

     Totally agree, The world is turning hard right. People are voting so in Austria, Germany, France, Italy and many other places. Incumbent governments who are of the centre left will struggle (ie in Australia this year). Farage may win in Wales. I think it's a vote against and punishment of governments, mainly because life aint what it used to be, whatever that means. Often it's the "others"; the people who think others have taken their jobs, despite the jobs disappearing forever. The policies that will require all immigrants to return to their country of origin. It's an ugly turn. It is not about the "message." We have some serious thinking to do.

     Reply
     • Anne 4.3.1

       12 January 2025 at 4:58 pm

       Absolutely Darien. I, for one, appreciate your contributions both here and elsewhere.

       In may ways we seem to be going through a period which is not unlike the 1930s and that is a very, very scary scenario given the ability of numerous nations to use nuclear weaponry should it end in another world war. That was a fear many of us started loudly expressing 50 years ago, and for our concerns some of us were forced to pay a heavy price. Now it has become a reality.

       Climate change is, in my view, the ultimate catalyst and I fear the worse it gets the greater the irrational responses and the fictitious blame games. It has already started by way of mis and disinformation spread across the internet. We have seen it in action in the past few days with the soon to be American president trying to lay blame for the fires in Los Angeles on the Californian Democrat Governor. God only knows where it will end.

       Reply
       • Darien Fenton 4.3.1.1

         13 January 2025 at 9:48 am

         Thanks Anne. Yep the Trump response on the LA fires is shocking. He should be saying how he will fix it (and pay for it) not blaming the Dems. I also note with irony that there Mexican and Canadian firefighters have been helping, plus a whole bunch of prisoners getting paid $5.00 a day ; and plus the Latino community who have been going hard out with their help.

         Reply
     • SPC 4.3.2

       12 January 2025 at 5:36 pm

       The aging boomer demographic and nostalgia for the 1950's and the Brexit vote.

       While now outside the EU, it is still part of a European wide nation state identitarian reaction to immigration/the foreigner.

       And on social media the young, yet to build a place in society, are taught that if only there was no foreigner, they could have the Europe of their forefathers back (pre EU).

       In one part this is a successful anti blue and gold (EU flag) colour revolution, one sponsored by the white race anti-immigrant ethnic Russian border expansion movement – the strong man defending his people/civilisation from a foreign threat (Moslems/Asiatics). This goes on to include a secular liberal EU as a new Weimar Republic.

       Russia has stolen the right wing narrative about progressive society developed by the American right and applied it against the USA NATO partner Europe.

       A CIA own goal, as big as removing Mossadeq in Iran and the invasion of Iraq.

       And if this becomes a right wing race and social conservative religion alliance, seeking to remove/suppress others it will mirror developments in GOP politics since the late 1970’s (the Moral Majority movement continuance of the HUAC era unto Project 2025).

       Reply
       • Anne 4.3.2.1

         12 January 2025 at 7:17 pm

         The "House Committee on Un-American Activities" spread their wings beyond America. Together with elements within the CIA they established covert operations in other nations including NZ. They set up here in the 1970s during the Kirk/Rowling years. NZ's anti-nuclear stance was perceived by them as a communist inspired plot against America.

         They used ordinary New Zealanders to do their dirty work for them. How do I know? Because I was one of their targets as was my father before me. I know the identities of three of their local assistants only one of whom is still alive.

         Reply
5. Mike the Lefty 5

   12 January 2025 at 9:50 am

   The political right have discovered that the more you dress up your radicalism wolf in non-threatening sheep's clothing the less people take the trouble to examine what you are REALLY doing and when they eventually discover the truth it is too late, the horse has bolted.

   Myself, the minute the CoC present something as reasonable, practical and procedural, that's the minute I know they have something a little extra in mind for us that we surely won't like.

   Reply
6. Anne 6

   12 January 2025 at 10:31 am

   Some very good responses thus far and I agree with all of them.

   I don't think Labour are "blissfully unaware of the danger lurking " but rather they don't know what to do about it. Normal advice to political parties when they lose the treasury benches is to… keep your head down the first year, pull together your policy planks the second year and go all out for it in election year.

   The trouble is: nothing is normal anymore and as time passes it is becoming less normal. Labour needs to throw the rule book out the window because its out of date. They need to move hard and fast and start to aggressively respond to the iniquitous legislation currently before parliament. The current namby-pamby tut-tutting and wringing of hands will get them nowhere.

   Reply
   • Anne 6.1

     12 January 2025 at 10:45 am

     In addition: it is worth pointing out that Helen Clark wasn't afraid to be confrontational when she deemed it necessary, and look how long she lasted – nine years.

