Underrepresented London

On Thursday 02 May 2024 Londoners will vote in the Greater London Authority (GLA) and London Mayoral Elections. This important election will set the direction for this major conurbation in the South-East of England. This city has been politically and economically dominant over the rest of the British Isles for much of the last 2,000 years, but it would be fair to say the capital has had a rocky few years.

In this year’s mayoral election, the choice is between the incumbent Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan, and Trump-supporting Conservative Susan Hall. Unlike previous GLA elections, this election will use the First Past the Post electoral system due to Conservative Government changes to the electoral laws. Voters will also be required to bring ID, a move no doubt designed to suppress voter turnout by non-Tory voters.

The significance of London to the UK economically

The London Metropolitan area generates around 1/3 of the UK’s GDP. For those living outside of London, there is considerable resentment that politicians and bankers hoard wealth in the city and do not share this wealth with the rest of the country. The counter-argument to this is that when London generates 1/3 of the UK’s GDP it must receive proper investment.

The London economy is often viewed as quite separate from the rest of the UK. Certainly, when the UK was a member of the EU, the connection between London and other European cities was stronger than that with regional cities like Sheffield or Liverpool – though there are clearly strong links between these cities and London.

Other parts of the UK, such as the north of England will complain about lack of investment and jobs in their region. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when all the money and jobs are in London – this is more likely to be where new businesses and employment are created. On the other hand, does all GDP generated in London stay in London? Or does quite a bit of it get used to support different parts of the UK?

While there can be no doubt that there is considerable money and wealth in London, there is also deprivation and poverty. While London might generate 1/3 of the UK’s GDP, its residents are not all reaping the rewards of this wealth.

London Politics

The population of Greater London in 2019 was around 8.9 million, or around 12.5% of the total UK population. It is by far the most culturally diverse city in the UK. It also is one of the most cosmopolitan cities in Europe.

There is a general feeling of frustration in London. This frustration is directed at the Mayor, GLA, and the government in Westminster. In my earlier blog post on the Uxbridge by-election in mid-2023 I discussed some of the challenges London faces with the introduction of the Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ), where to ensure the capital has clean air people were being charged for driving older polluting vehicles in the city. That this has been introduced during the worst cost of living crisis in decades has made things very difficult for people who rely on cars to get to work, particularly in the outer suburbs of London. It is worth noting that 46% of London households have no vehicle, and this rate is even higher for those living in zones 1-3 where public transport is more reliable.

But the frustrations go beyond ULEZ. London is a city that voted overwhelmingly ‘Remain’ in 2016, whereas England as a whole the UK nation most supportive of leaving the European Union. In a city with considerable links to Europe, and where the banking sector is a major part of London’s economy, the anger and frustration at the Brexit result continue to simmer eight years after the referendum.

There has been valid criticism in the past that power is too centrally located in and around Whitehall, thus by default political decisions tended to favour London. There is certainly some evidence that this has occurred, at least historically. However, there is also evidence that Londoners often do not benefit and at times are forgotten by policy-makers.

While most MPs and civil servants would spend a significant portion of their week in London, only 73 of the 650 MPs in the House of Commons represent London Constituencies. Labour tends to dominate politics in London. Labour or centre-left candidates have won four of the six London Mayoral elections since 2000. At the 2019 election, while there was a national swing to the Conservative Party, Labour elected 46 Labour 20 Conservative MPs. Labour controls 23 of the 30 Borough Councils in London.

By contrast, the Conservative Party has historically dominated politics in England. And with 80% of the UK’s population living in England, and by winning there, the Conservatives have dominated Westminister and British Politics. UK politics is often dominated by Tory Shires and rural areas and towns in the south of England. The Brexit result in 2016 illustrated that having a London-dominated campaign will likely cause a backlash from voters in other parts of England.

It is not just through Party allegiance or issues like EU membership London is out of step with the rest of England. The fact is that London is perceived as wealthy and affluent. Other parts of the UK have struggled, especially ex-coal mining areas in Wales and the North of England. In these areas where public transport and other key infrastructure is poor, there is little patience for the Government investment in London.

Though not is all that it seems with regards to London. The Levelling-Up agenda has been sold as a programme to invest in these left-behind communities which desperately need infrastructure, industry and jobs. Yet many do not realise, that a not insignificant amount of Levelling-Up funding has also been spent on deprived parts of Greater London.

The high price of living in London

There is money in London. People who live within the M25 earn more. But, they spend considerably more for the privilege of living in Capital City. Increasingly people are being forced out of the city, with many former East London residents now moving to commuter counties like Essex and Kent. The cost of housing has skyrocketed in the last 20 years, meaning once affordable middle-class properties in Zone 2 and 3 of London are now worth over a million pounds. Properties in my suburb of Deptford are being advertised as starter homes with a price tag of £500k. Given most lenders require a 20% deposit, these properties are out of reach of most people living in the area.

So people end up in the rental market. According to Zoopla, the average monthly rent in London as of April 2024 is £2,121. Council tax, internet, water and energy bills are usually on top of this and have increased significantly in the last two years. The average monthly income after tax is £2,902.50. This means most renters spend well over 2/3 of their income on rent and utility bills, with other costs like train fares and groceries many are left with very little disposable income each month.

The demand for council housing or other genuinely social rent homes (rent that is based on levels of income) is high and this cannot be met by local authorities. People can wait for years for social housing. Worse, the condition of many council estates in many parts of London is bad.

People wanting to start a family are understandably leaving London due to these costs, while others are deciding not to have children due to the expense and pressure of living in the capital. There are likely to be school closures across London in the coming years due to these factors. This in turn will potentially drive more families out of the city.

London is increasingly becoming a city where urban professionals work every hour they can to survive. For the unemployed or those on low incomes, living in this city is nye-on impossible. My own experience of moving to London in 2017 was not easy. Finding decent work in London takes time and the set-up costs of moving to the city were extreme. While for me part of this was moving from New Zealand, for people moving from other parts of the UK to London they face many of these same challenges. It is very easy to get into considerable debt or to face hardships. Yes, moving to London is a choice, but it is the UK’s capital and economic centre so continues to be where many of the work opportunities are.

Infrastructure in London

One of the key narratives around the Levelling-up strategy is that it is to improve infrastructure in parts of England that traditionally have missed out. It is hard to argue that a decent rail network between Manchester and Liverpool should not be a key priority for transport investment.

