Can Labour centrism win the election? No. But why?

Labour centrism keeps trying to present itself as the safe, reasonable middle ground. The problem is voters rarely follow parties that sound like they are apologising for having ideas in the first place.

Centrism inherently has a sense of superiority, it is ego driven not logic driven.

Centrism wants to present itself as reasonable, not ideologically obsessed, of pragmatic thinking about what will work, as if centrism contains or can carry the best of both sides or the argument, not falling into the extremes. It is fundamentally based around a personal sense of ego that they can hear the disparate voices of left and right and ‘we’ or ‘I’ will balance those voices.

Chippy or Barbara Edmonds for example don’t look like they have massive egos but that is the space they have put themselves into. Centrism means ‘we’ can be pushed and swayed by pressure; we balance ideas. It allows them as leaders to say this or that idea is too extreme.
It puts the decision making into them as politicians rather than into what the data says or the strength or coherence of the ideas or the vision. Centrism allows leaders to be a little bit lazy on the finer points of policy and it encourages leaders to abandon a vision.

A lack of a vision is which is subsequently what Labour is struggling with now. And that is a problem with trying to win an election.

Why centrism struggles to inspire voters

One obvious example of this as a problem is the recent National party announcement of more sizeable cuts to public services all dressed up in a fantasy of AI delivering better service more cost effectively. Chippy was only left with his centrist position of saying what about this person or that person and the consequences for them.

What did Chippy look like to the ordinary not strongly engaged voter? A moaner. A negative ‘no’ person. Just saying you can’t. By contrast National look like they have a vision and a plan and it is going to be best for voters in the long run. The highly negative and destructive Nicola Willis is positioned as a thinker trying to fix things (all complete lies as she is just a desperate politician flailing about trying to distract from her government’s staggering incompetence; but it is a vision and she is getting headlines).

It wasn’t what Chippy said that was the problem, it was what he left out – the vision. How Labour would run the economy, not just more benefits for this or that group, which creates a sense in many voters of being left out. Chippy must have a cohesive vision of how to take on neoliberal capitalism, how neo-liberalism is structurally failing so we have to significantly modify it return to lower-cost public services like electricity – capitalism has shown it drives up prices to maximise profit – it doesn’t compete. Chippy needs to say we have tried all these National party ideas before and they have always failed; therefore this is what Labour will change in that capitalist machine to fix the problems and it will work because …( and he must be able to explain a vision).

But this is the sort of language centrists hate as they think it is too strong, divisive and looks like a tough fight that will alienate people, and talk like this creates complexity which will confuse voters. Centrists look for the easy option of least offence. And that fatalistic thinking comes across as weak, ineffective government, and this easy centrist language doesn’t capture headlines.

National wins by fighting harder, not governing softer

Just look to National last election. Centrists seem to think National portray themselves as the steady hands as the centrists, so Labour centrists want to emulate that approach. But No. National are very hysterical and extreme in their behaviour and policies but also in their hysteria they project that extremism onto Labour.

For example in the last election National were hysterical and lying all the time about Three Waters. Its racism! it attacks democracy! Labour being run by centrist ideology reacted by watering down Three Waters which looked like Labour saying National was right. Labour should have run into the fight and doubled down with insights like – National is attacking private property rights. The Treaty recognised Maori rights over private property so Three Waters just gives voice to Maori private property rights (I know some will want to say sovereignty not property but it is on the same coin). Labour had to fear monger with the truth that National by attacking Maori private property is actually attacking all private property rights. Labour needed to say National was attacking small towns by leaving them with the costs of sewage and they did; but they had to hammer it while standing beside small towns.

Hysteria and hyperbole is National’s playbook and it gets headlines and that sucks the attention to them and their vision. Labour with aggressive policies and vision will start to get headlines but Labour has to fight and be ready for the attacks.

Centrist Labour is currently running the wrong way. For example Barbara Edmonds bringing back a tiny capital gains tax is trying to say ‘it is small and controlled and simple with nothing to fear. Please business donate to Labour.’ But it is not simple. It still relies on definitions and boundaries and it can still be attacked for complexity. She is dreaming while the real economic risks from a distorting tax system in the economy and society remain in place.

Another example was Chippy previously saying that with the initial lockdowns with covid he really really doubted it would work but he got up and saw the road empty. As a centrist he was implying he would probably not have done it because he believed it would not work. And that is a core fault in a centrist philosophy; you give up before you try.

Labour can turn this around.