Entry 2082, on 2020-10-19 at 12:52:32 (Rating 3, Politics)
The just completed election here in New Zealand appears to have delivered a strong mandate for change, according to many political commentators. Note that the previous major party in power has been returned - probably without both of its prior partners - which stretches the idea of "change" a bit, but that doesn't stop the rhetoric from being offered anyway.
Basically, the Labour Party has been given a majority greater than any other since New Zealand switched to a proportional representation system about 25 years ago, and the claim is that this gives that party a strong endorsement to implement its program of radical change.
But there are a few problems with this idea: first, the Labour Party has no program of radical change, in fact some would say it has no real program at all; second, the party's popularity seems to rest almost exclusively on the popularity of it's leader, and her supporters seem to offer that support almost solely on the reason that they like her as a person, rather than any policies she might be offering; and finally, Labour's success seems to be almost entirely related to its claimed victory over COVID, rather than anything more all-encompassing.
In fact, even the more "radical" suggestions of what the new government should do are incredibly timid and generally very naive. They seem to mainly relate to bigger payments for unemployed and other disadvantaged groups, minor tweaking of environmental laws to reduce climate change, and extra privileges for minorities. Generally these involve spending a lot of money - but the origin of this extra funding is rarely specified.
So the reality seems to be that the socialist agenda, encouraged by a massive swing to the left, is incredibly lame. In fact, I could make a lot of far more radical left-oriented policy suggestions myself. I must be fair here and say that previous National governments have been equally timid in their policies after gaining power, even after very substantial wins of a similar magnitude to the one against them this time.
The only real government of change in recent times was the 1984 Labour government which ironically went against its traditional principles and initiated a far-right neoliberal economic agenda. This lead to massive economic and social change here, and whether it was a good or a bad thing overall is still being debated.
There is a lot of discussion about whether the National (center-right) or Labour (center-left) party is best at managing the country. I have looked at various stats on this, including GDP, foreign debt, unemployment, and other common social and economic markers, and found very little difference between the two. In fact, looking at a graph of any of these stats it is almost impossible to tell when one government took over from another. The major changes are all related to international events such as financial crashes, political and military events, and health crises.
It is no secret that I am no fan of the current PM. I find her shallow and dishonest, and I doubt whether she really has the ability to do anything genuinely worthwhile, especially since I think her true incompetence will soon be uncovered by my fellow citizens, and she will be unceremoniously ejected from power. I do concede that I could be wrong about this, so if she turns out to be a great leader I will record that in a future post.
Note that I don't necessarily hold the other parties in a lot higher esteem than Labour. This election I voted for New Zealand's libertarian party, Act, because I knew that Labour would win and I considered David Seymour (the Act leader) as the only effective opposition over the last 3 years. What has gone wrong with National? Well whatever it is, they need to sort it out quickly, because I don't think one party being as dominant as Labour is now is very healthy for democracy.
There are some parties in New Zealand politics which have genuine agendas for change. The first, the Green Party, is primarily motivated by ideology and I don't believe they would be likely to help achieve anything positive overall, although I recognise the value of sensible protection for the environment. The other is TOP (The Opportunities Party) which is too small and new to gain power in our current system (see my earlier blog post "Is That Fair?" from 2020-10-03) but whose policies are mostly based on genuine rational ideas.
So any chance of real, positive change is vanishingly small. Our prime minister is a lightweight. She is a bit like the "Kim Kardashian" of politics: famous for being famous, but with little inherent merit. The master of the superficial, she is likely to do just that: introduce superficial change - probably motivated by political correctness and her love of the adulation of the international news media - which will likely make the country worse off than it is now rather than better.
This might sound like the bitter ravings of someone who doesn't like the outcome of the election, but I reject that. I'm not too uncomfortable with a Labour government - I have voted for leftist parties, including Labour, in the past - but what I actually don't like this time is the lack of balance.
I prefer it when political compromise is necessary and one party (or one person in the case of the vote being driven by admiration of a leader) needs the support of others to introduce major changes. With 4 or 5 (depending on the final count) parties with a wide range of political perspectives gaining some seats in our parliament this time, there should be room for temporary agreement on any issue if it has merit. That might seem contrary to my thoughts on "radical change" above, but I say if we are going to have big changes, we need a consensus on whether it is actually positive.
But as things are now, Jacinda can do just about anything. Unfortunately, she is unlikely to use that power wisely.
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2020-10-19 at 13:11:56:
Firstly, to correct your mistake, the Greens were returned to power - up from their result at the last election as well. It's true that there are not needed to form a government, but to suggest they weren't re-elected is misleading (at best).
Second, sorry, but I don't think you are qualified to state with any degree of certainly why 49% of the country voted for Labour. Likely it's a mix of reasons, not your biased view that it all boils down to Jacinda Ardern's popularity. It may well be that popularity played a significant part, but I don't see how you can make your assertions so confidently.
Wow - it's not like David Seymore hasn't tried to be popular: jumping from a plane, twerking his ass on national TV, etc. Fundamentally people don't like his politics no matter how much he tries to be liked. So clearly popularity and celebrity aren't enough to be voted for. Maybe you don't give voters enough credit? Come down from your elitist high tower and entertain the idea that people are perhaps a little smarter than you give them credit for,
Comment 2 by OJB on 2020-10-19 at 14:38:41:
By "party in power" I meant the party/parties making up the next government. I suggested that Labour would *probably* be without its previous partners in the new government. NZ First is gone, and early indications looks like Labour won't ask the Greens to join the government. What's the problem, exactly?
I have seen a great deal of consensus amongst political commentators that Labour's success is primarily related to the PM's popularity. I guess there is no definite way to know for sure, unless someone did a survey of some sort, but it's not an unreasonable assumption.
Well, Seymour is a bit quirky, and I think those attempts at "popularity" are somewhat less cynical and manipulative than you suggest, but again there's no way to know for sure, so I will agree that is possible. Regarding the public's dislike for Act's policies: being third most popular party isn't bad, is it?
I don't think people are smarter than what I give them credit for. In my informal discussions with people, Labour supporters vote that way because they think "Jacinda is lovely". Not exactly the most intellectual political analysis, is it?
Comment 3 by Anonymous on 2020-10-20 at 11:13:40:
Oh come now, Seymore's appearance on Dancing with the stars was a blatant attempt to raise his public profile. It certainly wasn't for his love of dancing. I think you may have lost your objectivity here.
By the way, just because voters may think that Ardern is "lovely" (your words) doesn't mean that there are multiple other reasons why they would vote for her. It may well sway their decision but is unlikely to be the only reason. Once again, maybe you should give voters (by voters, I mean all voters, bot just the ones you don't support) more credit.
"Not exactly the most intellectual political analysis, is it?" I agree, you need to up your game!
Comment 4 by OJB on 2020-10-20 at 15:35:24:
As I said, he is a bit quirky and I hesitate to guess what his motivation might have been. Why does anyone appear on a program like that? I guess a bit of "instant fame" probably factors in to the decision in every case. I think his popularity is more attributable to support for free speech, fair gun legislation, euthanasia, etc. It seems highly unlikely that his appearance on a lame TV program had much to do with it. It made him look a bit goofy, and could easily have reduced his popularity!
Well, I am reporting anecdotes here, so I realise that doesn't make this a strong case, but that is the only reason many people gave. Of course, some said they thought she had done a good job with COVID too, but none said anything positive about Labour policies.
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