London has received transport investment with the Cross Rail/Elizabeth line which opened in 2022. Though arguable much of the benefit of this line was for people outside of London in places like Reading who are now connected to the London network.

However, one of the key challenges in London is investing in the existing network. An example of this is the Bakerloo line. The current rolling stock on this line was purchased in 1972 and was due for replacement in 2008. It is now 16 years past its best-before date, and the line is now at risk of critical failure as a result. There are also strong arguments that this line should now be extended from its current final stop in Elephant and Castle, South East through to Hayes via Old Kent Road, Lewisham and Catford. A campaign was recently launched called Back the Bakerloo with the support of Borough Councils throughout Greater London.

The challenge for projects like this is that the Central Government at this time will be reluctant to bankroll major projects in London. They can underwrite any loans for the Greater London Authority, but even here, with the current state of Government finances and debt, this could be challenging.

Devolution of power to the Greater London Authority

One of the big challenges faced by the Greater London Authority is that it only receives a fraction of the tax collected in London. In New York roughly 50% of taxes collected go to the city authority, and in Tokyo over 70%. In London, that figure is under 10%. This is why during the pandemic the London Mayor had to go cap in hand to the Conservative Government (a Government most Londoners did not vote for) and ask them to bail out Transport for London due to the fall in passenger numbers during lockdown. The Government insisted that passenger fares in London increase, something Mayor Sadiq Khan has promised not to do. This was clearly political game-playing and is all too common when it comes to local government finances.

The implementation of ULEZ suffered similar political game-playing. When it was implemented, the London Mayor had asked the government to support a vehicle scrappage scheme just as it had done in the West Midlands where Conservative Mayor Andy Street has held office since 2017. If the Greater London Authority had stronger devolutionary powers and a greater share of London’s tax revenue a much better scrappage scheme could have been introduced.

Of course, the history of London Government and Westminister has been marred in conflict. In 1986 the Thatcher Government famously abolished the Greater London Council in response to the policies of left-wing Mayor Ken Livingston. Most people across the political spectrum would now agree this was a foolish decision and the current Greater London Authority was created by the Blair Government in 2000. However, there remains a power imbalance in favour of Whitehall and the government. The Greater London Authority and Borough Councils in London are not given sufficient powers to serve their local community. This challenge is not dissimilar to that faced by local leaders in other parts of the country. Whereas in Manchester or West Midlands, there is general recognition of the need for greater self-determination, not so for Greater London.

Reasons to be Cheerful

It would be easy to conclude that the picture is fairly gloomy given the challenges facing London. In addition to those mentioned, its Police force the Metropolitan Police has a poor reputation, while knife crime continues to plague London.

But London remains the cultural, political and economic capital of the UK. It does still have many strong leaders who will advocate for the city. Further, the challenges facing London like the housing crisis are becoming harder to ignore.

Sadiq Khan’s re-election pledges include free school meals for all primary school kids in London, building 40,000 new social houses and implementing rent controls. Khan also plans to continue his agenda to tackle air pollution in the city to improve public health and reduce greenhouse emissions in the capital. These are good practical measures to help people living in London.

The report authored by Gordon Brown in late 2022, recommends greater devolution in regions of England. It is highly likely that if Labour are elected to government this year, they will look to implement this part of the Gordon Brown report. This may include greater powers to the GLA.

Should a Conservative Party mayor be elected this week, or at some point in the future, the issue of devolution will not go away. Susan Hall or other City Hall Conservatives will not appreciate being dictated to by the government, especially if Labour are in power. Further, the Levelling-up agenda by the Conservative Government has included commitments to the devolution of power to local authorities. While there may be arguments on the details, both major UK political parties agree in principle that greater devolution is a good thing, including for London.

Greater London will not have an easy time over the next decade. The problems listed above are coming to a head fast and cannot be ignored for long. Things need to change in London, and it is reasonable to assume things will change over the next few years.

Iran launches missiles at Israel in retaliation for consulate strike in Damascus

In the last few hours, Iran has launched 300 missiles at Israel. Most of these were shot down by the Israeli missile defence system, and by Israel’s allies including the UK.

An antimissile system targets an Iranian aerial attack on Israel 14/04/2024

This attack was in retaliation for the Israeli bombing of the Iranian consulate annexe building adjacent to the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria, killing 16 people. This was part of Israel’s broader campaign to target Hezbollah assets in Syria since 2011. This has escalated since October 7 2023 and the intensified conflict between Hamas and Israel.

In October I described the attacks by Hamas on 7 October as horrific and appalling. I went on to say:

Hardliners in both Israel and Palestine are in control, which makes the prospect of peace or a lasting resolution to the conflict in the region seem a distant prospect at this stage. Whether it is a two-state solution, a one-state solution with power sharing, or some other construct, there needs to be a way that Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace. Until this happens, this conflict will destabilise not only the Middle East but the whole w

The horrific situation in Israel and Gaza

This conflict has indeed now escalated and the region is increasingly unstable. This is the first time that Iran has directly attacked Israeli territory. US President Joe Biden has told Israel that it will not participate in a counter-strike against Iran. However, Netanyahu and his hard-line coalition have ignored similar wise words of caution from the US in recent weeks. If Israel does respond, Iran has already signalled there will be further retaliation.

Since the 7 October attacks, Israel has argued that it has a right to defend itself. Israel does have this right, but it also has a responsibility to comply with international law and to the human rights of people living in Gaza. Israel also has a responsibility to stop the settler attacks in the West Bank, which have intensified since the 7 October 2023 attacks. It has a responsibility not to escalate violence by attacking Rafah, again something Biden has warned Israel against.

The South African Government has taken the Israeli Government to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that Israel is responsible for violations of the Genocide Convention in respect of its actions taken in Gaza. While it will likely be years before any decision is made by the ICJ, there is growing evidence that Israel has attacked hospitals and other civilian targets.

Historically the US Government has been Israel’s strongest ally, under both Democrat and Republican Presidents. Therefore it is no small thing that in a recent UN vote calling for an immediate ceasefire in Israel-Gaza, the US abstained rather than using their power of veto. Many supporters of Palestine and those on the left have been critical of the Biden Administration over its response to the Gaza conflict. In reality, Biden has pushed back on the Netanyahu Government much harder than his predecessors. Unfortunately, the response of the Israeli Government to the horrific attacks by Hamas on 7 October has escalated the violence and has now drawn Iran into active conflict against Israel.

