Get Over It, National
As the National party struggles to come to terms with its failure to win the general election, it needs to face up to the reality of its situation. So far, it has done little more than feel sorry for itself, and that has been rapidly followed by looking for someone to blame.
The prevailing sentiment is that, in reality, they “won” the election and were cheated out of it – if not by a perverse electoral system, then by an unprincipled chancer who refused to play by the rules.
What they will not recognise is that they were required to play by the rules that everyone else (including the electorate as a whole) had accepted, and that their failure to prevail was theirs alone. They lost because they could not assemble enough seats in parliament to command a majority.
What they cannot seem to accept is that, having held office for nine years and won three elections in a row, it should have come as no surprise that the voters might have been prepared to give someone else a chance – especially when the main opposition had a new lease of life under a new and charismatic leader. Nor should it have been a surprise that the voters who signalled their wish for a change should have reached a range of different views (under a proportional representation voting system) as to precisely who they wanted to see take over, and that it was then up to the various parties to construct a parliamentary majority and form a government.
The difficulty National has had in accepting these simple truths is significant in at least a couple of respects. First, it represents a real obstacle to their chances of recognising, rapidly adjusting to, and overcoming their current plight. And secondly, it tells us something about how National sees its place in New Zealand politics.
Although my own political sympathies lie elsewhere, I like to think that I have some insight into that very question – and that is because my own dear (and long departed) parents were lifelong National party supporters, as were their parents before them. For them, the way they voted was less a matter of personal advantage or political calculation as it was an expression of a social attitude. “People like us”, they felt, and would sometimes say, “vote National”.
“People like us”, in their terms, were people who had a vested interest in the status quo, by virtue of their achievements, and who therefore had a special responsibility to maintain the social order. And with that responsibility came a special and unique role – to be available to take the important decisions needed to hold society together.
It is only a short step from those assumptions to a belief that the exercise of governmental power was almost a kind of birthright, and that any departure from that norm was at best an aberration. I encountered a much more overt and deliberate expression of the same attitude when I became involved in British politics.
British Conservatives, of course, operate in a much more class-conscious society than we are used to, and noblesse oblige is perhaps one of the less objectionable manifestations of the belief that some people are “born to rule”. It is an attitude that generations of public-school educated boys took with them, for good or ill (more usually for ill), to the further corners of the Empire.
It may seem somewhat fanciful to draw a parallel between the New Zealand National party and the British establishment, but I suspect that the incredulity of National supporters at the loss of power and their refusal to accept it or accommodate it stems from a similar belief that they are meant to govern and that the natural order has somehow been overturned by the advent of a Labour-led government.
The sooner National can get over their failure to win, and can accept that they have no special claim to government, the better for them and for New Zealand politics. The most difficult lessons are sometimes the most salutary.
Bryan Gould
8 February 2018
The National Party Succession
Changing the leader can be one of the most difficult things a political party can do in a democracy, as the National party is perhaps about to find out.
The process they may be about to embark upon could well be fraught with difficulties; it seems unlikely that they will find it as straightforward as Labour did last year.
The luck very much ran Labour’s way in 2017. An accommodating, not to say selfless, leader in Andrew Little reached his own conclusion that it was time to go. The Labour party had already identified, in Jacinda Ardern, a deputy leader who could succeed to the leadership with a minimum of angst.
And, she was able to resolve one of the most difficult potential dilemmas faced by political parties – how to choose a leader who commands the support and loyalty of party activists, while at the same time appealing to the wider electorate. All too often, a potential leader who commends himself or herself to the party faithful will be a complete turn-off for the uncommitted public.
It was Labour’s good fortune that their leader-in –waiting was not only the obvious and widely supported candidate from within the party, but that she immediately proved her vote-winning credentials with the wider public.
National, on the other hand, has a more difficult row to hoe. Bill English is a widely respected leader, still enjoying support from his party and under no immediate pressure to go. While National has a deputy leader, there is no widely accepted successor – but rather, as we are about to find out, a number of other challengers, each of whom will have counts against him or her. None has quite the same freshness and novelty value that Jacinda Ardern displayed when she first emerged into the limelight.
National’s contenders will all bring a certain amount of baggage with them into a leadership contest – and, in an open democracy such as ours, any black marks from their past will be remembered and revived in the public memory. Whether it was a disastrous television interview or pulling a fast one when a Minister, the contenders will have to expunge those unfortunate memories and will have to hope that their supporters are a forgiving lot.
In modern politics, it will almost certainly be the case that a good deal of “qualitative polling” will be carried out in what are known as “focus groups”, to find out just how the contenders are seen by the public. I remember that, when I ran the 1987 general election campaign in the UK for the British Labour Party, we did this kind of polling, about both policies and personalities. It came as quite a shock to us to discover that one of our leading spokespeople was a complete “no-no” for the public.
