Monday 16 October 2023

Labour In 2023: No Place Left To Grow.

Missing The Point: It’s the element of punishment – the mood of ‘anyone but Labour’ – that Labour stubbornly refuses to accept. It certainly wasn’t evident in Chris Hipkins concession speech on the night his government was so resoundingly voted out of office. 

“I HAD BEEN HOPING that this election would resemble 2005 more than 2014. Clearly this was not the case.” So said the pseudonymous “Mickey Savage” on the Labour-leaning website, The Standard, the morning after. A spectacular understatement, obviously, but the observation also confirmed just how out of touch Labour’s membership has become.

The election-night which Saturday evening (14/10/23) most resembled wasn’t the election night of 2014, with its calamitous Party Vote of 25.13 percent, but the election night of 1990 when, after six tumultuous years in office, Labour was punished with exemplary viciousness by an electorate which had, very clearly, had enough. 1990 was also the other occasion when the voters of the “safe” Labour seat of Mt Roskill ejected their local MP (one Phil Goff) in favour the National candidate.

It’s that element of punishment – that mood of ‘anyone but Labour’ – that Labour stubbornly refuses to accept. Certainly, it wasn’t evident in Chris Hipkins concession speech. Although politicians invariably reach for tidal metaphors when confronted with significant defeats, the identification is far from apt. Politics is not a matter of gravitational attraction, it is constructed out of the hopes and fears – and rage – of human-beings. When parties lose, it’s not on account of the position of the moon, it’s because they have done things that cause even their supporters to vote for someone else – or stay at home.

The things that Labour did between 1984 and 1990 – “Rogernomics” and all that – turned New Zealand upside-down. Concepts and theories which had guided the politicians of both parties for decades were jettisoned with a speed and a ruthlessness that made effective opposition extremely difficult. Difficult, but not impossible. The New Zealand in the 1980s was still the sort of society in which dissent and debate, even in regard to what was fast becoming the state’s official ideology, was still permitted. The mainstream news media still saw the virtue of offering citizens both sides of the story.

Herein lies the difference between that earlier wholesale clean-out of Labour, and the 2023 General Election. Between 2017 and 2023, the Sixth Labour Government also turned New Zealand upside-down – but not in the same way as Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble.

When the Fourth Labour Government closed down freezing-works and sold state-owned enterprises, it was front page news. Protests were staged and documentaries were made. The responsible Cabinet Ministers were forced to explain and justify their actions publicly which, to a creditable degree, they did. The introduction of neoliberalism in New Zealand did not end up requiring (as one trade union leader had predicted) tanks in the streets.

That’s not how its been for the past six years. Massive changes in education and health policy were introduced without adequate explanation or justification. Jarring changes in the linguistic structure of official communications were implemented without consultation, leaving many New Zealanders feeling culturally disoriented and politically ignored. Distracted by the Christchurch terrorist attack and the sudden onrush of the Covid-19 Pandemic most of these developments went unnoticed until Labour, freed from NZ First’s moderating influence by the “Thankyou Jacinda!” election of 2020, began stepping up the pace of change.

Missing from this “revolution” (as Dame Claudia Orange described it) was anything approaching the coherent explanatory framework provided by Roger Douglas and his colleagues courtesy of the neoliberal intellectuals in Treasury, the Reserve Bank and the Business Roundtable.

The highly controversial report, He Puapua, for example, proposed wholesale constitutional reform – to a degree which would have left New Zealand politically unrecognisable. Far from being conceived as the starting point for a wide-ranging public debate, the report was prepared in secret and only released by the Sixth Labour Government after it was leaked to the Act Party.

Although disavowed by Jacinda Ardern, sharp-eyed members of the public recognised a remarkable degree of congruence between He Puapua’s recommendations and government policy. They were told, none too politely, that they were seeing things.

Undeterred, those taking a close interest in public policy noticed something else: the deep reluctance of Labour ministers to engage in the sort of head-to-head ideological confrontations that were common during the unrolling of Rogernomics. After 2020, all attempts to debate the future of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori-Pakeha relations tended to be framed as manifestations of racist, white supremacist, prejudice. Tellingly, a long-delayed discussion document on Treaty-based constitutional reform was deemed too inflammatory for public release by Māori Development Minister Willie Jackson. It still hasn’t seen the light of day.

