Other parties have had their own particular engagements with ideology. The Greens, owing much, I believe, to Russel Norman, began to realise that wearing a green heart on the sleeve was all well and good but did little to show, in the minds of the voters, that they were prepared to meet the multifarious challenges of government.
That changed when they realised that protecting the environment would be better understood and more easily achieved if it could be seen as just one of the issues created by an unregulated market economy. If the bottom line always took priority, the environment would always come second or third or worse.
The Greens have become a much more effective political force since linking their concern for the environment with a range of other, usually social, issues that are also adversely affected by leaving the "free" market unregulated and able to do its best or, more likely, worst. The Greens have been able to take that insight into policy areas well beyond their traditional concerns.
The Act Party is of course the most overtly ideological of our political parties, traversing terrain where angels, and the National Party, fear to tread. Act's willingness to spell out their free-market convictions is commendable but probably guarantees their consignment to the bit part they currently fulfil.
As to other parties, New Zealand First is probably the least ideological, hence Winston's ability to negotiate a position in government with whomever emerges best-placed. The Maori party could do with emulating the Greens (and perhaps Mana) by learning that furthering Maori interests cannot be confidently entrusted to unregulated market forces.
That leaves Labour, the party with perhaps the most complicated relationship with ideology. Labour has been running scared for years, persuaded by the propaganda of their opponents that they dare not reveal, for fear of a supposed voter backlash (and assuming there is something to reveal), that they do not accept business values should supplant social, ethical and environmental values.
Labour content themselves with only occasionally effective sallies against the most egregious instances of market failure (as in housing) and with promising they will faithfully administer essentially the same system but with, hopefully, more compassion and competence.
Labour has hitherto sought to solve its problems by trying new leaders, one after another, as though the contest is one of personalities. There will be some immediate satisfaction at the favourable reception justifiably accorded to their new leader, and there is every reason to hope she will commend herself to the electorate.
But the real test for Jacinda Arden is not whether she can use her personal qualities to best effect, but what she says in political terms.
Lying low and smiling sweetly will not be enough. She needs to articulate a different view of how society can operate and of how our country can be made stronger and more united.
It is the commitment and credibility with which she delivers that message that will determine the success or otherwise of her leadership, not only in the run-up to the election but also - whatever the result - beyond.
If she loses, will she have done enough to live to fight another day? And if - fingers crossed - she wins, will she carry into government enough fire in her belly to make a real difference over the next three years and beyond?
