Muddling down the middle of the road

I have read John Key's speech a couple of times. "The Kiwi Way: A Fair Go For All" made me do a slight double take, wondering whether it was actually something Helen Clark had said, but I persevered.

I suppose that the headlines will be about the beneficiary bashing, but aside from that, the speech is an inoffensive take on what it means to be a New Zealander today, and an interesting jaunt down the sort of sentimental centre line of New Zealand politics. It does however raise some questions in my mind:

• This is Key's fifth year in parliament. The only policy suggestions he's come up with is school breakfasts, and accessible sports opportunities. They are both good ideas, but they are small-fry ideas, saying nothing really of the larger challenges the country faces. I'm not after detailed policy, it's too soon, but I am after an idea of the concepts he thinks need working on and the approaches National is looking at. Rhetoric alone really doesn't cut it after seven long years to have a think and a cuppa tea.
• The 'underclass' idea is connected up with the traditional middle class fear of a detached, gang ridden group in society, dependent on the state etc. But that group is smaller than it has been since the late 1980s due to economic success. Why is Key choosing that as ground to fight on? I agree it's an important issue, but it seems unlikely National is genuinely committed to doing anything about it. The lack of any suggestions at all as to what to do seems to support this interpretation.  People already have work obligations while on benefits. I also wish he'd acknowledged some of his party's responsibility for the situation he is describing, though I guess this is politics and that would be a step too far.
  
• As alluded to above, it really does feel a bit like a "me too" - Key has not drawn any sharp dividing lines with Labour at all. This is the exact opposite of the tactic that propelled Don Brash to within a stone's throw of the premiership. More on this below.
• The speech does not really fill out a picture of how Key would like New Zealand to be, other than where it is now. This is surprising. Even Bolger had a fairly sharp critique, and it is clearly he who Key is modeling himself after in some important respects.

There was a vague tension for me in leading up to this speech. Was there going to be another seismic shake of the political world as happened after Orewa 2004? Would he seek to divide some Kiwis against other Kiwis, as his predecessor did?

The answer is no. Instead the broad tactic seems to be to neutralise points of disagreement with Labour, stress common ground, and try to present as a younger, unthreatening, new face to do much the same sort of thing. I credit him for taking that approach. We do not need divisive politics in this country, and it is to New Zealand's benefit that the divisiveness of the previous National leader is being buried.

The fact that I would struggle to disagree with much that is in the speech (other than the ritual swipes at beneficiaries, Labour and the public service, along with the code for school vouchers and privatised, opportunistic provision of school meals & sports) seems to me to be a slight misjudgement on Key's part.

A speech like this would be enough to shake the Labour core liberal vote, perhaps, without National's record in office, and if Labour had run out of ideas. There is a degree of wishful thinking though in that. The government continues to roll stuff out, and Helen Clark is still seen as a competent and reliable leader.

Further, Key has chosen to start using Labour's framing of political debates. He has deserted the more right wing framing of Brash's time as leader and is trying to come onto Labour's ground. The problem that this poses for him is one of authenticity. How convincing will it be to middle of the road voters, who have heard National speaking very differently for so long, and are used to Labour talking this language?

One of the challenges the Democrats faced in the US was to stop using Republican framing, and to start using their own. It is only when they got their heads around that that they began to come back into contention. Brash did the same in 2005 and came back into contention. Now Key is doing the opposite. Does he know something we don't about this framing gig?

I think it will take more than this soft of speech to dislodge Labour from government. What it might point to, though, is a political debate about values and vision for the country's future.

I hope both National and Labour do more of such speaking, through this year and beyond, and that we can have a genuine political contest about where best New Zealand should go next, instead of tax cut bribes and their affordability or otherwise.

Comments

[David Baigent]

Jordan,
Yes a good speech but it was addressed to NZ'ers thought to be interested in retaining the "Kiwi way"..
This is a finely balanced state of mind for those who perceive themselves to be less fortunate.
The balance is between "Self Interest" and "Self Esteem".
A good number of those that have got this balance sorted, have turned their backs on the excessive welfare state and gone on to earn respect in Australia.

Probably what H1 and H2 wanted anyway.

[Russell Brown]

"A good number of those that have got this balance sorted, have turned their backs on the excessive welfare state and gone on to earn respect in Australia."

And you, sir, are engulfed in cultural cringe.

[David Baigent]

No Russell, I'm probably a bit older than you and have got family in Australia and UK.

I made a mistake and taught my kids that self respect was important..

[tim barclay]

Key just has to show he is a safe pair of hands and looks like a Prime Minister. "Time for a change" will finish the job.

[Aj]

Empty words from a hollow man. Typical product of his background, in which he never did anything more than gamble with other people's money and rake a percentage off the top.
Bill English, in the background shot at the press conference, looked like a man with a bad toothache. I can't blame him.

