There has been a lot of writing since the National Party annual conference about how National is putting itself back together.
I'm still thinking National looks like the corrective element of the two main parties. Not the default party that spends the majority of its time in power (think National 1950-1980). I've been interested to note that English isn't making any notable headway with any economic or state sector management policy. Mostly race issues, which tends to be soft support. (If you think of NZ First and ACT in 1996. Though this may change if economic factors stabilise for long enough, and people find a personal reason to vote on race relations grounds.)
I'd suggest that New Zealanders are still shaped by the 1980s and 1990s rightwards shift - and the experience was widely thought to be horrible. Because we don't have the experience of what would have happened under other policy settings, I think bright-eyed economic rationalism still gives people the willies. In a funny way, the more competantly English outlines economic policy and the more he looks like he'll actually *do* something if in power, the more voters he will alienate.
And there is an interesting problem with trying to appeal to the values of industry and self reliance. I'd suggest that too many New Zealanders have been trying very hard to be self-reliant, and feel resentful that it appears to be harder (or less rewarding) to be self-reliant in New Zealand than it does in America or Oz.
I've not read anything that would indicate to me that the people at the conference felt they had anything to do with voters. I'm happy that they feel unified and so forth and it should stop them from fading away (or embarrasing themselves further), but I don't think it will get them over 35% in the election.
Posted by carla at July 22, 2003 12:11 PM