THE PRESS SATURDAY, MAY 30, 1987. Policy, parties, and polls

Press, 30 May 1987, Page 20

THE PRESS SATURDAY, MAY 30, 1987. Policy, parties, and polls

The General Election, whatever its precise date, is getting close. The Government has already begun its campaign for re-election. The National Party, by comparison, seems more concerned with tying down a firm date for an election than presenting policies to voters. National’s decision to postpone its party conference because of the uncertainty of the election date has tactical advantages. This should leave the party free to concentrate on the campaign, without the distraction of running a conference in the middle of it. And by postponing the conference the party has postponed publicity of internal debate about policy and direction. National Party conferences traditionally used to be tidily run, allowing room for differences of opinion and an exchange of views, but all within the framework of party unity. The tradition has taken a knock at the last two conferences. Even if the party could present a more cohesive appearance this time, the middle of an election campaign is not the right time for a public discussion of what standpoint the party should adopt on election issues. Unfortunately for the National Party, it has been forced to admit that it has been outmanoeuvred. The Government has given no firmer date for the election other than it will be before September. The National Party believes it might be as early as July and is not prepared to take the risk that campaign and conference could clash. An apparent lack of composure probably has had something to do with the party’s poor showing in public opinion polls. Perhaps a bigger contributing factor — and one that would help to account for the large number of “undecided” responses to the pollsters — is the amount of policy still to be released by the party. With an election only weeks away, the

National Party has kept the public in the dark about central parts of its policy, and is now fudging the timetable for action on those policy pledges that it has made, such as amending the Government’s nuclear-free zone legislation. Mr Young is reported as saying that he believes his party “might now release policy earlier” because of the possibility of an election earlier than August 15. But even if the policy had been released yesterday, the party might have left its run too late. Conventional wisdom is that political parties cannot afford to make promises based on circumstances that might be very different by the time an election is held; to this must be added the understandable reservations of a party in opposition about laying bare its policy jewels so early that the Government can put them into practice and claim the credit. Together, these considerations argued against a premature release of policy by the National Party. But the time remaining before the General Election has shrunk to be of little consequence now. Further delay merely suggests inadequacy or confusion. The last dozen years in New Zealand politics have made traditional party labels inaccurate, if not obsolete. Perhaps more than at any other time in the last 25 years, the main parties have unsettled their supporters with policies not fully in accord with party philosophies. In this atmosphere no party can afford to leave supporters and potential supporters in doubt about what actions it would take if elected. Election victory this year could well go to the party that best establishes its credentials as a party with precisely defined purposes and goals. A party that fails to produce a clear manifesto but relies on a collection of pamphlets embracing laudable but nebulous sentiments is unlikely to gain the confidence of an unsure electorate.