Let's Do This NOW! Elections are won when the electorate’s general preference for prosperity and stability is overwhelmed by its desire to turn the page and begin something new. When simply restoring the same old faces to the same old places no longer seems enough. When obtaining justice for past wrongs; and securing for themselves, and for their children, a different and better future; calls forth from the nation’s voters an unaccustomed measure of courage and daring. (Photo by JOHN MILLER)
KEITH RANKIN IS WRONG about Jacinda needing to lose this election. If that’s what happens on Saturday: if National somehow hauls itself
back onto the Treasury Benches; then it is the purest folly to suppose that the
election of 2020 will be a Labour walkover. If the Centre-Left cannot win in
2017, then the question that begs to be answered is: “Can it win at all?”
Presumably, Keith is being guided by the historical
precedent of the 1969 “nearly-but-not-quite” election; That was the election
which Labour lost by 14,000 votes, only to be swept into office three years
later in the “It’s time!” election of 1972. Or, perhaps he’s thinking of the
“Springbok Tour Election” of 1981, when National secured a two-seat majority in
spite of receiving 4,122 fewer votes than the Labour Party nationwide. As
happened in 1969, Labour’s narrow defeat was followed by a unambiguous victory
three years later in the watershed snap-election of 1984.
If these are the precedents that Keith has in mind, then
they deserve closer scrutiny. Especially since Keith’s reason for identifying
the 2017 election as the one Jacinda needs to lose is that, in his opinion:
“there will be a financial crisis next year … [which Labour] … is ill-equipped
to handle … Further, it may take a major financial crisis (with Labour in
Opposition) to drag Labour into the present century, just as the 1930s’ crisis
belatedly dragged Labour into the twentieth century.”
Leaving aside the fact that Labour was very much a twentieth
century political party (founded in 1916) and, therefore, in no need of being
dragged anywhere; its failure to win the 1931 general election after close to
three years of the most calamitous economic depression in modern history is
highly instructive. Certainly, Labour expected to win and was deeply
demoralised by the right-wing United-Reform Coalition’s electoral success.
Now, if we follow Keith’s thesis, Labour’s 1931 defeat
merely presaged its inevitable victory of 1935. Except that Labour’s 1935 win
was more a matter of good luck than good management. In fact, had the New
Zealand Right not fallen into bitter factional strife over the best way to deal
with the Great Depression, then there is absolutely no guarantee that Labour
would have won. Certainly, if the country had had a proportional electoral
system (as it does today) then the Centre-Left’s total of 46.5 percent may not
have been enough.
Significant, also, in terms of Keith’s thesis, is the fact
that, by 1935, the worst years of the Great Depression were over. The nadir had
been reached in 1932, when widespread rioting had broken out in all of New
Zealand’s major cities. Over the course of the next three years, however, the
rapid spiral into misery and hopelessness had slowed. Although, it must be
said, things were still very bad, and working-class hatred for the Coalition
Government was palpable. Even so, the chance was there in 1935. Had the Right
been united, and led by the moderate former prime-minister, Gordon Coates,
Labour could have been run very close – and maybe even defeated.
Certainly, the sharp economic downturn of 1967-68 was
insufficient to unseat the National Government of Keith Holyoake in 1969.
What’s more, by late November 1972, the New Zealand economy was going
gang-busters. There was over-full employment, wages were rising ahead of
inflation, and the NZ Dollar was worth more than the US Dollar! And yet, in
spite of all this good economic news, the electorate turfed-out Jack Marshall’s
National Government with nary a backward glance.
Likewise, in 1984. The loud criticisms of his ideological
foes in the finance sector and news media notwithstanding, Rob Muldoon’s
two-year Wage & Price Freeze had brought inflation down to low single
figures, and his Think Big projects in the regions had kept the unemployment
rate well below 10 percent. Most impressive of all, however, was the stunning
recovery in per capita GDP growth, which, at close to 6 percent, was an
astonishing 8 percentage points higher than the recessionary -2 percent
recorded the previous year. Not bad for a Polish shipyard!
None of these figures did Muldoon much good at the
ballot-box in 1984, however. Attacked from the right by Bob Jones’s New Zealand
Party, and from the left (or so we thought!) by David Lange’s Labour Party,
National’s vote fell from 38.8 to 35.8 percent. (A surprisingly modest drop –
all things considered!) Labour itself, lifted its vote from 39.0 to 42.9
percent. Another modest result – and well below the 48.4 percent share of the
popular vote Labour had attracted in 1972 – the last time it won a general
election.
The lesson to be drawn from these historical examples is
that misery, alone, is insufficient to propel a left-wing party into power. If
it was, then Labour would most certainly have been elected in 1931. Nor is
economic success the key determinant of electoral outcomes. If it were, then
Muldoon, like Holyoake in 1969, should have been able to fend off Lange’s
challenge in 1984. [And, before anybody objects that New Zealand faced an
economic crisis in 1984, I would remind them that the run on the $NZ was
deliberately engineered by Roger Douglas, who “accidentally” left a position
paper indicating Labour’s intention to order a devaluation of 20 percent if it
won the election, lying on his chair for journalists to find at an election
meeting in Auckland. – C.T.] Clearly, Bill Clinton’s 1992 Presidential Campaign
Team’s oft-quoted quip: “It’s the economy, stupid!”, isn’t always true.
What is true, I think, is that elections are won when the
electorate’s general preference for prosperity and stability is overwhelmed by
its desire to turn the page and begin something new. When simply restoring the
same old faces to the same old places no longer seems enough. When obtaining
justice for past wrongs; and securing for themselves, and for their children, a
different and better future; calls forth from the nation’s voters an
unaccustomed measure of courage and daring.
The trick, of course, is to prevent that courage and daring
from fading away. In this respect, it is not the general election of 1935 that
changed New Zealand history, but the 1938 election which followed it. In the
three years that separated that first Labour victory from the second, the
government of Michael Joseph Savage had laid the groundwork for a genuine
transformation of New Zealand society. Effectively, he was saying to the New
Zealand people: “Three years is not enough to complete the task we have begun
on your behalf. Give us your votes so we can finish the job.”
And that’s exactly what the people of New Zealand did. At an
astonishing 55.8 percent, Labour’s share of the popular vote was the highest
ever recorded at a New Zealand general election.
What I would say to Keith, therefore, is that Jacinda cannot
afford to lose in 2017 – any more than Mickey Savage could afford to lose in
1935. The groundwork, for a fairer, smarter and environmentally sustainable New
Zealand in the twenty-first century, needs to be laid over the course of the
next three years, so that the true, the irreversible, transformation can take
place in the years following the 2020 election. Just as there could have been
no 1938 without 1935, there will be no 2020 without 2017.
We have to do this NOW.
This essay was
originally posted on The Daily Blog
of Thursday, 21 September 2017.
