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.
To win in 2026 Labour must rekindle its relationship with the union movement, and commit to forming a government with both the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, but Chippy may be too risk-averse for that.
He's so risk-averse that he is the risk.
Ruling out TPM is a big mistake.
Labour must also prepare a strategy to deal with AI disinformation/misinformation on social media, and know how to project itself positively on those media.
Hi Paul, thanks for reading and commenting. I actually don’t mind Chippy, not that care too much about individual politicians at the best of time. I just don’t see how Labour will build a coalition with its moderate purple political narrative and TPM and the Greens that get more Left every day. This is where I think we need to be way more creative with how we debate politics in NZ with MPP, like the smaller parties should be way more flexible in working across the spectrum. But we are very far from that at the moment. And I agree about campaign in cyberspace, it’s a weird dark place, but it’s there and it’s big and highly dynamic and diverse. So messy. Nat
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.
Hi James, thanks for reading and commenting. Look, to be fair, Chippy as an individual I couldn’t care less, it’s more his ideas and Labour strategy as a party. At the end of the day in New Zealand we vote for Parties, we don’t vote for individuals (at least not for central government). I also think that neo-liberalism will be around for a while, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing, immigration, open boarders, globalization, are all geopolitical elements here to stay regardless the party. I also don’t think that’s removing Chippy or having anybody else, Carmel Sepuloni, Andrew Little (again) or whoever in Labour wont change he fact that they are lost as a political party. Away from unions and workers, trying to be purple, just oh so very lost. Tax would be their staple but they blew it and Im not sure we are ready to trust them again. Nat
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on a couple of points there Natalie, but hey, free world (mostly) still right? In my view, voters identify with a party’s leader and if a party gets their selection wrong they struggle. Personally, if the leader selected misses the mark I’m done. Maybe I’m unusual. And sorry, Neo-Liberalism as George Monbiot, Grace Blakely and many other commentators will attest has failed. Will it be around for a while? Maybe, but its significant flaws are out in the open now and as an ideology it is being challenged. Jury is out for me. Is there a viable option? Not quite…yet. The status quo is strong. Yes, Labour are completely lost, on that we agree. As for open borders, globalisation, and the rule of law. Interesting times. Macron’s call for European 🇪🇺 unity speech was a wake up call all to the world. Again, we’ll see, but there’s a new normal in town.
I was pleasantly surprised you didn't regurgitate the brain-melting conspiracy theory that Labour's strategy was to team up with NZ First :D
The full manifestos generally get released in the months before an election... That's when they have a window to build hype and keep people invested before they get bored, so it would be a strategic blunder to commit too much before then. They would also want the most up to date vibes / data from constituents and opposition.
I'd bet large on CGT in some form. All indicators are pointing to it & the moderates seem open to it. The optics would look very clumsy if they diverted. But I would limit your expectations there... big parties don't do big change. Labour have gained some moderates so are in a good spot, the last thing they want is to alienate them. I think there's very little chance they'll do additional top-tier taxes etc.
Labour doesn't need to reconcile a tax model with Greens/TPM or even acknowledge their finance policy exists (it wouldn't surprise me if half the Green supporters don't lol). Its not like the latter are ever getting the Finance portfolio, same goes for ACT/NZF.
Overall I think Labour's played it pretty well so far. I like coming out with a slogan this early, all they needed to do. Maybe it doesn't sound very inspiring lol, but in three syllables it tells the policy direction without being too committal. "Jobs" probably hinting their vision is a return to the core of the social democrats, i.e. the workers party.
Hi Paul, I understand why they release manifesto so close to the election, but there is so much more work they could be doing in opposition to start voicing where they stand and signaling where they are going that is not directly campaigning. But I cant see them doing opposition well or raising awareness, which like I said, I think is incompetence at best and irresponsable at worst. So I disagree that hey have played it well so far, I expect more from parties in opposition and I find it irresponable to just sit on the sidelines and play it “safe”. Jobs is a good start, but they way I heard Chippy talk about jobs on Q+A didn’t signal social democracts roots to me, it signaled more to economic growth via jobs and suporting small and medium companies. Nat
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.
