Lessons for National

The election poses some interesting lessons for National. I'm not a strategic advisor to the tories, so I won't go into any great depth, but I think these are some of the issues they need to think about:

• Race. The Treaty-bashing stance worked to consolidate support around National from across the centre-right, but did not shift votes off Labour. The liberal middle of NZ politics will not allow National to form a government until it moves beyond stale formulations designed to divide Kiwis against each other.
• Tax. National will need to re-think their tax policy. I would not mind betting that come the next election, there will be no $7bn budget surplus to splurge away in wasted individualised tax cuts.
• Diversity. The election shows that the forces of progress and diversity - either representing ethnic communities, national minorities or in one case a mainstream political party home to all the hues that Kiwis are, convincingly achieved more votes than the parties which claimed to speak for a ""mainstream"" which is at least thirty years out of date. National's dalliance with white picket fences, if continued, can only lead to permanent minority status as New Zealand continues to grow and change.
• Detail. It was alarming how thin-on-the-ground National's policy positions were on many areas. After six years in opposition, you'd expect a party that was serious about government to have well-thought-through positions on all the major areas of policy. They didn't. Not only that, many of their MPs and candidates seemed unaware of what the policy was where it did happen to exist.

Those are the weak points for National. There are many strong ones. They have doubled their caucus size, and the concomitant increase in resources should allow them to be a stronger opposition. They ran what I regard as a very good campaign in some senses: sharp advertising, sharp billboards, a clear focus on the party vote, etc.

Now they face a few new challenges: unifying a huge new Caucus intake; resolving the leadership tension (can Brash run another campaign, or is he too old/too damaged?); rethinking policy and softening policy where required.

None of this, of course, occurs in a vacuum. The Labour Party did not win the election by accident; a formidable and experienced government and party organisation fought a successful campaign against the best-organised opponents I have ever seen in New Zealand. We won. Only just, yes, but win we did. If multi-billion dollar tax cuts, clever wedge politics, a better media campaign and massive itches waiting to be scratched could not tip us out, then that says something very reassuring about New Zealand.

We in Labour are now busy absorbing the lessons of the campaign. I have never seen the party so motivated and active as it is today, and that bodes well for the essential tasks of renewal facing us as we head into a third term.

In the next few days I'll post on Lessons for Labour.

Comments

[Graham watson]

I disgaree Jordan, especially with regard to race and tax.

The reason National did not win was Labour's last minute scare campaign that National failed to adequately respond to to reassure voters.

[S Heath]

National cant govern alone just like Labour cant. This comment is misleading at best.

Also Labour will ensure it blows all cash possible much like the Soviets did in WWII to the farms etc to ensure no one can 'live off the land' after they have left.

I agree some of the Nat policy seemed thin according to the media and other political parties (which both are oh so neutral). I also think the crap that Helen hid until 2 days after the election was ten times worse... but, hey, a wins a win and the ends justifies the means eh!

[lou]

Jordy - it must be killing you and your party that you were very nearly beaten by a party that in your words only had 'thin-on-the-ground... policy positions... in many areas.'

The 'the forces of progress and diversity' - give me a break - your relying on either a backward looking NZ first party that wants to stem the flow of 'immigrants' and return to traditional Kiwi values or a Green party that wants to adopt economic protectionism and have us all ride run on bikes.

'I would not mind betting that come the next election, there will be no $7bn budget surplus to splurge away in wasted individualised tax cuts.'

Of course not - Steve Maharey would have 'splurged' it away on some more stupid tertiary courses and buying the student vote.

'liberal middle of NZ politics will not allow National to form a government until it moves beyond stale formulations designed to divide Kiwis against each other.'

Oh yeah the idea of a tertiary institution only for Maori really brings the younger generations together in harmony.

God you write some pap.

[tim barclay]

I do not see Labour's win as reassuring for New Zealand. But a residential property boom especially in the big city working class suburbs and good economic times, did it for you. But you are not in control of the Government agenda, you are mere managers. Once the pubic figure National has the experience to take up the reins of Government then Labour will be out. For how long I do not know but given you used the list spaces to provide lifelines for people rejected by the public I think you could be out for some time.

[Tom S]

I see the stunned sulking of losing is wearing on the right, to be replaced with the business as usual response of tanty's before bedtime.

National lost this election when it played the race card. To put it simply, when it comes to race there are more liberal Pakeha, Brown people and migrants willing to block vote to keep out a racist National agenda than there are "mainstream" New Zealanders willing to vote for it.

