I am going to start with a premise, one most of us here I think can agree upon. The premise is this: the centre-right will win next year’s election because Labour will lose it. I use the premise not just as something we can hopefully agree upon but to attempt to also introduce some reasoning into the discussion. We all know that governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them, but I think in terms of next year’s election that will be an oversimplification.
Despite the Labour-lite tag we give National, there are strategic differences between the two parties. These differences are the ones that will be uppermost on voters’ minds come the election. In addition to these, voters will also be cognisant of the general malaise the country will be in. John Roughan referred to this in his Weekend Herald piece. Grant Robertson can talk up the future in positive terms all he likes, but the truth is, in terms of the cost of living, the worst is yet to come.
Farming costs globally have increased by about one third and the full effect of these passed-on costs is yet to be felt. In America only about 11 per cent have so far been reflected in supermarket prices. This is purely domestic and nothing to do with the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Forty million Americans are already finding it tough to pay their bills and another forty million are finding it very tough. Herein lies the problem for Labour between now and the election: things are going to get worse, much worse.
This will obviously play into the hands of National and ACT. By the time the next election comes around Labour will have left a bigger mess than usual to clean up. There will be the issues around the economy, including wasteful spending, welfare, transport, health, education, tax, housing, agriculture, water, crime, immigration… in short the whole gamut of important policy areas. It is not so much about repealing; a very contentious word amongst commenters here, but a change of direction in these areas.
What will a centre-right coalition do? Nicola Willis has already indicated that ministers will be required to undertake a line-by-line examination on spending in their portfolios. This will eliminate millions if not billions of wasteful spending and is in sharp contrast to Labour’s policy of ‘spray and walk away’. Targets will be set and ministers will be required to meet them. Again, a sharp contrast to Labour’s policy of ‘no targets, no accountability’.
In welfare National have indicated a return to the policies Bill English was embarking on prior to the change of government. This is a process of identifying those families in the worst economic circumstances, drilling down to understand their problems and then introducing the means to try and improve their lot in life. Many of these families’ situations are intergenerational. This is a stark difference to simply leaving them on the welfare scrap heap and thereby ensuring their vote at the next election. Those on the job seeker support will be required to be actively looking for work.
In transport there will be no light rail to the airport: the thick end of $30 billion saved right there. No idiotic bike bridge that Labour still seems to want. Priority will be given to much needed roads around the country and a second harbour crossing.
Health will be restored to something resembling a sensible functioning operation. Gone will be the Maori Health Authority, consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs. Targets will be those National had previously for the numbers of operations performed, and these will expected to be met.
Education will see a return of charter schools that were serving students from lower socio-economic groups so well. These were children for which the state education system was not working. There will be an emphasis on getting New Zealand back up the OECD rankings in reading, writing and arithmetic. Again, I’m talking targets. Another emphasis will be on truancy and getting kids back to school. As Bruce Cotterill wrote in the Weekend Herald, we are in danger of ending up with a generation who are not proficient in the three Rs, and therefore not capable of contributing to the workforce.
On tax: it is National’s intention to introduce tax cuts and adjust the tax thresholds, thereby giving hard-working Kiwis the opportunity to keep more of their money.
In the area of housing: National will return to being more landlord friendly, thereby encouraging more investment in the housing market and increasing the supply of rental accommodation. Land will be freed up for new builds, with less red tape at local body level.
Agriculture too will benefit from cutting red tape, and less legislation requiring farmers to do what they already do. Farmers will be left largely to get on with doing what they know best: earning much needed export dollars for this country.
Three Waters will be repealed under a right-wing coalition. Both National and ACT have committed to this. Less money will flow in the direction of the Mahuta dynasty.
Crime is completely out of hand. Auckland has become the Wild West with shootings and ram raids pretty much a daily or nightly occurrence as well as elsewhere. Police need a minister who understands their needs and can rectify the current low morale. They need a minister who will give them the tools they need to be effective.
Immigration will have an emphasis on urgently attracting those needed and giving them an easier path to residency. That means more doctors, nurses, etc.
Most of what I have mentioned above, both National and ACT agree on. It is important ACT are elected, as National will need them as a partner and we need them to ensure policies are implemented. I have tried to illustrate the major differences between National and Labour, which are centred around responsibility and accountability. You will notice I haven’t mentioned the party leaders, Luxon or Seymour. I think the points traversed above will transcend the importance of the leaders.
Voters will be desperate for a change of government and a return to true democracy, rather than voting for Willie Jackson’s nonsensical “Democracy has changed” drivel. Willie will find out, to his chagrin and that of his elite constituency, it’s not democracy that has changed but the government. Rather than the handouts and power that he’s been used to, it will be the bum’s rush. It can’t come soon enough.