Pollsters try to separate ‘two massive armies’

Press, 15 August 1980, Page 13

Pollsters try to separate ‘two massive armies’

By

MIKE HANNAH

New Zealand voters have been described, in a typically cynical observation by Austin Mitchell, as “two massive armies facing each other across the party lines in mutual incomprehension.” Given a third party, and a fourth, further to confuse the hapless combatants, and one can appreciate the look of stark horror on a political commentator's face when asked to put the violent swings of the 1975 and 1978 General Electron into perspective. However, we are dealing here not with average barstool commentaors, but with the cream of New Zealand’s political scien» tists. Drawn from the four major universities, a teachers’ college, a national business paper, and even afar as Washington, the 12 analysts have tackled the job bravely in “New Zealand at the Polls.”

Unfortunately, they have not proved immune to the confusion which evidently ran rife through the ranks of voters. The scientists reach some common ground in their diagnoses, but there are

enough differences of opinion to suggest they are not really sure what to call the malaise which struck the electorate out of its traditional and comfortable torpor. The book is aimed, apparently, at the Amerii can market — it is published as part of an American "At The Polls” series. No doubt the American spelling, liberally sprinkled throughout the essay, were out of the writers’ hands, but they give a clue to the readership the authors have aimed for. They have gone to great lengths to tell their readers exactly what New Zealand is all about — even down to elementary lessons in geo-, graphy, flora, and fauna.

Even on these tactics,: however, there is a lack of co-ordination, with information needlessly repeated in succeeding essays — unless it is

aimed the student who will dip lazily into individual chapters. .

If one criticism can be levelled at what is otherwise an intelligent and fascinating account of the election (it looks primarily at the 1978 Election), it is the editing of the essays. Stephen Levine’s introductory chapter is a well-intentioned history lesson, but it would be better placed after Keith

Ovenden’s equally informative, but more concise, second chapter. Ovenden captures the reader’s interest immediately, introducing New Zealand succinctly and provocatively and leaving the reader with enough thoughts to chew on to encourage him to read more of the book. His argument that the political parties have failed to adjust to the changing class structure — and so failed to draw voters from traditional party ties or from the swings — is convincing. It leaves a few questions unanswered — such as where the “new” working class of shop assistants and office workers (with their middle=class lifestyles) came from. But this point is clear: the class structure (and New Zealand does haveone) has changed; it has challenged old political al-

legiances. — and it has confused the parties, who are np longer sure where to -direct their message. Contradictions therefore arise within' a party:; such as the Labour Party’s appeal to the traditional (Irish) Catholic working class, but its appeal to the new corporate sector with abortion law reform proposals. Nigel Roberts provides an admirable back-up to Ovenden’s argument, with his own conclusion that the parties failed to draw

voters from their traditional loyalties, while many electors opted for a third party; Issues played no part: they failed to divide the electorate in 1978 because “the chances of voters’ perceiving a meaningful difference between the Labour and National parties in particular were remote.” (A Roberts argument would, of course, be incomplete without a plethora of graphs. Among a bewildering array of statistics and 20 diagrams, he has succeeded in including a three-dimensional graph which will probably utterly puzzle the average reader. But you have to admire his ingenuity.) So far, so. consistent. But Levine confuses the issue by maintaining that National lost votes because voters rejected its stand on a number of Issues: abortion, social welfare, South Africa, and industrial relations in particular. At least he agrees that voters were confused

and inconsistent in their rejection, opposing conservatism in one area while rejecting liberalism in another.

There is agreement on ■ the part played by the news media in the 1978 election. Les Cleveland atributes too much influence to newspaper editorials, falling into, the trap of reading -history, perhaps, through editorial opinion. Mr Muldoon is more likely to have discontinued press conferences because of party concern about his and the party’s reputation, rather than because of an editorial in “The Press.” Flattering, nonetheless. The effect of the soured relations between the media and the Prime Minister after National’s poor returns may be overemphasised in the book, but it suggests an interesting side-show to watch in 1981.

Other chapters deal with the individual parties, candidate selection, women in politics, and the electoral petitions. - As for the future, the ..analysts are remarkably silent. A few lessons are drawn, but the lasting impression is of political scientists keenly dissecting the 1978-General Election with their backs to the possibility of new developments in 1981. A case, perhaps, of planning for the last war, not the war to come.

New Zealand at the Polls. Edited by Howard R. Penniman. American Enterprise Institute Studies, 1980. 295 pp. ;: