The Greater Of Two Evils.
THE GREATEST VIRTUE of being the Opposition is not being the Government. Only very rarely is an opposition party elected on the strength of its manifesto. In the usual course of events, most voters don’t pay all that much attention to what the opposition parties are offering. Providing they present policies which convey at least the appearance of coherence, the electorate generally refrains from asking too many questions. After all, what they’re seeking is the defeat and humiliation of the party/parties which have so recklessly squandered their trust – and their faith. If you’re out to punish the government you once loved, then the last thing you need is to be shown evidence that the opposition parties are much, much worse.
One of the odd aspects of the 2023 General Election campaign is how little real effort the governing Labour Party has put into convincing voters that the National and Act parties are actually planning to hurt them. Labour knows this because it is also planning to hurt the voters. Not as much, admittedly, as the Right, but pretty badly nonetheless.
The Finance Minister, Grant Robertson, prompted by his Treasury advisers, has already announced a multi-billion-dollar reduction in state spending over the next three years. In this he has little choice – not after his leader unilaterally ruled-out any new or significantly increased taxes. Robertson is, thus, acutely aware that even minimal reductions in taxes must be answered by savage cuts in spending. He knows that National’s promised tax-cuts can only be paid for by imposing an austerity programme even more ruthless than his own.
That being the case, Labour’s supporters are entirely justified in expecting both Robertson, and the Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, to go for National’s jugular – and rip it right out.
In the first Leaders’ Debate, for example, as Luxon was trotting out his usual platitudes and slogans extolling – but not verifying with even the most rudimentary computations – National’s tax-cuts, why didn’t Hipkins just interrupt him, in a voice of cold command:
“Stop lying to the New Zealand people, Mr Luxon! If there was even a shred of truth attached to these nonsensical figures, you wouldn’t hesitate to prove it by releasing the evidential basis for your claims. Your refusal to do so proves that you are lying about the affordability of your tax-cuts. New Zealanders deserve better than a liar for their prime minister, Mr Luxon!”
Luxon would have expostulated that he was not lying, and demanded a retraction and an apology. At which point, Hipkins could have responded by saying:
“You say you are not lying, Mr Luxon, and you demand an apology. Well, you shall have it, Mr Luxon, and gladly, if, by the time of the next Leaders’ Debate, you have released your party’s computations for the nation’s economists to peruse, and if, having perused them, the consensus view of the experts is that your tax policy is both sound and affordable. Let us have the numbers, Mr Luxon. Let us have the proof. And if your claims are vindicated, then, most certainly, I will withdraw and apologise. And yet, something tells me that you won’t be presenting us with the truth, and I will not be apologising.”
Can you imagine how utterly confounded poor Jessica Much McKay would have been by such an answer? How effortlessly, it would have handed the advantage to Hipkins? How humiliated Luxon would have felt – and how impossible it would have been for him to hide his humiliation? It would have been Hipkins’ “Show me the money!” moment, and with it he would have won the debate – and, quite possibly, the election.
Except, of course, that is not what we saw, was it? What we saw was two politicians who seemed to agree, more than they disagreed, with each other, and who called each other by their first names, like good mates. What we saw was living proof of the old saying: “Why bother voting? Politicians always win.”
Effective rebuttal of the Opposition isn’t limited to the set-piece debates. Every day of the campaign, the Opposition is releasing material with which Hipkins and Robertson could have a field day.
The release of the latest GDP figures, for example, offered Labour the opportunity to spring a trap for the National Party’s finance spokeswoman, Nicola Willis.
The better-than-expected numbers were rightfully trumpeted by Robertson as evidence of the soundness of the Labour Government’s economic management. Predictably, Willis responded with a scathing media release:
“Labour has mismanaged and vandalised the economy on a scale unlike anything we have seen in recent history.” Thundered Willis. “Government spending is up 80 per cent – $1 billion a day more than 2017. The current account deficit is the largest in the OECD. The economy has been anything but well-managed by Labour.”
Knowing he would later be facing the cameras, Robertson could have prepared a reply for the woman who would be Finance Minister:
“Nicola Willis clearly regards the Labour Government’s management of the Covid-19 Pandemic as an economic disaster. That can only mean that she would not have taken the measures adopted by our own, and practically every other government in the Western World, to keep New Zealanders safe; to keep their jobs and businesses safe; to keep their children safe.
