In the British House of Commons, Government Ministers sit on the “front bench”, and, as they rise to speak from the Despatch Box, they are compelled to face the serried ranks of the Opposition.

The story goes that a young Minister, about to speak from the Despatch Box for the first time, confessed to the then Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, that he was nervous about speaking, with “the enemy” directly in front of him.

“They are not your enemies, they are your opponents,” Macmillan assured him. “Your enemies are behind you.”

Someone who will know the truth of that observation, without doubt, is Simon Bridges. As a recent opinion poll shows not only that his rating as preferred Prime Minister remains worryingly low, but also that National has slipped considerably in party support, he can almost hear the vultures wheeling above and behind him.

He has little to fear from his opponents in government who will no doubt be happy to see him remain as National leader until the election is out of the way. The real threat to his leadership will come from those seated behind him.

There is nothing surprising about this scenario. What is surprising, however, is that he is so lacking in the necessary instinct for self-preservation that he does not learn from his mistakes.

It is only a week or so ago that he provoked an angry backlash, even from his own supporters, for remarks he made that were seen as disturbing and breaking ranks with the national consensus as to the best way to fight the pandemic.

Yet he was at it again just a few days later, provoking the same reaction, and producing yet another round of speculation about his leadership.

It is almost as though his anxiety about maintaining his position leads him to cast all calm judgment and good sense aside. He is by all accounts doing a good job as chair of the “scrutiny” committee set up to hold the government to account. And he is entitled, as Leader of the Opposition, to ask searching and critical questions of the government.

But he seems to lack a “feel” for the national mood. That mood is one of determination to work together and to make the necessary sacrifices so that the crisis can be brought to an end and we can return to normal as soon as possible.

Almost everyone – apart from a couple of high-profile exceptions, sniping from the fringes – understands that to relax too soon, in the supposed interests of the economy and small businesses in particular, would be to risk not only a further substantial round of cases and deaths, but also a prolongation of the lockdowns and therefore the prospect of even more economic damage.

The lockdowns have had an adverse impact on virtually all of us – some, of course, more than others. We will all be glad to see them behind us. Inevitably, there are those who will see only the impact on them personally and who, without realising what others are also going through, will be quick to claim that they are suffering unduly or unfairly.

Fortunately for us as a nation, there is plenty of evidence that the course we are following is paying off. Of course, there have been and will be occasional and minor hiccups in what has been a hugely complex medical and organisational effort, but we can be sure that the figures do not lie when they show that we have done better than probably any other country.

And, in case we are in any doubt about this, the international media coverage has been unanimous in congratulating us on our efforts to bring the rate of new cases and deaths under something approaching control – and they have been equally quick to recognise the excellent leadership provided to us.

And it is on this latter point that Simon Bridges’ vulnerability is at its most acute. He has had the great misfortune to have to shadow a Prime Minister who, by common and universal consent, has played a blinder. That is his bad luck – but the rest of us can be glad that it is so.

Bryan Gould
5 May 2020

Subject to all the usual warnings about unhatched chickens, it nevertheless looks, as we come out of Level Four, that we might have cracked it. Our figures – for the total number of cases and deaths, and for the incidence of new cases in particular – compare very favourably with those in most other countries; and, not surprisingly, our efforts have been commended by the WHO as “world-leading”. We are entitled to reflect on what has been so far a great national effort.

We owe a great deal to what has undoubtedly been effective leadership; but we are also entitled to indulge in a little self-congratulation. Our leaders have been excellent in showing the way; but we have shown, as a people, a great collective spirit and social discipline in our willingness and ability to follow the lead they have offered.

That might not have been entirely expected, given – as some overseas commentators have remarked – our reputation as a nation of rugged individualists, and our usual unwillingness to be told what to do. There have of course been those who have found reason to complain – “there are only a handful of cases!” one unthinking woman was heard to say; some sacrifices may have been greater than others, but most of us have accepted that we are all adversely affected in one way or another, and that the sacrifice is necessary in the common interest.

We have also had the good sense to recognise that the sooner and more conscientiously we make those sacrifices, the sooner the need for them will be over.

We have been particularly fortunate when we compare ourselves with other countries – not least the US – that usually set the standard. Whereas we have had calm and assured leadership that has worked well with, and followed the advice of, the best science available, the Americans have had to put up with leaders who are flaky and irresponsible.

Even in that respect, however, we can afford to pat ourselves, as a society, on the back. Our leaders reflect us; they were elected by us, and accordingly reflect our values and the qualities that we think are important.

The Americans, in other words, have no one but themselves to blame for Donald Trump. They – and no one else – have saddled themselves with a leader who advises them, against all medical evidence and advice, to inject themselves with bleach, and who actively encourages protesters to demand an end to the lockdowns imposed by their state governments.

