By any measure the National Party has been the most successful New Zealand political party of recent times. After all, it has won 16 of the last 25 elections, governing for 47 years since first winning office in 1949, almost twice as long as the Labour Party has been in office in that time. 

However, as it contemplates its future in the wake of its enormous defeat in this year’s election, it will not be nearly enough for National to just look to past glories as guiding its way to a return to power at some point in the future. That was its immediate mistake during the last Parliament. For too long then, it acted like the bride jilted at the altar over what happened in 2017, assuming somewhat arrogantly that time would correct what it saw as a massive miscarriage of electoral justice. By the time it woke up to the new reality, Covid19 had inflicted itself upon us, and the rest is history. 

Now, finally, National has to confront some unpleasant realities. The comprehensive nature of its defeat goes beyond the impact of Covid19, and it would be repeating the error of 2017-2020 if it were to assume its defeat was all due to the pandemic and conclude that it now merely has to bide its time and wait for the electoral pendulum to swing and restore it to office. It is a far more deep-seated issue than that, and National’s future depends on its coming to grips with that. 

Indeed, what is remarkable about National’s historic successes is the rather flimsy philosophical basis on which the party was established. It is more a tribute to good organisation, extraordinary pragmatism, and some remarkable personalities over a long period of time, rather than coherent core philosophy and principle that National has survived and been so successful. 

National was formed in 1936 as a coming together of the old Reform and United parties, and was a marriage of convenience at the time, rather than a philosophical union. What drew them together was more their joint opposition to the Labour Party which had been elected to government in the 1935 landslide, than any common ground on policy. 

Reform had been established in the early 20^th century, primarily as the conservative response to Seddon’s Liberals, and United, which grew out of the Liberals, was focused on attracting moderates on both the left and right of the political spectrum, who were concerned at the time about the rise of what they saw as the socialist Labour Party. After the 1931 election, Reform and United came together to form an awkward coalition government, primarily to keep Labour out.  They failed manifestly to respond to the challenges of the Great Depression and were unceremoniously defeated in 1935. After that defeat, with just 19 seats between them in Parliament, both parties realised neither would ever defeat Labour by themselves, hence their coming together in 1936 as the National Party we know today. 

However, in today’s environment, just being the anti-Labour Party will not be enough anymore. As the rise of  ACT to National’s right has shown, voters are looking for something more specific, so National’s challenge, as it begins its review of its election drubbing, will be to spell out both a coherent philosophy and set of values about what the party actually stands for and then to develop and promote policies that give effect to those. Just being the anti-Labour party at a time when Labour’s stocks are at their highest in 80 years will not do it. 

Rather, National needs to be looking to the lessons successful modern conservative parties elsewhere provide. Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union in Germany, which has been in office since 1982 on a platform of liberal conservatism, is an obvious example. So too would be Britain’s Conservative Party under David Cameron (not its present leadership!). Cameron enunciated both social and economic liberalism, seeking to demonstrate sound economic policies, balanced by modern, liberal social policies. 

National needs to realise, as Merkel and Cameron did, that modern conservative parties succeed when their policies, personalities and tone are in step with the aspirations of the mainstream of voters. This was the path National looked to be on under Sir John Key, but it seems to have wandered from that in recent years, leaving it looking directionless at present. 

Labour’s election success demonstrated that it clearly and better understood where to pitch its message to maximise its political support. But with the newly re-elected government looking likely to become more incremental in its approach than the radical transformer it promised to be in 2017, there will be an increasing opportunity over the next few years for National to develop and spell out a coherent, modern liberal conservative alternative programme. If it fails to do so, it will not only remain out of office for a long time but find more and more of its ground on the right of the spectrum being eaten up by ACT. 

Progressive elements seem few and far between in the National Caucus elected last weekend. The current Caucus has been left looking less like the face of contemporary New Zealand than any National Party Caucus in recent years, further compounding National’s problems. Yet without change and renewal that means the party that has dominated the New Zealand political landscape for most of the last 80 years will be set for a long and chilly time in the wilderness.

 

 

It is probably just as well that the All Blacks are playing the Wallabies in the second Bledisloe Cup test of the year in Auckland on Sunday. For many, that will be a welcome shift from the election campaign that is now rapidly drawing to its close. 