“If Nicola Willis had been in charge, New Zealand would not now be experiencing an inflationary surge, because she would not have authorised the Reserve Bank to create the credit needed to keep our economy from crashing in the face of the worst global pandemic for a hundred years. So, no cost-of-living crisis.
“We would, however, now be in the grip of a much greater crisis: a devastating recession, with unemployment levels not seen since the 1930s. And that wouldn’t be all. No, that wouldn’t even be half. In addition to economic devastation, New Zealanders would be facing the moral and emotional devastation of 10,000 to 15,000 Covid fatalities – a death toll greater than New Zealand’s losses in the Second World War.
“Still, New Zealand would not now be facing a record current account deficit – just a deficit of human potential, talent and wisdom. Just the aching absence of beloved family members at ten thousand Kiwi Christmas tables.
“Am I being too harsh? Are you telling me that Nicola and National would, in all probability, have done exactly what we did? Then, perhaps, you should ask her what she means, precisely, when she accuses us of mismanaging and vandalising the New Zealand economy. Is she accusing us of saving more lives than was reasonable? Is she saying that National would have allowed more people to die – for the sake of the economy?
“Perhaps you should ask Ms Willis how she can leave something as huge as the Covid-19 Pandemic out of her economic narrative? Because, frankly, the people of New Zealand have a right to know how many people saved were too many people saved?
Sadly, Labour doesn’t talk like that anymore. Somewhere, back along the track, the party lost its sense of responsibility for the people who were bound to suffer if its MPs and candidates lost interest in the contest and gave up. Somehow, they forgot that winning and holding political power is not a game of bloody beach cricket! For true democratic socialists, it is never time to give the other team a turn. Not if the other team is itching to employ body-line bowling against the weak and vulnerable in their own.
Labour’s job is to win – and keep on winning. And if, every once in a while, it loses, then its right-wing opponents should damn well know they’ve been in a fight.
The main reason why there was a sliver of GDP growth is Labours 100000 net additional immigration of “essential workers” in fruit picking, coffee making etc., not doctors and nurses. GDP per capita reduced.
Further, the PREFU forecasts relied on Robertson changes to grab the NZ Super fund as well as the billions of Govt services cuts.
NZ Labour at Caucus level was purged of any street fighters decades ago if you look into the “The Backbone Club” and 80s Labour Conferences which Chris Trotter has written about many times.
“The evil of two lessers” persists with Chippie’s timid, defeatist “Cap’n’s Calls”. However, Labour is still preferable over Nashnull–isn’t it? I would say so with the NActFirst hit list regarding minimum wage, PPL, FPAs, union rights, public service slashing and pending major confrontation with Māoridom.
It is the responsibility of people to up their game, participate in political affairs, get organised in your communities. Otherwise alienated, lazy kiwis will in one sense deserve what they get–a good old shafting from Capital and Finance Capital.
You kind of miss the point that for Labour to come across as holier than thou, they have to be holier than thou and they’re not.
Labour have this awful opaque record under this government of lying, burying the truth, making promises that equates to literally making shit up off the tops of their heads and treating the vast majority of the population as idiots by operating hidden agendas. Lets not mention the dodgy MP’s, another now surfacing in the media yesterday.
Hipkins cannot explain how taking GST off fruit and vegetables will advantage anyone but the retailers and suppliers, in defiance of briefings he and Robertson had and that Robertson did not believe the GST policy was any good in the first place. Lets not mention Kiwibuild nor light rail to Mt Roskill by 2021, etc, etc!
In other words Labours woeful record on so many subjects would be weaponised by Luxon immediately. And Hipkins knows it! He simply cannot go there!
I must admit on the night this is the assessment I made. Labour is walking on broken glass and can not misstep, in many ways, its not an unreasonable policy to sit back and allow Luxo and Co to make as many blunders as possible. Look at Seymour last night – Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
We all know Nationals tax plan doesn’t bear scrutiny but we know they cut tax anyway and they get it from cutbacks elsewhere. And in times of financial distress few will care how the tax cuts are funded. It’s not like we are going to lose a first world health system now is it? But the technical eye glazing accountancy detail debate does not take in any way absolve Labour of their many sins, nor help them!
The thing about financial forecasts is that they’re only estimates based on extrapolating what we know now. But as Neils Bohr once said: “Making predictions is difficult, especially about the future.”
What lies ahead? Another earthquake? (the alpine fault is due) A volcano? or some external factor like a war or a second GFC. Nobody knows!
So, both parties are essentially only guessing, and it is disingenuous by media to expect an opposition party, without full knowledge of what’s going on inside government, to product a picture-perfect analysis of the next three years budget. Essentially it was a hit piece against National on behalf of Labour.
