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

It was Bill Clinton who identified the main issue in his election campaign as “It’s the economy, stupid”.

And so it almost always is – and New Zealand’s 2017 election campaign will be no different.

Of course other issues will matter too, but it is the economy, and the impact its fortunes will have on individual voters, that will usually have the greatest impact on the greatest number.

That is not usually seen as a plus for parties of the left.  It is usually thought – to the extent that it is almost an article of faith for some voters, notwithstanding the evidence of their own experience – that parties of the right are best equipped to manage the economy, and that other contenders for power necessarily start therefore at a disadvantage in that regard.

So Jacinda Ardern showed commendable courage when she devoted part of the time she had available in the first leaders’ debate to an economic issue.  That issue was productivity – or the lack of it.

Many experts, whether on the left or right, will agree that productivity growth is the essential factor in a successful economy.  And most will say that our record in this regard is not good enough.

Why does it matter?  Because it measures how much each individual worker across the whole economy produces on average.   If our productivity gains are sluggish, as they have been, and fall behind those of other countries, we slip further down the international ladder in terms of living standards and prosperity.

We have been able to increase national output over recent years, but that is almost all down to taking in more immigrants.  That produces a larger cake overall, but it does nothing to raise individual living standards – indeed, the reverse, since there are more slices to be cut from only a slightly bigger cake and we have to share our existing capital equipment with that greater number.

So, if productivity growth is the only sure way of raising living standards and providing more resources to spend on essentials, like housing, health and the environment, why have we failed to produce a better performance?

Because, as Jacinda Ardern pointed out, we have failed to invest in the new skills, new techniques, and new equipment and technology needed to increase the productive capacity of each member of the workforce.

We have failed to provide young people as they join the workforce with the skills – the training and apprenticeships – that are needed in a modern and competitive economy.  We have handicapped our workforce by saddling large numbers with poverty (engendered by inequality) so that they have to contend with poor housing, health care and educational opportunities.

We have failed to provide incentives so that the necessary investment in new productive capacity, especially in research and development, and new equipment, is made.  And we have refused, for ideological reasons, to use the power of government to make good all these deficiencies.

Perhaps less obviously, we have failed to do what more successful economies do as a matter of course – move resources to the growth points in the economy.  Where are those growth points?  They should be, and almost invariably are, in the export sector, which is where the biggest markets are and where economies of scale – and therefore productivity gains – can most easily be achieved.

So, has our focus been, as it should, on improving our export performance and improving our export returns?  No – quite the contrary.  We have insisted on running an economic policy characterised by high interest rates (in international terms at least) and an overvalued dollar.

As a result, our exporters face a constant head wind, because they have to charge a premium on everything they sell.  And that makes it difficult both to compete for sales and  to earn a proper return on what they do sell – just ask the dairy farmers or the Manufacturers and Exporters Association what the high dollar has done to them.  Little wonder that the return on investment is so low that there is little to spend on raising productivity.

These failures are the government’s Achilles heel in managing the economy.  It seems Jacinda Ardern picked the right issue to focus on.

Bryan Gould

1 September 2017

It was Lord Chief Justice Hewart who famously declared that “Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done.”

He knew that confidence in the judicial system could be preserved only if the public could be assured, in the light of what they saw, that fairness and impartiality were constantly maintained.

What is true of the law is equally true of politics and the way it is presented to the public – something that one might have thought would be top of mind in the case of a self-styled national broadcaster that purports to provide an impartial platform to our political leaders in the midst of an election campaign.

Lord Hewart’s famous dictum, however, seems to have been studiously and deliberately ignored in the case of TV One’s choice of Mike Hosking as host and moderator of the leaders’ debate on Thursday evening.

It is not that Mike Hosking, especially with so many critical eyes upon on him, will manifestly and deliberately favour one side rather than another, though more of that later.  It is rather that a substantial number of viewers have no confidence that he can avoid allowing his bias to influence the debate – and that suspicion of partiality must necessarily reduce the value of the debate as a means of informing the public.

Impartiality might not be directly threatened, in other words, but with Mike Hosking in charge it will not be seen to have been achieved – and we (and TVNZ) know that to be true because we have the evidence of tens of thousands of signatures supporting a petition to replace Hosking with someone – anyone – else.

It is disappointing that TVNZ should show so little concern – or, to put it another way, so much contempt – for so many of its viewers.

It may be that TVNZ discounts their views because they have total confidence that such concerns are misplaced and that Mike Hosking is completely unbiased.  If that is the case, it simply shows that not only do they know little of their viewers, but even less of their presenter.

Hosking, after all, has the privilege of appearing and airing his views through multiple outlets in our media.  TVNZ cannot be unaware that, particularly in print, Hosking has no hesitation in expressing his preference for winners over losers and his contempt for many of his fellow-citizens – indeed, he seems to enjoy the opportunity to rub that in.

It is simply not possible for him to set aside his essentially right-wing bias (and I am sure that even Hosking himself would not reject that as an accurate description of his views) by donning a cloak of impartiality in order to meet the requirements of a one-off programme.

In any case, and as many of his critics will attest, it is not the deliberate and obvious skewing of the news and comment that many find objectionable.  It is the constant drip-drip of facial expression, manner, the casual remark, shrug or grimace, that is meant to convey to his audience what they should think.

Many will be unaware that their opinions are being conditioned by such techniques – but many others, having come to know (but not perhaps to love) Mike Hosking, will be under no illusion as to what is intended.

And this is to say nothing of whether or not Hosking is up to the job in terms of sheer professional competence.  His lack of understanding of how our electoral system works, as evidenced by his egregious error on Seven Sharp a few nights back, can give us no confidence that he has the ability and knowledge to handle the complexities of his subject.

TVNZ’s insistence that he is the best, perhaps only, man for the job is a sad (and certainly inaccurate) commentary on the state of New Zealand political journalism.  But, more importantly, it is an equally sad disavowal by the company of its responsibilities, both to their viewers and to the health of our democracy.

Lord Chief Justice Hewart issued his warning because he understood how important it was that the public should retain their faith in the judicial system.  It is cause for regret and disappointment that TVNZ do not feel a similar sense of concern for maintaining the public’s faith in the impartial presentation of our political news.  Our democracy is the poorer for that oversight.

Bryan Gould

29 August 2017