DON’T DO IT MATTHEW, it’s not worth it and it won’t work anyway.
Over the past week there’s been considerable speculation about the intentions of the proprietor of the public relations firm, Exeltium, Matthew Hooton. Inspired by a National Business Review column entitled “NZ Needs A New Bob Jones” (NBR 4/12/13) written by Hooton himself, people on the right have been openly discussing the pros and cons of setting up a new neoliberal party to replace the now clearly terminal Act.
But, setting up a new political party only makes sense when the party which has dominated your half of the political spectrum has utterly discredited itself and is bleeding both members and public support in a potentially fatal fashion.
It was precisely in such circumstances that Bob Jones’s New Zealand Party was formed 30 years ago. At the time Sir Robert Muldoon’s government had frozen wages, prices and interest rates, prompting even the Leader of the Labour Opposition, David Lange, to accuse the Prime Minister of attempting to run New Zealand “like a Polish shipyard”. Leading businessmen (members of what was then called the “New Right”) demanded a complete overhaul of New Zealand’s economic and social policy settings. Tens of thousands of National Party voters, repelled by the Prime Minister’s extreme interventionism, felt politically disenfranchised.
Launched amidst considerable hoopla in 1983, Bob Jones’s NZ Party appealed directly to these disaffected Rightists by explicitly favouring a “more market”, laissez-faire approach to economic management. Its electoral appeal was, however, considerably broadened by Jones’s radical proposal to abolish the armed forces, exit ANZUS and declare New Zealand a nuclear weapons free zone.
A very large number of New Zealanders were already campaigning for just such a radical shift in the country’s foreign affairs and defence policies and the clear and unequivocal character of Jones’s position gave the NZ Party considerable “crossover” appeal for people who normally voted for the Left.
In the Snap Election of July 1984 the NZ Party won the support of more than 12 percent of the electorate. Had MMP been in place at that time, Jones’s “protest” party would have secured 15 seats in the House of Representatives!
The performance of the NewLabour Party and the Greens six years later, in the election of 1990 (when their combined levels of popular support, at 12.01 percent, was only marginally less than that received by the NZ Party in 1984) was attributable to the development of a similar ideological vacuum – occasioned this time by the Labour Party’s dramatic lurch from the social-democratic Left to the neoliberal Right.
The crucial factor to be assessed by Mr Hooton and his supporters in 2013 is the extent of the ideological ground abandoned by the Key led National Government. If it is large – as was the case when Rob Muldoon abandoned free enterprise for massive state intervention, and Roger Douglas abandoned democratic socialism for neoliberalism – then there will be thousands of embittered and disoriented voters eager to punish Mr Key and exact electoral retribution from his party. More than enough to justify the construction of a new political organisation.
The two questions to be answered, therefore, are:
1) Is the National-led Government of John Key responsible for creating an ideological vacuum of similar proportions to those that presented themselves in 1984 and 1990?
2) Are National’s traditional supporters demonstrating comparable levels of disaffection?
Mr Hooton’s answer to the first question is clear: “The last time New Zealand had a government as left-wing and interventionist as this, Bob Jones took action. New Zealand needs a new Bob Jones.”
Mr Hooton insists that his new right-wing messiah be drawn from a generation younger than the present National Party incumbents; someone “in their late 30s or early 40s.”
Ideologically-speaking, Mr Hooton’s stipulations are equally clear:
“They must know that Hong Kong is the model for tax policy, Singapore for law and order, China for welfare and the Netherlands for personal freedoms. They must know that the current government’s tendency toward corporate welfare and cronyism is dangerous and wrong.”
Disconnected from its geographical exemplars, this formula places Mr Hooton’s putative party well to the right not only of John Key’s National Party, but also of the Act Party at its most extreme.
The government Mr Hooton favours would:
- · introduce a top tax rate of 10 percent;
- · introduce draconian penalties for lawbreakers (up to and including both corporal and capital punishment);
- · abolish state-provided social welfare benefits;
- · decriminalise some forms of illicit drug use.
“The new party would need to put the neo back into neo-liberal”, says Mr Hooton, confidently predicting that the ideas of Sir Roger Douglas, Ruth Richardson, Richard Prebble and Don Brash, will find new and exciting champions among the ranks of Generation X. These, he says, “must connect with the values of younger voters whose commitment to freedom and prosperity is every bit as strong as their predecessors”.
“Surely”, says Mr Hooton, “there is at least 5 percent of voters to the right of John Key.”
That plaintive “surely” speaks volumes. The plain, unvarnished fact of the matter is that Mr Hooton’s peculiar blending of Austrian economics, Randian philosophy and Ron Paul libertarianism has had more than one electoral champion over the past quarter-century and always that crucial “5 percent of voters” has eluded them.
