Will Chippie get back in?

Could NZ Labour's chances all come down to turnout?

Thursday last week had fine weather, but it was a gnarly old day in politics. Two Labour ministers were under fire: transport minister Michael Wood (for the sin of having owned $16,000 worth of shares in the Auckland airport company that weren’t transparently registered) and education minister Jan Tinetti. The latter was forensically questioned by parliament’s privileges committee for allegedly misleading the House over her involvement in the tactically planned timing of the release (NB: not the withholding) of data on school attendance – a dataset that I’m sure you’d been dying to see.

Minister Wood could also find himself up before the privileges committee on a potential contempt of the House if an inquiry by parliament’s registrar concludes that he’d fluffed around and failed to correctly register every single one of his pecuniary interests.

The upshot for both ministers could be an apology to the House. And the Right are calling for heads to roll. On Friday morning, lacking anything informative to talk about on TV, National MP Erica Stanford said she was 100 percent certain that Hipkins had no choice but to sack Michael Wood, the matter was that serious!

(Travel advisory for offshore readers: matters like the above make headlines in New Zealand. If you visit, then fill out all forms correctly and try not to be unruly.)

On the same day, Auckland Council’s governing body (on which Michael Wood’s partner sits, revealing how small the place is) were debating a budget, including the vexed question of the sale of (you guessed it) airport company shares. All three of the councillors who owned some shares were cleared to vote on the matter, having acknowledged the conflict of interest.

The mayor made a compromise, proposing to sell an eight percent holding, rather than the full eighteen percent. The next day he dropped that to seven. The struggle was between councillors representing younger low-income renters and those representing older fixed-income ratepayers: a classical city-state scrap between democrats and oligarchs. And the asset-sellers will be back one day to sell the remainder.

(For offshore readers, Auckland International Airport isn’t NZ Inc’s only asset worth buying. As you fly in, if you’re awake, you’ll spot some dairy farms.)

Given Labour’s discomfort last Thursday, National’s leader Christopher Luxon should have been having a great day, but he went and blew it by encouraging us all to ‘have more babies if you wish, that would be helpful’. D’oh!

His deputy, Nicola Willis, had to cover for him, pointing out that it was all just a joke. And no, he wouldn’t be helpful in anyone’s bedroom but his own.

Luxon’s ‘joke’ wasn’t exactly wooing supporters away from Labour, least of all those women who’d love to have a baby but can’t. His conservative religious instincts had unmasked him (again) as an inexperienced political actor, making him look like a cross between Anthony Comstock and Homer Simpson.

Which brings me to my question: will Chris Hipkins return as prime minister after the election? I don’t have a crystal ball, but he did just have a bad week, and the historical record goes against him.

Politicians who became party leader and prime minister mid-term (by whatever cause) have normally been evicted from office at the next election. One thinks of Keith Holyoake (defeated in 1957, although he hung on and won in 1960), Jack Marshall (defeated in 1972), Bill Rowling (1975), Mike Moore (1990), Jenny Shipley (1999) and Bill English (2017).

Similarly, Hipkins became PM in mid-term, without a general election…

To find an exception, we have to go back to Labour’s Peter Fraser who took over after M.J. Savage died in 1940 and who later won the 1943 election. But that was wartime.

Hipkins will need all the peacetime foot soldiers his party can muster to return him to office, as Labour’s electoral fortunes often turn on turnout, or the lack of it, and recent opinion polls suggest that October’s election could be a tight race.

A close election often boosts turnout, which, in turn, tends to favour the left. But one implication of recent opinion polls could be that voters are, on the whole, underwhelmed with what’s on offer. Neither of the two leading parties is polling in the 40s, and neither of the leading candidates for PM is highly rated. Sheer lack of interest could mean many people just give voting a miss this time.

That wasn’t a prediction, but the recent Labour Party annual conference hardly gave us urgent reasons to vote – either for or against Labour. It was business as usual: sticking with apprenticeships and not changing the NZ Super eligibility age.

Perhaps Labour has some compelling policy propositions to put out there closer to the election. Policy will be a key factor that distinguishes one Chris from the other in voters’ minds.

In my earlier post on National leader Christopher Luxon, I pointed out that leadership X-factor does matter in elections – but that this factor is ‘in the eye of the beholder’. Recent preferred PM polls put Hipkins ahead of Luxon, but not by much, and neither leader could be described as charismatic. Hipkins doesn’t get the stellar poll results that Ardern once had: up in the 50s during 2020.

Toning down some of the criticisms of Hipkins that I’ve seen, I’d summarise them thus: he’s likeable but has a track-record of failures, e.g., amalgamation of polytechs (a rolling disaster).

Chris may be down-to-earth, but he sounds like a schoolteacher who’s sincerely encouraging you, for the umpteenth time, to do your homework.

Getting back to historical examples, the governments they led weren’t in meltdown, but Rowling was overshadowed by Kirk (who died in office) and English by Key (who stepped down), and they both lost to strong opponents (Muldoon and Ardern). Is Hipkins similarly overshadowed by Ardern? And does he have a strong opponent?

My hunch on the first of those questions says ‘no’, even though Chris lacks Jacinda’s celebrity power. While she did lead the country through the most difficult times, Ardern had become a polarising figure and her departure was timely. The weather emergencies then forcibly shifted the country’s attention and thrust Hipkins forward as leader. I don’t hear large numbers of people grieving the departure of his predecessor any longer. And polls suggest that Hipkins’s opponent is weaker in leadership appeal, not stronger.

Maybe Hipkins will break the curse of mid-term appointed PMs. He isn’t a Peter Fraser, but he may avoid being another Bill Rowling. Confidence in Hipkins’s government is being hit by a series of scandals, but such things aren’t necessarily fatal.

What would it take, then, for Hipkins to get back in? Some tactics might be:

• Issue at least one inspiring policy.

• Ensure strong local party organisation to get voters out.

• Be a statesman, not a schoolteacher.

The all-important factor, though, will be the number of seats that Labour and its potential coalition partners or supporters hold after the votes are all counted. Labour won’t get another single-party majority. That at least is predictable. And a government rules only while it has the support of the House.

And I’m sure that Chippie is hoping that the rolling maul of scandals that’s happening to his team will come to an end soon.