What did Labour do wrong?

By
Stephen Minto
-
60
2930

Winning an election in a recession is very difficult and Labour failed to cope with that context. It was a recession due to international factors (most of our inflation is imported – supply chain disruption, Ukraine war, greedflation) and almost nothing to do with domestic economic mismanagement at home. But a few features stand out in this context.  There was a lower voter turn out which indicates a dispiriting of the poorer parts of the electorate to get out and vote, i.e. their party was in power and things aren’t getting financially better so why bother voting as it doesn’t seem to make a difference. 

A low turnout can also be an indicator that a well run targeted negative campaign by the opposition has dispirited them to believe their party was not competent and was going to lose anyway. So why bother as they are going to lose anyway. 

Also the recession reached well into the middle class, putting them under financial pressure through inflation. Labour only using the tools of neo-liberal economics could not use fiscal policies to relive that pressure because fiscal spending would lead to more inflation. So Labour looked powerless in the face of the ‘cost of living crisis’. Why vote for people who seemed to have no ideas? Labour seemed to walk right into this trap. 

And of course as costs rise for the essentials, (banking, rent, groceries) there is less money available for discretionary spending.  Large firms deliver the essentials so their profits are protected, which leaves small businesses who provide discretionary goods and services to carry the full burden of reduced consumer spending.

Small middle class businesses probably wouldn’t vote Labour; but their struggle and sense of abandonment and complaints about economic competence infected the wider community and public discourse. This was in part because many ordinary workers could see the businesses they worked in were struggling and they probably liked the people they worked for. So many working Labour voters would have begun to have doubts about Labour. 

- Sponsor Promotion -

Of course with the recession the traditional ‘National in government model’ would have seen them slash some meaningless red tape, spent some of our money on a few key cases, or claimed a trade deal was going to bring relief. National would have grovelled and asked for ideas. None of these options were available for Labour not just because they are just fundamentally useless ideas but they would have been seen as useless, because these are not Labour voters.  Labour had to find a new way to deal with the economic pinch but didn’t.

And the media has to report complaints from strong representative groups, e.g. business groups, farmers groups. Strong negative messaging was able to align with National’s strong negative messaging about Labour’s economic incompetence. None of which was required to be substantiated because the conditions of recession were perceived to validate it.  

The campaign against Labour was ferocious. People were hyper; about the government not listening, co-governance, economic mismanagement because a deficit exists. This is the conservative play book to hype people up over perceptions. Media tend to pretend fairness to both sides by putting the comments out there and then reporting the response. But that is actually a tool to magnify lies. The media also has a duty to find the truth and not report lies, except as lies. 

But at heart a government needs to be seen to respond, and Labour was not seen as responding. It needed to give as good as it got and it didn’t match the emotional intensity of National. Labour acted like they were chatting at the church fair. 

But even the crises like cyclones were a chance to bring people together, removing divides; it didn’t work for Labour. Moves to negatively politicise these situations were strong and immediate. National politicians were often more quickly into damaged areas. Expectations of government intervention were hyped up in some communities; so Labour’s measured considered responses were tactically placed into a framework of inadequate; less than what National would do.  National simply poisoned the ground by hyping people up and then moved on to let that fester.  

But Labour never led these situations, or even try to frame them differently. It was a time to make demands, like behavioural changes that would support economic sustainability or climate change adaption, e.g. more land, water and native forest protections. A Prophet Jeremiah time for criticising the existing economic growth model, and criticise the central right wing idea of government as a brake on private enterprise (heal yourself- should have been a threat to get the above protections). Instead Labour allowed itself to be portrayed as the lumbering bureaucracy that is slow to do its duty and bail businesses out; so business could get back to making profit quickly.  

Taking on the private enterprise model would have been controversial but that is exactly the platform Labour needed to push back on Nationals headlines and justifiy the real role of government in an ongoing sense. Not as a slow bureaucracy but working for the judicious long term protection of all New Zealand and our economic wellbeing. 

And the spending pushed by National in these crises is now part of the deficit to ‘prove’ Labour’s economic mismanagement.  Labour so often didn’t have fire in its belly to take on the media repeating the National lies. And it seemed that was because they saw themselves as working within the system as good sensible economic stewards rather than changing it.  (The Greens are not much better on this but at least they went for the wealth tax). 

And Labour did the same with co-Governance when the real issue was water reform and protecting water for the people. Labour needed to fight like hell, for that end. It needed to plan for and seek out debates with these issues head on with a focus on ratepayer costs. Instead of fighting the reaction, they watered down the reform benefits. The reform of media simply collapsed. It felt like they weren’t ready to fight a good fight. 

Of course I’m being a little too harsh on Labour because it’s quite a financially poor party. They are the party with ambition for change but did they bite off more than they could chew? Or are politicians without strong organisational skills really the best groups to push through change? Yes, but there is more; it’s also about the deep pockets of the donor class that makes it difficult for Labour.

The rich will donate/pay for financial objectives that benefit them. The small businesses, to get their votes, are manipulated to think the neo-liberal model is the one that rewards their hard work. When actually an economy based on better redistribution of resources would give money to their potential local customers and then they would make profits. Small businesses are voting against their interests.

The economy was weaponised in this election to fight a political battle. In recessions in the past there was not always high inflation because there was no social welfare state and people simply could not pay. They slept rough and sometimes did not eat.  Now large wealthy firms have pushed into essential services that used to be provided by government so they can ramp up prices on the expectation that the welfare state will pay the higher prices for poorer people.  We know prices have been ramped up beyond costs because the CTU here and others overseas did the research on Greedflation. (Foolishly the CTU did not use the term Greedflation so their work is hard to find. A google search just brings up articles claiming to debunk greedflation is happening).   

Labour needs to reinvent itself as it can’t protect working people by staying fully within the neo-liberal economic model.  Inflation is now a political weapon to make it difficult for left governments to meet the needs of the people in anyway that threatens how the economy works to maximise profit for large businesses. Labour needs to rediscover the working peoples economy and adapt that to fight the forces of maximise profit that are ruining our economy and society.  

60 COMMENTS

  1. Well written piece which is right on so many points. I think basically Labour did not read the room. Subsidiaries for EV and heat pumps may help the planet but does little for the poor buying expensive groceries. Over promising and under delivering is a sure way to lose.

  2. Labour can NO LONGER be trusted.
    We need a NEW genuinely left wing party interested 99%-ONLY in raising the standards for the 75+% working class, and NOT be bought out by powerful interests to keep the staus quo by ‘tinkering’ with Clayton style activity.

    • Working class? Doesn’t mean much these days unless you mean those working for wages, which is a pretty broad church now. Take away the 1%ers, the big landlords, real estate pimps, self employed business people doing ok, CEOs and middle management, the PMC, those at the top of their professions or on their way there, hell, anyone over or close to 100K annually, and whose left? Just those with minimal education on or close to minimum wages, or only able to work in part-time work, or artists and musicians working in the gig economy (and some seem to be doing ok, precarious as it is). Is that the working class now? The working poor. Probably not sufficient numbers to get Labour across the line.

      But you’re right @ Keriman. Labour as it used to stand for is now simply out of touch. No use to the working poor. Very telling that some 22% eligible voters didn’t participate and they’re unlikely to be blue or pink. And I might add, social policies a touch too radical for most conservatives.

  3. An uninspiring leader with an uninspiring campaign message, to put that nicely, left Labour exposed to whatever shyt the Natz wanted to throw their way. The average Kiwi is politically ignorant, I would say purposely so, therefore all that is needed to win is a decent (appealing) leader with a decent message/campaign.

  4. “What did Labour do wrong?”

