A visible difference

Ever since the 2008 election, those on the right edge of the spectrum have been dismissive of John Key and his government, labelling them as Labour-lite. After speeches from the two main party leaders this week, Tracy Watkins reports that there are now clear differences between the parties; she opines:

The leaders of the country's two main political parties have painted starkly different pictures of the road ahead.

Labour is preparing to fight the election along old-fashioned class lines as it attacks the Key government for policies benefiting the rich over the poor.

But National is backing itself to win on economic management as it prepares for more belt-tightening and mounts an argument for selling off a stake in the big state-owned power companies.

Pundits say Labour failed to deliver an election game changer with its $1.3 billion, $10-a-week pitch to the low-paid and beneficiaries, but Key's big call on asset sales has raised the stakes as Maori Party ructions threaten to put his election prospects on the line.

Amid new rumblings about a left-wing party falling in behind Hone Harawira, National can't count on the Maori Party giving it the numbers to govern.

John Key has taken a bold approach in setting out National's election-year agenda. Given that his former occupation was no place for faint-of-heart, that's hardly surprising. Key now has ten months to see the rationale behind the partial privatisation of a small number of assets, which is already being portrayed as the Second Coming of Ruth Richardson.

Key though has drawn praise (of sorts) from an unlikely quarter - read on:

National's opponents say Key deserves plaudits for putting his re-election prospects on the line when, riding high in the polls, National could have just played it safe. Instead, Key signalled further upheaval ahead, including radical welfare reforms and a fresh round of belt-tightening that could see public services squeezed.

Left-wing activist and former Green Party MP Sue Bradford said Key was at least being honest.

"I'm sure it's just the beginning of what they really plan to do but at least people know that after the election this is the plan ... it's going to be real interesting if they still vote for him, because I'm sure there are people who voted National last time who don't want privatisation."

Key also deserved plaudits for pressing ahead with policies he believed in, even when he knew they might be unpopular, Bradford said.

"Labour, with or without Goff, needs to paint a much more radical and courageous picture and, from a right-wing point of view, that's what Key's done.

"He's said `this is what we're going to do, we're going to put our colours out there'."

We've had plenty of time for thinking and reflection this week, but putting our thoughts into words hasn't been an easy task. But on balance, we reckon that Key's announcements this week are a step in the right direction. Signficantly, the government will retain control over all the assets in which it is offering people the opportunity to invest. Assets such as Genesis (or whom we have been a customer) and Meridian are solid performers, and provides a product which will always be in demand. We are not share players (too much Scottish heritage) but we would certainly consider investing in assets such as those.

To their credit, National has signalled this policy well in advance, and we are in agreement with those who say that it is time to have the debate. Both the Labour government of the 1980's and the National administration which followed it sold assets WITHOUT a mandate from the public.

We do not believe that partial privatisation of key assets is necessarily evil, nor do we believe that the mere mention of the "P" word should send fear and trembling through the population in general. We are more concerned with Phil Goff's vague plan to tax the "rich" (in whose number we are not presently included); we believe that governments should be providing incentives for people to get ahead and achieve financial success rather than putting barriers in their paths.

And through it all, John Key continues to be full of surprises. As Bradford has noted, whoever would have expected a politician to be open and up-front about his agenda so far out from the election? Once again, the fact that Key has not lived a lifetime of politics and activism is as refreshing as it is surprising. Perhaps that's why the left despises John Key so much; they can't pigeon-hole him, because his life story is so different to theirs. But conversely, it also explains Key's popularity; he's broken the mould of what people thought a politician should be

An interesting year awaits us. By all means, let us have the debate. But let's base it on reason and not rhetoric.

POSTSCRIPT: Fran O'Sullivan's piece in yesterday's Herald is also well worth a read, and we agree wholeheartedly with this:

Key's decision to float the prospect that National will sell down the Government's 100 per cent stake in a raft of blue chip state assets if it wins the election is long overdue.

It is high time more tangible steps were taken to build an "ownership society" and slay the ideological dragon that says private ownership of major companies is wicked.