Political warriors the world over are slipping into their armour, flexing a muscle or two and preparing for the end times, the battle to end all battles.
As any politician will tell you, the world will indeed come to an end if you don’t vote for me on November 7.
So, as we stride into battle, left — right? left — right? It’s not so much a march as a question.
Current polls seem to show that New Zealanders cannot make up their minds — do we continue with the current coalition, or do we lean left and empower some combination of the Labour Party, Greens and Te Pāti Māori?
To be perfectly honest the former is not a life-enhancing prospect. While turning every stone in the search for growth, that little spot of green in a barren landscape, they have overlooked the wider scene and the causes of our social aridity. And by starving themselves, as a government, of the means to address what afflicts us — the chronic underfunding of almost all our social agencies and infrastructure — they merely exacerbate the problem.
Meanwhile, what growth there is is funnelled upwards while the rest of us pray for rain, for the trickledown that evaporates before it can do much good.
On top of all that is an almost complete avoidance of environmental questions: they are either just too hard, too expensive or too inconvenient for corporate interests. Besides, we are too small to matter globally.
The alternative, however, is problematic, mostly for other reasons.
The minor parties of the left, while making noises about changing the tax regime (and that, in the end, is the crux of the matter) are distracted by the politics of identity.
As worthy as this might be on occasion, it looks more and more like indulgence in the face of urgent need for the less spiritual but fundamentally necessary provision of affordable food, shelter, education and health.
Further, what condition Te Pāti Māori will be in by November is anyone’s guess.
"Mostly for other reasons". The qualification behind "mostly" refers to the Labour Party which has been shaped by its recent economic history into something resembling National lite (except, of course in the 1980s when they were anything but "lite" and spawned an Act New Zealand Party which now drags an inert National Party behind it).
Labour has evolved into an essentially conservative party, not entirely averse to change, but only prepared to advance incrementally. Hence Christopher Hipkins’ extreme caution, promising only what we can afford, according to a Budget soon to be presented by the other conservative party which is beholden to more radical minor parties to its right. This might be laudable, but it is not sufficient.
Conservatism is not of itself a bad thing, depending, of course, on what is being conserved. In times of plenty, when things are working well, it makes perfect sense. However, now is not such a time.
As I have suggested, the crux of the matter is tax. It is abundantly clear that the world of business does not function well in the provision of core social services.
If anyone seriously believes, for example, that the health system of the United States, built around private insurance, is fair, efficient or functional they must have a unique understanding of what these words mean.
It follows, then, that a government working in a system like ours should have the means to provide what is necessary, i.e. a suitable taxation regime.
And I might add that this provides a more secure foundation for economic growth than superficial tax cuts stirred into a lukewarm mug of hope.
Labour has made a small move in this direction with its limited capital gains tax.
But if that is all we are going to get, the party’s attempt to slough off its neoliberal past is going to be a long, slow striptease.
There is a third way. It’s a way to escape the tedium of a left block or a right block selected for us by Winston Peters. It’s the Opportunities Party (once TOP) which has a tax programme, along with numerous other policies, that complement Labour’s.
I will confine myself to tax. The proposal is for a land value tax on urban residential land. The two taxes are complementary; a CGT taxes profit when an asset is sold and should discourage speculation, but does not account for an asset that is unused or undeveloped (e.g. landbanked).
An LVT closes this gap and encourages productivity. It also contributes to a government’s ability to function.
It would be in the interest of the Labour Party to acknowledge this complementarity, which in itself would boost the new party, lifting it out of the "wasted vote" realm.
After all, where would Act be if the National Party had not done just that?
• Harry Love was the chairman of the Castle St branch of the Labour Party in 1987-88, and the New Labour parliamentary candidate for St Kilda in the 1990 election.