Even more concerning was the mainstream news media’s extreme reluctance to entertain any debate over the many contentious issues – “co-governance” in particular – that were growing out of the Crown’s newfound commitment to “indigenisation” and “decolonisation”. Increasingly, voters came to understand that there were topics which could not be questioned or debated without “consequences”. Around this new ideology they further observed the erection of a complex array of protective barriers. Those who attempted to breach these barriers were accused of spreading “misinformation, disinformation and malinformation” or, even worse, of deploying “hate speech”.

Inflation, the cost-of-living, rising mortgage interests rates: if the pollsters’ efforts were to be believed, then these were the issues driving the voters towards National, Act, and a change of government. Concerns about co-governance did not feature in these lists of voter concerns. Nonetheless, they persisted. In places where no one was likely to cluck their tongues in disapproval, or send an anonymous complaint to the HR department, the state of ethnic relations in New Zealand was the subject of intense unease. It kept Act’s numbers at record levels and fuelled the re-emergence of NZ First. It was the political dissidence that dared not speak its name, but it existed – and it would prove extraordinarily motivational.

When the defectors from Labour punished their old party in 1990, it was an act of bitter revenge. David Lange and Roger Douglas had promised “transformation” and they had delivered it. New Zealand the way Muldoon’s followers had wanted it, no longer existed. The votes of those who lamented its passing were cast against Labour in anger and despair. A final “Take that!” gesture of defiance before the new order became irretrievably bedded-in.

Thirty-three years later, voters threw their support behind National, Act and NZ First with much higher hopes of achieving something positive. While freezing works could not be re-opened or privatised state enterprises repurchased, the indigenisation and de-colonisation of New Zealand society can still be halted at the stroke of a ministerial pen.

It is to be hoped that New Zealand’s new Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, understands this. That among all the other things he has to do, he must not fail to honour the expectation of his conservative voters to defend democratic “New Zealand” from Te Tiriti-Centric “Aotearoa”.

The 2023 election result signals a decisive shift of the non-Māori, non-Pasefika, and non-Woke elements of the electorate to the right. Labour’s massive losses in Auckland put it at serious risk of being reduced to a South Auckland-based Pasefika party. In forthcoming elections, what National, Act and NZ First haven’t already taken is in grave danger of being stripped off Labour’s electoral carcass by the Greens and Te Pāti Māori.

For as long as its manifesto fails to overtly distance itself from the authoritarian radicalism of today’s “progressives”, the party of Mickey Savage, and “Mickey Savage”, seems destined to fade into historical irrelevance.

From where it stands now, Labour has run out of places to grow.

This essay was originally posted on the website on Monday, 16 October 2023.


Anonymous said...

Rogernomics resulted in a "murder" verdict from the electorate
This time round the matter was surely one of Labour electing "end of life choice" when they chose not to use their majority for serious social good .

DS said...

Clearly this Government was a Rorschach Test. I look at this Government, and I do not see 1980s radicalism. I see one that utterly wasted its once in a generation chance to actually make a difference. It was a Do Nothing regime, less consequential than any New Zealand Government since the second term of Joseph Ward. Hipkins himself gleefully blocked any meaningful ideas, leaving him only as a weak little defender of an unacceptable status quo.

1990 might be an apt comparison in terms of Wanting Change, but I would then point out what happened between 1990 and 1993. The current people crowing about Labour's social policies might have a wee reminder of ACT's economics. If 2026 is a similar anti-incumbent mood, the curse will fall on National.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"Jarring changes in the linguistic structure of official communications were implemented without consultation, leaving many New Zealanders feeling culturally disoriented and politically ignored."

Seriously? People couldn't learn a few Maori words? Culturally disoriented – that is a complete exaggeration. I'm old enough to have never learned any Maori at school, and I can cope with the "jarring changes" without too much trouble. What you're talking about here Chris is actual racists to a certain extent.
Encouraged by the usual Laura Norder, and dog whistle racial stereotypes – crime seems to be the go to for right-wing parties all over the world these days.
Let's face it, Labour over promised and under delivered. It had the chance to do something visionary when it was able to govern by itself and did nothing but nibble at the edges of neoliberalism. Not helped by the Covid epidemic of course which caused a bit of a blowout in spending.
Interesting how the right seem to all of a sudden now think that that was wrong, after accepting the money, and sometimes accepting it without any right to it. They seem to forget that the spending kept people in work and businesses afloat. A little ungrateful it seems to me, but then few businesspeople are never going to vote Labour anyway.
I agree though Labour hasn't had a proper vision since Roger Douglas – and that was more of a fever dream. I just hope that this kick in the pants will do something – but the cynic in me tells me that it will be the same old same old – fight for the centre ground rather than getting off their arses and doing some work to get ordinary people to vote.