On the other hand, it was foolish of Luxon to ‘promise’ specific tax cuts at a specific time without having full knowledge of the state of the play at the time. Instead, he should have said he would provide tax relief as soon as there was the opportunity to do it. I’m sure he knows this, so my guess is that it was his media people pushed him into it.
However, balancing the governments books is not really energizing the voters much either way. In terms of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory it’s just a ‘hygiene factor’ rather than a motivational one. Things that definitely DO press the buttons of the electorate include the racialization of government services, violent crime and the performance of both the educational and health sectors. If National’s spin merchants were competent, they would be focusing on these hot button issues, like ACT is. Maybe Luxon is too soft/too Christian to get into the mud and wrestle over substantive issues like these.
Yes I think Luxon was foolish to be so unequivocal on interest tax relief for 2nd + home owners. I think the band raising had to be done and I cant understand why Labour has not put this right to date but the other bit should have been handled more like. “We will allow 50% of tax on interest to be claimed back with an aim to increasing that amount over the longer term once we have … (paid down some debt or similar). Similarly lowering the bright line test, Luxon could have halved it rather than rushing straight to 2 years.
Definitely a misstep.
If I was Hipkins and that dumb question asked by Munch Mc Kai asked about trusting Luxon, I would have said ‘no I don’t trust Luxon to be our next PM nor do I trust his party to deliver for all New Zealanders which is why I am working so damned hard to be our next PM.
“Labour has mismanaged and vandalised the economy on a scale unlike anything we have seen in recent history.” Thundered Willis. “Government spending is up 80 per cent – $1 billion a day more than 2017. The current account deficit is the largest in the OECD. The economy has been anything but well-managed by Labour.”
I can’t believe any responsible prospective finance minister could come up with such nonsense.
1 billion per day increase in government spending since 2017.
It reminds me of Bull Inglish who often confused millions and billions. And then of course there was Joyce with his mythical hole and Goldstein with his fabricated spreadsheets.
Where do they drag these people up from, and why aren’t Labour hammering home the point Nicola has no idea what government spending is.
Nicola Willis is Liz Truss mark 2
Goldstein? Is that meant to be Paul Goldsmith, that’s offensive full stop, we’re better than that.
Who would have thought, Andrew manages to crack wise with physicist Bohr’s classic quote–“Making predictions is difficult, especially about the future.”
Too many New Zealand citizens and residents are intellectually lazy and as a result are about to get a good old shafting from Capital and Finance Capital.
Why does it look like Willis wants to have Luxon’s babies?
Funny I got a similar impression from the titles photo . Was that deliberately chosen you think?
Well this article expresses my sentiments exactly!
I would love to have heard those words said just like that. That shows real passion and fight!!!
Labour has sooo much ammunition to fire at National it’s hard to know where to begin…
National are a weak, vulnerable, vacuous party with poor candidates and zero workable ideas.
The massive money backing them, combined a compliant scheming, editing, media, (with the odd exception), is the only thing keeping them in the game. Even with all that backing, they are still only on 37% …maybe…but more likely 34% .Polling companies are not mentioning their margin of errors any more or the loaded questions asked …
Considering the amount of money behind them, they are doing poorly….very poorly….hopeless in fact…
You could tie them in knots in a heartbeat. Luxon and Willis are easy meat..
Luxon’s just a corporate buzz- worder charlatan who revels in all the fake admiration bestowed upon him by his expensively dressed rent- a- crowd. It’s so false it’s like watching a poorly written and acted American soap opera.
Willis was destroyed at the financial debate. She has no depth to her thinking whatsoever. Can’t explain a single thing with any sort of integrity.
They talk like Covid 19, Delta and Omicron never happened! Let’s just ignore those two and a half years that tipped the entire world on its’ head…..in their pea- brained minds it didn’t happen. How convenient!!
I would love to have seen a parallel example of National having to deal with all of that . It would have been a disaster. There’s no doubt about that!
When Chippy revved the engine of his big brain a couple of times in the 1st debate Luxon recoiled and looked like a lost schoolboy. His fragile confidence was rocked …the ego exposed. All those lines he’d spent hours learning were of no use.
It’s easy to expose a fake.
Next time the engine needs to be permanently revving from the get- go … the foot must go on the throat and stay there. Easing up is not an option … This is do or die time…
Their are many many people who desperately need/ want Labour to win!