Party season is almost upon us, but Labour’s upcoming annual conference is unlikely to be a celebratory affair.
Voter dissatisfaction is up, along with the price of just about everything. Farmers are royally ticked off. MP Gaurav Sharma has quit, forcing a target="_blank">potentially embarrassing byelection in Hamilton.
It’s a juicy environment for the Opposition, and National’s making hay. But it has its own issues to deal with - how to pitch tax cuts without invoking the political disaster unfolding in the UK, for example, and how to lift its new-ish leader’s personal popularity ratings.
Meanwhile, Winston Peters is back and he's keen to point out all these pitfalls.
Nobody knows more about what's happening in the Beehive than the Herald's political editor Claire Trevett, which is why we asked her to swing by for a Q&A with Premium subscribers this morning. She kindly agreed, and our subscribers kept her busy. Here's a wrap of the discussion:
Graeme B: Do you think Labour will quietly park Three Waters in order to stem the loss of votes?
Claire T: Given all the scrutiny of it, I'm not sure they'd get away with "quietly" parking it! But it is a problem for them – and the combined efforts of the new mayors, if they can get council support, may turn out to be something of a handbrake for them. National's leader Christopher Luxon has said Wayne Brown was quite right to tell the council not to spend money on preparing for the reforms in case it was all wasted – but to wait until after the election.
I think Labour's hope is that it will have faded from people's memories by the time of the election. I think they do need to look at more compromise on it to address the concerns about councils (and therefore ratepayers) losing too much say in the matter. The select committee report is due back in a few weeks and we'll see if they make any changes based on that.
Ansie M: Do you think Ms Ardern will really depart for the UN or elsewhere after the next election, as many speculate? If so, what evidence is there to support that notion?
Claire T: There's no evidence for it, no. The Prime Minister has made it clear that if she loses an election, she will go. She's also said she'll be sticking around for the 2023 election. That could change if her personal popularity absolutely plummeted but as things stand she remains Labour's best chance in 2023 and is still more popular and trusted than any other leader. I'd be very surprised if she cut and run while that is the case. She and Grant Robertson will be critical.
Ian U: Is the Māori caucus going to cost Labour the election with extreme and unpopular policies?
Claire T: I'm not sure the Māori caucus specifically would be to blame, although Willie Jackson's tendency to personalise the issue by casting aspersions on Māori MPs from other parties does not help.
Assuming the issue you're referring to is co-governance in a range of areas, I think that has resulted in a head of steam they might not have expected – and they haven't managed to sell the case for it as well as they should have. Some of the manner in which concern about it has been voiced is purely racist, but that doesn't mean the Government should simply brush it all off as racist rather than try to explain.
Aaron N: Hi Claire, given Labour’s declining popularity, what are your thoughts on them calling an early election and relying on the Greens and Māori Party to help them back in?
Claire T: Well, Winston Peters has predicted the same. I think it would be very unlikely, myself. The phrase ‘turkeys voting for an early Christmas’ comes to mind. They will want to use all the time they’ve got left to try and haul their polling back up - and for inflation to ease and the economic outlook to start cheering up a bit. Their main tools to win people over will be the next Budget and new policy for 2023. So they wouldn’t go before the next Budget, and then we’re heading into winter. Labour would not be inclined to go for a winter election, given people tend to be in less optimistic moods in winter (especially the one just gone). They might also have a quiet hope that it will also equate to more time for the leader of the Opposition to get himself into strife somehow – although that’s less a factor, since it’s not something they can control and the opposite might just happen.
Warren P: Hello Claire, thanks for your time. We have heard whispers that Labour may reduce/wipe student loan debt and also make it easier for overseas students with debts to return to NZ. Do you think any of this will happen and what shape or form may that take?
Claire T: I haven't heard anything about that, sorry. Then again, I haven't asked. We will make inquiries - I wouldn't hold your breath about student loan debt being wiped altogether though.
Sara M: Is there any truth in what MP [Gaurav] Sharma says? Has Labour put its own ideology and priorities first over the last 5 years? And is it reaping unforeseen consequences now?
Claire T: Sharma has said a lot of things and I'm not sure which ones you're asking about - but MPs from all parties are expected to toe the party line, yes. Some manage it better than others.
In answer to your follow-up question as well - Labour has something of a mandate to put their own ideology and priorities first from having won a majority of votes in 2020! The public also have a mandate to decide if they like it or not and decide whether to grant them a new mandate in 2023.
That's the simple answer anyway – I've said before that Labour would need to be careful about treating 2020 as a mandate for everything they wanted to do, given 2020 was so obviously a vote on their handling of Covid-19 above anything else.
Garry B: Morning Claire. Given what is happening right now in Britain and little comment from Luxon do you think National will change tack with their tax policy which gives big gains to top earners and very little to most?
Claire T: Good morning - Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis are indeed fairly obviously nervous that people will liken their tax cuts to the absolute debacle in the UK!
They've been frantically trying to rebut Grant Robertson's calls that their tax cuts are reckless and will do the same as in the UK – saying they will be paid for by pegging back government spending rather than debt. It's the return of the good old ideological showdowns of the past really.
Luxon has said they are still committed to dropping the top tax rate – it's one of the taxes in their list of "Labour taxes" that they say they'll repeal. The hanging question is when – he said yesterday it would be in their first term, but they'd have to wait to see what the books look like closer to the election before deciding when.
Having said that, they are more focused on the policy to index tax brackets to inflation than on that change – partly because it's that bit that would offer more to middle NZ, not the rich people.
Geoff W: Hello there. Do you think Labour will furtively back Winston by giving him exposure in the hope he will erode the National and Act's vote?
Claire T: No ha ha.
Mark Y: With a drop in support from 50% in 2020 to 29.5% recently and sliding, do you see Jacinda stepping down to save her brand considering Andrew Little did when Labour was on 24.1%?
Claire T: Nope - they were in Opposition then and there was an obvious person for Little to hand over to - Jacinda Ardern was outpolling him. Jacinda Ardern doesn't have another Jacinda sitting there to take over. Nobody has asked if she would do a John Key and stand down before she got too unpopular - he was higher than Ardern is in the polls when he did that, and Bill English was nowhere near him at the time. I don't think she'll do that either though - while she remains Labour's best chance, I reckon she'll stay.
John H: Clearly if Labour candidates wish to win next year the very last thing they need is Ardern on the campaign trail extolling their virtues. Don't believe me? Just look at the wipeout of Labour mayoral candidates in both Auckland and Wellington. The kiss of death.
Claire T: Well it wasn't a great look to endorse two candidates who were considered to have a chance of winning and they both get trounced. It also shows the dangers of local body candidates actually wanting the endorsement of a Prime Minister: do ratepayers really want their local body politicians to be beholden to central government?
Sara M: Why is the Government so quick to call out some protests as full of 'disinformation', while, on the other hand, it supports youth protests on climate change and even seems to encourage students protesting in school time? It also seems to approve protests on progressive agendas. Is this selective hearing?
Claire T: It calls out disinformation rather than protests - there's a long history of protests at Parliament on all manner of issues. Including today when Groundswell are revving their tractor engines again. As a general rule, protests which seem to have a wide range of different causes attached to them seem to be more readily dismissed by governments than those with a single message.
Mark W: Regardless of what people say, the last election was far from unbiased. We had people just coming out of being locked up at home, during the elections the scaremongering from the Covid ads amplified up significantly. Fear is a huge motivator and this government exploited this significantly ... So Claire, what's your take on whether they should get another chance when trust is increasingly becoming an issue for many voters?
Claire T: I'm not sure they misled people, but I do agree that 2020 was an election in which Covid-19 was the main factor - and I've argued before that Labour had to be careful not to see it as a mandate for all of its wider reform platform.
When it came to the Covid-19 handling, I think the Government did recognise that the public mindset had changed once Covid started circulating and hence we've seen the dismantling of pretty much all the Covid restrictions. It's up to voters whether they should get another chance. But as a matter of general principle, I think trust is the single most critical factor in voting.
Storm R: Claire, can you advise why you considered the Govt emissions announcement was trouble for National? Also why did you not highlight the changes made by the Govt to the recommendations made?
Claire T: The 'trouble for National' element was in the very early stages after the announcement - because they had to decide whether to simply side with the farmers who didn't like it or try to maintain consensus on climate change policy. Luxon ended up siding more with the farmers (or at least He Waka Eke Noa). One main difference is Govt ministers setting the levies rather than farmers. I think the Govt considers that farmers setting their own levies is akin to taxpayers setting their own taxes.
I'm not sure what you mean in your second part - the Govt response was always going to be a bit of compromise and our reporters covered the differences.
Stephen H: Who will replace Ardern and Robertson, given that you have reported that neither will stick around if they lose?
Claire T: A question for which the answers are constantly evolving! In the event they do lose, it would partly depend how bad the result was for them - whether they needed a stabiliser or a vote winner. But it is sometimes tipped that it could be someone like Chris Hipkins as a stabiliser - Megan Woods would also be a steady hand as deputy. Michael Wood has been tipped by some, maybe Kiri Allan. One of the considerations would be who the members would back - so an obvious contender is trickier to pick than in National where the caucus alone picks the leader.
They'd be hoping to avoid the cycles of yore in which political parties going into opposition end up churning through half their caucus as leaders. Still, better it happens in opposition than in Government, as in the UK and sometimes Australia!
