National MPs read this
January 27th, 2006 at 9:57 am by David FarrarI recommend that all National MPs browse this post by Jordan Carter on Labour’s plans for a fourth term.
Jordan points out that four major factors in voter dis-satisfaction in 2005 will probably not be there in 2008:
*a very large budget surplus
* simmering angst on Treaty issues
* a “moral backlash” of a sort due to e.g. civil unions, prostitution law reforms, etc
* poor government attempts to engage the public in our issues
I suspect item 4 will still be there but agree the huge budget surplus will be much reduced, the Treaty deadlines bill will reduce the simmer and the moral issues will fade.
What this means is that it will be fatal for National to think hey we got within 2% last time and they are a third term Government, so lets just cruise as we can’t lose.
The major issues of 2005 will be diminished in 2008. Thus National needs to create and gain credibility on a new set of issues if they want to not be spending twelve years in opposition. And one can’t do this at the last minute. To some degree the outcome of 2008 will be decided in 2006.
No tag for this post.
January 27th, 2006 at 10:22 am
DPF:
Well, perhaps. But I really have to wonder if Jordan and Tony Milne aren’t setting up a bit of a straw man argument here. I don’t know what planet they were campaigning on last year, but I didn’t see anyone in National harbouring the delusion that Labour was going to curl up and die then – exactly the opposite, in fact. I don’t see it now.
But it seems to me both Labour and National, in different ways, have to start trusting that the electorate is a pack of fuck-wits who only respond to the crudest forms of Chicken Little rhetoric. I think more might be achieved if (for the sake of argument) Cullen got the permanent sneer off his face, and Key stopped seeing the apocalypse around every corner and they both started articlating principled differences in a seni-rational manner.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Well said, DPF. They’ll need to do more than just blether on about political corectness. Goodness knows there enough serious issues.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 10:25 am
I don’t think that the problem is with the public thinking we’ve given up. The issue gets tricky when the pundits think that that is the case. This is an elite level forum, not a mass one. Think about it…
And David is wrong. I have not given any plans away of Labour’s in my post. I’ve stated the obvious, which anyone who looks at Kiwi politics would have picked up anyway. Hardly a revalation.
If National MPs need a Labour Party activist to point out the obvious to them, then that doesn’t say much about the quality of analysis or strategic thinking going on in their own party!
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 10:29 am
Sorry, that should have read “But it seems to me both Labour and National, in different ways, have to start trusting that the electorate ISN’T a pack of fuck-wits who only respond to the crudest forms of Chicken Little rhetoric.”
Despite all the commentariat hand-wringing after the election, I don’t think it’s a bad thing to have a finely-balanced electorate. To the contrary, I think it’s a refreshing change to have parties of the center-right and the center-left beginning to articulate clear differences instead of the mealy-mouthed politics of the “mushy mean” (i.e. say anything for a poll point, and don’t believe a word of it). It just seems to me that both Labour and National have a way to go to articulate their values in language that isn’t spin-dcotored platitudes around “issues” extracted from a focus-group.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Jordan has also deliberately missed the most important. Labour had a better grassroots get out the vote operation. That is where it beat National. It is the feet beating the streets that will win the next election.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Talking to people of both sides of the spectrum about why National lost the elections has given me just one reason and that is the MSM and there totally biased reporting. Just to give you a couple of examples
Vote:The Doonegate report which proved the PM lied just to get rid of a senior public servant
The Bretheran(sorry for my spelling) brochures and there lack of reporting on the same tactics being used by the unions
Until we have a half way unbiased media National will never be in power
January 27th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Labour’s biggest challenge will be to reign in its “social” left after they realise that NZ First and United Future are basically socially conservative parties
We have already seen the burying of the “Gender Identity bill” and I suspect a few more could also go the same way,
Will they start to question “why am I here?” after 3 years of no “progress” to wherever they want to take the country
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Talking to people of both sides of the spectrum about why National lost the elections has given me just one reason and that is the MSM and their totally biased reporting. Just to give you a couple of examples
Vote:The Doonegate report which proved the PM lied just to get rid of a senior public servant
The Bretheran(sorry for my spelling) brochures and there lack of reporting on the same tactics being used by the unions
Until we have a half way unbiased media National will never be in power
January 27th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Jordan said on his blog,
……………………
“National has a problem. Labour has recognised that motivating our base vote with sensible policies can get them out to the polls. National faces two choices: either moving to the centre, which will be ground it is hard to take from a wily and experienced Labour cabinet, or pitching to the right through the conventional neo-con politics of racism, wedge politics, etc.
