Search This Blog

Thursday 18 October 2018

Dead Party Walking


Jamie-Lee Ross’s press conference and release of a recording of him and Simon Bridges discussing all sorts of murky activities has been the political equivalent of a suicide bombing, detonated for maximum effect, in the middle of parliament.

Also, as Ross potentially has more dirt to dish (including other secret recordings), this is not over by a long shot.

The tape itself is enough to sink any political career, let alone a mediocre one like Bridges with its discussion of how to hide donations, from wealthy Chinese, from the rest of the party and the public, the effective sale of membership in National to foreign interests (not that this was anything new for National), the culling of serving party members and sitting MPs to accommodate said foreign buy ins and the kind of blue blooded arrogance that has become Nationals trademark over the years.

Bridges of course counter attacked this morning (claiming X, Y and Z) but it’s too late, far too late, and well beyond the scale of any possible repair that some half-baked apology is going to fix.

So without getting into all the details, Jamie-Lee Ross has crippled the National Party by not only completely exposing its deep internal divisions but also by conclusively displaying that National is as mercenary as they come, willing to whore itself out to all and sundry without any thought of anything (or anyone) but the dollar.

Worse still, is that Ross is not finished and there is likely more damage to come, more secrets and more internal ruckus as those MPs who have suddenly discovered that they are expendable, if some Chinese donor has enough cash, will not take this lying down and surely revolt.

However the absolute summit of this horribly spectacular turd mountain is that National is now effectively dead, both politically and socially. They may not know it yet but that’s it for Bridges and National as even without Ross  adding any new dirt added to the pile there is enough here to keep Nicky Hagar in business for years!

A week ago there could still be some genuine speculation about who would be government in the next election (2020) but now that door has slammed shut with a brutal finality as now its Jacinda and Winston for the win, without even trying, and even with all the issues that have built up under their current leadership.

Now we are back to that point I blogged about in late 2016 when the situation in National after John Key left was also bleak with national effectively headless and the rats either jumping ship or being pushed off (often by bigger fatter rats).

Then there is the Botany Bay by-election to consider and how this will play out, in public, with Ross clearly willing to stop at nothing and dish all the details in what could only be categorized as Hell has no fury as a MP scorned.

In fact, if Ross plays this right, and secures the seat then he has the makings of being able to start his own party, ala Winston Peters, as not only is he willing to go head to head in a no holds barred gladiatorial showdown with Bridges but he also has a potential stable of dissident MPs to pull to his side from all of those “f**king useless” MPs that bridges was willing to sell down the river for Chinese funding, to build a party from.

Some National voters will probably sit still for this, because even at its nadir Labour still had a core of 24% who qualified as true believers, but a lot will not. Some will cut loose and look to parties like TOP for their rational policy fix, while other more conservative types will start to agitate for some vehicle to replace ACT. Others may even embrace the dark side and consider voting for NZ First or (shock horror) Labour.

And its not surprising that behind all of this are the same faces that we always fear and loath with Jerry Brownlee being the catalyst for all this when he demanded, what had supposedly been promised to Ross, and got it because “he will sit on the back benches and throw rocks” (according to Simon) and Paula Bennett acting as bully boy for Bridges and setting Ross up for his final suicide dive.

So yes, Bridges avoided having Brownlee “throwing rocks” but instead got Ross lobbing, what one acquaintance of mine described as, “thermonuclear hand grenade” into the core of the party and taking out everybody.

Seems the Gang of Four (Bennett, Brownlee, Smith and Collins) remains as toxic as ever and in allowing their toxicity to predominate at the highest levels in National, Simon Bridges has allowed the cancer to spread and grow to such a volume that it’s exploded forth with a wave of puss and foul ichor.

I contacted my national party contact (T) yesterday to find out what had gone on but got a rather short “not today mate, give me a week” in reply so when I get the inside scoop from him I will post it here but even so there is so little left that’s not been revealed or exposed as to be an open secret that I don't expect to be too surprised at what he reveals.

