Thursday, June 05, 2008

The "major difference between Labour and National"

John Key was in Taranaki last night talking to supporters;

''I personally believe we're going to win the next election,'' he told the packed conference room.

New Zealanders could see the one major difference between the Labour and National, he told them.

While National's were the politics of aspiration, Labour believed in the politics of envy and it was not taking them anywhere, he said to hearty clapping.


This is the Nats election catch cry. I first heard it from Mark Blumsky sitting on the Face Off panel on NewstalkZB. (Slightly ironic it should come from a disillusioned one-term MP)

I can't disagree that Labour is besmirched with envy politics. A disdain for "rich pricks" and discomfit with private success seems to have gathered momentum this year.

But is National really "aspirational"? It's one thing to lay claim to a moniker but breathing substance into it is another.

There is a world of difference between the two types of worldviews but there is not a world of difference between what happens in New Zealand when either a Labour or National government reigns. I know National-supporting bloggers have listed differences but I can never remember what they are. Not a good sign.

What should a government be aspiring to? Surely to lift New Zealand's comparative economic standing in the world would rank right up there. But we haven't seen the Nats commit themselves to achieving the rate of economic growth it would take.

It is broadly accepted that education is the key to prosperity and independence but National are happy to largely preserve the status quo with the abandonment of their earlier bulk-funding policy and retention of elitist zoning. Meanwhile literacy declines.

It is best practice to let the private sector run services yet the Nats have run a mile from privatisation.

And Working For Families might help people in the short term but it traps them in the long. It is the very antithesis of aspiration. Yet the Nats will keep it.

So what am I left to think? That the so-called "major difference between National and Labour" - the politics of aspiration over the politics of envy - is nothing more than a seductive slogan.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

there is not a world of difference between what happens in New Zealand when either a Labour or National government reigns.

Lindsay - that is objectively not true --- even without discounting the period of Labour under Roger Douglas, the figures are clear: over the past 100 years, National governments provide measurable increases in growth, standards of living, and, even, equality for all. Labour governments do not. Look at the record.

Second, the other crucial distinction that Key did not make is that Labour governments are systemically corrupt and National governments simply are not. An end to the blatant corruption, rorting, and election rigging would be a huge difference to the way the current government has conducted himself.


It is best practice to let the private sector run services yet the Nats have run a mile from privatisation.


They've ruled out capital sales. National has not ruled out contracting, PPPs, etc, and we can expect that to be taken full advantage of in their first term.

education is the key to prosperity and independence

No it isn't. Go and look at the CIS report. Productivity and hard work are what is required. NZ is already educating far more people far further than their abilities merit - and then the minimum wage prices them off the market. What is need is to encourage people into the workforce, rather than pointless schooling (let alone expensive and pretentious tertiary study) and encourage more productibity of those workers.

Anonymous said...

I would just like to see any political party in parliament print ONE principle that they could declare underpins their policy.

That would be new!

The reason we do not see that now is because all their policies are so flexible so as not to be pinned down by the voters.

Lawrence

Lindsay Mitchell said...

National hasn't existed for 100 years. You demonstrate that National has been better for NZ. You might show me correlation between gdp per capita and National administrations but it is simplistic to make direct correlations given lag in economic conditions. Our drop from being in the top five to being 22nd hasn't been arrested by either govt.

Education of the most basic sort isn't even happening. I agree there is too much tertiary but primary kids aren't having their fires lit. That is a lot to do with the kinds of homes they come from but I wouldn't discount education as blithely as you do.

I agree that getting people into the workforce is very important but National's recent record of doing that is worse than Labour's.

Anonymous said...

Anon: "not ruling out contracting" etc and "can expect that to be taken full advantage of" are not synonymous. There is still much speculation as to what National plans to do.

(Bit like America's current favourite boy - well, the American media's favourite boy, anyway. "America needs change! America needs hope!" All fine & dandy, but what does that mean?).

Besides, contracting services still means that bureaucrats call the shots. It's still central control & therefore politicises everything.

Anonymous said...

Quite clearly ACT has a dilemma. It is like the donkey that is between two stacks of hay, equal distances apart, yet starves to death not knowing which one to choose.
Perhaps potential ACT voters should make that choice for themselves rather than "pin the tail".

Anonymous said...

National hasn't existed for 100 years.

Labour has for 91. Poetic licence.

That is a lot to do with the kinds of homes they come from but I wouldn't discount education as blithely as you do.

Education is a private choice, and is only cost-effective for those who can benefit from it. Most cannot, in NZ it seems.

I agree that getting people into the workforce is very important but National's recent record of doing that is worse than Labour's.

Again wrong. The single best effort here is Ruth Richardson in 1990 - all else pales beside this. Of course, a correlation between even official employment and economic conditions shows (surprise surprise) that Labour and this government in particular has done far worse than National.

Anonymous said...

Zzzzzzzzz......100 plus years of State knows best so we will take your money to run things etc gag....wake me up when a prospect of some CHANGE is imminent...

National party....runs things as normal until Labour socialists re-elected to carry on pure version of Socialist molestation on raped populace