As we begin to emerge out of lockdown, we can reflect that the coronavirus pandemic has been a once-in-a-generation crisis on a global scale – and, for New Zealand as well, it has meant a crisis of almost unparalleled proportions.

To grapple with such a crisis, we have needed a government that is up to the task – and that has meant a government that has been willing to listen to advice, but has also been clear-headed and strong-willed enough to take its own counsel and do what it thinks is necessary.

We have been fortunate that our government has stuck to its guns; but, just as victory over the virus is in sight, there has been a chorus of voices, prematurely urging that we should not have waited until we could be confident that a return to level one is safe, that we should have been ready to risk all that we have achieved.  The government has been told, as though there is a short-cut to protecting the economy without first defeating the virus, that we should prioritise the economy’s interests before we bother to put the virus to bed, once and for all.

The reasons for this, and the motivations of those urging a relaxation of our efforts, are in most cases painfully clear.  In one case, it is the need felt by a new leader of the Opposition to overcome a shaky start and to make the claim that only he has the interests of small businesses at heart and that the decision go to level one was the result of his urging.

In another case, it is the imperative felt by another party leader, as an election approaches, to differentiate himself and his party from his senior coalition partner, and to boost his poll ratings.  It is disappointing, in both of these cases, that the national interest has been subordinated to those of political parties.  

And then there are the commentators, particularly those of notoriously clear political allegiance, who think that they owe it to their own views and prejudices to chip away at the government wherever possible.  What is surprisingly common to all of these dissident voices, both politicians and commentators alike, is their inability to grasp that the cause they have chosen to champion, the protection of the economy from the effects of the pandemic, is best – indeed, only – served by the strategy we have successfully followed so far.

It is clearly too much for some of these lame brains to understand that, if we had relaxed before we could be confident that the virus was under control, the risk we would have taken would not have been just to lives, but to jobs, businesses and output as well.

The emergence of just one further case, unconnected to any other case, would have been enough to put us back into lockdown, would have sacrificed all the gains we have made so far and would accordingly have done further untold damage to the economy.  The simple truth is what it has always been – there is not a choice to be made between combatting the health effects of the virus and limiting its impact on the economy. 

The only way we can limit the economic damage is by ensuring that the virus is stopped in its tracks.  Any advice to the effect that we should jeopardise that objective is a snare and a delusion, and can lead only to further economic harm.

We are lucky that we have had a government that is strong enough to resist such blandishments and has been able to recognise the political posturing and jockeying for position for what it is.  

Politicians often get a bad report, and sometimes they deserve it.  But when we are lucky enough to discover that at least some of our politicians have had the strength of will and intellect to do what is needed, that is something to be celebrated.  Not everyone is so lucky.  

Bryan Gould

10 June 2020

Like the rest of the world, I have been aghast at what I have seen of, and read and heard about, what is happening currently in the United States.  It seems incredible that a once great country should be suffering the worst effects and the highest number of deaths worldwide from the coronavirus pandemic, that there should be forty million who have lost their jobs, and that the country should now be engaged in a kind of informal and undeclared civil war, in which American cities are on fire and armed groups of white supremacists fire at and kill demonstrators protesting about the killing of an unarmed black man by the police.

How did it come to this?  How did the world’s most powerful and wealthy country descend into such incompetence, division, chaos and violence – and disintegration?

Who, it might be asked, is supposed to be in charge here?  Who should be taking responsibility for the manifold failures and mis-steps that have led to this painful breakdown?

In most countries – democratic countries at least – the finger would have been pointed squarely at “the government”.  But, in America, the government is often seen to be a one-man band, and that is especially so when the President of the day acts as if he is the boss of a corporation and is able to rule by decree.

The responsibility for the crisis, or rather, the crises, can be laid, in other words, only at one door.  Donald Trump claims to have unbridled power.  What has he done with the power he claims?

One is tempted to say that he has done nothing, that his failures are of omission rather than commission, that there is a vacuum at the heart of Washington, and that he has preferred to spend his time playing golf and tweeting incessantly, rather than addressing the problems that confront him and the country. 

But this charge sheet, substantial though it may be, covers only part of his derelictions.  It does not capture the full range of his failings.  He has not only failed to address, let alone resolve, the country’s deep-seated fault lines; he has actually made them – through his own words and actions – worse, more damaging and destructive.

Instead of bringing his people together, as a true leader would have done, he has chosen to throw fuel on the fire and to focus on casting around for someone else to blame for the catastrophes (not too strong a word) that have befallen his country.

The US is, in other words, suffering from a massive failure of leadership.  The man who has found himself facing these unprecedented challenges has been totally ill-equipped to deal with them.  His focus has been elsewhere – and much closer to home.  When he wakes up in the morning, his first thought is not for the millions of his countryman who are suffering or who have died, but for himself and his own chances of being re-elected.