[Aucklander At Large]

Key and National are devoid of policy ideas, so are trying to emulate Labour's success. As Aj says, Key is a hollow man, and is certainly no man for Prime Minister, or is National a party for Government.

[Jordan Carter]

Excuse me? Remind me what the difference, in substantive terms, is between the Australian and New Zealand welfare states?

David B, if you are being honest, you have to conclude, nothing. People go to Australia mainly because of the weather, and secondly because of the wage gap. We are working on the second factor; as for the first, there is nothing we can do.

Tim - you are so, so, so wrong. Remind me when New Zealanders have elected someone PM who had nothing new to say?...............

[Rochelle]

>"The Kiwi Way: A Fair Go For All" made me do a slight double take, wondering whether it was actually something Helen Clark had said, but I persevered.

You're not far off Jordan - he actually stole the phrase from Matt Robson of the Progressives:

http://www.progressive.org.nz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2362

"Kiwi Way Of Life, a life that respects the rule of law, upholds individual liberty and social responsibility, expects religion to be kept out of politics and generally supports a fair go for all?"

[Chris H]

Kiwis living in Australia pay higher taxes than they would at home, after you add in all the 'extras' people arguing for tax cuts in New Zealand often so conveniently forget. And if you want quality of living, we would all move to scandanavia, where tax rates are higher than New Zealand. P

eople move to Aussie because it is a bigger country and the climate is warmer. New Zealand is, and will always be, a small country with a small population. That's an essential part of the 'kiwi way of life'. People who want to be exposed to the experiences you can only get in a larger country do need to spend some time overseas, like I am doing now, and eventually many/most will come home.

I certainly intend to come back to New Zealand - it's where I belong. The prospect of a National government that would undermine or destroy many of the things that I cherish about New Zealand (our culture of tolerance, our respect for the environment, our independent foreign policy) would certainly put me off coming home.

[Clint]

Yeah sure, people go to Aussie to get better weather first and foremost. What utter rubbish.

People move to Aussie because comparitively they are taxes far less, get paid much more and they have a government more inclined to support its workers.

Scandinavia is hardly the centrefold for success Chris. They are cutting back on their taxation excesses as we speak. That area has also one of the highest costs of living as a result of govt meddling. Hence why many Scandis make their way to London and Central Europe to pay less tax and keep their hard worked earnings.

[Aj]

'to Aussie because comparitively they are taxes far less'

No.

http://comparativetaxation.treasury.gov.au/content/report/images/06_Chapter_4-94.gif

http://comparativetaxation.treasury.gov.au/content/report/html/06_Chapter_4-01.asp

[Chris H]

Clint, you are simply wrong on the Australian tax issue. Aussie taxes are much higher than New Zealand, and I know plenty of kiwis who have moved to Australia for the climate. Not everybody is motivated by what is best for their wallet. Now to be totally frank, I don't know the exact reason why people leave New Zealand to live elsewhere, because everyone will have their own reasons, but I know that it is wrong to suggest it is all about tax or not liking the Labour government!

For some that may be a motivation (although if they are moving to Australia to pay less tax they are simply proving that Muldoon was right when he said kiwis moving to Australia raised the average IQ on both sides of the tasman) but not for all. For many, living overseas will be about living in a bigger city, or enjoying more travel opportunities. Those are two key reasons why I currently live in London. But I remain a proud kiwi, and I remain committed to coming home, as I know so may other kiwis who leave New Zealand for a time are too.

[Chris H]

Just another thought, I would be interested to see where you get evidence for your claim that people from scandinavia are flooding into the UK. Certainly they are from Poland and some of the ex-communist countries, but not so sure about scandinavia. Of course, one thing that complicates this is the UK only record people coming in, they don't record people going out again, so there is no way to record net migration (they could all just be taking a holiday here...)

[Simon]

People on lower incomes are moving to OZ where the wages are higher.

“Maori are fleeing their ancestral homeland at a faster rate than Pakeha New Zealanders, in line with a higher emigration rate of people in lower-paid jobs who cannot make ends meet on New Zealand incomes.”

“A policy manager for the Ministry of Maori Development Te Puni Kokiri, Paul Hamer, said the ministry could no longer ignore the fact that one in every seven Maori are now in Australia.

"If the trends continue, in 50 years time it will be 35 per cent, " he said.

http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501052&ObjectID=10373807

It is a bloody long story fixing or repairing the "under class". Take education for low decile primary schools the average primary school has 300 students at one time. For medium to high decile schools the annual roll might be 340 students that is 40 students who have left and been replaced by others moving into the area during the year. In a low decile school the annual roll might be 400 to 450 pa. That is 33% to 50% of school students moving in and out of the school in any year.

