There is an interesting phenomenon on websites whenever someone says they won’t be voting National for whatever reason.
You see commenters use lines like “they aren’t as bad as the other lot, so you should vote for them”. A classic example is this one from Rockape:
So your [sic] embracing the COL and left policies. You want Labour in to keep the Nats out. I see something wrong with that logic! Or is it you want the Nats to change to suit you?
It seems the logic is that National is not quite as bad as the other lot, so swallow down the sick in your mouth and vote for them.
That seems to be a rather silly proposition that is almost as bad as saying ‘red team bad, blue team good’ when all the evidence suggests that National really rather likes the things this government is doing and would do the same just in a slightly different way. One example is the Zero Carbon Bill to which Simon Bridges put his hands up, surrendered and basically said Me Too. One suspects that if National were somehow able to form a government they would not unravel a single thing even though there are precious few things that the government has actually done. Instead, they would carry on like there never had been a change of government, a little bit like John Key did.
I can’t see them unwinding the oil and gas ban. Nor can I see them bringing back Charter Schools, despite all the evidence of their success. Neither will we see a repudiation of the Zero Carbon Bill, and their approach to gun control is only slightly less draconian than Labour.
I don’t know about you, dear readers, but I cannot see much difference between the two main parties. It is only at the margins that there are differences. Both main parties are now both firmly ensconced slightly left of centre. That creates quite a bit of room for a truly centrist, slightly right, nationalist party representing truly the wishes of the long-suffering taxpayer. I’m not yet sure that it could be New Conservatives but it most certainly isn’t ACT, which seems drier than week-old toast economically but is hopelessly wet on social issues with the exception being free speech. Their kill granny bill is admirable but slightly wonky. Perhaps NZ First should revisit getting rid of Maori Seats like their manifesto states, and start living up to their name.
Which brings me to an unusually limp article in “a newspaper” from Matthew Hooton, regarding Simon Bridges’ path to victory. The slight problem with the article is that it doesn’t really find a path, or even hint that such a thing exists; instead it engages in a nuanced version of ‘National, not quite as bad as the other lot’.
National’s strategy for 2020 is based primarily on the Ardern Government being uniquely incompetent in New Zealand history. Old timers suggest the Kirk-Rowling government as a rival, but in its three years it abolished compulsory military service, recognised the People’s Republic of China and established ACC, the Domestic Purposes Benefit and the Waitangi Tribunal. If the Ardern Government is similarly limited to one term, it will leave no legacy at all to trouble future historians.
Still, if National thinks it can just cruise back into government this year, it is wrong. While Oppositions don’t win elections and governments lose them, the pretender must at least appear plausible as a replacement. On that score, National made progress in the second half of 2019 but is not there yet. […]
Bridges’ more personally difficult decisions are around his own team. As Deputy Leader and Campaign Chairperson, Paula Bennett’s place is fixed. So too is that of Trade Spokesman Todd McClay, Bridges’ main strategist. Nearly as safe is Finance Spokesman Paul Goldsmith given his friendship with Bridges, his links with the Auckland business community and his strong early performance in softening National’s fiscal stance despite his own unimpeachable right-wing credentials. Collins will remain in the top five for as long as she chooses not to self-destruct.
Beyond that senior group, there are refinements available to Bridges to plausibly run a contemporary version of National’s old “man for man the better team” slogan, which it used when unsuccessfully seeking a fifth term in 1972.
The good news for Bridges is that his party has enough talent in its line-up for that message to appeal. Better still, there are obvious underperformers available to make room for promotions.
As recently as 2017, sixth-ranked Mark Mitchell fancied himself as party leader but has never given an indication as to why. Similarly unimpressive are ninth-ranked Michael Woodhouse, 13th-ranked Jacqui Dean and 14th-ranked Melissa Lee, all of whom should be making hay against Labour in health, local government and broadcasting respectively. Alfred Ngaro was planning to abandon National for a new Christian party less than a year ago, but failed in that project too. Mysteriously, he remains at number 11.
With Ardern unwilling to properly deal with even her most notorious underperformers, Bridges could demonstrate sterner stuff.
Which is all well and good, but I am yet to discern that Simon Bridges is made of any stuff, much less sterner stuff. Running a 1972 slogan is the best Hooton can come up with, but even he noted that it ultimately failed. But that is in reality precisely what Bridges and National seem to be saying…that they aren’t quite as bad as the other lot.
If that is their plan it is only vaguely better than the Gnomes of South Park’s failed underpants stealing plan.
Bridges knows he will lose any battle of the hugs against Ardern. But bringing together a new-generation National Party team, clearly distinct from anything that has come before, would demonstrate leadership qualities, seriousness of purpose, a commitment to meritocracy and an insistence on delivery that his rival clearly lacks. On those terms at least, Bridges too would best his opposite number.
So, ultimately, after 650 words of uncharacteristic waffle from Matthew Hooton we are left with the distinct impression that National’s plan is to be not quite as bad as the other lot. That is hardly the stuff to convince voters in the middle to swap sides.
