National, Labour and the myths of centrism
One of the myths of New Zealand politics is that a choice of "centre left" and "centre right" has the same equivalence.
In fact, as we have seen in the recent election, it’s a choice between two contrasting styles of political belief.
The Left is agenda-driven. It has a programme to fulfil and only political realities prevent it from being carried through completely. Helen Clark’s Labour government implemented an agenda that was radical and, in many cases, uncompromising.
That’s why, in her concession speech, she dropped any pretence to centrism by regretting her defeat might mean all her work “going up in flames on a bonfire created by the right wing of politics.”
In modern parlance, Labour is about identity politics – the idea that disparate groups can alleviate their grievances through access to power.
National, by contrast, is a status quo party that is driven by a philosophy of accommodation to realities. If it believes in change, it is that outcomes from a government be more for the better than worse.
John Key’s approach resembles that of John Marshall and Keith Holyoake with a desire to see the country as a whole do better – certainly better than it achieved in the past decade of lost opportunities while Labour was looking after its own.
Labour’s agenda was to weaken and roll back the private sector; National’s task is to rebuild it – an important commitment spelt out by Bill English in his Agenda (TV One) appearance at the weekend.
Mr English is far more accepting that the recession must be handled in a way that maximises the ability of the private sector to recover its confidence to invest. Higher government spending and deficits cannot do that.
In any case, as he points out,
“The development of significant ongoing deficits and relentlessly rising debt has just come up in the last two or three months and in fact right now we're working on whether the current forecasts comply with the Public Finance Act, because it was set up to make sure that governments ran surpluses on average through a business cycle and kept debt at reasonable levels.”
Labour’s approach to running up huge surpluses resulted – through over-taxation – in committing that money to vote-buying and subsidised saving while the private sector (including households) ran up unsustainable debt.
As a result, Labour found large tax revenues soon dissipate if the private sector has been left too fragile and needs to reduce debt. The only alternative, as Mr English knows, is to cut back public spending, something that hasn’t occurred in nine years (it has, in fact, risen to $20 billion a year more than in 2000).
I have no doubt Mr English will take a pioneer’s view, as described by Gordon McLauchlan in this account of how the original St Paul’s church in Auckland was erected in the 1840s:
“This was a town that started off running. These pioneers were practical men building a functional town with no time and with few women to urge in either decorum among their fellow settlers or insist on line and proportion for the sake of aesthetics.
“Early pictures show St Paul’s was by far its biggest building and the signal effect of its design, size and permanent materials was to turn an aggregation of people and their raupo and knocked-up wooden buildings into a genuine town.
“The shanty village did not last long, though, as the pioneers constructed their wooden piers, houses and commercial premises with alacrity.” (The Life and Times of Auckland (2008), p104)
Signup to free NBR email alerts here
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Email
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Latest
Comments and questions13
A very accurate insight!!!
Labor was too far left, and were not worker or family friendly. Tax tax and more tax and then a big spend up and muck raking expedition to Australia just before the election. They paid for the student vote the previous election with NZ businesses and their employees tax. Opportunities lost for almost a decade. Everyhting you pointed out is so very true. Socialism that was out of control has hopefully finally been checked.
Excellent article - very perceptive and helpful analysis. John Key is to be highly commended for the business-like and serious-minded start he has made in dealing with the immediate financial crisis. His arrangement with the Maori Party shows real statesmanship and strategic intelligence. Let's all hope that he can lead us to a better place. Personally I think it would be good if he could bring the Greens in on the deal too, which would leave Labour completely isolated and out of power for good hopefully - unless, of course, the Greens are really just socialists in disguise!
I agree with Robin - bringing the Greens in on some key policy too would be very smart and would absolutely stick it to Labour. It would be very interesting to see what their response to that would be. I watch with interest.
Agree with the opinion...but add this...there is a very different approach and you heard these words often.."National is about equality of opportunity not equality of outcome" ...labour approach is about equality of outcome...take money off the successful and give to the least succesful...it does not work...the givers get peeved (and leave) and the recipients get lazy..(and want more)...then there is no-one left to generate enough to distribute.
More frontline teachers ,police ,nurses ,technical colleges is about equal opportunity...much simpler and needs less infrastructure...
The Labour (and Alliance) govt of 1999 gained a public mandate by expressing a vision and policy programme to the public which was in contrast to the way things were done or not done until then.
This vision and programme was largely supported by the public during the first two terms and these programmes and policies, whether they be for arts (music and film industry) funding/support, were smart, effective and resonated with voters.
National is, as described by Nevil, is all about status quo - so much so much of their policy is very similar to Labour's which I believe is testament to how popular and centrist most of Labours policy actually was.
National didn't have to do much to get in after a three-term government in this country, not many go longer. Let’s face it, National didn't exactly set the nation on fire with bold ideas or genius policy, and nor did they have too – they played it safe and won comfortably.
John Key is refreshing to voters – a fresh face who seems practical, pragmatic, a spring in his step, and centrist - and really that’s all it took for National to ride into power in 2008.
National has been guilty lacking vision and genuine leadership for some years and this is something Labour did offer voters in its first two terms.
I'm sorry but tax-breaks alone are not visionary or inspirational to most Kiwi voters. American’s certainly didn’t go for tax breaks when they voted in Obama by a landslide either.
