A future beyond the age of grievance

We’ve entered a time “which lies at the confluence of pessimism and narcissism”, writes long-time New York Times columnist Frank Bruni in his new book, The Age of Grievance.

Bruni is focusing on the political polarisation of his country, the United States, but three polls published this week indicate that grievance is here too.

The polls, from 1 News-Verian, a TalbotMills corporate poll and Roy Morgan, varied within the margin of error, but an average of them put National at 35.5%, Labour at 29%, Greens 13%, NZ First 5% and Te Pāti Māori 4.5%. Given that six months ago, the election results had National gain 38.08% of the vote, Labour 26.91%, the Greens 11.60%, ACT 8.64%, NZ First 6.08% and TPM 3.08%, these results were less about the catastrophising of some commentators, more a quiet clarion call for action. Because that dip is in sharp contrast to the bump the past three governments have enjoyed in their first terms.

Former prime minister John Key was right when he said that a government experiencing dropping polls so early in its tenure was “less about politics and more about economics”, but that in and of itself is a growing problem for National.

Having harnessed the electorate’s grievance in 2023 as a vote for change and painting itself as a more capable economic manager, it’s failing to prove it so far.

With unemployment rising, while the cost of living went up 6.2% in the year to March, any wise government in these straitened times would do well to avoid rewarding itself while its constituents suffer, lest it stoke the fires of grievance.

If politics is all about timing, then the Remuneration Authority’s announcement of pay rises for pollies was the worst timing of all. Backbenchers will get a $17,239 pay hike in the next three years, on top of an extra $2320 in their $20,000 allowance.

While MPs of all stripes were quick to point to the independence of the authority, Parliament can over-rule any pay rise with various prime ministers having tinkered with MPs’ salaries, alternatively freezing them and then instituting pay cuts, as Jacinda Ardern did; or tying them to the public sector, which Key instituted.

Forget optics; with food-support charities reporting a 40% increase in demand, this is let-them-eat-cake hypocrisy that only emphasises the gap between the haves, in this case politicians, and the disenfranchised have-nots, voters.

While the prime minister continues to spout how “relentlessly focused” he is on getting inflation down, the economy continues to decline, with Kiwis’ ability to spend, encapsulated in the real gross national disposable income contracting 2.8% per capita in the year to December.

Those polls can be turned around, but only if the Government moves fast to bring down the pain inflation is wreaking on New Zealanders, allowing the Reserve Bank to cut interest rates before Election 2026.

However, with inflation here proving sticky at 4% and with economists concerned it could increase in Australia and the US, any full recovery promises to be much slower. Finance Minister Nicola Willis’ recent Budget Policy Statement confirmed that a 2027/28 surplus “is still achievable but not a given”.

Which firmly puts the focus on Willis’ first Budget in just under four weeks and its “centrepiece” – tax cuts. Let’s accept, for the moment, that she’s right when she says tax cuts will be fully funded. Nevertheless, the cuts present a Goldilocks dilemma. Too little will only reinforce the electorate’s ongoing agony, as it continues to pay more in mortgages, in petrol, for public transport.

Too much and Willis will be accused of further lining the pockets of the wealthy. Because, as Bruni says, the aggrieved “have lost – or lost interest in – the ability to see beyond their slights to a common good in which they don’t get all that they want”.

“Grown-ups are supposed to be able to compromise like that. But ours is an era of mass immaturity.”

While a single Budget is not going to reverse that immaturity, prolonging the fiscal pain across the years will bake the inequity in.

Janet Wilson is a regular opinion contributor.