This is the year the government has to recover its reputation for competence. If it fails, it is probably dogmeat at the next election.
The government limped into Christmas with two ball-and-chains around its ankles. Television New Zealand was in disarray because of its government-set, impossible hybrid commercial/public service objective. David Benson-Pope had made mistake after mistake and the ninth floor had not got protective wrapping around him.
What does a government do when Parliament is slow or difficult? It thinks up other ways to do what it wants.
This term the government does not have a near-automatic “left” majority with the Greens nor a willing backer of “urgency” to fast-track government business and/or extend sitting hours, as United Future did in the 2002-05 Parliament.
Sir Keith Holyoake won his third term in 1966 just as the terms of trade turned sour and the economy turned down. He called a nine-month-long national development conference of all economic interest groups to do some “indicative planning” and set 10-year targets. He scraped a fourth term in 1969.
The election was marked by a binge auction, heavily negative campaigning and racial divisiveness. That is an uncomfortable legacy.
The primary governmental need now after the nastiest election in decade is to find a basis for reunification. There is no consensus, such as underpinned the 1950s-60s prosperity and long period of settled rule by National.
As fast as one party goes out of Parliament, another comes in, it seems. We seem stuck around seven. How come?
Mauri Pacific, the post-1998 New Zealand First splinter, disappeared in the 1999 election but the Greens came in. The Alliance disappeared in 2002 but left behind a splinter, Jim Anderton’s Progressive party.
Political parties always like to think they are on the right side of history, that they are the future. Many don’t succeed.
Some do find a market for the wrong side of history. The Alliance nudged 30 per cent in polls at times after 1993 by giving voice to widespread voter anger at the 1980s economic reforms.
The government came into 2005 with two main selling points for this year’s election: the buoyant economy and a credible claim to competence. Both lost traction during the autumn.
The economy is almost invariably the main issue in any election.
Opinion polling of “issues” usually focus on what is wrong and so feature negatives: health, education and crime, for example. But if real wages are rising and jobs are plentiful, such polling can mislead pundits and party strategists. A buoyant economy is a plus for an incumbent government and outweighs worries on other scores with most voters.
Colin James on the state services for Management Magazine July 2005
Government is not a simple business. How then do you go about the business of government? That question underlies much of the froth that will bubble around the coming election.
It is a defining question in our system. The National side sees the state as at best a necessary evil and unproductive. The Labour side sees it as an instrument for improving society and revving the economy.
Pollute a stream and you might profit from the business you do while polluting. But the pollution costs someone.
That is called an externality and some say the polluter should bear the cost.
The questions for policymakers are how to measure the cost and how to apportion it? When a polluting dairy farm makes profits, it also makes exports which the rest of the country feeds on. So the cost is not the dairy farmer’s alone.
Trust has a special meaning in politics. Remember that when the electioneering starts and you are invited to trust candidates, leaders and parties.
This became important in the 1990s because trust in the main parties, in politicians generally and in the institutions of our democracy fell away.
In part this reflects a worldwide trend in our sorts of democracies. As we have grown to expect more from our governments since social security, state pensions and state-funded education and health systems became universal successive generations have become more picky.