As polling day in the American presidential election draws closer, things are looking bad for Donald Trump. The polls show that he is tracking well behind his Democrat rival. Most people assume that the President will be striving might and main to avoid what looks increasingly likely to be a humiliating defeat.

I have a hunch, however, that this may be to misinterpret what is really happening. Consider the evidence.

The President is spending most of his time playing golf on his own golf courses, attracting a good deal of unfavourable comment as a result and dismaying his supporters who would expect him to be working doubly hard to overcome the Covid 19 pandemic. This is hardly the behaviour of someone who wants to keep the job.

He manifestly spends little time concerning himself with dealing with the virus and its deadly progress. He can’t seem to focus on what he should be doing; his press briefings on the subject are perfunctory and do not include his senior adviser on the subject, Dr Fauci. He seems to have lost interest in the subject altogether.

He offers no strategy for dealing with the pandemic, other than assuring people that, contrary to all the evidence, it will “go away”. The economy is in an unprecedented nosedive as case numbers and deaths multiply.

His one positive reaction to the crisis is that he has suggested that the election should be delayed and has warned that the high numbers of postal votes, necessitated by the virus, will mean that the election result will be the least reliable in history and will be vitiated by fraud. He has refused to give any assurance that he would accept the result if he loses.

What conclusion does all this suggest? My thesis is that he is is not only resigned to losing the election but would actually welcome that outcome. Here, I believe, is someone who knows that he is out of his depth, on the issue of the virus and on everything else – who is not enjoying the job, and has a sense that it is all beyond him, who would be glad to have the immediate burden of dealing with the pandemic removed from him and for others to have to shoulder it.

If, as I suspect, this is the case, what then is his priority? It is not to win the election, since that would mean that all the burdens and responsibilities would come crashing and crushing back down on him for another four years.

No, his main objective would be to escape the burden of a further term but to do so without having to accept that he had been rejected by the voters, which would be a serious blow to his ego and to his place in history. He has always been a President whose ego is much greater than his ability. His inaction and ineffectiveness in dealing with the virus have simply illustrated and exemplified a much wider truth, which is his overall unfitness for the job – it is a truth of which he cannot, however self-deluded, be unaware and that will weigh increasingly heavily on him.

So, if he is resigned to, or would welcome, losing, his focus would be on salvaging what he can of his reputation, which requires him to be able to say, as he hands over the reins to his successful rival, that it was not a fair contest and that he lost only because his opponents cheated.

This interpretation may be regarded as fanciful but it at least makes sense of the two apparently contradictory elements in his behaviour – contradictory, that is, if he is really trying to win.

There is, first, his manifest lack of interest in being seen to deal effectively with the pandemic, something he must know is the pre-condition of getting himself re-elected.

And secondly, there is his deliberate attempt to undermine the electoral process and his unwillingness to accept its outcome, an attitude that opens him up to the criticism that to re-elect him would be to empower someone prepared to threaten democracy – a perception that cannot help his chances of appealing to voters. Watch this space.

Bryan Gould
5 August 2020

It hasn’t taken long for the advent of Judith Collins as National party leader to change the tone of the political debate.

After several days of headlines and airwaves dominated by reports of a National MP sending pornographic images to young women, the National leader had had enough of that story, and found a way to turn the tables. She devised a way to release into the public domain reports that a Labour minister had had an affair that had ended some months earlier.

No matter that the affair had been known about in political circles for some time; the focus of attention was now on Labour. The Prime Minister had no option but to sack her minister; a failure to do so would have allowed Judith Collins to pursue the second leg of her stratagem, by daily hounding Jacinda Ardern with questions as to when she would “show leadership and do something about it”.

The contagion seems to have spread rapidly. We have now had Winston Peters attributing to the Prime Minister a readiness to lie and, when she does, to lie “big” – a practice usually attributed to Nazi leaders like Hitler and Goebbels; even for NZ First, this is surely “over the top”.

But before we get too depressed about this descent into gutter politics, we should pause to count our blessings. As we look around the globe, we see daily evidence of a world that, as the WHO constantly points out, has totally failed to grasp the severity of and threat posed by the coronavirus pandemic.

In Europe, there is worrying evidence of a second wave of cases and deaths. The virus is raging, almost unchecked, in countries like India and South Africa. Even in counties that have so far done quite well, like Australia, Israel, Japan and Hong Kong, there is a threatening resurgence. And as for the US and Brazil, a total failure of leadership in those countries is exacting a tragic toll of rising daily numbers of cases and deaths in the tens of thousands.

It is beginning to dawn on people that, until there is a vaccine (and I salute my old university, Oxford, for the promising work they have done in that regard), the virus will continue to seek out new victims until there are no more.

