Murray Rowlands analyses the result of the recent general election in New Zealand and draws parallels with Labour’s position in Britain
AFTER nine years as New Zealand’s Labour Prime Minister, Helen Clark bowed out of the party leadership following the general election loss to the National Party. Her replacement is former defence minister Philip Goff. Annette King is his deputy.
With the National Party enjoying only the slimmest of majorities, there are widespread regret that both Clark and finance minister Michael Cullen chose to resign immediately after Labour’s defeat.
Although substantially ahead in terms of percentage of votes cast, New Zealand’s two-tiered voting system means new Prime Minister John Key needs coalition partners. One of these will be the right-wing ACT Party, which continues to advocate neo liberalist economic policies.
Labour has endeavoured to move away from this extreme monetarism despite being responsible for its introduction in 1984. But now the figure of Roger Douglas, the architect of “Rogernomics”, who left Labour to set up the ACT Party, haunts the new government. Key is attempting to prevent the ACT holding the balance of power by bringing the Maori Party into his coalition. This is a welcome move, because previously the National Party has played the race card in a desperate effort for electoral success.
Turnout dropped from 77 per cent to 74 per cent, mainly through the defection of Labour’s working class voters in the crucial Auckland area. One Australian newspaper commented that the election result was determined by “bored slugs” – traditional Labour voters staying at home. However, this fails to explain fully why support for Clark, who was an outstanding leader, eroded so badly. One reason may have been that Labour faced powerful opposition from partisan newspapers and talk radio stations, along with television coverage which did little to illuminate the issues. There were also the vigorous activities of lobby groups which were invariably hostile to Labour. Behind 44-year-old Key, a former investment banker, was the same Australian public relations outfit which masterminded Boris Johnson’s victory over Ken Livingstone in the London mayoral election.
There are some interesting similarities between the respective political scenes in New Zealand and Britain. For instance, the drop in Labour’s membership from 25 per cent of New Zealand’s population in 1954 to around 2.5 per cent now is paralleled in Britain. Yet New Zealand’s 2008 general election has been treated with almost complete indifference by the British media. Surely Labour’s problems in seeking a fourth term in New Zealand, such as the defection of the ethnic vote and failure to mobilise a working class base, have a resonance in Britain?
The 2008 election marks a generational change in New Zealand with disgraced Winston Peters and his New Zealand First Party disappearing from the political scene. Any chance that Labour had of winning depended on Peters’ party winning enough votes to become coalition partners.
Clark’s success has meant that the National Party has had to change its character. This is reminiscent of in the way in which Margaret Thatcher’s decade in power made her opponents react.
New Zealand Labour has cause for believing it can recover quite quickly. With around 35 per cent of the vote, Labour has not sunk as low as the National Party’s 21 per cent in 2002. In the third quarter of a recession, with levels of debt rising steadily in the country, there is every prospect for a Labour revival in 2011. Labour’s erstwhile coalition partner, the Green Party, increased its seats by two and the two parties will work together closely in the new House of Representatives.
The ACT Party is already castigating Key for being to the left of Labour and is calling for cuts in a whole range of services. As Key may not be able to retain power without ACT’s support, Labour may be back on the comeback trail sooner than expected.
Murray Rowlands
