Only weeks into becoming leader of the National Party, Christopher Luxon has succeeded in pulling together his troops and at the same time re-shaping the message he thinks is needed to attract back the 413,000 voters who drifted away in the last election. The question is whether he can pitch the message to haul back some of those who voted for Labour in 2017 on the basis of their promises, but have since realised Labour ministers don’t have the ability or capacity to deliver them.
Initially there was some uncertainty that Luxon, with only a year behind him as an MP, could unify the faction-ridden National caucus. But he settled those doubts impressively at the two-day retreat at Queenstown, not least with his two warring predecessors, Judith Collins and Simon Bridges, showing up to breathe a new spirit of sweetness and light by the lakeside.
Luxon has resumed polling to get the mood of voters, re-engaging David Farrer’s Curia, and will use the techniques refined by John Key and Bill English of focus groups and internal polling as new policies are formulated.
According to Thomas Coughlan in the NZ Herald, underneath Luxon’s corporate sheen lies a political geek, and his geekery had him seize upon the idea that National might be able to detoxify its brand as David Cameron and George Osborne detoxified the Tories when they took power in 2005 to win the general election in 2010.
Coughlan’s insights are useful: his report is headed “We need to show we care: Luxon”.
As leader, Luxon says he wants to change the framing that National is just the party of the economy while Labour focuses on social issues and the Greens have a monopoly on environmental issues.
He insists on the importance of providing equitable opportunities:
“It’s not good enough to write off a whole portion of New Zealanders who are poor and doing it tough.”
But if these comments about moving away from the bootstraps mentality, and providing “powerful interventions to help those people lift up; rise up; and get their shot at the Kiwi Dream”, had anyone thinking Luxon favours a Labour-lite approach, he quickly put paid to that.
And Bill English has bequeathed ideas and techniques for the reform of welfarism.
As English spelt it out in an article in The Australian last month, he does not necessarily want cuts in welfare spending – in fact he says sometimes more money will have to be spent – but he wants governments to start using data and technology to pinpoint where funds can be directed to achieve results.
After 40 years of “persistent failure” in welfare in the West, he says, we need a fresh angle and
“… the freshest is the mixture of actuarial models, data tools, customer segmentation – really boring down, really getting to understand the risk factors down to quite small components of your community”.
Since the 1980s, many governments in the West have tried to tackle problems with the welfare state by slashing national budgets, but English says:
“In my experience, the best way to achieve fiscal control is to actually solve the problems of the people who are driving the spend. Bureaucracies are very reluctant to admit that what they’re doing is not working … but we shouldn’t pretend when we know we’re failing.”
Sometimes much more money is needed, he says, but it has to be applied in ways that work, dealing with one problem at a time.
Hence the social investment programme he did in Government. Compare that to the billions being wasted by the current Government.
“The first thing for governments to do is admit what they’re not good at,” says English. “And what they’re not good at is complexity – that is, people who need multiple services, and don’t fit the boxes. So those people are all getting little doses of commodity services that usually wear them out rather than have any impact.”
He points to a “trained hopelessness” in the welfare sector and argues that identity politics is making it worse,
“. because it’s saying that who you are determines what you will be; and, of course, that’s the kind of thing a lazy universal system would say”.
For the people on the receiving end of that bureaucracy, it’s tough:
“People on middle-class incomes … have no idea what it’s like to be enmeshed in 10 different systems (of payments) … these people are worn out … and we give them bad service.”
Targeted flexible support is what is needed, not dealing with 10 different agencies.
What about the bigger philosophical argument that promoting private investment and philanthropy is just a way to cut government spending and avoid responsibility?
English doesn’t pull his punches:
“I think we should have that discussion on the lawn outside the house where the child is getting beaten up, and while the kid’s screaming, we will have that philosophical contest. And when someone wins it, then they’re allowed to go in and deal with the child.”
Let’s see then how Luxon develops the image of a new “caring” National Party.
According to Coughlan, Luxon assigned Simon Bridges Max Rashbrooke’s Too Much Money to read over the holiday. Bridges enjoyed it and agreed with Rashbrooke on a lot of his arguments.
He led a closed-door briefing to caucus on his view of the economic situation, and noted an unusual trend: increasing support for National among the under-40s.
Coughlan says that Bridges – in his speech – noted Labour is still wedded to Norman Kirk’s dictum that all people want is “someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work, and something to hope for”. He reckons Kiwis are aspirational enough to want a bit more than hat: Education, international careers, even wealth.
“We know the size of our economy, the size of our economic engine”, Luxon told Coughlan, before adding that he wants to succeed on issues like health, education and climate.”
As Point of Order sees it, Luxon, having got a disciplined caucus behind him, and shaped the appropriate messaging, will need to find candidates in tune with the tactics and messaging to fight in those electorates, once held by National, but now in Labour hands.
The rural regions in particular could be ripe for the picking. But National will also have to rebuild its following in the cities as well. None of that will be easy.
Luxon should concentrate on returning the country to a democracy first and foremost. Kick climate into touch, which will allow him more to use on things that can be fixed. If he thinks he can fix non-existent climate change he should transfer to the loopy greens.
LikeLike
The National Party “mould “ which has been in existence since Sid Holland was elected Nationals first PM is no longer relevant in today’s New Zealand. A complete revision is required to make National more acceptable as a Party that is not just about “caring” but has policies that ensure all hardworking people who accept personal responsibility for doing the best for their families are recognised and where necessary supported, Doesn’t matter where they fit in the socio-economic scale or where they live or what they do. It is these New Zealanders we have to rely on to get the country back on its feet. A society that is dependent on government handouts is not going to do it,
LikeLike