Israel should not have bombed the Iranian consulate buildings in Damascus. Iran should not have fired 300 missiles at Israel in response. Neither of these actions should have happened, but they now have. The world now watches to see if there is further retaliation and escalation of violence, or if calmer and wiser heads prevail.

The prospect of peace or a lasting resolution to the conflict in the region seems more distant than ever. But only by doing everything possible to achieve such an outcome will there be any chance of this conflict de-escalating and a lasting peace being achieved.

In an episode of The Rest is Politics recorded shortly after 7 October, Alastair and Rory interviewed historian Yuval Noah Harari who had family caught up in the Hamas attacks on Israel. During this interview, Yuval rightly said that for people living in places like London instead of taking a side in this conflict, we need to be seeking long-term solutions to this conflict. I do not claim to have these solutions. But as a first step, an immediate ceasefire and a return to peace talks is an essential first step. By contrast, any escalation in this conflict will do untold harm both in the region and globally.

Joe Biden learning lessons from Keir Starmer?

A recent article on the Labour List authored by Ed Owen raised some interesting points about the respective elections coming up this year in the US and the UK.

The two most recent by-elections in England certainly were encouraging for Labour, as is recent polling. But we still maybe months away from a UK General Election and lots of thing can happen between now and then.

Before I delve into the various observations made in the article, there are a few key points to remember. UK Labour last won a general election back in 2005. Since then, the US Democrats have won three of the last four presidential elections. While Labour is ahead in the UK polls and has been for over two years, this is in no small part due to support for the Conservative Government collapsing.

I quote Ed Owen below:

Yet, ironically, with President Biden trailing Donald Trump – the soon-to-be anointed Republican candidate after primary victories in Iowa and New Hampshire – by up to six points in one recent opinion poll, many Democrats are now asking themselves whether they might have been in a stronger position if they had followed the experience of Labour and Keir Starmer.

While most Democrats are publicly rallying around Biden, some are privately despairing of how, through a combination of poor political strategy and personal misjudgments, he appears to have lost the confidence of a significant number of key swing voters he won in 2020.

Foremost among these mistakes, these critics allege, was the President’s willingness to indulge rather than confront the liberal left of the Democrat Party as represented by former rivals Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Both are kept close, and some of their leading advisers were brought into the administration’s ranks at its outset.

https://labourlist.org/2024/02/joe-biden-us-election-2024-donald-trump-democrats-swing-voters/

One of the great successes of the Biden campaign in 2020 was building bridges with the Sanders campaign and building what has so far been an enduring electoral coalition with the “liberal left grouping”.

Contrast this to 2016, where Hilary Clinton’s campaign failed to properly win over Sanders supporters or indeed many traditional Democrat voters. The so-called Rust Belt states such as Michigan were traditionally blue-collar Democrat strongholds but in 2016 voted for Trump, much to the surprise and upset of the Clinton campaign.

When President Biden joined the UAW picket line last year in Michigan, this was not about “indulging the left”, it was very smart electoral politics.

Contrast this to recent polling showing that support for Labour amongst UK Muslim voters has halved since the Starmer’s cack-handed response when asked if Israel had the right to cut off water and power to Gaza. Recently, New Statesmen Claudia Cokerell made the point that this, combined with many younger voters now disappointed at Labour ditching the £28bn green policy, may cost Labour quite a few votes. Though the Labour motion in parliament on a ceasefire should go someway to restoring confidence of those unhappy abour Labour’s Gaza position.

In the UK, the repeated kicking given to those who supported Corbyn and even some on the soft left of Labour is short sighted. In a post last year I wrote the Corbyn was “not fit to be Prime Minister” in reference to his position on Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine. His handling of the antisemitism issue in Labour also showed he was not capable of leading the party. But to treat anyone whose politics is to the left of New Labour as dangerous and not worthy of Labour membership or mainstream politics, is not smart and could do considerable harm in the long term.

The Tories have had a disasterous term in office, and much of their base are threatening not to vote. But Labour should not be complacent. There are plenty of examples where Labour were polling well during the term, only to lose the General Election. If polls narrow Labour needs to build a strong coalition of progressive support to win.

Ed Owen then goes on:

Trashing your party’s record in office is bad politics

Yet, despite serving as Vice President for eight years in the Obama administration, Biden has often appeared to side with the Warren/Sanders worldview. Indeed, only last April, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan made a keynote speech that implicitly dumped on the economic philosophy of previous Democratic Presidents.

Trashing your party’s record in office is bad politics as Ed Miliband discovered in 2015, and PPI’s president Will Marshall agrees. “Is it really necessary to debate progressives again over Bill Clinton’s legacy?” he wrote last month. “With a vengeful Donald Trump thrashing about our political waters like a blood-frenzied shark, it seems like a distraction. What’s more, the left’s revisionist history of the Clinton years strikes me as a facile exercise in presentism – reinterpreting the past to score present-day ideological points.”

https://labourlist.org/2024/02/joe-biden-us-election-2024-donald-trump-democrats-swing-voters/

I wonder, if Will Marshall has ever reflected that the economic policies starting with Regan in the 1980s, continued by Clinton et al up to the 2016, directly contributed to the election of Trump. Exporting jobs and failing to rebuild new industries like in Michigan or Ohio. Might this have led to populist Trump winning the electoral college in 2016…maybe?

In terms of trashing the legacy, the Bill Clinton Presidency ended 23 years ago. Nearly a quarter of a century on, we have hindsight and perspect to see what the impact of policies from that time. Also, the reason progressive raise the Clinton legacy is because many in the Democrats think that these policies and strategies would still be successful now. Just as too many in UK Labour continue to use the 1997 election as the playbook for 2024 – ignoring some fairly major economic and social shifts that have taken place since.

It is not trashing the Legacy of either Clinton or Blair, to say that things should be done differently now. By that measure, were the legacies of Roosevelt or Attlee being trashed in the 1990s? The reality in politics is that you constantly need to adapt to the times. It is not the 1930s or the 1990s, though important lessons can be learnt from both.

Ed follows up with this:

Biden’s critics argue, that having been elected in 2020 as a bipartisan President (not least winning votes from Republicans and independents who could not stomach another Trump term), he has too often sought to govern in a partisan way driven more by a desire to avoid being attacked from the left than from the right.

