When someone stays at home with Covid, there are only few things that stimulate the brain. Chris Trotter and Bryce Edwards could make the magic, they both wrote about the possible candidates for the next Labour leader. In their analyses, it is Willie Jackson who might have the best chance. Both analysts can see the situation clearly. I just intend to switch in a broader historical aspect and that would completely change Jackson’s prospects.
![](/img/missing-image.png)
The analysts’ speculation about Willie Jackson’s possible candidacy came because Jackson is about to participate in an Oxford Union debate on 23 May. True, Jackson’s appearance at the prestigious debating hall (following David Lange’s participation forty years ago) might be a nice publicity stint, and the likelihood that he, as a good buffoon, would make good jokes is high, too. Still, the chances he might win the debate is minuscule.
There are strong arguments made by Trotter and Edwards. Jackson could represent the working-class New Zealander, he could bring a new approach to Treaty politics within Labour, and he could be left-wing enough to implement radical tax reform. Besides, Jackson might fill the need for a populist leadership. The last argument was made because recent international studies show discontent with the existing political parties worldwide, and New Zealand is not different, the combined National-Labour vote is still way below 70%.
However, it is crucial to note several points here. As far as I remember, it was Trotter who announced a year ago that he would vote for New Zealand First, because that was where the safe left-wing votes should go. The main reasons behind Trotter’s arguments were that Labour lost focus with working-class New Zealanders, they started promoting identity politics (the woke agenda) too far, and it was Labour that amended the state media to a woke-leaning channel. It was also Trotter who agreed with Sean Plunket in an interview on ‘The Platform’ after the election that a symbolic step by the incoming government would be to use the New Zealand official flag (for example on the Auckland War Memorial Museum instead of the rainbow flag). Because identity politics include all sorts of victimhood policies, the Treaty politics and the Māori interests are included in this. Willie Jackson was minister for broadcasting and a prominent member of Labour’s Māori caucus. So, practically, Jackson represented almost everything what made Trotter turn to New Zealand First. For voters, Willie Jackson still represents this trinity of woke-Māori-media bias problems. Practically, the electorate is angry of what Jackson stood for. It is unlikely that the electorate would easily forget that it was Jackson who (in)famously said that in New Zealand, democracy works differently than the one person one vote principle.
Another line of argument is that Labour needs to find a new leader to solve the party’s “leadership, taxation, and Treaty-approach” problems. Also, the current international populist wave must be surfed. For these problems, Jackson might seem to be a radical, but surprisingly good resolution. He was growing up in South Auckland, his roots are going back to working-class people, and as a former talkback radio host, he can communicate to everyday people better than Hipkins ever could.
Unfortunately, these skills would not be enough had Jackson got the chance.
The historical aspect I would like to switch in here is that the international discontent against established politicians and parties has emerged because existing parties could not yet develop positive visions and messages to voters. The taxation problem is a good example for this. The discussion about taxes should be happening in a context when we discuss what sort of new or improved state-services parties want to offer, and the services would outline the necessary fundings through taxation as well. Just a hint here: what if Labour would offer to implement the unlimited number of yearly sick-leave days, as it is the situation in most European countries. This solution would require significant taxation changes, the introduction of social security contributions. We barely hear anything about these positive messages. So, the discussions about tax issues are practically a representation of the visionary impotence of current parties.
The positive political messages need more time to be developed. Jackson does not seem to be interested in such an intellectual exercise. Unfortunately, the likely results of the US presidential election this year does not promise meaningful change that would provide some ideas for politicians in New Zealand. Both candidates are old, and, men from the past. The positive new messages, a new ideology would mean leaving neoliberalism behind and creating a more just society, including a more socially just economic system too. The existing proposals (e.g. Piketty) do not amend the core of capitalism: profit maximisation.
Nevertheless, I agree with the analysts in the sense that it is unlikely that Hipkins is about to lead the Labour Party during the next election campaign. There was an emerging internal revolt against Hipkins’ leadership style. For example, Matthew Hooton reported that the appointment of Helen White in Mount Albert was a sign of this. Besides, Trotter himself criticised Hipkins after his captain’s call to rule out the capital gains tax and wealth tax while he was leader. Although Jacinda Ardern was forgiven for such a message, Hipkins can unlikely escape the will of the Labour members. The most likely time for his resignation as Labour leader is the annual conference of 2025 when the party will decide over their election programme.
It would be good to name someone who will likely follow Hipkins and could lead Labour to election victory. Oddly enough, there are skilled MPs in the current Labour caucus, but it seems, the best fits for the leadership, do not want the job. (This confirms what the Game of Thrones noticed: those who are reluctant to take on various jobs, would be best for them). So, the likely outcome is that Labour must wait until 2029 when they might have relevant chances to form a government.