National's Maurice Wimpianson has been hoist upon a petard of his party's own making, just as Bill English was last month, as Kate Wilkinson was the month before that, and as every National MP with both a a viewpoint and a mouth will inevitably be before this election is over.
It's a petard made entirely of timidity -- of a policy of being too scared to ever say what they mean, or to mean what they say. It's a policy that means that National politicians are required to be saying less and less, which means their every bland utterance will be examined for more and more of what they might signify. It's a policy that means every time a National politician stick their neck out it's immediately and embarrassingly withdrawn amidst headlines of wimpishness and wowserism.
It's a policy born of desperation for power, and a the typical Tory tendency to appeasement, but it's a policy that presents a seasoned politician like a Clark or a Cullen everything they need to make a meal from -- as they already have -- and that requires every position the Tories might eventually wish to adopt remains essentially undedefended.
That's not a recipe for real substantive change, is it.
If there's anyone to blame for the accusations of National's 'secret agenda' being flung around it's the National Party themselves -- not because they have one, but because their public timidity and instant backtracking when challenged suggests they've got something to hide. And frankly, they have: their spinelessness.
UPDATE: The Dim Post's Daryl mercilessly satirises the 'secret agenda.'
11 comments:
That's not a recipe for real substantive change, is it.
Even now, as the end approaches, you still don't understand what National is up against.
Helen Clark is in the beehive.
Don Brash is eating corned beef and peas out of a can.
Don is clearly a better politician and leader than John Key would ever be.
And Labour made mincemeat of him.
There's the Maorimander. The EFA. MMP.
and the police?
Without calling in US Marines, how do you expect to fight that?
Keeping the lowest possible target absolutely makes the most sense.
And when it is in government, National will have one term in which to bring real change --- and if it brings enough change then, we won't have to worry about who wins ever again
No, Anonymous (of course you're anonymous -- bloody timid Tory), **you** don't understand.
Don Brash is not eating corned beef and peas out of a can because Helen and Michael cleaned him up. It wasn't Labour who made mincemeat out of of him, it was his own troops - people like you, probably -- who stabbed him in the back.
His forthrightness wasn't wanted by the Tories, but it's what got them from Bill English's 22 percent in 2002 to over fifty percent of support when Brash was sacked.
I see you completely fail to appreciate that.
I see too that you're in favour of lies and dishonesty to get what you want, since when you recommend National say nothing now then effect " real change" later, that's all you can mean.
In other words, you wish to replace corruption with dishonesty.
Is it any wonder honest people are turned off politics?
An extract from an appropriate letter to YNET news. Substitute NZ for Israel--same sorry story. No guts, just mushy men with small testicles.Small wonder we are presided over by hens.
"Leadership is about committment to more than your own interests, it's about courage & daring, it's about accurate analysis & the ability to see patterns in the chaos of events, it's the street-smarts necessary in judging your opponants, reading their character & intentions.
Our political system cannot produce leaders. It can only produce bureaucrats, political hacks, unimaginative & uncreative party operatives, people whose intellectual ability is limited to repeating slogans. Above all, it can only produce politicians whose vision is limited to party politics.
Most of our politicians have few real beliefs. And the few principles they may have are disguised, buried under the advice of spin doctors & media advisers. They have become too professional - they're such good politicians, they've lost the ability to be leaders. And this has become so evident to voters that they've lost all credibility. We laugh at their speeches, we see it all as just empty words emptied of any meaning.
In other words, the electorate has become cynical.
A leader is honest with himself, has integrity & moral courage. He doesn't hide behind excuses, rationalizations, & attempts to avoid responsibility.
Yet, when you examine the candidates that Haber mentions, who among them has these qualitities?
The sad answer is not a single one.
They are at best an assembly of the mediocre.
George
Chris Trotter sees this as a sign that Labour may be getting the upper hand back:
"And, mark my words, when political activists feel confident enough to laugh at their enemies, and sufficiently motivated to organise a prank like this one, you may be sure that the electoral war is very far from being lost, and may be closer than a whole lot of people are willing to admit - to being won."
Reciprocal link whoring done :-)
"In other words, you wish to replace corruption with dishonesty."
Quite.
It works in Hollywood does it not?
All Teeth & Tits. No substance.
After all they do not have to do any work once they are in power. It is just 3 years of electioneering.
Lawrence oO
I see too that you're in favour of lies and dishonesty to get what you want, since when you recommend National say nothing now then effect " real change" later, that's all you can mean.
which country has the best economic performance?
singapore or nz or china?
In other words, you wish to replace corruption with dishonesty.
corruption is illegal. individuals should be jailed; those holding ministerial warrants should receive preventative detention.
making the correct decisions for the future of NZ is not dishonestly - it is the absolute opposite.
Is it any wonder honest people are turned off politics?
of course it is - but again only because the gerrymandered, maorimandered MMP system
means that they will never have a chance.
Ruth Richardson managed more in one budget
than even Margaret Thatcher managed with 10.
One budget is more than enough - then any questions of honesty or dishonesty are moot
PC, you can’t bluntly suggest that “forthrightness” alone is a recipe for electoral success. Brash tapped into one of the only senses of grievance that a comfortable middle New Zealand could have, and it didn’t hit anyone in the back pocket (except arguably Maori.) This was a speech that Brash was never really comfortable with that was initiated by his advisors (cynically, some might say) as an electorally profitable, wedge-politics “target.”
I can tell you that market information tells us that, thanks to nine years of Labour, the people who decide elections are comfortable, pampered, and complacent. Anything that represents a threat to their income, whether the introduction of new user charges (e.g. tolls), or the removal of existing benefits (e.g. Working For Families) “frightens the horses.”
I know that your snipes at the right-leaning parties are simply attempts to maximize the Libertarianz vote, but the reality is, MMP trappings notwithstanding, New Zealand is still a two-party system. If you’re not for the opposition, you’re for the government. Your choice is Labour or Labour-lite, but that is your choice. And libertarian ideas are more likely to grow in soil that is less socialist in content.
anonymous
You are being very dishonest. For a start you evaded what PC directed your attention to and failed to address it.
BTW it is most illuminitaing that a recent poll records that 50% of Kiwis understand the National Socialists to have a hidden agenda. In other words they are thought to be dishonest- dishonest as in untrustworthy and lacking in morality or integrity. Your comments reinforce that view interestingly enough...
What you need to understand is that people don't admire or like your (or your masters' approach). Fibbers are not held to be sound representatives, let alone holders of integrity or principle. In this case your guys are seen to be either:
a/. dishonest and deceptive- not to be trusted
b/. weak and spineless- lacking in principle, policy or direction (other than a lust for power)
or possibly, both.
One other thing, despite your rather charmless beliefs, it is unlikely that the National Soc party will make substantive alterations to the political system or direction of the economy should they come to attain the treasury benches in the next election. It will be BAU.
Wake up and face reality for a change.
LGM
justin, strikes me that removing the 5% threshold would remove the MMP trappings you mention...If I was a Lib i'd be working on THAT.
"And when it is in government, National will have one term in which to bring real change --- and if it brings enough change then, we won't have to worry about who wins ever again"
That must be National's second term then, since John Key has said that he won't change anything in the first term. As I write, National are bravely, gallantly, agreeing with Labour about the need for climate change legislation.
Post a Comment