Someone said something about "this" is what they were hearing on the doorsteps and on the phones. That's bullshit I haven't been canvassed now for about 40 years or more. They haven't phoned me for about the same time. I don't know where they were hearing it, but it wasn't from the people.

Max Ritchie said...

Nailed it. The Party of Savage etc which was a working class mass movement had turned into a woke, racist parody by 2023. National is now closer to that early Labour Party and much of ACT’s policies would be hailed by Peter Fraser and Les Ritchie. The country needs and will get a reset. This new Labour Party needs a rethink or it is doomed.

Jill Ovens said...

Labour didn't do well in South Auckland either. Their candidate and Party votes in what we used to call the 3 "M's" amounted to a total of fewer than 35,000 candidate votes across all three electorates, and even fewer Party votes on the night. Labour lost the votes of many Indian supporters because of the failure to curb violence against shop owners. And they lost the votes of many Pacific voters because of their radical transgenderism. They refused to listen to the concerns of women, including their own Labour women. A policy proposal to prioritise endometriosis treatment for Pacific women was amended to Pacific "people" in the lead-up to last year's Labour Conference. The South Auckland Pacific women, whose proposal it was, were not consulted about the amendment and when they found out, they thought it bloody silly as, in their words, men don't have a uterus! Not to mention what is going on in schools where children are being taught they can change their sex! This does not go down well in South Auckland.

Anonymous said...

Rogernomics was surely murder. Chippynomics was suicide....

Brendan McNeill said...

"It is to be hoped that New Zealand’s new Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, understands this. That among all the other things he has to do, he must not fail to honour the expectation of his conservative voters to defend democratic “New Zealand” from Te Tiriti-Centric “Aotearoa”.

We live in hope but little confidence. I'm not convinced Luxon has the courage to stare down the shouts of 'racist' from everyone including radicalised Maori and the Woke establishment.

Perhaps Seymour may provide the backbone he appears to lack. Winstone certinaly will if given the opportunity.

It would be a betrayal of the hightest order if Luxon simply resumed 'business as usual' when it comes to the Treaty and democratic representation.

Originz said...

Hi Chris, I enjoyed your conversation with Sean Plunket today but unfortunately, as is his wont, he cut you short several times when you were developing and explaining some very interesting ideas. I found some of them in this post. Perhaps the others can find their way into later posts, so that we can benefit from the whole story. All the best.

Anonymous said...

Let's hope so Chris. Unless, amazingly, those remaining urban liberal Labour voters discover the helpful art of self-reflection and reslise that their woke agenda was leading us to some very dark places.

sumsuch said...

Martyn on TDB went on walkabout and disguised it with removing the posts where it was clear. He took a holiday on election night. It's allowed. Commenters aren't the greatest leftists.

Labour must go! Their time is over.

Anonymous said...

With regards to "mainstream news media’s extreme reluctance to entertain any debate over the many contentious issues – “co-governance” in particular – that were growing out of the Crown’s newfound commitment to “indigenisation” and “decolonisation”

This was reluctance borne from the mandated terms and conditions that media were tested against to be accepted for media funding, as designed by Labour, and in particular Kris Fa'afoi.

Anonymous said...


Yes, the media fully ignored co-governance, whist casually referring to NZ as Aotearoa and Auckland as Tamaki Makaurau, thinking we too were down with the kids. The quiet abandonment of one person one vote with the 3 Waters omnishambles, a portent of things to come for all legislation and which is the single most biggest threat to democracy never rated a mention. How?

The Te Reoing of everything similarly was ignored. And as Simon Wilson reminded us just this week, questioning co-governance equates to you being racist! Boom, job done, debate closed, thanks for coming. But that being said, it is my experience in the workplace where the overbearing nature of the Maorification of everything was largely silently detested bar the occasional sly irreverent comments and eyebrow movements. But you couldn't openly mention it.