Problem is they tried the latter last time, and all it did was drive moderate National voters into Labour’s hands. That is a key reason why our vote went up 97,000″
………………………………..
Jordan is spot on. I new this myself before the last election.
In someways National are in a worse position than Labour.
They have 2 choices which again stops them from holding office.
Keep Brash, but with the thought of ACT and Hide being part of the govt would scare most moderate National voters off. To be honest it would scare any centre voter off!
Put in John Key and get friendly with NZ1 & UF. Trouble National went out to destroy the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and took his seat off him, but gave an ever so small olive branch to UF Hon Peter Dunn, but this still only left UF with 3 seats.
National only have one choice in my opinion, go for broke with John Key!
Groom the man and dis-associate with any coalition partners, especially ACT!
That way they can at least have a chance at winning.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 10:58 am
There will be other issues in play starting with the economy. Secondly there will be the fatigue factor which affects all Governments irrespective of the economy. Finally National will be a much stronger alternative Government. But the biggest issue for National to overcome is if the surplus is going to be much reduced how was National going to afford the tax cuts in the first place. My answer is the Labour Party has squandered the money and it has allowed to economy to shrink through their policies. If National can say under them people would have been better off, that the tax cuts (now unaffordable) would have put the economy in better shape then National will bolt in. But “the shrinking surplus making National’s tax cuts unaffordable” argument has to be won by National convincingly and if so Labour is gone for a very long time.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 11:02 am
I’m glad to see Jordan is positive about 2008, and not complacent. But I’m not convinced his first three points are givens. I think Treaty angst is here to stay until resolved. I think a budget surplus is not something to be ashamed of – this one is the strangest point of all. And I think the moral backlash continues, and time will not let it settle. It needs constant tending. A social agenda needs constant proof.
The last point is always given – improve the government’s ability to engage the public on issue is rather like ‘we need to try harder’. Yup.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 11:27 am
God forbid that this sounds elitist but those who contribute here and elsewhere have a higher awareness than Joe and Josephine Public.As the PM has rightly pointed out one of her biggest items on the agenda is the economy.There is nothing like a smarting hip pocket to get mortgageville looking at an alternative.Labour will need to have a reasonable bouyant ecomony going into 2008.What the Nats need is high interest rates and higher unemployment.Unfortunately for them the economic forecast doesnt look that bad.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Labour is vulnerable on the effects of an economic slowdown on the mortgage belt. It also has to start delivering to the urban working class who saved its bacon by turning out and voting at the last election. Yes, Labour does have a better grassroots membership than National but the Nats can always buy the help they need as there is no shortage of money for right wing political campaigns, thanks to the “Peters v Clarkson” case so thoughtfully decided by members of the ruling elite.
Vote:There is no doubt that National will continue to play the race card but, in addition, will stoke the fires of economic discontent ignited by the slowdown (or is that capital strike incited by McCully and Hide?)
January 27th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Michael:
What kind of moronic bullshit is, “Labour does have a better grassroots membership than National but the Nats can always buy the help they need as there is no shortage of money for right wing political campaigns, thanks to the “Peters v Clarkson” case so thoughtfully decided by members of the ruling elite.”
First, Michael, I’d really be careful about suggesting that the he panel of three High Court judges wwere who obviously didn’t decide Winnie’s electoral petition to your liking were bribed by anyone.