“Keir Starmer has shown that when you stand firm with the concerns of real voters and take on the minority interests pursued by the left, you win the public’s trust and confidence,” one centrist Democrat observed recently. “This was a lesson we had to learn through the 80s and 90s but is one that appears now to have been forgotten.”

https://labourlist.org/2024/02/joe-biden-us-election-2024-donald-trump-democrats-swing-voters/

A bipartisan President? Really? Biden won the Demcratic nomination in 2020. Yes he did win support of voters who may have previously voted for different party’s, including some who had previously voted Republican. Yes, Trump has taken the Republican Party in different direction from the days of Regan and both Bush Presidencies, meaning moderate Republican’s now have not political home. But the programme of Biden and the Democratic Party should not just pander to this group. It is no good saying oh well liberals/the left will vote for us anyway, only to get angry when a few million people for a Green candidate in a close election.

Since becoming leader, Starmer has helped lift support for Labour. Under his watch, Labour have been calling out the failures of the current Government, including Party Gate, the Liz Truss Mini-Budget and the failed Rwanda Refugee policy. Again though, Starmer is yet to win a general election. Yes there have been some positive polling numbers, but we are yet to see much in the way of detailed policy from Labour as yet.

Biden has not been seen to be addressing voters’ key concerns

This strategic weakness has been compounded by what many see as Biden’s unwillingness or inability to address or connect with voters on the key issues of the day, notably the cost of living and immigration.

High inflation has undoubtedly hurt the administration and, while there have been significant falls in the last months, there are fears that long-term, transformational measures such as the Inflation Reduction Act – which invests more than $600bn into the clean energy transition – come at a time when many swing voters believe that public spending needs to be reined back, not least after the significant increase in government intervention during Covid.

https://labourlist.org/2024/02/joe-biden-us-election-2024-donald-trump-democrats-swing-voters/

High inflation and the cost of living has hurt governments around the world. Most incumbant governments have struggled in recent years. One example being New Zealand where Labour went from 50% of the vote in 2020 to 25% in 2023. Is it that Biden has not connected with voters on key issues, or is it that it takes time for policies to take effect, especially when the world economy is so unstable.

Biden has been a strong performer in terms of passing legislation. I was previously somewhat skeptical on Biden, but his list of achievements in office has been impressive. Not least of these was the Inflation Reduction Act, which pumped billions into clean energy and other US infrasture in desperate need of investment. These projects take years to roll out, but will no doubt be an incredible legacy of the Biden administration. Should Biden not have pushed to get this Act passed because some swing voters in a focus group said they don’t like the government spending money. Governing is about leading. It is about making the tough calls that need to be made. If we are serious about tackling climate change, or to invest in the economy and help people in the medium to long term.

Reining back spending at times maybe necessary. But not if it will do more long term harm than good. Those who have concerns about the levels of spending from the Inflation Reduction Act, may later reflect that ultimately it helped the US economy. Leadership is about having courage and doing what is needed.

Similar questions are being raised within the Labour leadership about the party’s £28bn green investment commitment. As a keen observer of US politics, Rachel Reeves has seen how Bidenomics has failed to land effectively with the American public since her very public embrace of the President’s economic policies when she was in the US in May last year.

Immigration continues to be a major public concern too, with “encounters” on the US-Mexico border last year numbering 2.5 million – the highest level for more than 20 years. As with higher prices, it’s an issue that a President who prides himself on understanding the concerns of middle America has been oddly detached and absent from.

https://labourlist.org/2024/02/joe-biden-us-election-2024-donald-trump-democrats-swing-voters/

To paraphrase Limp Bizkit’s Full Nelson, their mouth was writing cheques that their ass could not cash. When Labour announced their £28bn green investment pledge in 2021, it was quite clear that the global economy was not doing well as it emerged from the pademic. Yes, it is certainly worse now after the Liz Truss Mini Budget. But back then it was clear making a bold spending promise would be a challenge. Labour should not have announced the figure back then, especially if it couldn’t hold its nerve and see it through.

Bidenomics, as Ed Owen terms it, has not failed to land. Rather, the Biden administration has like all governments struggled with the economic situation. Recently this has resulted in not so great approval ratings for Biden. This is what happens in Government. Labour are not in Government, and have not been since 2010. The lesson Rachel Reeves should be taking from this is that being in power means making tough calls, which at times may reflect in polling numbers. A strong leader will ride this out.

The point about immigration in the above is important. Rightly or wrongly, in difficult economic times public opinion tends to shift swiftly against immigration. In both the UK and the US, significant sections of the economy rely on migrant workers. But it is a policy area where the right, especially the populist right of Trump, will attack progressive governments. When they do, progressives need a strong response.

Biden’s experience shows the challenge ahead for Starmer’s Labour

There’s still nine months to go until the US elections, and the combination of a strong and improving economy and Trump’s legal battles offers hope to Democrats that they can still win a second term with Biden.

But, after four days speaking to Democrats on the Hill and in the state legislature of Virginia, the visiting group of Labour PPCs returned to the UK both with a stark view of the task ahead for the Democrats and a renewed sense of purpose of what is required in the UK.

“Looking at US politics is pretty sobering for anyone tempted to get carried away about Labour’s poll lead,” said Kirsty McNeill, the party’s candidate in Midlothian. “The President’s colossal policy achievements are not translating into political support and our US trip was to help us work out why.

“The main conclusion I’ve drawn is that winning the election means getting to base camp – scaling the mountain of getting sustained support for our ambitious missions is the actual task. Keir’s reminders we should have zero complacency about the ease of either winning or governing in these conditions was brought into sharp relief in DC.”

https://labourlist.org/2024/02/joe-biden-us-election-2024-donald-trump-democrats-swing-voters/

There is still nine months to the US election. In that time the economy may improve, and the policies of the Biden administration should help that. There is still a strong possibility of Biden winning a second term, and indeed of the Democrats taking back Congress.

Trump needs to be defeated politically, with another overwhelming popular and electoral college vote against him and for Biden and the Democrats. While it is understandable the desire to prosecute Trump for his various crimes, to Trump’s base the legal campaign is further proof of the utterly false claim that he is being pursecuted by the establishment.

US politics is always very sobering. In earlier blog posts I have highlighted the many limitations of the flawed US political system. Biden has got as far has he has by having a programme, and by building a coalition of support which includes those on the left of the Democrats.

For Labour, if they win in 2024 it will be a difficult term in Government. In many ways they are right to under promise and possibly over deliver later if the economy improves. Labour needs to win over the trust of voters, and this includes voters on the left who may still be deciding whether to vote Labour.

