Same old National?

New Zealand's conservative National Party has long had an image problem. People believe that its central focus is privatising core government services (like health and education) and selling state assets—selling off everything that's not nailed down, as many put it. Lately, they've managed to reinforce that image.

National became identified with privatisation after neo conservatives siezed control of the Labour Party in the 1980s and began the work. While much of Labour's reforms were overdue following years of economic mismanagement by National Party Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, Labour was voted out by an electorate reeling from unrelenting economic upheaval. What Kiwis got was a National Party also under the control of neo cons who saw as their mission completing the work Labour began.

These upheavals were in the era of Reagan and Thatcher, of neo cons presenting their plans with the arrogant TINA dismissal: There Is No Alternative (as an aside, the neo cons were lying, of course, because there are always alternatives). Right up until they lost power in 1999, National was looking to sell state-owned assets and privatise government functions. By that time, the electorate had been victimised enough.

Labour came to power with a mandate to pull back. Since it's been in power, Labour has moved to put people—rather than just “The Market”—back into the equation when providing health and education. They bought back New Zealand's rail tracks, neglected by private companies. They bought back Air New Zealand, after private business nearly destroyed it. They reintroduced a state-owned bank, Kiwibank, after all the main trading banks in New Zealand came under Australian ownership, including former state-owned banks (Kiwibank was the initiative of coalition partner Jim Anderton, and has been a huge success). They mandated change in telecommunications and electricity supply, after National's hands-off, “let the market decide” created a mess that hurt ordinary Kiwis, as well as New Zealand's competitiveness in the world.

However, New Zealand voters eventually get sick of whoever's in power, and after eight years voters were looking for alternatives. A series of blunders and ministers doing stupid things didn't help matters, and National soared ahead in the polls.

Then, they started releasing policy.

So far, they've promised to sell-off “part” of state-owned assets. They released their health policy, and neglected to mention that they planned to remove caps on doctors' fees, letting them charge whatever they want, while keeping Labour's subsidies. They're again planning on having poor people “work for the dole”, despite that idea being a demonstrable failure here and overseas. Now they want private companies to build and own school buildings, renting them back to schools—at market rates, of course.

When there was a firestorm of protest at their health plans, National later claimed that it was only a discussion point. But to most people that claim sounded hollow, designed to limit damage. In fact, it looks like the same old National, preparing to unleash “market forces” (better known as the profit motive) on the health and education sectors. Encouraging privately-owned state schools is, of course, just one step shy of privatising education altogether, as they were planning to do under their former leader, Don Brash.

So, National has been slipping in the polls, and this was even before the latest plans at privatisation were announced. New Zealanders have had enough of the neo conservative policies of the 1980s and 1990s, and National is seeing that their party was only popular until they reminded people that neo con economics is the very heart and soul of the party.

So far, Labour hasn't benefited from this: National has lost ground in polling, but Labour hasn't picked up support. They deserve to. Sure, Labour hasn't been perfect, but they've kept a steady hand on the wheel of the ship of state. In addition to the things above, they kept us nuclear free and out of Iraq, two things about which National under Don Brash would have done the opposite. Despite the constant whingeing and moaning from the right, things are going great. I have absolutely zero confidence that a return to trickle down economics to benefit the rich and very rich would improve things, so I have zero confidence in National.

Today the conservative New Zealand Herald published an editorial critical of National, concluding:

The next election is a good year away. National still has plenty of time to capitalise on the voters' desire for change, and offer some compelling new ideas to make a change worthwhile. So far we have seen none.

If the Herald can be so critical of a party that takes so many of the positions they advocate, it's easy to see why voters are becoming increasingly sceptical of National. New Zealand has been there, done that, and they know damn well that there is an alternative.