All good things eventually come to an end. And so has the fifth Labour government. They made a good run of it, but as a third term government hoping for a fourth, the odds were always against them. In the end, the mood for change was just too great. But looking at the final result – a likely National-ACT coalition – I’m wondering whether this was really the change people were looking for.
While Key has promised to govern for all New Zealanders, carefully moved his party to the centre, and promised to retain core Labour policies such as interest-free student loans and Working For Families, the coalition demands of ACT and the current financial crisis make those promises worthless. And the result, I suspect, is that they will be left by the wayside, dumped because Roger Rodney demanded it, or because we “just can’t afford it” (while shovelling vast wodges of cash at the rich). Even if Key – who seems to have no solid beliefs beyond his own ambition – was inclined to resist ACT’s demands, National’s hardliners, the 90′s retreads like Bill English, Lockwood Smith, Murray McCully and Maurice Williamson, won’t be. And with 64 MPs between them, there will be no effective check on their legislative program.
The good news is that I doubt the public will stand for that sort of betrayal. If National pulls that switcheroo and rules from the right having run from the centre, it will be a one-term government. But it could still do a significant amount of damage in that term – damage which would take another decade to repair.
As for Labour, while they’ve lost, they’ve also brought in a pile of new talent, and should be in a strong position for 2011. Until then, it’s probably going to be a nasty, bitter three years.
I originally stuck this up on NRT, but it seemed like a useful addition to the NZ election series.
Was this written by Helen Clark? (She should win a prize for the least gracious/most bitter concession speech, it was on a par with John Cain).
The voters of NZ clearly have their reasons. Some analysis of this would have been helpful. The margin of defeat of the Clark government make the Howard and McCain defeats appear to be comparitive photo finishes.
Urgh … so I’m going to try running the ‘give the new government a fair shake line’ again, probably to no avail.
It’s amazing just how quick people here were dismissing the idea by conservatives (especially in the media) that the Rudd Labor government will be a one-term a few months after it’s election. And now we are going to get into Key’s (likely) conservative coalition straight away, and call it a one-term government with literally no proof?
Look, I agree about Key, he’s obviously not one to nail his colours to the mast in fear of loosing power, and the influence of a free-market party like ACT in a world that is looking increasingly to adjust away from free markets won’t be positive. But we can’t do this, you judge governments on performance, otherwise it’s just partisan hackery. If your right, and many would suspect you are, there will be plenty to talk about by this time next year about this government, until then, who knows.
PinkyOz
“I’m wondering whether this was really the change people were looking for.”
Probably was. That’s the way they voted, eh? Probably did so consciously, as fully sentient organisms. Likely they knew the consequences.
Or do you hold to the attitude, quite common over on the Aussie Side of the Dutch, that if the voters vote fer someone ewe don’t like, they must be plain stupid??
Democracy: lousy system, but it’s always the correct outcome. Vox Populi.
Is ACT a libertarian party, a la Australia’s LDP?
If so, does this mark the first occasion a libertarian party has taken power in the Anglosphere nations? That would be quite a historic event.
OK, so it’s very much the minor partner in a coalition, but still … take heart, LDP folks!
“it was on a par with John Cain”
John Cain did not lose any elections, so SATP, what are you talking about?
John Cain, a fellow who quit as premier of the sourthern state of Victoria in 1990. Announcing his resignation, akin to a concession speech in the circumstances, included a gratituous and off-topic attack on the opposition party.
Come to think of it Helen Clark’s speech was more petulant than John Cain’s, she almost demanded the retention of failed policies. John Cain at least conceded that everything he believed in and had stood for was a spectacular failure, at bitter cost to the people of Victoria.
“failed policies”
Says who?
The electorate? Maybe, but if you say that, then you must also say that John Howard’s policies were failures.
“almost demanded the retention of failed policies.”
Strangely enough, every Republican commentator in the US, as a I write, is demanding the retention of Republican “centre right” policies. The description of Bush as centre right is a laugh in itself, let alone the retention of his policies.
As far as New Zealand is concerned, there are only five things to say.
