Rumble in Thames sets off alarm bells
The visit by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and the war of words over the book Hit And Run have grabbed news headlines over the last few weeks – though, to be frank, neither is likely to change many votes.
But with the general election now less than six months away, a couple of developments have signalled key trends and pressure points as this year’s Budget approaches and the decks are cleared for the campaign proper.
One was the hostile reception Police Minister Paula Bennett received in Thames on Wednesday from residents and school students concerned about assaults, burglaries and drug offences in the region.
It was no riot, but the depth and nature of the locals’ sentiment was clear; they are feeling undervalued, and believe police and crime-fighting is under-resourced – or at least not meeting their needs.
As a bellwether of wider community concern, it will have raised a red flag inside the Government, especially as it watches a small but perceptible softening in its poll ratings and in the dominance of its leader in the preferred prime minister stakes.
A mood for change, a warming to the other guys and a sense that the Government is out of touch – ‘‘not listening’’, however expressed – is a warning sign.
Add to that the fact the hostility was aimed at Bennett at the same time as Labour is setting up the popular Jacinda Ardern as her counter-point.
All election campaigns can be boiled down to two basic concepts; ‘‘it’s time for a change’’ or ‘‘don’t put the future at risk’’.
It’s become something of a cliche to say it, but the Brexit vote, and the switch to Trump in the US rust belt states, were variations on the first of those.
Behind the poll numbers the parties’ pollsters will be peering hard to detect signs of the same mood for change here.
If it was just the relatively small Thames meeting it could be dismissed.
But a similar thread, again linked to crime and law and order, was obvious in Kaitaia in recent weeks, in the Mt Roskill byelection and would have likely had a higher profile in the Mt Albert by-election if National had contested the seat.
No doubt the Government had detected some of that disgruntlement when it moved to boost police numbers at the start of the year, albeit slightly shy of Labour’s promised numbers.
And let’s not forget NZ First and Winston Peter who was this week banging the drum for a repeal of the anti-smacking law just as National’s own Kaikohe branch chair Alan Price suggested the solution to the town’s crime and chaos is to ‘‘put corporal punishment back into our schools’’.
On those issues National doesn’t have to lose any sleep worrying about shedding votes to the even more liberal Labour and Green parties, but Peters is a different kettle of fish and he is trawling for votes in the very areas where those issues will hurt both big parties, but National more – the conservative and workingclass suburbs and provincial areas..
The second major development is the deal between Labour and the Greens to sign up to what they call ‘‘budget responsibility rules’’ but which would in effect operate as slightly pliable spending and debt caps.
In summary, the parties’ finance spokesmen Grant Robertson and James Shaw have pledged to run surpluses, cut net Government debt to 20 per cent of GDP within five years (a couple of years more slowly than National, allowing for several billions more of spending), and to keep spending at around 30 per cent of GDP.
Investing will be made with an eye on the long term, so the Cullen superannuation fund and climate change measures move closer to the front of the queue.
But their joint tax position was even less specific, based on broad concepts of progressivity and fairness. In the main that was because Labour wants to kick any further changes into its second term, based on the recommendations of a tax working group, while the Greens still want to see some of their capital and ecotaxes implemented in term one.
It’s a fundamental difference that cannot be simply explained by the two parties’ mantric response; that they have different policies and decisions will be affected by the relative size of their vote.
Question: ‘‘Will there be tax rises before 2020 under a LabourGreen government?’’ Answer: ‘‘Wait and see’’.
Nevertheless the deal was important election positioning for a number of reasons. The most obvious was that it defined their relationship and sent the message that they could work together – division being toxic to voters.
At the same time it was aimed at inoculating Labour against accusations they would be dragged down a fiscal hole by big-spending wild-eyed Greens.
Labour too has its reputational issues on that score, unfair as that seems given the string of surpluses delivered under Clark and Cullen.
But equally the BRRs should ensure Labour won’t be outflanked on the left by big-spending promises from the Greens, or perhaps more accurately by big spending from the Greens on top of their own commitments.
Taken as a whole the BRRs are also a strategy to neutralise socalled third rail issues – ‘‘touch ‘em and you die’’. For the Left, it is debt, spending and deficits just as for National when Key came to power it was about guaranteeing no big erosion of the policies on superannuation, nuclear ships, student loans and Working for Families payments.
The unions and high profile Left-wingers like Sue Bradford came out swinging against them, but that won’t cause any palpitations among Labour or Green strategists. They will figure that among centrist voters it reinforces their message of middleof-the-road fiscal management while out on the Left there are no other major parties to bleed off the disgruntled voters.
But what the BRRs also show – looping back to National’s policing and crime problems – is that Labour sees more mileage in surfing a mood for change rather than running a spending-heavy policy-rich election campaign.
After all, if the mood is with you, why complicate matters with a raft of policies that might give voters cause not to tick the Left boxes?
It remains to be seen if Bennett’s meeting in Thames, the celebrity of Ardern and an undercurrent of disgruntlement amounts to a strong enough mood for change or if it’s just a passing bout of tiring-of-third-termgovernment-itis.
A sense that a Government is ‘not listening’, however expressed, is always a warning sign.