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

The worldwide dimensions of the coronavirus pandemic have provided the opportunity to compare how well different countries have responded to its challenges.

Already, some commentators are concluding, not only that some countries have done better than others, but – further – that some political systems have handled the crisis better than others.

The evidence for these conclusions is said to be that a number of Asian countries – Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore – have been more effective in bringing the crisis under control than have been a number of Western democracies. While a number of European countries – Italy, Spain, France and even the UK – have struggled to contain the problem, and the US has succumbed to becoming the world epicentre of the outbreak, Asian countries have shown, it is said, how it should be done. Even China, it is said, despite being where the virus originally took hold, has succeeded in reining it in.

The speculation is that there is something about the culture in those Asian countries, or perhaps about their political systems, that accounts for their apparent greater success in dealing with the problem. And the speculation goes further; will the differing responses and success rates persuade us that the Asian model offers the best way of running a country, and will that perception benefit China’s worldwide standing – at the expense of their American rival and of other Western democracies?

A number of caveats have to be made, however, before such conclusions can be reached. No one doubts that a totalitarian government like the Chinese is better able than democracies to impose draconian restrictions on its population. We all recall video clips shown on our television screens of Chinese police and soldiers entering homes and dragging the occupiers out into the street, prior to being sent into compulsory quarantine. Yes, it may be effective in making people do what they are told but is hardly a model we might wish to follow.

And, on the other side of the coin, the US – having saddled themselves with a delusional would-be dictator who is paranoid about his failures – is not really the best example of the democratic response to the crisis that we could choose. The idiosyncratic “leadership” provided by Donald Trump – with his self-serving doubting of scientific evidence, refusal to listen to advice, and preoccupation with getting himself re-elected – is hardly the best measure of a democracy’s ability to meet a crisis.

Yes, there is no doubt that the mess, confusion and uncertainty of the American response
will damage the standing of the US in the eyes of the world. But Trump is so much an outlier that his example hardly provides a fair test of a democracy’s capacity for decisive and effective action.

A better and more representative example of a democracy at work must be found – so let me suggest here a candidate that will come as no surprise to most readers – our own New Zealand. This small country in the South Seas has performed at least as well as any other, irrespective of the form of government we have.

These are early days yet, but the initial evidence suggests that New Zealand has enjoyed more success than most other countries in stopping the outbreak in its tracks – and that, despite having to contend with a high rate of cross-border travel as thousands of New Zealanders – the world’s greatest travellers – have returned home from virus-infected countries around the world.

The necessary lockdown arrangements, the border controls, the quarantines, have all been put in place and, with few exceptions, complied with – and all with the cooperation and endorsement of the New Zealand people. Our Prime Minister, with her Ministers and senior officials, speaks directly to the New Zealand public every day on television and every afternoon to individual citizens who engage her in person on Facebook.

The lockdown, with all its restrictions on freedom of movement and interruption of normal business activity, is supported voluntarily by almost everyone. Parliament continues to sit in a truncated form and the Opposition participates in an all-party committee whose function it is to hold the government to account. When the dust settles, is this not the model that should earn the plaudits?

Bryan Gould
18 April 2020

The Queen’s coronavirus broadcast, with its overtones of Winston Churchill and Vera Lynn, prompted me to reflect on the tribulations my parents’ generation suffered during the Second World War – and I imagine that those parallels, given her own wartime experience, were very much in the Queen’s mind as she delivered her address.

The two crises have been of course very different in nature, but the Second Word War generated the same losses and stresses to family life, and the same social and economic dislocation as we are now suffering. In important ways, however, what was at stake in the War presented an even greater threat to our way of life – a virus is dangerous enough as an existential challenge to our civilisation, but is not in the same league as that presented by the possible arrival of invading foreign troops on our doorsteps. Such an ending to the Second World War would have meant “game over”; following such an outcome, there would have been no “lifting of the lockdown” in sight for my parents and their contemporaries.

As we fight our own present-day battles, it behoves us therefore to draw strength and learn from the example set by those earlier generations, and to emulate the courage, fortitude and resolution they showed.

As the Queen indicated, now is the time to pull together – and while that requires shoulders to be put to the wheel by each of us as individuals, we should note that in both wartime and in dealing with the coronavirus crisis, it was on the state (or government) that the real responsibility fell. Whatever we as individuals could manage, in the face of either the threatened foreign invaders or the virus, neither could be effectively repelled without utilising the organising and leadership power of our governments.

It is only in such circumstances that we see clearly the true role of the state. That role is to do what none of us in our private capacities can do – that is, to set national targets and goals, and to mobilise our resources and to focus and organise our efforts as a nation to bring about what needs to be done. Only government has the authority and legitimacy to deploy our resources in that collective and united fashion.

Only government has the ability to legislate, prescribe, proscribe and regulate, to compel compliance and to punish those who break ranks. We accept these constraints on our freedom to do (or not to do) what we like because we understand that such restriction is a small price to pay for the greater good of us all.

It could be argued (as I am inclined to do) that these fundamental truths have just as much force in ordinary times as they do in moments of crisis. It is always the case that governments have the power to act in the public interest in a way that is beyond individual or private entities.

Only governments are able to take the wider view and then to act for the common good. Their objectives in normal times may not be so clearly matters of life and death as in times of crisis; but they will almost always be guided by a perception that our lives can be made better and our affairs can be organised more constructively and with less friction.

So, the next time you hear that “a bonfire of regulations” is needed – a proposal apparently made with no regard for the purposes served by those regulations and in the belief that a regulation is by definition an unjustifiable intrusion into a “free-for-all”, ask yourself if our lives are better or worse by virtue of the government doing what it is elected to do – that is, to set standards in innumerable matters such as conditions at work or making buildings fire and earthquake safe.

A proposal to judge regulations (or other governmental actions) by their number rather than their value and purpose is a statement of political prejudice rather than a careful analysis of what is required by a successful and well-run society. When the crisis is over, we should not forget the vital and indispensable role played by our government.

Bryan Gould
8 April 2020