A common feature under both the old First-Past-The-Post electoral system and MMP today is that New Zealand has never been subject to dramatic, prolonged shifts in political direction.
While various governments over the years
have made bold changes, the process has usually been one of gradualism. If one
government goes too far in one direction, the next government either
mainstreams or moderates that change. Equilibrium is always restored after
swings in the political pendulum. What has therefore evolved has been a process
of natural correction rather than radical change.
That was why National’s Sid Holland
could deride the Savage Labour Government’s Social Security scheme in the 1930s
as “applied lunacy”, only to retain and enhance it when he became Prime
Minister over a decade later. Similarly, Sir John Key could dismiss Labour’s Working
for Families tax credits scheme as “communism by stealth” in the early 2000s
and then embrace it as the backbone of his government’s family assistance
programmes a few years later when he was Prime Minister.
On the same basis, Labour vehemently
opposed the abolition of compulsory trade union membership in National’s
infamous Employment Contracts Act of 1991. However, while subsequent Labour-led
governments have modified some of the Act’s provisions, they have never
reinstated compulsory unionism, despite it having been a party article of faith
for so many years.
Senior Labour MP Willie Jackson made a
telling observation at the weekend that one of the reasons Labour lost the last
election was because of “identity politics”. He acknowledged that “we did not
take enough people with us last time” on the various policy changes the
government made. He repeated Labour leader Chris Hipkins’ earlier comment that
Labour will not reinstate the policies the electorate rejected in 2023, nor
will it overturn all the current government’s policies. As an example of one of
the current government’s policies Labour would likely retain Jackson cited the
controversial ban on gang patches.
Therefore, New Zealand First’s
declaration of a “war on woke” should be looked at against this backdrop of the
dominance of the politics of natural correction. At one level, Winston Peters’
declaration is a local version of Trumpism, designed in the main to lock-in the
ongoing support of the 5-6% of the electorate that traditionally votes New
Zealand First, as well as appealing to those conservative National and Labour
voters who feel the country is no longer going quite the way they want it to.
In that regard, it marks the start of
New Zealand First’s 2026 election campaign and makes it clear the party intends
to be a large thorn in the side of whichever bloc ends up in power, whether New
Zealand First is part of it or not. It appears to have ruled out working with
Labour, at least under Hipkins’ leadership, claiming it was lied to by Labour
when last in coalition with them.
Again, that approach is likely to
resonate with New Zealand First’s core base, which has always seen the Party as
the aggrieved outsider, perennially wronged by what it considers the excesses
of the two old major parties that “need to be taken down a peg.” The fact that
both National and Labour have derided the “war on woke” reinforces the New
Zealand First base’s view that their cause is right and that they must continue
to support the party, in or out of government.
But in the wider context of the politics
of natural correction, New Zealand First’s declaration is also important.
Peters’ speech outlined a wide range of issues on which he considers the
previous government went “woke.” Some of
those policies have also been criticised by his coalition partners, National
and ACT and are in the process of either being moderated or dumped altogether.
Others, if Jackson’s comments are genuinely reflective of his party’s current
position, are unlikely to resurface under a future Labour-led government. Still
others are no more than figments of New Zealand First’s vivid conspiratorialist
imagination, but valuable rallying cries for its disaffected voter base,
nonetheless.
But however much, or little movement
there is on any of the so-called “woke” issues, it will, thanks to its overt
early claiming of the territory, be a victory for New Zealand First. Any
significant movement away from allegedly “woke” policies will prove to New
Zealand First they were right all along, while minimal or minor change will
enable the party to keep pushing the case for more. It is a simple and cynical,
but highly effective, political strategy that comes at no significant cost to
New Zealand First.
Previously, there might have been
political risks in advocating such an approach so blatantly, but the return of
Trump and the sweep of regressive changes he has unleashed has given a new
legitimacy to those hankering to promote a similar agenda elsewhere. The rise
of Farage’s Reform Party in Britain, and the Alternativ für Deutschland (AFD)
in Germany, for example, has shown how appealing Trumpian rhetoric and policies
can be to disaffected voters the world over. New Zealand First’s “war on woke”
is simply trying to ride the same political wave.
However, the dominance of the process of
natural correction means that the "war on woke" is unlikely to succeed
to the same extent here. Instead, it is far more likely to end up as a campaign
of rhetorical flourish ahead of substance, which will suit New Zealand First
very well. The process of natural
correction that has so often been criticised, especially by the ACT Party in
recent years, for holding New Zealand back, will likely in this instance
prevent a lurch to full-scale Trumpism.
Nevertheless, by claiming the
“anti-woke” ground as his own, Peters has stolen an early march on his rivals
and thereby probably ensured New Zealand First’s re-election. Peters has always
understood better than most that politics is about the acquisition and
retention of power. The “war on woke” is simply his latest means to achieve
that end.