That speech...

I was struck by the sense that John Key’s much awaited speech was a really odd attempt to sit on at least two fences. For a start, he has chosen a theme which is really quite uncertain factually, and which has few obvious or feasible policy solutions. It was a little off-putting that apparently the best he could do in terms of a strategy was deputizing to a back-bencher, and promising that she would come up with some ideas. Where was the integration with the rest of his team? Will it really be just the two of them?

I don’t doubt that the underclass in this country is a problem. It’s not nearly as big as Key makes out though. His assertion on the radio this morning that we weren’t far from street rioting was frankly hilarious. Also, the policy approaches which seem likely to work are likely to be long-term, expensive interventions, which don’t make good sound bites, and which are unlikely to excite the public. This is actually quite difficult stuff, and even if it works, the pay-offs won’t really come through for a decade or more. Hardly the kind of stuff to excite a passionate reaction!

To gain traction on this issue also requires the National Party to frame itself as the party of compassion for the poor. Do they really think they can do this convincingly? It seems to me to be evidence of John Key’s ongoing attempt to be all things to all people. He doesn’t really have a strong policy “rudder”, so he tries to say something, anything that he thinks people want to hear.

It also seems odd that he has chosen to make this speech at a time when both crime and unemployment are actually quite low, and without having any clear to solve the problem. It’s hard to see Key getting much traction on this issue. Not only has he failed to show a major, systemic problem, he’s failed to give us any indication as to how he might actually solve it. At least Don Brash’s Orewa speeches chose issues the public was actually concerned about, and actually generated some passion, support and press for the party.

He also seemed to vacillate between a number of approaches to the problem. On one hand he claims to want the government out of people’s lives. On the other, he wants more government spending and programmes. He is talking about more spending, more government involvement, and more civil servants. I particularly noted the talk about working with the “aunties and uncles” of under-privileged kids. What he is talking about is quite large scale intervention in the community. How will he ensure people’s buy-in, and then devise programmes that actually work.

Another idea he talked about in general terms was private sector involvement. This is really just shifting the expenditure though, not reducing it. Private sector organizations will only get involved in these programmes for profit, and there is no easy way to ensure effectiveness (how does one tie a company’s payment to education or employment outcomes, which might not show for 15 or 20 years?). Even if charities rather than companies are involved, their activities would still have to be paid for. Essentially it would be government expenditure under another name.

He also spoke of plans to ensure every unemployed person is in training or looking for work. WINZ already case manages unemployed people. The fact that his “plan” to do this is already government policy sets him up for an ambush that I would have expected him to avoid.

If I was a right-winger, I would actually be quite worried about this speech. If Key’s best move at this stage is to focus on an issue framed in left-wing terms, and which is not really fed by any great public feeling, it may be a sign of a worrying lightness in policy and political thinking.