There certainly was a revolution, just no one bothered to tell the rest of us schmucks. And to be balanced, the media may have had to watch what they said thanks to the insidious manipulation for money by broadcasting minister and chief architect of Labours sepratism, Willie Jackson.

And to me in summary, is why Ardern is loathed. Pretending you're not doing something of such significance when that is precisely what you are doing destroyed what was left of her reputation. She thought us stupid and ignorant but knew damn well that the vast majority of the voting population would never tolerate it

So where to? I cannot help but think arrogant entitled Labour will still think they're right and we are wrong. I suspect their obsession with race will persist and all the ingredients for their epic faliure will remain. There is zero talent there now and worse, their reputation is radioactive. Think Labour, think incompetence. Think divisive. Think inherently dishonest.

larry said...

History will record this last Labour Government as being among ... the worst ever.

As for the real personal worst of ... I nominate Robbo. As a public finance professional I don't believe it is overstating this to state that he singlehandedly has ensured our children of prolonged nation wide penury.

The evidence of a quintupling !! of national debt in just 6 short years was criminally negligent.

A second covid18 enquiry can and should make a point of thoroughly investigating Robbos part in this unmitigated financial scandal/ disaster.

The Nats war cry is entirely apposite ...

there is widespread pain abroad before they can get us " back on track again".

Let's hope the spirit that the All Black's have most recently displayed can be found within New Zealand society.

The challenge is such that we will need and must cut out the negative personalized political back biting and do what we are able for all of our good.

Phew!! ... there I've said it all ... OK?

new view said...

Labour literally couldn't understand it's own electorate. Not ever having made a decision without the opinion of a (imo useless) consultant or it's own team of Wellington boof heads, very quickly became separated from the majority of the people in their country. They were hijacked by a green party whose philosophy was to change our environmental standards for the better, but regardless of any negative affects to this country, and without taking into consideration how these policies matched and affected what was happening overseas. They were hijacked by Willie and his cohorts who convinced them how great co governance would be especially if they didn't tell anybody what they were doing. Then there was Auckland, a labour stronghold for six years. Not only did they lock down our biggest city twice (the first being a very good decision in my mind but not the second) but they then happily ignored the explosion of crime and followed up by taxing The fuel in Auckland more than anywhere else in the country. They are then bewildered by the hiding they have been given there. Their answer to the cost of living crisis was to save the population five bucks a week on fruit and vege. This is not an ideological issue in my mind it's just stupid blind incompetence on a scale not seen forever. If they had left co governance until after the election, if they could of kept their cabinet together, if they had used their mandate wisely, if they had accomplished anything of note, they would still be the government. You can't grow anything with shit seed. This labour government is shit seed.

LittleKeith said...

You are spot on.

I'd argue 1990 was more about Labour publicly tearing itself to pieces over its internal conflict with neo liberalism that turned voters off because Mike Moore almost staged a comeback in 1993.
And I look back to then and think, there wasn't a hint of playing one race over the other, rather it was economic ideology. And with that I look at Labours demise on Saturday night with far more regret. What the hell became of the party I once knew?

This time around, no internal descent, they were mostly all on board with this race driven ideology that you quite rightly point out was ignored by the media.

My question is, can Labour ever really convince voters again, it's worthy of consideration. With its current members and attitude, I doubt that severely!

John Hurley said...

For the last few decades there has been an edginess pushing NZr's to re-examine who we are.
I started driving tour busses in the 1980's and I cut my teeth on Kenneth Cumberland's Landmarks. I also read quite a few other history books (and) including Bullshit, Backlash and Bleeding Hearts. When I went to Akaroa I would explain about it being (almost) a French settlement but "Captain Langlois got to the Bay of Islands just after the British had signed a treaty with the Maori giving them sovereignty over NZ". I knew that wasn't the full story. Tina Ngata rolls that around her mouth on Instagram as though she has a great point, but it is just a technicality; the settlers took over, we just don't want to admit it because we are an exemplary all things to all people nation.
People point out (rightly) that history could have happened in many other ways. One way it wouldn't have happened is (as Moana the Maori suggests): another Japan. Japan was much more advanced with a large population when Admiral Perry arrived.
The MSM/RNZ?NZ Off Air hasn't let up (Long White Cloud; Aotearoa History Show; Weasel's Guide) but under Ardern the hegemonic relationship that hides the politicians from the Public Disserve became harder to hide:
"Why wouldn't anyone want to learn history", Ardern asks herself; "these are very violent histories" replies Kidman.
"Changing the name of our nation is "just happening naturally" says Ardern; "we are trying to normalise te reo" says Tame.
Then there is He Whenua Taurikura DPMC and thir nutters.
They don't even provide bus stops for tour busses in Christchurch anymore "we discovered they were coming in and all the money was going back offshore" (Air NZ executive).
Am waiting to hear who has a title for Keith Sinclair's updated History of NZ. Red Feds and Cow Cockies" is now Progressives and Property Developers?