Mr Bates vs The Post Office

Many question the value of the performing arts and drama. At the start of 2024, the ITV drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office did what journalists, politicians and broader civil society have failed to do over the last 25 years. It raised public awareness of the injustice faced by the postmasters employed by Post Office Limited. Many postmasters, forced to use the Horizon computer system were falsely accused of stealing post office money. In fact, Horizon, built and maintained by Fujitsu, was faulty and produced inaccurate reports.

There is much more to say about the twists and turns of this case, too long for one blog post. It is better to watch the ITV drama to get a decent overview. Needless to say in the 6 and a half years I have lived in London, the Horizon Post Office scandal has featured regularly in the news. While some convictions were eventually overturned, many still await justice. It has taken an ITV drama to force the Government and the Post Office into action.

Three broader issues arise from this case:

  1. Justice delayed is justice denied
  2. The need for greater accountability of big tech companies
  3. The worrying precedent of overturning convictions through legislation

Point one is fairly self-explanatory. Many of the postmaster convictions date back to the early 2000s. Yet many are waiting years to get their day in court to clear their name. This is not unusual. For those impacted by the contaminated blood scandal, where people were given contaminated blood in the 1970s and 1980s, many are still waiting for adequate compensation. Another is the Hillsborough disaster where a football stand collapsed killing 79 people and injuring 766. It took many families 30+ years for compensation for the crime, and in that case, the subsequent police cover-up. Horizon and the contaminated blood scandals were state-initiated corporate crimes, and Hillsborough was a state-facilitated corporate crime. In all three examples, many of those affected have died before receiving a penny of compensation.

On point two, this is a growing problem. In a week where Mark Zuckerburg at a US Senate hearing was forced to apologise to families whose children had been harmed online, the calls for greater regulation of tech companies are growing. Increasingly social media platforms will find themselves regulated. But the big tech companies providing the software organisations like post offices now rely on to function, remain largely unpoliced. This is because by and large, they are the only ones who really understand how their programmes work. We rely on them as the experts, which makes it hard to scrutinise or regulate. When the Horizon produced false reports and Fujitsu said it was the postmasters, the Post Office struggled to prove otherwise (though made little attempt at doing so either). Some were expressing concern about Horizon as early as 1999, yet proving the issues or finding replacement software proved near impossible. Even after the ITV drama, in 2024 the Post Office is still using Horizon, though promise it will be replaced later this year.

The Government’s response to this has been to pass legislation quickly that overturns all convictions related to the Horizon scandal. Given how overloaded the court system is, it would take many more years to hear all the cases. In an election year, this would not be acceptable to voters. But this sets a worrying precedent. Firstly, whilst a great many of those convicted during the Horizon scandal were innocent, in all likelihood were will be some who were not.

On point three, governments overruling the courts is never a good thing. The independence of the judiciary is crucial in a democracy so that the rule of law is not undermined by the government of the day for political gain. This is what makes the UK Government’s latest efforts to overturn the Rwanda ruling through legislation so concerning. It is a slippery slope to what is happening in Hungary under Prime Minister Vicktor Orban where courts will now be directly overseen by the government. Similar policies have been pursued by hard-right governments in Poland and India.

The postmaster legislation is not doing this. It is a well-intentioned action aimed at fixing a longstanding injustice. But it could set a precedent for future governments to overturn other court decisions, and over time undermine the independence of the judiciary. If this happens, the legacy of the postmaster-horizon scandal will be felt for many more years to come.

Tobacco bans in NZ and the UK.

In October, UK PM Rishi Sunak announced that he would follow New Zealand’s policy of gradually lifting the age at which people can buy tobacco. This would mean anyone born after 2009 would never be legally allowed to purchase tobacco. Last week, the new centre-right National Party-lead government in New Zealand announced it would be repealing this policy.

Two centre-right governments in English-speaking nations, both clients of Crosby Textor, yet opposite responses to tobacco regulation. The incoming NZ Health Minister Dr Shane Reti expressed concerns about a black market in tobacco sales if the ban was to be implemented. Reti also used the straw man argument that the tobacco ban was a factor driving recent ram rads of shops in New Zealand.

Worst of all, a key motivation for repealing the 2021 NZ tobacco legislation is to fund tax cuts. Before the election, it was clear that the National Party’s tax policy was unrealistic, just as Liz Truss’s tax cuts were in the UK. So the new government’s answer, remove restrictions on tobacco sales and use the revenue to fund tax cuts rather than funding the health system that tobacco tax revenue should be used for.

The decision in 2021 to introduce the smoking ban was a courageous one. Smoking causes many deaths each year and places a strain on the country’s health system. Smoking is addictive and we should do all we can to discourage young people from taking up this habit. This being said, putting a total ban on tobacco sales of people born after 2009 is well-meaning, but would likely have unintended and profoundly negative consequences.

There is a considerable body of evidence showing that prohibition does not work. Attempts at banning the sale of alcohol in the USA famously resulted in black market moonshine being sold. Attempts to stop the sale of narcotics in the so-called war on drugs have been a resounding failure. While it still may not be a popular view, the evidence shows that banning substances rarely stops consumption. Worse, it drives manufacturing and sales underground giving criminal gangs a great source of income and power.

The weird thing about the NZ ban is that in 2020 there was a real possibility that marijuana would be legalised. Run in parallel with the 2020 general election, the referendum on legalising marijuana was held. The result was 48.4 % in favour of legalising and 50.7 against it. In a country where studies have found that 80% of the population have tried pot, the level of cognitive dissonance of many voters is astounding.

Further, during the election campaign in 2020, Jacinda Ardern refused to state whether she supported legalising marijuana, despite earlier admitting she had tried the substance before. The concern from NZ Labour strategists was that Jacinda coming out in favour of legalising would be used against them by the opposition. As it happened, Labour won with a huge majority and the referendum was narrowly lost.

Jacinda Ardern had earlier stated her personal support for the legalisation and party members have voted at conferences in favour of policy remits calling for the same. Jacinda and other Labour frontbenchers could have openly stated their support for legalisation and still comfortably won the 2020 election. That they did not was an uncharacteristic failure of leadership by Jacinda Ardern and her team. This may have contributed to NZ still having drug laws that are disproportionately used against Maori and Pacifica populations and completely fail to stop the widespread use of marijuana.

That being said, it should not need the Prime Minister saying she supported legalisation for the referendum to succeed. The evidence from both NZ and overseas should have been enough.