At a time when the country has desperately needed a leader who can create, lead and deploy a national determination to act constructively together, he has been preoccupied with his own personal goals; he has instead represented the divisions, prejudices and intolerance that distort American civil society and that so easily lead to violence, discrimination and anger.

But the failure is not just his alone.  The failures that have brought about the current collapse and disruption are those of a whole governing class.  Trump occupies his current office and commits his damaging derelictions of duty only by leave of his Republican colleagues.  His failures are their failures too.

And we too share in those failures.  When the US is wounded and weakened, we are all worse off.

Bryan Gould

9 June 2020

The emergence of a new National party leader, seemingly out of nowhere, has – not surprisingly – raised a number of questions as to who Todd Mulller actually is and what makes him tick. He has been an MP for some time but seems to have hidden his light under a bushel until now and is still largely unknown.

One early indication of what he stands for has, however, caught the eye, and been remarked upon. Television cameras picked up a MAGA (Make America Great Again) cap, prominently displayed in his home office – and it has apparently been proudly and conspicuously taken with him to his new office as Leader of the Opposition.

A cap bearing the MAGA insignia is the hallmark of Trump supporters in the US and is, at first sight, an odd symbol for a New Zealand politician to choose. And, as some commentators have pointed out, the connotations are even odder. The cap is habitually worn by some of Trump’s more extreme supporters and carries with it, for many observers, overtones of a racially divided America in which US “greatness” is seen to be the concomitant and expression, not only of an extreme right-wing, but of a white supremacist, element in American society.

Sitting as it does, displayed in Todd Muller’s office, the cap is presumably more than just an incidental piece of political memorabilia, chosen and acquired at random on a trip to the US. Muller can hardly be unaware of or unhappy about the interpretation that has been placed upon it. He will have displayed it for a purpose – but let us be charitable as to what that purpose might be.

It might be that he is simply an admirer of the US and – even warts and all – of the US President. That would be consistent with the explanation he has himself offered – that, as a youngster, he wanted to be President of the United States. That, however, would have been an unusual (and unattainable) ambition for a Kiwi youngster, and would still not explain why a mature and (presumably) worldly-wise Kiwi adult would wish to pay homage so ostentatiously to the current occupier of the White House.

It might, on the other hand, be a rather clumsy attempt by the new National leader to suggest that, by aping Donald Trump, he also sees it as his task to make his country “great again”. If this is nothing more than a rather empty plagiarism, (and an ill-judged one at that, given Trump’s manifold failures in office) so be it; but let us assume that Muller really does intend to indicate that he wants, in Trumpian style, to make New Zealand “great again”.

Can he really mean that New Zealand has lessons to learn from the American President if it wishes to be “great again”? Has he not registered that New Zealand’s success in bringing the coronavirus pandemic under control has been universally recognised, praised and celebrated, while Donald Trump wallows ever deeper in a catastrophe of his own creation? While the US is the object of pity and derision in the light of its new role as the worldwide epicentre of the pandemic, New Zealand’s international standing, in recognition of our current achievements, is sky-high.

It is of course the case that, following our world-leading success in controlling the pandemic, we now have a major reconstruction task ahead of us in terms of rebuilding the economy. But is there any reason not to entrust that task to a leadership that has achieved so much already?

Muller’s predecessor discovered that there was a price to pay for sniping from the sidelines at a national mood of determination to stick together so as to defeat the virus. Muller may also be misjudging the national mood if he thinks that we are now in need of a Trump-like “saviour” to carry us forward and to make us “great again”.

Instead of Make America Great Again, he might think instead of inscribing the acronym NZIGA on his cap, and then displaying or even wearing it with pride. What would NZIGA represent? Easy – that “New Zealand Is Great Already”.

Bryan Gould
25 May 2020

When we see how the pandemic is being handled in the rest of the world, we can thank our lucky stars that we live here, in New Zealand, and under our current government, led by Jacinda Ardern.

The latest polls suggest that this is exactly how Kiwis feel. But the next election is still a few months away, and in the meantime, we have to ensure that the progress we have made in containing the pandemic is maintained, and that we do not allow any resurgence of cases.

By the time the election arrives, though, we will know how successful we have been; and there is no denying that the two issues – the management of the pandemic and the government’s re-election chances – will be linked in the public mind.

But it will not just be the government, and the Prime Minister, who will be subjected to the judgment of the electorate. Voters will have a chance to answer a slightly different question; how well would we have done, if someone else, rather than Jacinda Ardern, had been in charge?

That is when Opposition politicians will have it brought home to them that criticising from the sidelines is the easy bit. The voters will then have to think about the question – how well would we have done if the roles had been reversed and someone else had had to take the hard decisions, keep everyone committed to the cause, and carry the country with them?

