Election choices in close race
ONLY a foolhardy person would predict the result of the election tomorrow. The polls have been all over the place.
What began as a potential borefest, with as much colour as a Rotorua mud pool, turned vivid. Andrew Little’s resignation from Labour brought bright star Jacinda Ardern to the fore, and new energy and purpose from the party and supporters. Abruptly, too, the young took an interest and many flocked to hear her ‘‘vision’’.
National’s leader Bill English responded with vigour and the election was all on. His assurance and assertiveness contrasts with his previous tilt for power in 2002 as National leader. That ended in a pounding defeat to Helen Clark.
Mr English is emphasising there is a clear choice this election. While neither party whatever the rhetoric, in essence is straying from the neoliberal path, differences in emphasis are dis tinct. Any government after three terms has drawn down most of its political capital. It is vulnerable to accusations about why it has not dealt with big issues, notably housing, freshwater quality and child poverty.
The response has been to argue the Government has led the nation through the global financial crisis (GFC) and the Christchurch earthquakes and it has come out strong. The dividends were now being reaped and the issues tackled.
Labour points to the ‘‘failures’’ and promises a fresh vision and new policies, like KiwiBuild house programme, the water tax and more money for families.
National has claimed Labour will raise taxes, a claim denied vehemently by Labour. This comes down, basically, to semantics. From April 1 next year tax brackets are to be adjusted (back to what they were before ‘‘fiscal drag’’ brought income into higher brackets) in what National says will give average income earners $1000 each. Labour will scrap this change, helping it pay for the likes of free tertiary fees.
National has been in trouble with assertions of an $11 billion hole in the Labour budget. No economist backs National up. Nevertheless, Labour will spend more than National in various areas, and government debt, which rose significantly during the GFC, would be reduced more slowly. Money for policies has to come from somewhere.
The essence of the choice is here. Labour will spend more money and more people will pay more tax (while Labour says 70% of families will be better off). For many voters, that is the right thing to do. More government action is needed is many areas.
Voters favouring Labour also expect stronger action on climate change, waterways and housing, as well as policies favouring unions, public broadcasting and the like. It is an agenda ‘‘progressives’’ will prefer.
Spending under National will be lower, even though the campaign has been marked by promises of largesse by just about every party including National, particularly as it fought to respond to the Jacindarella effect.
The Greens have slipped as Labour soared, but have recovered sufficiently to appear well clear of the 5% threshold. They and Labour can be seen as one bloc. The socalled drag race between the two majors has left New Zealand First floundering, although, again assuming it makes the 5%, it is still in pole position as king or queen maker.
The couple of seats, at best guess, the Maori Party wins could be crucial, and it could easily go with Labour/Greens rather than support National as it has done.
The methodology of polls is always a little suspect, and the large number of undecideds, 10% to 15%, restricts the reliability of their bald numbers. They indicate, nevertheless, the race is open.
Given the potential roles for New Zealand First and the Maori Party, it could well be some time after Saturday night before the Government’s makeup is known.