All the arguments for legalising marijuana apply to tobacco as well. As a nonsmoker, I would be delighted if everyone stopped smoking. But I realise there will always be some who choose to. There will be black markets in tobacco, especially when other countries do not legislate for similar bans so people will be smuggling tobacco into the country. Further, while the state should encourage people to make good health choices and drive behaviours, banning tobacco is a bridge too far.

It might seem strange that a center-left Labour Party member would take this position. But it is a position based on evidence. Yes regulate the sale, add taxes, and limit where these products can be sold, which was also part of the 2021 NZ legislation. But prohibition of tobacco, like alcohol or marijuana will not work and will result in negative and unintended consequences.

It is unclear whether Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government will be successful in implementing a similar tobacco ban to that which NZ has just repealed. While there will be support across the political aisle for stronger restrictions, it is difficult to see how banning sales to people born after 2009 would work. Given how readily available hard drugs such as cocaine, MDMA and ketamine are on the streets of London, one has to be sceptical about the UK’s ability to successfully ban tobacco.

Instead of looking to the criminal justice system to tackle a health problem, we need policies that support people with addictions. Yes control the sale, and heavily regulate the strength and quality of what is being sold. But history has shown time and again that just banning things does not fix the problem.

Rishi Sunak’s grubby deal with Suella Braverman

One has to really feel for those trying to write political satire these days. How can a satirist be more ridiculous than many of our political leaders they wish to lampoon? Case in point, yesterday’s “resignation letter” from sacked former Home Secretary Suella Braverman.

Just to recap. From July to September, the UK effectively had a caretaker government while the Tory Party conducted its internal leadership race. The top two candidates were Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss. Despite Sunak winning the support of more MPs, Truss won 57.4% of the party membership vote and became Prime Minister. It was a disaster.

In just 49 days as PM, Truss destroyed the myth that the Conservative Party is good at managing the economy. On 25 October 2022, Truss was forced to resign. The Conservatives were desperate not to go through another leadership ballot. Worse, there were fears Truss’s disgraced predecessor may stage a comeback. By this stage, the Tories were 30% behind in the polls.

Sunak became Prime Minister, despite losing the membership vote by being the only candidate. He did this by doing deals with the likes of Suella Braverman, who had been forced to resign as Home Secretary days earlier for breaching cabinet rules, and Dominic Raab who faced bullying accusations at the time and later was forced to resign.

Sunak did not need to do these grubby deals to stitch up support. In October 2022, Rishi Sunak was the only credible option. He did not need to do deals with people like Braverman and he would be in a much stronger position now if he had not.

Today’s decision by the Supreme Court that the Government’s Rwanda asylum policy is unlawful is the icing on the cake. Braverman is right in a sense, the government has wasted a year and an Act of Parliament on the Rwanda policy. But she is also completely wrong about the ECHR and the HRA. Instead, the UK government should have found a solution to the asylum crisis that complied with Human Rights legislation and international obligations. The response to the boat people crisis has been a failure by this government. Caused in no small part by deals done by Rishi Sunak to shore up support from the right of the Conservative Party.

For the political satirist, it is hard to come up with a more ridiculous situation. It would be all very funny were it not real, which instead is just frustrating and depressing.

Rishi Sunak – the change candidate?

The decision to bring back former Prime Minister David Cameron as Foreign Secretary was a masterstroke. Cameron has many faults and his sudden exit from Number 10 after the Brexit referendum did not go his way left a black mark on his legacy. But Cameron, the PM who apologised for Bloody Sunday, who is sympathetic to Israel but has also criticised the blockade of Gaza and who knows how to manage international politics well is a smart choice as Foreign Secretary right now.

David Cameron, soon to be Lord Cameron. UK Prime Minister from 2010 to 2016

This is a government that has been perpetually in crisis, frankly ever since Cameron left. Cameron won’t fix everything, nor do much for the Conservative Party’s electoral prospects in 2024. But he is someone who understands and has experience working in foreign affairs. At a time when the world faces war in Ukraine and Gaza, plus heightened tension throughout the Middle East and greater hostility from China, foreign affairs is taking up much-needed government bandwidth at a time when the economy and domestic issues also desperately need attention.

Paul Goodman from Conservative Home made the following assessment of Cameron’s appointment:

The case for his appointment is that Sunak is short of talent to draw on, and that Cameron will serve the Government and his country with distinction, seniority and ability.  The case against is that the Prime Minister is reopening old Brexit wounds and China policy rows, alienating the present crop of Tory MPs, re-raising the Greensill saga, marginalising the Foreign Office in the Commons (since Cameron will go the the Lords), and bringing back to Government a politician who is seen by voters to have failed, and whose popularity ratings among them is low.

https://conservativehome.com/2023/11/13/reshuffle-live-blog-sunak-fires-braverman/

Given the number of Conservative MPs in the Commons after the 2019 landslide, it is concerning that the Tories are having to bring back ex-leaders and hurriedly put them in the House of Lords due to a lack of talent in their current caucus.

The decision to sack Suella Braverman as Home Secretary was long overdue. Over the last 12 months, there have been plenty of opportunities for Sunak to move her along. Sunak who lost the membership vote of the Tory leadership race last year, somehow felt he had to keep the likes of Braverman and former Justice Secretary Dominic Raab to hold the party together. In reality, what chances he had of resetting the dial for the Conservative Party post-Party Gate were dashed by keeping hard-right zealots like these two in the cabinet. The Armistice Day protests were in no small part the result of Braverman’s provocative and delusional editorial which she published without sign-off from Number 10. It was inevitable that she would be sacked, the fact that it took this event reflects very poorly on Sunak.

At the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester this September, Sunak tried a clever campaign trick of positioning himself as the change candidate. The idea is to present Labour, despite 13 years out of power, as being the status quo Party. Labour will defend policies such as ULEZ in London, which cost them the Uxbridge and Ruislip by-election, whereas the Tories call for change and for environmental targets set by their own government two years earlier to be relaxed. The Tories, despite 13 years to “fix” the migration and refugee crisis, will try and claim they are the party of change by ‘stopping the boats’.

This change candidate idea is not new, in fact, it is more or less what the Conservative Party did before the 2019 election. Rather than run on their abysmal record since 2010, they claim to stand for change. Is the public convinced? Polls suggest not. A cabinet reshuffle could be the signal that something is about to change. But the key “new” face, was PM for the first 6 of their 13 years in power. As Paul Goodman rightly says, the return of Cameron reopens old wounds. It also places a key cabinet post in the Lords, rather than it being held by an elected politician in the House of Commons. Historically this was not uncommon, but in recent times this has not been custom.