For party loyalists who are primarily looking for a leader who can win a general election, a demonstrated tendency to alienate undecided voters will ring the deal knell for a candidate’s hopes. Responding to a television interviewer rudely and aggressively, for example, may be seen by some as a plus, seeming to demonstrate leadership qualities, but not if it is a turn-off for the non-committed. As the contenders line up, they will be hoping that they can start with a clean slate and will be forgiven past transgressions. Politics, however, is not usually so accommodating.
There is one further hurdle for them to surmount. Labour had to endure years of John Key’s unusual ability to appeal to the voters. The shoe is now well and truly on the other foot. Now, National have the extra burden of choosing someone who can contest toe-to-toe with Jacinda Ardern. And that contest is not just about policies, important though they are – it is about the whole package, principle, personality, the lot.
Being as objective as I can, I cannot, when I survey the field of National hopefuls, see anyone who fills the bill from among the supposed frontrunners. Favourites are usually favourites for a reason – but in this race, the favourites seem to have used the inside running to disqualify themselves. Trying someone who is completely untried, on the other hand, is a huge risk, but it may be one that National feels compelled to take.
Bryan Gould
30 January 2017
Changing the leader can be one of the most difficult things a political party can do in a democracy, as the National party is perhaps about to find out.
The process they may be about to embark upon could well be fraught with difficulties; it seems unlikely that they will find it as straightforward as Labour did last year.
The luck very much ran Labour’s way in 2017. An accommodating, not to say selfless, leader in Andrew Little reached his own conclusion that it was time to go. The Labour party had already identified, in Jacinda Ardern, a deputy leader who could succeed to the leadership with a minimum of angst.
And, she was able to resolve one of the most difficult potential dilemmas faced by political parties – how to choose a leader who commands the support and loyalty of party activists, while at the same time appealing to the wider electorate. All too often, a potential leader who commends himself or herself to the party faithful will be a complete turn-off for the uncommitted public.
It was Labour’s good fortune that their leader-in –waiting was not only the obvious and widely supported candidate from within the party, but that she immediately proved her vote-winning credentials with the wider public.
National, on the other hand, has a more difficult row to hoe. Bill English is a widely respected leader, still enjoying support from his party and under no immediate pressure to go. While National has a deputy leader, there is no widely accepted successor – but rather, as we are about to find out, a number of other challengers, each of whom will have counts against him or her. None has quite the same freshness and novelty value that Jacinda Ardern displayed when she first emerged into the limelight.
National’s contenders will all bring a certain amount of baggage with them into a leadership contest – and, in an open democracy such as ours, any black marks from their past will be remembered and revived in the public memory. Whether it was a disastrous television interview or pulling a fast one when a Minister, the contenders will have to expunge those unfortunate memories and will have to hope that their supporters are a forgiving lot.
In modern politics, it will almost certainly be the case that a good deal of “qualitative polling” will be carried out in what are known as “focus groups”, to find out just how the contenders are seen by the public. I remember that, when I ran the 1987 general election campaign in the UK for the British Labour Party, we did this kind of polling, about both policies and personalities. It came as quite a shock to us to discover that one of our leading spokespeople was a complete “no-no” for the public.
For party loyalists who are primarily looking for a leader who can win a general election, a demonstrated tendency to alienate undecided voters will ring the deal knell for a candidate’s hopes. Responding to a television interviewer rudely and aggressively, for example, may be seen by some as a plus, seeming to demonstrate leadership qualities, but not if it is a turn-off for the non-committed. As the contenders line up, they will be hoping that they can start with a clean slate and will be forgiven past transgressions. Politics, however, is not usually so accommodating.
There is one further hurdle for them to surmount. Labour had to endure years of John Key’s unusual ability to appeal to the voters. The shoe is now well and truly on the other foot. Now, National have the extra burden of choosing someone who can contest toe-to-toe with Jacinda Ardern. And that contest is not just about policies, important though they are – it is about the whole package, principle, personality, the lot.
Being as objective as I can, I cannot, when I survey the field of National hopefuls, see anyone who fills the bill from among the supposed frontrunners. Favourites are usually favourites for a reason – but in this race, the favourites seem to have used the inside running to disqualify themselves. Trying someone who is completely untried, on the other hand, is a huge risk, but it may be one that National feels compelled to take.
Bryan Gould
30 January 2017
The Battle for National’s leadership
Changing the leader can be one of the most difficult things a political party can do in a democracy, as the National party is perhaps about to find out.
The process they may be about to embark upon could well be fraught with difficulties; it seems unlikely that they will find it as straightforward as Labour did last year.