And – what about us, here in New Zealand? We have brought the pandemic under control, by ending community transmission, and we have now resumed normal life. We, alone in the world, can go about our business more or less as usual, and we alone can attend in large numbers to watch thrilling rugby matches and other sporting events. And, we can cheer when we see Ashley Bloomfield, “The Eliminator”, score a try!

None of this would have been possible if we had listened to the siren voices from various parts of the political spectrum, urging us to abandon the lockdowns prematurely, to open our borders, and to open up “bubbles” with other countries. It is noteworthy that none of the owners of those voices has ever “fessed up” that they got it wrong.

And one thing is even more certain; none of it would have been possible without the most effective, clear and courageous leadership from our Prime Minister and from Ashley Bloomfield, and without a truly uplifting community effort and resolve from all of us – ordinary Kiwis.

We can afford to ignore the efforts of politicians to re-focus on the grubbier aspects of life. We can afford to sympathise with those millions overseas whose governments have let them down.

Best of all, we can afford to congratulate ourselves and our leaders on a job well done.

Bryan Gould
29 July 2020

The advent of Judith Collins as leader of the National Party has, whatever else one may think about it, restored some semblance of normal order to New Zealand politics. The National party at last has a leader who relishes the job and who is happy and confident in taking it on.

However disappointed she may have been in her earlier quests for the job, Judith Collins has so far demonstrated that she is at last in her happy place. She has manifestly enjoyed the process of sorting out her front bench (perhaps taking the odd opportunity to settle an old score or two), she has looked comfortable in handling the press, and – while her policy statements have involved nothing more so far than reading out a speech on infrastructure written for Todd Muller – she has done so competently enough.

This means that the voter now has something approaching a real choice. The next election will no longer be a cake walk for Jacinda Ardern and the Labour Party. So how do the rivals shape up?

In purely personal terms, the advantage must surely lie with our current Prime Minister. She does not carry the baggage – in terms of Judith Collins’ image as a “crusher”, her past association wth “dirty politics”, and the occasional past misdemeanour as a minister – that are inevitably part of the burden that the new National leader must carry.

Jacinda Ardern, by contrast, has distinguished herself throughout her term as Prime Minister by virtue of her empathy, kindness and ability to unite and inspire us all in a great national campaign to defeat the coronavirus pandemic. So, in personal terms, advantage to Ardern.

But what about the policy front? It is here, surely, that Judith Collins will seek to establish an advantage. As her predecessors, Simon Bridges and Todd Muller both incessantly claimed, and indeed all National party leaders have always claimed, it is in managing the economy that National governments come into their own.

And Winston Peters, worried no doubt about NZ First’s poll ratings, has weighed in, claiming that National’s nine-year stint in government from 2008 to 2017 meant that they alone had the necessary experience.

But how well do these claims stand up to proper examination? Would a new National government, at this time of great economic risk, extend the legacy bequeathed to us by earlier National governments?

That legacy, let us remind ourselves, included a run-down health service, with underpaid nursing and midwifery staff, rotting hospital buildings, and struggling GPs. It included under-funded schools and underpaid teachers. And it included the deterioration of our environment, so that we can no longer swim safely in our rivers or trust our drinking water.

And, in macro-economic terms, it has included perennial trade deficits and record levels of debt. It has included selling off state houses and allowing overseas interests to buy up some of our most valuable assets, and allowing others to blackmail us by demanding continuing subsidies as the price for keeping their businesses going.

“Managing the economy” under National governments, in other words, has usually meant sacrificing everything for the sake of producing a government surplus, even if that has meant running down our essential public services and abusing our public servants by failing to pay them properly.

So, the contest between Ardern and Collins may not quite follow the usually expected course. It may not be quite as simple as Ardern’s personal qualities versus Collins’ hard-headed approach to running the economy.

Judith Collins will at least make a fight of it, but the balance of advantage may still weigh – in both personal and policy terms – in the Prime Minister’s favour. Game on.

Bryan Gould
23 July 2020

Having lost yet another leader in quick succession, the National party was clearly so desperate to find a successor that they turned to someone whose earlier bids to become leader they had already twice rejected.

It may not be clear why Judith Collins should suddenly have become National’s saviour after her earlier rejections; and it is hard to understand why the factors that counted against her in the past should suddenly have become of little account and have been overlooked on this occasion.  Perhaps National supporters hope that the voters will have short memories.

It is worth reminding ourselves, however, of just why she was thought to have disqualified herself from high office.   Her close links to Cameron Slater, he of the notorious Whale Oil blog, earned her a reputation as an enthusiastic practitioner of what came to be called “dirty politics” – Slater had, after all, praised her publicly as his “mentor” – and her approach to politics was well documented in Nicky Hager’s book entitled “Dirty Politics”.  Her philosophy was summed up in the advice she offered to Slater to the effect that if someone tried to hurt you, you should hit them back twice as hard, and that “if you can’t be loved, it’s best to be feared”.

This attitude was confirmed in the pleasure she seems to take in the nickname “Crusher” – something she is still keen to highlight, (though only three boy racer’s cars were ever actually crushed).

Of somewhat more substance is the episode when, as a member of John Key’s government, she was “stood down” by the then Prime Minister and stripped of the title “Honourable.”. He disciplined her for allowing a conflict of interest to develop when, on a ministerial visit to China at the taxpayer’s expense, she attended meetings concerned with her husband’s private business interests, and then sought to conceal that fact by giving a misleading account of the reason why she had undertaken a particular journey.

Even National voters were inclined to regard this history, and these episodes and attitudes as enough to make her unelectable, and she was accordingly treated for a long time as electoral bad news and a hard sell to voters.  Perhaps National will hope she has mellowed and that the voters will see a more conciliatory politician; but, without her much-trumpeted “toughness”, what else does she have to offer?

Whether or not “Crusher” Collins is the real Judith Collins, can we really be convinced that more aggression and nastiness – whether real or manufactured – is what we need in our politics or in any other area of our national life?  I would suggest that more kindness is what is needed – and that, as between kindness and “toughness”, kindness wins out every time.

And if we feel that we have a need for leaders with courage and strength, haven’t we just had and seen the prime example of a leader who was ready and able to take the “tough” decisions and to provide the leadership to guide us successfully through a great national crisis? 

Electing Judith Collins as leader has to be, for National, a triumph of hope over experience.

Bryan Gould

16 July 2020

Simon Bridges must be the unluckiest person in New Zealand politics.

When he was elected as leader of the National party, he also became Leader of the Opposition – a position, he was entitled to assume, that would require him to “oppose”.

But the government he set out to oppose was not an ordinary government and was not an ordinary political opponent.  The advent of the Covid 19 pandemic changed the rules of the game.

By virtue of her clarity and firmness of purpose in fighting the pandemic, and her brilliance as a communicator, the Prime Minister transformed herself from just another party politician, and became instead the “captain” of a “team of five million”.

This transformation forced a change on the Opposition as well.  Conventional attacks on the government’s record – and that record was essentially about the pandemic – were no longer seen as acceptable and expected, but were regarded instead as unpatriotic and as a deliberate attempt to undermine a great collective national effort and campaign.

Notwithstanding the adverse reactions – not least from his own supporters – whenever he tried to damage the government’s credibility, it took Simon Bridges too long to wake up to this changed scenario.  By the time he had learned the lesson, it was too late; and it was that failure that cost him the leadership.

No one doubts that the changed situation would have been a difficult one for any leader of the Opposition.  To navigate a course that permitted Simon Bridge to maintain critical pressure on the government without offending that majority that wanted to see the government succeed in its campaign against the virus would have required political skills of the highest order – and, sadly for Simon Bridges, he was, perhaps not surprisingly, found wanting.

With that unhappy example in mind, it might have been thought that his successor, Todd Muller, would have avoided falling into the same trap.  But, not a bit of it – the new leader enthusiastically lobbed hand grenades at the government from day one, and whenever he could, and his relevant ministers, such as Michael Woodhouse, followed suit.

They were joined by the grande dame of the National party, Michelle Boag, and by ambitious back-benchers, such as Hamish Walker.  And, even worse, they weren’t too fussy about the charges they levelled or where they had come from.  Michael Woodhouse, for example, peddled a story about a homeless man joining the queue for free accommodation in managed isolation in a quarantine hotel –  a story he has never been able to stand up.

And Woodhouse was one of the two National MPs who were leaked the private details of Covid 19 sufferers by Michelle Boag – a “leak” which Todd Muller and his colleagues then made much of and used to attack the government.  Michelle Boag and Hamish Walker have now, after the deception was discovered and they have confessed to their culpability, both fallen on their swords.

But why did Todd Muller allow the story of “the leak” to run for so long without correcting it?  And why did he and Michael Woodhouse both sit on the information that Woodhouse had also received e-mails from Michelle Boag?  

Why did Michael Woodhouse, having received the e-mails from Michelle Boag, issue a statement that it was “unconscionable and unacceptable” that the private details had been leaked, wth its implication that this was a government bungle, when he knew perfectly well how the leak had arisen?   Did Todd Muller, in an attempt to deflect attention from himself and his Health spokesperson, decide that Hamish Walker was junior enough to be thrown to the wolves as the fall guy who would carry the can?  

Can Todd Muller and his senior lieutenants survive, in the voters’ eyes, having presided over such a disreputable and unprincipled manoeuvre?  As Marc Antony might have said, with Shakespearean irony, “For Todd Muller is an honourable man.  So are they all, all honourable men.”  Is Simon Bridges now permitting himself a quiet smile?   

Bryan Gould

11 July 2020