Labour’s New Strategy: A Plan or Just Noise?
Labour has finally shown signs of life in opposition. After months of silence, Chris has come out talking tax, infrastructure, and strategy. My two cents below.
I felt like Labour coming out with a pseudo-strategy deserved an out-of-cycle article.
Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about Labour and, frankly, feeling anxious about their lack of visibility. Opposition isn’t just about waiting for the government to fail—it’s about being a strong counterforce, challenging bad policy, and shaping the political conversation consistently. Right now, Labour just doesn’t feel like it’s doing that.
So here’s my two cents on their latest announcements.
Also—shameless plug—I’m working towards 1,000 subscribers, and I’m getting close. If you’re a regular reader and think someone else might enjoy my posts, please share. It’s free, and hopefully, the content is worth your time.
On Sunday, I watched Chris Hipkins on Q&A, and for the first time in a long time, I actually noticed Labour. That, in itself, says a lot. Up until now, they’ve felt largely absent as an opposition party. And I don’t know if that’s a deliberate strategy—some kind of “give National enough rope and they’ll hang themselves” approach—but if it is, I find it grossly irresponsible if it’s deliberate and gross incompetence if it’s not.
Opposition parties aren’t there to sit on the sidelines and work on their political strategies. They get taxpayer-funded salaries to be a force to be reckoned with, to push back, to challenge, to shape the debate of governing as well as politics. And until last week, Labour hasn’t really been doing any of that from what I can see.
Some Historical and Personal Perspective on Labour
I’ve been thinking about Labour’s evolution lately, especially since I started reading The Rise of New Zealand Labour by Bruce Brown (written in 1962, so yeah, 63 years ago). It started out deeply connected to trade unions and was, at one point, even anti-political. The book breaks down the early split in the movement between the moderates (trades councils) and the militants (the socialist “Red Feds”). That division—between pragmatists and idealists—has shaped Labour ever since.
Fast forward to my own experience with Labour. I remember when they formed a government in 2017 with New Zealand First and the Greens. I remember the revolving doors of Labour Pary leaders: David Cunliffe, then Andrew Little, then Jacinda Ardern stepping in at the last minute and pulling off that seven-week campaign that took Labour back into power. I remember 2020, the pandemic, the Christchurch attacks, and Labour winning an outright majority. And I remember how, despite all that, despite holding all the power they needed to make real systemic change, they still didn’t deliver on major policy reforms—especially tax reform. RIP Capital Gains Tax for a thousand years.
Labour’s (Lack of) Policy Clarity
During the 2023 campaign, when I was running for TOP in Wellington Central, my team and I did deep dives into every party’s policies. And here’s the thing—Labour’s policies were vague at best and nowhere to be found at worst. The Greens had a clear policy index. National had one. ACT had one. New Zealand First had one. But Labour? It was vague, muddled, hard to pin down. And I found that frustrating. Making Politics visible and accesible is almost half the job.
So now, in opposition, what’s their plan?
On March 7th, Labour put out a press release titled Labour Outlines Priorities of Next Government. It was short, vague, and basically said they’d focus on jobs, health, and homes. Standard Labour messaging, but what does it mean? Their argument is that National and ACT don’t have a vision (which, side note, I’d disagree with—they do, you just might not like it). But beyond throwing punches at the government, what’s Labour actually offering?
Chris Hipkins Finally Talks About Tax—Kind Off Not Really
On Q&A, Hipkins made some interesting points, but not necessarily ones that reassured me Labour has a coherent strategy yet. Hipkins started by expanding the broadcasting and media portfolio to include the creative economy—something I fully support. The last Labour government invested heavily in the gaming industry, which I think was the right move. It’s an area where New Zealand has real potential for growth and impact.
Chippy then argued that infrastructure investment matters and that National’s approach of pausing or scrapping Labour’s previous initiatives was a mistake. Hard agree with that. I still haven’t gotten over the Wellington ferry debacle—absolutely ridiculous decision-making there. I have a chipped shoulder about that Nicola!
Then Chippy got to tax. Excellent, let’s hear it. He acknowledged that everyone is “obsessed with tax” but didn’t reveal any real policy details, sigh. He said Labour would announce a tax policy before the end of the year and that it would be based on the idea of spreading the tax burden more broadly—whatever that means.
He mentioned that speculative investment needs to be addressed and that Labour wants to incentivize savings and investment, but he avoided committing to specific tax policies. Arg. When asked about capital gains tax, he dodged, saying that tax policy needed to fit within a broader economic plan. Which, sure, I agree with that in theory. But does Labour have that broader economic plan? I think it should have come out in January with this plan, but what do I know?