There seems to be a sense abroad that people are ready to move on from the intensity that has typified politics this year. When the Prime Minister followed Sir John Key’s footsteps and announced the election date in February, neither she nor the country could have imagined the circumstances that were about to unfold as a result of the arrival of Covid19. Rather, the political situation at the time was starting to look like we were in for New Zealand’s first one-term government since 1972-75. That quickly evaporated as the government’s response to the pandemic took hold. 

Soon, Covid19 was dominating every aspect of our lives. It even led – at short notice – to the original election date having to be deferred a further four weeks because of the Auckland outbreak in August. This was the first time ever that an election date was changed once it had been announced. Moreover, the political rulebook was being rewritten by the pandemic. The Leader of the Opposition who took to trying to hold the government to account for its response found himself so thoroughly out of step with the prevailing public mood that he was unceremoniously dumped by his party. This was dramatic enough, but even more dramatic was the chain of events that it precipitated, leading to two more changes of leadership in the National Party before election day. 

Meanwhile, amidst the turmoil, the Prime Minister was able to sail smoothly on, reassuring with a smile all those who were worried and anxious about the impact of the virus, that all would be well. Suddenly, the issues on which her government had previously been struggling to the point where election defeat looked more likely than not were totally forgotten. Two errant Ministers were got rid of, and, with the exception of a couple of overworked loyalists, the largely incompetent remainder were quickly put in the broom cupboard, until after the election. No-one seemed to mind, or even to care very much, and the government’s popularity just kept soaring. Indeed, the harder the Opposition tried to criticise and draw attention to the government’s failings, the more popular the government became. 

But now, most people just want to get the election over and done with, as the record number of those opting to cast their votes early suggests. The bizarre run of events this year seems so protracted and inexorable that it is no surprise people seem very keen to put 2020 behind them, and to start afresh on what will hopefully be a better year in 2021. 

However, while politics has run its course for many of us this year, there is still the ritual of election day to go through before we can settle down for the rest of the weekend. 

In that regard, it is time to spare a thought for the candidates and party workers across the board who have worked so hard in recent months to get their respective party messages across, as they seek public support for their parties. In many ways, they are the lifeblood of our democracy. 

Amongst the candidates there will be those who will be re-elected to Parliament this weekend, as they and most of us always knew they would be. They will be joined by those who will experience the excitement and drama of being elected for the first time. For some, it will be the culminating relief of having made it; for others it will be the unexpected delight of having succeeded against the odds. For all, though, there will be the relief of the campaign being over, bringing with it the chance to return to a steadier pace of life. 

And then there will be those for whom the outcome will be one of intense disappointment. They may be new candidates who not have succeeded where they thought they would, or seasoned politicians having to come grips with the reality of being tossed aside unceremoniously and perhaps unexpectedly by the electorate, and their political careers, however long or brief, distinguished or not, now being at an end. They will be alongside others whose expectations were much more realistically modest from the outset, and for whom the experience will have either whetted their appetites for next time, or simply turned them off politics altogether. 

All of them will have been supported by a swathe of loyal volunteers who week in and out for months now have been trudging the streets, stuffing pamphlets in letterboxes, or knocking on doors to drum up support, and more recently checking that election billboards were not being damaged by either vandals or the weather. They do this because of their commitment to their respective candidates and party’s ideals, at the expense of their own time. Even in the era of electronic communication and social media the system relies on their commitment probably more than ever to get candidates elected. 

Whatever their respective fates, or what we think of them or their policies, all these candidates and volunteers deserve our respect and gratitude for their tireless efforts to make our democracy effective. A big thank you to all of them. 

Now, to make the weekend complete, the All Blacks just have to win on Sunday.

 

Early voting is now open which is great for the 80% or so of the population whose vote does not change from one election to the next. They can go out and vote at their convenience without having to wait for election day. But for those who are yet even get on the roll, or who are still undecided, it is probably just as well there is still over a week to go for them to either make up their minds or be persuaded about their choice. 

For the first time since I began voting, I find myself in the genuinely undecided category of voters. It is not that I do not know what I want from our politicians – it is more that I do not see any of them or the parties they represent presenting that. Yet my wants are quite straightforward – a party with a sense of liberal compassion that knows how to balance the government’s books. My expectations of any government are that they understand there “are four things that matter to people: they have to have somewhere to live, they have to have food to eat, they have to have clothing to wear, and they have to have something to hope for,” as Norman Kirk said so powerfully all those years ago. 

