Chris Trotter says a political party caught speaking out of both sides on its mouth on key issues will soon find itself in big trouble

By Chris Trotter*

The Labour Party has a problem with ‘c’ words, not the least of which is ‘consistency’. It’s not a small problem: not when maintaining a consistent stance of matters economic, cultural and political is such a crucial aspect of rebuilding the electorate’s trust. Certainly, inconsistency raises questions of judgement and competence. A political party caught speaking out of both sides on its mouth on key issues will soon find itself in trouble – big trouble.

What was it, then, that prevented Labour’s inner circle from perceiving the inherent difficulties associated with quoting from the by then notorious opinion-piece authored by The Post’s award-winning political journalist Andrea Vance? Why wasn’t Vance’s use of the c-word in her splenetic diatribe directed against the Coalition’s women ministers immediately identified as problematic? And why-oh-why was Jan Tinetti’s inclusion of Vance’s piece in a question to Labour Relations Minister Brooke van Velden (a move which automatically gave the Minister two-and-a-half hours’ notice of her intentions) not rejected out-of-hand by Labour’s procedures committee?

These are all questions Labour no doubt wishes it had asked and answered appropriately before setting Tinetti’s train-wreck in motion. Especially since its failure to do so forced party leader Chris Hipkins into a very public acknowledgement of the “mistake” he and his senior colleagues had made. Unfortunately, confessing to a mistake is in no way an explanation for how it came to be made in the first place. And potential Labour voters need an explanation. Otherwise they’ll have no option but to rely on their own – and that is unlikely to reflect well on the Labour leadership’s judgement.

Advice on the unwisdom of judging others is certainly not hard to come by. A copy of the Bible is permanently available to all Members of Parliament, sitting there right in front of them every day on the table of the House of Representatives. Even if Christianity isn’t their thing, Matthew 7:1-3 should be familiar to any reasonably well-educated legislator:

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

Angry condemnation of the misogynistic abuse hurled at politically engaged women has been a potent weapon in Labour’s rhetorical arsenal for more than a decade. A major contributor to its effectiveness as political and cultural criticism was its all-inclusiveness. Prior to Tinetti’s “mistake”, the ideological orientation of its victims wasn’t important. Denigration of any woman involving sexualised language was held to be unequivocally unacceptable by just about every rational New Zealand politician.

So, where was the instant and vehement condemnation of Vance’s Sunday Star-Times column? Her use of the c-word against Brooke van Velden, Nicola Willis, and their colleagues, no matter how well it read as a piece of polemic, was a clear violation of the long-standing prohibition. Hipkins should have made all haste to be the first to condemn it. Instead, he responded like a paid-up member of the Free Speech Union, dismissing questions about whether or not he would have said the same if Jacinda Ardern had been the target of such abuse as “hypothetical”.

Yeah, right, Chris.

There’s no worse political sin than offering the public an explanation which both the explainer and the voter knows to be bullshit. There was something wrong in Hipkins’ initial response, and whatever that thing was, it was still there when Hipkins and his colleagues signed-off on Tinetti’s question.

What was it?

The most obvious answer is: a level of hypocrisy so deeply embedded in Labour’s political style that it is no longer recognised as a problem – i.e. a huge “beam” in the party’s eye. More than that, however, it pointed to a ‘whatever-it-takes’, ‘the-end-justifies-the-means’, approach to the job of holding the government to account. An approach which assigns more value to exposing the vices of Labour’s opponents than it does to demonstrating the party’s own virtues. Call it the “politics of aspersion”. Why bother offering the voters the best, when they’re clearly so eager to consume the worst?

That these rules of engagement extend well beyond the culture wars was made plain by Labour’s pre-Budget positioning over the course of the weekend just ended.

It began with the publication of an interview (once again it was The Post) with Labour’s Finance Spokesperson, Barbara Edmond. Responding to Tom Pullar-Strecker’s questions, Edmonds revealed that in virtually all respects Labour’s fiscal policies were, if not identical, then remarkably similar to Nationals.

According to Pullar-Strecker:

“Edmonds’ statements mean Labour is supporting staying within the same fiscal envelope that the coalition government has as its bottom line … She labelled its approach ‘balanced fiscal responsibility’.”

On the same day, Saturday, 17 May 2025, Chris Hipkins delivered a keynote speech to Labour’s Auckland Regional Conference. No references there to shadowing the Coalition’s fiscal strategy. No dutiful tugging of the forelock to Treasury’s neoliberal boffins. Just gloriously non-specific promises: standard fare for Labour since the 1980s:

“We won’t govern by nostalgia or try to turn the clock back to some fictional golden age. The world is changing too fast for that. New Zealanders don’t need fairy tales. They need leadership that looks forward, not backward. We will tackle the big challenges head-on: climate change, child poverty, the disruption of artificial intelligence, and the rising cost of living. Because that’s what real leadership looks like, facing the future with courage, honesty and determination. Not blaming, not dodging, not dividing—but bringing people together and moving the country forward.”

And, while Labour’s doing all that it will also be keeping government borrowing under 50 percent of GDP. How? By raising taxes – as the Greens are promising?

On taxes, this is all Hipkins’ speech-writers wrote:

“[Y]es, we will make the tax system fairer. Because New Zealand needs a tax system where everyone pays their fair share. Not to punish success but to ensure that those who’ve done well contribute to the roads that connect them, the hospitals that care for them, and the schools that taught them. You can’t build a strong economy on a weak society. And you can’t solve a cost-of-living crisis by making it worse for the people who already feel it most.”

Clear? As mud? When it comes to unambiguous and independently costed Labour policy it is very much a case of “watch this space” – but not with any wild expectations of radical change. Not now that David Parker, Labour’s progressive Elvis, has left the building.

All of which suggests that Labour’s conduct, and its speech, is determined by the audience before whom it is presenting itself. Addressing the party’s core supporters in the public service: those 180,000 enraged women send sliding down van Velden’s Pay Equity snake to throw a six and start again; Labour raises no objections to the Coalition’s women ministers being called c***s. To The Post’s business readers, it promises “balanced fiscal responsibility”. To the party rank-and-file it’s lashings of old-fashioned left-wing exhortation:

“Let’s organise. Let’s mobilise. Let’s grow our movement and get New Zealand back on track. We haven’t got a day to lose. Let’s get to work.”

Work like deciding which side of its mouth Labour should speak out of, the left or the right? Work like removing the beam of hypocrisy from its own eye? Ideally. But wouldn’t work of that importance require another c-word?

Courage.

*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.