1. It’s New Zealand, so who cares?
2. All governments reach their use by date, and 8-9 years is normally about right. After that, extreme decrepitude starts to set in (examples: the Howard government, the NSW government) which in the long run is bad for the party that clings to power one or two elections too long.
3. Clark’s was a good government; about a miilion per cent better than its National Party predecessor. After a decade and a half of lunatic right wing extremism on economic policy, Clark returned NZ to sensible social democracy.
4. It’s New Zealand, so who cares?
5. It’s time for some more sheep jokes.
Why, Spiros, I care about New Zealand, because it’s my home. Australia and Australians might want to care too – NZ is one of Australia’s larger trading partners.
And I have had enough of the boorish sheep jokes. I’m an invited guest here, and I am astounded by your rude and peurile comments.
“NZ is one of Australia’s larger trading partners.”
Alas, this is false. NZ accounts for a mere 4.7% of Australia’s trade, ranking a mere 7th behind China, Japan, US, UK, Singapore and South Korea.
http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/tag/index.html#sect03
Of course this is not to deny how important Australia is to NZ.
“I am astounded by your rude and peurile comments.”
Tough tuts.
Many here may be familiar with Phillip Roths lightly brushing on this subject even if ‘Portnoys complaint’ was banned here in Australia for a time.
‘ …and his ghost may be herd as you pass by that billabong…’
But darlings, for a really tender and touching depiction of *live* man-sheep love, I commend to youse ‘ The notebook of a country lawyer’ by Gerry Spence. Ewe may never look at precious lambkins quite the same way again.
I just feel sorry for the Kiwis. Now threy’re going to go through the meanness and savagery and racism etc etc that we went through under Howard.
Spiros, you’re plumbing new depths of crass. I’d stop digging.
Thanks for the commentary, Deborah. NZ is indeed a significant economic partner for Australia to which CER and the trans-Tasman travel agreement are testament.
One thing I have noticed today, looking at the results, is the diversity of the new Parliament. Of the 122 members (at this stage anyway) around 40 are women, around 15 are Maori (including 4 in the National Party), there are 6 Pacific Islanders, 5 Asians (including a muslim) and according to Gaynz, 5 out gay men and one lesbian.
Makes our House of Representatives look a bit light on yer actual representativeness…….
Paul, the Kiwis are all free to come here and escape the meanness and savagery etc.
Spiros, #8 I see by your response that you get my point. Outgoing governments/administrations are of the belief they have done the best thing for their country, and are not readily going to reconcile themselves to the belief that their work should all be torn up & replaced with something else, perhaps the diametric opposite.
The thumping Helen Clark received surpasses by a country mile the margin of victory in the USA. Thus there is a far greater mandate to scrap her policies than there is to scrap those of George Bush. However that is an aside.
Perhaps the policies of John Howard were wrong, but Kevin Rudd got himself voted in largely by promising to be Howard-lite.
“New Zealand, who cares?” You can shove your bigoted/racist view of NZ where it fits, and shove it without the benefit of KY.
Try puerile jokes about sheep on a Maori doorman.
This also demonstrates a base ignorance of the agricultural landscape of NZ, which is not predominantly sheep. Related trivia you may wish to reflect on, and around which construct a few fantasies in which you play a central role: Australia has many times more the number of sheep that NZ has. *baa*baa*
I’m a kiwi too, albeit now firmly in the expat camp, and I really never got why Aussies think that kiwis are so amusing. I’ve had my accent laughed at, sheep jokes made to my face, and I cant tell you how many false ‘facts’ people have insisted on despite my objections (eg, that Aussie money is legal tender in NZ). What’s that about? Kiwis don’t generally belittle Aussies – they wouldn’t waste their puff.
“Australia has many times more the number of sheep that NZ has”
Yes, but ours are of far less cultural and economic importance.
And I’ve heard countless sheep jokes from Maori, one in particular (who admittedly is not a doorman). In his telling, it’s the Pakeha farmers from the South Island who are the butt of ridicule.
“Yes, but ours are of far less cultural and economic importance”
I beg to differ.
