By their very nature, election campaigns tend not to be occasions of unremitting optimism.
On the contrary, they are frequently characterised by a glass half-full approach to life and all its vicissitudes, as politicians argue the toss over what is wrong with the country and how and why they will do better by it.
Lay down a soundtrack underpinned by the Rolling Stones (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction and a picture of pessimism for the passing observer would be complete. The New Zealand General Social Survey, published this week, offers rather different and contrasting perspectives on the question of satisfaction.
Conducted by Statistics New Zealand, it follows an inaugural survey done in 2008. It aims to gauge New Zealanders' general levels of satisfaction with their lives. The 2011 report is based on a survey carried out between April 2010 and March 2011 and involved more than 8000 New Zealanders. It provides information of the wellbeing of New Zealanders aged 15 and over and includes objective information about their individual circumstance - such as whether or not they are in work and their level of remuneration. It provides a snapshot of how satisfaction varies across different groups in the population. Much of the information gathered on people's attitudes is as might be expected, but the collation of it does enable both international comparisons and the identification of important issues impacting on well-being. Mostly the country gives itself a glowing report, with 87% of New Zealanders stating that they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their lives overall.
This compares well with countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada and better then others in the OECD. Within that statistic, there are however, predictable qualifications.
It should come as no great surprise that the unemployed showed the lowest levels of satisfaction with their lives across all population groups; they did not feel they had sufficient money to meet their basic needs, they also tended to feel socially isolated, and there was an elevated disposition towards feeling discriminated against. In a similar vein, satisfaction with life increased with household income level.
These correlated with other indicators of wellbeing: specifically, those belonging to lower-income households tended to feel less safe walking alone in their neighbourhoods at night; they were also more inclined to report only "fair" or "average" health compared to those on higher incomes. People living in one-parent families were also less likely to be happy with their lives than those living in other domestic arrangements.
What should we learn from this and how might it impact, if at all, on social policy?
In as much as it states what most would consider to be the obvious, it provides heft for the aspirational targets of all political parties - in particular a decrease in the level of unemployment and an increase in living standards, including income levels, for all. What it does not do is offer a prescription for how to achieve that. This is a far more complex proposition and is the reason we are at present being assailed by various policy permutations in the run up to the general election on November 26.
And another thing
One of those policy announcements has only peripherally to do with wellbeing but potentially rather more to do with satisfaction: the Labour Party's announcement of its plans to open up a national debate on the formation of a public service broadcaster for the digital age is a welcome initiative. Light on detail, it nonetheless recognises that non-commercial media can and do perform important cultural and social functions.
The disappearance of a public broadcasting mandate for TVNZ, as well as the likely demise of TVNZ6 and TVNZ7, leaves a critical gap in the television spectrum. How such an initiative, were it ever to come to pass, would be constructed and funded - and how it would operate in an increasingly fractured digital information and entertainment environment - are questions for the future.
For now, the policy at least provides an alternative to the-market-knows-best model seemingly preferred by National.
