Speaking Of “Media Beatups”….
Kiwiblog certainly seems to have got itself all worked up over an item that featured on One News last night, labeling it a “puerile and almost offensive” media “beat-up”. The item focused on apparent denials of climate change made by Maurice Williamson and Lockwood Smith to public audiences in recent times, which appear to put the two offside with National Party policy as well as John Key. Judging by his strong language, this is an issue which Kiwiblog obviously holds dear, but although he attempts to enlighten us on the political realities of decision making, he conveniently overlooks the somewhat unsubtIe distinction between “private” opinion and public statement.
It is obvious that there will never be an absolute consensus on an issue within a large group, and political parties are certainly no exception to this. The nature of political decision making often requires compromise, concessions, and the sacrifice of personal opinion and beliefs in order to promote the wider collective interests of the party. Indeed, it is often the case that MPs simply tow the party line and put their own views aside, and I doubt this fact is lost on the New Zealand public. Thus, given the range of opinions within a political party, it would be most unhelpful if the media were to go around each MP seeking their “personal” opinion once a party had decided, collectively, to take a particular course of action, as Kiwiblog correctly points out.
However, things change when opinions, which are privately held and have supposedly been set aside in the interests of the party, are expressed publicly by an MP acting in the capacity of a party spokesperson, especially if those statements seem to contradict their party’s policies. In such a situation, there is likely to be both confusion and apprehension within the electorate as to how such opinions will ultimately influence a party’s policies, and it is thus right for the media to seek clarification on behalf of the public. Such clarification is particularly important in an election year when the public is entitled to know how genuine a party is being when they release policy on a particular issue.
It is certainly curious when an MP claims they are committed to party policy, while at the same time dismissing the very foundations on which that policy has been formed. In the case of Williamson, his remarks were allegedly made during a presentation to an Automobile Association meeting. These statements were not made by Maurice Williamson the private citizen, but rather Maurice Williamson the National Party spokesperson for transport, and as such they are open to scrutiny by both the media and the public. To suggest otherwise, as Kiwiblog appears to, is nothing short of idiocy, and it is surprising that Kiwiblog’s rather enthusiastic advocacy of freedom of speech does not quite extend to freedom of the press. Or at least not when the National Party is shown in a negative light.
Powered by Qumana
Espiner On National
Guyon Espiner has a good piece in this month’s North&South, taking a look at what a National government may look like if they are successful in this year’s general election. Espiner quite rightly points out that National still has a large number of MPs who were part of the 1990s National administration that pushed through many far right policies:
“Say these names aloud: Nick Smith, Maurice Williamson, Lockwood Smith, Tony Ryall, Tau Henare, Georgina te Heuheu, Clem Simich, David Carter, Bill English and Murray McCully. If those names sound eerily familiar it’s because they were all ministers in the 1990s National-led government that New Zealanders were thoroughly sick of by the end of that decade.”
It is hard to imagine a National government in which these MPs would not play a significant part, and that should be worrying given their role in National’s policy agenda during the 1990s. Indeed, Espiner makes exactly that point when he says:
“The trouble for National is that many of those with ministerial experience are the same ones who were pushing for the far right agenda which found the party so off-side with middle New Zealand last time they occupied the Beehive”.
I am very sceptical that, given such personalities still being present in the National Party caucus, National can really pursue a more centrist agenda post-election. Espiner mentions two such personalities. Of Lockwood Smith, Espiner says:
“Lockwood Smith, if he had his way, would end nuclear free policy by morning tea time”
This would appear impossible given Key’s emphatic affirmation of New Zealand’s current nuclear free policy and his assurances that the status quo will continue under any National government he leads, but that may change once National is in power.
Then on Tony Ryall, Espiner states:
“Jenny Shipley used to joke that she had to check daily with State Owned Enterprise Minister Tony Ryall to see which assets he’d sold”
National has been trying to stay clear of any policy announcements on privatisation, but their slow response to the Government’s moves to block the sale of Auckland Airport indicates that their 1990’s agenda is still alive and well. Although this is unlikely to be a portfolio managed by Ryall, his deceitfulness over National’s plans to remove the cap on doctor’s fees shows he is not to be trusted.
All in all, a supposedly fresh, new National government would still contain many of the worn, old faces of the 90s, and New Zealanders need to decide whether they want to keep moving forward with Labour, or return to the 1990s with National.
Powered by Qumana
The Two Faces Of National
The 2005 general election was perhaps the most polarising and divisive in New Zealand’s history. Voters were presented with two vastly different visions for New Zealand’s future, promoting the contrasting ideologies that underlie National and Labour Party politics. During the election these ideologies were manifested in the policies of each party, perhaps more so than ever before, and vigorously promoted by their members. It is thus very surprising that in little over 15 months since assuming the National Party leadership, and on the rare occasions when he actually remembers what his party’s policies are, John Key seems to be indicating that that ideology has changed.
Key’s bid to bring National policy towards the left and thus make it more appealing to the electorate has seen the adoption of many Labour policies from the 2005 election, and the consequent neutralisation of a number of difficult policy areas. Kiwi Saver, Working for Families, interest free student loans, employment law, nuclear free and climate change are just some of the areas where National has back-tracked in recent times, and Key has been quick to distance his National from that of Don Brash. Opinion polls have suggested that this so-called “new” National has found favour with voters, but can such a dramatic change in core party beliefs be possible in such a short space of time or is National presenting an artificial image to the public?
The answer to that question is perhaps made most apparent in Key’s maiden speech as Leader of the Opposition. In it Key made much of New Zealand’s so-called “underclass”, yet he was the architect of National’s proposed election tax cuts of $10b which, according to the Ministry of Social Development, would have seen child poverty increase by 18-percent by 2007, and which he had been rigorously advocating for just over a year earlier. It is certainly difficult to reconcile these two positions, and the overwhelming inference is that Key’s overtures to the “underclass” were simply a disingenuous attempt to win votes. Similarly, National’s approach to Maori issues has softened, so much so that a coalition with the Maori Party is not being completely ruled out, and the definite deadline for settling historical Treaty grievances, a major driver of party support leading up to 2005, is, as of yesterday, no longer that definite.
Of course, National did gain a number of new MPs in 2005, and Key has been quick to present them as the new, younger, “fresh” face of the “government in waiting”. But the vast majority of National MPs were in Parliament long before 2005. They were the engineers of National’s divisive policies. They were the ones who fought hard to sell them to the electorate, and some of them are still there on the front bench. It is hard to see how any changes in core National Party beliefs and a consequential shift to the left could occur while the McCully’s and Williamson’s of the party still help direct party policy. All of this would seem to suggest that while National presents a very popular centrist visage to the populous, behind that is an ever-present right-wing agenda.
If the National Party has, as John Key claims, undergone a change of direction then one of two conclusions can be made. Either National MPs didn’t actually believe in the policies they promoted in 2005 and simply towed the party line, or their beliefs and convictions are weak and easily changed. Either way, it is worrying that such personalities could be in government post-election 2008.
Powered by Qumana
