Politics Jane Clifton
Oddly, going to the altar with Winston isn’t as attractive as it may seem.
Welcome to New Zealand: land of bespoke Governments, While-U-Wait. And wait. And wait. Rather than coalition negotiations, policy auctions or “for pity’s sake, make up your mind, Winston!”, the best descriptor of this period, the dreaded MMP post-election interregnum, might be the Marshmallow Test.
Because of the peculiar cyclical circumstances of this election, it’s not simply a clear-cut question of “Pick me!” Obviously the overwhelming issue is the forming of the next Government, and National, Labour and the balance-of-power-holding New Zealand First are working on this with every cylinder primed.
But we now have a situation with a party on the brink of forming a fourth consecutive Government.
Ordinarily, a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush; you grab power when you can. This time, however, like the young children in the famous old Stanford University delayed-gratification tests, both Labour and National are having to consider whether a sweet now may be worth sacrificing for a more enduring brace of baubles in three years’ time.
It comes down to the chances of either type of Government, National-led or Labour-led, making a success out of this new term. For both, the outlook is iffy.
Even though National, which has the most votes, is seen by many as having the “moral authority” to form the new Government, this question is surprisingly taxing. A fourth term now: bring it on! But after that? How likely are voters to grant it a fifth term? After 12 years in power, how long might National be banished to Opposition?
For the older of the current senior Nats, it’s a no-brainer. They’ll take the single marshmallow now because they may not be around to get the benefit of delaying gratification. Bill English and his senior Cabinet members – Paula Bennett, Steven Joyce, Gerry Brownlee, Chris Finlayson – want right back in asap. Further down the caucus ranks, however, this appetite may not be so keen.
USE-BY DATE APPROACHING
English has just campaigned with all the grit and wry charm you’d expect from a genuine Southern Man, so his job is deservedly safe. But by 2020, the PM is apt to be tiring, as will much of his cohort. Sure, National can rejuvenate. It has plenty of newer and younger talent. But English, Joyce, Bennett and co would have to do something on a par with bringing peace to the Middle East to lead National into 2020.
And however necessary, changing leadership is a risky and destabilising process. The odds of striking a new star who could totally refresh voters’ faith in National after 12 years, when we’d be verging on a one-party state sort of vibe, are not terrific.
The thinking among some in National goes: accept a term in Opposition now and watch the Labour-led “three-headed monster” implode; then on a tide of buyers’ remorse, get voted comfortably back into the Beehive for a further three or four terms in 2020. Hell, even sooner if Labour and its mates cause the debacle many Nats think they would. For the first- and second-term MPs who could confidently expect to make a future Cabinet, this option is more than bearable. It could be the difference between their getting a chance at the top table or not. Ever.
For Labour, the logic is comparably bedevilling. It has gained 13 seats (maybe 14 after specials) on a rising tide of popularity. New leader
Jacinda Ardern landed on the Refresh button in warp drive. With a crop of promising new MPs, Labour is the shiny new Netflix alternative to National’s Coronation Street, ( albeit the latter now without Ken Barlow aka Peter Dunne).
Labour will be backing itself to maintain that new sheen, and betting on National to look increasingly tired and Winston-harried; and for familiarity to breed voter contempt.
It is also counting on some hard-to-veil disunity, as ambitious younger Nats paw the turf. The fright of Labour outpolling National at times during the campaign encouraged new number-crunching among the caucus’s leadership hopefuls. An undeniable part of the much-ballyhooed “Jacinda Effect” has been a sharp elbow in the ribs for political inertia about generational change.
“Hurry up and wait” is a most unnatural political strategy, but it has its place. Anyone who doubts this should hear the candid thoughts of the National seniors involved in the 2005 coalition talks. In failing to form what would have been a highly abrasive and dysfunctional coalition led by Don Brash, National dodged a bullet. That final wilderness term put the party in the box seat for a much longer game.
However, the only safe bet now is that the party to which Winston Peters’ NZ First offers the marshmallow now will grab it like a gannet on speed. There are five possibilities from here. In order of probability, they are:
1.A National-NZ First government:
This honours the probably prevailing voter expectation that the party with the biggest vote has the strongest claim to lead the Government. National has signalled willingness to make concessions, outside fundamental fiscal matters. Peters has recently softened the implied “bottom line” status of his spikier policies, including referendums on smacking, the Maori seats and the size of Parliament. On the table for him is more qualification-related quality control on immigration flows. This risks stalling National’s consumptionled economic-growth strategy, but many economists would say that’s no bad thing. Sundry other policy trade-offs could be made without much difficulty, notably on regional development funding, which handily is NZ First voter core business.
But three big impediments remain. One is NZ First’s strong desire to restrict foreign buyers’ access to land, farms, strategic businesses and houses. There’s considerable public backing for this, but National has always been ideologically opposed to restrictions, not least because they would damage New Zealand’s ability to further free-trade deals, notably the vestigial Trans-Pacific Partnership, which NZ First vehemently opposes.
Second, NZ First’s membership is generally assumed to be keener on a Labour deal than to a National one. Peters’ social-media following has positively pelted him with injunctions to “go with Labour!” Peters has spent the past nine years railing against National – not Labour. Based on practically every NZ First stance, its voters have reason to expect it to overthrow the National Government, not facilitate it.
Third, Peters neither likes nor trusts many of the National team, and nurses violent allergies to a few of them. Between Peters and English
Between Peters and English lies a distinct lack of respect or regard, forged in the early 1990s.
lies a distinct lack of respect or regard, forged in the early 1990s. Both politicians are deeply stubborn. If they make a deal, it’ll be less a case of conquering Everest than thawing it.
2. A Labour-NZ First government – with Greens on the side:
The mathematics of this would be a tough
MMP learning curve for voters, and would start this administration off on the back foot, with a question over its very legitimacy. Constitutional experts can belabour the birds-and-bees realities of MMP, but if the public’s not ready for this kind of minority Government, it could struggle.
Labour, NZF and Green combined will possibly, after special votes are counted next week, have a five-seat majority compared with (a slightly reduced) National and NZF at a likely 11-seat majority.
If NZ First does this deal, it will be because it has chosen to interpret the mandate for change as a literal mandate to get rid of National, not just to modify its policies.
NZ First’s preferred option here would be to not have to share power directly with the Greens. Despite having a surprisingly large amount of policy in common, the parties are culturally incompatible. On the Greens’ part, this has been deliberate.
Former co-leader Metiria Turei has never resiled from calling NZ First a racist party earlier this year; nor did any of the current Green crop distance themselves from what was a calculated campaign stake in the ground.
Left out of the Beehive deal, the Greens would have the option of abstaining in protest, but would almost certainly passively support the Labour-led Government, in preference to advantaging National or bringing the Government down.
Labour and NZ First already have cordial relations, and the lead party could even throw Peters and co some bespoke, hobby-horse-shaped baubles, such as the Commerce and Energy portfolios, which would allow NZ First to exert pricing pressure on such competition-scarce sectors as electricity, fuel, supermarkets and banks – to public acclaim.
Labour is on the same page as NZ First on foreign investment restrictions and regional development.
Fish hooks are inevitable, though. Like the Greens’, Labour’s supporters also rue what many regard as Peters’ dog-whistle racism. NZ First may take the shine off Ardern’s public appeal. Such a deal would leave the Greens free to gnaw on any exposed Labour flank. And the need to give NZ First a few Cabinet and junior ministerial positions would disjoint many Labour noses.
But the potential problems are bigger than just intra-caucus enmities. Labour is light on policy, most significantly on how to improve housing affordability. So is National, but at least it has its own momentum. Labour has lashed itself to the mast on tax settings for the next three years and its generous social spending leaves it perilously little spending room in other portfolios.