It is no accident that the US is the global epicentre of the pandemic and that more than 50,000 Americans have died from the virus. The Americans are paying, and will continue to pay, a heavy price for electing and listening to a leader who is deluded and self-obsessed.

It is increasingly clear that Trump’s view of the crisis is that it is a nursery story that must have a happy ending and that is waiting for a hero to bring that happy ending about – hence his constant quest for a vaccine or cure that he can personally claim to have found.

The simple fact is that a large sector of the American electorate is apparently prepared to trust and listen to him, however bizarre and irresponsible his behaviour – a judgment that must be seen as an indictment of American society. Democracy can be a dangerous form of government when the voters themselves are so ignorant, prejudiced and irresponsible.

The Americans must ask themselves how it is that the society they have created could produce such an outcome. The possibility that they might re-elect a leader who has so damagingly failed to protect them and serve their interests – and who has presided over a calamitous and virtually unique (in international terms) national inability to handle a threat that others have been able to surmount – shows that American democracy is in a parlous state.

We get the leaders we deserve. It is a feather in the cap of the New Zealand public that we have been able to equip ourselves with a government that we can trust, and one that we are ready to follow, because it has revealed itself to be both competent and empathetic. Pity the poor Americans.

Bryan Gould
4 May 2020

One of the most heartening aspects of the national effort to defeat the coronavirus pandemic has been the support offered to the government by the National party Opposition. They have, on the whole, refrained from criticism of our Prime Minister, and their leader, Simon Bridges, has played a useful supporting role in chairing the ad hoc committee set up by Parliament to hold the government to account.

But it was too good to last. Simon Bridges could not resist expressing his concern about Jacinda Ardern’s decision that the Level 4 lockdown should remain in place for another week. And his unhelpful posturing on the issue – choosing to champion the cause of “business” against “the people” – has inevitably brought about a backlash of opinion against him.

Even lifelong National supporters have – in large numbers – expressed their dismay at this breaking of ranks, and commentators have been quick to speculate about the increased threat to his leadership – already precarious – that the backlash might pose.

It is not my task to defend Simon Bridges, but I think the commentators have got it wrong. It is not that Bridges’ performance on this issue might threaten his leadership. The direction of causation runs the other way – it is the threat to his leadership that explains his breaking of ranks.

Simon Bridges’ ill-judged criticism happened because he felt the pressure from his own party to “do something”, as Jacinda Ardern enjoyed headlines and plaudits aplenty. There is, after all, an election to take place later this year, and Bridges’ supporters were no doubt getting restive at their leader’s apparent inactivity. Poor Simon felt impelled to show that he was his own man and was prepared to take a position.

But this was a misjudgment. His comments have, if anything, weakened his chances of holding on as National leader until the election. And he was wrong to worry too much about any threat to his leadership, at least in the here and now.

We have seen immediately some of his potential challengers – the likes of Paula Bennett and Mark Michell – rush to express their support for him. But there is more than one game being played here.

There will would-be successors to Simon Bridges who have already given away the next election. They scan a horizon that appears after the election has been lost. Their plan is to leave Simon in situ, to carry the can for the inevitable election loss – and, then, with the National party looking for a fresh start, their chance will come.

The last thing they want to do is to roll their leader just now. To do so, would be to open the door to another challenger, one who could immediately offer the party experience and a safe pair of hands. The challenger who would be best placed, leading into an election, to take advantage of a pre-election change of leadership would be Judith Collins.

So, Simon, you are safe for the time being and you might yet confound everybody by doing better than expected in the election. But, in the meantime, don’t worry too much about your potential challengers.

You will show yourself to the best advantage – not by taking potshots at the government during a time of national crisis – but by acting responsibly in the national interest. And, if you feel you must look over your shoulder from time to time, be aware of the timing. Any short-term threat, before the election, will come from your senior colleague.

But, after an election loss, Paula Bennett and Mark Mitchell – and probably others as well – won’t be able to get at you fast enough. Politics, as you know by now, is a cut-throat business.

Bryan Gould
27 April 2020

So, not just “lockdown” – we now move to “lock-in” – at Level Three, in a week from now, we will focus on consolidating the gains we have made. True to form, the Prime Minister has told it how it is. We have done well, but it’s too early to take the foot off the pedal just yet. We would risk losing those gains if we did so. But there is light at the end of the tunnel. There will still be, at Level Three, restrictions on social engagement, but business will have greater freedom to prepare for a re-start.

For most of us, it is hard to grasp the scale of the coronavirus pandemic. The whole world it seems is now in lockdown; but we are aware of this only when it impacts on us in a direct and personal way.

We can easily lose sight of the wider picture. We have of course all suffered consequences from the lockdown of one kind or another, even if it is only the sense that we have lost control of our own lives, and that we are denied contact with our families, friends and neighbours, and the ability to do things we normally like doing.

The impact is, of course, more serious, if we find that it is our livelihoods – our jobs and businesses – that are at stake, and when – despite the commendable steps taken by government to help tide us over this difficult patch – the prospect of longer-term damage to the economy can be discerned.

It is then that we hear the siren voices raised, from politicians and commentators, to the effect that we have “over-reacted” – that the economic damage is too great to be justified by the prospect of a “few deaths” – deaths, it is said, that are “just” among the frail and elderly.

We hardly need a clearer illustration of the mindset that “the economy” is always paramount and must take precedence over all other considerations – that is the mindset that has led to grievous errors, not just, as in this case, in respect of the lives and premature deaths of our fellow-citizens, but also in respect of global warming, or the pollution of air and water, or the failure to protect a safe living environment for other creatures. Nothing, it seems, must stop the economic process.

Fortunately for us, here in New Zealand, we are spared the disgraceful calculations of a Donald Trump who, for fear that a slowing economy will harm his chances of re-election, encourages his own people, at great risk to their own health and in the midst of a rapidly rising death toll, to defy the lockdown and who is ready, in his search for a scapegoat for his own failures, to hamstring the efforts of the World Health Organisation to restrain the virus.

We are entitled to be scornful of those would-be Trumps in our own midst who seem to believe that we must choose between grappling with and overcoming the virus on the one hand, and saving the economy on the other. They cannot seem to grasp that no such choice presents itself.

The only way to save the economy is to defeat the virus. If we allow the virus to continue unchecked, or to re-establish itself by relaxing our efforts too soon, we will not only condemn ourselves to the pain and suffering of the continued loss of our loved ones, but we will ensure that the economic consequences of the pandemic are even more painful and long-lasting, and will persist without any end in sight. And, we would be left with the uncomfortable sense that we had, as a country, failed the test and had abandoned and let down our fellow-citizens, and had squandered the huge efforts made by our frontline health workers.

As our leaders tell us, now is the time to stay strong – kia kaha. This is not the time to weaken and reduce our commitment to defeat this plague. Our economy will recover well when we – as individuals and as a society – are well. “First things first” must be the watchword.

Bryan Gould
27 April 2020

For most of us, it is hard to grasp the scale of the coronavirus pandemic – or of the response to it by governments around the world.

The whole world it seems is now in lockdown; but it is not surprising that we see the evidence of this only when it is close to home and impacts on us in a direct and personal way.

We accordingly tend to judge the steps taken by government by the effect they have on us individually which means that we can easily lose sight of the wider picture. The truth is that we have all suffered consequences from the lockdown of one kind or another, even if it is only the sense the we have lost control of our own lives, and that we are denied contact with our families, friends and neighbours and the ability to do things we normally like doing. Not surprisingly, it is those who feel the most aggrieved by some perceived unfairness or oversight in the administration of the lockdown by the government whose voices are heard loudest.

The impact of the lockdown can be, of course, more serious, if we find that it is our livelihoods – our jobs and businesses – that are at stake, and when – despite the commendable steps taken by government to help tide us over this difficult patch – the prospect of longer-term damage to the economy can be discerned.

It is then that we hear the siren voices raised, from politicians and commentators, to the effect that we have “over-reacted” – that the economic damage is too great to be warranted by the prospect of a “few deaths” – and deaths, for that matter, among the frail and elderly. We hardly need a clearer illustration of the mindset that “the economy” is always paramount – it is this mindset that has led us into grievous errors in respect, not only of potentially the lives and premature deaths of our fellow-citizens, but also in respect of global warming, or the pollution of clean air and water, or the faiiure to protect a safe living environment for other creatures.

Fortunately for us, here in New Zealand, we are spared the disgraceful calculations of a Donald Trump who, for fear that a slowing economy will harm his chances of re-election, encourages his own people, at great risk to their own health and in the midst of a rising death toll, to defy the lockdown and who is ready, in his search for a scapegoat, to hamstring the efforts of the World Health Organisation to restrain the virus.

But we are entitled to be scornful of those would-be Trumps in our midst who seem to believe that we must choose between grappling with and overcoming the virus on the one hand, and saving the economy on the other. They cannot seem to grasp that no such choice presents itself.

The only way to save the economy is to defeat the virus. If we allow the virus to continue unchecked, or to re-establish itself by relaxing our efforts too soon, we will not only condemn our fellow-citizens to the pain and suffering of the continued loss of their loved ones, but we will ensure that the economic consequences of the pandemic are even more painful and long-lasting, and will persist without any end in sight. And, we would be left with the uncomfortable sense that we had, as a country, failed the test that had faced us, and that we had abandoned and let down our fellow-citizens and had squandered the huge efforts of our frontline health workers..

As we have often been told by our leaders and by large numbers of our fellow-citizens, now is the time to stay strong – kia kaha. This is not the time to weaken and reduce our commitment to defeat this plague. Our economy will recover well when we – as individuals and as a society – are well. “First things first” must be the watchword.

Bryan Gould
27 April 2020