Election battle lines are slowly being drawn
So, it's no wonder they've pulled out all the stops after a few weeks of shaky results and a fair amount of time spent on defence.
The problem for Labour with crime is simple: nobody trusts them. The facts are as follows: crime went nuts. Labour's policy? Cut the prison population. Sure, there's more to it than that, but this is clearly how voters feel.
Which is what is making this such a hard week for Labour, not the Greens and TPM, who sing a different song on law and order, and for Chris Hipkins.
How do you credibly stand up and argue against longer sentences for thugs who bash first responders? How do you oppose getting tough on coward punches? How do you oppose on-the-spot fines for people stealing booze from the supermarket?
The answer for Labour so far has been to continue to oppose these things. They have come out against almost every single change.
And that plays into the perception they're still weak on crime.
That they haven't been to the gym to get stronger, tougher and meaner. They've been at the salon painting their nails, feeling sorry for all the misunderstood baddies who just need a big wraparound hug.
Of course, this problem could be solved if we knew anything about what Labour is planning, policy-wise.
But Chippy's strategy is going to be one of shock and awe – holding cards very close to the chest until the election.
I asked Hipkins on my Herald NOW breakfast show this week about Labour's record on crime and he was adamant they were on the right track but Covid simply got in the way.
The problem for Labour with crime is simple: nobody trusts them. Photo / Getty Images
I wonder how this level of accountability will go down with voters?
I asked Chloe Swarbrick this week whether it was okay to steal food if you're hungry. She refused to answer the question, instead saying that she would not give 'soundbites'.
Meanwhile, her colleague Tamatha Paul, the MP singularly most likely to re-elect a coalition Government, was happy to dish out soundbites promoting food theft like it was some sort of God-given right.
Put these pieces together and you can understand why National's picking this scab. It's fertile ground.
Cost of living is proving a much harder dial to shift for the right. Not because the numbers haven't returned to more normal-looking levels – they have. Inflation is 2.5%. The Official Cash Rate is near neutral at 3.25%. But recent surveys show voters aren't feeling it yet. The onset delay is hurting National, with Labour overtaking the leaderboard on a king-hit issue.
The battle lines are slowly being drawn and we can expect to hear a lot more from National on crime and a lot more from Labour on the cost of living.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
FamilyBoost Tweaks Too Little, Too Late For Families
Too many families have missed out on promised cost of living support under Christopher Luxon's Government. 'Today's attempt to fix the flagship FamilyBoost programme is a desperate attempt to cover up National's broken promises to lower the cost of living,' Labour acting finance spokesperson Megan Woods said. 'More than halfway through their term, the Government is only now scrambling to tweak a scheme that's barely reached a fraction of the families they promised to help. 'Even worse, families won't see a cent of this so-called relief until October. 'If Nicola Willis truly understood the cost-of-living crisis then she'd have acted a long time ago. 'Kiwis need relief now and they need leaders who are focused on delivering real results. 'Under National, life has gotten harder. They're cutting jobs, cutting women's pay, and driving up costs. Labour's number one priority will be to help people with the cost of living,' Megan Woods said
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Stopping ratepayer-owned asset sales main focus for union members
Union members are ramping up a campaign ahead of October's local body elections, urging voters to back candidates opposed to the sale of ratepayer-owned assets. They are concerned if the Lyttelton Port Company was sold or partly sold to private interests, jobs could be lost or wages and conditions affected. Debate over asset sales like the port company, the airport, Orion, Enable and Citycare is a long-running political football in Christchurch elections between left and right-leaning mayors and city councillors. A key figure in the Rail and Maritime Transport Union (RMTU) says members will ask people to vote for candidates who are against selling the city's assets. They will not endorse particular candidates. Said RMTU Lyttelton Port branch secretary Mark Wilson: 'Your vote is your vote. But we ask that voters consider what a candidate's stance is on selling public assets and infrastructure.' The campaign does not have the formal support of the two port unions, RMTU and Maritime Union. But Wilson said it has 'very significant' support among members of both organisations. 'The unions and us as workers do have to be careful about what is said as employees of LPC, but this campaign is more about what the council might do rather than our employer.' Under the banner of new political pressure group, New Zealanders for a Democratic Economy (NZDE), union members and supporters are organising public events, demonstrations and are canvasing public places to drum up opposition to key asset sales. Although the new group is not directly endorsing candidates, Wilson said the campaign is likely to favour left-leaning candidates and the Labour-aligned The People's Choice candidates who oppose key asset sales. Wilson believes Mayor Phil Mauger and right-leaning city councillors support selling the port and other key assets either through full or partial sale of shares. But Mauger says he remains firmly committed to 'protecting Christchurch's ownership and value in strategic assets.' Mauger did not respond to further questioning from The Star asking whether he would support partial sales of key assets and in what form. "During my campaign and since being mayor, I have made it clear these key assets should be controlled by the council,' he said. Mauger has no issue with the union members' campaign, saying they have every right to 'engage in public debate on matters like asset ownership.' Wilson said NZDE want a more clear position from Mauger on asset sales. "It will make things a lot easier for us. We hope he and councillors will clearly lay out what they have done in the past term on asset sales and what they plan to do next term.' Wilson believes a sale of the port company or other key assets could lead to worker unions being sidelined. "Private-owned companies, particularly some big, foreign multicorp is just interested in making as much profit as possible, so they don't have much of an interest in good pay or safety for workers.' The People's Choice chair Paul McMahon welcomed the campaign and said some of the group's candidates will be present at anti-asset sale events. "We're happy to work with anyone to oppose asset sales.' McMahon said there is a one-seat majority of city councillors currently opposed to asset sales. He believes if one more city councillor who favours asset sales is elected, there will be a new push for sales next term. An LPC spokesperson declined to comment and referred questions about a possible sale to Christchurch City Holdings Ltd (CCHL) which owns city assets on behalf of the city council. A CCHL spokesperson said there are no current investigations into selling shares in key assets and any sale decisions rest with the city council.
