Bryce Edwards
Democracy Project
Dr Bryce Edwards is Political Analyst in Residence at Victoria University of Wellington. He is the director of the Democracy Project.
A survey released on Sunday by Newshub suggests there is still plenty of potential support for a Winston Peters comeback. A Reid-Research poll in May asked “Should Winston Peters return to politics?”, with 70.1 per cent saying “no”, and 19.6 per cent saying “yes” – see Tova O’Brien’s Newshub-Reid Research poll shows majority of New Zealanders don’t want Winston Peters to return to politics.
Although this poll was reported negatively for Peters, Heather du Plessis-Allan argued differently: “He only needs five percent: he only needs a quarter of those people and he’s back” – see: Winston Peters could be brought back as Labour’s handbrake.
Du Plessis-Allan writes: “I’d say Winston’s got a path back” – on the basis that in 2023 there will be at least five per cent of the electorate who want a “handbrake” applied to what the Labour Government are doing, and so they might strategically vote for NZ First even if they prefer other parties.
What’s more, she believes that Peters’ focus on Labour’s supposed racial agenda will be fruitful:
“He’s got a good issue to campaign on with Maori separatism. That’s probably not going away this term because labour’s Maori caucus is massive and powerful and making demands, and they’ll be doing that right up to the next election to make sure they don’t lose seats to the Maori Party.”
David Farrar also believes that Peters will be back and that the anti-woke approach will work well for the party. The right-wing blogger, pollster, and long-time critic of Peters says:
“Sadly, I now think there is a reasonable chance he could be back in 2023. If Peters targets the culture war issues of wokeism, Treaty issues, cancel culture and climate hysteria (as opposed to rational climate policy) he could well get 5% of the vote”
– see: Why Winston, sadly, might be back in 2023.
Farrar argues that Peters can voice an anti-woke message that others can’t’:
“The huge advantage Peters has is he is Maori yet socially conservative. He can attack abolishing referenda on Maori wards and the like without worrying about being called racist. In fact, it probably helps him if they try. Same goes for attacking cancel culture. Some activists try (disgracefully) to portray free speech advocates as pro-white supremacy. Won’t wash with Winston. I have no doubt these are potent issues, and if Peters can position himself as a strong voice against, there are votes to be gained.”
As to whether National already has a monopoly on this vote, Farrar isn’t so sure:
“National can only go so far in terms of fighting back against the culture wars from the left. National needs to get around 40% of the vote and to do that you need to spend most of your energy on issues like jobs, incomes, schools, hospitals, housing, transport and the like. I think National should be doing more in terms of push back, but I don’t think it should become their main campaign focus. NZ First only need 5% of the vote, so an anti-woke campaign could well get them there.”
Similarly, although Act is also successful in its focus on some anti-woke issues, especially free speech, Farrar doesn’t believe that David Seymour wants to, or can, make this the defining issue for his party, especially because “Peters is immersed in the Maori world and Seymour is not.”
Farrar has also recently used his polling company Curia to find out what the public think about one of Peters’ key issues from the weekend – the increasing use of the term “Aotearoa” for “New Zealand”. In March his company asked 1000 people: “Do you think the name of this country should be changed from New Zealand to Aotearoa?” The results were: “15% in favour, 76% opposed and 9% unsure” – see: Poll Results on renaming New Zealand to Aotearoa .
Such results suggest that Peters is in line with strong public opinion. And breaking down the results by party support, Farrar argues that even Labour voters are opposed to a name change – with less than one in four supporting this.
Yesterday’s editorial in the Otago Daily Times agrees that an anti-woke agenda might well work to successfully elevate NZ First to Parliament, especially if conducted in parallel with a failing Covid response from the Government – see: Watch the wily crocodile.
The newspaper warns that the backlash against woke politics shouldn’t be taken lightly:
“the current classes ruling the public sphere should not be underestimating the depth of feelings of middle New Zealand, particularly the older generations. There is fertile ground to be tilled. People resent being told they are responsible for the ‘trauma of colonialism’ and that they are racists in the way the word is often used today.”
The paper admits that both National and especially Act have already “hoovered up anti-establishment votes”, but says NZ First still has a chance, because “Act can lose its shine, National can remain in disarray”.
According to veteran political journalist Richard Harman, Peters’ anti-woke speech was “Peters at his populist best” and it’s how he should have campaigned last year if he had wanted to stay in Parliament – see: The speech he should have given on the campaign trail (paywalled).
Harman suggests Peters is now freer to take such a stance because he’s no longer in coalition government. And he argues that those around Peters are now pushing him to take this more outspoken approach:
“the people at the top of NZ First; those who have Winston’s ear, believe that the whole issue of Maori sovereignty is creating a space for them to return to.”
The Herald’s Audrey Young also believes that Peters has good reason to be confident about returning to power at the next election, agreeing with him that Covid really was a big part of his party’s 2020 downfall, and that there is now no shortage of issues to campaign on, including many anti-woke ones – see: Winston Peters has some cause for confidence in 2023 (paywalled).
She also addresses whether other parties have already sewn up anti-woke issues:
“It is a crowded political market that New Zealand First will share with National and Act but as Maori, Peters and Shane Jones have more freedom to exploit such issues without being labelled racist and, more importantly, not caring if they are.”
Chris Trotter argues Peters has “extraordinary credentials” to challenge the path that the Government is apparently going down in terms of race:
“Who else can be sure that his critique of ‘Maori separatism’ will not be met with angry charges of racism and white supremacy? Peters’ Maori ancestry cloaks him like a political force-field, allowing him to speak out fearlessly where Pakeha right-wingers are tongue-tied by timidity” – see: Who else is there? Why the right needs Winston Peters.
Trotter says that in terms of challenging this particular element of the Labour Government, neither National nor Act have the same ability as the NZ First leader:
“neither Judith Collins nor David Seymour have the chops for this critical historical task. Only with Peters’ help can Labour be defeated.”
Much might now depend on how the Labour Government deals with the controversial He Puapua report. The allegation made by Peters in the weekend was that while his party was in coalition with Labour the report was deliberately supressed so that they couldn’t campaign against it. For more on this, see Jo Moir’s Peters takes on PM over Labour’s Maori agenda.
Finally, for a more in-depth look at the controversial report, and how New Zealand First might be welcomed back to defeat it, see Graham Adams’ Will He Puapua propel Winston Peters back into politics?.
This article can be republished under a Creative Commons CC BY-ND 4.0 license. Attributions should include a link to the Democracy Project.
Please share so others can discover The BFD.