John Key is basking in political sunshine after one year in office. This is despite all the odds that would otherwise be stacked against a National Government and especially one led by a declared millionaire.

After all the recession, while lifting, has produced the highest unemployment in a decade; worker's are downing tools in a series of high profile industrial actions to protest low wages; more health care reforms are on the way; cuts to night classes and tertiary education have been made; a controversial educational assessment system is to be rolled out next year; worker's rights have come under attack in the form of the 90 day dismissal law and an end to guaranteed work breaks;  the conservation estate is under threat of being mined; and accident compensation is under attack yet again.

With all these unpopular moves either on the way or having been introduced, you would think that National's support would have whittled away by now. But not so. Against all the odds, opinion poll after opinion poll shows that the party is now polling better than it did on election day last year. Clearly, National is leaving all of its political opponents and even support partners in the dust if the polls are to believed.

On November 8th last year, no one could have foreseen (me included) that National would still be doing so well this far out. I thought that once Christmas 2008 passed, the honeymoon would end and it would be business as usual in terms of the party becoming steadily unpopular. This seems not to be the case this time around.

Why?

Well, so-called 'Middle New Zealand' shifted to the right on election day and has remained there since. After more than a decade of so-called 'nanny statism', middle class, mainly male voters have welcomed the election of a blokey, personable, yet wealthy leader in John Key. These voters who might have been disturbed by such things as the introduction of a ban on using mobile phones while driving have seemingly accepted these and other moves that would have been deemed 'nanny statish' if Labour had been still in office.

Women and other socially concerned voters, meanwhile, have been placated by National retaining some of Labour's social policy programmes including paid parental leave (first introduced by the Alliance), income related rentals for state housing, superannuation at 66% of the average wage, interest free student loans and 'Working for Families' tax credits. In fact, National have gone one step further by partnering with the Greens to introduce universal home insulation credits. This morning, I saw former Labour Party president Mike Williams make a salient comment in this regard on TVNZ's Q+A that while Labour had lost the election, they have won the argument in terms of their main social policies remaining in place under National.

This is not surprising given that we are still living under the influence of the New Right inspired policy concensus that began in 1984. Many voters (particularly those born after that fateful date) have known no other policy regime than that imposed by the Fourth Labour and National governments. Older voters, meanwhile, have seemingly become resigned to the policy consensus remaining in place and have shifted their attitudes accordingly away from any past acceptance of Keynesian social democracy. They have sadly become swayed by the 'There Is No Alternative' (TINA) argument, subliminally and overtly planted by the New Right within the minds of the electorate since 1984. While the previous Labour administration did soften the edges around economic and social policy, it never disturbed the main policy settings, for example, those set by the Reserve Bank Act 1989 and the Fiscal Responsibility Act 1994.

Now, National has resumed its role as the 'status quo' party. Traditionally, Labour has been the reformist party in government. In playing this role, Labour has bequeathed to successive National governments from 1949 onwards reforms, first of the social democratic, and then of the free market variety. Accordingly, National has administered Labour's reforms and has only tinkered around with them at the margins in the past. After the policy upheavals of the 1984-1999 period, National has in this term become the status quo ante party once again, the true 'conservative' party whose intention is not to create upheaval but to keep the ship of state sailing along a steady path. Where unpopular reforms have been made, for example, to the employment laws, it has not pushed things to the extreme end of the spectrum by withdrawing legal recognition from unions as happened under the Fourth National Government.

National, in seeking a renewed mandate in 2011, is not wishing to undertake radical reforms for this very reason. It wants a second term but the question remains as to whether or not National will go the full hog and introduce a more radical policy programme if it gets one. This could be the case as if MMP gets the thumbs down at the 2011 election, then National will feel less restrained in going forward with a another round of New Right inspired reforms. These might be introduced under the guise of lifting our economic performance to match that of Australia's.

At the first anniversary of National's return to government, it appears that the party wants quite on the electoral front. It is prepared to introduce some unpopular measures but not go too far. It is prepared to trust in the good political instincts of John Key to get them through these first years back in office. Where the party goes after any possible re-election is anyone's guess.

And that's the scariest thing.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

• Delicious
• Digg
• StumbleUpon
• Reddit
• Facebook
• Google
• Technorati

Do you like this post?

+1

43 votes