And the irony of the reaction of disempowered anger and disbelief from smug "mainstream" white Pakeha males in talkback and blogland on realising its days of arrogant mono-cultural ruling are over has been delicious to listen to.

[Aj]

National lost because:
1/ Exclusive Brethren. Cults frighten normal people, and most people felt Don really knew more than he was letting on.
2/ Don's many gaffes, not limited to attacking his own party in error in TV interviews.
3/ His extraordinary definition of 'mainstream' New Zealanders.
4/ More people are litterate economically speaking than National would give credit, and recognise the looming more difficult economic circumstances ahead. And thus people are uncomfortable with borrowing to fund tax cuts.
5/ The petrol tax bribe, smelt of high octane panic.
6/ Despite Cullen struggling to get his message across, he is still more credible than Keys.
7/ If it ain't broke - why fix it.

[Greg Stephens]

National lost because people realised that this government has been quite good for them. they lost because they didn't have a credible team, Gerry Brownlee as deputy??!??
And they lost because the public are smart.

[Russell Brown]

I'm trying to craft a column about this right now, and I'm inclined to stick with what I said on the Friday: "If Labour loses the election, it will be on tax policy. If National loses, it will be because a group of otherwise sympathetic voters decided that they could not stomach its appeal to resentment and bigotry."

There's been a lot of talk about Labour's inability to carry the provinces, rather less about National's inability to carry the cities. And guess which one of those votes is growing and diversifying?

Even so, National has a very strong chance of winning in three years' time, but if it's actually to be able to govern, it will need to abandon the deranged philosphy it touted this time around. You can't run a country like that.

Cheers,
RB

[Russell Brown]

Prediction: In the next three years, Labour will move on tax, and National will swing back to the Treaty consensus and play down the social conservatism. They'll end up looking more like each other than they did this time around.

Cheers,
RB

[tim barclay]

There will be other factors in play including a residential house price slump and higher interest rates, higher inflation, higher unemployment. Let us see Labour dealing with that.

[Jordan]

Prediction: people who are making predictions about the outcome of the 2008 General Election now are quite likely to be missing the point. I am minded to re-state the scale of renewal that Labour has to undertake. It's huge and it has to happen. I am confident it *will* happen, and that as a result the Labour Party that faces the electorate in the next election will be quite different to the one that did so this year.

If I am wrong, then yes, Labour will struggle to win a fourth term. If I am right, well who knows. It'd be a wide open game, with a very different take from each of the major parties.

And Russell, for what it's worth, I don't believe we would have lost on tax policy. I believe we would have lost on a cumulative inability to communicate our achievements, and the lack of an easily described path forward. Tax is only a part of that.

[Craig Ranapia]

RB:

As all predictions about 2008 are equally worthless, I think you're wrong about three things:

1) I don't see how Labour will be able to credibly move much more than it already has on tax, unless it does a huge flip-flop and decides Tax Cut isn't the Fifth Horseperson of the Apocalypse after all. And if the economy cools further and faster than the boffins are predicting (not totally outside the realms of possibility) there won't be all that lovely tax lolly for anyone to throw around.

2) Please don't perpetuate the rather silly and over-blown 'town vs. country' meme.

3) And if we're talking about appealing to 'resentment and bigotry' next time around, I think Labour is going to have to run a campaign with fewer straw bogeymen. And, to be fair, National won't give Labour as many free shots if they're smart.

[Russell Brown]

Jordan: "And Russell, for what it's worth, I don't believe we would have lost on tax policy. I believe we would have lost on a cumulative inability to communicate our achievements, and the lack of an easily described path forward. Tax is only a part of that."

That's partly what I meant. A significant problem with the all-WFF-all-the-time approach was that it was apparently impossible to to sell, even with the tens of millions of dollars for the official publicity campaign.

It was interesting listening to people calling into Mikey Havoc's drive show in the days before the election. One guy rang in and said that Labour wasn't doing anything for $45k to $50k households like his. He had two young daughters. (Uh, dude have you *checked* that ...?)

He didn't know how much he'd get from National either, but he *knew he'd get a tax cut* and he was voting National. Ironically, he then went on to complain about the cost of doctors' visits ...

You get my drift.

Cheers,
RB

[Aj]

"He didn't know how much he'd get from National either"

You will probably never get your message across to people who don't make any effort to inform themselves.

Or someone just deliberating spreading mis-information. I mean, just listen to talkback in the weeks leading up to the election, and read some of the complete tripe published in letters-to-editors.....I doubt too many of them were just ill-informed and confused people...

