By Jason Walls
Riddle me this – what does the National Party stand for?
Over the last nine months we have heard a lot of things from the Nats.
They have told us they are the largest opposition in New Zealand’s history – they have 56 MPs in Parliament, compared to Labour’s 46.
They have told us they are united and strong. Indeed, looking at National now compared to the aftermath of some of their other election defeats, this rings true.
But what National, under Simon Bridges, has become most associated with is being an opposition of opposition.
Sure, by its very nature this is the job of the Opposition Party and criticising them on this factor alone is unfair.
But aside from clashing with the Government on seemingly all and every matter – as well as a few areas of direction change within the party – there is not a lot more National has on show.
This week, it unveiled its first policy – kind of.
Press secretary’s from the leader's office informed journalists that Bridges would be holding a press conference in National’s caucus room on its new medicinal cannabis bill.
The room was packed with staffers and National MPs who lined every corner of the room. Bridges entered, flanked by MPs Michael Woodhouse, Shane Reti and Chris Bishop, and stood in front of the familiar National Party blue backdrop.
Only a handful of journalists were there waiting.
That’s because National’s bill will be put in the ballot box, along with 69 other bills from various MPs. From there it’s pretty much up to lady luck to see if it will get drawn.
Meanwhile, the Government’s own medicinal cannabis bill is likely to pass regardless of National’s opposition.
A three-year plan
In absence of any new policy announcements to fall back on, National has cemented itself as an opposition of opposition.
This will be worrying for Bridges. Voters get tired of negativity. If every time you’re on the six o’clock news you’re having a crack, people will get fatigued.
And this is unlikely to change anytime soon given Bridges’ plan for the years leading up to the 2020 election.
Speaking to media this week, he revealed his three-point plan for National.
Year one: Listening to stakeholders and “throwing around some ideas people can chew over.”
Year two: It’s now all about “discussion” and formulating more details on some of the party’s ideas.
Year three: Now it’s time to unveil the policy so “New Zealanders feel they have a real choice in the 2020 election.”
That is a long time to wait to hear about what National’s new plans are.
At midday Sunday, Bridges will be giving the keynote speech at the National Party’s annual conference.
It’s always a big affair, with blue t-shirts, banners and balloons. High ranking current MPs and former ministers alike will be front and centre as Bridges closes off the two-day event.
In the absence of any major policy announcements, it is unclear what Bridges’ speech will be about. He needs to do more than attacking the Government if he wants to get some momentum and traction.
He needs to answer one question and make it clear to all New Zealanders that National is not, in fact, just the Opposition of opposition.
What does the National Party stand for?
34 Comments
I don't blame Mr Bridges taking his time. Clearly the priority has to be getting voters to forget National's head in the sand approach to house prices, families living in cars and low wage immigration with its associated exploitation and dishonesty. Wait until we have forgotten and then spring fancy new policies just before the next election - sounds sensible.
Haha. If you think the bone that Taxinda and Twatford threw to the masses about providing them with affordable houses is achievable then you are making the second biggest mistake of your life. The first was not buying in 2011 when you thought houses were overpriced.
More like the forget part and then run in opposition to the very things they said were a sign of success when they were in government.
National could do some real bold policy stuff, they did actually have some decent stuff pre 2008. But they won’t. John Key trained them to operate as vanilla and to rely on brand Key. They will keep doing that for the foreseeable future.
The tragedy of labour is they lost elections when they had good policy. By the time they won they’d made Key’s devils bargin so now we have a slightly less vanilla operation but the operating principle remains the same.
There is this policy. It’s a strange issue to win the electorate. Stranger still because it was an ACT policy that they implemented under the guise of the coalition agreement.
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/362848/national-to-reinstate-c…
Failed ideology. Nothing more, nothing less. Privatise everything and the market knows best.
Actually, priivatisation merely takes shortcuts, offloads 'costs' 9usually socialising them) and tens to run down infrastructure. Which is essentially a socialising too, in that the taxpayer usually ends up funding the fix-up.
They're grasping at straws - rotting ones.
As a fan of alternative educations, I should have been front and centre cheering for charter schools, but I wasn't and you know why? There is one little part of them that definitely sets a course for privatising the education sector and that is the profit aspect. Even in England, they have not allowed that to be a factor in these schools, of course they can make a living, but profits for shareholders, no. If that aspect had been removed and making sure that for at least the younger pupils teachers were well qualified and registered, specialists could be available for older pupils, such as mechanics or builders.
I would hate to see general education go the same way as elder care, and child care/education. Drove through a newer part of Hamilton the other day and along New Borman Road within the space of kilometre or so were 3 child care/education setups, and a new old folks home all new and flashy and sanitized looking, made me pretty sad, to be honest.
The problem is the electorate doesnt even like change and certainly doesnt like "bold stuff" you can take TOPs 'success" as a clear indicator of how well that would go down.
Further, "bold" tends to mean a lurch to the [extreme] right (or left for labour) as viewed by the majority who seem to like being about the centre. In fact I suspect the Green's disastrous election result is due to in no small part the left lurch they took, that and a dose of apparent dis-honesty from some of their candidates.
