Labour’s coalition strategy needs a clearer purpose

OPINION: Labour has every reason to keep its focus on winning as much support as possible before the election. The question is what Labour is actually trying to achieve with that strategy.

Chris Hipkins is trying to present Labour as the only major party capable of leading an alternative government, and there is political logic in refusing to spend the campaign talking up smaller parties that could ultimately compete for the same voters.

    Advertisement
  
    This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
  
    Advertisement
    Why this ad?
      
        Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

If the objective is to strengthen Labour’s party vote, keeping potential coalition arrangements at arm’s length makes sense. Every time Labour publicly promotes common ground with another party, it risks giving voters permission to look elsewhere while assuming Labour will still lead the government.

That could be especially important in a tight election where a few percentage points may determine which party has the strongest mandate to lead.

There is a reasonable argument that coalition negotiations should reflect the Parliament New Zealanders actually elect, rather than political arrangements drawn up before anyone has voted.

MMP can produce unexpected results. Parties rise, fall and sometimes disappear from Parliament altogether. Locking in detailed commitments too early can leave a major party boxed into positions that no longer reflect the numbers after election day.

    Advertisement
  
    This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
  
    Advertisement
    Why this ad?
      
        Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

Giving Labour room to negotiate is not a sign of weakness or secrecy but the strategy still needs a visible political purpose.

Labour cannot leave voters wondering whether its position is deliberate flexibility, an attempt to protect its vote, or uncertainty about how it would deal with parties on the left. If the objective is to build the strongest possible Labour-led government, Hipkins should say that clearly and firmly.

Image: Chris Hipkins addresses supporters during the opening session of Labour’s annual Conference. The Labour leader used his remarks to signal the party’s renewed confidence noting the possibility of a one-term coalition government while urging people to focus on unity and steady messaging heading into election year. (Supplied / Labour)

There is a strong political case for it.

A larger Labour vote would give the party greater control over any future governing arrangement and it would reduce the influence smaller parties could demand during negotiations and give Hipkins more authority over the direction of a government that he leads.

Instead of allowing the coalition debate to become a question about who Labour may or may not need, the party could frame the election around a much simpler proposition that the stronger Labour performs, the stronger its hand will be after election night. That message would fit comfortably with the wider campaign.

If the party believes New Zealand needs stable leadership, a stronger Labour vote is the most direct way of delivering it.

    Advertisement
  
    This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
  
    Advertisement
    Why this ad?
      
        Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

That is where the current ambiguity could become a strength, but only if voters understand the strategy behind it.

If the message is that New Zealanders should give Labour the strongest possible mandate and leave coalition negotiations until the country has spoken, that is a defensible position. But Labour should own it.

If that is the strategy, the party should say so.

Labour has every reason to keep Its coalition options open. Voters still deserve to know more

HELP FUND OUR NEXT STORY

Advertisement

Advertisement Why this ad? Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