Stephen H: What does Willie Jackson really want to get from combining RNZ and TVNZ?
Claire T: The merger was started by Clare Curran, then carried on by Kris Faafoi and now Willie Jackson has it so I'm not sure it's his creation! In theory they want something like the BBC - the challenging bit is doing it in a way that it is editorially completely devoid of interference or influence from the government.
Alfred T: Despite the relative closeness of the polls, some commentators have already written the Government's chances off, predicting it is in for a thrashing at next year's election. What are your thoughts on this? Is it all over bar the shouting? And what influence under MMP could minor parties like TOP and NZ First still have?
Claire T: This is an entire column! It's not all over bar the shouting - I think it will be very close indeed and the Government won't be afraid to hurl in some election year backdowns and surprises to ensure it stays that way. National will still have to work hard to prove it is the better option - especially if Labour puts tax cuts up. TOP and NZ First will be interesting to watch - NZ First and Act have become almost mirror-images of each other in a lot of areas, so they're scrambling in the same voter pool and at the moment Act has the upper hand.
Stephen H: Which MPs (who have not already announced it) are likely to stand down before the planned election time?
Claire T: Whoever they are, I hope they tell me. National and Labour won't want any electorate MPs to leave until at least the six months before an election so they don't have to have any more byelections. I suspect some of the ministers are weighing up whether they've had enough. I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of Little and Nash are looking at options, even if going on the list to make it easier to leave if they lose. The PM's reshuffle at the end of the year might make decisions for some others.
Sarah B: Is it possible that media have failed to really examine policies and are failing in their duty to provide correct information for informed democracy? it seems that the government is blamed for everything while the opposition crank up rhetoric with no answers. Maybe the media should go back and look at National and Act and really examine their policies and history. Much of the problems in New Zealand are historical and caused by underfunding for decades. Please comment.
Claire T: Election year is the year in which most policies are released - it's always been the case that governments get "blamed" (I'd say scrutinised) for things, because they are the ones with the power to actually do things. The opposition can only harrup on the sidelines - they can't do much other than put up their own views/ policies. It was exactly the same when National was in government and Labour in opposition.
Yes, it is annoying when opposition parties criticise the government but won't say what they would do instead - usually because they're either still developing policy or holding onto it for an election year. That's the way it works, however.
Chris K: Do you think that NZ First can realistically make a comeback in '23?
Claire T: I don't want to be wrong so I won't give a yes or no hahaha but I do note that Act and NZ First seem to be pitching to the same constituency on a raft of issues and at the moment Act has the upper hand in the polls. It's been interesting watching Winston Peters trying to re-invent himself and ingratiate himself back with the old National-leaning voters, trying to make up for his past trespasses against them by siding with Labour in 2017. That decision was always going to cost him and he needs those voters to have any chance of success. So he's been frantically slagging off Labour and accusing it of excesses without his moderating hand - without quite ruling out going with them again. He's gone to the conservative end of NZ First's platform but I'm not convinced the voters will trust him when he says he could go with either National or Labour again. He'll sniff the wind and if he thinks it's a shoo-in for National, I imagine he'll go even harder against Labour.
Anna S: What on earth were the government thinking by being the only ones to implement a tax on farming when it is not required under the Paris accord? Will they continue on with it?
Claire T: Because the PM made climate change a big part of her platform, and NZ needs ag emissions to drop to meet the targets it has set would be the answer. That comes at a cost - politically and to farmers. I think farmers accepted something was going to happen, some may have prepared for it better than others, but unlike the PM they don't think it's a badge of honour to a "world-first" here. It would be a lot easier for the Govt to do if it was not the world first. The PM has been keen to try to get consensus or at least buy-in - I'm told she has met with farming sector groups more than any other - but it was always going to be hard. I'd imagine what comes out at the end will be a bit softer than what the initial proposal is because of that.
Anthony B: Who are likely to be the National and Labour candidates for Hamilton West?
Claire T: We're sniffing that out now, but it's still pretty early on. I'd expect Tim Macindoe (the former MP for Ham W) to put his hand up for National but he won't be the only one, since National has a good chance of winning the seat back now. National's hierarchy might be keen to use it to boost its caucus diversity a bit - it copped a lot of flak when the four short-listed candidates for Tauranga were all Pākehā men. But the local members pick the candidate, and they may still be loyal to Macindoe. Byelections also require people to drop their lives at short notice, so that will rule some people out for now.
David G: Will Ardern go down in history as a populist with a great message, but ultimately could not deliver - great international brand, but domestically very divisive? The South Pacific Obama?
Claire T: History will probably be kinder to her than that!
OPINION: New Zealander reflects on delivering speech at St James' Palace.