A bit of lightweight fluff or Prebble having a wet dream about the coalition's chances at election time.... you decide (if you can look past the author)...
Why this election will be unlike any other – Richard Prebble
I managed my first election campaign before I was old enough to vote. We have never seen an election like this year’s.
The closest parallel is 1993, when a government elected with a landslide majority survived by a whisker.
Normally, our election cycle runs this way.
After years of a National government, Labour finds a charismatic leader who campaigns for change. Reforms are never popular. Those who lose never forgive, and those who benefit are ungrateful.
National, in Opposition, denounces the reforms. Back in government, it usually keeps most of the reforms and manages them better.
For National, it is a successful formula.
There have been only two genuinely reforming National governments.
The first was the 1990–93 Government, which restored the gap between earnings and benefits and ended compulsory unionism. The party nearly lost the 1993 election.
The second is the current coalition.
This Government is reforming on a scale rarely seen in New Zealand politics:
repealing the Resource Management Act, fast-tracking project approvals,
scrapping Three Waters, ending co-governance, passing
the Regulatory Standards Bill, restoring
Three Strikes, and putting
reading and arithmetic back at the centre of education. That is not the full list.
New Zealand is a conservative country. History suggests reforming governments find re-election difficult. That’s the risk facing the coalition.
What makes this election truly unusual is not only who the reformers are, but the nature of the Opposition. Labour does not have a charismatic leader nor a programme of reform. Instead, it is borrowing a playbook perfected elsewhere.
The Australian Labor Party is the most successful Labour party in the world. Its success rests on running policy-light campaigns that make the party a small target. New Zealand Labour is clearly trying to emulate that approach.
Its proposed
capital gains tax is a case in point. Narrowly targeted, it is essentially a Clayton’s tax. For younger readers, Clayton’s was a non-alcoholic drink advertised as “the drink you have when you’re not having a drink”. The tax would raise little revenue. It would not even fund free GP visits.
It is gesture politics, designed to win back votes from the Greens while frightening as few homeowners as possible.
Politics has inverted itself. A Labour Party with little policy is running against one of the most reforming governments ever.
On a purely historical reading, one would normally expect the reformers to be in danger of defeat. But Labour has two weaknesses.
Every poll suggests Labour can only govern with two coalition partners. The Greens have plenty of policy, but at heart one message: the rich can pay.
Te Pāti Māori also believes taxing is the answer. Voters can only support Labour if they believe the party can control both.
There is, however, another force Labour cannot – or does not want to – control: the state unions.
Polling shows Labour’s support increasingly comes from those who work in government. Not surprising.
In government, Labour approved wage increases for government workers at a pace well ahead of wage growth for taxpayers themselves. The Government’s wage bill is a fast-growing expense, making it hard to balance the books.
There was an understanding that in return for job security and generous benefits, public service wages should never outpace the private sector. Labour broke that consensus.
The unions’ latest proposal, to pay social workers at rates comparable to air traffic controllers, would blow a hole in the budget. The Treasury estimates that over four years, the claims will cost at least $12 billion.
Labour has pledged to allow these claims, destroying their economic credibility.
Voters believe people doing the same job should get the same pay. But paying workers doing different jobs the same is communism. In practice, it has never worked.
Labour’s reliance on its coalition allies and its support of the state unions make the party a policy-heavy, big target.
The coalition can frame Labour as the party of Wellington privilege, out of touch with the rest of the country, who must pay for it.
That leaves the Prime Minister. Christopher Luxon is often described as having no vision. It should not be a concern.
His model should not be John Key or Jacinda Ardern, but Keith Holyoake.
Holyoake, who won four general elections, was never accused of being a visionary.
His slogan – “Steady does it” – reassured a cautious electorate.
Luxon can credibly say he is a steady manager who has successfully held together a coalition containing both Act and New Zealand First, moderating the policies of each.
National promised to “Get New Zealand Back on Track”.
As no track was specified, it can claim success.
Christopher Luxon can now campaign to “Keep New Zealand on track”.
The coalition’s task is to portray an extraordinary period of reform not as radical change, but as a return to normality. That is a winning campaign.
In the end, better than any campaign is
a growing economy.
OPINION: Labour’s reliance on allies and unions' claims make it a big target.
www.nzherald.co.nz
newsroom.co.nz
