The left’s promise of ‘fiscal conservatism’: what does it mean for Indian voters?

The latest Labour-Green budget responsibility rules are keeping our political landscape busy with a charge that New Zealand's political left has taken a noticeable shift towards the 'right,' worrying many commentators across the political spectrum that it might signal the demise of the political left in New Zealand just before elections.

Bryce Edwards, a New Zealand Herald columnist and a lecturer in politics at the University of Otago, has summed up this ongoing debate on both sides of political divide by asking questions: "Does New Zealand still have political parties on the left in parliamentary politics? Do the poor and working classes have anyone to vote for this year?”

The key focus is on Labour and Green's self-imposed constraint on government spending and the promise to keep it under 30% of GDP.

For the uninitiated, when Labour left office in 2008, the government expenditure was around 35% and National claims to have demonstrated significant financial conservatism to bring that down to the current level of 30% of GDP. According to National Party’s David Farrar, the difference between 30% and 35% is around $12 billion a year.

This is a lot of money, given that Labours have been consistently calling for an increase in public spending, especially in housing, public transport, health, and education.

While it is too early to comment about a possible demise of the political left in New Zealand, it is of some interest to analyse how it does affects Kiwi-Indian voters, if at all.

To argue that this announcement does not mean anything would be disrespectful for the wisdom of average Kiwi-Indian voters, which is certainly not the intention of this piece.

However, pursuing the other line argument of that there will certainly be some affect on the Indian voters brings another kind of challenge that how the impact on them will be different from that on the rest of New Zealanders.

Regardless of this challenge, this piece will pursue the second line of argument and try to distill possible impacts of this recent budget-responsibility agreement by the two parties on the political left.

Currently, the average Indian voter’s thinking and behaviour are aligned with trends seen overseas where middle-class voters are increasingly seen getting closer to the political right.

Although it is subject to debate, it can be argued that an alignment with political right is not necessarily an abutment for fiscal conservatism.

Rather it is more a backing for the seemingly ‘decisive political leadership’ that is seen associated with the political right.

Therefore a promise of fiscal conservatism by itself may not be of some value for the average Indian voters but the imagery of strong political leadership might be of some interest for many in the community. 

To the distaste of many, the political left all over the world is seen as deprived of strong, passionate leadership. Their leadership appears to be weak, fragmented, and devoid of fortitude. This may be because of the absence of strong intellectual and ideological resources, as many critiques argue, which naturally propels strong leadership at the top. Otherwise, it could not be a mere coincidence all around the world that the leadership in the political left appears to be weak and meek.

It could be possible because of fragmentation and clutter of ideas and intellectual resources on the political left.

New Zealand is one clear example where the ideas and votes on the political left are cluttered and confusing for their voters. Many voters struggle to differentiate between Labour and Green Party.

Therefore, in this instance, one thing that the Little-Shaw partnership seems to do effectively is to clear the clutter. It may initially be repugnant to many traditional Labour-Green voters, but in the long run, has a potential to attract many others who are at the centre and not necessarily fond of, or, averse to, fiscal conservatism.

Kiwi-Indian voters are one such segment who have largely been at the centre without being necessarily pro or against the lure of enhanced state spending.

One possible reason for this lack of enthusiasm could be rooted in their history as a relatively recent migrating social group where they do not see themselves as the client of benefits accruing from enhanced state spending.

However, this fact has not stopped them from leaning towards one political party or the other.

If the first decade of the 21^st-century saw them glued towards Helen Clark – Phil Goff’s style of politics, then in the current decade, there has been an affinity towards John Key brand of politics.

While there are many facets of this brand of politics that is beyond the scope of this piece, one important aspect is the imagery of a leadership effusing with confidence. This may be a prerequisite for all New Zealander voters, yet Kiwi-Indians have an unusually high appetite for this commodity.

In this regard, the team of Mr Little and Mr Shaw is seen as displaying some confidence and vision, howsoever antiquated (David Farrar has mocked them by saying that after nine years of calling for nothing but extra spending, they have pledged to keep the share of the economy the state spends to the same level as National has got it after eight years.)

However, this will not necessarily translate into popular votes automatically as the Labour-Shaw team will have to do more to establish direct connect with Indian voters, especially Green Party, who are largely non-existent in the Indian voter’s worldview.