Your bigotry is showing through (again).
“While Key has promised to govern for all New Zealanders”
I’m always mildly amused when the winning party leader says this sort of thing in their speech. Like they are going to say “bugger off all you folks who didn’t vote for me”, although they possibly think it!
I haven’t followed the NZ political scene. But I kinda feel that four terms is too long for any government. They get entrenched, arrogant and run out of steam. Always.
Spiros, I’m starting to think you have some sort of obsession with making derogatory remarks about NZ. Every thread. Tedious and offensive. Take it elsewhere, please.
Is ACT a libertarian party, a la Australia’s LDP?
Yes and yes.
The party was founded by Roger Douglas, ex-NZ labor finance minister of NZ in the 80s who instituted many free-market reforms, which came to be known as “Rogernomics”. He is now back in Parliament (as an ACT MP) as a result of ACT’s strong showing in this election.
“The party was founded by Roger Douglas, ex-NZ labor finance minister of NZ in the 80s who instituted many free-market reforms, which came to be known as “Rogernomics”. He is now back in Parliament (as an ACT MP) as a result of ACT’s strong showing in this election.”
Ah, remember that bloke well! Deforms rather than “reforms” I would say.
3.6% of the vote is not what I would call a ringing endorsement, either.
Mark, since you asked so nicely, I will lay off the sheep jokes.
And I love New Zealanders and New Zealand.
“3.6% of the vote is not what I would call a ringing endorsement, either.”
It’s actually a fairly good percentage when it comes to minor parties. In the last Australian election the minor party vote was:
Greens 7.8%
Nats 5.5%
FF 1.9%
And the Greens and Nats have been punching above their weight for years in minor party terms.
Since Steve at the Pub has made the claim twice that the margin in NZ far outweighs that in the US I thought I’d check.
Not all results are in, but the combined left (Labor, Greens, Maori, progressives) got 43.4
The new government got 50.1%. The rest went to NZ first, who while broadly right-wing were part of the old Labor government, and can’t really be put in either camp and a mix of parties most of whom I can’t work out where they fit on the spectrum. (Bill and Ben party anyone?).
So a gap of 6.7% This is likely slightly to narrow as the special votes in NZ usually strongly favour the Greens.
Obama beat McCain by over 6% and the results in Congress and the Senate, to the extent one can tabulate them, had a far larger margin for the Democrats.
“The margin of defeat of the Clark government make the Howard and McCain defeats appear to be comparitive (sic) photo finishes”. Hardly.
Which would make him a man of his time it seems.
It’s a bad period to be an incumbent all round.
Spiros said:
Spiros, at the same link page down a couple of times and you’ll find NZ is Australia’s 5th largest export market. Australia operates a healthy surplus with NZ. Not so long ago (p. 10):
I agree with you Adrien @20. And I’d say that’s part of the reason most state governments will change hands in the next couple of years. The incumbents have got lazy, stale and arrogant. The only thing that might keep some in power is if the opposition is judged to be even worse.
It seems the NZ electorate wanted “change” and many voters thought, “Yes, we can!”.
I wonder if the ignominy of Winston Peters rubbed off a little on his ewrstwhile partner, NZ Labour? Ms Clark has received a drubbing and her Party needs a period of honest self-review. (BTW, amazing how many successful small party spin-offs NZ Labour has spawned.)
If the electors really just wanted the vaunted “moderate Right” of Nationals, why did the vote for ACT increase? Why did the notorious ROGER (Big Bad Wolf) get elected? This would seem to be a little more than simple tiredness with an old, creaking Govt., though that was likely a factor.
Good to hear that 4 Maori MPs are National, Geoff Honnor. In my view it’s safest if strong Maori reps are in all parties: National, Labour, Maori Party etc. Here’s hoping the reserved Maori seats are retained – one of the finest features of NZ Parliament IMO.
Yobbo said:
My answers would be “no” and “yes”. Mainly because the truly luny libertarian fringe in NZ hang out with the Libertarianz mob. You can check out the ACT policies yourself and compare them with the LDP policies. (The libertarianz policies should only be viewed if you don’t have a hot drink in your hand — there is a danger of serious scalding from rapidly expelled tea/coffee).
