Entry 2243, on 2022-10-11 at 21:59:53 (Rating 3, Politics)
New Zealand has just completed its local body elections, where mayors, city councillors, and various other minor local bureaucrats are elected. It seems that most people don't care too much about this, despite the amount of complaining which goes on about these office holders, because less than half of the eligible voters actually voted.
Some people like to try to discern bigger patterns in the outcome of these elections, and they might try to apply these to the national elections which are about a year away, assuming they are not called earlier.
So, assuming their is some credibility in this practice, what did they find?
The headline finding coming from most commentators is that there has been a significant swing to the center-right, away from the dominantly left people in power previously.
It is dangerous to use labels like left, right, progressive, liberal, and conservative today because they mean different things to different people and where a category begins and ends is quite subjective. For example, the word liberal means almost opposite things to different groups, and how extreme does someone's views have to be before they are designated as "far-right".
However, I think as a broad category left and right have some merit, and there does seem to be a swing to the right, except for our capital city Wellington, where the new mayor is more to the left than the previous one. It's interesting that Wellington went against the majority of change around the country. Maybe this is illustrative of how out of touch our seat of government really is, or maybe it's just a statistical anomaly.
But, looking at he bigger picture, can we draw any conclusions from this change in preference voters have shown? Well, I don't think we should read too much into it in itself, because local and national elections are quite different, and the low turnout for local elections might distort the outcome too, but in combination with polls of party preferences, which show the center-right being likely to form the next government, the trend does seem to be clear, despite the prime minister's denial.
I have been critical of the left in recent posts, so am I celebrating? Well, to some extent I am, because I think we have gone too far into extreme leftist social policy recently, but I really just see this as part of a bigger pattern which means it doesn't represent anything as significant as many might think.
Because every country with a functioning democracy, including New Zealand, does tend to oscillate between two major political blocs, one usually more to the left and the other to the right. Note that these terms are relative and the left here in New Zealand is far more to the left than the theoretical left in the US (the Democrats).
I see each side of politics needing the other. The left introduce new policies, some of which are effective and others not so much, then the right comes in and cleans up the mess while keeping the changes which have worked adequately.
Also, both sides are not particularly inspiring in most cases, and people quickly become cynical about their current government's ability, and feel like a change might help. Once the change happens though, the cycle repeats and the voters switch back again.
Many people, me included, would say the current New Zealand government is too extreme in its social agenda. We dislike the big government centralisation, the anti-democratic moves to give indigenous groups extra privileges, and the attempts at stifling free speech. So the left have become too self-indulgent and their complacency will most likely lead to their downfall at the next election.
Then the right will come in and do the same thing: they'll start off with sensible changes which negate some of the worst elements of leftist policies, but will gradually become more out of touch and go too far, then they in turn will be replaced with a new left-oriented government.
That's why no government here has lasted more than 3 terms: they just get too out of touch, and tossing them out and giving the "other team" a chance is the only solution.
It sounds like a very arbitrary and inefficient process, but it works OK in most cases, and it's hard to see what a better option might be.
You might think that any party which takes power, and avoids any changes which are too extreme, might be able to govern indefinitely, but even that doesn't work because then they might be seen as indecisive!
So the success or otherwise of a political leader or even a whole party is as much related to luck, and the current position they are in the cycle, as it is to the skills of the politicians, or any attractive policies on offer.
I think it is very clear that we have swung too far to the left, especially under the influence of our very woke prime minister. What are my issues with her? Well, too much centralisation of services (health, polytechnics, water infrastructure), too many bureaucrats peripheral to government (they are spending record amounts on vast numbers of advisers, bureaucrats and so-called analysts), too many unfair policies based on political correctness (hand-outs to Maori, special privileges and powers given to Maori), and too much government control (attempts at suppressing free speech which they conveniently categorise as "hate speech" but never define adequately).
The center-right (National and Act) have committed to eliminating or reducing some of these, and many people are opposed to that, but it is just what they should expect. As I said above, the job of the right is to reverse the more stupid policies put in place as laws by the left, so this is just an example of the system working normally.
And in fact we should welcome it as well. But to be fair, those on the right who actually might agree with the reversal of many of the left's actions should also be prepared for the cycle after the right take power in the next election (assuming the polls are correct), because it will inevitably swing back again.
Finally, I will say that while both the left and right have their place, we should not accept them going to extremes. What this current government is doing is beyond what I think we would normally accept as being reasonable. But it doesn't matter, because the more unreasonable stuff will be thrown out anyway. What's the point in implementing extreme actions when they will just be reversed?
Changes in political preference tend to be part of the cycle I have described here, but also sometimes relate to a global zeitgeist. The two effects interact of course, and feed off each other.
But whatever else happens in the world of politics, those swings to the left and right will continue, and I can make a case to say that's a good thing.
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2022-10-13 at 09:35:48:
I see a problem with your theory. Who decides what is a good (which can stay) and bad (which need to be reversed) policy? And what stops one party from reversing the reversal, where does it end?
Comment 2 by OJB on 2022-10-13 at 09:42:24:
You might think it would end with a battle between left and right reversing each other's policies, but it doesn't tend to work that way. There is usually some acceptance, from both the parties themselves and the voters, that certain new laws and policies work and should be kept. Anything where there agreement doesn't exist probably should be treated with suspicion, and possible reversal, anyway.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE