Chris Trotter asks: What happens to a nation’s politics when compromise becomes a dirty word?

By Chris Trotter*

Christopher Luxon and Chris Hipkins are both beset by what might best be called “ideology problems”. Most obviously these take the form of policy disagreements between the two major parties and their actual, or putative, coalition partners. More important, however, are the internal divisions between members of the same caucus who cling to ideological positions from which disengagement – even for the sake of retaining or acquiring power – is deemed impossible. While these “ideology problems” can be finessed and/or suppressed temporarily by forceful leadership, favourable poll-ratings, and economic success, their permanent resolution is a much more challenging long-term mission.

National’s “ideology problems” arise directly from the party’s history. Founded in 1936, the New Zealand National Party was a merger of the Reform Party and the United Party, which, together, had governed New Zealand across the darkest years of the Great Depression (1931-34) until their coalition was unseated by Michael Joseph Savage’s Labour Party in the General Election of 1935.

Expressed in the simplest terms, Reform had been the party of, by, and for farmers; while United stood for those engaged in commercial enterprises, large and small. Reform had a reputation for defending the interests of its support-base directly and brutally. While United, which had evolved out of the remnants of the “progressive” Liberal Party, was considerably more squeamish than its farmer allies when it came to cracking heads.

In the nearly 90 years of National’s existence, these two traditions: the savage deployment of state power in defence of private interests; and the use of state power to mediate and, where possible, secure enduring compromises between structurally antagonistic economic and social groups; have vied with each other for political ascendancy within the party.

The ideological struggle within National has never been about what should be defended – it’s the private enterprise system, stupid – but how. Cracking heads may deliver short-term relief to those confronted by serious and immediate threats to their interests; but the long-term ascendancy of farmers and businessmen is best guaranteed by bringing heads together. Historically, National has governed most effectively by facilitating compromise and consensus, than by fuelling confrontation and division.

National’s traditional divergences are personified in 2025 by cabinet ministers Erica Stanford and Mark Mitchell. Both are highly effective politicians, but they speak in very different ways to very different audiences.

Stanford, as Minister of Education, is responsible for the delivery of services which, by virtue of being consumed, directly or indirectly, by most of the population, are powerfully constitutive of social cohesion. Upon being appointed Minister, Standford moved quickly to allay public misgivings about the direction and effectiveness of the educational strategies favoured by her Labour predecessors. This responsiveness has contributed hugely to the new consensus that is forming around what, and how, New Zealand children should be taught.

Mark Mitchell, the former Police dog-handler and military contractor, appeals to a different audience. As Minister of Police he has made himself the champion of the victims of criminal offending – especially those small retailers whose staff and businesses have been attacked by thieves. The Minister’s campaign against the gangs is similarly directed at voters who have, over several years, grown doubtful of the state’s commitment to enforcing the law and maintaining public order.

Mitchell’s hardline policies, reiterated by regular displays of hard-nosed law enforcement, are intended to discipline and punish those criminal elements perceived by the public as having placed themselves beyond the toleration and protection of decent, law-abiding New Zealanders. When it comes to Mitchell’s operational philosophy, ruthlessness is a feature, not a bug. His National Party has no interest in welcoming rehabilitated gang members back into the social fold; it’s mission is to keep such self-identified “enemies-of-the-people” outside it – in prison.

The common denominator here is responsiveness. Be it educational decline or lawlessness, the political priority of every successful political leader is always to reassure the voters that they get it – and are doing something about it. A more experienced and adroit politician than Luxon would have spared no effort in demonstrating that he had heard, and was responding to, the public concerns that had secured the election of his government.

But, this is not Luxon’s style. The Prime Minister’s preference is to examine and diagnose the nation’s problems in-house, relying almost entirely upon the advice of the conventionally wise. Not only does this top-down approach strongly suggest a general lack of confidence in the opinions of “bottom-feeders”, but it also demonstrates an almost complete lack of awareness of how dramatically the entire political “vibe” has shifted.

What matters most to voters in 2025 is evidence that they are being listened to, and that their government is doing everything in its power to give them what they want. A government reliant upon expert advice is not what the majority wants. They are convinced that reliance on expert advice is what got their country off-track in the first place.

The ideal political leader in 2025 consults the experts and then rephrases their advice to make it sound as though it came straight from the people themselves. Coalition Agreements, by definition, do not come from the people. At best, they are party-political codifications of the initiatives deemed necessary by their signatories to secure the formation of a durable government. The ideal political leader in 2025 distils the essence of any coalition agreement he or she is required to sign, and governs accordingly. If they distil the “vibe” correctly, then their coalition partners will be in no position to cause them trouble.

Chris Hipkins gets this. His whole conduct as Leader of the Opposition confirms that he understands that, in 2025, giving the people what they want shall be the only law. Chippy’s problem, of course, is that what a very large number of the people who want to vote Labour want is not what the people who write Labour’s policies are willing to give them.

Hipkins greatest challenge lies in persuading his colleagues to offload the ideological baggage that caused so many Labour voters to turn away from his party in 2023. It will not be easy. The inability of the Democratic Party in the USA to even perceive the reasons for its loss to Donald Trump – let alone address them – confirms the seriousness of the disconnect between “left-wing” parties and their voting bases.

While Labour’s policy-makers refuse point-blank to compromise their principles in the name of courting the votes of racists, misogynists, Islamophobes and terfs, the voters they condemn for embracing these evils will continue to take their support elsewhere.

Even if Hipkins prevailed upon his “woke” comrades to maintain radio silence during flare-ups in the culture wars (something he has been unwilling to do himself in relation to the Treaty Principles Bill!) Labour’s opponents would simply pose the question: “What is to prevent Labour’s caucus from picking up where they left off in 2023 the moment Hipkins cobbles together the numbers to govern? How likely is it that these Labour leopards are ever going to change their spots?”

The complication of New Zealand politics by National’s and Labour’s ideology problems continues.

 *Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.