Labour certainly had better policy though today's isnt bad. The problem is they are boxed into a corner from 9 years of neglect on one hand and an insistence of the voter not to pay on the other ie with no room to maneuver.
To be fair this has been the MO for opposition in NZ politics for 20 years.
- Oppose for the sake of opposing.
- Say you will do better, but
- Don't come up with anything new.
- Blame the previous Govt for any problems, then continue to ignore them
- Rinse and repeat.
This is why our country appears to be going backwards.
What National should do is to very quickly distance themselves from the Key govt being captured by the immigrant lobby. And to deal publicly and decisively deal with the Chinese "ex" spy in their midst. Before those two things happen I do not believe that whatever they do, they will be taken seriously. Not be me anyway.
Sounds a bit like Labour when they were in opposition. Just along for the ride, snoring on the benches, not adding any real value as an opposition. No doubt when National are re-elected it'll be a frantic game of musical chairs as they scramble for a plan of action, much like Labour when they were voted in. Full of ideas but no sound strategy.
Jason Walls is the current equivalent of Alex Tarrant. Alex made similar strongly Labour oriented opinion articles, as well as similar "news" articles during the election campaign that had a strong slant towards one party. Immediately after the election Alex left interest.co.nz to work directly for the Labour party. I am looking forward to when Jason gets hired by Labour so that the articles on this site return to having a bit less bias.
Happens backwards too. Joanne Black once got so far that she opined (on The Panel, RNZ) that " I think the trouble is there's too many people on the planet". Which was unusual and promising, in an NZ journo.
But then she left to work for Bill English as a spin-doctor (and, Yankiwi, I'm no Labour supporter but I'll tell you, National do more spin by a country mile, they have to).
But her worst was in the Listener late last year - under the heading 'global Report' she chanelled Johan Norberg (Cato and Masxim institutes) without the readership being told who and what he is. The Editor batted my complaint away by citing Piketty (still an economist, just an egalitarian one).
So it happens on both sides of the fence - but in light of the drought, I say a curse on both your paddocks.
The ills of increasing population is a hot button of mine. The best possible thing that one can do for the future is to have fewer children. This is of far greater consequence in the long run than choosing a slightly more renewables oriented lifestyle. Exponents matter... :)
As to spin, I see it on all sides. On politics, I am hoping for an ecological minded party to someday form without the excess baggage that is present in the current green party.
Population? Yeah, we felt we had to choose between two, one or none. Got cheeky and went two, a decision purposely-made more than 30 years ago. There is no excuse for the ignorance that puts a six-child producer in charge of either a country or a party, at this juncture.
Yes, exponential math is a misunderstood worry. You might enjoy this:
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
I suspect that it needs 51% of the population to be well-informed, then it doesn't matter what the party is called, it'll represent an informed populace. On that basis, the media and academia need to hang their heads in shame - and particularly those who are both..... But I think we've left it too late, and we're dumbing-down/being propagandised more as time goes on. This will not end well, fiscally. Nor environmentally. But the sun will still rise, the ocean (though empty of fish and full of plastic porridge) will still be blue. And a remnant population may see it's way to learning from the mistake. be interesting to know what kind of politics they put into place,......
I think we need to take a much wider view of things. Inequality and suffering, resource scarcity, is not restricted to just the human domain. We share this Earth with billions of other life forms.
I have often thought that having a child is a crime. To create a mortal being that will inflict suffering and is doomed to suffer exhibits a remarkable level of insensitivity, a mindlessness. That's what it is really, organisms merely created and controlled by unthinking biological impulses.
The result is untold suffering for humans as well as other lifeforms. Just ponder on the fact that billions perish everyday by being digested alive. Indeed this is probably the most common way a creature exits this world. Billions of krill everyday being absorbed alive in the bellies of blue whales. Billions being eaten alive by spiders.
Wouldn't it be better if there were no krill, no spiders? Then there would be no blue whales. What's the point of all the suffering? The same with humans. Why take that chance?
Humans can stop this. We have the technology to stop all suffering on the planet right now. Is this the answer to the Fermi Paradox?
Not in agreement, sorry.
The food web is what it is or at least, it was what it was, pre human. The biomass isn't what it was - by a long chalk thanks to us and our kept food:
darrinqualman.com/humans-livestock-extinctions/
Then there's sapience - what we're named for, ostensibly. Although looking at our politicians over several decades, I'm not so sure. And I'm more concerned with Jevon's paradox.......
ZS,
I think you have defined tangential in an entirely different manner...
One wee little item to consider is that at present only 3% of the vertebrates by mass on this planet are wild (that is, vertebrates that are not humans, livestock or pets). Humans have redefined what the world looks like. Just a hundred years ago, total vertebrate biomass of the entire world was less than the current human biomass, neglecting the additional livestock biomass that is much larger than the current human biomass. The rate of change is increasing. What happens when the infection completely fills the petri dish?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.