There have been a number of parallels between British and New Zealand politics over the last 40 years. Both countries were afflicted by economic sclerosis in the 1970s. This gave way to a painful process of economic liberalisation in the 1980s. Long periods of conservative government followed. In the late 1990s, centre-left parties, identified with third way politics, came to power and were in office for a long time. Shortly after the global financial crisis, these governments were usurped by their centre-right opponents.
On Saturday 20 September 2014, a general election was held in New Zealand. The governing centre-right National party inflicted a heavy, devastating defeat on the opposition Labour party. National won an outright parliamentary majority with 48 per cent of the vote. This is no mean feat given the country’s mixed member proportional (MMP) electoral system which is like a peculiar hybrid of proportional representation and First Past The Post. Labour lagged behind with 25 per cent of the vote, its worst result for 80 years. Smaller parties, including the Greens, mopped up around 26 per cent between them.
John Key, the re-elected prime minister, claimed his party had been ‘rewarded’ for his economic policies. Indeed the country’s economic growth is at its fastest since 2007. This is partly due to a construction boom and massive dairy exports to Asia. Key said: ‘This is a victory for those who kept the faith and refused to be distracted’. The National Party campaigned on a platform of tax cuts, tighter spending and labour market flexibility. Key is popular with New Zealand voters having cultivated a relaxed, likeable public persona. This might have helped him to weather a political scandal during the campaign: allegations surfaced that his office had been involved in covertly smearing political opponents.
New Zealand Labour, meanwhile, has retreated for its long dark night of the soul. Some blame its third successive election defeat on the unpopularity of party leader David Cunliffe. Others suggest more complex reasons. Certainly, the party seems to have experienced a marked reversal of fortunes with National. Only 12 years ago, Labour enjoyed its own landslide re-election victory under the leadership of Helen Clark. At the time, the Clark government was seen by many as impregnable.
Elected in 1999, Helen Clark identified her government’s policies with the politics of the ‘third way’. This had been articulated by British sociologist Anthony Giddens and interpreted, and elaborated upon, variously. The New Labour administration in Britain was also identified with third way politics. Giddens argued that rapid globalisation required adaptation by centre-left parties: their modus operandi had to change. Fundamental to this was the notion of the state as an enabler rather than a direct provider.
Clark committed New Zealand Labour to a ‘partnership approach’ in economic and social policy. This involved maintaining and promoting business confidence. A newly Ministry of Economic Development sought to enhance New Zealand’s attractiveness to multinational companies. The Clark government also pursued a partnership approach to addressing social disadvantage. As a result, the Stronger Communities Action Fund was set up. This was modelled on the New Deal for Communities in Britain. Clark was noted for her ability to create a ‘broad church’ of supporters. The electoral success of New Zealand Labour under Clark was due largely to its economic credibility. That it lost power in 2008, around the time of the global financial crisis, is probably no coincidence.
In the 2014 election, Labour campaigned on a platform of increased health spending and affordable housing. Other initiatives, relating to regional development and business subsidies, proved eye-catching. Some commentators argue that Labour’s economic programme was fundamentally sound. However, there were serious doubts that it would be able to deliver it, largely because the vagaries of the MMP electoral system would have forced it into coalition with the Greens.
There are obvious lessons to be drawn from the election in New Zealand. One is that economic growth and stability are favourable to incumbents. Another is credibility: voters need to be convinced of opposition parties’ ability to deliver sound economic programmes. Association with misguided idealists, however well intentioned, can be detrimental to this. Despite the parallels, there are differences in the situations of the New Zealand and British Labour parties. For a start, New Zealand Labour’s opinion poll ratings have been consistently dire for years. The British Labour party is are still very much in contention. Also, British voters have yet to feel the benefits of economic growth. Nevertheless, the experiences of sister parties are often instructive.
———————————-
James Patterson is a councillor in the London borough of Haringey and a former New Zealand Labour party activist. He tweets @James_Pattersn
———————————-