1News
6 hours ago
- 1News
'Constitutional adventurism' in Treaty settlement sovereignty clause
Treaty Minister Paul Goldsmith says he was uncomfortable with what he called "constitutional adventurism" after negotiations over a Treaty settlement were halted over an "agree-to-disagree" Crown sovereignty clause. Goldsmith, a senior National MP, sat down with Q+A for a wide-ranging interview across his ministerial portfolios this morning. He was asked about the settlement with East Coast iwi Te Whānau-ā-Apanui that was halted at the final hurdle after Goldsmith said he became uncomfortable over a clause to "agree to disagree" over whether sovereignty was ceded between the iwi and the Crown. "All of those settlements up to now have not referred to this issue. They've been silent on this issue. They've focused on historical claims," the Treaty Negotiations Minister said. "The Te Whānau-ā-Apanui one was the first where it was directly responded to with an agree-to-disagree clause. I didn't feel comfortable with, ultimately, constitutional experimentation through a Treaty settlement, or constitutional adventurism, in a sense, and so that's why we didn't go forward." ADVERTISEMENT The Treaty of Waitangi (Source: 1News) He added that the "novelty" was introduced during the previous government. "This is the first time that it's been done, and we weren't comfortable going forward on that basis," Goldsmith said. "If you're doing a full and final settlement, handing over money to a group that, in the deed, doesn't accept that the Crown actually has — the way you could read it was the Crown doesn't have the authority to do this, because they've never ceded sovereignty and they're still sovereign. And so there's a disjuncture between those two things." In a landmark 2014 ruling, the Waitangi Tribunal concluded the rangatira who signed the Treaty of Waitangi did not cede sovereignty to the Crown. When asked specifically about the issue, Goldsmith said: "It's impossible to know, of course, what was in the mind of somebody in 1840. And so historians can argue about that all day, and what people were actually thinking in the moment." Opposition party leaders support the view that iwi did not cede sovereignty when signing the Treaty, with Labour's Chris Hipkins noting "that doesn't mean that the Crown doesn't have sovereignty now" during controversy over the issue last year. ADVERTISEMENT 'Pressure' on public sentiment about clause - Goldsmith In the Q+A interview, the minister was also questioned about the Crown's stalled efforts to strike a Treaty settlement with Ngāpuhi, and whether the Government would meet a goal aiming to have all settlements finalised by 2035. Goldsmith conceded that he believed the sovereignty clause could put "pressure" on public support for settlements, and that it was part of his decision-making. "That's one of the key factors I've got in the back of my mind everywhere, is that we want to maintain public support for the Treaty settlement process," he said. Asked if he had been worried about a revolt in public opinion to the process, he replied, "it puts pressure on public support. New Zealanders have been broadly supportive of the Treaty settlement processes, and I want to keep that, and we want to get to an end. Shane Jones' has proposed forcing New Zealand's largest iwi into a single commercial for a Treaty settlement. (Source: 1News) "Everybody's impatient. We've been going for 30 years. We want to see a resolution to this, so that we can move together as New Zealanders." ADVERTISEMENT In his Q+A interview, Goldsmith was also asked about his Cabinet colleague Shane Jones' plans for a member's bill to force Ngāpuhi to the negotiating table. "I get on very well with Shane, and we work very collaboratively. He's impatient. He wants to see things happen for Northland," the minister said. "It's all part of coalition politics." Watch the video above for the full interview Q+A with Jack Tame is made with the support of New Zealand On Air
