Political comeback – Getting the sequencing right

Written By: - Date published: 9:37 pm, December 14th, 2023 - 40 comments
Categories: campaigning, Chlöe Swarbrick, chris hipkins, Christopher Luxon, democratic participation, election 2017, election 2023, elections, labour, national, nz first - Tags:

A notably different approach to sequencing political comeback was on show at the VUW post-election seminar last week. Luxon put rebuilding the party first, Hipkins put it last. On policy Luxon was bottom-up and early, Hipkins was top-down and late.

Luxon was able to remind the audience that National had come from one of its worst defeats in 2020 to now leading a coalition government in the space of less than three years. He outlined a three-stage process they had implemented; first rebuild the party, then provide a focused opposition, and finally a set of detailed policy proposals based on a concentrated programme of listening to the electorate’s concerns.

Rebuilding the party was important because as he said “politics is a team game.” Unity, discipline and a sense of common purpose are critical to “rebuilding the party machine.” And the National party needed rebuilding. That is not unusual; but what is important is the ability to be clear-sighted about what the problems are and also be willing to deal with them openly.

A concentrated programme of systematic listening to the electorate formed the basis for National’s policy development. It was notable how Brooke van Velden of ACT and the Greens’ Chloe Swarbrick also emphasised a years-long listening approach to organising. That enabled them to have a focused set of themes for early communication in their campaigns.

I wasn’t able to hear all of Chris Hipkins’ presentation but was able to have it confirmed that his sequencing was different, and the party rebuild came last. It is highly likely that his interview with Jo Moir in Newsroom fairly summarises his thoughts. Wrapped around with excuses, the money quote is here:

Hipkins says he isn’t done with politics, and he has three things on his agenda as Opposition leader.

First is to mould the team into good Opposition MPs given many of them have only ever known government, the second is to redefine Labour, and third he says the party needs to reconnect with and rebuild its supporter base.

There is a fundamental flaw in this thinking and it shows in his analysis of the campaign.

There was also the criticism that the public didn’t know what Labour stood for after a series of policy bonfires and then a new policy programme that never really got traction.

“The first half of that I absolutely stand by, which was to make space for the second part, which for a variety of reasons we never quite managed to shape. The idea of creating space is that you need to have something to fill the space but because of a whole series of events that were beyond my control we didn’t get to fill that space.

“If you look at some of the policies we announced during the campaign … in many cases they were overshadowed by other things that were going on, so the public never heard them.”

Election campaigning doesn’t begin in the ninety-day period; it starts the day after the last one. Policy releases left to the official campaign period just get swamped by the daily noise. That’s why the Party rebuild comes first; it is the time for listening, debating and refining policy, strategy, tactics and campaigning. That then provides the energy and commitment to carry the policy message into the community. And there is a lot of energy in the Labour Party at the moment, driven partly by anger at an incompetent campaign, but members are not about to give up.

I think National have been rather better at responding to defeat than Labour in my experience. After their 2002 debacle, Stephen Joyce undertook a comprehensive review then very nearly took National to a win in 2005. Luxon’s account of their approach in this one also proves the point.

Labour’s review of the disastrous 2014 election was deep-sixed and never saw the light of day. We should not forget that Labour did not win the 2017 election, but even after the Jacinda uplift was installed in government by the gift of Winston Peters aka NZ First. If not for that, it would have lost four elections in a row.The review of this election has gone to individuals who worked in or supported the campaign. It will be considered by an undisclosed panel, reported to the Party Council and then not released publicly.

There is a sense that Labour’s cadre party want compliant volunteers at the end of the campaign process, not actively engaged members from the start. Wisely, National did not do it that way.

 

40 comments on “Political comeback – Getting the sequencing right ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Louis 1
    14 December 2023 at 9:49 pm

    "installed in government by the gift of Winston Peters aka NZ First." like Luxon, who needed Winston to form a government? That's MMP .

    • DS 1.1
      15 December 2023 at 12:55 am

      Winston Peters could have legitimately opted for Bill English in 2017, but he didn't. He could not have legitimately opted for Chris Hipkins in 2023.

    • Thinker 1.2
      15 December 2023 at 7:01 am

      Maybe, maybe not.

      If Luxon had met with Hipkins prior to the election and made a pact that both parties had been burned by NZF in the past and it was in both their interests to rule out going with them, both sides would have picked up some of the NZF vote and, seemingly, Luxon and ACT would have picked up the lions' share. NZF would have been out in the cold, IMHO.

      But he didn't and the rest is history, as they say.

      Not that the left should be upset by that…

      • Louis 1.2.1
        15 December 2023 at 11:10 am

        @Thinker. Never would have happened.

