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.
46 Comments
NZ a small isolated nation at the south east end of the line dependent on its mercantile prowess hardly offers a vast landscape for the two major parties to differ on policy wise, these day at least. Consequently it comes down to a virtual Punch & Judy show. For instance say one promotes a capital gains tax, then regardless of whether or not it is meritorious, the other is obliged to say never. Still as identified in this column some form of definitive leadership is appearing to be emerging. Chris Bishop is being acknowledged as attentive and communicative with all connected to his portfolios and Erica Stanford, assertive on top of her brief and still rather charming and rising fast too, and deservedly, James Meager. A breath of fresh air perhaps?
I wanted CT to include the comment "Insanity is doing the same thing, over & over, and expecting different results" (Albert Einstein) But he didn't and I'm disappointed, as to me the insanity of the current crop of politicians is self evident.
CT mentions Luxon's advisers as being "conventionally wise" but that is a big part of the problem, conventional wisdom is not necessarily based fact or empirical data.
Neither side of the aisle seem able to ask why what is happening today, is happening, and keep saying "Why" until a pathway to fix the issues becomes evident. Yes they will end up exploring history to a degree, but history should inform the present to provide a basis for future action. Ignoring history ... well we all know what that means.
from a commenter on https://croakingcassandra.com/2025/02/03/going-for-growth-perhaps/#comm…
And you can see that as soon as interest rates rise the entire economy tanks, because that is all there is. The NZ economy is like a heavy drinker who is dying from drinking, but also will die if they go cold turkey. It has reached a stage of impasse at the democratic level – neither of the big parties wants to do anything meaningful because to do so guarantees a recession which the other party will exploit. The only solution would be a grand coalition or agreement between National and Labour where both commit to winding down large scale migration (but it isn’t like that has been highly successful in Germany, leading here also to 15-20 years of lost opportunity to reform).
we need an agreement on capital gains taxation, superannuation and the future of housing in NZ ie LVR DTI etc.
As a nation its better to compromise then suffer from lack of investment as no one knows what the next election cycle will bring.
The first 100 days is never doing anything positive, its always backing out the last policy ...
"neither of the big parties wants to do anything meaningful" I'd say Labour's surreptitious co-governance started off via 3-waters is not only meaningful but hugely significant. Labour's ideology will continue down the path of co-governance but they'll try and disguise it in another form.
Except that co-governance is in breach of article 3 of the treaty.
Understanding the history at the time the treaty was formulated and signed provides insight as to what was meant, understood and agreed to. It is being re-written over and over again by politics today.
The NZ economy is like a heavy drinker who is dying from drinking, but also will die if they go cold turkey.
This isn't necessarily around politics or the economy, but fiat currency in general. A system backed by nothing but promises that relies on ever increasing currency creation to sustain itself and without the resources to pay back the promises in resources.
Chris Trotter published this elsewhere last week, also worth reading
https://democracyproject.nz/2025/02/14/chris-trotter-visitors-with-vote…
Good point made by CT that there's nothing coming from Labour that would convince voters they won't get an Ardern 2.0 government if re-elected. Chippy needs to find a mission with substance instead of just promising to do the opposite of the government. People talk about the current Coalition as toxic but look what Chippy has to deal with in the hard Labour left, TPM and the Greens. Poor guy.
There isn't anyone to replace Luxon. It's frustrating, but as things are he's the best National have got and he will be judged on the economy. There's no point in him trying to act like a strongman when he doesn't have that power. Under MMP the PM has to be someone that can maintain a coalition. People are salivating over Trump's autocratic style and remember Ardern's majority victory that allowed her to lead like a president.
Remember that John Key actually tried to end Winston Peters' career and refused to deal with him, even going as far to choose the Maori Party over NZ First. Luxon has done well to observe the political reality of our time and cut a deal with NZ First and ACT. They will need that same coalition in 2026 if they're to keep power.
I hate our system but you have to play by the rules of the game until those rules change.
Being in NZ for long enough, NZ's problem is that the country never has a long term inspiration and a long term plan and a stable government to achieve anything big.
think short, think small, feel good pretty much sum up NZ government.
the government from any side is only good at fabricating sound byte slogans. Politicians from all parties put their self career advancement above anyone's interests. they have no brains to analyze but to follow trends deliberately push down from the deep states of the US.
What is so far missing in our MMP/coalition dynamics is the minor coalition parties doing legislative initiatives with the major party in opposition.
For example, a joint sponsorship of a Bill from NZF and Labour during this Parliamentary term. The thing for coalition parties is that they historically lose support during their term in the coalition. If they have a good idea for reform, that their coalition partner doesn't agree with and/or prioritize, they need to cross the aisle and find a like-thinking friend on an initiative-by-initiative basis.
The Greens had an opportunity to do this with National during the Ardern government.
If you look hard enough there are always areas of agreement across ideologies.
Yes you then start to question if NZ’s long standing adversarial Westminster style of government is simply too entrenched to adopt the more liberal elements offered by MMP. Seems to be even now NZ has somehow modified MMP, almost as a matter of comfort, to conform to a quasi first past the post electorate. This was well demonstrated in 2020 where astonishingly the electorate, seemingly to stymie the Greens, virtually used the mechanics of MMP to defeat the principles of MMP. Then you might ask, is NZ’s electorate simply too small and immature to properly fulfil MMP, as a political system in the first place.
Oh if that was in fact the case I would suggest the electorate was very intelligent to adapt MMP for such an outcome. National at that point were in utter disarray and in no contention to govern. Winston & NZF were under blame as spoilers. Yet the Greens were not, as you put it, presenting themselves sensibly .So my theory is that a standalone Labour government offered the best compromise hence, and admittedly this has not been quantified, traditional National voters switching to Labour. The swing in the rural seats is due testament. But this point, and in your context appreciate it becomes somewhat contradictory , is primarily suggested to support my view that NZ after over thirty years has not really come to grips with how MMP really is intended to operate. As I said astonishing that MMP could produce an FPP government and it shouldn’t actually need to happen.
Yes, I agree Foxglove - Ardern was returned with a clear majority by those on the right of politics choosing to snooker the Greens out of their best chance at being part of the executive branch. And indeed, were the Greens politically savvy - that's when they should have started talking to National about joint-sponsorship of some Bill or initiative.
Consensus above party politics happens rarely but occasionally
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/536504/stalking-legislation-takes-…
A minority govt would probably produce the best results.
Ironically, national had the best chance of pulling this off this time. With nzf and labour vowing off each other, and act nowhere to go.
Somehow, out of that position, Luxon managed to get shafted by both minor parties.
Or did he?minor parties are ideal for pushing through unpopular policy, and using to blame for lack of progress.
Yes, a missed opportunity to govern as a minority government. And they would have been successful in that, I suspect. It's just Luxon was the wrong leader. Collins never should have accepted the (very) poison chalice after Todd Muller bowed out. Had she refused to take that on at that time, she might be the PM now.
Yes, I also think MMP will work best if we allow minority governments. But, I am ignorant here - I don't think we do? Doesn't the Governor-General have to have assurances the election winner has enough elected power to govern - which has always seemed to imply needs the ability to pass legislation and thus a majority?
Yes, the major party would need a minimum confidence and supply (?)vote from other parties to ensure it is not voted down.
Wether this can be from different parties for different issues, I don't know.
The key would be that it could survive a vote of no confidence, hard to guarantee in advance.
The state labour was in after the election, would it consider?.
I would think the Greens would rule themselves out because of the fast track and conservation, tpm because of the treaties bill.
But of course there would be no treaty bill if act could be ruled out
MMP has turned New Zealand politics into a pantomime of courting the center vote. The two major parties are focused on building coalitions and winning elections rather than putting forward any game-changing manifestos.
The only ideas of significance are coming from parties not named National or Labour, yet these two parties dominate both the party vote and electorate vote, so are destined to be remain the two major parties until something breaks this cycle. The fact that so many of our politicians are elected from a party list means they're highly unlikely to vote against their party on any issue. Sadly even the electorate MPs seem frightened of going against the grain.
For example, surely there are National MPs who support the Treaty Principles Bill. It is political rather than ideological reasons why none of them have come out in support of it.
Speaking of breaking ranks, I did notice Tama Potaka's wry smile when asked about this court action;
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/02/12/iwi-claim-challenges-parliamentary-so…
Naturally as he is part of the Crown in this one, he can't speak out in favour of the complainants but you can see in his face that he hopes they win. Point is, our freshwater resources are losing biodiversity/health at such a rapid rate that anyone other than the Crown would likely do a better job at sensible freshwater management policy.
It wouldn’t be entirely that. It would in fact be worse. Prior to the 2023 election it was obvious that the the Maori bloc in caucus was holding the government to ransom, the middle finger to PM Ardern over the clandestine three waters entrenchment attempt for example, and dominating proceedings. Therefore it is not difficult to imagine the shape and direction of a government with those Labour elements, combined with the majority of the Greens and all of TPM. That combination would be the government full stop, non Maori sayonara.
or in Chris trotters own words Pakeha New Zealanders were to be kept in ignorance of their constitutional fate until it was too late to change it. Total respect for spelling it out.
That the 80 percent of New Zealanders who did not identify as Māori were to be given no say in elevating the Treaty’s status to that of supreme and unchallengeable law was finally made clear in the He Puapua Report. This document, penned by Treaty scholars and activists, and presented secretly to the Sixth Labour Government in 2019, detailed the changes required to ensure that New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements conformed with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The measures required to achieve this goal in time for the bicentennial celebration of the Treaty’s signing in 2040 were deemed to necessitate a full-scale constitutional revolution. This was not to be attempted in one go, however, but piecemeal. Each step along the way was to be accomplished through stand-alone, apparently unconnected, legislative adjustments. Significantly, the plan included no provision for these cumulative, transformational, changes to be presented to the whole citizenry for ratification by referendum. Like the proverbial slow-cooked frog, Pakeha New Zealanders were to be kept in ignorance of their constitutional fate until it was too late to change it.
Well I suggest the faction broke cover prematurely. That was when a ringleader Jackson, in my opinion at his unctuous best, proclaimed to the public at large that you have nothing to be frightened about, except that, from that, I concluded there was in fact, everything to be frightened about.
“In an extraordinary interview on Q+A, Jackson was unable to explain how co-governance was democratic, he claimed “democracy has changed” but couldn’t say how and said co-governance was the same as MMP but couldn’t explain how."
“The fact that Willie Jackson can only say that “democracy has changed” and “there’s nothing to fear” but has no other reasoning for his policy is hugely concerning."
https://www.act.org.nz/willie-jackson-can-t-define-democracy
Willie Jackson slams 'one person, one vote' outrage
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/maori-development-minister-willie-jacks…
Quite honestly, after the episode on his radio show ridiculing the severity of the damage caused by the so called roast busters, in my opinion any such individual is not fitting for parliament. Yes, yes apologised over and over again but the simple and telling point is, what sort of personality would utter such an odious remark, in the first place.
Time to drop MMP, time to re-industrialize, time for the government to have commitment to its own people and buy and support local businesses Time to understand it is OK for the government both local and central to own some businesses. The experiment has not worked as well as it could have.
This "wants vs needs" issue is very interesting. A Government is elected I suggest not to directly implement the immediate wants of mum and dad average voter, but to take that as a key input, though one of many, balancing these in an often complicated decision making process to steer New Zealand on a successful path both economically and socially. In that case, far from avoiding the use of "experts", the trick surely is to carefully select those that are truly expert, such as people who have been there done that rather than those who have just "studied" an area. Even more important is to pursue models proven to be successful elsewhere and indeed here, or at least the characteristics that made them successful, as applicable to NZ circumstances. Consequently those decisions being sold politically and most importantly actioned immediately! I contend that if this simple strategy was what drove Governments, politics and people's votes, there would be no Labour, Greens etc, given their pursuit of failed models aka ideologies.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.