     Reply
     • Res Publica 6.1.1

       12 January 2025 at 12:22 pm

       Helen Clark had more balls than the rest of the Labour front bench put together, ably supported by an even more terrifying and capable chief of staff.

       Yes, in the end, her genuflections towards pragmatism set the left up to be stranded when the tide turned in 2008. But she was the last Labour leader that could genuinely make the right shit their pants, and had a brand of politics that wasnt just "like National but nicer"

       You may not have necessarily agreed with her. Or liked her. But by all that was good and holy did you respect her.

       Reply
       • Incognito 6.1.1.1

         12 January 2025 at 12:39 pm

         Agreed.

         Love her or loathe Clark, she held firm to her and her party’s principles, which indeed led to confrontations, some of which quite ugly. There’s not a single Opposition MP that comes even close in demanding the level of respect and attention that Clark did. But, as you say, it was a team effort, as it should be.

         Reply
7. thinker 7

   12 January 2025 at 6:54 pm

   Hold your breakfast for just a bit longer…

   I won't say the opinions expressed in this article won't come to pass, but I've been impressed with both TPM and the Greens, both of which stated the know they have to present a mature approach to politics from this year forward.

   TPM acknowledged that it has, in its approach, given the wider voting community, potentially created an image of isolationism to parliament itself: https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018969075/te-pati-maori-looks-for-more-collaborative-approach

   The Greens have stated they need to get over what sidetracked them last year and focus on green issues: https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/01/07/its-time-for-the-greens-to-grow-up-swarbrick/

   Chris Hipkins recently spoke about taking a strategic challenge to the government – not "barking at every passing car", but a focus on calling the government out where it is appropriate: https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/360543670/time-labour-shrug-shackles-election-defeat?cx_testId=1&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=0&cx_experienceId=EXLK9YLJ8JM4&cx_experienceActionId=showRecommendations20SXIWPMSK0432&utm_content=end-of-article-test&cx_qa=true#cxrecs_s

   The consensus message is two minor parties who now realise the need to show themselves to be valuable members of a tight coalition "government-in-waiting", led by a major party who knows when to speak out on behalf of (the growing proportion of..) the country's underdogs, judiciously for maximum impact.

   If all this can come to pass, I think they have a shot at winning in 2026. One thing's for certain, all three parties have shown that they know what each needs to do this year.

   In short: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQqNU3IX5uU

   Reply
   • Incognito 7.1

     12 January 2025 at 7:27 pm

     All three opposition parties are doing the necessary groundwork for GE-2026 and they seem to be doing, or at least saying, the right things. However, I’m not convinced that they have truly rid themselves of the ghosts from the past. I still see no sign of a viable alternative to the current Coalition or neo-liberalism, but it’s still early days.

     The Opposition don’t get to choose the time or place of their battles and time is a resource that they will never get back – the clock is always ticking. In the unlikely event that they do indeed from the next government in 2026 they will not want to spend precious time, money, and energy on undoing all the damage that this Coalition is inflicting upon NZ and us.

     Reply
     • kejo 7.1.1

       12 January 2025 at 8:15 pm

       "However I am not convinced they have truly rid themselves of the ghosts of the past". No, they hav'nt. Chippy seems a nice bloke but that he had to visit the new British Labour government for"ideas" shows just how bereft he is. Now is the perfect time to call out and denounce Neoliberalism. Until Labour does that they will always be in the shadows of something or someone that can do it (Neoliberalism) better. Boldness is needed.

       Reply
       • Incognito 7.1.1.1

         12 January 2025 at 9:20 pm

         I doubt that Hipkins/Labour NZ are so bereft of ideas that they have to look overseas for inspiration; there’s no point in being so ‘self-sufficient’ to have to reinvent the wheel although many NZ issues are unique to NZ and therefore require local solutions and approaches. A good leader looks for useful input anywhere without prejudice.

         For a fresh new and different approach my hope is on TPM, or rather on Māoridom, and the Greens, and I hope that Labour won’t be arrogant about listening to them and constructively working with them as equal partners despite the (minor) size difference.

         Reply
         • kejo 7.1.1.1.1

           12 January 2025 at 9:38 pm

           Agree about TPM Greens but theres no boldness with Chippy

           Reply
           • Incognito 7.1.1.1.1.1

             12 January 2025 at 9:48 pm

             No boldness with the bald one either but he did become PM anyway. Not everyone wants a PM with the zeal and charisma of a cult-leader, just steady, reliable, relatable, recognisable, and trustworthy will go a long way with a little kindness and humour as a bonus.

