The Herald must find itself on the horns of a dilemma.

On the one hand, it wants to show itself as supporting the national interest – hence its commendable campaign to achieve a 90% vaccination rate.

On the other hand, it wants to ensure that the government loses the next election to National (or even, heaven help us) Act – hence its determined efforts to undermine the government by constantly chipping away at it on a number of issues and from a number of viewpoints.

The dilemma arises because it can achieve the second objective of undermining the government only by fragmenting the national effort to counteract the pandemic – an effort whose best chance most of us see as lying in a nation-wide resolve to stay strong, as represented by a government whom, and whose strategy, the people trust and support, as the polls show.

So, which is it to be? The standard-bearer for the national interest or the scourge of the government in the “National” interest?

Bryan Gould
3 October 2021

Opinion polls, as opposed to elections, provide the participants with a chance to give effect to a fleeting impression, rather than a considered judgment. The poll will often reflect something that has caught the eye rather than engaged the brain.

An opinion poll, in other words, is likely to reward the gadfly, rather than the serious politician – one, in other words, who has responsibilities in the real world and who can therefore be expected to do things of consequence rather than simply posture.

The latest polls bear this out. The “big winner”, we are told, (though such terms are inevitably relative) is the gadfly-in-chief, David Seymour – and this comes as no surprise. The times are tailor-made for political gadflies. When the pandemic poses challenges on every front to the government of the day, there are endless opportunities for the gadfly to alight first here and then there, without ever having to face the challenge of real events himself.

The only reason we are invited to take the poll results with more than a pinch of salt is that the Herald sees some mileage to be made from them. David Seymour remains as far from the responsibilities of government as he has ever been; his value to the Herald is that he allows more pressure to be heaped upon the unfortunate Judith Collins and therefore hastens the day when National choose a new leader.

Bryan Gould
28 September 2021

The Herald continues to hitch its wagon to David Seymour’s coat-tails. They don’t seem to realise that Seymour is almost entirely an (inadvertent) creation of Judith Collins.

If it weren’t for the fact that Collins is performing so badly as National leader, Seymour would not be noticed. For those interested in arithmetic, his rise in the polls is almost exactly the mirror image of Collins’ decline.

There is little evidence, in other words, that Seymour is doing anything to increase the total right-wing vote; such support as he is gaining is won at National’s expense.

Whether the right as a whole might do better under Seymour’s rather than Collins’ leadership is perhaps debatable. For what it’s worth, I am not convinced. For every right-wing voter who might return to the National fold if someone – anyone – other than Colllns were leader, another would leave, discomforted by Seymour’s far-right position and beliefs.

The Herald may need to think again.

Bryan Gould
16 September 2021

There is no sign in recent issues of the Herald that it has abandoned in any way its underlying strategy and goal of undermining the government in the hope that it can be replaced at the next election by a National government. So why has the Herald continued to blow wind into David Seymour’s sails, as it has again done this week?

On one reading, it is further evidence that the Herald has lost confidence in Judith Collins and does not believe that she can lead National to victory. Talking up David Seymour is, on this analysis, just another stick with which to beat her and to hasten the day, they hope, when National MPs decide they have had enough and decide to elect a new leader.

There is another interpretation, however. The Herald’s ambitions may not be limited to getting a National government; they may want to be sure that such a government will not be, in their terms, “wishy-washy”. They may want to be sure that the National victory they seek will bring to power a government that is genuinely and unmistakably right-wing.

Talking up David Seymour, however improbably, as a potential Prime Minister, would then serve a different purpose. It would act as a kind of spur or goad to National MPs, especially those with leadership ambitions; it would signal to them that they could not expect any endorsement from the Herald unless they could demonstrate far-right credentials to match those of David Seymour.

Seymour leads an Act party which, despite the proclaimed success of its leader, remains limited in its numerical support – and that is not surprising; there, is on all the evidence – historical and other – a limited appetite in New Zealand for parties of the far, or “libertarian”, right.

If Seymour were able to take those “libertarian” views into mainstream politics, the political scene in our country would change substantially, and for the worse. A National party that was either led by Seymour or subsumed into a wider coalition led by Seymour would inevitably lose its foundation character as an alliance of economic conservatism and social liberalism – and it is hard to see how that would serve the purposes of the Herald or the interests of the country.

Bryan Gould
14 September 2021

Mike Hosking is a professional journalist and, as such, he presumably wants to be read – and not only read, but taken seriously and believed.

It is surprising, therefore, that he seems not to have grasped a basic principle – that someone whose every utterance is obviously coloured by an ever-present prejudice and ulterior motive will find that his opinions are eventually discounted, on the ground that they reflect his undeclared prejudice and motive rather than any attempt at a proper analysis of the subject at issue.

Those who can bring themselves to read his offerings will recognise the point I am making. Whenever he comments on the government’s handling of the pandemic (or any other government policy or action), it is immediately apparent that his first purpose is to express his dislike (verging on hatred) of the government and determination to undermine both its efforts and its continued existence.

Not surprisingly, his readers are not slow to pick up on this. They will accordingly dismiss his attacks as par for a very familiar course – and they will conclude that they do not need yet another demonstration of what they know already, that Mr Hosking doesn’t like our current government very much.

Sadly, a number of regular “commenters” in the Herald’s pages seem to be afflicted with the same disease. What they offer us is far from reasoned and dispassionate analysis but, rather, a blast of bile and hostility directed at the government. As a consequence, we learn more about them than about the government.

Bryan Gould
9 September 2021