Here's how Labour's 'Year of Delivery' went. Astounding. pic.twitter.com/Tp3oCb62W4
— NZ National Party (@NZNationalParty) January 13, 2020
National promised eight policy papers this year and they’ve delivered.
The government promised this year would be their year of delivery and they haven’t.
You’ll find National discussion documents here.
You’ll find the government’s broken promises here.
They include: child poverty heading in the wrong direction, the level of homelessness is appalling, elective surgery numbers have dropped, economic growth has dropped from 4% under National to 2.1%; job growth has fallen from 10,000 a month under National to just 3,000 under Labour; per capita growth is only 0.5 per cent a year compared with average of 1.7% a year during the last five years under National; the number of people on the dole is up by 22,000, the number of New Zealanders heading overseas has increased by 10,000 a year, the billion trees promise isn’t being delivered and won’t be, not a single cent of the the $100 million Green Investment Fund that was supposed to kick-start $1 billion of investment in ‘low carbon’ industries has been invested, the commitment this year to making the entire Government fleet emissions-free by mid-2025 was dropped, the government hasn’t been able to find a credible way to introduce a royalty on bottled water exports without trampling all over trade and other agreements with countries New Zealand does business with, yet another working group was set up to address waste minimisation but hasn’t come up with anything yet, the bold goals for housing have been dropped, The 4000 new apprentices target has been quietly dropped. Only 417 have started the Mana in Mahi programme and 32% of them dropped out . . .
Rodney Hide sums it up saying the year of delivery got lost in the post:
This was supposed to be the turnaround year. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern declared 2019 her Year of Delivery. Nothing has been delivered. Her promise has proved, like her government, empty and meaningless.
The tragedy is that we accept it. It’s enough that politicians feel and emote; there’s no need to do or achieve anything. We should perhaps rename the country New Feel-Land. . .
That’s the Year of Delivery done and dusted.
But there’s always next year. The prime minister has plastics again in her sights. She says it’s what children write to her about most. There are news reports she’s planning on banning plastic stickers on fruit.
I scoffed when we had government by focus group. We now have government by school project. . .
Garrick Tremain sums it up:
What’s all that hot air doing to our emissions profile?
Reducing those is another failure, in spite of the commitment to reducing them being the PM’s nuclear-free moment, they’re increasing and will continue to for the next five years.
A new government ill-prepared for the role might have been excused a first year finding its feet but there’s no excuse for failing so badly to deliver in on its promises in what was supposed to be its year of delivery.
There is little doubt that Jacinda Ardern’s leadership enabled Labour to gain enough votes in the 2017 election to cobble together a coalition government.
Her fans among the commentariat would have us believe her popularity is unquestioned.
But over at Kiwiblog David Farrar has the numbers that tell a different story:
- Governing Party – Clark Labour 45%, Key National 55%, Ardern Labour 39%
- Opposition Party – English National 39%, Goff Labour 33%, Bridges National 46%
- NZ First – 2001 2.7%, 2010 3.1%, 2019 4.0%
- Greens – 2001 6%, 2010 4.5%, 2019 7.0%
And how is the PM as Preferred PM
- Clark 2001 41%, Key 2010 56%, Ardern 2019 36%
Popular yes, but not as popular as her predecessors.
Guy Trafford writes of the West Coast’s protest against government policies:
The West Coast managed to do what the major centres couldn’t and had “thousands” turn out on Saturday to register their dislike of the government policies. A couple of things made this protest somewhat unusual.
The protesting crowd was made up of odd bedfellows with farmers, miners and members of the fishing industry forming the majority of the number. The other unusual factor was that it was held in what is traditionally considered to be heartland Labour territory.
The crux of the protest was that people had had enough of not being allowed to make a living from the natural resources. . .
This is echoed by Chris Trotter:
…It’s precisely this widening gulf between those with actual experience of things like guns, chainsaws and drilling machines, and those who regulate their use, that accounts for the angry crowd at Greymouth’s Messenger Park. In the rarefied atmosphere where decisions to shut down whole industries are made, hands-on experience is not only rare – it’s despised. What do workers know about anything?
That’s the question isn’t it? What do workers know? The answer, of course, is “more than they think”.
For a start, they know that human-beings have been changing nature for millions of years. From the moment some brave ancestor pulled a burning branch from the edge of a blazing forest, our species ceased to be just another mammal. From chipping flint to smelting steel, humanity’s relentless drive to innovate and alter has granted it, in the solemn language of Genesis: “dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
You don’t truly understand this truth until, using your own strength and skill, and the strength and skill of your workmates, you collectively transform your world. And that sort of truth: the knowledge you gain down in a mine or felling a tree: you won’t find in a book anywhere.
Workers know that all those people in the cities going on and on about “keeping the coal in the ground” don’t understand that without the high-quality coking-coal from places like the West Coast of the South Island of New Zealand, the world’s steel mills couldn’t function. Without steel there is no modern world. Without coking-coal we’re back in the Iron Age – cutting down whole forests to make the charcoal crucial to the smelting of iron and most other metals.
Meanwhile mining here is regarded as bad but the country is importing coal from elsewhere. Most of it is of lower quality and at least some of it comes from countries with far laxer employment and environmental standards than ours.
Workers know what civilisation is made of because they extract it every day.
Farmers are the same. They know what it takes to coax crops out of the ground. How much they are beholden to forces no human-being can ever truly tame or control. They also know what city dwellers pampering their pets in suburban bungalows do not. That the relationship between human-beings and animals has always been one of ruthless exploitation. As inescapable as it is irreducible: we consume them.
It’s a hard world – as hard as the callouses on the hands of those who work it. And there is precious little which the world is able to surrender to us without long and bitter struggle.
In the process of exploiting its plants, animals and minerals is humankind damaging this world? Are we ruining the atmosphere by wrenching from its bowels the fossil fuels that make our lives so much easier?
The answer from the protesters of Messenger Park is “Yes.”, and “Yes.” And, unless we want to return to the day before that brave ancestor picked up that burning branch, they’re telling us to “get over it”. Nothing comes from nothing.
Nobody lives closer to Mother Nature than the people of the Coast.
It’s hard work.
The irony is that cities, where most of the politicians, bureaucrats and their supporters who want impose far bigger blots on the landscape than farms, mines and selective logging.
But cities are where most voters and so the government is more likely to listen to urban voices than provincial and rural ones.
However, around 10% of the West Coast’s population turned out to protest.
The significance of that is amplified by the fact that Labour would have counted many of them as friends, and a party that starts losing its friends finds it very much harder to win elections.
Ever since MMP was introduced, New Zealand has been in want of a party that stands for something and sits in the centre, able to coalesce with National to its right or Labour to its left.
The Maori Party could have been that party, but in spite of being the last cab off the rank when Helen Clark led Labour, and in government at National’s invitation its natural home was towards the left.
The many iterations of United Future rarely stood for anything more than keeping its leader, Peter Dunne, in parliament and government.
New Zealand First, similarly stands for keeping Winston Peters in power and his strong antipathy towards National now makes it a natural ally for Labour rather than a true centre party.
The Green Party could have been that centre party if it wasn’t so red. But its hardline social and economic agenda put it to the left of Labour.
Now a new player the Sustainable New Zealand Party has enterer centre stage:
. . .Sustainable New Zealand is neither left nor right wing but is focused on sustainability. We are able to work with parties of the left or right to get the best deal for the environment. Sustainable New Zealand’s approach is to work with business to innovate and to correctly price ‘externalities’. We will be led by the science when finding solutions and developing policy. Our future will only be sustainable with technological and scientific innovation.
Sustainable New Zealand’s focus is on being ‘practical environmentalists.’ We will work with rather than against our farmers. We favour a regulatory light-touch where possible but with a willingness to act decisively on core issues. We will foster innovation to transition our economy from one that relies on chopping down, digging up, burning or milking something for economic growth to one that is environmentally-benign and makes us all richer. We know that nothing is free. We need to be prosperous to ensure that we can afford to look after our people and our environment. . .
There’s a lot to like in that and an environmental party that sits in the middle is a good idea in theory, but will it be strong enough to get at least some MPs in to parliament?
One avenue would be to reach an agreement with either Labour or National to allow it to win a seat, the way Act does in Epsom.
But doing that would compromise its ability to work with left or right.
Besides Labour is very unlikely to sour its relationship with the Greens by throwing a seat to a rival and it would be a big risk for National.
Peter Dunne already held the seat when National voters were asked to back him. They did and had to endure three long terms of him supporting Labour governments before National got back into power. He stayed in cabinet and thwarted National’s agenda several times, most notably its attempts to improve the RMA.
Rodney Hide won Epsom by his own efforts, taking it from a sitting National MP who was trying to hold it. Voters have continued to back an Act candidate in the seat but a majority of them give their party vote to National.
Asking a sitting National MP to throw the seat for a Sustainable NZ candidate, or expecting a new National candidate to campaign only for the party vote is a very different and much riskier strategy.
So could Sustainable NZ make it to 5%?
History would say no.
The Progressive Green Party broke away from the red Greens and fielded 15 candidates in the 1996 election but could muster only .26% of the vote.
No new party has made it into parliament without a sitting MP.
However, small parties generally get punished for their performance in government and the Greens will have lost support from both those who think it’s been too left and those who think it hasn’t been left enough.
If enough of the former were joined by those disenchanted by Labour and NZ First and perhaps some of the blue-greens who’ve supported National it might, but the chances of it doing so are slight.
Sustainable NZ has had reasonable publicity since its weekend launch but that will be hard to sustain and it will need a lot of people power and the money they bring to have any hope of turning a good theory into practical electoral success.
The Labour, NZ First, Green government has just passed its second anniversary in power and what have we got?
- Fee-free tertiary education which hasn’t had a positive impact on participation, and a third of those who got the help failed or withdrew.
- KiwiBuild turned into KiwiFlop.
- Higher fuel taxes for all to pay for public transport in Auckland which includes the stalled project of rail to airport about which officials can’t get direction from the Minister.
- Two Ministers resigned/sacked.
- Thousands of hectares of productive land converted to forestry.
- Subsidies that incentivise forestry over farming.
- Foreign ownership of productive land encouraged by much less rigorous requirements than for purchase for farming, horticulture or viticulture.
- Business confidence in the doldrums.
- Interest rates heading towards zero and below.
- DHB deficits growing.
- Polytechs that are working well to be sacrificed for those that aren’t.
- Virtue-signaling environmental policies that come at a high economic and social cost here and add to environmental cost elsewhere.
- Policy at the mercy of the minor coalition partner’s leader’s whim.
- The waka-jumping legislation.
- The Provincial Growth
Shane Jones Promotion/NZ First re-electionFund.
- Policy announcement after policy announcement that is high on feel-good but low on planning.
It was easy to come up with those negatives, and it wouldn’t be hard to add more.
But what of the positives?
The only one that comes to mind is a Prime Minister who gets a lot of focus and high praise internationally.
But how much is that worth when there are so many problems that aren’t being solved at home?
A new government needs some time to get up to speed, but more than two-thirds through its term is too long on training wheels.
The age of Jacindamania is over. Brand Ardern has taken its biggest knock yet – and when Labour’s magic weapon loses its power, the party does too.
The latest Newshub-Reid Research Poll shows just how wounded Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Labour have been after the string of crises that have beset them.
Labour was the only party to lose support in Newshub’s poll. It’s now on 41.6 percent – smacked down by 9.2 percent.
Most of that went to National, which is on 43.9 percent – up 6.5. This is enough to overtake Labour, and that’s manna from heaven for the Nats and leader Simon Bridges. . .
It’s only one poll, has a margin of error of 3.1%, and remember the last Newshub-Reid Research Poll, had National much lower and Labour much higher than the TV One poll that came out the same night.
On this result Labour and the Green Party could still form a government and National and Act would be a couple of seats short.
But while Party support ebbs and flows the trend is more significant, and this echoes other polls which show Labour losing support.
And support for the Prime Minister tends to peak and then fall.
Personality matters but it doesn’t pay the bills and while warm words are well received they can’t counter the fact that the year of delivery has been one of disappointments.