The rest is over to us. I am not interested in big spend-ups that will cripple the country for years to come, nor bold promises that have little chance of being achieved. But when I look at the parties on offer today it just seems to be one big promise after another. None of them come near my modest expectations. 

Labour are too “all care, no responsibility” and “we know best” for my liking. I worry deeply about the way they have borrowed and spent so freely on the response to Covid19 and am concerned about the long-term impact that will have on my children’s and grandchildren’s futures when the time comes to pay back the debt they are building up. I am not begrudging the government’s response to Covid19 to date, although I think a lot of the spending programmes have been on very dubious causes, but it does bother me that Labour seems to have no alternative strategy, other than the modern version of borrow and hope. Moreover, beyond a popular Prime Minister and one or two competent senior Ministers the party as a whole looks like a largely talent-free zone, that inspires little confidence for the future. 

But then National is no better. It has less heart than Labour, and increasingly inspires less confidence in its ability to manage the books properly either. National still seems to be at sixes and sevens after its long spell in government, as events this year has shown, and is struggling to get a clear message across to voters about what it stands for. At this stage, it is hard to see what it would do differently from Labour were it to end up in office. 

ACT has been the surprise package of the election in so many ways. Although it has tried to soften its image in some areas, it still comes across as too strident and doctrinaire to inspire confidence that it could grasp the subtleties and make the compromises necessary in government to be truly effective and reliable in that role. 

Then there is New Zealand First, still promoting an introspective xenophobia more reminiscent of the 1950s than the dynamic world of today. It is a subtle haven for some of the deeply held prejudices in our society about immigration and diversity, which is why time and most people have now largely passed it by. And so have I. 

The Greens have infuriatingly and consistently paraded themselves as Parliament’s only “party of principle” but, as their u-turn to support party-hopping legislation which they always previously opposed strongly, and the Green school funding controversy have shown, those principles count for little when the pressure goes on. Nevertheless, their environmental credentials remain strong and it is a great pity that they just do not stick to their knitting in this regard. But by tying themselves irrevocably to Labour, and ruling out ever working with National, they have compromised their autonomy, which is sad for environmental policy all round. 

To compound the problem, the parties outside Parliament are no better. 

The Māori Party continues to have good ideas from time to time, but every now and then goes off the edge, making it difficult to attract and retain the support of mainstream Māori voters or attract wider support beyond that, which is a pity. Yet by virtue of its very existence the Māori Party continues to exert an influence on government, but not for now, it seems, through Parliament. 

That leaves the New Conservatives, Advance New Zealand and TOP. The New Conservatives are really just the old bigots with a name change and Judith Collins was quite right when she summed up the prospect of working with Advance New Zealand as “insane”. TOP just gives off the feeling of a group of enthusiasts with a whole lot of nice theories that they would be keen to try out in government to see if they work, which is hardly a basis for putting people into Parliament. 

All of which explains my current undecided state. One thing is for sure though. Between now and election day I will come to a decision, so I can vote. It would be a bonus if any of the parties were to give me a positive reason before then to do so.

 

As this year's election campaign got underway the Prime Minister described it as the "Covid19" election. Her subliminal hope was obviously that voters would take the opportunity to reward the government – and the Labour Party in particular – for the generally well-regarded response to the pandemic to date, rather than focusing too much on Labour’s uneven performance in so many other areas over the last three years. What she had in mind was something more akin to a coronation than an election. 

As it has turned out, her initial assessment has been absolutely correct. So far, there has only been rare criticism of the government’s Covid19 response. Yet, at the same time, all the political parties, including her own Labour Party, have avoided too much focus on how much New Zealand has already been changed by Covid19 and what further future changes will be required as we recover from its ravages.  

Instead, they have all just looked through their established prisms to offer their own ideas in just the same way they always have done. None of them has offered any innovative strategy for the future, despite this being a time like no other in crying out for bold and insightful pathways forward. All the parties’ offerings thus far seem no more than "same old, same old" merely dressed up in 2020 clothes. It is therefore perhaps little wonder that the campaign overall has been an uninspiring series of missed opportunities so far. 