Labour is guilty of picking horses and backing what they believe to be winners – and well it worked too in many instances - and I would hope any govt we elect in did help identify and back winners when they presented themselves.
After successive hands-off National led govts, which provided little leadership or direction, and a displayed a willingness to position NZ as an uninsulated, low-wage economy at the mercy of market forces - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out why the voting public voted in a Labour/Alliance govt who offered a definite hands-on style and a hope of shaping our lives and destiny as New Zealanders.
Arts and culture investment over the past 9 years has provided us a better as a people and more confident sense of ourselves as a nation. This is something people probably don’t readily appreciate without some reflection.
Kiwis actually now like and express confidence in Kiwi made music and film – a sentiment not expressed before in our history as a nation - and no one can dispute how these deliberately backed success stories have helped to feed our tourism industry which has been able to market NZ on more than just a country of sheep, rugby and meat pies.
Let’s keep it real guys and give credit where is credit is due.
I’m quite sure John Key does when he looks over the past 9 years of success in his NZ tourism portfolio.
Where was this Labour vision in 1999, that Francis Martin refers to.
I returned to NZ after a very long absence, and financially fruitful career, to witness teh newsmedia promoting a Labour party which had nothing but a credit card size list of handout promises. There was not one thing on that list, that was for the long term benefit of NZ.
Those who were fooled by the media, Clark and her spindoctors; are now the ones who are going to be hurt the most, during teh very long restructering and recovery period which the whole country must endure.
'Labour’s agenda was to weaken and roll back the private sector'
What, like the merger the Labour government allowed that became Fonterra, or the massive growth of a company like Fletchers? Or the record low levels of unemployment?
You are just making it up.
Francis Martin said: "American’s certainly didn’t go for tax breaks when they voted in Obama by a landslide either."
Yes, they did. Obama has promised tax breaks for business and a significant middle class tax cut.
Labour's "vision", the Third Way centrism they originally campaigned on lasted little more than their first term. It was relegated to the trash bin as Labour, pushed in part by Jim Anderton, resorted to its old "tax, spend and centralise" socialist ideology. And it was during this period that their poll numbers began to slide. Along with that Labour embarked on a radical liberal social agenda that the vast majority of Kiwi's did not agree with.
National did not win simply because John Key was "fresh" and Labour had been in for three terms. They won because the voters were sick and tired of Labours increasingly extremist agenda, its arrogant authoritarianism, and its criminal corruption.
"What, like the merger the Labour government allowed that became Fonterra, or the massive growth of a company like Fletchers?"
One company. Is that all you have? How many listings were there each year? How many businesses were being started and how many small businesses were growing into large ones?
Just because most businesses SURVIVED and others managed to grow doesnt mean it was an evironment friendly to the private sector.
How fast was the private sector growing? How fast was the public sector? Twice as fast? Three times? At what cost.
Most of what the government does can be provided by the private sector. By centralising services the government steals growth from the private sector. Not only that, the goods and services they provide are often inferior to those shaped by a competitive market and cost more!
But you dont SEE that. You dont SEE the cost of governmental expansion. So idiots like you dont think those costs exist, and keep voting for Labour and the Greens.
"Or the record low levels of unemployment?"
Tell us then, what did Labour DO to lower unemployment.
Just because it happened while they were drawing Ministerial salaries, doesnt mean it happened because of them.
You arent making it up. You have nothing.
how long before the jandal party has us barefoot.
i could not disagree with you moore . i have followed politics for over therty years . and ive studied our political history . the party that wins is the party the media supports over a long period . national won becouse they media fell back kinda in love with national from when brash took over and key its almost like a media fetish of some kind they love him so much . who ever the media love the pople grow to love as the constantly right positive thinga about them and negitive things about their oponents. they media will love labour again soon and labour will win again thats how it works . i wish it dident but it does . most people let the media do their thinking for them .even to the point were the media tells them thats how they think ,
i think the government should let business in trouble fall over and rise again why subsidise business from the tax payer . its an economic cycle weve seen it before . prob up business like in the states what bull is that . if a business is not profitible it falls it souldent get propped up bye the bloody tax payer . so good at telling inderviduals to take personal responsibility why not the private as well ya see it dosent realy apply to us haha ya see ha ha let me explain haha ., year uts a diffrent story when its the private sector watch them put their grubby greedy hands out for a govenment handout when this economic crisis hits . just look at the usa example the fed is byeing up private companys its like 1930s socilisim all over again . or is it welfare for the wealthy.
I enjoyed this article very much, thank you.
With regard to Labour's Visio vs. National's Vision, speaking peronally (how else) , I prefer Nationals current direction for the country only because they are promising, and no doubt will be, slashing bureacracy, and encouraging people to grasp the country's opportunities.
Labour, particularly this year, have been very mean and nasty, and I was glad to see them go. But thats just me.
Bringing in the Greens ? I am not too sure National would be willing to do that. The Greens, by their own manifesto, are staunchly against science, technology, and economic growth. National is for these things, and I think will by and large be tacitly polite to the Greens, and leave it at that.
All I hope for personally, in the New Year is - more money in my pocket from reduced taxation, smaller government departments that are more nervous about attempting to nanny free people, and more opportunities to do be an active businessman in 2009.
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below