Can socialandeconomic be one word? The government thinks so. Not literally, of course, but in its policy approach.
It is, for example, considering mandatory independent reporting of social indicators, which would pick up adverse social impacts of economic policies and potentially constrain future governments.
Michael Cullen has come over very self-congratulatory about the economy. “Our achievements in government so far are indisputable,” he told a public meeting last week.
He sketched a saga of “rough waters” through which, by having “worked hard”, “my government” had guided this country to “one of the most successful economies in the western world” and “the top half of the developed world on so many indices it is hard to keep up”.
The Foreshore and Seabed Bill is done. Next week comes the Civil Union Bill. Another test for this government and this society.
The foreshore bill’s final stage was no monument to democracy, ridden through without giving outsiders a chance to get to grips its myriad last-minute changes.
It will need amending. But the deed is done. New Zealand First, showing tactical skill and even a modicum of statesmanship, got its day in the sun and the cabinet disposed of its most difficult and threatening conundrum so far.
“Balance” is a useful political word. It says a policy is evenhanded, moderate and reaches across a fair swathe of the electorate.
The National party used to have a mortgage on “balance”. Not any more.
National also used to have a mortgage on its claim to be “national” in reach, appeal and membership — acting on behalf of the whole nation. Labour, dominated by unions’ card votes, was sectional, the tool of the unions, National said.
Who is that who has just popped up on the government’s right? Jim Anderton, promoting a 30 per cent company tax rate. Whatever next?
Two years ago once-protectionist Anderton embraced freer trade. He had observed the burgeoning of high-valued-added niche-market textile and clothing exporters who found tariffs, if anything, a constraint.
Winston Peters and John Tamihere have both been talked up as the first Maori Prime Minister and both will not be. That is not all they share.
Both are self-made politically, too idiosyncratic and prideful to fit comfortably into the parties that brought them into Parliament.
Both ooze charm and flash charisma, with personal constituencies beyond those of their parties. Peters reached out from National in the late 1980s to many in Labour’s core vote. Tamihere touches many in National’s core vote. They both have Maori and non-Maori followers.
In the latest issue of the New York Review of Books there is a chart of polls of 34,000 people in 30 countries of opinion on the United States presidential election on November 2. Only three are coloured red for President George Bush.
For Bush are Poland, the Philippines and Nigeria. India and Thailand are evenly balanced. The rest are blue, most very blue, for John Kerry.
If John Tamihere departs he will be a loss not just to the cabinet and the Labour party but to the nation — not for what he is but for something important he has represented.
Tamihere — flawed, volatile, passionate, angry, good fun, impulsive and modern — is at the cusp of a shift in Maori priorities which may not really start to show through for years yet.
It’s good news and bad news from the Australian election: mostly good for Helen Clark and mostly bad for Don Brash.
John Howard’s resounding fourth term win on Saturday was a reflection in part of the advantage of incumbency when the economy feels buoyant at the household level. Which, if there are no big shocks, should be the case here when Clark faces voters next year.
The National party is trying to work out how to use welfare as a big hit in its bid to lead the next government. But is there really a big hit in there?
Don Brash favours lifetime limits on the unemployment benefit. The more worldly Katherine Rich, the social welfare spokesperson, is more flexible.
Rich and ACT’s Muriel Newman want to go the Wisconsin route: get beneficiaries into jobs. But to do that properly, Wisconsin found and both acknowledge, is not a cheap option, which is not good news for tax-cutters in both parties.