Editorial: Labour, National playing it safe in election year with one goal in mind

Napier MP Stuart Nash with Prime Minister Chris Hipkins in Hawkje's Bay last month. Photo / Mark Mitchell

In an election year it’s hardly surprising if voting calculations underpin major political decisions and stances.

Realistically, the Government’s future goals and projects are effectively on hold until after the election. Instead, economic “bread and butter” issues and disaster recovery are dominating.

It seems plain fare, but from Labour’s point of view there will be no chance to do more if the left bloc, with the Greens, loses in October.

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has his party level-pegging in opinion polls with National, despite major challenges. He is giving voters an idea of who he is and what his priorities are, while being tactically shrewd.

National has plenty of issues to draw attention to - such as the annual deficit on the current account being 8.9 per cent of GDP - and in combination with Act, the right bloc is well in contention.

None of this appears to be good news for those voters wanting urgency on more ambitious programmes - or at least some thinking outside-the-box - although surprises are possible and there’s the Budget to come.

For instance, while both National and Labour have early education policies, there’s been nothing as interesting or different as the New South Wales state government’s proposed Kids Future Fund. It is a KiwiSaver-type scheme for children as a kick start for education and housing costs when they’re older.

All the current playing-it-safe and appealing to both core supporters and the middle ground could be an argument for four-year terms, to allow governing parties more time to get projects done outside election windows.

Barring a change to poll trends with one of the main parties taking a clear lead, voters can think through the implications of the tight margins and the likelihood of coalition agreements after the election.

As political commentators have noted, Hipkins’ policy moves last week to ditch the clean car upgrade scheme and some other emissions-cutting efforts in favour of boosting pension and benefit rates appears to allow Labour to battle hard with National on the cost of living while giving the Greens some space on climate.

Climate Change Minister and Greens co-leader James Shaw said yesterday: “To any political party that wants the Green Party’s support to form a government after the election, let us put it as simply as we can: The Green Party will not accept anything less than the strongest possible climate action. The stakes are too high, the consequences of failure too great.”

Labour will be wanting to maximise its slice of the left-leaning and swing vote by focusing on issues the public currently cares more about, while hoping for patience from supporters on longer-term initiatives. For instance, Government financial support for businesses in cyclone-affected areas is now more than $100 million.

At the present rate of bad news - economic data, strikes, health waiting times, crime and political controversies - it will be hard to steer a steady course.

Reaction to Hipkins’ policy goal reset was quickly swallowed up by the Stuart Nash foot-in-mouth clanger over the police and judiciary. It was one of three mistakes made by the minister.

Nash quickly admitted he “stuffed up”. Hipkins will be hoping Nash can stay out of further political trouble.

The minister may have lost his police portfolio but he still keeps forestry. It’s pretty obvious that the wrecking ball that is wood waste will once again cause damage and political problems unless it is fixed.

No doubt Nash’s populist, tough-on-crime talk was a factor in his demotion being limited. As Hipkins put it, Nash has a colloquial style that “that often reflects the sentiments of a significant proportion of the community”.

Hipkins appears ambitious to swell Labour’s voter tent, but constant distractions don’t help.