Life in opposition.

In the first column we looked at the similarities between the situations that John Key and Barack Obama find themselves in. This week we look at the people who came out on the wrong end of last year’s elections: The Labour Party in New Zealand and the Republicans in America.

Both parties found themselves thrown out of office and into opposition after long periods in power. The Republicans, already hurting from major losses in the 2006 midterm elections, lost control of the white house and for the first time since 1994 hold neither the Senate, The House or the White House. Here in New Zealand, Labour lost 7 seats in Parliament and found itself out of power for the first time since 1999.

Now out in the political wilderness, both parties have found themselves struggling. The Republicans have failed to find someone with the National Profile to serve as the popular face of the party, as Newt Gringrich did for the party during their years spent in opposition to the Clinton Administration. In the very profile focused world of American politics, the lack of strong national leadership is hurting the party, which has seen the approval ratings of its congressional leaders drop in the last few months.

Even worse for the Republicans have been the disastrous national debuts of several “rising stars” within the party. New Republican National Chairman Michael Steele, who initially won positive coverage for being the GOP’s first ever African-American chairman, received widespread derision for his comments that what Republicans needed to turn things around was “a hip-hop makeover.” The idea that the Republicans were thrown out of office simply because they weren’t listening to the right kind of music was insulting to millions of voters who had rejected the Republicans policies, and further reinforced perceptions that Republicans were horribly out of touch with the electorate.

However, Steele himself doesn’t really need to be hugely popular, what makes a good party chairmen is their organisational skill and foresight for electoral strategy rather than their skills as a candidate. For example Democratic Chairman Howard Dean is credited with being a major part of the parties 2006 and 2008 election wins despite relatively low personal approval ratings. However the last few weeks also saw the national debut of Bobby Jindal, the 37 year old Governor of Louisiana who has been hyped as “The Republican Obama” and “The Next Ronald Reagan.” At the start of February Jindal was the odds on favourite to win the 2012 Republican Nomination for President, as he combined a strong populist moderate appeal with social and fiscal conservatism sure to energise the Republican base.

Jindal’s big debut was the Republican Response to President Obama’s February 24th Address to Congress, a major speech equivalent to the State of the Union Address. Jindal’s response was aired on prime time TV, and was hyped as a chance for the young star to provide a strong counter argument to Obama’s big spending Budget, which would bring America’s budget deficit to a staggering 1.3 trillion.

Far from the eloquent counter that conservatives were hoping for, Jindal’s speech was hokey, poorly written, offered stale ideas and the Governors delivery sounded like a kindergarten teacher trying to convince his students that it was naptime. Jindal’s speech was widely panned by both liberal and conservative viewers, and it seems for now at least the GOP will have to look elsewhere for its fresh new leader.

Leadership worries have also plagued the opposition here in New Zealand. With National currently sitting at around 48% in most polls, Labour needs a strong leader to counter John Key’s high personal approval ratings (currently amongst the highest ever recorded for a New Zealand Prime Minister.) However in a recent poll Labour Leader Phil Goff was chosen as preferred Prime Minister by just 6% of respondents, compared to a staggering 51% for John Key. While Goff was seen as a stable leader for Labour following the departure of Helen Clark, it seems he simply doesn’t have a high enough profile to compete with John Key.

As well as leadership problems Labour has a real need for some fresh ideas, as a recent Roy Morgan poll showed that 60% of people think the country is currently going in the right direction, showing huge satisfaction amongst the electorate with the agenda set by National. Labour, just like the Republicans in America, are under pressure from grass roots supporters to make changes to their policy platform and usher in some new ideas. Despite Goff’s competence as a minister, and high morale amongst Labour activists, Goff will feel some pressure to up his approval ratings a lot to ward off potential leadership challenges, especially from the slightly more liberal David Cunliffe.

Being in opposition is never easy, especially when a party has been in power for a long time. However in 2008 both the Republicans and Labour were clearly tired, out of touch with voters and found themselves on the wrong side of a couple of important issues. The challenge for both parties now is to elevate new blood, find fresh ideas and lay the ground work for electoral comebacks.

I’d hate to be Phil Goff right now…

For Labour, things have not got off to a strong start since the election. Helen Clark’s decision to resign on election night, while perhaps the right move for her personally, meant that Phil Goff taking over the party leadership happened when the attention of the nation was focuses on John Key and his new Government. As such Goff missed out on the sort of positive media coverage that new leaders often get, a fact that may be partly responsible for his staggeringly low ratings in recent preferred prime minister polls.

Since then things have been made even harder by how well…..good Key’s Government has been. Key’s first 100 days in office were marked by popular moves such as tightening bail laws, choosing to fund Herceptin (an expensive breast cancer drug) bringing forward infrastructure spending to stimulate the economy, and the much publicised job summit. Despite Labour’s attacks on Key for not doing enough to combat the recession, the Government seems to have the confidence of most New Zealanders, and no piece of legislation has proved deeply controversial in the way that things like the Electoral Finance Act or the repeal of Section 59 did under Labour.

Of course to expect a major stuff up within the first few months of a new Government might have been a stretch, but the tight ship Key seems to be running has sent a clear message that if Labour wants to make any headway in regaining the support of the electorate, its going to take a lot of hard work.

There are however, a number of opportunities on the horizon for Labour to make some real progress

Most of these chances are the result of the recession. Key’s Government is ultimately going to be judged on the way it handles the economic crisis, and the degree to which it can turn it around and keep voters from feeling the worst of its effects.

The National Government is taking an interesting approach to handling the crisis. Despite the publicity around the “rolling maul” of initiatives to save jobs, and Key’s infrastructure plans, National hasn’t increased Government spending by nearly the same level as most other western countries. Most of the infrastructure spending National has announced, for example, is actually just stimulatory spending already planned by Helen Clark’s Labour Government, but brought forward by a couple of months. As a percentage of GDP, the amount of money Key is spending to fight the recession and protect middle and lower income voters from the damage it will do is very small compared to Australia, America or Britain.

