16 April 2015
One of the most
enjoyable election campaigns I have ever fought was in 1990. I was a Minister
in an unpopular Labour Government headed for massive defeat. Yet the voters
were unfailingly courteous and polite at every stage of the campaign. Why?
Quite simple really – they had already decided they were going to change the
government, and were simply going through the process of saying goodbye.
Indeed, I joked often at the time that if we had promised to give every voter a
gold bar, the response would have been, “Thank you – do you think the National
party will allow us to keep it?”
Over the years
since, I have been reminded of that experience every time I hear some
commentator or other speculate that a government might be losing public
support, or that a change of government at the next election might be on the
cards. In the wake of last month’s Northland by-election I have had cause to
think of it again too. The plain fact is that political tides ebb and flow, and
once they start to ebb, they seldom return in favour of the government of the
day.
The question that
inevitably arises is at what point the present government is in the tide. It is
in its third term – and is our tenth government since the National/Labour
duopoly began with Labour’s election in 1935. Just two of those governments
served four terms; four prior to the present government served three terms. So,
on the face of it, a reasonable conclusion might be that the current government
is unlikely to win another term in 2017.
But it is no
longer as simple as that. While my dictum about political tides still applies,
the advent of MMP has introduced a few new eddies and rips into the political
tidal flow that make things more unpredictable. And because the system now
relies on multi-party governments, it is less polarised overall than the
two-party club which dominated elections from 1935 to 1993.
There is another
factor too. Over the years, our system has become more presidential (starting
with Norman Kirk’s all too brief time as Prime Minister). The Prime Minister
has become less “primus inter pares” and is now the dominant face of
government.
Sir Robert
Muldoon, Helen Clark and Jim Bolger all typified the modern Prime Minister.
When they were riding high, so too were their governments. When they fell in
public esteem, their governments fell with them. (Bolger is arguably in a
slightly different position because of the added factor of the taint from his
association with New Zealand First, but the essential point remains.)
John Key is in a
slightly different position again. We have never had a Prime Minister who has
increased his support over three successive elections. (Lange managed it in two
elections – only to crash spectacularly and resign abruptly within two years of
his re-election.) All the signs are that Key still retains a strong rapport
with New Zealand voters, but given the heights of his support, his fall may be
all the more dramatic when it occurs.
So, when will
that be? Despite the commentators panning his recent performances, my sense is
that this is still some time off. Budget 2015 and the Northland by-election
setback are not the turning points. The Prime Minister knows his fate rests on
his ongoing connection with the voters, in the towns and workplaces across the
country. Yes, he sometimes get photographed wearing silly hats, and seldom
ducks the chance of a selfie, but his critics dismissal of him as “Mr Smile and
Wave” misses the point. There is far more to John Key than that.
There was another
Prime Minister who behaved in a similar way – Sir Keith Holyoake, “Kiwi Keith”.
Often derided by his critics at the time for his pragmatism and consensual
style, he is the only National Prime Minister to have won four successive
elections. More than most, John Key is acutely aware of that.
Bolger was also different because, by 1993, National was deeply unpopular - saved only by the fracturing of the opposition (Labour, New Zealand First and the Alliance got more than 60% of the vote between them) and the FPP system.
ReplyDelete