Anonymous said...

Labor had no real expectation of winning the 2017 election , with a last minute change in leaderhip & a bit of jiggery pokery with MMP they became a govt with aspirations but no plan because they did not expect to win.
We saw 3 years of non performance due to a lack of decisive leadership & planning . Covid saved them from likely defeat in 2020. The subsequent 3 years were a period of continued poor performance coupled with an arrogance leading to an inability to gauge the electorate.

Labour failed to take heed of all those naff buzz words & acronyms like PLOC [ plan lead organise control ] , piss poor planning equals piss poor results ,

They got what they deserved.

Paul Greenslade

Gary Peters said...

Eloquently put, thank you.

Labour allowed themselves to be captured by maori elite and snooty academics which allowed NZ First and National to fill the void they left just as National have allowed ACT to capture the more "right" thinking members.

IF we end up with a three headed Hydra monster of a government that stalls and fails to fire then labour as a party may re-emerge, the media will certainly carry the torch for them for a while yet, but if the government is more of a Triumvirate that manages to sanely address the many issues this incompetent government has left behind then politics as we know will change forever in New Zealand and labour will become as forgetten as jacinda ardern will be.

The Barron said...

It is not so much they have no place to go, but they failed to remember where they have been.
After a 2020 election that stunningly delivered a majority Parliament, the 2023 campaign did nothing to remind the electorate as to why they voted in the previous. The numbers of medically compromised or elderly that are here today because of the Government's handling of Delta are numerous, yet not engaged with in the election. The small businesses that were kept a float during the pandemic and lock downs were never reminded that in other jurisdictions the tourist industry (amongst others) is rebuilding with the previous owners bankrupt and new money now owning. NZ maintained the ability for most of those small to medium size companies to withstand what was a difficult time for them.

The Maori vote would seem misrepresented. I have yet to see the breakdown, but I presume the Maori electorates still majority party voted Labour and Maori in general electorates did so. What we saw was sophisticated tactical voting. The concern should be the turn out in the Maori electorates, and presumably Maori in general electorate.

What has yet to be fully analyzed is the new migrant vote. It is clear from the votes in Mt Roskill, Mt Albert and Maungakiekie that the "Asian" vote has abandoned Labour. Having migrated to NZ with the view of social justice, the immigration rules that favour entrepreneurs. The dairy worker and ram raid stories worked to shift this generation of new migrant from social justice to defensive small business owners. Hipkins did not help this. It is a tradition set of communities that like to be adjacent to power. While Michael Wood scored the first own goal, the treatment of him and placement on the list sent a message out to his electorate that his influence had waned. This was a Chippy own goal, similarly, the vey capable Helen White was under utilized by the Government. Then put her to the multi-cultural community seemingly without influence. Other mis-steps, especially in the Auckland electorates, have been made.

Interesting, the provincial vote has been destroyed. While we still await Nelson, at the moment Tangi Utikere in Palmerston North stands as the exception. In the urban electorates, Greg O'Connor is the stand out. It is extremely unlikely that in the wash, Labour will look to these local campaigns as positive lessons. McAnulty (on the list) will still be seen as the personification of the provincial, not Utikere. O'Connor will be dismissed as an outlier.

Many in the left have seen this before. Those that failed do the review and do not acknowledge those succeeding against the tide.

Finally, if this was a vote for change, how do you explain Maureen Pugh? [trick question. Non-one can ever explain Maureen Pugh]. This was an election that slowed change, and for many was to hold back inevitable social trends. I have never adopted the word 'woke' as it is lazy and unintellectual. I will challenge many, do they think that in 6 years time the co-governance and treaty debate will not have moved on towards what is currently proposed? Do they think the issue of Trans rights would not be naturalized in society by then? It is never good to be ahead of the public view, but neither is it right to be obstructing the inevitable. Unfortunately, Hipkins treated the electorate as it they were the same social group in his Wellington belt way. His uncanny resemblance to Alfred E. Neuman seems to have steeped into a 'what me worry' campaign.