Hi Qangin, thanks for commenting. I agree that LVT is better, I campaigned on LVT in 2023 when I ran in Wellington Central. I actually don’t care, the only one I am strongly against is the wealth tax becase its a legal and political black hole that wont get us our return on our investment. But any other tax Im ok with. Nat
LVT is a new concept for most Kiwis which for a big party would be a massive political risk. Polling shows a clear majority of Kiwis support CGT in some form (finally lol), so its very likely going to happen. Considering Labour has been talking up CGT it would be very jarring and likely weaken them if they switched the conversation to something new. As a collective voters behave jittery.
Ardern was a great spokesperson but a weak salesperson which didn't help CGT, in any case Kiwis seemed to have warmed to it after an embarrassingly long time.
Yeah, I am fully aware that LVT is not politically practical at this point, and certainly not through Labour. Probably more likely through ACT or Greens, maybe as an alternative to CGT that can get support from more free marketeers.
I mainly operate under the assumption that no political party is going to do what I want, so there is no point in restricting myself to politically popular ideas.
Heya Paul, I agree that CGT is the most openly debated, so would be easier to sell. I like your distinction about Arden being a good spokesperson and a bad salesperson. Im not sure I agree, but I like that distinction. Im not sure Labour can get away without campaigning on CGT, but I also feel like it’s so ridiculous becase they didn’t go ahead with it just 2 years ago. It’s political whiplash beyond my comprehension. Im not sure how they will navigate this, especially with how late I feel they are leaving it. Nat
It's probably what they are not saying on issues like co-governance and identitarianism. Labour in government will almost certainly need to include the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, co-governance will almost certainly be back on their agenda with challenges to democratic accountability. Unless Labour puts a stake in the ground for democratic accountability in governance and ensures that agency over others is ballot box dependent they will continue to lose my vote.
Hi John, I agree. I think co-governance is not feasible at central government level. It might be in the regions and locally, but it directly competes with democracy and that’s a non starter for a lot of us. Which is why I struggle to see how Labour who is trying to be more Center than Left, will align with Greens and TPM that have more Left of Left views, and confusing ideologies. And I agree, if it campaigns on co-governance it will loose my vote too. Nat
Labour won't campaign on co-governance, it will just keep it in their back pocket until elected. If social media is anything to go by, the left is utterly convinced that bringing iwi into governance is completely in accord with the principles of the treaty. Whilst the right is busy freezing Māori out of governance, the left in office will find new and more innovative ways of ceding agency to iwi hoping we won't notice until its too late. Labour could lead a national conversation on including Māori democratically in governance. That unfortunately has been taken up Seymour and the TP bill. Both sides of this highly polarized debate need to recognise that a modern democracy can be structured to inclusive it just needs to be democratic.
Hi Margaret, thanks for reading and commenting. I couldn’t agree with you more, they lost a huge opportunity and I am not quite sure how they come back from that. Nat
Do we not have to continue the pressure? I don't feel National will ever introduce any tax on unearned income so no chance for any redistribution of income.
Chippy is a good and likeable person. But his habitual aversion to risk is a risk.
As for TPM, including them in a left wing coalition will help give meaningful effect to the Māori version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which is the version with legal standing.
TPM are our bulwark against the codified libertarian takeover of governance in Aotearoa/New Zealand led by the Milton Friedman-style zealots and ideologues of our coalition government, and the resultant death of our democracy. The Regulatory Standards Bill is a major move in that direction.
Libertarianism and democracy are incompatible according to Peter Thiel and others of his persuasion.
Chippy is a timid man.
To win in 2026 Labour must rekindle its relationship with the union movement, and commit to forming a government with both the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, but Chippy may be too risk-averse for that.
He's so risk-averse that he is the risk.
Ruling out TPM is a big mistake.
Labour must also prepare a strategy to deal with AI disinformation/misinformation on social media, and know how to project itself positively on those media.
Campaigns are now lost and won in cyberspace.
