|
Skip to comments |
 Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
22
September 2007
One
Year Out
|
Printer
friendly version (PDF) 
View
>>> |
Two
years ago the opinion polls were predicting that National
would win the 2005 election. But it was always going to be
close.
National
had emerged from the 2002 election with its worst ever
election result of 21 percent. But it came within a whisker of
the Treasury benches on election night 2005. The catalyst, of
course, was Don Brash’s seminal Orewa speech on nationhood
in January of 2004. The speech unleashed a political storm, as
the pent-up flood of discontent - built as a result of
Labour’s divisive approach to race relations - swept the
country.
That
discontent started with Labour’s first budget in 2000, when
they announced they intended to spend $350 million of
taxpayer’s money on a ‘flagship’ policy designed to give
preferential treatment to Maori. “Closing the Gaps” was to
redefine state support as no longer being based exclusively on
need, but on race. Under Labour the country was launched on
the dangerous course towards state sponsored racial
separatism.
In
his straight-talking way, Don Brash threw political
correctness aside and asked, “What
sort of nation do we want to build? Is it to be a modern
democratic society embodying the essential notion of one rule
for all in a single nation state? Or is it a racially divided
nation, with two sets of laws, and two standards of
citizenship, that the present Labour government is moving us
steadily towards?”
The
debate that followed the Orewa speech launched National’s
rise in the opinion polls. From 28 percent in December 2003,
by March 2004, National had risen to 49 percent. Labour, on
the other hand had fallen from 45 percent in December to 39
percent in March.
The
opinion poll shock forced Labour to dump their Closing the
Gaps policy - but in name only. Their racially-based
programmes continue on.
While
both parties moved up and down in the polls in the lead up to
the 2005 election - Labour losing ground as a result of their
pre-election “chewing gum” budget, then significantly
gaining ground as a result of their $1 billion announcement to
scrap interest on student loans - no other event had such an
electrifying impact on the country as that Orewa speech.
Today,
just one year out from the next election, National is polling
strongly, consistently 10 or more points ahead of Labour.
Labour has never properly recovered from the allegations of
corrupt practice that surrounded their illegal election
spending of more than $800,000 of taxpayers’ money.
Further,
the key Economic Outlook indicator, which signals whether the
economy over the next 12 months is expected to be in a better
or worse state than it is now, has been negative for most of
the last twelve months. The last time this Economic Outlook
indicator showed that same trend was back in 1997 and 1998 and
before that in 1990 and 1991. In both cases, the downturn was
an early signal of a change in government.
Despite
this, no-one should write off Helen Clark. She is a formidable
campaigner, and Labour’s present dip in the polls is nothing
new for Labour. At their low point in August 1996, Labour was
polling at 14 percent and Helen Clark rated just 5 percent in
the preferred Prime Minister stakes. As Prime Minister she has
regularly polled over 40 percent with a peak of 52 percent in
June of 2002.
Helen
Clark has her eyes set firmly on winning a fourth term of
office for Labour. As the Christchurch Press Political Editor
Colin Espiner wrote in his excellent article The Prime of
Helen Clark, “Clark cannot be underestimated. For her, being
in government is not just about power. She wants nothing less
than to shift the political paradigm; to permanently
reposition Labour as a party of the centre, and as the natural
party of government”. (To read the article click
here >>>)
Helen
Clark has embarked on the mission of repositioning Labour in a
planned and calculated manner. A background paper “Language
Matters” that was presented to the Labour Party through a
series of workshops in 2006 sheds light on her approach:
In
the 2005 election, Labour’s main opponent National was very
close to victory and by many accounts could/should have won.
Why National failed can be endlessly debated but the signals
are that Labour needs to set a much clearer agenda to win next
time.
The
big risks and challenges for Labour are the length of time
it’s been in power; whether it can instil new blood and
demonstrate new ideas; its ability to clearly articulate
vision and ideas without being labelled arrogant and PC; the
status of the economy and how that is linked to Labour’s
governing.
A
way to approach these risks is to reframe public discourse
about the things that matter to New Zealanders and to ensure
Labour is identified with those core values. Although a lot of
work has already been done on this, it clearly hasn’t been
effective enough because the majority of New Zealanders
don’t really ‘get it’. And until they do - until the
mere mention of an issue or a phrase by a Labour politician
can evoke instant understanding and support amongst a
substantial portion of the population - not only is the next
election in doubt, but the hearts and minds of many New
Zealanders could be beyond Labour’s grasp, possibly for many
years.
The
paper suggested that Labour needed some big, bold, new ideas:
Watch
this space around climate change. This debate is “heating
up” around the world. At stake is the right of big business
to control the way it does business. In Australia and the US
the debate is raging around alternatives to the Kyoto Protocol
which involve “clean development of industry” (code for
development on business’s terms). In early May, in NZ, a
coalition of scientists formed a new lobby group aimed at
easing the public’s fears about a climate change apocalypse.
