KEY POINTS:
In July 1984 a bustling bunch of 30- to 40-somethings took over the Beehive and turned policy upside down. Now a new lot of 30- to 40-somethings are itching to get their hands on the levers.
The 1984 crew were born during and after World War II. As young adults in the 1960s they challenged their parents' desire for order, security and prosperity and pursued personal and social freedom. Taking power in the 1980s, they extended that push for freedom into economic and foreign policy.
Now their values and customs are being challenged by a younger lot. We are amid a political generational change. Will this changeover also overturn policy settings?
John Key has just turned 47. Bill English will be 47 in December. They are just above the halfway age for voters - 45. Front-benchers Simon Power (39 in December), Nick Smith (43 in December) and Tony Ryall (44 in November) are squarely in the younger half. Helen Clark will turn 59 in February. Michael Cullen is 64.
The Phil Goffs, Pete Hodgsons and Annette Kings around them are well into their 50s.
And there is a world of different formative experiences between a 60-ish and a 40-ish politician.
Clark and co had their political ideas as young adults firmed by the Vietnam War, the rise of environmentalism and feminism, anti-nuclearism, opposition to apartheid and the rise of indigenous rights. Those influences shaped their responses to issues of the day differently from older people of similar political leaning. Restless younger delegates battled the platform at Labour Party conferences through the late 1960s and 1970s.
There were less impolitely expressed but nevertheless real differences at National Party conferences at that time too. For those now in their early-to-mid-40s all those framing events were either history or soon to be when their political ideas were firming.
Ten years ago English said that for his age group, the tensest economic policy battles had essentially been decided. Now Clark has a problem repriming the nuclear debate for this campaign. It has been a core issue for her since the early 1970s. For Key and English and younger National MPs it is a non-issue. Springbok tours - what are they? Treaty of Waitangi settlements - ho hum? Promote women - why would you not?
They were in their mid-20s or younger when the economy was deregulated and the Treaty issues were opened up.
Simon Power was 12 at the time of the Springbok tour battles of 1981. He was not 20 when Sir Roger Douglas, architect of the 1980s economic reforms, was sacked.
The world in which this next generation firmed their political ideas was one of computers, globalisation and open markets, mass migration and, later, the internet, the collapse of communism, the rise of China, rising social inequality - and far more broken homes.
Generally we can expect the Power generation to insist government services are customised - just like their music, cars and even jobs. That implies more policy and service ideas coming from outside the government machine, more choice of service providers and more flexibility in regulation and funding mechanisms.
In fact, the Clark Government has been moving in this direction with its notion of "partnership".
Clark herself has been promoting next-generation ministers and, more recently, candidates. One result is a relaxation of the Building Act (though this comes from 49-year-old Shane Jones who nevertheless claims fellowship with the under-45s - which underlines that hard age boundaries should not be drawn around political generations).
David Cunliffe (45) is on Clark's front bench. Clayton Cosgrove (39 in November) and Nanaia Mahuta (38) are significant Cabinet figures and Darren Hughes (30) squeezed in in last year's reshuffle.
Labour's candidate line-up features a raft of highly educated 28- to 45-year-olds, notably Jacinda Ardern (28) and Grant Robertson (36). Labour's regeneration is well under way.
National has done the same in its candidate selections: its line-up includes a swag of highly educated 28- to 45-year-olds, notably Simon Bridges (31), Amy Adams (37) and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga (38). They'll provide raw material for future Cabinet reshuffles as the Maurice Williamsons, Murray McCullys and co are shuffled into retirement.
But if we are in the middle of a changeover of political generations, when will it be over? Is this the pivotal election, as 1984 was?
In 1984, while the Labour Cabinet included a fair number of older MPs, the tight six who drove the show were aged from 35 (David Caygill and Mike Moore) to 46 (Douglas). Five more were under 45. The Cabinet's average age was 42.
And key advisers, particularly the Treasury, were of similar ages. Thus, with the possible exception of Douglas, the policy drivers were of the rising generation.
If Labour returns to office next month, more under-45s will join the Cabinet. Clark and Cullen would likely move on during the term, opening up the leadership, possibly to Cunliffe, though more likely to Clark-Cullen-generation Goff (55).
If National takes office and Key and English have the top jobs, is that evidence of a generational changeover, especially given that a raft of older MPs would be in the Cabinet and under-45s would be in the minority?
Political scientist Jon Johansson - declaring himself, at 47, a "baby-boomer" - says not. That matches definitions of the next generation as starting from 1965-66. Moreover, Key and English developed their political interests early. At 18 or 19 Key was said by a former girlfriend in a Weekend Herald profile to have had Parliament on his car radio. So the frame of reference against which Key firmed his political views in his early 20s would have included some of the later ingredients of Clark's and Cullen's. Likewise for English, who hails from a highly political family.
Among possible support partners for the next government, the picture is mixed.
A New Zealand First conference has few under-60s. Act pushes policies popular among radicals 15 and 20 years ago and has resurrected Douglas.
The Greens have a next generation co-leader, Russel Norman (41), a sharper, more people-focused campaign and a reasonable sprinkling of young enthusiasts - but often sounds more a 1980s than a 2000s vanguard party. United Future's conference fits in a small room. The Maori Party's MPs and most of its winnable candidates are of the older generation. It also spends much energy on rights battles, the essence of indigenous politics in the 1980s.
All of that suggests 2008 is not the pivotal year 1984 was. Nevertheless, Johansson says it is on "safer ground" to suggest that a generational transition is in train. Key might be seen as part of that transition.
But whether there is a Key or Clark government after 2008, the next generation will by 2011 either be already ascendant and potentially dominant in the Cabinet or set to dominate after 2011. If 2008 is not the pivotal election, 2011 will be.
But a pivot to what? Key and English have promised no big change of direction, just tendencies which would change things incrementally over time. By contrast with the 1984 lot, they are blandness personified.
That fits one description of the rising political generation as a "bridge" generation to the next - aged up to 28 (at most 32). But few that age are candidates and fewer still possible winners. The next revolution, if that is what the next-but-one generation is plotting, is some way off.
* colinjames@synapsis.com"
