John Armstrong's opinion: Simon Bridges' skilful release of benefit ideas a 'very big warning' to Labour

November 1, 2019

Measures would target gang members on the dole and beneficiaries who don’t immunise their kids.

If Labour thinks Simon Bridges seemingly tough talk on welfare dependency amounts to nothing more than another bout of beneficiary-bashing of the kind in which National’s leaders have regularly indulged down the years, then Labour ought to think again.

The major governing party might not like much of the content of National’s social services discussion document made public on Wednesday. 

Regardless of your politics, however, there was a lot to like about the strategy adopted by Bridges when it came to his managing of the disclosure of National’s thoughts about the current structure of the benefit system and the obligations which ought to apply to those in receipt of welfare payments.

That strategy was shrewd.  It was carefully crafted. It was actioned with aplomb.

The political acumen and tactical nous now being displayed by Bridges have so far not brought reward in the preferred prime minister stakes in the opinion polls.

In an odd kind of way, however, his basement-level ratings might help him, although not much.

RECIPE FOR COMPLACENCY

Those ratings are a recipe for complacency in Labour’s camp.

If those at senior levels of that party are still finding it difficult to take Bridges seriously, then they had better wake up to the fact that things have changed — and not to Labour’s advantage.

The National Party leader talked about his party's Social Services Discussion Document ahead of its release today.

That didn’t matter when National’s current leader gave every impression he was not going to be National’s leader for long. It does matter now.

Bridges’ skilful management of the media and the vast quantity of publicity subsequently generated should serve as a warning — very big warning — to Jacinda Ardern and colleagues that Bridges is going to be a very tricky customer to handle in the run-up to next year’s election.

For example, that strategy had Bridges tweeting mention of one of the most controversial ideas in the document several hours prior to its scheduled publication. That gave Bridges two bites of the media cherry. 

It is rare for a discussion document to generate headlines no matter the subject. The latest example of this genre not only made headlines across all branches of the mainstream media. They were the headlines Bridges wanted — ones heavily laced with the word “crackdown”.

The message conveyed was that a National-led Administration would both toughen up and tighten up on welfare.

NO APOLOGY

In case anyone was still having difficulty grasping the point, Bridges declared that he made no apology for being “hard-line” when it came to welfare reform.

Judging just how hardline he will actually turn out to be will have to await the fine print of the final version of the welfare reform policy in National’s election manifesto. 

So far, it is a mixed bag. The beauty of discussion documents is that they enable a political party to float ideas without being obliged to commit to implementing them.

Take the aforementioned reference to the controversial policy tweeted by Bridges - National’s intention to block gang members and their associates from picking up a benefit unless they can prove they do not have an illegal income or illegally-acquired assets.

The National Party leader talked about his party's Social Services Discussion Document ahead of its release today.

Few people — other than the gangs themselves and their apologists — would question the desirability of such a policy. Implementing it would likely be a very different story.

The discussion document is light on such detail. Likewise the suggestion of placing limits on how long someone under the age of 25 should be able to claim a benefit. National has toyed with time-limited benefits in the past, but chickened out when push came to shove.

It comes as National floats the idea of putting a time limit on benefits for young people.

Or take withholding of benefit payments to sole parents who refuse to have their children immunised . Hardline? Hardly. Such an obligation on beneficiaries applies on the other side of the Tasman.

Given the lack of enthusiasm for such a sanction amongst parties on the centre-left on this side of the ditch for de facto compulsory vaccination, Bridges ends up appearing more hardline than is really the case.

BIG PICTURE

In giving such an impression, however, Bridges is looking at the big picture.

He needs to establish significant points of difference between National and Labour.

“If you don't want to vaccinate your child… don't take taxpayers' money,” leader Simon Bridges said.

Unless the economy suddenly tanks in coming months, National will find its trusty campaign pitch of being the better manager of the economy counting for much less than in previous elections. 

For its part, Labour is poised to go into election year with a Budget surplus to burn.

One other notable feature of the discussion document is that it also amounted to a raid deep into what New Zealand First would claim is very much that party’s territory — and its territory alone.

National’s leader is clearly targeting New Zealand First voters at the last election who would have preferred that their leader had chosen to form a coalition government with National, rather than entering an arrangement with Labour and the Greens.

With Winston Peters’ overseas on Foreign Minister duties, Bridges’ raid went unanswered.

The Government as a whole did its best to ignore Bridges. Any reaction would have poured petrol on the blaze of publicity that the Leader of the Opposition has been endeavouring to stoke.

BRIDGES' FEAR

Bridges has other reasons for putting the squeeze on Peters in order to push New Zealand First below the five per cent and out of Parliament.

Bridges’ fear must be that a fresh-faced populist comes out of the woodwork and starts gathering support for some new and fresh-looking political movement — as has occurred in a number of overseas jurisdictions.

The good news for Bridges is that there is as yet no sign of anyone emerging from the political undergrowth to play such a role.

Given his preferred prime minister ratings, Bridges can assume he is in no danger of being tagged as Mr Populist.

He can, however, ensure that as much as possible National fills any vacuum which a true populist might be able to exploit.

Bridges’ track record on social issues has him fitting the bill as a provincial conservative, whereas his two predecessors at National’s helm, Sir John Key and Sir Bill English, fit the label of urban liberal.

Bridges is therefore positioning National further to the right. The social services discussion document reflects that shift. 

It is a shift that is so slow moving as to be almost imperceptible.

The big, as yet unanswered question is whether the New Zealand electorate is moving in tandem with Bridges and his party.

SHARE ME

More Stories