      • Ghostwhowalks 1.2.2
        15 December 2023 at 2:56 pm

        I would dispute the Labour has 'been burned by NZF in the past'

        That was the NZF- National coalition meltdown where Shipley sacked all the NZF ministers and broke it usunder

        No such ructions under Clark or Ardern with Peters and co

        having coalition frictions isnt being 'burnt'

    • Ghostwhowalks 1.3
      15 December 2023 at 7:55 am

      MMP doesnt do anything except give partys the same share of seats as they won votes. Politicians do the rest.

      FPP gave parties mandates they never won from voters ( 1990 69% of seats, 47% of vote, 1993 35% of the votes 50%) and many smaller parties who got say 18% of vote might get 2 seats

      Even in Britain the largets party hasnt formed the government on one occasion , and In Australia with preferential voting the Lragest party -Labour- hasnt always been the government

      • Louis 1.3.1
        15 December 2023 at 11:17 am

        MMP: Parties negotiate to form a government

        "Usually no party gets enough votes to govern alone. Parties often need to come to an agreement with other parties to form a government or pass legislation."

        https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/what-is-new-zealands-system-of-government/what-is-mmp/

        • Ghostwhowalks 1.3.1.1
          15 December 2023 at 2:36 pm

          I said the parties do the rest , MMP doesnt do it for them

          In the last 3 elections , MPP just produces seats in the house based on proportion of party vote and then afterwards:

          1) Politicians created a government without the largest party

          2) Politicians created a single party government for the first time

          3) politicians created the first 3 way coalition

          • Louis 1.3.1.1.1
            15 December 2023 at 3:06 pm

            It's voters that determine the make up of a government, it's up to the parties to negotiate an agreement to form a government. See 1.3.1. That's MMP, so I don't know what you are arguing about. 2020 election was an outlier, in all likelihood, not to be repeated.

  2. weka 2
    14 December 2023 at 10:26 pm

    Good post Mike.

    I cut Labout a fair amount of slack because of the pandemic. While National were sorting their shit out over those 3 years, Labour were dealing with a once in a lifetime global health crisis and corresponding economic challenge.

    But there's no excuse now.

    I'm curious if you see Hipkins as the barrier here, or if he simply reflects what the power holders in the party want.

  3. Anne 3
    14 December 2023 at 11:35 pm

    There is a sense that Labour’s cadre party want compliant volunteers at the end of the campaign process, not actively engaged members from the start. Wisely, National did not do it that way.

    I take some issue with that final paragraph Mike Smith. Maybe yes, there was a bit of expected compliancy from volunteers this time round, but I think it was caused by the extraordinary circumstances the government was having to deal with. I refer to the devastating floods as well as Covid – plus a major volcanic eruption and a terrorist attack. In other words, the past 4 years have been anything but normal.

    I can say from some personal experience that right wing political parties operate from the top down. The average National/ACT member has virtually nothing to do with policy creation. That is the premise of a select few and the rank and file are expected to accept their decisions without comment. And they do.

    On the other hand Labour and the Greens have hearty debates both at regional and national levels and if the majority of members don't like something they make it known loud and clear. In other words, much of their policy making comes from the bottom up.

    Having said the above, there is room for criticism and mistakes were made in the campaign. However after an unprecedented and torrid two terms in government the team looked and sounded bone-tired no matter how much they denied it at the time. I believe that had a profound effect on the outcome of the election because people sensed it and they chose to look elsewhere.

    • Ghostwhowalks 3.1
      15 December 2023 at 8:00 am

      Yes. The Nationals operate a nomenklatura system. Its regional Presidents and VP ( could be 7-10 of those each region) are the ones who pull the strings and have their Mps on speed dial.

      Your 'Mervs from Manurewa'… Im sure some pop up here often enough

  4. Thinker 4
    15 December 2023 at 6:52 am

    Luxon says "… Politics is a team game".

    Hope his coalition partners feel the same way…

  5. Ghostwhowalks 5
    15 December 2023 at 6:56 am

    Hello more PR spin from Luxon

    " He outlined a three-stage process they had implemented; first rebuild the party, then provide a focused opposition, and finally a set of detailed policy proposals based on a concentrated programme of listening to the electorate’s concerns.

    The party wasnt in disarray it was their elected MPs who were riven by years of infighting and faction warfare . The main 'liberal faction' headed by Willis and Bishop just plucked Luxon out of the crowd thats all ( even though he was from the Xristian conservative faction)

    Listening to the electorate is a well worn media spin line…. I remember the same approach from Simon Bridges when he became leader ..

    " Small meetings in small towns" – by Crown Limo

    Sorry Mike , all politics is spin and Luxon was no different in this instance of being on message. The VP for Deodorants for Unilver knew he wanted to come out smelling roses

  6. Tiger Mountain 6
    15 December 2023 at 7:38 am

    Mass political party membership seems a thing of the past–the analogue world. Luxury Luxon is bullshitting here, a massive 8 to 1 spend from the Natzos compared to NZ Labour, much of it according to media channels spent on social media.

    Mass political movements and community organising are still current though as Te Pāti Māori demonstrated with the day of action.

    NZ Labour needs to sideline Fraser House careerists and get sorted with the ordinary members it does have–dump monetarism and make a grovelling apology for Rogernomics which left thousands of sacked workers unretrained, compounded of course by Ruthansia and the creation of an enduring underclass.

    Greens and TPM want to “stick it to the man” and Labour should join them or certainly fade out.

  7. Descendant Of Smith 7
    15 December 2023 at 9:01 am

    Don't know whether I need to say much more than what I've been saying about Labour for years. Who the fuck knows what they stand for?

    Yeah I'm quoting myself below.

    "The labour politicians of the 1930's and 1940's could articulate a long term vision for things like having everyone housed, people living in dignity, freely educated, etc."

    "I've railed against this shit from Labour for years now – ever since their year of consultation followed by a year of strategy, don't release policy too early, keep your powder dry bullshit. They as I said back then need to work out what they stand for and build support over time. Maybe go back to looking at some of those old Labour polices and ask where do we stand on these today and tell people – stop focusing on the National Party narrative that you will get dragged into – benefit numbers, waiting lists, number of gang members etc.

    I go back to when Labour proudly had the 8 hour working day 40 hour working week highlighted on their website. I queried why this was there and did they still believe in it? A few weeks later it went off their website."

    https://thestandard.org.nz/that-was-not-as-good-as-was-hoped-for/#comment-1972801

    "Well there’s little evidence that Labour is pushing the needs of beneficiaries and workers. 2012 was the year of the manifesto. 2013 was supposed to be the year of the policy."

    http://thestandard.org.nz/amidst-thencircling-gloom/#comment-566641

    “Next year will be where the detail gets done.” Mike Smith

    Take note of this in that comment in 2012:

    “And no it’s not unrealistic to know this far out what they believe in and stand for – you build a brand and a connection with people over time – and that’s why I don’t particularly care who is leader.

    And here’s the other thing if I as a voter can’t figure out what they stand for is it any wonder those within seem disconnected and rudderless and disloyal.

    It seems to me they don’t know either – you can’t have a group of people consistently articulate a vision if the vision is a secret.”

    http://thestandard.org.nz/labour-shoots-themselves-in-the-foot-again/#comment-740795

    • weka 7.1
      15 December 2023 at 10:35 am

      This freaked me out a bit, from the piece in Hipkins,

      … the second is to redefine Labour,…

      That he thinks he gets to redefine Labour is a huge part of the problem. And, the very long period of time of PR bollocks about what Labour is means I don't trust him to find out what Labour stands for but instead to present yet another PR version.

  8. Ad 8
    15 December 2023 at 9:02 am

    I want to see Labour help unite the opposition parties into similar attack lines, and to support public protest.

    The massive success of National that Labour should learn from is how to feed the fire of protest to their own ends.

    Examples include successful rises in polls after National collaborated with:

    • The Howl of a Protest movement against on-farm regulations
    • Local government leaders against 3 Waters
    • Transport advocates and Facebook citizens against poor road quality
    • Transport advocates against the Waitemata Crossing
    • Dunedin citizens and Council against cuts to the new hospital
    • The dairy company lobbying against Methane regulation

    The left will have its own versions of these. And the first opportunity to do this is at Waitangi Day in February. Peeni Henare should of course be able to help span the bridge to the Maori Party.

    National won, in my mind, because they successfully energised protest against the government.

    That's my focus for Hipkins: start the fire.

    • Sanctuary 8.1
      15 December 2023 at 9:49 am

      It is all well and good to say National aligned themselves with protest movements, but much of the momentum and heat of many of these protest movements themselves was generated from disinformation spread by right wing culture war proxies on behalf of National and ACT.

      To my mind, what is missing from your analysis Ad is understanding the extent that deliberate and well funded social media disinformation campaigns from National (at sufficient arms length to keep the party itself “clean”) coordinated by Topham-Guerin proxies like the TPU, Free Speech Union etc succeeded in generating a toxic culture war narrative around public policy issues.

