CHRIS HIPKINS’ State of the Nation speech could have been a moment of unprecedented vision—a chance for Labour to signal that it had absorbed the lessons of its election defeat and was ready to articulate a new economic and political direction for New Zealand. After years of triangulation, managerialism, and a stubborn refusal to confront the structural failures of the neoliberal model, this was the moment to say: enough. Enough of the consensus that has delivered soaring inequality, a shredded welfare state, and a political culture that treats transformative ambition as a kind of impolite eccentricity. Enough of pretending that tinkering around the edges is a substitute for vision. Enough of acting as though the left’s only job is to administer the system more competently than the right.
But Hipkins didn’t take that moment. Instead, he offered yet another round of centrist platitudes—vague commitments to 'balance,' 'stability,' and 'responsibility,' the same tired vocabulary that has defined Labour’s political imagination for decades. It was a speech that could have been delivered in 2005, 2015, or 2020. It was a speech that signalled not renewal but retreat. And it confirmed what many on the left, at least those of us of a socialist inclination, have long argued: Hipkins does not want to challenge the right’s economic framework. He wants to compete within it, hoping voters will reward him for being the more competent manager of a system that is visibly failing.
This is not simply a missed opportunity. It is a profound misreading of the political moment. Around the world, the centre is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. The neoliberal settlement—privatisation, deregulation, austerity, and the fetishisation of markets—has produced crises that can no longer be explained away as temporary disruptions. Housing is unaffordable, wages are stagnant, public services are strained, and wealth inequality has reached grotesque proportions. Voters are not crying out for moderation; they are demanding answers.
And yet Hipkins continues to behave as though the electorate is composed of nervous accountants who will flee at the slightest hint of ideological conviction. His speech was drenched in caution, as though boldness itself were a liability. But the real liability is timidity. Voters can smell it. They know when a leader is hedging, when a party is afraid of its own shadow, when the rhetoric of 'steady hands' is really a euphemism for 'we have nothing new to offer.' Hipkins handed the National Party acolytes at Newstalk ZB the ammunition to attack him as an empty shirt devoid of ideas and they duly obliged.
What makes Hipkins’ caution even more glaring is that he has contemporary examples of left-wing courage staring him in the face. Zohran Mamdani in New York has shown how local politics can be a vehicle for structural critique, using his platform to challenge corporate landlords, expose the failures of market-driven housing policy, and articulate a vision of public good that goes beyond technocratic tinkering. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has demonstrated how a politician can speak plainly about inequality, climate justice, and the erosion of democratic norms while still building broad public support. These figures are not fringe radicals shouting into the void; they are elected representatives who have expanded the political imagination of millions.
Hipkins, by contrast, seems determined to shrink the imagination of his own party. Instead of learning from these examples, he ignores them. Instead of embracing the energy that comes from moral clarity, he clings to the safety blanket of centrism. Completely failing to to recognise that the public is hungry for alternatives, he offers managerial competence as though it were a political vision rather than an admission of intellectual exhaustion.
The irony is that Labour’s path back to relevance does not lie in trying to out-National National. The right will always win the contest of who can best serve the interests of capital, because that is the terrain on which they are most comfortable. Labour cannot win by promising to be slightly kinder administrators of the same economic order. It can only win by offering something different—something that speaks to the lived reality of people who are struggling, something that acknowledges that the system itself is the problem.
Hipkins’ refusal to do so is not just a strategic failure; it is a moral one. New Zealand is facing crises that cannot be solved with incrementalism. Housing affordability is not going to be fixed by minor regulatory tweaks. Climate change will not be addressed by minor adjustments to existing policy settings. Inequality will not be reversed by polite appeals to 'fairness' while leaving the underlying structures untouched. These are systemic difficulties that require systemic solutions.
The tragedy is that Labour once understood this. It was born out of movements that demanded more than competent management; they demanded transformation. They believed that politics was not simply about administering the present but shaping the future. That spirit has been lost, replaced by a timid centrism that confuses caution with wisdom and consensus with progress.
Hipkins had a chance to break from that legacy of smallness. He could have used his State of the Nation speech to declare that Labour would no longer be bound by the neoliberal consensus. He could have articulated a vision of public housing on a scale not seen since the first Labour government, of public ownership of essential services, of a tax system that redistributes wealth rather than protecting it, of a climate strategy that treats the crisis with the urgency it demands. Furthermore, he could have signalled that Labour was ready to be a party of conviction again.
Instead, he chose the path of least resistance. And in doing so, he confirmed that Labour under his leadership is not prepared to confront the challenges of our time. The country is crying out for boldness, but Hipkins is offering caution. The world is shifting, but Labour is standing still.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated.