Winston Peters is no stranger to coalition negotiations – and the situation he finds himself in has not arisen by accident.  It is instead the planned outcome of a deliberate strategy to position his New Zealand First party, in an MMP environment, as likely to hold the balance of power in the event that neither of the two biggest parties commands a majority of seats in parliament.

So successful has this strategy been that he has become accustomed to being courted by suitors, and to extracting from the main rivals for his hand the best deal he can get – both for himself and his voters.  He is under no illusion that his charm or good looks are the lure; it is rather the dowry – in this case, nine MPs – that he can bring to the agreed arrangement.

I suggest that this time, however, it may not be only the numbers that matter.  For Jacinda Ardern, intent on building on her success in denying a majority to National by forming instead a Labour-led government, Winston may have more to offer than simply making up the necessary majority.

It is not just that a relatively inexperienced Prime Minister, heading a party that has been out of government for nine years, might welcome someone of Winston’s experience and political savvy.

Winston could in addition bring to a new government – one committed to a change of direction and an uplift in the energy needed to deal with our obvious and many problems – some policy perspectives that could be very helpful, and some potential ministers of real ability.

First, he already takes a position very close to Labour’s on those issues that are the legacy of mishandling or neglect after nine years of National government.  His reinforcement of Labour’s proposed remedies for those problems would certainly help to bring solutions closer.  And he would help to identify others that need attention, such as the neglect of our manufacturing base.

There are two further issues (and no doubt more), not at present high on Labour’s agenda, where his political experience and independent view could strengthen the performance of a new government.

The first is the difficult question of how to take the maximum advantage from our increasingly close economic relationship with China, without in effect being absorbed into the greater Chinese economy.  That can only be achieved if we have a clear understanding of what is actually happening and recognise the full implications of each new step that is taken.

The National government has shown little concern for or understanding of this issue.  Their links with Chinese interests, both as individuals and as a political party, have induced them to applaud the upsides while closing their eyes to the actual and potential downsides.

Winston will not be so starry-eyed; he knows that the maintenance of some semblance of sovereignty and independence is not an ignoble goal.  The greater realism he could bring to a new government on this issue would be of considerable value.

Even more positively – Winston seems to have a more up-to-date understanding than most of recent developments in modern monetary policy and theory.  The widespread use, post the Global Financial Crisis, of “quantitative easing” to bail out the banks has removed some of the mistaken phobias concerning an obvious (and Keynes-endorsed) tool for funding productive investment and stimulating economic activity.

Why, forward-looking observers ask, should government-created new money be reserved for bailing out the banks?  Why not use it for other purposes – like new infrastructure projects – that serve public and not just private banking interests?

Paradoxically, perhaps, Winston may be more likely than today’s Labour party to recall the successful precedent set by Michael Joseph Savage’s government in the 1930s, when thousands of state houses were built to house the homeless, using money created by that government for that purpose.

Thinking of this kind could revolutionise the prospects of a new government and usher in a new era of a stronger and more integrated society and a more securely based economy.

If the instincts of a new Labour government were encouraged and their implementation facilitated by an experienced campaigner like Winston Peters, the future prospects of both Labour and New Zealand First would be greatly enhanced – so too, the prospects for the country.

Bryan Gould

26 September 2017

The 2017 election was a roller-coaster ride – and it’s not over yet.  The special votes, yet to be counted, could well – in an election of such tight margins – make all the difference, and that’s to say nothing of the post-election coalition negotiations yet to come.

In the meantime, some player ratings.  The star of the show was surely Jacinda Ardern.  Her charm, energy and intelligence lit up the campaign.  She resurrected Labour, from a standing start less than two months ago, when Labour support stood at 23%, to the real possibility of forming the next government.  Whatever the outcome, she will live to fight another day.

The National party achieved the creditable feat of winning the largest number of votes after three successive terms in office, but the loss of two of their coalition partners (and the Epsom indulgence of ACT having gained them nothing more than an irritant) has left them exposed, without visible means of support – and more people voted against retaining the government than voted for it.

National’s achievement was, of course, tainted by their readiness to resort to “attack politics”, supported as it was by deliberate misrepresentations about Labour’s plans which not one reputable economist could be found to endorse.

The acceptance of, and susceptibility to, such tactics by New Zealand voters leaves our politics all the poorer.  We must hope that this distressing disregard for principle will not be carried into government.

The collapse of the Maori party suggests that Maori voters have realised that the issues that particularly matter to Maori cannot be safely entrusted to a government that sees its priority as serving the interests of business.  A large number of similarly placed pakeha voters have been much slower on the uptake.  Labour, and Labour’s Maori MPs, must now show that they are worthy of the trust reposed in them.

The Greens held on, surviving mistakes of their own making, and remain in play as a possible coalition partner in a progressive government.  They continue to bring a valuable dimension to our politics.

As always seemed likely, the final decision as to who will form the next government rests with Winston Peters and his New Zealand First MPs.  I make no predictions and offer no advice.  But I do express a hope.

I think the election shows that there is an appetite and a momentum for change that is likely to grow rather than subside.  “More of the same” is not sufficiently inspiring to claim new adherents.

We have a real chance to make a fresh start.  And remember that, in MMP politics, votes for the largest party carry no additional weight.  What matters is whether a majority exists in parliament, not where the votes come from.

The chance arises to bring fresh minds to bear on old and neglected issues.  Rather than act as a mere adjunct to an existing administration, Winston could play an important role, as an elder statesman in, and foundation member of, a new government – one that catches the incoming tide.

Bryan Gould

24 September 2017

When we wake up next Sunday morning, the clocks will have moved forward.  This annual event always reminds me of the probably apocryphal story of the house-proud woman who objected to the introduction of daylight saving because she feared that an extra hour of sunshine would mean that her new curtains would fade more quickly.

But this year, the “great leap forward” of our clocks might be accompanied – faded curtains or otherwise – by an even more significant shift, this time in our politics.  As the sun rises (we hope) on Sunday, we could well awake to a brave new world.

The difference between the two steps forward is that, unlike the annual and programmed arrival of daylight saving, the possible move into a new political era is very much dependent on decisions we take.

The pundits (and the polls) are divided in their “guesstimates” as to whether or not we will see a change of government.  But the prospect of someone different in charge, after nine years of the same party in power, is intriguing enough to stimulate speculation as to what we might expect from a change of direction and energy.

There will of course be a substantial body of opinion that is satisfied with the status quo and that sees nothing but downsides from any prospective change.  But for those of us who think we could do better, and that change and innovation could be welcome, what is it that we might hope for?

There are probably two kinds of change that we might foresee.  First, we might think of those policy issues which might best be described as “errors and omissions” – those areas of policy which appear to have been either mishandled or neglected over recent years, so that there is a pressing need for more attention to be paid and more resources to be devoted to them.

There is, for instance, the urgent need to clean up our rivers before they become further degraded.  And, in case the inability of our kids to swim in our rivers without getting sick is not shocking enough, there is the inadequacy of our efforts to confront the reality of climate change and to save endangered species on land and sea.

We have surely had enough of giving automatic priority to private profit ahead of the survival of the natural world we share and the planet on which we live.

And then there is the crisis of homelessness and housing unaffordability – again, a regrettable part of the price we pay for allowing the interests of speculators to prevail over the needs and hopes of young families.

These are severely practical problems that cry out for solution by a government brave and determined enough to tackle them.  But there is a second order of change that we might also think should be addressed.

There will be many who have concluded – sadly – that a country that was founded on a lofty vision of what democracy and a healthy and happy society could mean has let its standards slip.

They will regret the poverty that now afflicts so many young Kiwis – and young Maori and Pasifika in particular – so that they are unable to share fairly and fully in the great benefits that New Zealand’s combined effort and enterprise can produce.

They will regret the loss of that classic Kiwi commitment to a fair deal and opportunity for all, and to a helping hand for those who need it.

They will regret the mean-mindedness that has now seeped from individual selfishness into social policy, so that those who need help find themselves deprived not only of the basics of life, but of good health, education and even of self-respect.

They will regret the reduced standards represented by those in public life – the growing tendency to lie and misrepresent – so that the New Zealand that was once a byword for probity and honesty has seen its international reputation slip.

Above all, we might hope for a government that is more ambitious in its quest to create a good society that attends to the needs of everyone in it and that accordingly sets its sights higher on their behalf.

Could we perhaps move forward with our clocks?

Bryan Gould

15 September 2017

With just over a week to go till polling day, the rival parties have now presumably finished setting out their stalls.

There may still be the odd attempt to lure the floating voter, (or to cynically misrepresent what other parties are saying), but we now have a pretty good idea as to what we will get – or, at least, what they are promising – if they are elected.

For many voters, however, the parties’ promises relate to issues that are of little relevance, or involve sums of money that are so large and incomprehensible or targets and dates that are so far in the future as to be meaningless.

Offering policy goodies, in other words, may not be as effective in attracting votes as some politicians seem to think.

My perception is that voters are more likely to vote according to whether or not they think that the country is in good hands and heading in the right direction.

That may be so, perhaps, but in the end it will always boil down, experienced (not to say cynical) politicians will say, to “what’s in it for me?”

I choose to believe, however, that people (or enough of them) are more thoughtful than that, and that for many there is a fundamental choice to be made.

It was Mrs Thatcher who famously said that “there is no such thing as society”.  She apparently thought that we are just an agglomeration of individuals, who happen to be living in the same place at the same time, each one focused only, in the unlovely phrase, on “looking after number one”.

In expressing this opinion, she was reflecting the views of some very influential thinkers – people like the philosophers Hayek and Nozick, economists like James Buchanan, and even (not very good) novelists like Ayn Rand.

They argued that not only do we all always act in our own individual interests but that this is how it should be.  They took this view on two grounds – that to restrain individuals from doing what they want, even at the expense of others, would be unjustifiably to limit their freedom, and that society as a whole would in any case be better off, and everyone would benefit, if individuals – particularly powerful individuals – were free to do whatever they liked, without any restraint imposed on them by “society”.

Those who disagree like to point to what they see as the adverse economic, social and environmental consequences of a free-for-all, not only for those individuals and families who lose out in the rat race (and they are all too easily identified), but also for the health and happiness of our society as a whole, and for the sustainability of the natural world we share and of the planet on which we live.

These philosophical arguments may mean little to many voters.  But the issues can easily be translated into more comprehensible terms that are closer to everyday life.

We can all recognise, in our day-to-day dealings with our fellow-citizens, different kinds of attitudes and behaviours.  We understand selfishness, greed and lack of compassion on the one hand, and kindness and willingness to share on the other – and we know which we like better.

If we understand these individual qualities in our personal lives, why not in our politics as well?  Why would we choose to align ourselves with those who recognise no shared interest with their fellow citizens, but see them instead (perhaps as employees or tenants) as simply there to be exploited or pushed aside?  Why endorse those who resent paying the taxes needed to create a well-functioning society and to help those they regard as “losers”, and who then complain about the social consequences of the fractured society they have helped to create?

On the other hand, why not seek a kinder, gentler society, one where we recognise that we are all in this together, and that we all benefit when everyone is treated fairly and with respect.  That, after all, is what our democracy is about – the democracy our forefathers fought for.  They saw an effective democracy as essential if power is not to concentrate in the hands of the greediest.

I like the sound of “kinder” and “gentler”.

Bryan Gould

6 August 2017