      This topic and the ongoing success of right wing astroturf fronts in manipulating the online narrative is almost completely ignored in the MSM, who I suspect are in denial about the implicit sidelining of their central role in framing political debate and their reduction to the status of passive actors rather than narrative creators in political debate.

      The left needs to come up with a plan on how to deal with post truth narratives pushed by extremely well funded right wing dis- and mis-information proxies in the almost completely unregulated social media space.

      To win, and retain, power you need to first win the battle in the electronic information space.

      • Ad 8.1.1
        15 December 2023 at 10:03 am

        Fully agree that 3rd party information campaigns are critical.

        In the words of the Palmolive ad, you're soaking in it; in our humble way on The Standard as elsewhere in Greater Auckland and The Daily Blog.

        So my little challenge to you Sanc is that you start actual post writing.

        Be the change you seek.

  9. Dean Reynolds 9
    15 December 2023 at 9:42 am

    Labour will never convincingly win office until it rediscovesr its Social Democratic origins & traditions.If it keeps wandering in a wishy washy Blairite wilderness, it will always remain in opposition.

  10. Populuxe1 10
    15 December 2023 at 10:48 am

    The days of ideological ride or die party membership has been over for one or two generations now. Politics is very much issue based now. Even unions have adopted a more identity-based politics and Labour is fully aware of this. Ardern's Labour got in the first time because of MMP, a strategic alliance with Winston, and fresh-faced novelty. Labour got in the second time in a landslide because of Covid and National's internal meltdown. Labour lost because of resentment over the way the second Auckland lockdown was handled, an inability to articulate key policy beyond the beltway, an arrogant dismissal of the policy feedback that resulted, and weren't able to form a coalition. It's no deeper than that.

    • Anne 10.1
      15 December 2023 at 11:57 am

      Labour lost because of resentment over the way the second Auckland lockdown was handled, an inability to articulate key policy beyond the beltway, an arrogant dismissal of the policy feedback that resulted, and weren't able to form a coalition. It's no deeper than that.

      Spot on!

      But I also believe that the underlying problem was burnout after an unprecedently grueling six years. Their inability to articulate key policy beyond the beltway was testament to that. In short, the spark was gone and they failed to reignite it during the campaign.

      • Chess Player 10.1.1
        15 December 2023 at 5:51 pm

        Burnout?

        Labour had more MPs than they knew what to do with!

        Could have shared the work around, but chose to concentrate the attention on a few.

        Basic management skills lacking.

  11. Populuxe1 11
    15 December 2023 at 11:49 am

    I mean, let's face it. Most of the people commenting, if put in charge of Labour, would have even less chance than Hipkins of winning an election because they can't see beyond the political landscape of 1999-2016.

  12. Kat 12
    15 December 2023 at 1:19 pm

    It is clear where the country is headed under National and the cling-ons. This govt employs classic corporate managerial practice. They do not want to take heed of any collective voice other than that sector of the voting electorate that will put and keep them in power.

    Decisions are made in the board room on a purely economic/financial/profit basis. Social issues are only paid lip service. We are already seeing the less than thin edge of the private partnership wedge powering into the political rhetoric.

    So what does Labour stand for…….it should be the complete opposite of the current govt. Labour is all about the collective voice and that is where the focus should lie.

    That govt should not be involved in the business of business is the mantra of the corporate slave.

    As a simple example there was a time in this country when critical infrastructure was built and maintained by govt owned and run depts. Unions and other collectives had a vital part to play. Similar with health, education, housing, transport, forestry, corrections and social services.

    When that notion of inclusive collective again becomes mainstream so will Labour.

    Until then its just ongoing naval gazing while spinning downwards in ever decreasing circles.

  13. Darien Fenton 13
    18 December 2023 at 8:15 am

    I realise that arguing over the entrails of the recent election gives some people a thrill. But Chris Luxon's strategy? Really? The election was a vote of circumstance. People were pissed off with Jacinda and the lockdowns, their homes got flooded and smashed during Cyclone Gabriel, and other extreme weather events, inflation roared, people got scared about crime, a movement of anti vax and other weird politics such as Groundswell emerged. In Chippy's defence, he became PM nine months before the election which is pretty well a death knell judging by former elections. I am much more interested in what's ahead and how we fight it. – this week 90 day trials for all workers return, for instance. I hope to see you all out on the streets protesting but I won't hold my breath.

    • Descendant Of Smith 13.1
      18 December 2023 at 9:10 am

      It is nice of you to think it was all about recent circumstances and ignore the previous disquiet for instance about the failure to implement WEAG. Many of those I know who moved to conspiracy theory / anti-vax were ripe for the plucking due to their existing dissatisfaction with Labour – it was an easy step for people to exploit that dissatisfaction further.

