Jon Johansson's speech to the New Zealand First Party conference (reproduced in full by Audrey Young in a fine example of how a blog can supplement journalism) has come in for some attention over at The Standard and Kiwiblogblog, mainly for its attack on John Key. But the part I find most interesting is the first bit, on historical analogies. Here Johansson reviews the last 47 years of political history and finds that some of our assumptions might be wrong:
We tend to think that New Zealand voters like to keep their governments on a very short leash.(Lest anyone think Johansson is strapping his chicken by choosing his boundaries carefully, going back to the start of the modern political era in 1949 adds one three-term and one one-term government. So long-lived governments are still in, though most of them are National)However, if we look at the 16 elections since 1960 we have had one four-term government, 3 three-term governments, 1 two-term government and only once have we seen a government thrown out after only 3 years.
This is a useful reminder of history, but it needs an important caveat: we have MMP now. The rules have changed.
Under FPP, the path to government was easy: wait for the other bunch to wear out their welcome, then sleepwalk to victory. Say nothing, do nothing, just rely on the unpopularity of the incumbents to see you through. This worked because there were essentially only two parties to choose between - and even when there were three, the gross distortions of FPP meant that only two would have significant representation in Parliament. So, if one party slumped, the other more or less had to rise.
Under MMP, things are different (most obviously in that it is Labour, rather than National, which is now enjoying a third term in government). While a governing party may still wear out its welcome, become unpopular, and lose support, that no longer automatically delivers a large majority to their opponent. Instead, its all about coalition-building. And the upshot is that the old three-term limit may no longer apply.
National is still using the old FPP playbook, relying on the government being unpopular. And I don't think that's enough any more. Labour has maintained its core support, and has potential coalition partners in the form of the Greens, Progressives, and Maori Party. National has no-one, having systematically eliminated or alienated its potential coalition partners. As a result, they find themselves having to get 46% of the vote in order to have a chance - and that is a very big ask.
Back to Johansson. The other interesting part is his section on New Zealand values, in which he points out that historically we have favoured equality over liberty, with a healthy dose of pragmatism thrown in, plus a strong green tinge. What's striking is that National's values are the exact opposite of this - recently, they have favoured the unfettered liberty of the ultra-rich over the equality of all, pursued ideological solutions rather than pragmatic (or even functioning) ones, and are more brown than green. This is one reason why they have such trouble making friends in parliament, but it also suggests they are going to have to moderate their values significantly, or else face having only very short spells in power until they do.