Here's extracts from what six columnists — David Hall, Martyn Bradbury, Danyl Mclauchlan, Chris Trotter, Jennifer Lees-Marshment and Max Rashbrooke — think:
1. Values and doubts about real change
David Hall in Conversation asks what the Labour Party stands for these days
Entering a second term, her policy agenda is more recognisable by what she won’t do than what she will — no capital gains tax, no wealth tax, indeed no new taxes at all beyond a tweak for the highest earners.
This leaves us with the longstanding conundrum of what the Labour Party is and what it really stands for these days. Ardern and her colleagues are not ideologues, but no politics is without ideology — a system of ideas, values and beliefs that orients its efforts.
Martyn Bradbury in The Daily Blog says anything less than real change is a betrayal of political loyalty.
The structural reforms that need to be embarked upon within the neoliberal State will face immediate and toxic resistance, the next Government must over run that resistance by dramatically expanding the size of the State and drowning out toxic public service workers with a huge influx of a new culture.
Much of the neoliberal free market hegemonic structure is a threat to us now, not just a false promise. This first wave of pandemic is a startling insight to the climate crisis future of instability we face, Labour are about to be rewarded with a mandate that they have no choice but to build from.
The Greens and Labour need to have a summit after the election with the Māori Party and thrash out a 100 day plan that will see a raft of reforms and upgrades that are passed immediately to begin building that new future.
This is a once in a generation event, we must have a once in a generation response.
Anything less is a vile betrayal of that political loyalty.
Danyl Mclauchlan in The SpinOff says Labour will change as little as possible. click here.
During one of their leadership debates Jacinda Ardern asked the National leader, “What’s your plan Judith?” And last night when she gave her victory speech Ardern assured all New Zealanders that she has a plan, a plan that is already working. Labour will build lots of roads; roads that the National government planned to build anyway. It will invest in skills training. It will leave the tax system almost untouched. It seems like a plan that is inadequate to the scale of the problems that the nation faces.
Political strategists call Ardern’s approach to this campaign a “small target strategy”.
Her plan was to say as little as possible; promise as little as possible; minimise risk; capture the centre.
Small target campaigning has delivered her a huge victory, but it will make her a huge target. The Covid crisis and structure of our economy is already accelerating inequality; we’re seeing job layoffs, a runaway property market, soaring rental prices. But in this time of catastrophic change Ardern has promised to change as little as possible.
Max Rashbrooke, Stout Fellow, Victoria University of Wellington, says don't expect big changes. Ruling out tax increases means they will not have the wherewithal to effect transformative change.
As Labour commands an absolute majority for the first time in the MMP era, the party could in theory go all out to bring the facts back in line with the belief, slashing poverty rates and restoring a sense of fairness to the nation.
But in practice they cannot, because they have already tied their own hands.
Labour will undoubtedly take some steps to reduce poverty and inequality ...(but none of this) will make a major dent in the poverty rates that see around one in five New Zealanders lacking the income they need for a life of minimal dignity and participation in society.
Either a wealth tax or a capital gains tax could have raised billions of dollars from the wealthiest New Zealanders in order to support a better life for the less fortunate. But Ardern has ruled both of them out, not just now but for her political lifetime.
Ardern now has to work out how on earth she will reduce inequality, all the while holding back the tidal wave of poverty represented by the newly jobless, without the extra revenue she needs for the task.
The prime minister may have unparalleled popularity, but that huge majority may not be much use to her. See also the 7 challenges he thinks Labour face.
2. Caution needed
Chris Trotter in Interest, however, warns against too rapid change.
Standing before her delirious supporters in a throbbing Auckland Town Hall, Jacinda Ardern called it a “mandate to accelerate”. But accelerate to where? And to do what?
It may have felt like the revolution had arrived last night, but if Ardern is a revolutionary, then she’s an unusually cautious one.
What it wants, it can now get. And what Labour’s leader wants is “change that sticks.”
That is necessarily a commitment to consensus-building – not to crashing on through.
Ardern has seen enough progressive legislation rolled back by her National and Act opponents to know that if she simply takes her 64 votes and runs amok with them, such achievements as she is able to rack up will not long survive a change of government. She also knows that if she were to give what is now a very progressive Labour caucus its head, then that change of government will come sooner rather than later. So caution and incrementalism will remain the hallmarks of Ardern’s prime-ministership – just as they were of Helen Clark’s.
It is important to remember that Ardern served her political apprenticeship under Labour leaders who had lived through the Rogernomics Revolution of 1984-1990.
She has, accordingly, learned the two great lessons of that period. The first is that unleashing radical change and implementing it at breakneck speed is a sure-fire method of tearing your party and your country apart. The second, that unpicking a settled political and economic consensus takes a huge amount of effort and a surprisingly large amount of time.
Associate Professor Jennifer Lees-Marshment uses Vote Compass 2020 results to argue how divided people are on most issues, and how difficult it will be for Labour to accommodate them all.
Labour failed to articulate a clear vision or top policy priorities in the campaign, and despite the amazing election result, does not have a clear mandate because they did not articulate one. Voters have bought an undefined product.
Moreover, data across a range of policy issues suggests that the government needs to find a way to support people through welfare, but stimulate business at the same time, and in a way that doesn’t damage the environment. Policy action in those three areas – social welfare, economy and business and environment – often conflicts, so this won’t be easy.
In political management terms, this means time must be spent deliberating to create a vision for the recovery, designing a plan, and investing political capital from this Labour landslide in discharging plans once decisions are made.
In political marketing terms, it means careful use of market research to guide persuasive communication of potentially difficult decisions and policies to ensure tangible outcomes can actually be delivered.
And all this must be done while managing the tension between two diverse markets: a victorious Labour movement wanting more transformational, progressive action and those who cautiously lent Labour their vote for the first time.
Whether the Prime Minister and the new government has and can use these tools is what will determine their effectiveness.
----
See also the previous post, NZ Election Result: Is it really a Transformational "Red Tide"?
-- ACW
No comments:
Post a Comment