Labour’s cautious pragmatism and a ‘fair go’ may be a recipe for regret
Friday, 3 July 2026
Martin van Beynen is a Press journalist and regular opinion contributor.
OPINION: When you look at all the complex and intractable problems facing the country, you’d wonder why anybody would want to be in government.
There are obviously enticing compensations as Press journalist Charlie Mitchell showed with his list of five-star hotels ministers have used overseas, but it seems problems are getting harder and solutions less palatable and clear.
Still, we have no shortage of people wanting to run the country and last weekend one of the main contenders held its annual congress, where the main topic must have been how to win more votes. Other commentators have already noted Labour leader Chris Hipkins is at pains to convey a party chastened by its mistakes, pragmatic and fiscally prudent and a credible economic manager in waiting.
Labour has also clearly learned from the clever political aphorism “an election is an examination. The candidates don't set the questions; the voters do.”
Read more:
It’s a pretty obvious idea. Politicians might want to talk about grand visions and plans for the country, but they ignore what people care about at their peril.
The main topics of concern to voters are no surprise but the order changes a bit from year to year. The Ipsos New Zealand Monitor, which released its 32nd edition in May, surveyed 1001 people on the most important issues facing New Zealanders and which parties are perceived as best able to manage them.
The top three issues - inflation/cost of living (61%), healthcare/hospitals (39%) and the economy (33%) - have not changed since February 2025 and the cost of living has been the chief concern for four years. Fuel prices and housing round out the top five.
The good news for Labour is it’s perceived as best able to manage four of the top five issues, with National seen as most capable of managing the economy.
I assume most respondents were giving off-the-cuff answers, not thinking long and hard. For instance, you could make an argument that National got inflation and interest rates down and has presided over a period of cheaper rents for many people.
However, if the survey has captured the vibe or mood of the country then that could be reflected in the only poll that matters in November.
Labour appears to have listened to the people with proposed measures such as capping public transport costs and free doctor’s visits. We can expect more of this ilk as we approach the election. Its problem is that carrots for the strugglers won’t necessarily get it more votes as they would probably have voted for it anyway.
One of the most effective election bribes I have seen was in 2005, when Helen Clark, weeks before the election, announced interest-free student loans for borrowers who stayed in New Zealand, a middle-class vote magnet that pretty much won her the election.
You’d have to say Labour seems on the right track in at least addressing the exam questions, even if answers are elusive. For instance, although it criticised the coalition’s decision to allow landlords to deduct interest - a big deal for landlords - it knows a reversal could well result in less rental housing and rising rents.
Concentrating on affordability might not deliver the dividends Labour expects. The problem with focusing on voters’ main concerns, as an essay on affordability in the Economist recently pointed out, is those concerns are often inconsistent .
We want low prices when we shop, but high wages for ourselves. We don’t want many immigrants but we want cheap labour. We want rising house prices when we own and lower ones when our children want to buy.
Labour thinkers will also be wondering what lessons they should learn from the demise of Sir Keir Starmer as British Labour leader.
New Statesman editor Tom McTague, writing in the New York Times, says Starmer “has never known what he wanted to do in the job. He did not arrive in government with a plan or a theory for why things had gone so badly wrong before him. As he told me in interviews for the New Statesman a little less than a year ago, he did not believe the country was in need of overhaul.”
English author Ian Leslie, in the same publication, said Starmer’s
great achievement was to restore the Labour Party to government after 14 years in opposition. But this was made possible by a lack of conviction, which made him disastrously irresolute once he got there.”
So could this be Labour’s problem? The big idea seems to be a fair go, but all parties believe in that. Instead of articulating a bolder, more inspiring plan, Labour has decided to take on National where it is strongest. You could say it’s trying to be a more compassionate National without the confident direction enunciated by Finance Minister and mother to the nation Nicola Willis.
Time will tell, but Labour might find looking pragmatic and credible economically is a tack it will regret.