      Labour has had it's moments – WEAG was a great opportunity – but often let National control the narrative instead of presenting their own vision – as opposed to just platitudes and homilies.

      Jacinda was great at talking about caring for people but when it came time to put words into action in areas like WEAG and the two tier welfare system for COVID-19 failed to do so. They also overcomplicated stuff like Kiwibuild instead of just saying we will build more state houses – they lost the public in the detail.

      They were sliding well before those things you mention and "National is worse" was problematic and ultimately not successful.

      As for Chippy he is wonderfully articulate at times and despairingly "made this up on the fly and now I can't go back on what I said" at others. That I think goes back to what I said earlier and previously:

      "And here’s the other thing if I as a voter can’t figure out what they stand for is it any wonder those within seem disconnected and rudderless and disloyal.

      It seems to me they don’t know either – you can’t have a group of people consistently articulate a vision if the vision is a secret.”

      And I'm not sure why having a go at commentators here is useful for anything. It is pretty clear many of us/them fight and protest against all sorts of things.

    • Mike Smith 13.2
      18 December 2023 at 4:47 pm

      Possibly a wee bit over the top Darien? It's not about arguing over entrails or getting a thrill from losing, it's about trying to learn from mistakes and not repeating them expecting a different result, to quote Einstein. The basic foundation of any good strategy is a clear evaluation of your starting point.

      As for Luxon, another famous strategist Sun Tzu stressed the importance of knowing your enemy if you want to win. His speech may have owed much to the International Democratic Union playbook, but it was well put together, and very strategic compared to Labour's scattershot campaign. And with many others, I've been out on the streets quite frequently in recent weeks.

  14. Darien Fenton 14
    18 December 2023 at 10:27 am

    Look I am not here to argue about what Labour did or didn't do. There will plenty of reflection, criticism and navel gazing to go around – and I will have my say as a LP member. I don't mean to "have a go". But when you, like me are facing years and uphill political and union battles of hard work in improving labour rights going down the toilet, forgive me if I am a bit harsh. But like we always do, we lift our heads and fight on.

    • Descendant Of Smith 14.1
      18 December 2023 at 1:57 pm

      Indeed we do in various ways and have done for a long time – some of those fights are with successive labour governments though. Therein lies part of the problem.

      And union strategies of getting into bed with management haven't worked.

      Tell me has any Labour government increased the right to strike beyond the expiry of a contract as once was? Labour itself neutered the power of unions by taking away the main means of power. Things lots went on strike for have been lost over the years with barely a whimper.

      • Darien Fenton 14.1.1
        18 December 2023 at 4:21 pm

        I always said to workers who wanted to strike, go for it. Why do you need the law or a government to tell you it's okay? I don't recall Labour taking away the right to strike mind you, unless you are much older than me! Otherwise how come we have had teachers and nurses on strike for most of this year? And there is the right to strike around health & safety. Look workers can take action in many varied and creative ways ; have done for years and will continue to do so. They have been doing it on the job, in their homes, in their communities and politically. 90 day trials are another. means of suppressing power. If you want to get cross, aim your arrows in the right direction.

        • Descendant Of Smith 14.1.1.1
          18 December 2023 at 5:19 pm

          In Roger Douglas's own words.

          "We now have fixed term contracts. All contracts are now for a fixed term, determined by the parties to the contract. During the term of the contract, it is illegal to have a strike or lockout against the provisions of the contract."

          https://libinst.cz/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Roger-Douglas-anglicky.pdf

          We used to be able to strike much more easily and during the duration of a contract not just at the end. I don't know how you do not know this. Unions were massively depowered by this change. The unions then bought into things like three year contracts in most sectors which then meant you could only lawfully go on strike once every three years.

          It was also made clear at the time by Douglas and his ilk that they would sue the shit out of unions who tried to strike illegally. This combined with the breakdown of broader union agreements was clearly designed to spread union resources thinly – heaps more contracts to negotiate and to intimidate.

          This latter Labour government this time at least made some effort to change but too slowly.

          We also abolished the national award system. Instead wages are negotiated in workplace contracts.

          This stuff from Roger Douglas is well worth reading. Him, John Key and Luxon all know about about the need for speed. Do it hard and fast. WEAG is the best example of non-implementation you could ever see that demonstrates Labour's inability to do this.

          Voter and community support tick
          Policy expert support tick
          Public support tick
          Clearly articulated changes tick

          “I always said to workers who wanted to strike, go for it. Why do you need the law or a government to tell you it's okay?”

          Give me one example where your advice resulted in workers striking during the term of their contract. Every strike I have seen has been on expired contracts.