sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Chris Hipkins to continue as Labour Party leader, at least for now, after first post-election caucus meeting

Public Policy / news
Chris Hipkins to continue as Labour Party leader, at least for now, after first post-election caucus meeting
Chris Hipkins speaks to media after a four hour caucus meeting on Tuesday
Chris Hipkins speaks to media after a four hour caucus meeting on Tuesday

Chris Hipkins is still the leader of the Labour Party.

He revealed this on Tuesday afternoon after emerging from a lengthy caucus meeting, the party's first since it was drubbed in Saturday's election. That defeat raised questions over whether Hipkins would stay on. 

But after the caucus meeting, he retained his position as leader, with Kelvin Davis staying as deputy leader, and Carmel Sepuloni as deputy Prime Minister in the caretaker Government.

Hipkins made clear there was no vote, and he says the issue of leadership wasn't discussed at the meeting.  Moreover, the question of who leads the party would be considered again after all the special votes had been counted.

The caucus ended after journalists had been waiting for over an hour, but Hipkins says it was not delayed much and there was a debate on a wide range of topics during the meeting. 

Hipkins paid tribute to the retiring Labour front bencher, Andrew Little, saying he was a team player who worked tirelessly for the benefit of the Labour Party, and led it through a difficult time after the 2014 election.  

Earlier Tuesday Hipkins said he had given an assurance to the people of the Remutaka electorate that he would serve them for the full three year term when he stood for the seat and he would honour that pledge. 

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

31 Comments

there is no one else in Labour, that's the saddest part of all. If they did have a bunch of great ministers or leaders, they wouldn't be in such a place in the first place.

Nothing to reflect who Hipkins is, but Labour. 

Up
6

Yep. He will be tarred with the loser brush forever.

Health

Education

Justice

Covid.

and

Election

Failed badly at all five, and probably more.  If he stays he would be the gift that keeps giving. But, the fact is they have no one better, or even approaching it. Their experienced operators include Kelvin Davis, Megan Woods, and Carmel Sepuloni, and that says it all really. The talent puddle they did have dried out at the election and is now just a wet patch on the concrete.

Up
7

Ardern should have stayed to face the music. She is the one who dug most of Labour’s hole. Failing that Robertson, who more than overtly coveted prime ministership, but saw the writing on the wall, and as well the experience of spinal surgery is a dampener. Even so Hipkins should be taking over now as a new start, but his tenure is short lived from here.

Up
7

I think the words are caretaker Labour party leader just long enough for them to find an undertaker. Chippie is toast, its a guaranteed loss for them next election with him at the helm.

Up
6

C’mon Chippy.

get your policies right

a) capital gains tax

b) inheritance tax

and go attack the right wingers who want to do nothing more than subsidize the rich.

if you won’t, get me on board. I’ll slay Luxon and Seymour.

Up
2

You forgot the /sarc...those tax theft policies are nothing more than subsidising the poor with other peoples money.

Remember that someone has to make the pie before it can be divided.

"The problem with socialists is that they eventually run out of other peoples money"

Up
18

As American co-travellers explained to us in transit - a socialist will take from me money that I have earned, paid tax on and saved and give it to another who has done none of those things.

Up
11

Sorry, the rich don’t make their money in a vacuum, they do because society exists and capitalism will always be a pyramid of wealth. In a fair and equal society the robber baron rich ( no inheritance tax, no capital gains tax) would pay them.

Thise rich that don’t agree can go to Mars or Venus and make their money, alone.

Up
5

The main reason that the world population has trebled since WW2 is the increasing std of living driven by capitalism lifting millions out of poverty. 

Capitalism is thr only reason a functioning society exists. Ultimately the sources of govt & public sector funds are taxes on capitalism's private sector profits & jobs (salaries and wages) - directly, indirectly (GST, rates or to fund Govt borrowing). There is no free lunch.

There are many such as myself who started with nothing in their teens & worked, paid due taxes, created incomes & wealth for others as well as ourselves. None of us are stopping anyone else doing the same.

How much envy theft is enough ? 

Up
10

Perhaps you can explain to me why a CGT/Wealth Tax/Inheritance Tax/Land Tax etc etc are "envy theft" but GST/Income Tax/Company Tax are not?