[Craig Ranapia]

Aj:

That works both ways - I got a rather interesting e-mail from a friend who has been living in Sydney for the last five years, and has no intention of returning any time soon, who was going to vote Labour under the *ahem* misapprehension that Labour will write off his student loan interest...

Restricting the franchise to people who can display basic literacy and cognitive ability looks more and more attractive...

[Tom S]

The tax issue is an interesting one. To be, it was just the last in a line of pimples on the arse of the body politic that National continually squeezed to get howls of outrage. Tax, race, PC, "moral issues," these were all somehow passive, sterile and essentially reactive policy planks for the National party. I know the media said National were setting the agenda of the election issues, but really, were they? Is attacking the Prime Minister or exploiting public fear and loathing over race and tax setting the agenda or just tactics that feed into and from reactionary grumblers in talkback radioland? Beyond the soundbites and headlines hot button issues National was terrifyingly bereft of new ideas or indeed of any ideas. Its housing policy bordered on insane. The rest consisted of vague promises of "reviews."

Russell Brown once said that there are limits to the disgruntled vote, and even when this was coupled with a blatent appeal to greed at the end of the day National couldn't reach out with any sort of coherent vision for a better NZ. With an advertising campaign I predict will easily top $3.5 million, National this election offered a triumph of style over function, and enough voters discerned this to return a Labour minority government.

National needs to represent more than just a intense dislike of the realities of urban New Zealand in 2005 (the irony being that much of that reality has been shaped by the vastly white, wealthy and male who now fund National so heavily) by the Pakeha "mainstream" before it is fit to govern again. So that means no more Brash, Brownlee, Maurice Williamson, Lockwood Smith, Nick Smith and Murray McCully. New faces, female, brown and Asian are needed in National - in MMP terms, a fresher faced Labour party with a bluish tinge.

[Craig Ranapia]

Sigh... that's right, Tom, anyone who disagrees with you is a resentful moron - and probably a misogynstic racist sheep-shagger to boot.

Perhaps there's a limit to appealing to intellectual and political snobbery - and the left hit it hard?

[Tom S]

Craig, I know there is an unbridgable world view gulf going on here but fundamentally, only one of our two world views is electable in the New Zealand of 2005 and beyond. National, and its supporters, have to decide if they prefer fighting yesterdays battles or moving on and re-engineering their policy and image for 2008, not 1978. Dancing Cossacks can't win National an election anymore - because there are now to many Cossacks driving taxis who will just block vote to keep National out.

Its a truism that political parties lose elections, not win them. National gave enough people a reason to vote against them for Labour to win with those votes plus the people who didn't have enough reason to vote against Labour.

As far as 2008 goes, therefore, I don't think Labour losing is by any means a forgone conclusion. All Labour has to do is hold its brown, migrant, and female vote (which has nowehere to go BUT to Labour given current National policies) and reach out a bit to "Dons mob" over tax and it will win another centre-left term, prossibly because next time the right vote could fracture across NZF and ACT again.

[Tony]

I find it interesting that so many (particularly in the media) are already writing off Labour's chances for winning in 2008.

The task will be tough: National has as many MPs as Labour and lots of fresh new faces. National's big business backers are giving them a lot of money. National will have a new/fresh leadership team - Key and Rich. A public that will be starting to get board with the ‘same old faces’.

But Labour has an exciting opportunity. An opportunity to renew while in government - it’s cabinet and MPs. To engage with the NZ people in an authentic way. To renew policy, find new consensus where that’s necessary, and find new solutions to the new generations of problems facing New Zealand.

It will be an interesting 3 years!

[Aj]

"Restricting the franchise to people who can display basic literacy and cognitive ability" ....hmmmm...interesting result if this had happened, and the vote count was a % of these type of people only - one minor party may have only got 3 votes, another would have been seriously decimated, Maori ? dunno.. ACT and the Greens would have improved and both National and Labour probably would have been a close split...

[Adolf Fiinkensein]

Jordan, when you comment on lessons for labour, make sure you have plenty to say about the 'constituent's little helper' Philip Field.

[M'lud]

Politics isn't as complicated as many here seem to think. Labour has no way of moving up after (by 2008) nine years in power, there aren't many more votes to be mined from Mangere. Labour is the govt and will continue to suffer the slow attrition that govt brings to any party. National is highly unlikely to decline, it's more likely to move up. As Paul Keating once remarked, you can come back around only so many times before people get sick of you.

[rightkiwi]

Jordan, what the fuck is a "wasted individualised tax cut"!?

do you really hate the individual so much that you think tax cuts (or W4F) should be collectivised?