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.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress