[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Bill,
>Could you give us the lowdown on the recent election results.
>>From the paltry news we get here I understand Labour was just
>short of a majority and was expected to form a coalition with the
>Greens and one other party which I had not heard of.
>
>It is interesting. When NZ was doing its neoliberal dance, the
>media here gave it almost daily coverage of the triumph of the right.
>Now that Labour is back (more or less) in the saddle, we get one
>inch of copy in the national press, nothing in the local press, and
>complete silence on the electronic media.
>
>So what's up, Bill?
>
It's messy (hence my time to reply).
New Zealand-watchers may recall that in 1999 fifteen years of purist but
increasingly moribund neo-liberal governments (starting with a Labour
government in 1984) were voted out in favour of a Labour-Alliance
coalition government. The new government relied on the Green Party
(which has progressive social policies as well as its environmental
core) for a majority in votes of confidence and supply. Labour, led by
Helen Clark, had reinvented itself during the 90's a little to the left
of Tony Blair. The Alliance had been formed by left social democrat
deserters from Labour led by former Labour Party president and Member of
Parliament (MP), Jim Anderton. They formed a left grouping of several
parties, including initially the Greens, but also the Democrats (former
Social Credit) and Mana Motuhake (a Maori party).
The coalition government was dominated by the Labour party (49 seats in
the 120 seat Parliament), the Alliance having 10 and Greens 7 in a
proportional representation system. It continued fiscal policies which
differed very little from the previous 15 years - an independent Reserve
Bank, budget surpluses, reducing government expenditure as a proportion
of GDP, no new taxes (other than a small rise on the top tax rates). It
did some good things - some planned (re-nationalisation of the accident
compensation system, paid parental leave, repeal of the anti-union and
anti-collectivist Employment Contracts Act, increased investment in
state-owned housing and income-related rents, elected district health
boards, creation of "people's bank", economic development programmes),
some unplanned (for example renationalising the national airline when it
was on the point of bankruptcy).
However the Alliance membership, and some of its MPs became increasingly
frustrated at the slow progress and the unwillingness of Anderton to
publicly claim responsibility for some of the gains forced by the
Alliance (such as more generous parental leave and a higher minimum
wage) and to publicly put pressure on Labour to move further. The
Alliance was losing support electorally (down from 8% in 1999 to around
4% in opinion polls, losing votes to Labour and the Greens. Note that 5%
is a crucial benchmark; below that a party does not get representation
in the New Zealand Parliament unless they win an electorate MP). They
felt imprisoned by Labour's unwillingness to raise taxes to finance new
social programmes, and increasingly aghast at its enthusiastic pursuit
of free trade agreements with Singapore (signed), Hong Kong (in
negotiation), the US (dreamed of) and others. Finally, the war against
Afghanistan was the breaking point. Anderton pressured the caucus at
short notice to support Labour in sending New Zealand SAS (commando)
troops. That brought a furious reaction from rank and file members, many
of whom are long standing members of New Zealand's strong peace
movement. The result was a split in the Alliance with six MPs following
Anderton into a new "Jim Anderton's Progressive Coalition Party", whose
membership comes largely from the Democrats, and three continuing the
Alliance led by the very able Laila Harre with a programme somewhat more
to the left.
Despite this, the coalition government was a very popular one. Polls in
early 2002 showed over 50% of voters supporting Labour, with the Greens
over 10%, but the Alliance being punished for its self-destruction with
less than 3% between the two splinter parties.
An early election was called in July, Clark using the Alliance split as
an excuse. Labour increased its vote from 39% to 41% (but well below the
absolute majority it campaigned for). Good economic times (a low New
Zealand dollar, high commodity prices and good growing weather for our
important agricultural sector) and a disastrously inept performance by
the main conservative party, the National Party meant that major issues
such as the economy were barely debated. Instead the biggest single
issue was whether a moratorium preventing field trials of genetic
engineering should be extended. Labour vehemently opposed it, but the
Greens made it a "bottom line" issue required for their support of a new
government. A GE cover-up scandal exposed during the campaign bruised
both parties however. The Greens gained only one seat (rising from 7 to
8 at 6% of the vote), and Labour ended up well below an absolute
majority. The Alliance was unable to gain an electoral seat (despite a
vigorous campaign) and so has disappeared from the new Parliament.
Anderton's PCP won only two seats with 1.8% of the vote because he has a
safe electorate seat (though he won it with a severely reduced majority).
Labour will form a new government with the two PCP members, giving them
54 seats. The big question is who they will rely on to gain the 60 seats
required for a majority in Parliament. The obvious partner is the
Greens, but Labour appears unmoveable in its opposition to extending the
GE moratorium which expires in October 2003, at which time the Greens
say they will withdraw their assurance of support in confidence and
supply votes.
That brings in a new and absurd factor. A party, previously a one-man
band - Peter Dunne, a former cabinet minister in the 1984-1990
neoliberal Labour government - profited hugely from the collapse of the
National Party from 30% of the vote to only 21%. His "United Future
Party" (formerly united only because it had a sole MP, with no future)
is a mix of his neo-liberal economics and a "Christian family values"
party. He won no less than 9 seats on the basis of a TV performance
where he talked in banalities about being the "common sense party" and
strengthening "family values" ("family" is undefined). Since the party
surprised itself in gaining such success, it appears to have few
coherent policies. Journalists all over the country are working full
time trying to figure out who the new MPs are (mainly small businessmen)
and what their policies are, other than "common sense" and "family
values". Naturally the most common fear is neoliberal economics and
moral conservatism.
Labour is now courting both United Future and the Greens as coalition
partners. Since UF has no real policies (its only concrete one appears
to be a Commission for the Family, whatever that means), it will be a
much easier partner for the dominant figure of Clark to deal with. Yet
it will reinforce the still nascent neoliberalism of powerful sections
of the Labour Party. We await news.
The other winner (probably gaining from the crash of National and the
Alliance) was the New Zealand First Party. Because of its history of
more than normally opportunist and unpredictable behaviour, only the
truely desperate would form a coalition with it. Helen Clark has
sensibly ruled it out. It was a big winner in the election, rising from
5 to 13 seats, on a simple platform of reduced immigration, "law and
order", and limiting settlements to Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi.
The implied racism particularly in the immigration policy has led to
comparisons between its leader, Winston Peters and le Pen, but that is
over simplistic: it is not from the neo-fascist right. Nonetheless it
has become the third largest party in Parliament and will do its best
(and Peters is good at that) to push its policies of intolerance for all
they are worth.
A Labour-UF government will not be an effective counter to that. Neither
will it contain sufficient progressive elements to continue the positive
direction the Labour-Alliance government has set. If the Greens are
pushed aside, we are in for three years of relative stagnation, which
will lead either to the undermining once again of the parliamentary
left, or to the more or less permanent domination of a "centre"
coalition with few progressive policies.
Bill
(Note: final election results are not yet in, but are not expected to
change the results substantively.)
