Parties rush to centre in bidding war
Caution and intense competition dominate the early campaigning.
In politics, there’s the small target strategy, and then there’s the really, really, extremely small target strategy. As in: ‘‘bet you can’t hit me now’’.
It’s an especially good tactic to employ when a) the other side are so unpopular they will be thrown out, so why take a risk, or b) the other side are so unpopular they will never be elected, so why take a risk.
So it seems odd that with the election likely to be on a knifeedge, wielded by Winston Raymond Peters, both big parties seem to be adopting the same tactics, and with relish.
Labour has opted to campaign on only a handful of policy highlights – meaning you will be able to count them on the fingers of one hand.
National’s ace will be policy stability (with a leavening of tax cuts).
At its least edifying, the strategy brings with it a mix of postelection taskforces, vagueness and a scramble to modify towards the centre.
Even the Greens joined in the act this week, adopting a policy so moderate that Business NZ applauded. Sure, it wants 100 per cent renewable energy, but by 2030 – and only in ‘‘average hydrological conditions’’.
To be strictly accurate, the big parties are not only playing the uber-small target game. They are also adopting a parallel ‘‘me too, shuffle up, we’re with stupid, if it’s popular we want a piece of that, and if it isn’t you have to vote for someone so you can’t hang us all,’’ strategy.
Not so much a bidding war as a bid-in war on any issue that can win – or lose – significant votes.
So Peters and NZ First promise HEAPs of cops – 1800. Labour pledges LOTS – 1000. And National promises to fund a fair few more – 880. It’s similar with immigration. NZ First would turn the tap right down, to near 10,000. Labour
would cut ‘‘tens of thousands’’, and National this week took a second stab at ‘‘controlling’’ numbers without saying how many fewer will arrive.
On that basis you would think Labour’s ‘‘not too hot, not too cold’’ policies would pass the taste test, but politics is a different sort of fairy tale.
In the current climate there’s a pressing need to leave the cabin door ajar for post-election compromises.
As far as the voters are concerned, it’s not necessarily the numbers that matter but the perception.
If it’s a votewinner, you have to at least be in the game. The big no-no is being seen to do nothing.
English has taken a similar approach over the need to ‘‘refresh’’ his team, with a mini-reshuffle due tomorrow to find replacements for Hekia Parata in education and Murray McCully in foreign affairs (the latter is part of a strategy to leave the role available for Peters to fill).
It doesn’t always hit the mark, of course.
National’s strategists, led by Finance Minister Steven Joyce, believed a volley of announcements and initiatives would convince voters it was addressing the housing crisis.
But from a shortage of supply, to affordability, to state housing to emergency shelter, it has proved too big a target to hide. There is still a big bull’s eye on Housing Minister Nick Smith’s back.
In the case of a replacement for McCully, no option is perfect. Mark Mitchell may be too junior, Jonathan Coleman is better deployed in health, Chris Finlayson is busy with Treaty settlements and as attorneygeneral ... and is Gerry Brownlee really a great choice?
It make you wonder whether the easier option would have been to leave McCully in place until the election.