Janet Wilson: Hipkins risks getting lost in the fog of war

Janet Wilson is a freelance journalist who has also worked in communications, including with the National Party in 2020. She is a regular opinion contributor.

OPINION: Much like Leo Tolstoy’s contention that “each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”, so too is each political party’s reaction to its own continuing catastrophe.

While the fact that former Justice Minister Kiri Allan is facing police charges following Sunday night’s car crash is an opera-sized tragedy for her, it’s another demonstration of a government sliding into turmoil, hallmarked by an ill-disciplined caucus and a leader who gives his colleagues the benefit of the doubt too many times.

But rather than subscribing to the Opposition’s description of Labour as a party in chaos (given their own woes in 2020, it has a pot-calling-the-kettle-black quality about it), losing four Cabinet minister in as many months is more akin to what occurs in the fog of war.

The military term ascribes war as being full of confusion, miscommunication and miscalculation, much like a political campaign. Or as any general will tell you, no battle plan ever survives the first encounter with the enemy.

For Labour, that change began in January with a smooth leadership swap, but has degenerated since as ministers’ careers hit the skids, first with Stuart Nash leaving, then Meka Whaitiri’s defection, followed by Michael Wood and this week Kiri Allan.

It’s important to note that while Chris Hipkins has ignored bad behaviour too many times, particularly from Nash and Wood, the troubles which led to these resignations began under Jacinda Ardern’s leadership.

A gut-churning, sphincter-tightening symptom of political fog of war is that caucus goes from undisciplined to indiscreet and starts leaking.

Wednesday’s leak that a first-term Labour MP who had been at the wrong end of Allan’s temper had moaned that caucus had known about the Allan issue for a couple of years, may well be the work of a political ingenue. Or it could be the symptom of caucus fissures, that become cracks, then turn into factional chasms.

The fact that Revenue Minister David Parker chose this week to absolve himself of his portfolio, in protest at Hipkins’ captain’s call to drop a well-advanced wealth tax, suggests that those cracks have become chasms. And while his protest resignation seemed controlled, even polite, ultimately for Parker and Hipkins it comes down to the battle of the P’s: Parker’s progressivism and Hipkins’ pragmatism.

It’s significant because behind each man’s philosophy hides a phalanx of Labour Party members who have grown increasingly frustrated at their parties’ own antics. For the progressives, wealth distribution is tattooed into their DNA, a vital proponent of their ideology.

Parker’s stand is principled but it also displays his lack of faith in Labour’s soon-to-be-announced tax policy. The study he commissioned the IRD to do earlier this year which showed that the wealthiest 311 rich-listers paid only 8.9% of tax on their income because they received 80% of their income in capital gains, only served to remind voters of Labour’s previous inability to introduce a capital gains tax.

Hipkins’ pragmatism has provided an effective smokescreen to his centrism, which isn’t necessarily an asset in Labour. The policy bonfire he started at the beginning of the year has only spread with little to replace it. The Prime Minister is in danger now of standing for the things he didn’t do this election, rather than the one’s he did.

And in the fog of a political campaign, Hipkins’ call to rule out any kind of wealth tax while he’s leader may have neutralised it as an election issue, but it’s presented an even bigger problem – it’s opened Labour’s Pandora’s box of dissent.

What’s more, Parker’s decision to leave the revenue portfolio because it was “untenable” for him to continue, threatens to paint Hipkins as an ideological Nowhere Man, standing for nothing and falling for everything.

What makes Parker’s stand significant is that in modern New Zealand politics, differences within parties are increasingly interpreted as dissent. Large first-past-the-post parties in other Western countries, such as the Tories in the UK or Australia’s Liberal Party, disagree vehemently as a routine part of political debate. Here in Aotearoa, MMP and its numerous parties ensures difference is debated across parties, not between those who share the same political colours. To do so is interpreted as a party that’s starting to crack at the seams.

In taking a rebel stand, Parker was at pains to say that he was loyal to Labour, that he “didn’t want to cause disturbances”. But that may be exactly what he does, particularly if Labour loses.

Progressives may be content to contain their activism now with the polls so tight, but they’ll come in behind Parker if he loses, whilst decrying Hipkins’ centrism.

Parker may have stood on a point of principle, in comparison to his colleagues’ personal failings, but he’s also shown his own party’s principles are wanting.

Before the fog of political war has even lifted, we’re seeing the beginning of another ideological one for Labour.