Marc My Words…         13 April 2007

Political comment

By

Marc Alexander: A lesson in F words

When Education minister Steve Maharey swore in parliament the other day he ironically said in frustration what many amongst the voting public now think about his government. After eight interminable years, whatever limited patience we had for Labour to listen and truly represent the people has long since evaporated. They look fatigued, frustrated, and fed-up.

It's hard not to escape the conclusion that Maharey and his lot have only one remaining priority: to win the next election. A quick perusal through their legislative agenda backs up the point. There are a mere thirteen government bills of which less than a third are ready to proceed. And none of them are of any great significance. Rather, the government is overwhelmingly preoccupied with two distractions: firstly, how to deal with the problems they are responsible for creating; and secondly, how to advantage itself for the forthcoming election. Of course what links both is that without being seen to deal effectively with the former, the latter objective becomes increasingly more difficult.

Helen Clark has increasingly misread public sentiment over a number of critical issues which have sapped confidence in her leadership. To be fair she has also been spectacularly let down by some of her colleagues and advisers. Turning Sue Bradford's hugely unpopular "Anti-smacking Bill" into a whipped vote for labour was a glaringly obvious mistake the public are unlikely to forgive. Not only tactically stupid, it continues to undermine her credibility amongst many of her MP's who under normal circumstances wouldn't want a bar of it. What is less publicly acknowledged however is that the driving rationale for the forced vote is the troublesome loss of Taito Phillip-Field's crucial vote. The necessity of relying on the Greens to abstain on matters of supply and confidence effectively forces both government supporting parties, Winston first and United (and let's not forget Jim Anderton, even if we'd wish to), into a relationship they both categorically said they would refuse to enter into.

Other time-bombs have also gone off. The current shambles over health including the threat of more strikes, as well as the mass exodus of experienced healthcare professionals for example. The government seems incapable of comprehending why, after throwing billions at the system and swelling the ranks of pen-pushers, administrators and ever more managers to manage management, better health outcomes remain stubbornly elusive.   

In a serendipitous synchronicity you couldn't plan even if you wanted to, crime statistics highlighted the dismal performance of Labour's initiatives, just as the Bazley report came out condemning police culture, while a bunch of cops grabbed media attention for their rape accusations and convictions. Corrections have seen their fair of problems too with allegations of corruption and smuggling.

Meanwhile Education gets rocked over the inability of NCEA to gain credibility amongst the public, while Labour's big scheme to bring in 20 hours of free education for three and four year olds has about as much chance of success as tempting Elvis back on the stage with a cheeseburger. 

The debacle over the election overspend should have taught Helen Clark a lesson but no, she is now trying to ram through taxpayer funding for political parties for the specific purpose of campaigning.

While it's too early to see the shape of the proposed legislation, its pretty clear already that they will be designed to protect the interests of Labour. Putting aside the legitimate complaints of how the rules may apply, there is still the obvious objection that taxes should not be used to fund political advertising. Put simply, if you cannot convince people to donate to your cause (whatever that may be), why should it be okay for an enforced donation out of tax dollars?

My own view is that Labour knows perfectly well they are on course for an electoral hiding. They know that after misappropriating $800,000 for the last election they have very little chance to build up a war chest for the next. Hence the single-minded determination to line their pockets any way they can, even if it means "stealing" from taxpayers without the benefit of a referendum. It’s like employees deciding their own work conditions without their employers' say-so. We should call it what it is: theft. That Labour will change a fundamental aspect of our dwindling democracy by passing a law is irrelevant. They will do so with the contrivance of support parties arrogantly flouting public opinion as they have done on every major issue. They will leave no snake-oil sales pitch to explain it either.

Their already at it - laying the foundation for the spin to justify their pocketing of our money. They have already argued it's unfair for large donors to hide behind anonymity. They suggest that those with vested interests in an election outcome should be publicly identified. Why? Donors to charities are allowed to stay unidentified. Why should those with a greater stake in society be forced to identify themselves so they can be targets of a non-recipient political party? No duck I know sends reminder notices to hunters when the shooting season starts.

Don't imagine there wouldn't be a payback? Case in point: though few would justify the manner of the Brethren's interference at the last election, Helen Clark moved quickly to threaten their religious status in regard to their special tax status. And all because they excersised their right to convince voters not to vote for her (or the Greens). Her response was swift as it was spiteful. So too the disgraceful attempt to curb charitable trusts the right to free speech on the grounds that they might lobby against her government. To use the threat of revoking their charitable status on those grounds is tantamount to a gag order - again a direct threat to our endangered democratic traditions.

Yet despite the deceitful effort to recast the debate in terms of greater accountability, the over-arching argument advanced for public funding makes a number of assumptions that are demonstrably false. Although campaign funds clearly help sell the message, you still need a message to sell. In the 1996 election, the ACT party outspent Labour by nearly $500,000 yet managed only 21% of their vote. In 1999 National outspent Labour by around fifty percent yet received 10% fewer votes. And in 2005 Labour outspent National by $860,000 to garner less than two percent more votes. Clearly money alone is insufficient to win elections unless used, as Labour has done, to exploit the power of incumbency to tease the public with money-in-your-pocket schemes like Working for Families, higher benefits, and Free Student Loans.

Governments traditionally lose elections because the public loses faith in them. The electoral process hinges on the idea that a politically literate and empowered population can exert an informed choice of who they want to take care of the big picture stuff beyond the domain of individual influence. They are meant to 'represent' rather than assume 'authorship' of a new society based on the ideological whims of their highly creative imaginations. Unfortunately what we are witnessing now is a Labour government that has abused its authority by undermining the public's confidence in themselves. They have pushed a legislative agenda that has driven a wedge within the community, creating competing dependencies, weakening the functionality of the family, and diminishing the capacity for public debate.

If there is a bright spot in all this it is that it is always darkest before the dawn. People are waking up to the reality that Labours promise of a light at the end of the tunnel is really the headlight of an oncoming train. It is that which the administration is feeling frustrated about. So, in away, we should understand our Steve Maharey's verbal grubbiness. But a word of advice for him: If he ever wants to use an F word again he should try 'failure'. After all, that’s a resoundingly more apt description of his and his government's performance to date. And he should also look forward to having the time to reflect on that F word after the next election.   

Ends

© Scoop Media