By my reckoning the LDP look like a bunch of jackbooted statists compared to the ACT party (30% marginal tax rate pah! The ACT have a goal of 15%!)
Actually the libertarianz party looks pretty much like a Reductio ad absurdum takedown of libertarianism.
PinkyOz @ 3: It’s called setting your KPIs up front. Key has promised to goven from the centre. Since the epic betrayals of the 80′s and 90′s (where both major parties repeatedly said one thing during the election campaign and did the opposite when in government), the NZ electorate places a high premium on politicians keeping their promises. MMP gives some wiggle room, as everyone understands that coalition partners must be accomodated. But at the same time, National’s entire platform was broadly to continue the status quo, with tax cuts and a guy in charge. If they diverge significantly from that promise (e.g. by letting their radicals off the leash), then the electorate is likely to judge them harshly.
Ambigulous @4: no, I don’t think the electorate are stupid. I do however think that many are surprised by ACT’s late run (which didn’t show up in the polls) and may not have considered the stronger influence it may have on the government. But that’s just one of the risks of democracy in a proportional system – it makes things a little bit uncertain. And again, the parties will be judged on their performance for it.
Paulus @5: ACT are free-market radicals, but not really libertarian. They simply have too many social conservatives for that.
Feral Sparrowhawk @ 26: The outcome was made more decisive by NZ First falling below the 5% threshold, meaning that none of their votes count. So a 49% – 43% split in the electorate turned into a 52% – 47% split in the House. I have some pretty graphs here if people are interested.
Ambigulous @ 30: the NZ electoral study (a long-term survey which has run since the early 90′s) has found that many ACT voters are really National voters, who vote strategically for a more right-wing policy line (the Greens are in the same position to some extent with labour, but have a much larger core constituency of their own). ACT’s campaign was targetted specifically at those voters – a vote for ACT was a vote to give National some “backbone” (a word with bad connotations for people who remember the 80′s), and moving them away from that status quo they had promised to support. And it looks like it worked, drawing support at the last minute. So while a large number of centrist voters were voting for a change of face but not of policy, the radicals were subverting that.
National has options. A confidence and supply or cooperation agreement with the Maori Party would defang ACT, and looks likely. But since they don’t need the Maori Party, its basically a matter of internal National Party politics whether they keep their promises or swing hard right. And with their upper echelons dominated by rejects from the 90′s with a blitzkreig mindset, it could go either way. Some commentators over here say that the hope of re-election in 2011 will keep National from going too far. Given the sheer rabidity of those radicals and the license ACT gives them, I’m not so sure.
Aidan, 5th for exports or 7th overall, NZ is small potatoes for Australian trade. And getting smaller, according to your link.
It’s actually a fairly good percentage when it comes to minor parties.
Nah, ACT’s performance was crap. It was their second lowest in the MMP era.
They even managed to get beaten by New Zealand First (in votes, not seats), who’s leader was exposed as a massive hypocrite at perhaps the worst possible time (for him, not for the NZ population).
Thanks Savant,
It would be a neat way of “de-fanging” ACT if National made an arrangement with the Maori Party. That would give some credence to the “centrist”, new politics theme, wouldn’t it?
BTW, I’m still waiting to see an outbreak of adulation, on this side of The Dutch, for Mr Key: son of a Jewish refugee widow, raised in a Housing Commission place. That Mr Obama ain’t got nuttin’ on our NZ cousin.
Ambigulous: A deal with the Maori Party will certainly give National the option of being centrist, and the fact that they’re making one is a strong early signal. But again, it will all come down to internal national party politics. They have a lot of people (including most of their front bench) who really belong in ACT and will be looking to move hard right. And Key isn’t the sort of guy to restrain them much.
As for Key’s success, its a testament to the sort of welfare state we used to have (and which his frontbench and coalition partners helped dismantle). While we still have far more opportunity than the US, we have less than we used to, and improving it simply isn’t on National’s agenda.