The most concerted effort was undoubtedly that of the original Association Of Consumers and Taxpayers (ACT) founded by Sir Roger Douglas and Derek Quigley in 1993. Bankrolled to the tune of an alleged $1 million by the businessman, Craig Heatley, the founders toured the country in search of support. In spite of their best efforts and the distribution of state-of-the-art propaganda, ACT simply failed to fire in the opinion polls.
Only when that old master of right-wing populism, Richard Prebble, took the helm of ACT did the party rise above 1 or 2 percent support. And that, of course, was the problem. Enrolling the rural conservatism of Federated Farmers and the even less stable elements of the Sensible Sentencing Trust may have pushed Act over the 5 percent threshold, but only at the expense of Sir Roger’s original, neo-liberal, vision.
Mr Hooton’s depressing choice would appear to be either an unelectable “new model for classical liberalism in a modern globalised New Zealand”, or a readily electable party of Winston Peters/Colin Craig-style populists.
Knowing how much Mr Hooton appreciates and admires the political career of Mr Peters, it is extremely unlikely that he will ever opt to take the populist road. Which leaves him only a neo-classical way that is so straight and narrow that the chances of anything like 5 percent of the electorate ever finding it falls away swiftly to zero.
Though it will distress Mr Hooton to hear the “left-wing” Mr Key’s words repeated, there can be little doubt that the Prime Minister was correct when he observed that, at heart, most New Zealanders are socialists.
I’m sorry, Matthew, but, in the end, “the awful choice between Labour-Green and Labour-Lite”, is the only choice with which the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders feel even remotely comfortable.
Get used to it.
The observation that, “… at heart, most New Zealanders are socialists” is made at a point in time. It doesn’t take into account rapidly changing demographics in terms of ethnicity and age. Today’s thinking youth do not believe they will be carried by a cradle to grave welfare state. They are not stupid. Colin James’ recent ODT column discusses New Zealand’s rapidly growing Asian population and their adherence to the values of hard work, ambition and saving that have been seemingly lost to New Zealanders (his sentiment).
The observation may be true currently, but don’t rely on it remaining so.
Most New Zealanders themselves are not truly “left” or even “socialist” these days, and the migrants that have been encouraged by governments from both sides of the fence are largely even less so.
Both Labour led and National led governments of the past have strongly supported migration by entrepreneurial, self dependent, or otherwise skilled, qualified or at least “willing” migrants, who do all to stand on their own feet, do all to not have much to do with government, who are mostly individually minded, or strongly family minded, and thus look “after themselves”, rather than care for any “collective” or even “socialist” society.
That policy has favoured migrants from certain places and cultures, and it has, and will continue to do so, change the face of NZ. It is all about “success”, getting “ahead”, and stories like that, and those that do not keep up with the capitalist, consumerist lifestyle of today, they will be spat out, before they even start to get “comfy” here.
We heard stories about migrants that were initially accepted and then told to bugger off, because of “health cost risks” to NZ. We heard stories about migrants allowed in to work, but when the work dried up, they were not getting encouraged to stay here.
Also the younger generation NZers have little “social” conscience, they grew up totally brainwashed by “individualism”, “self realisation”, “self fulfilment”, by competing with others, by looking after themselves, rather than care for neighbours or others. Hence we have the society we have, that does walk past homeless and beggars in the major centres, like anywhere else in the world.
Most are primarily interested in getting “ahead”, whatever that means, they are totally falling for the commercial advertising and focus their lives around consumerism, around what is “expected” of them, as working, paying and buying individuals, they are not at all interested in some beneficiaries not coping on a benefit, and not so in beggars that “annoy” them while they want to shop.
This is NZ 2013, it is a different world, and it does not care as much as NZ once did. Some give only to charity, to make themselves feel better, like dropping a few coins into the box at church.
I would agree, the NZ society and voter-scape at present is anything but an easy, fertile harvesting ground for “the left” to get votes in. It pays to consider this, and to develop smart, but also inclusive policies, that give consideration to this.
NZ of old is DEAD, it NO longer exists, this is a different country, and those in the provinces who do not get it, come to Auckland and spend a week or two here, all over the city, thanks!
At this time of year I feel vaguely uncomfortable by saying ‘ Jeeeeeeeeesus Christ ! ‘
Hooten is such a cunt . I heard Kathryn Ryan all but blowing the thin lipped little shit in National ( Front ) Radio the other day . Before I grabbed my transistor and wrenched it to the Off position . ( I love you Kim Hill ‘ sigh ‘ )
Where do people like Hooten come from ? What dark vault of Satans womb was he sparked up in ? I think even Satan would admit to the odd mistake . Hooten being one of them .
“The government Mr Hooton favours would:
· introduce a top tax rate of 10 percent;
· introduce draconian penalties for lawbreakers (up to and including both corporal and capital punishment);
· abolish state-provided social welfare benefits;
· decriminalise some forms of illicit drug use.”