On the back of the unallocated $20 billion Covid19 fund set aside in this year’s Budget Labour has been able to make a number of spending commitments, although many of them look like promises it was keen to fulfil anyway, rather than specific initiatives to help New Zealand recover from the pandemic. The Prime Minister has managed to make a spending announcement virtually everywhere she has gone so far during the campaign. A school upgrade here, a new community theatre there, or an upgrade to local health services – all no doubt worthy projects in their own right – but projects all the same that a government would normally struggle to fund all in go. Covid19 is the excuse, certainly not the reason. 

But using the Covid19 response funding in this way hardly helps create a sense that the Labour Party has a detailed plan to grapple with the changes the virus forced upon our society now and in the years ahead. Rather, Labour’s plan amounts more to a being a “piggy bank” (albeit a very generous one) than a decisive strategy. Nowhere, has any Labour spokesperson provided any indication of how and when all the money borrowed so far will be repaid. 

Normally, it could be expected that the Opposition would challenge the government head-on about this and raise all the usual questions about how all this largesse can be afforded, let alone the quality of some of the expenditure being proposed. But this election, the National Party has been understandably too focused on trying to recover its own “mojo” after  a disastrous few months, including now having to explain away the blunders in its economic and fiscal policy costings, to make any serious impact on what the government has been doing. While it has talked repeatedly of having a “plan” to deal with the post Covid19 neither National’s leader nor any of its senior spokespeople have provided any substantive detail of what that plan actually entails. 

Traditionally, ACT and the Greens have been the parties most likely to produce big policy ideas at election time. This year has been no different, although, with the exception of the Greens’ wealth tax proposal which has little to do with Covid19, much of both parties’ approach has been a regurgitation of previously stated long-held ideas, which will have come as no great surprise. Again, neither seems to have placed any special focus on what New Zealand will and should look like post Covid19, seemingly confident that their standard policy prescriptions are fit for all circumstances. 

New Zealand First is on a different plane altogether. Their parlous situation does not give them the luxury of bold new policy initiatives. Rather, they seem to be fighting an uphill battle just to regain enough of their voters from the last election to have even a chance of getting near the threshold for representation in the next Parliament. In this regard, the release of the Serious Fraud Office’s report on its investigation of the New Zealand First Foundation may well prove to be the final, fatal blow to the party’s prospects and future. 

Meanwhile, after all the weeks of campaigning so far, we still have no clear sense of any of the parties’ sense of priority and details for the post covid19 recovery. There is clearly no Plan B – relying on short-term quarantines and hopi9ng for the eventual arrival of a vaccine are currently that both Labour and National can offer. Beyond that there is talk of more borrowing, more short-term support programmes and subsidies, but no  specific details from any party of what New Zealand will look like in two or three years’ time, and what social and economic changes we will be confronting as a consequence. 

This weekend, advance voting begins. So far, none of the parties has provided me with any compelling reason to rush out and vote for any of them or their candidates. Like many New Zealanders, I want to know where our political leaders think our country is headed over the next few years and what steps they see need to be taken to achieve those ambitions. However, with the election just two weeks away from this weekend, it is hard to see any of them providing that thinking, or the consequent obvious lack of election enthusiasm that has been so widely reported being overcome.

 

With just over three weeks until the General Election, the release of the first major pre-election opinion poll this week confirmed what was already being reported about this year’s campaign. 

Although the gap between Labour and National has narrowed slightly it remains substantial and is unlikely to be overturned by election day. That means that, whatever else happens, National is likely to be looking at the loss of up to 15 seats, including 14 sitting (mainly list) MPs. Already, polling is showing National set to lose the Auckland Central seat it has held since 2008, and there are whispers that other seats like Whanganui and Wairarapa are poised to fall as well. A reduction in numbers of that size will have significant implications for both the Party’s resourcing in the next Parliament, which will be proportionately reduced, and will also remove the dominance National has had of select committees in the last Parliament, because of its high numbers of MPs. 

