Key Out Of Touch With Own Supporters
National’s continued opposition to the government’s “NZ Fast Forward” research fund is mind boggling given the widespread support from traditional National Party supporters, and one can’t help but get the feeling Key is cutting off his nose to spite his face. The fund itself was not simply an idea drummed up by Helen Clark and Labour, but has been developed in collaboration with industry and has received widespread support from industry players, including Business New Zealand, PGG Wrightson, Fonterra, and the Meat Industry Association.
National, and certainly John Key, seem obsessed in trying to show Labour is simply embarking on some kind of cynical PR exercise, and instead of pushing their usual line of “we’ll keep it, but with changes”, Key has stated that National will scrap it altogether, effectively placing him off-side with not only New Zealand’s research community, but even his own supporters.
Key seems to demonstrate more and more every day that he is a politician travelling the political superhighway without a roadmap. This will certainly start to take its toll as the election draws near.
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