Jeremy Adrian said...

Two articles I have read, the other on the democracy project, where you compare this election to 1990. Spot on in contrast to Douglas, Lange and Prebble who did tour union halls and faced rotten eggs and anger with words and bloody-mindedness. Clark likewise stuck to her guns, basically, no one believed that a government would survive gifting a national inheritance to a racial minority, indigenous or not. The diagnosis of secrecy is also spot on, such as the now operation of IRD. You cannot file your own tax return without a paid accountant, and to talk to them, you will never get a call or a person for a dialogue. They work on their own schedule and with active contempt for customers and then hide in undisclosed locations and wonder why people are angry that they are keeping their money.

Anyhow: Where you went wrong is that (I don't know Winstons' secret) any effective opposition needs more than one MP leaving. The Liberal and refom movements were like this, a national city/farm divide. Anderton/Dunne/King and any other sole MP will be the sole crazy and marginalized voice. Muldoon, although inside National was the sole voice for slowing down deregulation. Turiana and sharples and the greens held a movement behind them. Anderton only had one office. What Labour needs is a woke/managerial split, but you will soon see the woke crowd being the only ones left. THe Maori Caucus has already left and found a home in the maori seats. And it will only get worse as the Anne Milne types infect classrooms and common sense tells us that NZ is an apartied state.

Given this diagnosis, like 1990 Voters abandoned Labour because they hated woke and co governance and secrecy, then why did the Greens hold up? It has to be the same where Kiwis hated deregulation so they voted for Richardson to deregulate Labor and go further in Fiscal responsibility. This time though it was Luxom who also failed to make a positive case, simply running on "I'm not Chris, well actually I am but not that one, actually we look the same but I have less hair", is that good enough?

IT Guy said...

It appears people on either side of the Tasmon have found Their Voice, and it did not match the agendas of the authoritarian progressives. Labour cannot survive tis, the Maori vote will move to TPM, and the socialist vote to the greens. labour needs to focus on the working man and woman, Those on the benefit can provide only so many votes, those not on the benefit only so many $$ in tax. It will take National/Act/NZF to screw up to reopen the door, it will be minimum 9 years, maybe 12.

Frogster said...

Well put, the question is still for me, What is the Point of Labour? A slightly Fiscally paler shade of National Blue with some Woke/PC trimmings on the side?
I would have liked to vote for them but I cannot recognise Labour anymore, Personality Crisis as the New York Dolls sang, You gotta work it out.

John Hurley said...

Shane Jones was interesting on The Platform: had some background on Geofrey Palmer. GP said the treaty principles were "window dressing".
Then again, do events happen by incremental tweaks or bigger (more basic) theories? I tend to think the latter. People pursue visions (ghosts).
Paul Spoonley has had 60...70? media interviews but no one has connected the dots.
I'm reminded of RNZ program post the mosque shooting where Giles Beckford descended into "the sewer". It was called Hidden in Plain Sight.
I can confirm "sewer" having interacted with (I imagine) Action Zealandia types on Twitter. I didn't detect good faith argument, but censorship isn't an option. If you censor you aren't trusting the people to judge for themselves. Hawkes and Doves are (probably) normally distributed; that's the basis of Burkean conservatism.

David George said...

Chris: "extreme reluctance to entertain any debate over the many contentious issues – “co-governance” in particular"

You really have to put it down to arrogance. They knew the vast majority of New Zealanders would find the idea of ethnicity based privilege and power abhorrent (to say nothing of the dubious delights of "decolonisation) but decided to do it anyway.

Labour probably want to put it all behind them but, paraphrasing Nietzsche: You like to think you've finished with your past but is your past finished with you?

Anonymous said...

In keeping with your essay, Derek Cheng's article Herald article today, "Anatomy of Labours collapse...", there is not a syllable dedicated to Co-governance or it's role in Labours collapse. Nor will the Herald tolerate that been pointed out! Its a very very taboo subject!

John Hurley said...