It is of course never easy to answer such “what if ?” questions. But that does not mean that the question will not arise and will not be present in the minds of voters.

What answer are they likely to give? Forecasting is a risky business but we can hazard a guess or two. If the current assessment – that we have been the most successful country in our response to the pandemic – is maintained and supported by the facts, we should expect – as the polls suggest – a ringing endorsement of the Prime Minister and her team.

And the conclusions we are likely to draw from the coronavirus saga – the most serious challenge to any government since the Second World War – will not be limited to whether or not we have overcome the pandemic and saved, not only lives, but jobs and businesses as well.

Given time to think about the implications of what we have been through, we will surely arrive at wider conclusions than those pertaining just to the pandemic itself.

It would be surprising if we did not emerge from the crisis with a better understanding of how important the public services are – and of the high price we must pay if we let investment in our health services and our education fall behind what is necessary. Producing government “surpluses” is all very well, but not if we are left with underfunded services, just at the time that we need them most.

And, when we reflect on how pleasant it has been to enjoy the cleaner air and the reduction in traffic noise, accidents and congestion, we might also pause to think more kindly about a “green” agenda, and recognise that economic growth is not the be-all and end-all of what we do. Working from home and learning online may have their own disadvantages, but we have learned that they are possible and can work well.

If we are ready to endorse the government’s handling of the pandemic, we might conclude that the competence they have shown in the face of such adversity might also serve us well in less demanding circumstances. Why would ministers like Grant Robertson, David Clarke, Stuart Nash, David Parker, Chris Hipkins and others not show similar competence in facing further challenges and does not their willingness to defy economic orthodoxy in re-building the economy show that they have what it takes?

It would be surprising, in other words, if the government’s performance in handling the crisis was not top of many minds, come election day in September. Elections are about choosing a good government, and one that faces up to its responsibilities. And that is as it should be.

Bryan Gould
26 May 2020

As we awaited confirmation that we would move to Level 2, my wife and I reviewed our experience of lockdown so far. We reached similar conclusions – that the lockdown had been a bore and a bind, but that we have been – living where we do – among the lucky ones.

We felt very constrained by the rules restricting travel and social gatherings, and by the prohibitions imposed on the over-70s – and we were accordingly not able to do our own shopping or get to Tauranga to spend any time – even for birthdays – with our daughter and grandchildren.

But, sitting on our deck and looking out over the wide expanse of the Pacific Ocean, it was hard to complain too much. There was always the possibility of a walk on the beach in the sunshine with our little dog, and of coming across friends on the beach and having a chat while maintaining the correct social distance – and one of our lovely neighbours kindly did our shopping for us. And, as retirees, we did not have to worry about our jobs or getting to work or our incomes or businesses.

None of this means that we weren’t glad to see the move to Level 2. Easing the lockdown will take away a psychological burden that, no doubt, many people will have felt – that sense that we are not free to do what we want or are normally able to do. And, paradoxically, the inability to keep busy and the need to fill our days in other ways made us feel more tired and lacking in energy than we usually do.

But we were comforted by the knowledge that we, and our family and friends, were engaged in a great national effort – one that requires self-discipline and a sense of social responsibility and of keeping faith with others in a similar plight.

It is not just the feeling of making common cause with others that has sustained us. A modicum of thought and rationality is enough to convince us that the lockdowns have not only been socially and morally required but are also the most effective response to the real prospect of economic damage to our country.

We are sure we are not alone in recognising that the best and quickest – perhaps the only – way of minimising the economic price we must pay for the pandemic is to bring it to an end – and if that requires the lockdowns, then so be it.

It is that realisation that makes it so difficult for us to understand the mentality of those who continue to criticise and snipe from the sidelines, in an apparent attempt to weaken, fragment and unravel the national consensus we have established as to what is required.

Such critics cannot seem to grasp that the virus brings with it the threat of real damage to us in a variety of forms, not just the obvious immediate impact it has on our health and fatality rate, and that the cost – economic, as well as emotional and social – of defeating it is is part of the price it demands of us.

Every attempt to weaken the national resolve, or suggestion that we might give up the battle, represents a victory for the virus, and ensures that the price it will make us pay grows larger. The national effort is a collective one; the more united it is, the more effective it is. It is weakened every time the claim is made that an individual interest has a higher priority and should take precedence.

That is why it is regrettable that the Prime Minister, engaged as she is in a life and death struggle to help save us from the virus and from the damage of various kinds that it causes, was recently grilled by the Leader of the Opposition, without anything other than pure speculation to support him, on supposed plans she may or may not have to raise taxes of various kinds after the virus has been contained. This was merely an attempt at political point-scoring, more suited to a general election campaign rather than a campaign against the virus.

The time for politicking will come in due course. It Is not now.

Bryan Gould
19 April 2020