To be fair, the luck very much ran Labour’s way last year. An accommodating, not to say selfless, leader in Andrew Little, reached his own conclusion that it was time to go. The Labour party had already identified, in Jacinda Ardern, a deputy leader who could succeed to the leadership with a minimum of angst. As it turned out, she was able to resolve one of the most difficult potential conflicts faced by political parties – how to choose a leader who will command the support and loyalty of party activists as “one of us”, while at the same time appealing to the wider electorate. All too often, a potential leader will commend himself or herself to the party faithful but will be a complete turn-off for the non-political public.
It was Labour’s good fortune that their leader-in –waiting was not only the obvious and widely supported candidate from within the party, but that she immediately proved her vote-winning credentials.
National, on the other hand, has a more difficult row to hoe. Bill English is a widely respected leader, still enjoying support from his party and under no immediate pressure to go. While National has a deputy leader, there is no widely accepted successor, as we are about to find out. And because that is so, the field is open to other challengers, though each will have counts against him or her. None has quite the same freshness and novelty value that Jacinda Ardern enjoyed when she first emerged into the limelight.
National’s contenders will, in other words, bring a certain amount of baggage with them into a leadership contest. And, in an open democracy such as ours, any question marks from their past will be remembered and refreshed in the public memory. Whether it be a disastrous television interview or pulling a fast one as a Minister, the contenders will have to disabuse boththe public and their party’s supporters of those unfortunate memories. Sadly for them, the likely candidates all seem to be handicapped by past indiscretions or failures – they will have to hope that their supporters are a forgiving lot.
In modern politics, it will almost certainly be the case that a good deal of what is known as “qualitative polling” will be carried out, to find out just how the contenders are seen by the public, when asked their opinions in what are known as “focus groups”. I remember that when I ran the 1987 election campaign in the UK for the British Labour Party we did this kind of polling, about policies as well as personalities. It came as quite a shock to us to discover that one of our leading spokespeople was a complete “no-no” for the public.
And, for the purposes of a poll among party members, and even more among MPs, a demonstrated capacity to alienate undecided voters on the part of a candidate will ring the deal knell for that candidate’s hopes. Responding to a television interviewer rudely and aggresssively may appeal to the party, as supposedly demonstrating leadership qualities, but it will be seen as off-putting by the non-committed. As the contenders line up, they will be hoping that memories are not too long and that they can start with a clean slate.
There is one further hurdle for them to surmount. The shoe is now well and truly on the other foot. Labour had to endure years of John Key’s unusual ability to appeal to the voters. Now, National have the extra burden of choosing someone who can contest toe-to-toe with Jacinda Ardern. And the contest is not just about policies, important though they are – it is about the whole package, principle, personality, the lot.
Being as objective as I can, I cannot, when I survey the field of National hopefuls, see anyone who fills the bill from among the supposed frontrunners. Trying someone who is completely untried on the other hand, is a huge risk, but it may be one that National feels compelled to take. Favourites are usually favourites for a reason – but in this race, the favourites seem to have used the inside running to disqualify themselves.
Bryan Gould
30 January 2017
Where TECT Money Does the Most Good
Some years ago, as Vice-Chancellor of Waikato University, I found myself heading a fund-raising campaign to raise money for an Academy of Performing Arts at the University. There is no tradition in New Zealand, as there is in America, of charitable giving on a large scale by wealthy individuals, and we quickly exhausted the possibilities of those generous souls who were able and prepared to help.
I was beginning to despair that we would ever reach our $20 million plus target, when a local charitable trust, the Wel Energy Trust, came to the rescue. The trustees of the Trust were constantly torn between, on the one hand, using their available funds to help consumers by funding discounts on electricity bills and, on the other, supporting worthwhile local projects. It was our good fortune that they opted to support us – and the result? A world-class facility that has brought great pleasure and prestige to both the University and its community.
The Tauranga Energy Consumers Trust (TECT) – the Tauranga equivalent of the Wel Energy Trust – have faced a similar choice. Their current practice is to use the greater part of their available funds (which are derived mainly from their large shareholding in Trustpower) to issue cheques to Trustpower consumers so as to reduce, seemingly, the burden of their electricity bills; and they make grants only with what is then left.
They are now considering changing that practice so as to become a charitable trust, ready to support a wider range of local projects that might not otherwise get off the ground. This will have the effect of reducing the amount of money that is sent out to consumers by way of regular cheques – and, not surprisingly, there is no shortage of objectors to such a change.
For individual consumers, particularly those on low incomes, the non-arrival of the cheques (even though the blow is to be softened by the immediate payment of a substantial lump sum of $2500 to each customer and the continuation of a further five annual payments) will mean that an apparently significant boost to their budgets will be removed. Everyone enjoys getting “something for nothing”, particularly when the “something” can be spent on whatever they like. And one suspects that what many would miss is the thrill of receiving a cheque in the post.