Called the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, they are
committed to providing New Zealanders with balanced scientific
opinions that “reflect the truth about climate change and
expose the exaggerated claims that have been made about
human-caused global warming” (In other words – code for
vested interests that don’t want to change).
The
paper goes on to suggest that Labour should discredit the
Climate Science Coalition by using Orwellian
language, which is
where the phrase actually means the opposite of what it says. Orwellian
language involves using an expression like 'free trade'
to describe what is in effect bureaucratic control, or
'competition' to describe protectionism. It is an extremely
dishonest strategy since only those who closely follow what is
going on are able to discern the truth from the lies.
The
paper asks the critical question: How
can Labour take charge of the language and frame important
public debates in its own terms? In other words how can it
best use language and ideas to manipulate the general public?
It
then suggests polling: Use
market research to uncover people’s values, how they really
think. It suggests clarifying and articulating a core set
of values that resonate with Labour members and voters, and
promoting them with dignity
and strength knowing that if
you control the language, you control the message; the media
doesn’t create the message, they run with it.
Climate
change was the issue that Labour identified would demonstrate a
fresh approach showing leadership to the rest of the world –
that this little country at the end of the world can be a role
model.
As
a result, they are out-greening the Greens by setting the
target for New Zealand to become a world leader in
‘sustainability’. Tragically for New Zealand this policy
is based on the dark art of politics - a political construct
designed to help Helen Clark win the next election.
As
H L Mencken, the influential American journalist and writer
put it: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the
populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by
menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them
imaginary”.
The
weight of scientific evidence does not support the policy
being proposed by Helen Clark. In spite of the collapse of
carbon trading schemes around the world – including in New
South Wales - Labour has just announced a similar scheme for
New Zealand that threatens to pass the lion’s share of cost
of the Kyoto Protocol onto householders!
A
couple of week’s ago I invited newsletter readers to
register for the NZCPR Research Panel and complete a survey on
climate change. With the preliminary results showing that 90
percent of respondents do not believe that the Kyoto Protocol
will have any impact on climate change and 89 percent believe
that the Kyoto Protocol will damage the economy, it is clear
that Labour has not included NZCPR readers in their polling!
The
New Zealand Centre for Political Research is now two years
old. It was born on election night 2005, when, after nine
years as an MP, I faced the challenge of having to find a way
of making a difference from outside of Parliament. My concept
was to build a web based think tank that takes a research
based approach to public policy issues and provides a forum
for public opinion and open debate. By exposing the truth
behind the glib political spin that comes out of the Beehive,
and by providing a forum for sharing the wisdom of thousands
of newsletter readers, the NZCPR is playing an important part
in informing the public and shaping political views.
In
light of Helen Clark’s determination to create a new
political paradigm in this country, where high taxes and an
interventionist government are considered to be the norm, the
work of the NZCPR has never been more urgent. And if the
Electoral Finance Bill, which seeks to ban free speech in
election year, is passed in its current form, sites like ours
- where public opinion counts - will become even more
important.
With
election year just around the corner, the NZCPR is gearing up.
But I desperately need resources. As you know I run this
operation on my own on the smell of an oily rag. Although the
website is now getting almost a million hits a month, funding
remains a key constraint. My request to you is this: if you
value the weekly newsletter and the work of the NZCPR then
please send in a donation so that I can make the changes
needed ahead of election year. (To help, please click here …
and remember that weekly or monthly contributions are more
than welcome >>>)
From
next week on I will be publishing a new mid-week column on the
NZCPR.com website called “Mid-week
Politics”. Essentially it will be a thought-provoking
political opinion pieces from current and former MPs. If you
make a note to check the website on Wednesday morning (adding www.nzcpr.com to your favourites
will help) you will find Mid-week Politics at the top of the
homepage. You will also find that we have a new Noticeboard
section at the top of the homepage to keep website visitors
updated on NZCPR.com developments.
Finally
this week, it is important to remember that since minor
parties play such a key role in MMP governments, they should
also be the focus of careful scrutiny.
This
week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Trevor Grice, founder of
Life Education NZ, has been puzzling about a serious
contradiction that exists within the Green Party that creates
hypocrisy of stultifying proportions:
“The
Green Party has to decide what its philosophy really is. Is it
Clean Green –condemning poison products for human use, or is
it Dirty Green – promoting poison products for human use?
The hypocrisy of their two positions is plain for all to see:
Kedgley saying poison in food is bad, Nandor saying poison in
party pills is OK. The Party saying polluting the environment
with poisons is bad, Nandor saying polluting our bodies with
poison is OK. This is a major contradiction for the Green
Party to resolve”. (Click
to read >>>)
This week’s poll asks:
What do you think will be the key
2008 election issue? And what issues you would like to see the
NZCPR tackle over the next 12 months?
Go
to Poll >>>
If you
would like to comment on this issue please click
>>>
Skip to top |
Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
Your
Comments:
Reader's
comments will be posted on the NZCPR Forum page click
to view >>>.
Skip to top |
Skip to comments | Skip
to this weeks poll
Send
to a friend:
|
