Hipkins refreshes Labour's red paint
State of the Nation speech reaches into core labour-movement values
Labour leader Chris Hipkins’s State of the Nation speech on Sunday afternoon clearly – in his non-charismatic, evenly toned manner – restated what his party stands for and where it’s now heading. This suggested that he’s secure in the leadership – not overshadowed by his celebrated predecessor – and bold enough to re-articulate the party’s values in terms of a “new collectivism”.
The word “kindness” wasn’t used, but he spoke humanely about empathy and care – from the level of the individual through to the state. He mentioned with approval how his grandparents’ generation had “viewed the taxes they paid as their contribution to the type of society that they wanted to live in”. He contrasted this with the more recent rise of “individualism and dog-eat-dog competition”. He distanced his party from the neoliberal experiments of the fourth Labour government (1984–90), and he reasserted Labour’s search for equality and fairness.
He didn’t talk directly about economic growth. He did say: “Our current economic model celebrates those who live off wealth over those who live off work. In the modern economy, contribution and reward aren’t as linked as they used to be.”
And he acknowledged that too many people are finding that hard work just isn’t paying off. Many people aren’t able to get ahead, and indeed the younger generations may find themselves worse off than their parents have been – not better off.
Hipkins wasn’t just being nostalgic though. He noted that things are changing, and referred to AI in particular. He acknowledged key contemporary concerns of climate, gender equality and “the work that we were doing to lift outcomes for Māori”. The word “Treaty” wasn’t on his script at all – perhaps to avoid distraction.
Far more interesting was “the new collectivism”:
“a new approach that democratizes, empowers, and ensures that the benefits of success are shared amongst the many, not hoarded by the few”.
“Collectivism” sounds awkwardly reminiscent of Soviet communism, and his opponents may make a meal of that. What, then, did he mean?
“Rising wages, improved working conditions, closing the gender pay gap, and creating the right conditions so that our businesses can thrive and their workers can share in the rewards will be key goals for our next government.”
Labour gettisoned collective ownership, or “socialisation”, of the means of production back in 1951. Today, the party’s principles call for “a just distribution of wealth”. Hipkins wants private enterprise to grow, it seems, rather than to be replaced by state ownership. Like many other people, however, he wants employees to get fair wages in return for their efforts, rather than compete with one another for lower wages.
Naturally, Hipkins’s speech went on to address taxation. There were no specific policies mentioned, but it seems that all the options will be up again for discussion within the Labour Party over the next year or two.
The core values that concluded the speech – “compassion, respect, fairness, friendship, love, and forgiveness” – could have come from an Anglican pulpit. But Hipkins was restating the Labour Party’s social-democratic values.
It’s an early shot against the National and ACT parties in particular – and their cronies in the rentier class. It remains to be seen how much Labour can stick with and follow up on Sunday’s sermon with policies that will make a difference. For the time being, though, it’s reinforced Hipkins’s leadership of the party.
Hi John. Possibly not. But can you be more specific about what 'neoliberal ideology' means to you? GD
There is a credibility gap here with Labour's U-turn over taxation. It will be an uphill slog for Hipkins to win back the myriad of voters who walked away from the party between 2020-2023. Typically leaders who lose an election, walk away asap (eg English, Clark) or jump ship when the writing is on the wall (Key, Adhern). There is a sound reason for this. To hang around aiming to win back disillusioned supporters who went elsewhere because Labour was so timid in instigating policies that actually redistribute wealth (and then claim these are back on the table) will be a hard sell.