Trustpower, too, say that they oppose the change, for reasons that might seem obvious. Competition in the electricity supply industry is hotting up, and consumers are increasingly likely to go to a website established for the purpose to check where they can get the best deal. When consumers discover that their Trustpower bill is higher than they might have to pay elsewhere, it is very convenient for Trustpower to be able to point to the TECT cheques as reducing the net cost.
There are many businesses of course, who would love to have a fairy godmother paying out cheques to their customers so as to allow them to go on charging above the going market rate for their product. From the customer’s viewpoint, however, the budgetary benefit delivered by the cheques would be just as real if they were just charged lower prices instead.
It is hard to see, in other words, the particular advantage to be gained for the customer from a convoluted process which allows Trustpower to go on charging more than they should and then being able to point to a cheque being paid out by a third party. Wouldn’t it be simpler for the customer if Trustpower just reduced their charges? – something they won’t do, for as long as the cheques keep coming.
The decision as to which course to take will be made by consumers. In the end, the answer should depend on a clear-eyed analysis of the economics, and a clear answer to the question of who really benefits from the current practice. Those answers should then be compared with the potential boost to the city from the ability to fund major projects that would otherwise never reach fruition. As always, money delivers more when it is not spent in small amounts by individuals on their own purposes but is brought together into larger totals and invested in projects for the good of the community.
Bryan Gould
28 January 2018
.
Abuse Can Happen Close to Home
“Abuse” is a word that these days appears, sadly, all too frequently in the headlines. It is, however, a word that covers a multitude of sins – the phenomenon it describes takes many different forms and arises in many different contexts.
On one day, it will refer to instances such as the shocking treatment inflicted on no fewer than thirteen children who were found, ill and under-nourished and shackled to beds in their parents’ home in the United States. No one reading an account of the discovery of these children in these shocking circumstances would fail to recognise it as an archetypal example of abuse.
On a succession of other days, “abuse” will refer to complaints made by brave women – usually actresses or models – about the treatment they were accorded by Harvey Weinstein and by other prominent men, usually in the entertainment industry, who demanded sexual favours in return for promoting their careers. This scandal has engulfed a growing number of men and has destroyed a number of careers and reputations – though Donald Trump seems somehow to have avoided a similar fate as the penalty for his own admitted (and proudly proclaimed) offences.
On yet other occasions, a different – and perhaps even more worrying – manifestation of abuse will hit the headlines. An unfortunate baby or toddler will be found to have suffered fatal injuries at the hands of an adult carer, or a terrified woman will suffer physical violence at the hands of a bullying partner.
Even these instances do not exhaust the catalogue of the forms that abuse can take. Destructive criticisms levelled on account of the race, religion, gender, sexual preference, or physical or mental capacity of the victim is a form of abuse that can be so damaging both to individual victims and to large groups of our fellow citizens as to be treated as criminal offences – though, again, Donald Trump seems to enjoy some kind of imagined Presidential immunity.
This recital of the forms of abuse with which we are familiar takes no account of yet other forms which attract less attention, not because they occur less frequently but because they are less easily recognised. But the law is catching up with real life; the law that outlaws physical or sexual violence has recently been extended to cover a further form of abuse that can occur in the domestic context.
That form of abuse is described in the legislation as “psychological abuse”, but it is usually described in the expert literature as “coercive control”, a term that better captures the essence of what is peculiarly destructive behaviour arising in the context of a family relationship.
The victims of “coercive control” are usually women (though they can be men) or children, living with a domineering adult (either male or female) , and finding that their ability to operate as independent human beings has been gradually eroded by the emotional, psychological and even financial pressure placed upon them by their abuser. That pressure is usually designed to undermine their self-confidence, to isolate them by weakening their networks of social support, and to make them more and more dependent on the abuser.
The problem in identifying psychological abuse is that “it leaves no bruises”. It is usually not apparent to observers from outside the family because the abuser will be expert at concealing what is really happening, present an image of domestic harmony and play the role of devoted family member.
These evidential issues mean that the courts have found it difficult to handle cases of alleged psychological abuse. The danger then is that the abuser gets away with it, and may even be presented with further opportunities to control (or abuse) the victim. A partner or child who alleges such abuse can often be directed to undergo counselling or some other form of mediation, which can then mean that the abuser has a further chance during the course of such conversations to exercise the control and domination that are the essence of “coercive control”.
We should not, in other words, always look for bruises. Abuse, in its many forms, can destroy lives without leaving an imprint, except on the happiness and ability to function of the victim. We are fortunate to live in a society that at least makes the effort to protect its members from abuse that can be so destructive, even if less obvious, but more should be done.
Bryan Gould
21 January 2018