Hi Paul, thanks for reading and commenting. I actually don’t mind Chippy, not that care too much about individual politicians at the best of time. I just don’t see how Labour will build a coalition with its moderate purple political narrative and TPM and the Greens that get more Left every day. This is where I think we need to be way more creative with how we debate politics in NZ with MPP, like the smaller parties should be way more flexible in working across the spectrum. But we are very far from that at the moment. And I agree about campaign in cyberspace, it’s a weird dark place, but it’s there and it’s big and highly dynamic and diverse. So messy. Nat
Ruling out TPM is crucial to winning.
Hi John, I agree that a coalition with TPM will keep pushing the moderate Left voters to the center Right.
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.
Hi James, thanks for reading and commenting. Look, to be fair, Chippy as an individual I couldn’t care less, it’s more his ideas and Labour strategy as a party. At the end of the day in New Zealand we vote for Parties, we don’t vote for individuals (at least not for central government). I also think that neo-liberalism will be around for a while, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing, immigration, open boarders, globalization, are all geopolitical elements here to stay regardless the party. I also don’t think that’s removing Chippy or having anybody else, Carmel Sepuloni, Andrew Little (again) or whoever in Labour wont change he fact that they are lost as a political party. Away from unions and workers, trying to be purple, just oh so very lost. Tax would be their staple but they blew it and Im not sure we are ready to trust them again. Nat
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on a couple of points there Natalie, but hey, free world (mostly) still right? In my view, voters identify with a party’s leader and if a party gets their selection wrong they struggle. Personally, if the leader selected misses the mark I’m done. Maybe I’m unusual. And sorry, Neo-Liberalism as George Monbiot, Grace Blakely and many other commentators will attest has failed. Will it be around for a while? Maybe, but its significant flaws are out in the open now and as an ideology it is being challenged. Jury is out for me. Is there a viable option? Not quite…yet. The status quo is strong. Yes, Labour are completely lost, on that we agree. As for open borders, globalisation, and the rule of law. Interesting times. Macron’s call for European 🇪🇺 unity speech was a wake up call all to the world. Again, we’ll see, but there’s a new normal in town.
I was pleasantly surprised you didn't regurgitate the brain-melting conspiracy theory that Labour's strategy was to team up with NZ First :D
The full manifestos generally get released in the months before an election... That's when they have a window to build hype and keep people invested before they get bored, so it would be a strategic blunder to commit too much before then. They would also want the most up to date vibes / data from constituents and opposition.
I'd bet large on CGT in some form. All indicators are pointing to it & the moderates seem open to it. The optics would look very clumsy if they diverted. But I would limit your expectations there... big parties don't do big change. Labour have gained some moderates so are in a good spot, the last thing they want is to alienate them. I think there's very little chance they'll do additional top-tier taxes etc.
Labour doesn't need to reconcile a tax model with Greens/TPM or even acknowledge their finance policy exists (it wouldn't surprise me if half the Green supporters don't lol). Its not like the latter are ever getting the Finance portfolio, same goes for ACT/NZF.
Overall I think Labour's played it pretty well so far. I like coming out with a slogan this early, all they needed to do. Maybe it doesn't sound very inspiring lol, but in three syllables it tells the policy direction without being too committal. "Jobs" probably hinting their vision is a return to the core of the social democrats, i.e. the workers party.
Hi Paul, I understand why they release manifesto so close to the election, but there is so much more work they could be doing in opposition to start voicing where they stand and signaling where they are going that is not directly campaigning. But I cant see them doing opposition well or raising awareness, which like I said, I think is incompetence at best and irresponsable at worst. So I disagree that hey have played it well so far, I expect more from parties in opposition and I find it irresponable to just sit on the sidelines and play it “safe”. Jobs is a good start, but they way I heard Chippy talk about jobs on Q+A didn’t signal social democracts roots to me, it signaled more to economic growth via jobs and suporting small and medium companies. Nat
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.
Hi Qangin, thanks for commenting. I agree that LVT is better, I campaigned on LVT in 2023 when I ran in Wellington Central. I actually don’t care, the only one I am strongly against is the wealth tax becase its a legal and political black hole that wont get us our return on our investment. But any other tax Im ok with. Nat
LVT is a new concept for most Kiwis which for a big party would be a massive political risk. Polling shows a clear majority of Kiwis support CGT in some form (finally lol), so its very likely going to happen. Considering Labour has been talking up CGT it would be very jarring and likely weaken them if they switched the conversation to something new. As a collective voters behave jittery.
Ardern was a great spokesperson but a weak salesperson which didn't help CGT, in any case Kiwis seemed to have warmed to it after an embarrassingly long time.
Yeah, I am fully aware that LVT is not politically practical at this point, and certainly not through Labour. Probably more likely through ACT or Greens, maybe as an alternative to CGT that can get support from more free marketeers.
I mainly operate under the assumption that no political party is going to do what I want, so there is no point in restricting myself to politically popular ideas.
Heya Paul, I agree that CGT is the most openly debated, so would be easier to sell. I like your distinction about Arden being a good spokesperson and a bad salesperson. Im not sure I agree, but I like that distinction. Im not sure Labour can get away without campaigning on CGT, but I also feel like it’s so ridiculous becase they didn’t go ahead with it just 2 years ago. It’s political whiplash beyond my comprehension. Im not sure how they will navigate this, especially with how late I feel they are leaving it. Nat
It's probably what they are not saying on issues like co-governance and identitarianism. Labour in government will almost certainly need to include the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, co-governance will almost certainly be back on their agenda with challenges to democratic accountability. Unless Labour puts a stake in the ground for democratic accountability in governance and ensures that agency over others is ballot box dependent they will continue to lose my vote.
Hi John, I agree. I think co-governance is not feasible at central government level. It might be in the regions and locally, but it directly competes with democracy and that’s a non starter for a lot of us. Which is why I struggle to see how Labour who is trying to be more Center than Left, will align with Greens and TPM that have more Left of Left views, and confusing ideologies. And I agree, if it campaigns on co-governance it will loose my vote too. Nat
Labour won't campaign on co-governance, it will just keep it in their back pocket until elected. If social media is anything to go by, the left is utterly convinced that bringing iwi into governance is completely in accord with the principles of the treaty. Whilst the right is busy freezing Māori out of governance, the left in office will find new and more innovative ways of ceding agency to iwi hoping we won't notice until its too late. Labour could lead a national conversation on including Māori democratically in governance. That unfortunately has been taken up Seymour and the TP bill. Both sides of this highly polarized debate need to recognise that a modern democracy can be structured to inclusive it just needs to be democratic.
I agree that Labour missed a golden opportunity to take advantage of a clear majority in 2020 and reform the tax system in this country.
Surely a tax on unearned income (through selling a house - not your main residence) is a no brainer?
I really wish Labour would grow a solid backbone, but nothing would make me vote National, ACT or NZ First.
Hi Margaret, thanks for reading and commenting. I couldn’t agree with you more, they lost a huge opportunity and I am not quite sure how they come back from that. Nat
Do we not have to continue the pressure? I don't feel National will ever introduce any tax on unearned income so no chance for any redistribution of income.
So you might be voting ACT with me then?
Hi John, Im not sure I’d vote ACT, but National for sure if the tax framework is not expanded in a clear and transparent way. Nat
I hear you - and share your frustration!!!
Soon, I address these questions - not necessarily for the liking of either of us!
Hi Fair Policy Commentary, thansk for comment, and I look forward to you adressing these questions. Nat
Chippy is a good and likeable person. But his habitual aversion to risk is a risk.
As for TPM, including them in a left wing coalition will help give meaningful effect to the Māori version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which is the version with legal standing.
TPM are our bulwark against the codified libertarian takeover of governance in Aotearoa/New Zealand led by the Milton Friedman-style zealots and ideologues of our coalition government, and the resultant death of our democracy. The Regulatory Standards Bill is a major move in that direction.
Libertarianism and democracy are incompatible according to Peter Thiel and others of his persuasion.