It seems to be widely expected that National will win the next election. To be honest, I used to agree with that received wisdom. But the closer we get to the election, the less sure I feel.
Poll after poll seems to suggest that while a National led government is certainly possible, a Labour led government still seems the most likely outcome. And these polls came after a real stinker of a year for the government. They bungled both the Phillip Field saga, and of course the pledge card farrago. The point is, that despite having a dreadful year, Labour are still within striking distance, and indeed still seem the most likely to be able to form a government. Of course there is still a long time to go, and the odds are probably only 60/40, but on balance, as long as the economy doesn’t nosedive too badly, I think Labour are still in a fairly strong position.
So why do I think the Nats will be warming the opposition benches for a fourth term?
First, I think Key’s leadership abilities are unproven. Of course, he has made it as a successful investment banker, but that does not necessarily provide him with all the skill needed to win an election, manage a caucus, or form a stable government. Frankly, I have been unimpressed with his handling of a number of fairly straightforward questions, especially about his religious beliefs and his views on the Springbok tour. The actual importance of these issues is beside the point. The point is that he seemed unsure as to how to answer questions in a clear, honest manner. This apparent uncertainty may constitute a huge weakness in debates against the PM.
I also wonder whether he has the breadth of knowledge to foot it in areas other than finance. What exactly does he know about health, education, or any of the other areas that matter to New Zealanders? It might be very difficult indeed for an economy focused opposition leader to defeat an incumbent with a good economic record.
Whether or not one agrees with Labour’s policies, I think it is bizarre to suggest that Helen Clark is not an astute political operator. I think Key’s ability to out-maneuvre and outperform Clark over the next eighteen months is unproven at best. If National party insiders simply assume that he will lead them to an easy victory over Clark, they are setting themselves up for a rude shock. After all, Clark has already seen off Shipley, English and Brash, each of whom was touted as a certainty to lead the Nats to victory. Maybe it really will be a case of fourth time lucky, but I honestly doubt it.
I do think English and Key will prove an able leadership combination, probably more able than Brash. However, given the broader situation, both within the National Party, and in the country as a whole, Clark and Cullen can still lead Labour to victory.
I see two major problems for National arising from their parliamentary position.
The first of these is that Key may have serious problems reconciling the centre-right and neo-liberal factions of his party. Essentially, in order to increase National’s vote by the few percent he needs to form a stable government, Key needs to persuade centrist Labour voters that a National government will actually be centrist, and not neo-liberal in nature. I think it will actually be quite hard to do this while placating the neo-liberal MPs and their supporters. I also think there is a very real risk that as the Nats drift towards the centre, Act will increase their support at National’s expense, and grow increasingly militant. I doubt that a rejuvenated and vocal Act party will help to convince centrist voters that a National/Act ministry will be moderate. This may reduce National’s chances of gaining the votes they need to form a government.
I also think the Nats are suffering from a lack of possible coalition partners. If the Nats cannot take enough of Labour’s support base, they will have to form some sort of arrangement with the Greens or the Maori Party. While anything is possible, I just can’t see either of these parties entering into coalition with National. Even if they did support a National government, the result would have to be so centrist as to prove a huge frustration to National core supporters, as well as their corporate donors.
I also suspect the government’s tax cut plans will take a fair bit of steam out of the National party’s campaign. Given that tax cuts are one of National’s key points of difference, a well-targeted package of tax cuts will help to shore up Labour’s support, and possibly take a few percent off National. Personally, I do not agree with tax cuts from a policy standpoint, but they may well be tactically necessary.
At the moment, I would say Labour have a 60 percent chance of forming the next government. I think the election relies on three factors: Key’s performance compared with Clark’s, the Labour Party’s fundraising ability and most importantly, the economy. If these three factors develop in a way that is moderately favourable to Labour, I think Labour will win the next election.
Poll after poll seems to suggest that while a National led government is certainly possible, a Labour led government still seems the most likely outcome. And these polls came after a real stinker of a year for the government. They bungled both the Phillip Field saga, and of course the pledge card farrago. The point is, that despite having a dreadful year, Labour are still within striking distance, and indeed still seem the most likely to be able to form a government. Of course there is still a long time to go, and the odds are probably only 60/40, but on balance, as long as the economy doesn’t nosedive too badly, I think Labour are still in a fairly strong position.
So why do I think the Nats will be warming the opposition benches for a fourth term?
First, I think Key’s leadership abilities are unproven. Of course, he has made it as a successful investment banker, but that does not necessarily provide him with all the skill needed to win an election, manage a caucus, or form a stable government. Frankly, I have been unimpressed with his handling of a number of fairly straightforward questions, especially about his religious beliefs and his views on the Springbok tour. The actual importance of these issues is beside the point. The point is that he seemed unsure as to how to answer questions in a clear, honest manner. This apparent uncertainty may constitute a huge weakness in debates against the PM.
I also wonder whether he has the breadth of knowledge to foot it in areas other than finance. What exactly does he know about health, education, or any of the other areas that matter to New Zealanders? It might be very difficult indeed for an economy focused opposition leader to defeat an incumbent with a good economic record.
Whether or not one agrees with Labour’s policies, I think it is bizarre to suggest that Helen Clark is not an astute political operator. I think Key’s ability to out-maneuvre and outperform Clark over the next eighteen months is unproven at best. If National party insiders simply assume that he will lead them to an easy victory over Clark, they are setting themselves up for a rude shock. After all, Clark has already seen off Shipley, English and Brash, each of whom was touted as a certainty to lead the Nats to victory. Maybe it really will be a case of fourth time lucky, but I honestly doubt it.
I do think English and Key will prove an able leadership combination, probably more able than Brash. However, given the broader situation, both within the National Party, and in the country as a whole, Clark and Cullen can still lead Labour to victory.
I see two major problems for National arising from their parliamentary position.
The first of these is that Key may have serious problems reconciling the centre-right and neo-liberal factions of his party. Essentially, in order to increase National’s vote by the few percent he needs to form a stable government, Key needs to persuade centrist Labour voters that a National government will actually be centrist, and not neo-liberal in nature. I think it will actually be quite hard to do this while placating the neo-liberal MPs and their supporters. I also think there is a very real risk that as the Nats drift towards the centre, Act will increase their support at National’s expense, and grow increasingly militant. I doubt that a rejuvenated and vocal Act party will help to convince centrist voters that a National/Act ministry will be moderate. This may reduce National’s chances of gaining the votes they need to form a government.
I also think the Nats are suffering from a lack of possible coalition partners. If the Nats cannot take enough of Labour’s support base, they will have to form some sort of arrangement with the Greens or the Maori Party. While anything is possible, I just can’t see either of these parties entering into coalition with National. Even if they did support a National government, the result would have to be so centrist as to prove a huge frustration to National core supporters, as well as their corporate donors.
I also suspect the government’s tax cut plans will take a fair bit of steam out of the National party’s campaign. Given that tax cuts are one of National’s key points of difference, a well-targeted package of tax cuts will help to shore up Labour’s support, and possibly take a few percent off National. Personally, I do not agree with tax cuts from a policy standpoint, but they may well be tactically necessary.
At the moment, I would say Labour have a 60 percent chance of forming the next government. I think the election relies on three factors: Key’s performance compared with Clark’s, the Labour Party’s fundraising ability and most importantly, the economy. If these three factors develop in a way that is moderately favourable to Labour, I think Labour will win the next election.
5 comments:
So do you think, if National do lose, that English will put the knife in and reclaim the top spot? It will certainly be interesting to see if he distances himself from Key next year if the campaign is not going as well as the Nats are currently expecting.
I suspect the only path to victory for the Nats is to go after Labour's centrist voters and leave ACT to mop up the economic liberals. They haven't managed it the last couple of elections, so you have to wonder whether they've got the nads to let ACT have those voters.
PM, there's also a problem there if Act has lost credibility with that group of voters - if they can't hoover them up the right when National moves to the centre, then where could they go?
I think for any party to make a substantial move when they are leadin g in the polls is difficult, and they run a very real risk of losing support.
Another possibilitiy is if the Nats keep on being conciliatory towards the Maori party, how long before some of the dogwhistle voters desert them?
National certainly has a confused identity at the moment, largely due to Key/English. They are going down the same road that English tried to lead them in 2001/02, and look where that got them.
ACT has lost all credibility. Rodney Hide is more likely to be admitted to the Celebrity Big Brother House than the Cabinet.
The one thing National have going for them is they look 'new' although this is more perception than reality. Lockwood Smith, Nick Smith, Tony Ryall, Bill English, Maurice Williamson, Murray McCully, Georgina Te Heuheu - weren't they all in the last National cabinet?
Labour has a good track record, and I agree with your list of the 3 things. The one extra that I would add is some rejuvenation in the electorates Labour lost last time and some fresh faces in on the list. Labour need that to keep the energy levels up for a 4th term.
Post a Comment