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
Is There No Limit to Trump’s Awfulness?
Is there no limit to the awfulness of Donald Trump? It is hard now to imagine that there is anything further he could do or say that would truly shock us, in the sense of taking us by surprise. He seems surely to have exhausted his repertoire of shortcomings, his playlist of buffoonery, narcissism, and readiness to offend his fellow citizens.
Whether it be his all-too-evident racism, his propensity to demean and bad-mouth those whom he does not understand or who are outside his usual social circle, his disregard for the truth, his truly monumental ignorance about what his job entails, his readiness to defy the normal conventions concerning nepotism, the continuing priority he continues to give to the promotion of his own business interests, the threat he poses to a free press, his recklessness in foreign affairs, his boasting about the nuclear weaponry at his disposal – to say nothing of the manifest failings in his personal life – he has surely done everything possible to convince us of his uniqueness. He is, of all those who have held the office of President, unique in his embodiment of a complete lack of personal or professional fitness for the role.
The debate about what has caused his shortcomings is largely beside the point. It may be that he is mentally ill, suffering from an inherited personality defect or from the onset of dementia. It may be that his defiance of the normal standards of decency is the product of his upbringing as the son of a wealthy and domineering father or of the limitations of a billionaire’s lifestyle. It may be that he is simply what we see – an embryonic fascist, a self-absorbed bully and narcissist, persuaded of his own “genius”, and harbouring a range of really unpleasant views about race, women and the plight of those in society who need help.
But whatever the explanation, we are lumbered with him. The only question now is what can be done about that. Sadly, the only people with the power to take action show no sign of willingness to do so.
The Republican majority in Congress could impeach him – a number of grounds offer themselves and the Mueller inquiry into Russian involvement in Trump’s election might add to that number – or simply remove him on account of his inability to fulfil the role. But the Republicans are in hock to billionaire donors who are the ones who really pull the strings.
The one ground for optimism is that Trump has already delivered to those billionaires the benefit they were willing to pay for – massive tax cuts for the wealthy, achieved at the cost of cutting the help and health care available to the poor and sick.
It may be that, with the tax cuts in their pockets, those wealthy Republican donors will see Trump as disposable, and will therefore drop their threat to Republican Congressmen of reduced funding if they don’t support Trump.
There is one further possibility which I hope is not too fanciful. Trump himself may decide to review the question of whether the game is worth the candle. By all accounts, he is not enjoying the role and gets away from the White House whenever he can.
It may be starting to dawn on him that being President may deliver the fame and recognition he craves, but that the spotlight on him also means that his every misstep and failing is magnified. There is no escape for him – the longer he stays in the White House, the more certain it is that his public image and reputation will be trashed; his plight is rather like that of an actor in a leading role who, having forgotten his lines, is nevertheless compelled to make his entrance on the stage.
He may now realise that he is destined to go down in history as a disaster, as the worst ever President, as an embarrassment to his country and to America’s allies. Why, he might ask himself, prolong the agony? Why run the risk of being impeached, or removed for incompetence, or (if the polls are accurate) being voted out of office? Why not choose the moment, and the pretext, for stepping down? We can but hope.
Bryan Gould
13 January 2018
Mind Your Language
A couple of weeks ago, I was watching TV One’s 6 o’clock news when I was stopped in my tracks. Simon Dallow, the newsreader, was reading an item about a worrying decline in kea numbers and concluded by saying that there are now “less than 7000”, whereupon he stopped briefly and said, by way of correction, “fewer than 7000.” I was both amazed and delighted that he had baulked at reading the text he had been given and had corrected an all-too-common error.
The incident is worth remarking on because so many supposedly professional broadcasters repeat such solecisms, either because they know no better or are content to accept such injuries to our language on the ground that they have been legitimised because “everyone says that.”
It is of course true that our language is a living thing and is constantly changing, and that changes are most often brought about by popular usage. It is also argued that, as long as the meaning is clear, we need not concern ourselves with grammar or the true meaning of a particular word.
But what are we to say of a change in usage which positively obscures the meaning we wish to convey? Take, for example, another error repeatedly committed by leading broadcasters; in a recent instance, in an item on the re-opening of State Highway One north of Kaikoura, a broadcaster referred to an “alternate” route. She presumably meant an “alternative “ route – that is, a route that offers another option, rather than one that should be taken on every second occasion that the journey is undertaken.
Making the same error, Sky Sport insisted for some months on offering viewers an “alternate” commentary on rugby matches, instead of what was presumably an alternative commentary in Maori. And I was depressed to see a road sign over Christmas offering me and other drivers an “alternate route”.
The confusion between “alternate” and “alternative”, and the use of one when the other is meant, are now well-entrenched in American English – and, sadly, the mere fact that the two words are now so often misused means that we have now, through sheer laziness and ignorance, ruined two perfectly good and useful words.
Nor is this the only instance of such a corruption of our language. What I take to be another Americanism – the use of “substantive” (referring to the substance of an issue or process, as opposed to the procedure or detail) as an up-to-date alternative to “substantial” (meaning of substance as opposed to slight or minimal) – is rapidly gaining ground.
The Americans, of course, have, as they say, “form” in such matters. They have for some time refused to use “lie” to mean recline, and use instead the transitive verb “lay” which means to place something (like an egg) down.
The Americans are not of course responsible for every misuse of the language. Take, for instance, a home-grown usage that is now constantly heard, particularly but no longer exclusively, in the mouths of young people. People of whatever age who would never dream of saying “me went to town”, rather than “I went to town”, are apparently persuaded that by adding another subject to the sentence, the usual rule is supplanted, so that we constantly hear formulations such as “me and Tom went to town”.
Does any of this matter? I would argue that it does. Those demonstrating a lack of regard for our language and careless as to its correct use tell everyone forced to listen that they are people who don’t care about getting it (or anything else) right.
We enjoy the immense privilege of using our language, with all its richness and complexity, as our native tongue. The rest of the world increasingly uses English as their preferred medium of communication, but we native speakers can enjoy not only its utility but its beauty as well.
We should not only be aware of our good fortune but also understand the responsibility we have to the language. To speak it carelessly or ignorantly, so as to confuse meanings and corrupt its functioning, is the equivalent of hitting bum notes when playing a great piece of music. We all have the opportunity of striving to use it as well as we can – but those whose business is language, in that they speak it or write for a living, have a special responsibility – and congratulations to Simon Dallow for reminding us of that.
Bryan Gould
21 December 2017