National. The Elitist Party.

One of the more interesting features of the Tamihere affair to date has been the way National and ACT have latched onto his comments about Labour as being some sort of veritable truth. We are said to be more interested in gay marriage than in running the economy; in prostitution law reform than in building better roads: the basic charge is that Labour is out of touch with middle New Zealand.

It's a strange argument to make, because it shows the desperation National is feeling. They have given up on the arguments that matter - about social policy, about economic policy, about foreign affairs - and are instead relying on a flaky source as somehow explaining all about the dark evil underlying motivations of a Labour Party which is somehow portrayed as being held hostage by vested interests.

The reason this has some resonance - and it does have some - is largely because of the way the media has portrayed public life in the last few years. While 95% of Parliamentary time last year was spent on every other area of policy, a hugely disproportionate amount of media focus was on the civil union legislation. The same thing happened with prostitution law reform back in 2002/03. The media, displaying its herd mentality to perfection, decided there was something of a 'moral backlash' and framed all the stories and debates in this light.

The curious problem is that the evidence for this point of view - the whole thing - is shaky. If Labour was a) as out of touch as seems to be portrayed, and b) suffering the kind of backlash in "morality" as the media seems to sometimes think, then one would assume that:

• National would be competitive in the polls
• The government would be seen to be taking the country in the wrong direction

Neither of these things have come to pass. I suspect this is because the voters are rather more intelligent than the media - or the Opposition - gives them credit for.

People know that most of Labour's focus is on things that matter to every day families. They know that delivering economic success is more important than faux debates about moral issues, which have excited the Wellington elite more than the public at large. They also know that, broadly speaking, on the social reforms it has pursued the government has been running in step with public opinion, rather than far ahead of it.

Perhaps most importantly, people have not forgotten what National was like in government. They know that National started many of the liberal reforms it now pretends to critique. They know that National's economic policies were focused on delivering tax cuts for high and middle income earners, not for those who have the least. They know National's social policies were about running down public services and punishing the most vulnerable, through spending cuts and slashing benefits.

In other words, New Zealand has not forgotten that it is National which stands with the elites: the rich, the powerful. They know National will always back those interests, and not those of the ordinary bloke on the street. They know National is led by a man who can honestly be described as a fanatic in favour of slashing and burning, moreso than was done in the 1990s. They have not forgotten these things.

They also know precisely where Labour is going; where we come from, what we stand for, whose interests we will defend, and why we're the best prospective government - now, and post-election. They know that the moral reforms of the past two decades have all about treating people equally, and that is what they believe. They know we'll never cut taxes for the rich before delivering gains to the poor. They know we will stand up to the Americans and hold our heads high on the world stage. They know we celebrate the achievements of Kiwis in the creative industries. They like all these things.

All the polls, and all the responses we get on the doorstep, paint the same picture. So National is running scared.

My advice?

Keep on running.

Comments

[Mark]

I agree that Labour is well ahead in the polls but I believe this is more due to the lack of intelligence of the average voter. I note that that is the criticism leveled at the voters in Australia and USA. I believe that it is a valid criticism levelled at NZers. Labour has an underlying agenda that DOES show that they are out of touch with NZ. They are just very surreptitious about it because they know that the agenda lacks support from the general public. If people were better informed about the agenda Labour would slide in the polls.

[GeniusNZ]

> a flaky source

Frankly on these sorts of issues - it is the most reliable source in parliment. For example if you asked a politician "did you sneek words into legislation to fool your coalition partner" what are the odds of you getting an answer other than "no" which carries absolutely no information. At least if tamihere said somthing in this interview you can trust that is what he believes. That is not true for basically any other politician on similar matters.

> Labour Party which is somehow portrayed as being held hostage by vested interests.

oh come on - there is always at least a bit of this going on - it is ridiculous to deny it entirely.

