GHOSTS, HIP HOP AND PARTY LEADERSHIP

With every budget, Michael Cullen's likeness to the portrait of Michael Joseph Savage in your parents lounge grows a little spookier. In fact, it might easily be the ghost of our social democratic father, and not the Deputy Prime Minister, haunting and taunting the National Party throughout the corridors and chambers of Parliament. Given his now twenty five years in Parliament (which trumps Savage by three), ten as deputy leader, this weeks heightened speculation about his Parliamentary future is hardly surprising. It does not take a Greek soothsayer to foresee Cullen pulling the plug either this term or next. In fact, Network Politics will actually eat the chickens entrails if he lingers within the haunted House any longer than that.

On the other hand, Helen Clark's spritely youth of fifty six years, her unrivalled political ambition and the tantalising prospect of equalling Keith Holyoake's record four consecutive terms, will make her more difficult to retire than Cliff Richard.

Also in her favour is a stark dearth of leadership talent within the higher echelons of the Labour Party. The leading wannabes are in no position whatsoever to wrest the leadership from Clark. The apparent contenders, Phil Goff, Trevor Mallard and Steve Maharey all lack a distinct bloc of votes within caucus to mount a leadership challenge. Perhaps with the exception of Maharey, they also seem to be coming down with a fairly heavy case of third term fatigue. As Foreign Minister, Goffs many travels did not help his public profile which is now non-existent and Mallard may shortly be on the end of his own lesson in winning instincts.

"The leading wannabes are in no position whatsoever to wrest the leadership from Clark."

Maharey seems to have the best prospects, but the question must be asked whether he is sufficiently pragmatic to compromise his left wing politics in order to lead Labour into an election likely to be fought in the centre. That has been one of Helen Clark's great political skills.

Labour will probably lose the next election. But without some meteoric, pop-star emergence of one of its caucus, nobody has a better chance of pulling off a win than Clark. There is a core of New Zealanders who will vote for Clark because she has delivered in the past and they know what theyll get. Unless Steve Maharey is taking Hip Hop dance lessons, Clark need not watch her back with too much vigilance.

"Labour will probably lose the next election. But without some meteoric, pop-star emergence of one of its caucus, nobody has a better chance of pulling off a win than Clark."

Interestingly, National's situation is almost the total inverse. By contrast to Labour, Network Politics is convinced one of the few ways National can lose the next election is by failing to oust its incumbent leader. Ironically, by keeping its nose ahead in the polls (as is currently the situation), it could be weakening its electoral prospects - as it may not find the stomach to dislodge Brash whilst that lead persists.

Given the creditable job Brash did last election, ousting him would be a very tough call. But tough calls are the trademark of winning politicians. Ask Helen Clark.

KIWISAVER AND STUDENT LOANS - SWIMMING WITH PUBLIC CONSENSUS

Significant policy or political change very rarely contradicts the public mood or consensus. Indeed, policy change is often the ultimate expression of a set of public perceptions, attitudes and accepted wisdom that may have built up over considerable time; years or even decades. The recent introduction of interest free student loans and the introduction to Parliament of the KiwiSaver bill are good examples.

Whether or not interest free student loans made sense at all in technical policy terms, a large consensus had built up around the perception that student debt was out of control. After years of grizzling, protesting and drinking, the students and the tertiary student organisations finally enjoyed their moment. In another five or ten years, the knowledge economy may be less in vogue and we will probably be flogging students for burdening the earnest, tax paying working classes and acting as a heavy drag on the economy. So, when the cycle of the public mood is in your favour, be sure to cash in.

"After years of grizzling, protesting and drinking, the students and the tertiary student organisations finally enjoyed their moment."

The debate between National and Labour over student debt turned into a how, not a whether. National accepted the public consensus was such that it had to offer some form of relief to students. No doubt, however, Labour won the PR battle. Eliminating the interest may have had Treasury boffins in a state of logic meltdown, but it was a winner politically. The paying of interest had, over the years, almost become more of a bugbear than the debt itself. National will have been kicking themselves for the original scheme design in the early 90s, which didn't properly tie the interest on student rates to floating market rates.

KiwiSaver is also an expression of public consensus that has been a long-time arriving. We may not like the idea of compulsion and may not like being told what to do with our money, but by 2004, Kiwis had been told so many times, by so many people, for so many years they didn't save enough, that it had become an accepted wisdom. It was the political enabler for the Cullen fund, and subsequently provided the consensus platform for KiwiSaver - both relatively non-intrusive solutions as far as the individual is concerned.

KiwiSaver has received predictable criticism from the Opposition. It has also been knocked around by some prominent economists, Gareth Morgan and Brent Layton most recently. Layton raises a fair point, and one that had received very little discussion hitherto, around the displacement effect of KiwiSaver. He suggests it may just lead to a redistribution of New Zealander's savings and investments and a movement from one type of financial product to another (of course, that in itself may be an objective as far as Cullen is concerned). But it is hard to believe - whatever certain economists say that automatic enrolment (even with the option to withdraw) will not have some, even relatively small, impact on total savings. There must be a few lazy sods that would save if it could only be laid out on a platter for them.

"Layton raises a fair point, and one that had received very little discussion hitherto, around the displacement effect of KiwiSaver."

Either way, the political risk is virtually nil due to the scheme's optional nature. But given the strong foundation of public consensus around the need for us to save more as individuals, compulsory superannuation contributions could even have been a flier for Dr Cullen except that an election year was not the one in which to test the public appetite.