Labour, on the other hand, stands to gain up to 16 additional MPs, over and above those being elected to replace Labour MPs who are retiring, which will present its own challenges in the coming Parliament. For many, their election, on the party list, will come as an unexpected surprise to both themselves and the Party itself. Undoubtedly, some of these will subsequently prove not up to the task of being MPs and will need to be hidden away lest they become embarrassments. Others will quickly become frustrated that in a Caucus potentially that large, there will be little opportunity for them to make any significant impact, especially as policymaking and major decisions will continue, as is the case in all governments, to be made by the Cabinet, and within that, the core of Ministers close to the Prime Minister. 

In addition, there will be those from the 2017 intake frustrated that after a term in government, there is no place in the Ministry for them, and they remain just backbenchers. Managing these egos and thwarted ambitions will take some skill and will be a major challenge for the Party’s Whips and officials in the term ahead. On the other hand, Labour will gain significant additional Parliamentary resources because of this windfall and should have no difficulty in ensuring a reliable government majority on all select committees. 

While the Greens will be breathing a sigh of relief that on the basis of this week’s poll, they are across the party vote threshold, they still face some major uncertainties. Historically, the Greens have always done better in opinion polls than on election day itself, so being just over the threshold at this stage means, on the basis of past performance they cannot yet take their re-election as a given. Previously, they have always received a big bump in their support from overseas votes, but with many Zealanders having come home because of Covid19, there may be fewer of these, and in any case, the likelihood is that Labour will be the main beneficiary of them this year. Moreover, even if the Greens are returned, there is no guarantee what role they will play in the next Parliament. It was significant that the during the leaders’ debate this week the Prime Minister was very coy about the prospects of the Greens continuing to play a role in government if Labour wins an outright majority. 

For New Zealand First, the news continues to be bad. Despite a national tour and a number of regional policy announcements the Party’s support has barely shifted above the 2% or thereabouts it has been trapped upon for some time. With both Labour and the Greens making negative noises about New Zealand First’s contribution to government since 2017 it is hard to see things changing significantly for them over the next three weeks or so. Even Shane Jones seems to have thrown in the towel at least as far as winning the Northland seat is concerned. In all these circumstances, the Party’s campaign appeal to be the handbrake on Labour and the Greens is ineffectual for two reasons. Some would regard New Zealand First’s behaviour as a classic case of the tail already going too far in wagging the dog, while others would note that it is difficult to be an effective handbrake on anything if the Party is not in Parliament at all. And lurking in the background behind all of this is the report of the Serious Fraud Office into the operations of the New Zealand First Foundation that was promised before the first election date of September 19, but has yet to see the light of day. 

Meanwhile, it continues to be smooth sailing for ACT. David Seymour is presently the most impressive party leader outside the Prime Minister and his party is well on track to record perhaps its best result ever, and certainly its best for at least 15 years. While he may feel frustrated that his reinvigorated party is unlikely to end up a government partner this time, he should perhaps feel relieved. Three years on the crossbenches, as a vocal Opposition party, will give him the opportunity both to weld his new team together, and also to carve out a significant niche to National’s right which ACT can then credibly claim as their own, shutting out more extremist pretenders like the New Conservatives and Advance New Zealand. 

At this stage of the campaign, therefore, the only outstanding questions surround the Greens. Will they actually get over the threshold, and if they do, will Labour want to partner with them again in government if it does not need to? The rest of the election jigsaw is beginning to look remarkably settled which is why the campaign so far has been so uninspiring.     

 

 

 

The government’s proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development is a typical concoction from Urban Development Minister Phil Twyford. Its ambition that local councils “take a long-term strategic approach to the growth of their cities” is laudable. So too, is the expectation of “joining up transport, housing and infrastructure in a 30-year plan”. It all sounds realistic and achievable – in just the same way as his pre-2017 commitment and subsequent spectacular failure to build 100,000 affordable homes over a 10-year period, under the brand Kiwibuild sounded when first proposed.

The way things are panning out suggest the Urban Development National Policy Statement could well be headed for a similar fate. The professed aim of the policy is to direct councils in major centres like Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, Christchurch and Queenstown to free up planning rules to focus more on “high-quality streets, neighbourhoods and communities.” So far, so good.

