N.Z. election echoes in British campaign

Press, 16 May 1979, Page 16

N.Z. election echoes in British campaign

By

JOHN WILSON

in London

New Zealand may no longer be the “Little England" Mark Twain found in Canterbury late in the last century, but the British election campaign sounded many familiar notes to a New Zealand observer who had lived through the New Zealand campaign six months ago. Both countries have ended up with conservative Governments, holding power with small, but adequate majorities and led by individuals whose conservatism is streaked with radicalism. The British result also revealed Britain, like New Zealand, splitting politically along a geographical line.

In Britain, the Conservatives did well in a more prosperous London; Labour did better in a more depressed north. In New Zealand, National flourished in Auckland; Labour was preferred further south. During the campaign itself British newspapers, like some New Zealand newspapers, seemed at times to be paying more attention to opinion polls than policies. The polls varied as widely in Britain as in New Zealand. But their trend was the same in both countries — a comfortable lead for the Conservative party was whittled down as the campaign proceeded, but not far enough to give Labour victory. The advertising campaign mounted by the British Conservatives was more extensive, and more emotive, than Labour’s, providing another parallel between Britain and New Zealand. One Conservative billboard bore in big red figures “1984” and invited passersby to consider what five more years of Labour Government might bring. Another had a child writing on a blackboard “Educashun isnt wurking.” The Conservative billboards were far more numerous and eye-catching than Labour’s and their slick professionalism gave the Conservative campaign a marked similarity to National’s. A further resemblance between the Conservative and National campaigns was that both parties promoted themselves as the party of tax cuts. Mr Muldoon had the advantage over Mrs Thatcher of being able to give what Mrs Thatcher could only promise and Labour in Britain was probably quicker

to point out that reduced income taxes meant higher indirect taxes than Labour in New Zealand. But if “office chatter” is a reliable indicator, the Conservative’s offer of tax cuts swayed many voters. Labour in Britain did not eschew entirely appeals to emotion, any more than Labour in New Zealand did last year. Much was heard, bordering on scare tactics, from Labour about the dire effects Conservative policies could have on employment and prices. These scare tactics the Conservative press matched with exaggerated warnings about the influence of the Left in the Labour Party. When the polls showed the gap between the parties narrowing, these warnings became, in some popular newspapers, hysterical to an extent that none of New Zealand’s more quietly conservative papers has ever matched. Labour fought its campaign heavily on the personality of Mr Callaghan. He was presented to the electors, as Labour in New Zealand presented Mr Rowling, as a wise, moderate leader, simply a better person to be Prime Minister than his opponent, Labour’s most prominent billboard poster was a fullcolour picture of Mr Callaghan above a simple appeal to voters to believe that Labour was better for Britain. The contrast was, of course, with Mrs Thatcher. She may be somewhat less abrasive than Mr Muldoon, but their mutual esteem has a strong element of narcissism in it. Like Mr Muldoon, Mrs Thatcher is either loved or hated. _ »