There was very little in the recent King’s Speech suggesting the government was on a new course or was implementing change. In terms of legislation, it was lightweight, and in terms of overall vision it offered even less.

The cabinet changes by Sunak have been done in response to the appalling actions of Braverman, and not a proactive desire to change by the PM. The decision to appoint Cameron as Foreign Secretary is a desperate act by a Prime Minister lacking confidence in his current MPs (with some justification), but also a PM really needing someone who can take the mental load in terms of foreign affairs.

The decision to appoint Cameron was a clever move. It will mean someone competent in the Foreign Secretary role at a critical time in global affairs. The overall fortunes of the Conservative Party will not change due to this appointment. Instead, it means the leader who took the Conservative Party into Government in 2010, will also be back in Cabinet in the months leading up to their likely electoral defeat in 2024.

NZ Election result

On Saturday Labour lost of General Election in New Zealand. Whilst there are special votes still to count, which make up roughly 20% of total votes cast in this election (including this author who voted from London), these will likely change the numbers in parliament but not the fact that there will be a change in Government.

Above: the provisional results of the 2023 NZ General Election. 20% of the vote is still to be counted and will not be known until early November

After UK Labour lost in 2019, I wrote nine fairly lengthy posts about why they lost. For NZ Labour the reasons can be summed up in a paragraph. I wrote two blog posts just for the election, one addressing Labour’s response to the Housing Crisis and another regarding their response to the coronavirus pandemic. It became apparent writing both these that Labour’s chances of winning were slim. On key policy areas like housing, but also education and transport Labour had over-promised in 2017 and underdelivered in Government. With the pandemic, unrealistic expectations were set, rather than properly preparing the public for community transmission post vaccinations, they locked down Auckland (the nation’s largest city) for weeks in 2021, only to have the inevitable community transmission throughout the country by early 2022.

In my post on historical trends and perspectives in NZ politics, I said that every time the National came to power since 1949, they have won a minimum of three terms. This is not inevitable for the incoming National Government. In part, this will be down to the performance of National, ACT and possibly NZ First in Government. It also will also come down to how well Labour perform in Opposition.

Immediately people will start speculating on the leadership. Yes, in politics leadership is critical. But the last thing Labour needs right now is a popularity contest amongst its remaining MPs, coupled with the weird parochialism that masquerades as factionalism in NZ Labour. Instead, Labour needs to grieve, try to understand and accept the loss, and then re-group and prepare to be the next government in 2016 (if not earlier).

NZ Herald reporter Simon Wilson made the following astute comment the day after the election:

One of the grat fallacies in politics is that there is a big middle ground of voters who like quiet moderation. Actually, voters want thing to be better. Those who swing from one party to another are not looking to reinforce the status quo. They have become disillusioned and want a shake-up

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/simon-wilson-the-labour-collapse-fit-for-the-war-but-not-for-the-peace/ETSGLL7JAVBAHAVZZOXRGD4YZ4/

Labour needs to plan for government. Instead of glib slogans about fairness or positivity, Labour needs a believable plan to make life better for the people who are doing it tough right now. This does not mean over-complicated policy proposals, or arbitrary targets on building new homes. It means a clear vision with priority policy areas that resonate with the voting public.

NZ Labour will not be in government anymore. But the Party and its MPs must quickly start looking like a Government in waiting. This means a front bench with a mix of experienced and new MPs. Decisions about the party leadership should be part of this, but it is only one part.

There will need to be a reaffirming of commitments with The Green Party and strengthening alliances with Te Pāti Māori to show what a progressive centre-left government will look like next time. This work should be starting now.

In parliamentary politics, there are no final victories. After losing the 2023 election, Labour must now immediately focus on winning in 2026.

The horrific situation in Israel and Gaza

The terrorist actions of Hamas against Israeli civilians were horrific and appalling. These sick acts of violence, rape, torture, and cold-blooding killing have rightly been condemned worldwide. There is absolutely no justification for these terrible atrocities.

In the last few days, the world has watched in horror at the escalating violence in Israel and Gaza

Palestinians have many justified grievances against the Israeli state, not least the way people living in Gaza have been restricted and attacked. Since the 6-day war in 1967, Israel has exerted its authority and made life intolerable for those in Gaza.

The actions of Hamas this week have done nothing to help Palestinians living in Gaza. Instead, they have increased the suffering and bloodshed.

Hardliners in both Israel and Palestine are in control, which makes the prospect of peace or a lasting resolution to the conflict in the region seem a distant prospect at this stage. Whether it is a two-state solution, a one-state solution with power sharing, or some other construct, there needs to be a way that Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace. Until this happens, this conflict will destabilise not only the Middle East but the whole world.

Reports of Israeli troops building up troop numbers on the border with Gaza are deeply troubling. Such an escalation of violence would see a significant death toll on both sides and another generation of hatred both in Israel and in Gaza.

Managing Expectations: Community transmission of coronavirus in NZ was inevitable

Living in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic was a troubling and sad time. As I wrote at the time, the Government’s response in the UK was entirely inadequate and needlessly cost thousands of lives.

By contrast, the response from the New Zealand government was decisive and saved thousands of lives. In my blog post written after Jacinda Ardern resigned as Prime Minister, I wrote the following:

The New Zealand Government’s initial response to the pandemic in 2020 was another example of strong leadership. In crisis management, it is crucial that you quickly assess the relevant information and then act decisively. The decision to close the border and put in tough restrictions was not an easy thing to do, but it undoubtedly saved thousands of lives. Not least as the health system Labour inherited when they came to power in 2017 had been badly underfunded and under-resourced for a decade. After only 30 months in power, there had not been enough time to turn this around. The restrictions were tough both for people in NZ and for people like me living overseas and unable to return. Much as people may now blame Jacinda and the Labour Government for the tough restrictions, they might also want to consider the impact of National’s mismanagement of the health system for nearly a decade. This mismanagement of the health system left it vulnerable to collapse during the pandemic.

https://nickkelly.blog/2023/01/23/jacinda-adern-how-will-her-five-years-in-power-be-remembered/

There is little doubt that had The NZ National Party been in power during this crisis, many lives would have been lost. Their underfunding of the health system when in office both from 2008 to 2017 and earlier from 1990 to 1999 demonstrates they are not to be trusted with the public health system. Ever!

Further, the National Party’s inconsistent and often incoherent position during 2020 regarding the pandemic response suggests that had they been in power, things would have been similar to Britain.

