Claire Trevett: Is Simon Bridges' tough-talk on benefit cheats and gangs all talk?

National Party leader Simon Bridges. Photo / Paul Taylor

"Gangs, crims and extremists" has become something of a catch-cry of National Party leader Simon Bridges as he deploys the rhetoric of being "tough".

He first deployed it over the gun law reforms, saying - on repeat - they would do little to crack down on "gangs, crims and extremists".

So he would not have liked Act leader David Seymour's description of National's proposed social welfare policies as "Labour-lite". In that same release, Bridges had said he was unapologetic about taking a "hard line" on welfare.

Seymour was right in assessing there are similarities in the core social policies of Labour and National.

Both have the same goals, both use the same social welfare system. The key differences are in how they apply that system and in a few side trimmings.

When it comes to policies such as the "baby bonus", National prefers targeted funding, Labour is more universal.

The biggest difference of all is in the messaging.

National claims to take a "hard-line approach" to welfare and claims Labour is soft on benefit cheats. Labour accuses National of beneficiary bashing.

So it was little surprise that National's latest document was as much about messaging as actual policies.

In parts, it was hard to spot the policy from behind the thumping anti-gang and benefit cheating rhetoric.

The first mention of gangs in it is not subtle: "National hates gangs."

There was much talk of "cracking down on gangs" and "peddling methamphetamine and violence".

On welfare there was the time-worn language of "a hand-up, not a hand-out". And there was much talk of "vulnerable Kiwis".

Then there are the water cooler topics – the policies that may not actually be adopted, but get people talking.

The first one of these has already fallen by the wayside.

That was the plan to issue $3000 fines to the parents of teenage school drop-outs. That has been watered down to a rather more vague threat for the parents to be "held accountable".

The reason Bridges gave for its dumping was that it was a stupid idea: "Someone floated a kite, and actually it wasn't a great kite let's be honest."

The fact it existed at all indicated many aspects of National's discussion document are designed to provoke debate rather than to be policy.

Other kites that may not fly on that list are penalising parents who do not get their children immunised, and putting a limit on the length of time a younger person can be on the benefit.

The "discussion" document has had the desired effect of getting people talking about National Party policy.

Most attention has gone on the policy to make gang members prove none of their income or assets are from crime.

Behind all of these attention-grabbing bits lies the substantive policy.

There were some new bits, such as plans to give more support to parents for the child's first five years.

Bridges spoke of his own son's experience with clubbed feet in setting this out, saying it had made him aware of the support new parents need.

But in terms of housing and the welfare system, it was a return to 2017.

There were many mentions of what the previous National government had been doing, and why it was still a good idea.

Bridges even resuscitated John Key's old slogan of being "ambitious for New Zealanders".

It proposed reinstating targets, and harsher sanctions on beneficiaries.

It also proposed forging ahead with the "social investment" approach National had started developing, using data to identify and support at-risk families from an early stage.

This indicates a lack of imagination.

But it is also understandable given National's 2017 election result did not amount to a rejection by the voters of National's direction of travel.

In that respect, the 2017 result should also be high in the minds of Labour as it sets about deciding what to offer in 2020.

The dangerous impression appears to have seeded in Labour that it "won" the last election.

It did indeed end up winning the government benches, but many of its MPs have apparently forgotten the Greens and Labour combined got an election result lower than National's.

The change in Labour's fortunes in the polls back then was also largely a result of Ardern, rather than a ringing endorsement of Labour's policies.

It struggled to get out of the 20s in the polls with those same policies under other leaders.

And it has since struggled to execute some of them.

In a joint interview with PM and Finance Minister Grant Robertson last week, the pair were asked what work was underway for new, or refreshed, policies for 2020.

Ardern's assessment was that Labour would be judged on what it had already done, and whether people believed it had done enough to be given the chance to do more.

Labour has done much – but not as much as Ardern seemed to promise in 2017.

Ardern might have been unrealistic about what she could achieve at the time, but it is likely many voters realised that.

It might have explained why Labour's progress up the polls stalled in the mid to high 30s before election day.

It has moved up since, but not by enough to give Ardern any security that she will be a shoo-in in 2020.