While this may seem “simplistic” in some ways, and while you may dislike it and ridicule it (justifiably), dear Chris, I feel, you are on risky territory to really believe that New Zealanders are actually tending to be more towards the “socialist” mindset and political preference.
As a “left leaning” person myself, I warn you, that this is a highly unreliable, if not foolish presumption.
My own observations are very different, most New Zealanders are these days pure opportunists for their own sakes. They have as younger generations only a rudimentary appreciation of anything “collective” or even “socialist”, and Hooton is quite right, that so-called “generation X” members, and surely the generation younger than that, would actually like something he suggests.
We are talking about a population that has been inundated, conditioned and brain-washed, some from birth, into believing in private enterprise, free choice, individualism, consumerism and self fulfilment, before anything else. It is a generational issue, same as commercial and political one, as the “right” and “neo liberal” right have actually brought about mind changes, that appear almost irreversible.
You will only get a supposed “left swing”, if enough voters will feel, they will have some advantage from voting Labour and Greens, for their own personal circumstances and gains. That maybe extended parental leave, social benefits for families, better education standards, favourable tax and other changes, that make it more affordable to save and buy an own home, and that give them better employment and earning prospects.
You will NOT get more support for fairer welfare, for social support for the bottom quarter or fifth of the population, for lifting the minimum wage, for anti petroleum and coal exploration, for a higher tax rate for those earning 60 or 75 k a year, as some will feel, it will only “cost” them more.
I feel we have gone beyond of what is good social conscience and bonding, as it does not really exist anymore. That is also why Labour under Cunliffe will betray some of the suggestions or even hinted promises made, simply to get the votes in “the middle”, to get into government, and all will look a bit more different than some of us wish.
No, Hooton is a danger, and if he and his funders go and start off a new liberal right party, we can look forward to a very colourful campaign in 2014, where one Colin Craig may even be irrelevant, as a party of the type Hooton suggests, may indeed get the 5 per cent or more, quite easily.
There is too much division, selfishness, dislike for the “losers” in society, and for regulation, controls, sharing burdens and so, the ones that do well now, they will flock to Hooton or whosoever starts a new party, some votes may come from National, but some may even come from certain ones that may have considered a change, even if it would be Labour under Cunliffe.
New Zealand has changed irreversibly, and it is NOT the “social”, egalitarian, fair and sharing society anymore that it once was, I learn this every day, and it hurts, but it is the damned reality. The challenge is formidable, for the left, and it better be seen as such!
I suspect Marc’s evaluation of the New Zealand collective psyche is more on the nose than Chris’s remark that “at heart, most New Zealanders are socialists”.
At best, that observation can be a wee bit more accurate thusly, at heart, most New Zealanders are socialists when it suits them personally.
The days of popular, mass-movements such as the anti-tour uprising are long gone.
However, be that as it may, I also believe most New Zealanders (99%?) have little stomach for hard right neo-liberalism. Whilst they might be able to stomach a gradualist approach (ie; partial asset sales), sudden lurches to the right generally result in public disquiet and a subsequent drop in poll ratings.
Chris is on the nail in one respect, Hooten is on a hiding to nowhere on his Quixotic quest to construct a new libertarian/neo-lib/right wind party.
If he wants to waste his time pursuing this agenda, good luck to him. At the very least, it’ll keep ex-ACT apparatchiks from colonising National and perhaps pulling that Party even further to the right.
While I think your analysis is basically sound, NZ doesn’t need to sway further to the right. Even voting their checkbooks,the median New Zealander cannot support asset sales, GST increases, paperboy taxes or the LVR.
Let the Greens and Labour come up with a livable alternative, and above all a plan, and we will see the Gnats scurrying to the left to preserve their incredible parliamentary sinecures, no matter what the farmers may think. And about time too.
It does rather depend on what you mean by “socialism”.
If you adopt the traditional definition that means the state ownership of the means of production, then there may be a majority of NZ who think this is a good idea, (to some degree anyway)
I guess the asset sale referendum might shed some light on this
If you are taking the broader view that implies some degree of redistribution of wealth, then certainly if the majority of NZers are going to be recipients rather than donors, then human nature will suggest that the majority will be in favour.
We already have a situation (via WFF and our tax laws) that 37% of the tax is paid for by 6% or the top earners (number of the top of my head), so don’t we already have a fairly large redistribution of wealth?
And the number of people turning up to vote drops inexorably.
Are Kiwis politically inclined?
How many tune in to Parliament? Or discuss politics?
Oldies vote. Some younger folk vote for varying reasons. Most have more international interests – and not about politics.
Mr Hooten is fascinated by politics and pelf. Perhaps his error is in assuming that many others share his interests enough to be players more than spectators.
I wish this were more widely published: it is very impressive and shows the man in his true light
Comments are closed.