Ben Thomas: Contest for political centre more puzzle than race

Wednesday, 15 March 2023

Piecing together the path to October’s general election is now a complex puzzle that needs solving, writes Ben Thomas.

Ben Thomas is a commentator and public relations consultant who has worked on both government and private sector projects, and for a minister in a National government. He is a regular contributor to Stuff.

OPINION: Is the 2023 election contest between Labour and National a drag race? Or a game of chicken?

As the Government sloughs off “distractions” under new Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, it is accelerating towards the political centre from the left with the same speed and determination as Christopher Luxon’s childcare-friendly National Party is coming from the right.

The logic of MMP is that because all votes (except those for minor parties which do not qualify for seats) count, the group of parties that gets the votes of 50% of all New Zealanders, plus one additional vote, wins the election.

Christopher Luxon speaks to reporters after the Government announces its second policy bonfire and benefits rises.

* The need to cut through the confusion over co-governance

* Ben Thomas: Dump the 'co-governance' name, it's too tainted by confusion

On a one-dimensional line, as we are to imagine the road along which the voters of New Zealand are arranged, a single point has no dimensions at all. The exact centre has no mass, just an empty space and the sight of your political opponents about to collide in a fiery tangled mess of family tax credits and income bracket adjustments. This, of course, is not what party strategists want.

Instead, the centre is a relatively large patch of political real estate, occupied by the kinds of people whose vote can swing over the years between left and right. Taking the centre means finding a way to appeal to as many different blocs of these voters as possible with policies differentiated, no matter how finely, from the other major party.

Conceived of in this way, the contest for the centre is less like a race than a puzzle: how to occupy the most space broadly in the middle of the voter graph by winning support among identifiable groups with targeted promises, fitting together the various blocs and interests like Tetris pieces.

And in terms of targeting promises, the parties will be thinking about money. A cost-of-living crisis, overwhelmingly the key concern of voters, means that politicians can display their full suite of election winning tactics, such as direct cash transfers and income redistribution, not as venal bribes but as morally superior alms.

Hence in dizzying succession the prime minister’s boost in the minimum wage, followed by National’s generous early childhood tax credit, and then the Government’s undertaking to adjust fixed incomes for beneficiaries, including superannuitants, by the rate of inflation.

As with any puzzle, there are rules and limits to the kinds of things that National and Labour will be able to promise, in this case the expectations of the electorate itself, in particular the somewhat nebulous notion of “economic management”. The prevailing environment means promises of largesse must fit within the agreed spending limits of the present government.

Ben Thomas: “As with any puzzle, there are rules and limits to the kinds of things that National and Labour will be able to promise, in this case the expectations of the electorate itself, in particular the somewhat nebulous notion of ‘economic management’.”

So in this campaign, our politicians are using the sophisticated practical mathematics that eludes New Zealanders in international exams, but instinctively kicks in when shopping the best price for liquor or an illicit tinnie: the instantaneous calculation necessary to optimise the returns from each dollar spent. In this case, votes.

Hipkins even evoked value for money on the podium in dumping a whole new tranche of policies. He said the Government’s cash-for-clunkers scheme, which was intended to help lower and middle income families out of their beat up cars, had not proven particularly effective at reducing emissions in comparison to its cost.

Half a billion dollars could buy more emissions reductions if it was spent elsewhere, essentially. The unspoken, more important part: that half a billion dollars could definitely buy more votes if spent elsewhere.

The Government’s reprioritisations have had a second benefit for Hipkins, beyond freeing up cash for his electoral bidding war and showing a change in tone and approach from the Ardern-led Labour Party.

The policy bonfire is also burning off the fuel National had intended to use to fund its own promises. The Opposition from the outset had identified expensive, but nebulous parts of the emissions reduction plan, including cash-for-clunkers scheme, as low quality spending which could be reprioritised towards its own promises.

After Luxon seized the initiative last week by identifying unjustifiable consultancy bills for cuts to fund ECE subsidies, Hipkins seems determined not to leave any more easy pickings.

No matter how intricate and scientific this puzzle solving is by the Government’s new leadership, it has little or nothing to do with previously expressed political priorities, years-long policy development, or so-called evidence-based policy. Evidence-based policy from now to October is results from overnight polling and focus groups.

Finally, the Government has an ace up its sleeve – it can change the rules of the game. The public has been harsh on oppositions that seem fiscally profligate, but has shown more charity for governments slipping in an unfunded tax cut or two in the Budget. At that point, though, the brakes are well and truly off, and it would require nerves in the 2023 game of chicken.