Spatchcocked politics in the UK offer us a useful guide

Saturday, 27 June 2026

Josie Pagani is a commentator on current affairs and a regular opinion contributor. She works in geopolitics, aid and development, and governance.

OPINION: Seven UK Prime Ministers in 10 years is an expensive internship programme, or as one wit put it: welcome to 10 Downing Street, now sponsored by AirBnB.

There are lessons that apply here.

The first is that incumbent governments are in trouble because of the cost of living.

In the UK, wages haven’t been growing since the global financial crisis. Voters are angry.

As in the UK, family budgets are under pressure here and like there, our government is flailing. Blaming the global economy and promising it is all coming right behind the scenes doesn’t work politically.

The second, obvious lesson is that management jargon doesn’t rouse crowds.

Keir Starmer confused competence with abstract language of “milestones”, “missions” and “foundations”. Like Sir Keir, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon talks in targets and quarterly plans and is often out-performed by his lectern.

Which brings us to the third lesson: Leaders who can’t set out a compelling agenda are doomed.

In the UK, Andy Burnham has the personality and empathy that Keir Starmer lacks.

Voters are still not sure what Burnham stands for. He might have only a couple of weeks to convince voters he knows who he is and why he’s there.

Back here, Labour has also positioned as more empathetic than National, but left the example page mostly blank. That leaves space for others to define them.

Here is another lesson from the UK: Offer hope, not division.

The irony of populism is its message of optimism. It promises to blow things up and rebuild them in your favour. But it ends up delivering anger and hate.

Burnham entered parliament by winning a by-election in which he was able to speak to voters from all sides. Not by blaming immigrants or the rich for the nation’s problems –but with a message of hope.

He embodied the North’s proud values of self-reliance and toughness. He has an appealing patriotism that brings neighbours together. Power will devolve away from Westminster to places like Manchester, he promises.

All that is yet to be tested. But it’s a good start.

Perhaps the biggest lesson from the UK is that people want disruption. They want meaningful change, not pocket money.

There, as here, small parties are becoming big because the two main parties are not convincing.

Starmer was going round the country stirring up apathy. His government was defined by incrementalism. It was fearful of unpopular decisions and reforms instead of winning arguments for changes Starmer plainly thought were needed.

In an echo, Labour here is yet to outline a coherent plan.

From the tongue-twisting three free GP visits, to the reinstated obligation to consider the Treaty on school boards, when you join the dots, no picture emerges.

It should look at the good and bad in the Greens’ “super-rich” tax plan.

They deserve credit for doing detailed work on the policy and costing it.

They identified the right problem: The troubling extent of wealth disparities; 150 rich-listers have as much wealth as 917,000 Kiwi households.

Too many people are struggling.

“From those who can pay, to those who need it” is more popular than opponents like to think. The argument’s weakness is that voters suspect they will be classed among those who can pay, not those in need.

The bad was Marama Davidson’s argument for a wealth tax: We don’t need rich people and we might be better off without them because, well, we have “comedians and artists”.

Scapegoating, dividing citizens up into us and them, is fashionable and attracts angry and polarised supporters. It’s not a serious plan for government.

Another example of setting out a bold and coherent plan was National’s promise to give every child a KiwiSaver kick start at birth and make super contributions compulsory.

It is both a meaty policy and an affordable way to make a meaningful difference for retirement incomes.

Unlike UK Labour, the National government here can’t be fairly criticised for failing to make decisions.

NZ Labour needs to show similar courage for ideas that some will hate.

If they don’t come up with a plan now, in Opposition, they won’t do any better if they’re in government.

Andy Burnham’s appeal partly lies in coming from a part of the country that has been deeply damaged by abandoning regions and closing large-scale industry.

Labour here could show a commitment to industrial jobs in all parts of the country. It could announce a plan to buy the Juken Nissho wood processing plant in Kaitaia, as the centrepiece of an active state. The alternative is to go back to exporting raw logs and welfare instead of work.

In its last turn in government, Labour here destroyed regional industry at the fastest rate since the 1980s.

As it holds its election year jamboree in Wellington this week, it needs to show it has changed.

The lessons from the UK are that vague and limited promises can get you elected but they cannot keep you in office.