Labour under Jacinda Ardern had a clear policy, which at the time was understood and supported by most people in New Zealand. Close the borders. Strict lockdowns until there was no community transmission. And doing this would protect a public health system which was still in a parlous after a decade of Tory mismanagement and underfunding.

Given this, and the fact that Labour’s victory in 2020 was largely due to the Government’s pandemic response, it is strange that this is also one of the main reasons why support for the Government has declined.

As I pointed out in my previous post on Housing, Labour’s challenge is that they set an expectation that they have not and could not live up to.

It has been argued that the population now want to move on from the collective trauma of coronavirus and is now rejecting Labour as it is so associated with that time. This may be part of it, but there is much more to it.

Zero COVID was never possible. Whilst it was correct to stop the spread of the virus it was inevitable that once a vaccine was available there would be community transmission. This was not clearly explained or understood in New Zealand. This was made worse by the fact that New Zealand’s response to the pandemic was being held up as the model of how to respond. Pre-vaccine it was. Post-vaccine, not so much.

While the rest of the world could open up, Auckland faced a 107-day lockdown at the end of 2021, after only a handful of cases. Again, at the time most people accepted and supported this response, but opposition to it also grew during this time. Weeks later, the government was forced to start lifting restrictions and people were told community transmission was a fact of life. It is hardly surprising that the Government started seriously losing support.

There is historical context for why New Zealand as a South Pacific Nation, wanted to be cautious during the pandemic. In 1918 during the influenza pandemic, Samoa which was administered by New Zealand at the time, was devastated by this virus. On 7 November 1918, the New Zealand passenger and cargo ship Talune arrived at Apia from Auckland. People on board this ship had influenza and passengers were allowed to disembark without quarantining. The result was an estimated influenza death rate in Samoa of 8500 or 22% of the population. According to a 1947 United Nations report, it was ‘one of the most disastrous epidemics recorded anywhere in the world during the present century, so far as the proportion of deaths to the population is concerned’. Given this, New Zealand’s cautious approach was both understandable and justified.

Jacinda and Labour needed to be clearer about restrictions at the border. Specifically when and how they would eventually be lifted. Back in July 2020, former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark warned that extended delays in opening New Zealand’s border would cause huge damage to the country’s economy and social well-being. NZ citizens living overseas and returning to the country were required to do 14 days of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) until early 2022, at the visitor’s expense if they were not returning permanently. For non-NZ passport holders, restrictions were not lifted until July 2022.

When headlines hit of DJs and entertainers being given exemptions to enter the country, while thousands struggled to get places in MIQ facilities, including in cases where people were trying to visit dying relatives, the public mood started to shift. After long lockdowns and being unable to visit family and friends living overseas, seeing headlines about DJs getting preferential treatment at the border turned the public mood sour.

The ‘Team of Five Million’ rhetoric used by Jacinda Ardern and others in Government was a powerful tool. It connected with Kiwi nationalism and motivated people to stop the spread of the virus. There were two very negative downsides to it though:

  1. The coronavirus was not a New Zealand phenomenon, it was global. It needed ‘The Team of Five billion’ (the world’s current population) to defeat the virus, not just five million people in a South Pacific nation. And a great many around the world did sacrifice a great deal. For example, in the UK while the government response was inadequate, many local communities really stepped up to support people isolating and later to promote vaccinations. The Team of Five Million narrative that Kiwis made huge sacrifices, without acknowledging the efforts of many others throughout the world paints an inaccurate and distorted picture.
  2. Whilst the NZ coronavirus response at the start was great, it also had the advantage that the population was five million, not 67 million like the UK. Or Germany where the population is 83 million and they share land borders with nine other countries. It is simply wrong to say that if other countries had the same restrictions of lockdown they too could have ended community transmission. The UK could have certainly reduced the spread and saved lives. But with greater population density there would have always been some community transmission.

The other not-so-great by-product of closing the borders and using nationalism as a tool to defeat the pandemic was that it pandered to anti-immigration sentiment. There was a small but significant group who frankly would have been happy to keep the borders shut permanently to stop immigration. This also saw some unpleasant comments towards Kiwis living overseas who were struggling with MIQ. Online comments on the media website Stuff often saw Kiwis living overseas being told “You made a choice to leave” or worse that they were traitors or unpatriotic for choosing to live overseas. Given that, in March 2020 Kiwis living overseas were told to shelter in place rather than try to return home, this attitude was particularly galling.

While the government is not responsible for the attitudes of small-minded individuals, when you start using the forces of nationalism to promote your cause then expect the negative by-products.

The four-week-long occupation of Parliament in Wellington in February 2022 was a turning point in both NZ’s response to the pandemic and the popularity of the Government. The occupation and protest opposed the vaccine mandates and coronavirus restrictions. Most people in NZ supported both measures and opposed the protest, who were motivated by Trumpian alt-right movements such as the 6th of January protests in Washington.

The Wellington protests were remarkable in that they were allowed to last as long as they did. Central Wellington was severely disrupted, and attempts to move protesters on were met with threats of violence. After nearly two years of intense government COVID restrictions, it frustrated people to see the state not act to remove these protesters. Certainly were similar events to happen outside Westminster, protesters would be moved on in hours, not days or weeks later. People have a right to protest, and we should always be wary of the state using heavy-handed tactics against people exercising these rights. But where there is a threat to public health and wellbeing, action needs to be taken.

Eventually, the protesters were moved on. However, the delay resulted in the Government’s authority being undermined. This coupled with Kiwi’s facing up to the reality that there would be community transmission of coronavirus made 2022 a difficult year for Labour. Undoubtedly this contributed to the fall in support for the Government and in early 2023 Jacinda Ardern’s decision to resign as Prime Minister.

The response to COVID-19 by the NZ Government, and Jacinda Ardern’s clear and decisive leadership and communication style was positive. In the short term, it saved lives. Had the government been clearer from the outset that post-vaccine community transmission of coronavirus was inevitable, the backlash may not have been so harsh. Had they managed expectations better prior to the 2020 election, they may not have won 50% of the vote in that year’s election, but they might still be polling consistently about 35% in 2023.

Hope is indeed a powerful and dangerous tool in politics. In a parliamentary democracy, it motivates people to vote and support your cause. But if you cannot deliver, the backlash is brutal. The sad thing about the NZ COVID response is that overall it did deliver in that it protected the public health system and saved lives. But expectations about stopping all community transmission were set too high, and walking back from that politically has been challenging for Labour.