@ Anonnymous
immigration was also off the agenda. To National and Labour it is KFC and they are NEVER honest about it.
It is the classic gaslighting situation. We have magnificent motorways around Christchurch, were they built for New Zealanders? No, they were built for migrants. A minority reap the benefits; the majority foot the bill.
What happens if the migration "boom" stops and we have to rely on conventional exports, given that the skills-based migration scheme is (covertly) a household wealth transfer scheme?

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"The numbers of medically compromised or elderly that are here today because of the Government's handling of Delta are numerous, yet not engaged with in the election. The small businesses that were kept a float during the pandemic and lock downs were never reminded that in other jurisdictions the tourist industry (amongst others) is rebuilding with the previous owners bankrupt and new money now owning. NZ maintained the ability for most of those small to medium size companies to withstand what was a difficult time for them."

Ah Baron, my sweet summer child. Apparently you missed the fact that if we had reacted as Sweden did we'd all be a lot better off now – apart from 20,000 dead. Not to mention that all that spending, which people did seem to approve of when they were getting the money, is now somehow something which ruined the country. There's no hypocrisy like conservative hypocrisy. Unfortunately there's plenty of racism like New Zealand racism.

Loz said...

Chris, your analysis has repeatedly been 'head and shoulders' above anything else written during this election period. Likewise for your superb interviews on the Platform!!!

The Barron said...

Yep, I had plenty of people tell me Labour should avoid the pandemic in the campaign. Apparently, if they did so, I was told, they would lose in a landslide. I am sure that when the election is reviewed the same people will maintain the line.

Anonymous said...


Tanz said...

So happy. So relieved. I hope Labour never get back. to force the unmandated and un wanted co-governance down New Zealander's throats in such a backhanded and secretive way, or at all, was a massive betrayal of the highest order. They have also damaged the Labour Party to such a high degree that they may be in Opposition for two decades or more. As long as they refuse to reflect and renew, and say, hey, how could we have got it so wrong, and as long as they continue to abandon the working class New Zealanders, and as long as they push the hard woke agenda onto us, and refuse to give these things up, including the rotten-at-the-core co-governance, then they will never be a force again that can take and have power. Good ******riddance, the revenge of the little people is sweet!!!! Great article, and yes indeed, this Labour govt go down in history as the very worst of our history. MMP, thanks a lot!


Tanz said...

What a relief. The head of the snake cut off, and New Zealand has been saved. Kiwis saw through the treasonous, dangerous co-governance bs, and the voters have had the best, hardest laugh. Thank goodness for elections, while our democracy was still in tact, if only, only just. The worst govt by a country mile, pitting Kiwis against Kiwis. How utterly despicable. Labour have damaged their brand, and hugely. I don't see them coming back from this level of entitlement. Talk about blind to the damage they did. You govern from the centre, not from the extreme hard left. Did they not care about re-election. Most of all they abandoned decency and common sense, let alone the little people, they abandoned what New Zealand stands for, and they utterly abandoned the people who have long supported them. To fiddle with our democracy, to force-feed unmandated and massive changes onto the country, to let the crime wave go unchecked, to laugh in the face of the victims of ram raiders, stabbings, business attacks etc. To pretend it wasn't happening, to turn their backs on fairness...and on and on and on. Good riddance, and so richly deserved. I don't get why they committed hari-kari on themselves with all the nonsense they were pushing hard out. Driven and blinded by insane ideology!


Anonymous said...

How is wanting the workers and the poor to have their fair share 'pitting Kiwis against Kiwis'. People who complained about this country being divided are just resentful that employers have to pay their workers a bit more, farmers have to stop poisoning our rivers, and landlord have to treat their tenants a bit better. Workers got their biggest payrises under Labour in 30 years. I honestly dont see this as a bad thing. DO you?


Tanz said...

They divided all Millsy. Divide and conquer. Luckily the electorate said enough. "Two classes of people, yip yip.' Wasn't just racial division. Are farmers poisoning our rivers ? Without farmers, no food production etc. They divided young and old workers, woksters Tories. And more. Oh the relief they are gone

Anonymous said...

You think National doesn't divide. They set the rich against the poor and employers against workers. Do you think a 3 year minimum wage freeze is not division? And yes, farmers are poisoning our rivers, and paying their workers bugger all. All people wanted was cleaner rivers and a fair share of the economy. But people like you want to block it. I bet you are champing at the bit to turf your tenants out on the street and sack all your workers.