Second, time to cash a reality check. No political party could function for long without the extraordinary generosity of grassroots members with their time and skills – especially during election campaign. Your slimy little innuendo just insults all of us, but I guess it’s unreasonable to expect you’d lift your game from the sewer to the gutter for once.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Micheal,
Vote:Before you start smearing another party over money matters you Labour hacks need to look very carefully at your own funding, the bribery and coruption perpetrated between Labour and the unions and the pure lies and deceit that comes out your leaders mouth
January 27th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Either way, Jordan has given all of us much to think about and he does make a valuable contribution to debate, based on his time at the Labour event.
My view is that National has much to do as well.
It needs to broaden its appeal to include the urban areas.
It needs to appeal more to Maori and Pacific Islanders.
It needs to do more to attract the ‘battlers’ in Aussie-speak or the C2s in 80s UK marketing speak.
I don’t think it means wholesale policy changes to become a ‘Liar-bour lite’ but rather looking at the focus and presentation of them.
Take a look at the so-called ‘hardline’ policies on race.
What did they involve? Speeding up the Treaty Claims. Surely justice delayed is justice denied. Presented properly, this is actually a pro-Maori policy to get the injustices removed ASAP.
Abolishing the Maori seats. Well how can we treat people differently on race? But this is an issue that can wait until the Treaty settlements are settled. And an argument for another time.
Race-based funding, same story.
As for the moral backlash? Jordan is right, this will fade too. What is wrong with civil unions and gay marriages, nothing!
As a conservative, I think it is entirely correct that gays should be entitled to, if not encouraged, to form stable/ permanent partnerships like anyone else.
As for the declining budget surplus, yes, that will bring the issue of taxcuts to the fore, and Labour will now say they are even more unaffordable.
National also needs to build links with UF and NZF and not cannabalise ACT like it did in 2005.
HOWEVER, with an economy on its way down, Labour has lost one of its strong points- it ‘delivered’ or ‘presided’ over a good economy.
Increasingly, people will realise, maybe even the antique media, that Labour has squandered the best economic circumstances in decades.
Circumstances they will see that Labour had nothing to do with in the first place.
People will see how Labour squandered a huge budget surplus. People will see that Labour’s high tax policies destroy economic growth, destroy job creation and, do not reward work, and they will want something different.
The results of Labour’s failed policies in health and education, that extra spending is useless without reform, will also become apparant.
In the election, Cullen lost much credibility with student bribes, even if the policy was popular with students. Cullen will continue to lose more credibility, like he has with estimated joblosses in today’s papers. He will become less of an assett, perhaps even a liability.
In the UK, Gordon Brown’s star is fading along with the UK economy.
Likewise with Helen Clark. In time, more and more of her shortcomings will be exposed and maybe even the media will start seeing them too.
Hell, they might even pick up on Doonegate, plus the ‘Big Tobacco bankrolling Labour’ story that Investigate reported this month.
As for the Antique Media, they may become tired and restless, fancying a change, if only to make their jobs more interesting. Something happening in the news, like war or elections, typically boosts sales.
Here the blogs and National can have some impact. It must be worth tens if not hundreds of thousands of votes to have the media in your pocket as Helengrad currently enjoys.
It is upto National and ACT to increasingly highlight media deficiencies that they become increasingly apparant by the general populace.
Tony Blair and New Labour created ‘a rebuttal unit’ to respond instantly to media reports they did not like. That way they got their message across better. National must do the same.
A kind of Canadian-style ‘bloggers for National’ will help. While it was widely reported by the AM the blogs did not change anything in our Election 2005, they might have had the MSM sat up and taken notice (Doonegate expose on Sir Humphreys showing Clark is a liar).
By 2008, hopefully, the blogs will be more widely known so much that the MSM can no longer ignore them.
Brash or Key? It does not really matter.
What it comes down to is articulating clear vision with a sound set of policies that sets National apart from Labour. And that it is a better alternative- regardless of how much ‘clear blue water’ there might be.
Finally,as a said a few days ago, it would be interesting to see Jordan’s take on the Canadian election.
Vote:I do not say this as a gloating right-winger, but someone curious as to the thoughts of one of the Kiwi blogosphere’s best loved Canadians.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Had National been sligltly more savvy they would be the govt now – which frankly, would have been an absolutely great turnaround.