The debate here is what is the most economically efficient (and fair) way to fund government spending, and I doubt you could find anyone with even a modicum of expertise who would agree that the current tax mix meets that criteria.

Up
0

Yeah I’m sick of the tax theft from my labour. Reckon I’ll just stop paying it. 

Up
0

Your obvious attempt at strawman distractions ignores kiwi_overseas original comment that I responded to - which was nothing to do "...economically efficient and fair)..."

Up
1

Part of a free society is that there will be winners and losers. We already have an incremental tax rate. When you start to lay tax on top of tax, on top of tax. The rich will either check out and feel it’s not worth to strive for wealth, therefore diminishing their tax contribution, as well as the jobs they create, or they up and leave. 
 

“The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples money” 

Up
2

This is not a free society though, nor is it a free market. Our number one market in NZ is housing, heavily subsidised by an array of socialist policies specifically targeted at juicing the market and producing bank profits.

The question is not whether or not we should remove these subsidised and tax appropriately (because yes we should, CGT, land tax etc), but rather why are we content with these policies as they come to the detriment of productive business and industries and those who work to pay off the debt.

“The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples money” - I've seen this time and time again, it isn't the 1970s anymore. We're at the tail end of a long lasting privatized bull run. The amount of private debt is staggering, where is the money coming from that pays for that? Socialist policies.

Up
1

Absurd. They are neoliberal policies not socialist policies.

Socialist policies would include capital gains taxes  on property, and other tax setting changes to mobilise the productive use of capital.

one of the biggest problems NZ has are the neoliberal policies that allow lazy capital and wealth creation. It’s no wonder NZ has such low productivity.

Up
0

If you are actually overseas, hopefully you are in the workers paradise of North Korea where you are living your utopian dream free of  the rich!

Up
7

It’s amazing how much the rich scream when you threaten to take away their subsidies. The would actually have to put their capital to productive use which would be good for NZ.

Up
1

...because Govt has such a great track record of "putting their capital to productive use..."

https://laboursfailures.com/

 

Up
1

Like the TVNZ/RNZ merger? 

Up
1

All government spending usually goes through (and should go through) cost benefit and regulatory impact assessment. The merger seemingly didn’t and thus it was right it was pulled.

Doesnt change the fact that the rich are heavily subsidized (no inheritance tax and no capital gains tax) leading to the unproductive use of capital in NZ.  

Up
0

That's incredibly naive.  There are many examples of Government spending that have been rammed through for political reasons.  Giving money to gangs from the Proceeds of Crime Fund is a small example.  The Provincial Growth Fund is a bigger one.  Fees Free was pushed through after the 2017 election despite Education officials' advice.  The school lunches programme was expanded before the pilot scheme had been evaluated.

Te Pukenga has turned out to be a fiscal black hole.  A walking and cycling bridge which was a looming fiscal basket case was stopped by public outcry, not by officials' advice.  Auckland light rail?

Up
0

Where’s the incentive to work hard and take risks if the government takes away this incentive and wants you to give more than half of your income to the government? All of your points sound like envy to me

Up
1

Yes , its very hard working your balls off , and paying income tax , while someone makes more tax free just by buying a investment property and sitting on it. 

Up
0

Labour didn’t spend the tax money particularly well so why would we want to give them more.

Up
1

Excellent point, in fact it's understated.  They borrowed so much money that they had more money to spend than any Government has ever had.  They weren't able to shift the needle on any beneficial outcomes though. 

Up
0

Hipkins remains Labour leader

Why?

Up
1

Who cares.

I would love to think that he and his party might have a serious look at themselves, but that would be wishful thinking.

Up
2

Navel gazing? Ughh!

Up
0

Chris Trotter summing Labours loss up, eloquently as usual.

Bowalley Road: Labour In 2023: No Place Left To Grow.

Up
4

good read, hats off to CT for calling this so early....     especially as he clearly loves the left and has so much history, these woke progressives must find a new home before NZ will trust Labour again...

Up
3

Once upon a time Labours home was the blue collar worker. I was a staunch Labour supporter in the eighties.

Nowadays their home is the academics, the teachers and the beneficiaries. They lost the blue collar voters years ago.

Up
0