    “Chris Hipkins ‘Captain’s Call’ cost Labour 5%” David Cunliffe

    “There is no such thing as bad soldiers, only bad generals” Napoleon

    • Chippy won’t let go, he is pretty deluded as to his worth if you ask me and as a general he needs to admit fault and fuck off. He could take a page out of Little’s book but he has no humility.

  7. Big government providing “free” services are generally good for an economy because they leave more money in peoples pockets to pay for other things, and this boosts economic activity. and when it comes to paying for government services taxation is better because it can be be made progressive while user pays cannot be. Galbraith made the point in his book, The Affluent Society, that as a country becomes wealthier it devotes more of its GDP to the services provided by the state.

  8. Too many excuses. Labour did this to themselves. They had a mandate for change and plenty of cash and for various reasons they made an absolute mess of it. The right has now been handed an opportunity and, unlike Labour, one assumes that they’ll know exactly what to do with it. The left should be apoplectic with rage.

  9. There are various scenarios as to what could happen, after the final election tally in November. One scenario could be that Winston engages in coalition negotiations with National and Act, and finds that they have policies such as letting back foreign property investors, and putting up the age of super, that are grating. That he and his MP’s, are only offered paper tiger roles, with any true power entrenched with National and Act, and NZFirst only offered the crumbs.
    Causing negotiations to make difficult progress, and Winston who has a long memory, recalling that even though he originated in National, it’s actually Labour who have always respected him better.
    Meanwhile his number two, Shane Jones, uses back channel discussions with his old colleagues in Labour, who offer Winston a killer mafia deal – the one he cannot refuse. With Winston offered the baubles of prime ministership, and all NZFirst MP’s having ministerial positions, and the Greens and Maori party agreeing to confidence and supply only, and MaCanulty as deputy PM. How is that for legacy?
    The upside for NZFirst, would be that they would be running the country in a big way, and have more power, than they will probably ever have the opportunity for again. And with such a high profile, arguably a greater chance of being voted back in, than previously. And even the possibility of them going with Labour, would give them more bargaining power, as in business you have more power in negotiation, if you can have the option of walking away.
    The upside for the greens, is that they would be in a position to maintain their hard fought climate initiatives.
    The upside for Labour is that they would keep a foothold in govt, and by the next election many of the headwinds that went against them this time, stemming from high inflation, will have dissipated. And Hipkin’s who said he would never form a govt with NZFirst, was probably headed out the door at some stage anyway.
    The upside for voters is that they would see a genuinely different govt, instead of the major policies of the two big middle parties, which are all very similar, there would now be genuine difference.

    • Yes something along these lines, maybe not the wholesale give everything to NZF would be needed. For anything to happen along these lines Chippy has to go, but he won’t step down and his compadres will want to keep him. There needs to be wholesale bloodletting in Labour and they need to wake the fuck up quick smart. I am rooting for Willy Jackson as leader, anyone else is business as usual and that clearly didn’t work.

  10. In a word, housing.

    The single biggest issue impoverishing New Zealanders, and Labour didn’t even make a dent in it.

    Then throw in the deeply unpopular identity politics and their goose was utterly cooked.

    Even by a charisma-free austerity acolyte like Luxon.

    • Luxon turned out to be not as charisma- free as Chippy on the campaign trail, apparently. You can’t fix the housing crisis overnight and Labour was doing the biggest build of state housing underway. National sold off state houses, and left people on the street.

  11. Truth hurts, but ignorance hurts more in the long term.

    All those that created Labour policy and helped with the Labour election and woke policy strategy should be sacked before they spin more lies on why with their help and spin, Labour are at near 50% less party vote in only 3 years.

    Chris Trotter, called it.
    Chris Trotter gives his assessment of PM & Labour leader Chris Hipkins’ weekend speech on which political parties he will & won’t work with
    https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/123980/chris-trotter-gives-his-assessment-pm-labour-leader-chris-hipkins-weekend

    Bryce Edwards also called out unpopular woke policy that was set to spiral Labour down such as 3 waters and co-governance ideology.

    Labour did not listen to any voice but the woke in their cult like devotion to a cause that spread more hate and disunity than anything the right could ever dream up in their wildest dreams.

    Even Auckland museum has had to apologise for lighting blue for the victims of the terror attack. Huge disconnect with what people think is terror and what woke think is terror. We are seeing alarming visions of violence that is being enabled and not condemned by woke against woman and ‘out’ groups, while pushing their own (often extreme versions) on who has the right gender, race, religions and actions.

  12. I feel like Labour should just close their doors and give up – they thought they weren’t going to win in 2017 and didn’t have a plan, 2020 delivered a majority but they didn’t know how to use it for economic justice and they look like they weren’t even trying in 2023. It really is very sad to watch (even as someone who doesn’t vote for them).

    They’ve inherited the rules from Helen Clarke’s government about not doing anything dramatic in case they get punished by the markets/big business. They haven’t worked out that the was around that is to build a popular movement to back them up – or maybe they have and they’re not comfortable mixing with working class people who are the ones who would benefit from such a move.

    Or maybe it’s just that they don’t care about economic justice that much because they did use their majority to push through on issues like co governance – but then they didn’t front that issue properly either.

    They just seem like a bunch of sooks.

  14. They didn’t listen to the electorate and do as they were told to do, as our representatives. We are the captains and no one else! Do as you’re told or move along.

  15. The country is not currently in a recession, and technically never was. There are a lot of reasons Labour lost, but fundamentally they have lost track of what they stand for. A centre left party who cannot compose and campaign on basic redistributive measures (eg CGT/WT) are not worthy of the name.

  16. From what I can gather, NatCCP had around 7 times the total donations to campaign with in comparison to Labour’s total. That considerable disparity had to play a part in the end result. It also is skewing our democracy. But since when did NatCCP really care about fairness and the genuine democratic process. It is all about achieving power by any means.
    Sir Creepy’s legacy is testimony to that.
    Luxon will be no different.

  17. Unfortunately money is the biggest talker in NZ, while the Nats are bankrolled by the wealthiest in the country with the most to gain its pretty hard to fight,
    There was miliions spent to spread misinformation and negative advertising and the Media didnt bother to investigate or call it out the Left might as well give up.
    Might backfire.though….what the hell is Mike Hosking and his rabid talk back listeners going to bitch about now they’ve got their precious Party back in Govt

  18. Labour did nothing wrong. Because what they did gor 3 years was pretty much nothing except piss away time, goodwill, unassailable control of parliament and billions of dollars in red herring projects instead of shepherding their big idea projects through.

    They were immature, incompetent and indecisive and it showed when they had no idea what they were doing for 90 percent of the campaign. If I did that at work I would have been through warnings verbal and written for inompetence.

  19. pretend socialists. unionist proles who are reliant on the bourgeoisie for their existence. no better than peasants who fight for their lord barons because to exist outside on their own is tooooooo scary.

  20. Labour initiated and helped build the monster that is the NZ neoliberal economy.

    In the same manner as the US Republicans are in thrall to Trump, all political parties in NZ are in thrall to NZ’s owners and controllers: the Banks and foreign multinational corporations. These groups are not doing business here in order to help us.

    The rest of the show is all charade.

  21. Hipkins/Hopekins was seduced by his high polling when he took over as prefered P.M…all downhill from then with his Capt’s calls.Sidelined senior ministers Robertson and Parker,and when the polls turned came up with …too little..too late.

  22. What did Labour do wrong?

    The problem is that Labour did not do anything. All the targets it set for itself were unmet save decreasing the prison population and we are all enjoying increased crime. Ardern is the worst PM in living memory other than Muldoon. Unfortunately Chippy took the poisoned chalice.

  24. Given Labours track record on transformation I doubt they can transform their own party to avoid further political defeats.

  25. Labour spent $55000000 on the media for this election and still lost. They should as for our money back !

Comments are closed.