> They know that delivering economic success is more important than faux debates about moral issues

exactly and thus such things go under the radar of most voters. Until the economy takes a down turn we (including myself) probably wont care all that much that doesnt mean you are in step with public oppinion it just nmeans the public is not agitated enough where you ae out of step because the basics are going ok.

> They know National is led by a man who can honestly be described as a fanatic in favour of slashing and burning.

That is true also. but again underlines how on most issues democracy is not really in action. Because you wil have to start raping and pillaging towns before the average voter vote for the other major party.

[Max Soy]

This sounds almost like something out of the Opinion section in the Australian newspaper (Murdoch owned) preaching the virtues of the Howard Government and denouncing Latham Labor.

I have to say that the winner of all this goes to... incumbency. The Clark Government has presided on a booming economy, one of the lowest unemployment rates in the Western World (lower even than in Oz), and low interest rates and still affordable house prices (in some cities). This is seen as a remarkable achievement to rival Oz in the eyes of the masses - economically for a Social Democratic government - and the budget is yet to come! On the other hand, the Clark Government has also achieved traction on issues on social reforms and welfare, such as the civil union bill and the introduction and indexation of a minimum wage.

The net effect of this is that the National Party has been wedged on both sides and the only way they can differentiate themselves to provide a reasonable electoral alternative is to lurch sharply to the right on social issues (they have lost their perceived economic advantage electorally). They have to resort to xenohomophobic tactics and divisive means akin to Tampa. While this might work in Oz to a higher degree, unfortunately for them the general electorate in Aotearoa is just too forward.

The bottom line is that the National Party has about as much chance of winning the election as Michael Howard has in Britain. Give them four more Tamiheres and they might have a sporting chance.

Jordan, even as a comrade I have to point out perhaps your assessment was a little bit biassed? Mine is free, fair and totally objective.

[Max Soy]

And might I add, much of the economic upturn is indeed based on the economic cycle, not necessarily the economic management of the Clark Government (although the latter can hardly be said to be bad, comparing your figures to ours here in Oz). But this is irrelevant to the voters. When economic prosperity is coupled with social reforms which benefit the majority and disenfranchise virtually none, I highly doubt that the people of Aoteroa will have any motivation to change their minds.

[Sock Thief]

Jordan, you're blaming the media for the public's interest in moral issues such as gay marriage and prostitution? Excuse me for being more than a bit skeptical. I doubt that all the religious groups were motivated by media coverage. And I doubt the focus of my gay and lesbian friends on the marriage issue was the result of the way the media "framed" these sorts of issues.

You can't go around claiming that people are so much at the mercy of external agents such as the media without any evidence. What you are implying is that the average voter is not an autonomous agent. That view has many unsavory consequences.

[Michael]

If only Labour was actually doing things to support the vulnerable. Instead, we've got: beneficiary bashing, cutting special benefit to find working for families, user pays creeping in at public hospitals, a barbaric ACC scheme, a xenophobic immigration service, real minimum wages stuck at their 1980s levels, record levels of student debt, 80% of state housing tenants paying market rents, longer hospital waiting lists, increasing violent crime and superannuation again below 65% of the NATOW. These last were all on the infamous 1999 "credit card". The only reason Labour isn't out on its arse is because Act/National is even more wicked.
Come on Jordan, when is the Labour Party going to start acting like one?

[mtnw]

Even though I am not especially a fan of Labour it strikes me that MPs with electorates (eg. Helen Clark in Mount Albert) are certainly not spared contact with the realities of life at the bottom of the heap. If we are flinging terms like elitist around I think it is a pity Don Brash hasn't had that exposure.And while I am perfectly comfortable with politicians being childless does he actually have any kids? I've never seen any reference to them.

[Dean]

Ah well at least there's one thought left bloggers and right can all unite around.

IT"S ALL THE MEDIA'S FAULT!

[Graham watson]

I note that in the spirit of free expression you have removed my earlier post from this thread.

It is a feature of an authoritarian state when censorship is applied to critical comments. Interesting but sad, I had hoped you were stronger than that.