Dr Bob's Blog

Electioneering for the 2008 election has begun in earnest. Many people will be weary of the claims and counter claims come election time, and be thankful when it’s over.

 

The battle lines appear to be drawn and from the two speeches made on Tuesday and Wednesday we can tease out where the difference between the two main parties lies and assess their relative merits.

Labour will campaign on its record and focus on the positive things that have occurred since 1999. They will no doubt claim credit for most of the positive things even though some might have occurred whoever was in power.

National on the other hand will mount a campaign based on John Key’s slogan of being ambitious for New Zealand and wanting New Zealanders to be ambitious for themselves.

What are some of the positive things that have happened since 1999? The economy is now one third larger than it was in 1999. This is a significant level of growth, not matched since the halcyon days following world war two, and the mid 1960’s. The growth in the economy has been accompanied by a significant drop in beneficiary numbers of about 140,000, largely in the area of unemployment. During this period 360,000 new jobs have been created.

The economy seems strong and resilient even in the face of a number of stress points, and the Government’s accounts are in a sound situation.

On the downside production levels remain low by OECD standards. The growth in the economy has been achieved largely by an expanded work force and favourable commodity prices. According to Helen Clarke only about 50% of the workforce have the skills and capacities for an advanced knowledge economy.

There are also problems with high interest rates and a high New Zealand dollar that appear to be structural problems that no-one seems to know how to solve. Housing affordability and high debt levels are also major problem areas that have arisen since 1999.

On the social front the existence of a social underclass has become more apparent. However, a social underclass began to emerge ‘big time” from about the late 1960’s with the collapse of the mass production business model from that time and the following thirty years during which time our economy and the wider society underwent major transformation which included an expanded underclass.

Based on John Key’s speech we can expect that National’s attack on the Labour led government will focus on the wage disparity between New Zealand and Australia, the lack of tax cuts, grocery and petrol prices going through the roof, housing affordability and home ownership, children not achieving and a school system that is failing, increasing carbon emissions and violent crime soaring. National is promising wage growth to keep New Zealanders from leaving to live and work in Australia.

These themes are bound to strike a cord with many New Zealanders and we can expect these criticisms of the present government to have wide appeal. They will appeal particularly to people whose awareness is largely governed by what I call an ambition/achievement mindset in terms of how they define their needs, the way they think and what they value.

It has to be acknowledged that there are aspects of life in New Zealand’s economy that some people with this mindset find limiting, and some might even say that New Zealand is a claustrophobic place to work. “A nice place to bring up children, but!” is often the way it’s put.

However, there are structural limits to how far and fast the economy can be speeded up, particularly when it is performing at its upper levels given the level of technological sophistication and skill levels of the workforce. These are things that cannot be changed quickly. Some way needs to be found to solve the high interest rates, high dollar problem. There are no doubt plenty of us waiting with baited breath to see how National plans to stimulate wages and the economy generally.

Both parties are promising tax cuts but will need to exercise caution since tax cuts could be inflationary, although opinions are divided over that. Tax cuts on their own will not bridge the income gap between Australia and New Zealand.

Labour is arguing that the policies it has in place will stimulate growth and opportunities. Helen Clarke has promised to unveil new policies in the next few months including a new policy measure dealing with innovation. Labour is also promising major investments into public infrastructures, energy generation and power transmission, transport, roading and public transport, particularly in the Auckland region. They are also promising expansion in broadband coverage and bandwidth and changes to the telco sector.

There is a very different “tone” to the way each of the leaders’ speeches was presented. John Key is upbeat and combative. He is spoiling for a fight. You are left in no doubt about the value he places on ambition and achievement. Helen Clarke by contrast is more restrained in her presentation. She is a single minded and strong person, but she has a more social inclusiveness world view or mindset than John Key. This world view makes room for economic well being, but as means of social inclusiveness. Helen Clarke, however, appears to me to be strongly within the economic growth mould.

Given the challenges we face with climate change I wonder whether we have gone past the point where it is safe to be guided by ideas of economic growth as the way to manage the economy. This surely is an idea whose time has passed. John Key links economic growth to individual ambition and achievement, Helen Clarke sees economic growth as a means of achieving social inclusiveness. Neither view is sustainable.

The realities of climate change and global warming are going to mean that we will all need to lower our consumption levels. When commenting on the Environmental report card, the Minister for the Environment Trevor Mallard said we would all need to make sacrifices. I wonder if he really appreciates the nature and degree of sacrifices we will need to make.

We will have to redefine our needs and what we value. This will call for a new way of thinking. Leading this change has huge implications. I worry that John Key’s emphasis upon ambition and achievement will place continued unwarranted stress on our fragile environment. I would like to see John Key rephrase his slogan to being ambitious for the earth and all living forms within it, and for everybody to be similarly ambitious for the earth. Such a slogan could well spark a real change of direction.

Helen Clarke seems to see economic growth as the means of achieving social inclusiveness, but it is doubtful if this extends to valuing the earth before social inclusiveness. Recently someone from the Greens, I think it was Jeanette Fitzsimons, said about the Labour led government when faced with a conflict between the environment and Big Business that Big Business wins every time.

We need policies that maintain a sound economy providing people with meaningful work with secure wages, as we adjust to the new realities of global climate change. We need these policies and the leadership that can articulate this if we are to avert an environmental catastrophe that seems likely given the present state of the earth’s environment. There is no sign of this in the speeches from the two leaders.

Both parties recognise that there are real problems for young people making the transition to work, and having the skills to play a real part in the economy. They also recognise that there is a problem of offending and criminal activity by young people. Both of these issues are serious and they both deserve close attention by those in politics.  

The Labour led Government’s proposals for redefining the nature of secondary education look promising. In the last two decades or probably for longer the work that relied upon eye hand coordination, dexterity and physical strength and endurance has been steadily taken over by different forms of technology. This trend seems set to continue. It could be that the education system tended to concentrate upon linguistic and logical mathematical abilities to the detriment of physical and practical abilities. A significant number of people are not strong in the linguistic and logical mathematical abilities but they excel at physical and practical tasks. An education system largely focussed on linguistic and logical mathematical subjects has been experienced as a living hell by many young people, who rebelled and didn’t learn.

The new policies appear to recognise that there are a broad range of abilities within the secondary school population that have the potential to be developed. This could be a positive move. Developing the natural talent that people have makes a great deal of sense.

It is interesting that Labour proposes channeling resources into helping people in the existing work force who don’t have the skills for a modern knowledge economy. This is a sensible move, but a holistic approach will be needed so that people develop the communication and interpersonal capacities needed in the modern workplace.

National appear to recognise the need to tackle the problems associated with our young people, although National’s policies in the education sphere do not seem to be as comprehensive as Labour’s. National’s proposals in this area do seem to have merit, however. I am not so sure about National’s proposals in the criminal justice area. Reforms in criminal justice are notorious for their failure. The problem is that the focus is the offender and the offenders’ attitudes and beliefs. Even if these people are dealt with successfully the next generation of offenders is spawned within the social underclass. Making structural changes that deal with the social underclass by cutting off the supply of offenders is another issue again.

 One important thing is shrouded in mystery and that is the policies National intends to place before the electorate to convince the electorate it can deliver on the assertions it is making. We can then assess whether those promises are good for the earth and for the country.