Key says that such money would be better spent on tax cuts, where by individual citizens will keep more of their own money, increasing demand and fuelling growth. However, Labour points out that under their proposed tax cuts which Key changed, almost a quarter of a billion dollars more would go to low and middle income families, rather than to those making more money as they do under Key’s plan. The rationale behind Key’s cuts is very standard right wing-post Regan thinking. Those with more money are more likely to invest it, thus creating jobs and growth, where as those on lower incomes will spend their tax cuts on things that have a less stimulatory effect on the overall economy.

While such thinking definitely makes economic sense it’s dangerous politically at a time when most voters will be feeling a pinch in their pocket, and see National choosing to give tax relief to those that clearly don’t need it.

Key is taking a big gamble. If his tax cuts do not have the desired stimulatory effect (as has happened overseas with the Bush tax cuts early in his first term) Key will have left himself open to major attacks for not doing enough to help the majority of voters at the next election. On the flipside if Key does manage to turn things around, don’t expect Phil Goff to be Prime Minister anytime soon.

The other major area for Labour to do some damage is National’s relationship with ACT. There are two major bills in the pipelines, ACT’s “Three Strikes” law and the proposed “Tax Payers Bill of Rights” which would cap Government expenditure to the rate of inflation. Both of these are expected to be supported by National.

If not seriously altered both bills could prove dangerous to Key’s image as a common sense moderate. Next week I’ll go into more detail on what is wrong with both of these bills, but Key faces significant pressure from a very important coalition partner to implement some seriously right wing policies, something that if Labour can properly exploit could do real damage to Key’s brand of centrism.

Labour, despite their weak current position, clearly has some areas where it can make progress. It just remains to be seen if they can do so.

The Trouble With ACT

Being a member of minor party isn’t exactly fun, you have a much smaller budget than the major parties, far less media exposure and the majority of New Zealand probably thinks of you as a raving loon. However if there are any benefits to being a minor party, it’s the electoral advantages that can come from successful branding. Minor party’s platforms tend to resolve loosely around a single principle or issue, for example the Greens focus on environmental issues, ACT focuses on responsible Government Spending, New Zealand First focuses on Winston Peters, etc. However, factions within both ACT and The Greens are changing the focus of the parties, and the results are interesting.

Though I don’t always agree with ACT’s politics, and consider their 08 regional conference one of the most depressingly amateurish things I’ve seen in politics, the major advantage ACT has is in the huge levels of commitment that its base gives it. ACT on Campus is one of the most active and committed student groups on campus, with its members blogging, helping organise campaigns, lobbying the party leaders and generally being shining examples of democratic citizenry. ACT voters are the indie music fans of the political world, always trying to corner you and talk your ear off about why ACT is so much better than all the other parties, the last bastion of freedom in New Zealand, and the only way to protect your rights from the evils of Government. ACT’s strong following is in large part due to the clarity of its ideals, it stands for small government, responsible spending and property rights. There regional conference was almost entirely composed of rich white guys. They are a party of ideologues, but damn it they are proud of it.

However, ACT currently finds itself in a bit of a policy dilemma. As part of a general shift to embrace a more popular message, ACT has aligned itself with those on the far-far-right of the debate over the New Zealand justice system. Groups like the Sensible Sentencing Trust now make up a significant portion of ACT’s financial and public backers, to the point where the coveted fifth spot on the ACT Party List, as well as a seat in Parliament, went to Sensible Sentencing Trust Member David Garret.

The problem for ACT is that the parties small Government, anti-authorities ideals clash heavily with the reactionary nature of groups like the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

Cards on the table time, groups like the Sensible Sentencing Trust repulse me, they use cheap and empty populist rhetoric to advance policies that evidence repeatedly shows not only don’t help keep crime rates down, but in fact make them worse. They are ideologues in the worst sense of the word, inflexible, unwilling to listen to reason and always quick to reach for the “soft on crime” label of anyone who disagrees. They dumb down the public discourse, cheapen debates over justice policy and the result is bad laws that can’t protect New Zealanders.

So what happens when a rabidly pro-freedom, pro rights party gets into bed with an authoritarian lobby group?

Embarrassingly Public Party Infighting. Sigh.

The most recent fissure amongst ACT’s base has been about the so-called “Gang-patch” bill; a hard right anti-gang law that seeks to outlaw the wearing of gang patches. From a legal perspective, the law is worrying, as it raises serious issues around guilt by association and has been attacked by civil liberties groups as a violation of the right to freedom of association. Many ACTivists (see what I did there?) have been up in arms over the “last bastion of freedom in New Zealand” supporting something they see as so ignorant of peoples rights. ACT Leader Rodney Hide himself once previously decried the bill as “rubbish”. ACT blogs sport headlines such as “ACTually authoritarian?”

ACT, like a lot of minor parties does a lot of good in that it brings attention to important issues that are often overlooked. During last year’s election for example when both National and Labour were coming up with increasingly unrealistic spending plans, it was ACT who was pushing for fiscal responsibility. However by aligning themselves with the far right on social issues, they risk loosing their credibility on issues of rights and freedom, something so central to the party’s success. How is it acceptable that an MP for a libertarian party to be saying things in public such as “Alter the Bill of Rights Act. We’ve got too hung up on people’s rights”?

If ACT can’t find a way to reconcile the two sides of the party, things could get very messy, and for a part facing stiff battles over getting things like its Three Strikes Law and Taxpayers Bill of Rights passed, unity and the support of the grassroots is something they cannot afford to loose.