Hipkins also didn’t commit to reinstating the Reserve Bank’s dual mandate, which National scrapped. He seemed lukewarm on the idea, saying he wasn’t sure if it made much of a difference. I’ll be honest—I don’t know enough about monetary policy to have a strong opinion on that one, but his lack of clarity on Labour’s stance was noticeable.
On landlords’ tax breaks, he acknowledged that Labour is still working through its position. He was asked outright whether Labour would bring back interest deductibility for landlords—the so-called "landlord tax breaks" worth nearly $3 billion. His answer was vague, basically saying that Labour’s approach to capital gains tax would influence what they do with interest deductibility. Cool cool cool.
He also hinted that Labour would likely reinstate the ban on oil and gas exploration, arguing that renewable energy is New Zealand’s future. That’s one area where he was at least clear and direct. I don’t agree, but also not an expert in this matter, so happy to leave it alone.
On trade, Hipkins said New Zealand shouldn’t retaliate with tariffs if the US imposes them on us, emphasizing that maintaining a free-trade stance has been beneficial for the country. Ah the moral political high ground.
On AUKUS and military alliances, he gave a very non-committal response. Essentially, he acknowledged that the global security situation is changing, but he doesn’t believe New Zealand should join an arms race.
So, in short: a few clear positions, a lot of hedging, and still no real tax policy.
Where I Stand
Here’s my bottom line:
If Labour commits to real tax reform—capital gains tax, land tax, inheritance tax, or/and a proper income tax adjustment—I’ll vote for them.
If they don’t, I’ll vote for the right. Because without tax reform, Labour’s promises are just hot air.
This is where Labour lost me in 2020. They had a majority government, total control, and they still backed down on capital gains tax. If they weren’t bold then, why would they be bold now?
Labour’s Shift to the Centre
One thing I did notice in Hipkins’ messaging is a clear push toward the centre. His focus on jobs—placing jobs before health and housing—signals that Labour is trying to court the moderate and even soft blue vote. That’s smart politics, but how does it reconcile with the Greens, who are drifting further left? And speaking of the Greens… their strategy is confusing at best and totally lost at worst. But I’d hate to sound like a broken record, so I’ll leave the Greens alone for now.
Where Labour Stands Now
So, here’s where I’m at with Labour right now:
I still don’t know what they actually stand for
I don’t know if they’ll really push for tax reform or just tinker around the edges...sigh
I don’t know if their opposition strategy is just “wait for National to screw up”. A strategy that will loose them political capital with me
I don’t know if they have the leadership strength to win in 2026, but Ill be watching closely.
Labour can’t afford to sit on their hands. They need to be loud, bold, and clear. Otherwise, they risk fading into irrelevance.
So, what do you think? Do you trust Labour to get it together? Or is it too late for them to claw their way back?
Unfortunately, the following excerpt from your article sums Labour up for me: “If they weren’t bold then, why would they be bold now?” Yep, great question. And I wouldn’t back Hipkins as the revolutionary to be bold or drive change. He had a shot when he was PM and he blew it. His DNA lacks Che Guevara tenacity, passion, and unrelenting commitment to anything beyond an election cycle. He is a career politician so being in politics is his thing. Fair enough, but yuk. He doesn’t demonstrate enough change fervour for me. Others, I’m sure, will love his common man sausage roll schtick. Me, not so much. I see him as a bit of a yes man-administrator. His don’t spook the horses approach - whilst pitching Labour’s tent firmly in the centre of the political spectrum - for me equals selling out. In my view, Labour needs to win voters with genuinely progressive ideas that can demonstrate how, when, and why voting for them can make New Zealand and New Zealander’s lives better. Right now, crickets. In 2025 and beyond, tinkering just won’t cut it. Apart from all that, with Chippy at the helm, Neo-Liberalism lives and breathes. So, that’s a firm NO, I won’t be voting for Labour.
I feel like CGT is never going to happen if it's in the context of house prices. It's a much better sell (to me, at least) from a basic tax fairness perspective. That, I think, is why it failed in the previous Labour government.
I'd prefer a LVT (for the reasons outlined in this excellent essay: https://open.substack.com/pub/jlund/p/just-tax-the-land), but I'd settle for a revenue neutral (this is important) CGT. Unfortunately, I think Labour is likely to just spend the money, rather than return it to individuals through income tax cuts.