The problem arises once the detail starts to become obvious. For example, in the draft discussion document there is a proposal to require councils to “zone all residential and mixed areas within 1.5 km of city centres for high-density development”, with the definition of high-density meaning a minimum of 60 residential units per hectare. The discussion paper also notes that there are two broad overall options to consider – a descriptive approach giving greater scope to local councils, or a more prescriptive government-driven approach. The discussion paper notes ominously that the descriptive approach “may not be as effective at shifting the focus to higher density.”

Further, the draft policy statement allows for building heights of at least 6 storeys “within at least a walkable catchment of the city centre and metropolitan centres as well as existing and planned rapid transit stops”. Given the emphasis on higher density, this provision smacks more of being a requirement than an optional extra.

The discussion document falls into the basic trap of assuming that the topography and general layout of our major population centres is all the same when palpably that is not the case. Spatial development possibilities in largely flat cities like Christchurch or Hamilton are vastly different, from those in more constrained cities like Wellington and one size definitely will not fit all, despite the discussion document’s predilections.

Consequently, in seeking to meet the government’s requirements, councils have been forced to look at possible outcomes that are essentially ludicrous. The Wellington City Council, for example, has interpreted the government’s “at least 6 storeys” and “existing and planned rapid transit stops” requirements apply to long-established outer residential suburbs like Tawa, Linden, Johnsonville, Khandallah, Ngaio and Crofton Downs just because they are served by a commuter rail service. Consequently, it is proposing in the draft spatial plan for Wellington that at least 6 storeys residential buildings will be permitted within a five minute walking catchment from suburban railway stations in those areas, although a ten minute limit will apply in the cases of Johnsonville and Tawa. Yet these are some of Wellington’s more attractive residential suburbs and it seems absurd that their character risks destruction just because they are close to a railway line.

But the bigger question remains. The assumption underpinning the entire Urban Development National Policy Statement process is managing anticipated future population growth. Again, that is a laudable objective, but it needs to be evidence based. The Wellington plan, for example, is predicated on projected population growth of 80,000 people over the next 30 years. Yet population projections prepared by the National Institute of Demographic and Economic Analysis at Waikato University are far less bullish, suggesting a likely population increase of only 10.7% (just over 50,000) across the entire Wellington region by 2031, with just over half that growth occurring within Wellington city, a far cry from the additional 80,000 people the council’s spatial development plan is based on.

What becomes clear is that the issue in Wellington at least, and probably elsewhere as well, is the much more basic one of what is a desirable and sustainable population for the area, and how that is to be housed in the future in the joined up transport and housing infrastructure focusing on the “high-quality streets, neighbourhoods and communities” that Minister Twyford waxed so eloquently about in the discussion document. Much more work needs to be done on what New Zealand’s population will look like, and where it will need to be housed, especially in a post covid19 world, before beginning work on highly specific, and likely prescriptive urban planning strategies.   Rows of multi-storey apartment blocks lining suburban rail corridors are hardly part of that vision.

The sooner the Minister faces up to that reality, and makes it clear he is not encouraging that, the better. Otherwise his vaunted urban development strategy will be properly doomed to follow the path of Kiwibuild before it.

 

 

We are only a few days into the election campaign second time around, but already some things have become clear about the campaigns likely to be waged by the various parties. 

For Labour, the plan is straightforward and basic. As the lead party of the incumbent government, its campaign is based very much around business as usual and making sure nothing goes wrong over the next five weeks until election day. Covid19 will continue to be an influence, both in terms of the government’s day to day management of the lingering and recurring outbreaks, and also the reminder of how well things went during the full-scale lockdowns a little earlier in the year. Not unreasonably, Labour will seek to bask in the reflected glory of that and the Prime Minister’s popularity for as long as possible. 

That will be a gentle and soft image, almost impossible for the National Party to try to campaign against without looking snarly or churlish. Such policy announcements as Labour makes between now and the election will attempt to replicate that wholesome flavour. So, this week we have seen a promise to extend loans to small businesses affected by Covid19 for a further three years (two of which will be interest-free); a new public holiday to mark Matariki, and an increase in the top tax rate for those earning over $180,000. 