That is the nature of low decile schools the kiddies move around a lot and can not get a proper education despite the education available being of a high standard they just generally don’t have a settled environment. So straight away 5 to 10 year kiddies in low decile schools are not getting the most basic education required. No one has come up with policy to fix that though there is certainly plenty of damage control.

Sandwiches are a nice gesture but I suspect its all politics. It is a big problem but apart form crime off the radar. It would need Labor/National agreeing on a common policy but the failure of MMP prevents this instead its about positioning Key’s image. But at least he knows there is a problem.

[Chris H]

Simon - I think I get what you are saying, but I would like to see some evidence for that. I went to low decile schools and truancy and suspension were bigger problems than parents moving around. I agree that there are problems in low decile schools, and in low socio-economic areas, that we can't ignore, but I don't think the Labour government has been ignoring them. Labour has done a lot, and yes, there is more to be done. But initiatives to tackle truancy, increasing the number of teachers schools are allowed to employ, lowering class sizes for new entrants, making early childhood education free - these are all really positive steps. It's good to see that the National Party now acknowledge the problem (for a long time they denied it, like climate change). And it will be good if they actually come up with some solutions. As is often the case with incumbent governments, Labour runs the risk of looking like they are defending the status quo despite the fact that they identified the problem long ago and have been working to address it. These things take time. There are no silver bullets, but we shouldn't overlook the considerable progress that has been made.

[Insolent Prick]

Chris:

Taxes are a major issue why New Zealanders are moving to Australia. Australian after-tax incomes are higher than New Zealand before-tax incomes. When the Government is raking off one in four of your tax dollars so that it can bribe other people with your money at the next election, that pretty quickly becomes a tax issue.

[tim barclay]

"Time for a change" is the slogan Norman Kirk used in 1972. Look it up. And the tired National Party used "man for man the better team". Hideous I know. And I suspect Helen will try something similar in 2008. We are experienced, we know the job, play safe vote us back etc etc.

[Aj]

IP, argue all you like, the facts do not support your taxation case, the tax wedge in Australia is higher than in New Zealand.
The issue is the higher wage rates in Australia, and the Nats avowed policy thru the 90's was to restrain wages. That is what produced the wage differential we see today.

[Insolent Prick]

Aj:

Stop spouting nonsense. Australian incomes relative to New Zealand incomes have risen far faster under the last seven years of Labour Government than at any time in New Zealand history.

[haha]

"the facts do not support your taxation case, the tax wedge in Australia is higher than in New Zealand."

Yes at a certain level of aggregation but if you are low to middle income earner you are better off in Australia than here. Especially if you are not a property owner like the "emerging underclass" of renters Jordan was so worried about two or three months ago... How quickly we forget...

[Aj]

IP, ' Australian incomes relative to New Zealand incomes have risen far faster '

Can you credit that stat please.

[Tony Milne]

IP isn't very good at providing evidence for his assertions. He posted a list of so called 'facts' on my blog with nothing to back them up.

[Chris H]

IP - I would also like to see evidence for your claim that Australian incomes have risen faster than New Zealand incomes. I would also like to see you explain how decreasing taxes in New Zealand, where they are already lower than in Australia, will improve our standard of living. Surely the issue is to do with wages, not taxes? Under your argument, even if we did dramatically cut taxes, we would still be worse off than in Australia - so what's your plant to increase kiwi incomes then?

[Clint]

Chris H, I suspect you have not spent that much time here in London although you would have to be pretty blind to not see the raising levels of Scandis deciding to work here, play here and generally base themselves here. Have you even travelled to any of the countries in Scandinavia?

I am afraid you have not lived in Australia either, like the rest of you who believe that one is better off in NZ. What absolute nonsense. Most workers are better off in Aussie and you convieniently forget that while some tax rates might on paper make NZ look better, your take home pay is vastly superior than what you get in NZ. Argue with IP all you like, his stats are bang on.

[Chris H]

Sorry Clint, I didn't realise that one had to personally live somewhere in order to comment. I take it you have personally lived in the UK, Australia, and all of the scandinavian countries, obviously making your far more qualified to comment. If you ask me, in my humble and clearly inferior opinion, London is a bit of a melting pot for a huge raft of nationalities. And you can hardly claim that people come to the UK because of the tax rates...

I think you missed my most recent point about Australia. Even if we accept your claim that wage rates are higher in Australia than New Zealand, how will cutting taxes do anything about that, especially given that most of the benefit of tax cuts won't go to those on the lower wages?

[Aj]

Without a doubt wage rates in certain occupational fields are higher in Australia than here. The right would have people believe every wage worker is better off, which is simply wrong. The Listener had an article recently which covered some of these issues. I am questioning IP's claim that the wage differential that does exist in some occupations has mostly arisen since 2000, or whether this started happening in the early to mid 1990's. I suspect it started earlier.