             Reply
8. Subliminal 8

   12 January 2025 at 8:08 pm

   For those interested in putting forward their views on the RSB, Melanie Nelson has posted a support page at

   https://melanienelson.substack.com/p/submission-support-for-regulatory

   but basically it boills down to sending whatever you write to

   RSBconsultation@regulation.govt.nz

   Submissions need to be in by 11:59pm Monday 13th Jan

   Reply
9. PsyclingLeft.Always 9

   13 January 2025 at 9:34 am

   The fingerprints all over this Regulatory Standards Bill should be the warning that MOST (IE not the 1 % ers !) of NZ need to be worried about.

   Dr Bryce Wilkinson….

   New Zealand Initiative senior research fellow Dr Bryce Wilkinson helped write a report that became the foundations for an earlier version of the bill.

   As he, with no irony, opines…

   "Good quality regulation to economists like myself is one in which the benefits to people who are affected by it exceed the costs to people who are affected by it. So it's regulation which makes people better off."

   Prof Jane Kelsey. One of the Few, who I would call the lone Left voices. Thank goodness for them ! As Labour et al ; sure seem missing. As she says…."no effective engagement."

   Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey had long opposed the intention of the legislation.

   "While everyone's been focused on many of the extreme policies the coalition government has put forward, there's been very little attention to the more systemic and seemingly boring things, such as the Regulatory Standards Bill.

   "But alarm bells need to ring," she said.

   "The fact that this was in the coalition deal effectively circumscribes what scrutiny there can be. So there has been no effective engagement."

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/538784/regulatory-standards-bill-slammed-as-dangerous-call-for-alarm-bells

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Initiative

   Reply
10. Champagne Socialist 10

    13 January 2025 at 12:25 pm

    CoC (and the right generally) are masters of political strategy and I think it's not too hard to see what that strategy is:

    Create a culture war issue:
    The Treaty Principles Bill and the many other attacks on Māori are intended to radicalize the Māori Party and the political movement it represents. This radicalization will then be used in 2026 to split the overall center left vote and push swing voters to National as they roll out targeted social media campaigns highlighting the terrifying prospect of angry and vengeful Māori Party politicians getting into government.

    Soak up Media attention:
    In addition to being a key wedge issue through which votes can be gained it is also a very noisy culture war issue – one which will burn through available oxygen for opposition messaging on other issues. This is all going to be achieved without the government having to spend any time on legislative changes – kind of a brilliant master stroke.

    Maintain control of the narrative:
    While the noisy and drawn out attacks on Māori continue unabated – here's a prediction – as soon as the Treaty Principles bill is voted down at its second reading Seymour will come up with something else to keep stirring the pot – up to the 2026 election. This will give the government the breathing space and a lack of scrutiny that it needs in order to focus on it's economic agenda. The roll back of regulatory restraint and the current consensus that is holding back the bold and brave investors of the world with woke nonsense – apparently.

    Smaller government
    The shrinking of the state – in order to provide the room for private capital to excel and become a key driver of the economy the government must step back to allow space for the free market to blossom. Expect austerity to continue and economic stagnation to follow maybe up until election year when Willis might be forced to reveal her inner Keynesian to revive the economy.

    Fewer public services and less welfare support over time is counter balanced with the irresistible promise of enormous tax cuts for the wealthy. What working or middle class Kiwi doesn't want to be wealthy and benefit from those enormous tax cuts? Not many – if any – the right understand exactly how selfish and malleable the average voter is.

    Real leadership from the left means telling voters that to their face and then having the balls and eloquence to back it up with fact based economic reality and vision.

    "If you want to understand what's wrong with democracy spend 5 minutes talking to the average voter." – Winston Churchill.

    Reply
11. Haddamin 11

    14 January 2025 at 3:19 pm

    NZ have only ever voted for Charisma over substance. I wish National and Labour would form a Grand Coalition like they do in Scandinavian countries. The last 35 years NZ has had no vision. We are stuck in a loop of projects and policy’s constantly being cancelled to the detriment of the middle class who pay for both the rich and the poor.

    Reply
    • Populuxe 11.1

      15 January 2025 at 8:08 am

      Well then why bother to vote at all?
      First, even Labour at its most centrist differs significantly in a number of policy areas from National, giving them little to agree on.
      Second, it would squeeze out the minor parties like the Greens.
      Third, grand coalitions inevitably get captured by the right wing or turn into technocratic, bureaucratic swamps that then inevitably get captured by the right wing.
      Any way you look at them they suck for democracy.
      The Trouble with Europe’s Grand Coalitions | The New Yorker
      Grand Coalitions and Democratic Dysfunction: Two Warnings from Central Europe | Government and Opposition | Cambridge Core

      Reply

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS