Politics review: Dirt throwers land in mud

A Labour MP's private secretary gets the boot after striking up a relationship with an Opposition MP.

The husband of the Minister of Immigration goes berserk at a public meeting and insults a National MP using language with racist overtones.

Having spent the previous week flinging dirt at Bill English, Labour spent this week covering itself with mud.

Such self-inflicted woes can plague any government. But they are starting to plague this Government in a fashion that was not quite so evident during its first term.

Even the Prime Minister has been prone to lapses, most notably in lambasting the Herald for "banging on" about leaky homes, which put her at risk of a backlash in Auckland, that most vital of political marketplaces.

Helen Clark's comments sprang from a residue of resentment lingering from the July election. The Government's attitude to the media cooled noticeably after she was ambushed by TV3's John Campbell over genetically modified corn. Clark and her ministers judged the media had adopted the role of Opposition in National's absence.

Only now is that bitterness subsiding as Government-media relations reach a new equilibrium - one in which ministers find themselves more on the back foot, rather than having their statements swallowed unquestioningly as they could expect during a government's first term.

This week's kerfuffles were minor, but illustrative of the way governments tend to become reactive to events rather than driving them.

Flexing her mouth into its most dismissive of grimaces, Clark distanced herself from the raw-knuckle politics of Lianne Dalziel's husband and the peculiar employment relations practices being played out in the office of Labour backbencher Clayton Cosgrove. But the damage was done.

Such episodes are compounding the impression that the Government is getting a bit rough around the edges.

Not that this is affecting Labour's poll rating, which has bounced back to pre-election highs and is driven by fundamentals such as people's feelings of well-being and the health of the economy.

Should those fundamentals deteriorate, however, people will become less inclined to ignore or forgive Government foibles.

The more immediate question is whether - as National claims - the Government is succumbing to "second-term syndrome" and displaying a degree of arrogance and complacency.

Having been ensconced in the Beehive for three years - and easily winning re-election - ministers can develop an "I know best" inflexibility. They think they are bullet-proof. They start believing their own press statements. They no longer trust the media.

At the same time, reservoirs of public goodwill slowly drain as people become increasingly alienated by Government decisions.

Labour has been lucky in enjoying a strongly performing economy, which has meant it has not been faced with making unpopular decisions. But it has got one next week with the sale of a stake of Air New Zealand to Qantas - a decision it hopes will be buried in the pre-Christmas rush.

The passage of time also makes it more and more difficult for a government to lay the blame for faults with its predecessor. This is becoming evident in the health sector, where the legacy of financial deficits is now starting to affect services.

But it was most obvious in the leaky building saga, whose genesis was under National's rule.

Government insiders concede things were badly handled, but put the episode in the category of an unplayable ball which kept spinning in different directions.

There is also an acknowledgement that the Government had a flat period after the mid-winter poll. There was an unanticipated post-election hiatus as the policy process took time to rev up again. The Government went off the boil; it took its eye off the ball.

Political management was back on song by the time of the Ross Armstrong affair - he was promptly sacked within days of his indiscretion coming to light.

However, although there was little to pin on the Government, Opposition parties kept things running for weeks because Armstrong's tenure as chair of Television New Zealand went back three years. That meant the paper trail he left behind for others to exploit was as long as the list of Armstrong's enemies trying to kick him as he fell. But the Government could not do much about that.

Labour cannot win. It also stands accused by National of being so obsessed with political management that it is not really showing leadership - and people will tire of its pragmatism.

Clark has always eschewed "vision statements", preferring to make modest promises on which she can deliver. She and her colleagues make relatively few "directional" speeches which signpost where the Government wants to take the country long-term.

Ministers instead pride themselves on running a "practical" Government - and so far voters are satisfied with pragmatism rather than inspiration.

Government strategists insist they are acutely aware of the perils and pitfalls of second-term government, particularly as memories of the way the Lange Government fell apart after 1987 are still vivid.

As a result, efforts are being made to ensure there is a lot more talking among Cabinet ministers this time; that backbenchers are kept firmly in the loop; that seeds of discontent are unearthed early.

One source of tension has been removed. While the Alliance placed a discipline on Labour, a great deal of energy was expended in argument between the coalition partners. Laila Harre is not missed around the Cabinet table.

In place of her and her colleagues, Labour has been able to regenerate itself by promoting fresh faces into ministerial slots inside and outside the Cabinet.

Clark also opted against a radical reshuffle of portfolios, preferring continuity in the belief that ministers on top of their responsibilities would be able to spot trouble before it arose.

Not in George Hawkins' case.

But despite him being a classic example of second-term syndrome, Labour believes the notion that governments tire after two or three terms and are then tossed out is not necessarily valid under MMP. A major party that can consistently cement a solid vote for itself can rule for considerably longer in conjunction with coalition partners.

Labour intends to be that party. In that regard, its pragmatism should not be misread as an absence of idealism.

It is just prepared to wait longer to do the things it wants.