If the election goes to 2008, Labour will win and rightly so!
The nats should certainly be able to break this coalition before then: even accpeting this goct is legitimate is the Nats first mistake. Rodney doesn’t expect this chimera to go full turm: why do you?
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
yay! that put a smile on my dial after i was all upset about my love life and the way it fell flat! i hope labour gets in 4th time around, that’d be perfect!
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Before we get ahead of our selves, what was the outcome of the Phillip Field Corruption allegations, where did this go, or has he shot back to the islands? The Wananga outcome?
Jordan Carter
The show down at the next election will be simple, can Frau Clark withstand the onslaught from John Key’s. None of her subordinates came out of any of the pre 2005 election stuches with Key’s in very good shape (most pathetic an elderly Micheal Cullin), quite clear she will suffer the same fate.
The post by Jordan Carter should concentrate on 1 thing, Clark got Labour through at the last election, by the skin on her ass, Not Labour.
Mr Brash has done wonders and took up the reigns at a time when no one else had the balls to step in. He has steered the blue ship well, BUT his successor has been identified, not by himself but by the country. The beauty of the scene is quite simple, that not only has a new leader arisen there are a strong core of second and third tier politicians along side him. One of the strongest is Bill English.
Tick Tock Tick Tock, times passing.
Vote:January 27th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
You’ve been reading the readers digest book of dumb metaphors….
Vote:January 28th, 2006 at 6:52 am
Michael: “Yes, Labour does have a better grassroots membership than National but the Nats can always buy the help they need as there is no shortage of money for right wing political campaigns….”
Bullshit, Michael. Labour spent far more than National did in 2005 – possibly as much as five times. They spent $25 million on advertising the Non-Working Families benefit package alone.
Vote:January 28th, 2006 at 9:00 am
Labour has the advantage of having the media, especially TVNZ, in their pocket, combined with the media incompetancy in doing any digging. The corruption of Mr Fields shoudl have been front page for weeks. They got away with it. Ditto Whanaga and so many others.
Vote:The basis of Labour support are the unproductive – the public service and the beneficiary vote. Both have grown significantly. The latter with teh Dole for Families benefit, which penalises hard work, and how many working people can afford to take time off to go to WINZ, wait 2 hours, and sign up every 3 months. Only those rorting the system will benefit.
G
January 28th, 2006 at 11:06 am
National is soaked in political confusion. They do not know who they are. They do not know who the opposition are. They therefore cannot articulate any real point of view on any issue. Here’s a clue National. The enemy are the Left. Yep the LEFT. That’s Labour mainly. ..and yes, they’re the enemy, not some benign force of over educated fuddy duddies. They’re a malignant evil force. Here’s what the Left want. Political power. Control over every New Zealander. They live sleep and eat political power. That’s why they’re the bad guys. Now National, you’re MEANT TO BE the right. What do the right want? They want freedom, mainly from the power the leftists desire. There’s what you articulate. Labour/ left bad. National/ right good. Power seeking left bad. Freedom seeking right good. What the hell is so hard about that??
Try purging your party of leftists or the confused morons who don’t understand what the right stands for, and then you’ll be able to articulate a clear message. Without that clear message, you’re pissing into the wind. Oh, and BTW, confront the leftist media. Don’t crawl to them. That goes for you Don.
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
TVNZ (Labour party TV)are biased as are some sections of the press, the solution is easy – who pays them, advertisers, who are advertisers, the business community who are unlikely supporters of Labour. Answer tell Ralston and the left wing editors your advertisment budget is being reviewed and redirected to media who accurately report political events and policies. Ralston – gone by lunch??
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
RedBaiter, I agree that National is soaked in confusion. That’s where my agreement ends.
You have no ideas on how to articulate the childishly obvious point ‘Labour bad, National good’, other than purging dissent from the party.
What is your ‘clear message’, and why will it appeal to enough NZers to win National the election? Or are you just ‘baiting again?
Vote: