Winning a third term for National – Part I
It would be unfair to say that winning a second term was easy for National, because to lift your vote in Government is no easy thing to do. But the history of NZ is most Governments get a second term, coupled with an Opposition Leader who was so associated with the past. So the challenge was not so much to win, but to win with an ability to govern well – which has happened with a narrow 61 majority for National, ACT and United Future.
Winning a third term in 2014 is far harder, and I would regard National as the under dog at this stage. iPredict has Labour winning in 2014 at 53% and National at 47% and that is probably about right.
National needs to lose just 0.2% of the vote and it can only govern with the support of the Maori Party. Who knows what the Maori Party in 2014 might do, but I suggest that David Shearer is not as foolish as Phil Goff, and will not treat them as the enemy. Shearer was never part of that time in Labour that treated them as the last cab off the rank, and chose Winston in preference to them. They could go with Shearer in 2014.
But the Maori Party may not hold the balance of power. If National drops 3% in total, then NZ First would hold the balance of power. That is likely (but not certain) to see a Labour-led Government.Of course NZ First may implode again, as Peters is showing no sign of having changed his ways of bluster and bullshit – even over whether or not he had a fall.
So National are the under-dogs. It means that they will have to work incredibly hard to win a third term, and New Zealanders will have to be convinced they deserve it. This means the Government and Ministers must do far more than be competent administrators – they must push and drive reforms which clearly benefit New Zealanders. The welfare reforms are central to that. But so is trialling charter schools and bedding in national standards.
The economy will be front and centre. Sadly there will be very few votes in just doing what is necessary and getting the books back into surplus. At best National just won’t be punished for not achieving that. National will need to confront some of the harder issues such as housing affordability, and will have to make calls on do we leave mineral wealth in the ground or not. As I am typing this up from South Africa, I suspect locals here would be amused that we even have a debate in New Zealand about whether to mine or not.
National’s first term was about infrastructure. The second term is looking to focus on science and innovation. What will be the focus on a third term, if there is one – that voters will vote for? It has to be something that they feel couldn’t be done until the building blocks of the first two terms were in place.
Finally the left in the second term will talk a lot about poverty and income inequality as if they are the same thing. They are not. To take one example – China arguably has far greater income inequality than 20 years ago. But they also have 300 million less citizens in absolute poverty. National needs to own poverty reduction as an issue, and disentangle it from the socialistic goal of income equality which has failed in pretty much every state which has tried to legislate for it.
David Lange once famously called for a cup of tea for his Government. John Key needs to do the opposite. The pace of reform must increase, not slow. Voters want to see a Government confronting tough issues, and making decisions. They don’t want to just see a Government whose job it is to manage rather than lead.
December 19th, 2011 at 9:07 am
If Labour could work with the Maori party they’d have an extra 6/7 seats effectively – the Maori seats are ideally suited for gaming the MMP system – electorate vote for Maori and party vote for Labour.
December 19th, 2011 at 9:22 am
The vote for the Government fell. That National cannibalised its partners is nice for it, directly, but indirectly…
Yes and no. Under FPP, yes, but recall that after three years of National from 1975, more voters voted for Rowling’s Labour Party than Muldoon National Party, and after three years of National from 1990, the vote for the opposition was over 60%, and National down at 35%.
December 19th, 2011 at 9:52 am
Maybe not next time, but in may have won National the just past election. I suspect much of the strength in National’s support was due to them being seen as prudent financial managers in very difficult times, and Labour being seen as far too risky with spending.
December 19th, 2011 at 9:56 am
Labour failed to rejuvenate at the recent election, instead ensuring the same old, rejected faces will be in the media for three more years.
This in itself will assist National to retain power in 2014 as long as National run a proper campaign rather than the simple, almost defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory – Isn’t John a nice fellow – campaign of 2011 that had voters staying away in droves.
Given that support for Winston First and the Reds will almost certainly disintegrate once voters note the type of people these joke outfits bring to parliament and the almost inevitable opposition infighting debacle to come I doubt National are in too much trouble if they get the right-ish wing agenda voters expect moving.
December 19th, 2011 at 10:00 am
The really big issue for the Nats will be whether Key wants to run again. My gut has always been he just wanted to check the box for having been PM, probably take a knighthood on the way out and move on.
December 19th, 2011 at 10:02 am
DPF I respectfully disagree. I firmly believe the majority of New Zealanders do not want a whole lot of rapid reform. Most New Zealanders want (and voted for) competent management with mild reform when and where it is needed – no more. National won because of their track record of not trying to ram through any idealogical reform, rather being pragmatic and competent (qualities Labour was not able to demonstrate and one of the reasons IMO the Greens picked up much of the left vote).
If National needs to win they need to be careful with their reforms. Ramming stuff through under the auspice of a carte blanche mandate is a sure way to get thrown out. Remembering this was part of the reason for Labours downfall – stopping listening to the people. If they are measured in their reform and hold back the ideologues then they may get a third (or even fourth) term in which to put in place their reforms.
December 19th, 2011 at 10:14 am
JayMal come on, the Nats need to ram through selling off hospitals etc etc etc, it is what the punters want.
And the great thing is that there are enough Richardson types in the Nats to make a cock up once more.
December 19th, 2011 at 10:17 am
DPF said…
Winning a third term in 2014 is far harder, and I would regard National as the under dog at this stage.
DPF, it won’t be harder for National to win in 2014. It will be an easy win for them and also in massive numbers.
The solution is quite obvious and you don’t need to be an expert strategist in election campaigns.
Here is how:
National should adopt all of the Labour policies, Greens policies, NZ First policies and campaign on them. I mean just copy exactly the policies of those parties, since there’s no such thing as political policy intellectual property violation in taking away ideas from other parties and making them your own. Cannibalize them completely. National will be guaranteed to win in 2014, 2017, 2020, 2023, … It means that they will be government indefinitely.
This is not something unusual, since National has been progressing slowly past the center from the right towards the left (Labour/Green territory) over the last 2 decades or so. Instead of progressing slowly like a snail in this manner, National can just jump in a dis-continuous manner to land on the very far left end thus capturing both remaining Labour/Greens territory. If National will follow this strategy, its die hard supporters will be even happier since there will be no more Labour/Green/NZ First. Yep, those parties will disappear into thin air. The only surviving party that will last forever is National.
See, National acolytes don’t give a damn what policies National adopts (be it left-wing or right-wing), all they care about is they want to see Labour/Greens being obliterate from existence. If you don’t believe me, then just look around the comments made on this blog by die hard national supporters. National economic policies are obviously left-wing/Keynesians (the sorts of what you see in Labour policies), but National worshipers don’t care.
December 19th, 2011 at 10:24 am
Falafulu Fisi tsk tsk, you want the Nats to follow the values they rant on about ?
So tell me when did the Nats not follow Keynesian rules ? under Muldoon ?
December 19th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Fisi – hopefully National will start moving the country further to the right. It takes time. We were so far left under Helen it was silly.
Unfortunately it takes time to change how people think.
Dont get me wrong, I believe in similar policies to you. Would love to see them implemented ASAP. It just aint gonna happen.
At the risk of being abused.. i checked tax rates the other day. Dime is having a huge year and is on track to make a shit ton of money this year. So i logged into IRD to see how much they will sting me when i draw down on my tremendous pay out. I have to say, the overall tax rate isnt that bad.
Just for shits n giggles i typed in a few different incomes.
50k = 16% tax. This may not include the ACC levy? either way, thats pretty sweet!
100k = 24%. Not bad either.
For the first time in my life im not majorly upset at the level of tax i pay. hell, in aussie i was paying 48.5% at one stage. That is what we call a disincentive to work harder!
December 19th, 2011 at 10:36 am
FF has a good point. If there were one policy I’d nick from Labour, it would be making the first “X”-thousand dollars of income tax-free.
So, in the next election, if the Nats really focused on the South Auckland seats and hammered home the benefits (to those people) of charter schools and the above-mentioned tax-cut, they could do well there.
What happens inside Labour will have a big influence on the outcome of the next election. I’m hoping for a lacklustre leadership by Shearer, another leadership challenge/change, and some nice big stuff-ups by any Labour newbies on the front benches.
December 19th, 2011 at 10:57 am
DPF: “National needs to own poverty reduction as an issue, and disentangle it from the socialistic goal of income equality which has failed in pretty much every state which has tried to legislate for it.”
Dead right, and here’s how.
Rather than concentrating on throwing good money after bad as Labour suggested with their GST off fruit and veges and WFF for beneficiaries National needs to focus on the “levers of poverty” which make poor people poorer.
Regulate loan sharks and those bloody hire purchase vans
Increase treatment for gambling addiction and limit pokies
Increase availability and effectiveness for other addiction treatments
Smash gangs and keep smashing; they are a cancer in NZ, and mostly prey on the poor
Regulate the nicotine levels of NZ cigarettes, which are among the highest in the world
Long-term birth control offered to all beneficiaries free of charge.
Create medium-term jobs planting trees and set some goals around river restoration to grab soft smart green votes.
Other possibles:
Tax MSG and high-fuctose corn syrup — this is where our poor fatties come from
Fund the creation of an effective school lunch system?
No dole for under 20s?
December 19th, 2011 at 11:04 am
One thing that the government MUST do (and the sooner the better) is to **stop paying beneficiaries to have babies.**
Support could be offered up to (say) three children. After that, you’re on your own.
Bottom line – the fewer children that beneficiaries have, the fewer people there will be to follow their parents’ lifestyle.
I very strongly support the upcoming work-tests for DPB beneficiaries, but you’ve also got to take away any incentive for them to have more children.
Also – no benefits for anyone under 20. After school, you go into work, higher education or training. End of story.
December 19th, 2011 at 11:13 am
I don’t see Labour as the major future problem. For years now College Kids have been indoctrinated with the global warming bullshit and other Green type issues which in their immature minds have replaced the void once filled by the banned religious instruction. I think the Greens under the competent leadership of NORMAN may well be the major left wing party. Labour will try to buy the election but the Greens will outbid them. National will win the most seats but the Left coalition will win the party vote.
December 19th, 2011 at 11:15 am
Dime, can I ask what sort of business you’re in? You’re not that shouting buff dude on the telly who sells fitness products are you?
December 19th, 2011 at 11:22 am
Martin Gibson wrote
DPF: “National needs to own poverty reduction as an issue, and disentangle it from the socialistic goal of income equality which has failed in pretty much every state which has tried to legislate for it.”
Dead right, and here’s how.
Rather than concentrating on throwing good money after bad as Labour suggested with their GST off fruit and veges and WFF for beneficiaries National needs to focus on the “levers of poverty” which make poor people poorer.
Regulate loan sharks and those bloody hire purchase vans
Increase treatment for gambling addiction and limit pokies
Increase availability and effectiveness for other addiction treatments
Smash gangs and keep smashing; they are a cancer in NZ, and mostly prey on the poor
Regulate the nicotine levels of NZ cigarettes, which are among the highest in the world
Long-term birth control offered to all beneficiaries free of charge.
Create medium-term jobs planting trees and set some goals around river restoration to grab soft smart green votes.
Yes! These are all excellent strategies. I especially like “increase availability and effectiveness for other addiction treatments” – it is so bloody hard to get people into alcohol treament programmes at the moment, and there is no element of compulsion either which is a pity. Smashing the gangs is not only highly desirable but will also be immensely popular with the public and practically guarantee a National win next election. You are so right about their predation on the poor, I know of examples.
Smashing the pokies would be nice, but unsure of its feasability?
In addition we could also implement some sort of voucher system/ controlled payment card for those on benefits and some WFF recipients which prevents them from being able to purchase alcohol, tobacco or pokies or get cash out to do same. This may alleviate some of the other poverty related and health issues too.
I suspect taxing MSG and high-fructose corn syrup might prove more problematic than its worth, but I like the idea of an effective school lunch system, at least in decile 1-4 schools. Mind you, if beneficiaries and some WFF recipients are prevented from spending money on booze, smokes and pokies this may turn out to be largely unnecessary in the long run.
Regards
Peter J
Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz
December 19th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
“National’s first term was about infrastructure.”
As evidenced by all the great infrastructure projects they began such as… umm… er… the cycleway?
December 19th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
We should be very mindfull that a Labour/Green left wing ticket will ultimately prevail in 2014.
MMP will see to it. It was moved by the left wing of New Zealand politics and only takes time to maturate.
Their time is coming in 2014. How Labour and Greens co-exist remains to be seen, but they will because power corrupts, (and absolute power corrupts absolutely).
December 19th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
National’s first term was about infrastructure. The second term is looking to focus on science and innovation
hah yeah that is a good one…spin baby spin
Nationals first term was about taxcuts for the wealthy. The second term is about selling off state assets to the wealthy.
There won’t be a third term for this lot they will all retire to sunny shores with their ill gotten gains cos they wont be welcome anyhere in NZ.
December 19th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Pollywog
That’s what happens when your side wins.
Suck it up, you have at least another six years of this to go yet, by that stage the country will be booming and your lot can come back in and fuck it all up again.
December 19th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Ummm the fibre roll-out is at the top of the list here. Followed by some major roading projects.
December 19th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
That’s what happens when your side wins.
Your side haven’t won shit.
The war’s just started.
December 19th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
“The war’s just started.” really, are you a combatant?
December 19th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
I’m one of those rareties RN…a lover and a fighter
December 19th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
adze – no haha not sure who youre talking about but he sounds awesome
December 19th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Hmm, probably not as rare as you think PW, given the number of solo mums out there.
December 19th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
How many dudes you know role like this ?
December 19th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
A party usually has a searching inquiry after losing an election. It is something the whole National Party and its non-member supporters need to give ernest thought to. As things stand, National needs to aim for 51% of the vote next time (possibly 48% if Peter Dunne and ACT manage to hang in). This is almost a ‘mission impossible’. Another option would be for another centre-right party to somehow form since this would give some choice to centre-right voters. It would need to be a membership based party rather than a personality based party.
If National did lose in 2014, it would somehow need to hold itself together sufficiently to win in 2017. This would be a tall order as Labour would dig itself in by any means fair or foul.
December 19th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Fibre op roll-out hasn’t happened yet, as for roading projects, got any specifics? I can’t think of any
December 19th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Peka-Peka to Otaki, Kapiti Expressway, Transmission Gully, Basin Flyover.
And thats Just the Wellington region.
December 19th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
“Fibre op roll-out hasn’t happened yet” – parts of it have. I can sell fibre to the home now in fact, but only in selected areas (which unfortunately doesn’t include my own house).
December 19th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Sadly, I think JayMal is right. The public is willing to tolerate a little gentle reform, but only a little. NS really needs some stronger measures but the public wont wear it and doing too much would give power back to the left, with even worse results.
December 19th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
National should consider their position on climate change very carefully. If they can maintain a neutral to sceptical position and avoid signing us up to any new emission reduction targets then they’ll have 2014 in the bag. By next year there’ll be a 15 year trend of zero in global mean temperature. By 2014 that will be a 17 year trend (probably with an almost statistically significant cooling trend) which is apparently enough in climate seance to count as ‘climate’ rather than weather.
December 19th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
National has sat on its hands in this first term. They have wasted all that political capital that would have seen them win a second term even had they had the balls to make unpopular decisions. They need courage and direction, John Key has neither, he needs to go. This National Govt has three years to put in place the changes this country needs, ACT has secured some amazing policy deals which will help but they need to act soon, roll the smiling do nothing PM and get Stephen Joyce in there to implement all of ACT’s policies.
Those who don’t want a Labour Govt should have voted ACT, a vote for National was a vote for steady as we go down the gurgler.
December 19th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
@Thor42
First $XXX from income tax free is definitely a strong policy, it’s one of the many policies that Labour pinched from the Greens in the last few years. But it’s not particularly ‘left’ (apart from the fact that it is a tax cut that is progressive in it’s effects). It’s pretty mainstream policy in a lot of countires with governments both of left and right.
The killer reform for a National Government under Key’s kind of centrist leadership would be to abolish Working for Families and replace it with a simple flat Universal Child Support payment (of the kind you’ll find in many western countries). Working for families was support for low income workers with kids, has universal appeal and would be political suicide to try and kill. WFF part two extended it to middle income earners thereby only excluding the very top and the very bottom. It doesn’t treat all children equally (if your parents earn well you are excluded) and it doesn’t address the worst poverty (as the poorest kids are in families with parents out of work). It’s a bad attempt to deliver income redistribution via children and it’s basically a handout to Labour’s core constituency that John Key is accepting, even though he doesn’t agree with it, because he’s to scared to change it.
The proposal would involve two key elements:
1) Cap the $$’s at current government spend on working for families payments but distribute it differently. This actually means a net saving to the taxpayer as the administration, compliance and monitoring costs of WFF reduces massively when the payment becomes universal.
2) Partner with the Greens to deliver the policy (Universal Child Benefit was their policy long before Cullen cooked up WFF) this makes it a lot more politically saleable as the Greens have credibility on the child poverty issue. Plus it makes it tough on Labour as any success in attacking the policy just translates into destroying their coalition partner meaning that even if they win they lose.
3) Give it a catchy name to capture the brand and bury the memory of WFF as Labour policy. I’m in favour of something like “KiwiStart” because it’s about giving all Kiwi’s a good start in life. It allows the Nats to take the battle to Labour on inequality arguing (and proving) that they stand for equality of opportunity and a good start in life they just oppose equality of outcome.
The kicker would be to adopt @Martin Gibson’s proposal above of a (privately contracted) school lunch program. This allows National to show the principles of equality of opportunity and fighting poverty with a policy that would be extremely effective. I would challenge Labour to try and explain to the electorate how giving money to poor families to spend on their kids lunches has a better success rate than just feeding the kids a healthy meal a day. Or far that matter find an NZ First voter who grew up at a time when they received milk or lunches at school who doesn’t beleive it was a good fair system.
New Zealand has decided it supports a child support payment, National has accepted this. So rather than maintaining an unfair dog of a system with high overheads (not to mention the endless rework – remember the exemptions they had to pass to stop people hiding income in trusts to claim WFF) replace the system with something that works, distorts behaviour as little as possible and is cheap to run. Universal child payments and school lunches would also benefit higher income working families who are in National’s core demographic so it represents less of a lurch to the left than endlessly maintaining WFF.
December 19th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
And pair it with a reduction in the dpb Richard29?
December 19th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Potentially. As long as the overall provision to children remains the same or higher than it is now. I’d be interested in something similar to the Brazilian “Bolsa Familiya” scheme where payments forchild support are conditional on basic parentingminimums like school enrolments, immunisations, health checks etc. Not necessary for most parents but a good way to change behaviour in that last 5% who are so hard to reach with universals schemes.