Indeed, the tax rate increase underpins Labour’s determination to appear as nice and innocuous as possible. Why else announce a tax policy which in their own words will not affect 98% of taxpayers, and will raise only $550 million a year when the estimated cost of the Covid19-induced recession is likely to be in the range of $140 billion over coming decades? The tax hike will hardly have any impact on Covid19 recession recovery. Instead, it is but the merest of drops in the tax bucket more designed to virtue signal Labour’s concern about the gap between the rich and the poor, without otherwise upsetting the apple cart too much. 

And that looks being Labour’s policy pattern for the rest of the campaign. At a time when people are still scared about Covid19 and are seeking comfort and reassurance, such a softly-softly approach may well be all it will take to secure Labour the outright majority no party has achieved since the advent of MMP. 

National, on the other hand, seems to have opted for a more policy-based campaign. Where they see Labour as deliberately fluffy and vague, National sees itself providing the contrast by promoting real policies to solve real problems.  To that end, there have been big policy announcements this week about a renewed methamphetamine treatment and rehabilitation strategy; a major roading reconstruction programme and the upgrading of Hawkes Bay Hospital. All are substantial, but each has the air about it of being the type of announcement a government already in office might make, rather than a party seeking to win office. 

In contrast to Labour, National is clearly aiming to present itself as the party that understands the process of government, and how to meet critical needs. Hence its emphasis so far on solid, achievable projects and programmes over what it characterises as Labour’s more superficial approach. However, it has all the early signs of simply being the wrong campaign for the country’s current situation. While the needs National is identifying are undoubtedly important and deserving of attention, they miss the boat in terms of where the public is right now. With people still seeming frightened by the Covid19 experience, Labour’s metaphorical offer of a warm cuddle and some soothing words looks more appealing and credible, given the Prime Minister’s approach, than National’s more business-like, no-nonsense back-to-normal approach. 

The Greens’ campaign has been seriously derailed by the Taranaki Green School funding row. Just like 2017 when revelations about then co-leader Metiria Turei’s less than fulsome benefit declarations very nearly tipped the party out of Parliament altogether, the Greens have again been left reeling, this time  as a consequence of current co-leader James Shaw’s decision to fund a private Green School in Taranaki to the tune of $11 million, contrary to both the party’s and it now the appears the government’s policies on support for private schools. 

Not only do the Greens now look once again to be struggling to keep their heads above water, they have been left completely on their own by their major partner in government. Aside from one or two perfunctory niceties uttered by the Prime Minister, Labour has offered little support for the beleaguered Greens as Labour clearly realises the prospect of its being able to govern on its own, without the need for the Greens is growing ever stronger. As in 2017, this campaign for the Greens has now become one of just survival, rather than an occasion to try to increase their Parliamentary strength. 

Meanwhile, New Zealand First’s early 1980s style provincial road trip continues. Whistle stop visits and specific local promises designed to address local concerns seem the order of the day, but the overall appearance is that everyone from the politicians, to the accompanying media and the small groups turning out to meet the visitors as they rush through is just going through the motions. There seems none of the enthusiasm and energy that has characterised previous New Zealand First campaigns. Rather, there looks to be a pervasive sense of grim foreboding and pulling up the drawbridges as Winston Peters’ train-wreck interview with Q&A’s Jack Tame so amply demonstrated. 

That leaves ACT which at this stage looks like being the only small party assured of a return to Parliament. While ACT’s resurgence is a justified tribute to the determination and performance of David Seymour, the question remains to what end. With National unlikely to get the numbers this time to form a government, ACT will be a small Opposition group, with many of its likely half dozen or so new MPs ever mindful that they are only there because of the temporarily-parked votes of currently disgruntled and disillusioned National voters, likely to return home once National gets its act together again. 

Overall, at this early stage, the Prime Minister and ACT’s David Seymour have been the leading performers. Whereas the Prime Minister has succeeded to date by cleverly staying largely above the fray, while sounding unfailingly positive, leaving all the tough questions to her Ministers to answer, Seymour, not Judith Collins, has emerged as her likely foil, far more willing to take her on directly on matters of policy she might otherwise prefer to avoid. 

That having been said, there are just on five weeks of campaigning to go. While some things will not change, with the die looking already solidly cast, there remains the capacity for the coming television debates to throw up surprises, or Covid19 to do more of its dirty work, or other surprises, all of which could influence the final result. So, what has been a pretty boring and pedestrian campaign to date could yet show some life. However, it would not be wise to count on that.