Bob Jones: Money talks when it comes to election time

History says Labour is history. Since the first 1935-1949 Labour reign, there have been four Labour governments. Two of them were slaughtered at the very next election (1957 and 1972) and only the Lange and Clark governments won second terms, and deservedly so.

Contrast that with the four National governments since the first in 1949, with, respectively, three, four, three and three successive victories. So over the past 56 years Labour has been in office for only 18 years.

Why? My theory is this. Labour governments change things while National governments simply govern. Everyone seeks certainty in their lives. While incoming Labour governments, with their huge agendas of change, are initially embraced as a breath of fresh air after years of National stodge, the buggers just never let up.


Eventually the public tires of the constant upheaval and seek some peace and quiet. Put another way, the voters boot out National when they can't take the tedium any longer, and Labour when they've had enough excitement.


So if I'm right, then evidently the voters' boredom threshold is much higher than their excitement tolerance, all of which favours National.

Additionally, as always seems to happen when governments fall, a series of mini-scandals leading up to the election chip away at its support and we've certainly seen those this year. National's sudden polling momentum has placed Labour on the back foot with their confidence rattled.

Three factors could see the government achieve a history-bucking third term.

The first is the economy. These are good times and the worldwide record shows voters support the status quo when the economy is good.

Second is the MMP kaleidoscope which will ensure no party achieves an outright majority. The numbers could fall in a variety of ways and the next government will be decided by post-election haggling. However, this will favour National as minor parties will hesitate before associating with any third-term government. They will be mindful of the improbability of any government - but in the light of history, particularly Labour - cracking it a fourth time.

Finally, there's the election campaign - National's biggest vulnerability point. Nice enough chap though he is, Don Brash is no Muldoon. He struggles with questions for which he has no rehearsed answers and could look inept in leaders' debates. But, offsetting that, the Prime Minister is no David Lange.

In all contests, victory always goes to the agenda-setter, which is why National has surged recently. Labour will respond to National's as-yet-undetailed agenda-setting tax proposals, claiming they will be at the expense of health and education spending.


But I suspect the public won't buy it when they see so much preposterous waste on hip-hop tours, bogus universities, taxpayer-funded twilight golf "studies", nonsensical so-called arts expenditures and indulgent welfare excesses. The trick for National will be getting the balance right, as the bigger the tax cuts, the more Labour will gain plausibility in denying their practicality. On the other hand, tax will bounce badly for National if the proposals are insignificant or deferred.

The agenda-setting winning formula does not contradict my claim that the public tire of change, for there are changes and changes. People tire of being bullied over smoking, of having to bow to all things Maori, and being instructed how to raise their children. But debilitating in political support though these busy-body irritations are, none are of sufficient moment in themselves to affect their vote.


What does get to voters is telling them they'll keep more of their earnings. Hip pocket politics always prevail and will do so again this year despite the healthy economy, which is why Labour is in trouble on taxation.