I have side this before and I am saying this again, that National had been on life support in the early 2000s after English and Brash had bent the party over and spread itself wide (see Nicky Hagar’s The Hollow Men) and it was only the miracle intervention of John Key (and the public reaction to an increasingly matriarchal Auntie Helen) which saved them from political oblivion then as to all intents and purposes they were politically bankrupt.

Today, without the necromancer magic of Key to sustain them, National is completely and utterly politically bankrupt and Simon Bridges has allowed Jamie-Lee Ross to destroy the brand in the most fatal fashion.

No-one wants to be identified with quislings willing to sell out ones country (and as the international mood swings against kissing Chinese backside National and their Chinese courtesans are on the wrong side of the debate) nor publicly link themselves with idiots, fools and incompetents. People are going to walk, people are going to talk and Bridges has not only let the narrative slip out of his hands he has completely and irrevocably destroyed both the internal and external fixtures of National.

So from now until it dies, National is a dead party walking, it will shamble forward as some sort of political zombie, maybe even Judith Collins will get to be leader, but only the most hard-core (or apathetic) National supporter will be willing to stand up and remain loyal.

21 comments:

  1. It may be a little too early to publish the National Party's obituary, but there is no disputing the party is in a shambles, and its extraordinary (and to me inexplicable) decision to choose Simon Bridges as leader has had predictable consequences for the party.
    However these events are bigger than National. The ructions in the party are a sign of fundamental social change. The society which produced the National Party of Holyoake, Marshall, Bolger et al - solid, sensible, affluent, respectable farmers, businessmen, lawyers and other professionals all tightly bound in communities of common national and class interest - no longer exists.
    Those who remain in the era of global capitalism are insecure individuals pursuing their own interests in a chaotic economic and social environment, making deals with global capital when they can, dumping on their mates when they must, opportunistic, self-seeking and self-promoting in ways that would have seemed bizarre to an earlier generation of propertied New Zealanders.
    This is the social reality which the National Party is reflecting, as it always has.
    You allude to National's Chinese connections which are part, but only part, of this profound change of character for the capitalist class in New Zealand, and it is important to understand that the Chinese connection cannot be severed independently of all the other changes that have come about through the implementation of the neo-liberal order and the wholesale intrusion of global capitalism into the New Zealand economy.
    National is not just National. National reveals the way that things are in the country, and the way that things will continue to be for some time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It may be a little too early to publish the National Party's obituary"

      Plenty of commentators between 2008-2017 were quite happy to publish the Labour party's obituary, often multiple times.

      Having said that, as someone who's becoming increasingly familiar (god help me) with EA's "riting style", reading between the lines I don't think EA is actually saying that National is going to disappear when he says it's a "dead party". This is his conscious desire to adopt a rhetorical style that is less analytical and more theatrical and hyperbolic, because he believes it makes his writing more interesting and attracts more readers. (Not gonna comment on whether he's write). According to EA he is capable of a more analytical style of writing but he chooses not to use it here. I guess it's for all of us to decide whether this style of writing is something we're willing to read or not.

      But going back to the substance, What I believe he is saying when he calls National a "dead party" is that it's going to go through a long period in the wilderness before it can get back into power. Which is probably true. (It might have even been true before the Ross revelations but it's indisputably true now)

      Delete
    2. In referring to National as "dead" I am using it the same way I used the term "politically bankrupt" in that post, in that yes National will not collapse and disappear overnight but its political legitimacy is (like Labour) eroded and now at a point where we get things like FukYoo politix and a general public distrust/hostility to politics as we know it.

      And yes Anon you are right, its the long road to Damascus now for Simon and Co as all of the threads that Ross has exposed will have to be pulled on and cleared before National can be sucessful at the Ballot box now (or just pull a Jacinda!).

      Delete
    3. Geoff: yes the Chinese connection will need to be severed before this is truly over and that's probably the biggest sticking point for National as they are indisputably wedding to China (or at least individuals form China).

      Ironically Jamie-Lee Ross has highlighted this way more than Jin Yang ever did.

      Delete
    4. " they are indisputably wedding to China (or at least individuals form China)."

      Quite a major distinction between those two things.

      Do you want National to severe ties to individuals from China?

      Delete
    5. Not individuals from China per se but from China itself, the individuals are just the conduits for Chinese influence. Jin Yang and Judith Collins/Orivida scandal showed exactly how far in National is in and this recent scandal just emphasizes that.

      And before you ask, if it was shown that national had deep ties to US interests (which it does to some degree given whats reported in the Hollow Men) or any other country it would be the same feeling from me.

      Delete
    6. "Not individuals from China per se"

      Why did you mention individuals from China, then?

      "And before you ask"

      I wasn't going to ask that

      Delete
    7. Because at this time individuals like Jin Yang are clearly a risk but its not because he is Chinese per se but because I am not a fan of PRC and Jin Yang is clearly got ties to the PRC, deep serious ties.



      Delete
  2. Public distrust of politics has been a constant pretty much as long as there's been organised political activity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cant and would not want to disagree with that but I do think it fluctuates with the times as populism and thinks like the rise of Donald Trump would be harder to explain if there was a higher level of faith in the political system and politicians.

      Delete
    2. I don't know when you think the era of higher trust in politicians was, but I guarantee you politicians like Trump existed and were successful at that time.

      Delete
    3. You dont think that the recent rise in populisim reflects a shift/change in the mood of regular voters? Or that the dropping numbers of people voting over time indicates something?

      I will agree that politicians have never been the most poplar or trusted members of a society but I don't think the current nadir of the public mood was always so low.

      Delete
    4. Are we talking about NZ? Because there hasn't really been a "rise in populism" in a New Zealand context - the only truly populist party is NZ First, and their vote has been fairly static in the 2010s. Voter turnout has actually been rising - the 2017 election had an 80% turnout, which was the best since 2005.

      Like most middlebrow comparisons between past and present, your idea of a past where the relationship between the populace and politicians was based on trust and honesty has no real foundation in any actual information from the past; it's simply based on soft-key nostalgia for a "time when things were better" and a lack of specific information that would contradict broad generalisations. While you do have specific information about the present - and then of course there's the broader, less political need to believe one lives in extraordinary times, which provides an inbuilt bias against continuity.

      Delete
    5. Yes and popular voting was in decline before that turnout and sits at about 1 in 5 not voting. The previous elections show higher turnouts. Also the turnout was higher all though the 90s and the 80s with the all time peak in 1984 (93.7%).

      (see link - https://www.elections.org.nz/events/past-events/general-elections-1853-2017-dates-and-turnout)

      2005 was a bump on a downwards trend which 2017 may have stopped but given that even with Jacindamania it still did not get into the 80s where it has previously resided it still a poor turnout.

      As for populism, surely you dont think NZ is immune to what is sweeping the rest of the democratic world. NZ has had a milder form but that might be preferred to the rabid partisan behavior of places like the US or the foul soup like Oz.

      I am and have at no point said I am totally down with the past or posited some sort of democratic utopia where we were all happy little voters and politicians were trusted souls.

      What I am saying, and voter turnout is as good as indicator as anything is that when people have a vested interest in the system they participate, ie higher voter turnout, when they dont, less people vote. Specially when parties become entrenched and become the gate keepers to various chunks of the political landscape.

      Or they rebel (of sorts) and start voting for candidates which act as a vehicle for their frustrations and upset.

      Just like fashion, music and art there are trends, swings and roundabouts and ups and downs, politics has some essential components but it to can morph and change and NZ politics has changed in the last 30 years, Stuffs recent article about politicians now being "a breed apart" is a good indicator of one aspect of that change, another is the afore mentioned voter turnout. Another would be the shift in political ideologies (ie the rise and decline of Neo-Liberalism between the 80s and now).

      A simpler example may be to say that bakers, thought history, have always baked bread but how they do it has changed in that the technology, the culture and the state of the times, have an impact on that. No one is baking bread is the stone ovens used thousands of years ago or making bread like people used to. We have industrial production or home bread makers, we have gluten free and no white flour.

      So yes its still bread but its not some static thing form time immemorial and politics is the same. Think how social media and the information age has shaped politics, think about how changes in the economy or the geo-political clime have shaped politics. Think about how the fall and rise of Maori have shaped politics (if you want a NZ specific example).

      I think less that our times are extraordinary and more than this stuff is always going on but its the most vibrant in the time you live. Its a lot harder for me to get engaged or involved in NZ politics in the 1950s but that does not mean its any less serious or exciting if I was there.

      In short: call it what you will but western democracies are having a crisis of faith and many of the outcome sin the last 10 years reflect a rising populist mood (which in this case is less of the populace down with the official program and disconnected from general political theme and willing to vote for candidates and parties which reflect their disillusionment, upset or anger.

      Go look at Brazil at the moment and try and say thats not a populist turn given that the country seems set to reject the party that has ruled for almost two decades and swing to the right with its very own pro military Donald trump like president.

      Delete






  3. You see EA I know you are against rigorous analysis, at least within the context of this blog, but this really is shoddy thinking. One example does not show a trend. Having said that, by all means, let's look at Brazil.

    The last 100 years of Brazilian history has seen many populist governments, starting with Getulio Vargas, continuing through the military dictatorship, including Lula (left populism, but still populism) and now seemingly continuing with a return to the populism of the dictatorship, albeit inaugurated with an election. So the question is not "is there populism", the question is "is it new"?

    More broadly, populism has been a powerful electoral force in Latin America throughout the last thirty years, with both left-populism (Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia) and right-populist (Peru, Colombia, and now apparently Brazil but on the other side) governments taking power and holding it for many years. So while you are correct that Brazil is an example of populism, it's not an example of change towards populism.

    Of course if you looked harder you could find countries where populism is experiencing an upsurge (Germany would be the classic example). But you're postulating a global trend so you need more than a single example. In fact you need some pretty wide-ranging (both over time and geography) comparative analysis, but I realise that this blog isn't really the place for this, so I don't expect it. Still, I can only regard your claim as unproven, even if your reason for not proving it is for stylistic reasons rather than intellectual ones.

    And as regards to NZ, we have definitely not seen populist parties as a major electoral force. The high point of populism seems to have been the late 90s-early 00s, when NZ First regularly got more than 10% of the vote. Even that is a pretty modest apogee. What signs of populist ascendency do you see aside from NZ First's vote share? Sure, there is populist rhetoric in other political parties, but that's always been the case (and that is really establishing an incredibly low bar for what counts as populism in the ascendence).

    Re: voter turnout, the difference between the peak (1984) and the trough (2011) is not even 20 percentage points - hardly a precipitate decline. It fell fairly steadily from 1984 to 1993, but since 1993 it has sort of hovered around the 80% mark - there have been as many elections where it's modestly improved (1996, 2005, 2014, 2017) as there have been ones where it's modestly declined (2002, 2008, 2911). The low points (2002 and 2011) both coincide with the second terms of well established governments which make me think that decline may have more to do with voters' (rational) belief that governments rarely lose power after their first term than any meta disatisfaction with politics.

    So to summarise, if we drew a change line from 1984 to today, it would show a decline, but a very slow one - if the trend continues, by 2050, we might have 60% turnout! Quel horreur!

    You remind me of the people who are convinced that the average intelligence of the human race is declining, and are shocked when academic studies show the opposite - but surely it must be the statistics that are wrong, because your subjective impressions and your fondness for a declinist narrative couldn't possibly be wrong, could they?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Uh, yeah, nah.

    Thats way unfair. I did not say that we can expect an ongoing downwards trend but the data is what it is and from that high in 84 its been generally heading down till 2017 (which gain might be a short term uptick in a larger downward trend.

    And yes, oh the horror, at 60% turnout. Scoff all you like but democracy functions better when people participate. Voting is the fundamental aspect of a democracy, yes you have the right but if you dont exercise then whats the point. And there is a tipping point where when enough people turn away from the system it ceases to work or hold a general legitimacy. I would argue that for a democratic system that does not need to reach some figure like 40% participation to be a crisis, its where the US is now, at sub 60%. One of the lowest turnouts in the democratic world and one where its the extremes of the system which are now the most engaged in the debate.

    And I'm not claiming some rapid decent into the abyss here but a decline/trend is what it is, the data is not indicating an upswing and given the importance of participation in democracy how would you read this?

    Is the trend reversible, I think it can be, but that requires people to re-engage and reasons for them to re-engage and if they do re-engage is it back into the previous consensus or with issues which are populist.

    Populism is not a single brand, one size fits all thing and if I dare use the general definition to say that it is a manifestation of the popular vrs the elite (be it left or right) but with some form of people power then populism in NZ was surely something that came in 2017 with Jacindamania, increased voting and the Coalition governments "capitalism with a friendly face" type statements as a reaction to nine years of National and all it entailed.

    So call it Kiwi style populism because unlike some countries we have not got to the level of riots in the streets but I think it was and in other ways as well like #meetoo, it captured a popular mood. Kiwis dont like the idea of things that are important to them going away/declining or being removed/cutoff (water, beaches, the environment, owning a home etc) so the rise of these things as issues to people and then reflected in the media I would say is a populist thing, specially when its framed against, and as a reaction to, national and more directly neo-liberalism.

    In other countries, populism has had different faces, the Arab Spring, Occupy, and others with shifts away areas of politics considered mainstream to more extreme views/positions. Was Trump populist? I would say yes given hos slogans and approach, same in places like the Philippines and Italy or even England.

    As for NZ First, Winston is 20 years to late, he had his moment in 1996 and he blew it. he partially redeemed himself in 2017 but its not the same space or time because at that time he and NZ First were genuinely populist, he played that card so hard it was a shock to many when he went with National.

    In Brazil the point there was that its swung well to the right, and that that swing was populist, Brazil has just had the largest ever corruption scandal in its history and the net result was a populist anger directed at the previous govt and the by product that a right wing figure (ie not one of those "corrupt lefties" is getting all the buzz).

    Still happy to discuss/debate here but I think I know what my next post will be about, so thanks to you guys for that.

    Finally both you and the other Anon have painted me in terms of me being a generalist and having a broad brush. Yes and no on that charge. I do have some pessimistic views but I expect the worst and hope for the best. I see no point in not saying what I see but is it all doom and gloom? No, at least for now, when the robots and AI take over, then humanity is screwed!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I almost forgot. If you want a framework for all this populist mood (be it rising, current or whatever) its because of the crisis of confidence (or even worse) that capitalism and such is going through.

      This is why such issues resonate so today. Call it rising expectations being blocked.

      Delete
    2. "the data is not indicating an upswing"

      No, but it's not indicating a downswing, not post-93 anyway. Basically since 1993 the trend has been flat.

      Delete
    3. PS: You said "I did not say that we can expect an ongoing downwards trend".

      Your exact words were "popular voting was in decline".

      So a decline, but not an ongoing downwards trend? OK then.

      Delete
    4. I think we are splitting hairs here a bit but lets start from 1984.

      Voter turnout was 93.7% in that year. In 2011 it was 74%. Is that not a decline/downswing or some sort of downward movement?

      For most of the first half of the last century NZ voter turnout sat in the low 90s/high 80s and remained so till 1984.

      Since then we have had 88% in 93; 85% in 96; 84% in 99; 77% in 02; 80% in 05; 79% in 08; 74% in 11; 77% in 14; and 79% in 17.

      So thats NZ, not catastrophic but showing a distinct downwards change/decline from prior years and 74% is a definite nadir.

      Even now, after Jacindamania, its still has not cracked 80% again. Thats still a 10% shift from previous norms and the point is is that it does not have to be some major numbers movement (like from 90% to 40%) to be an issue.

      Im not sure about things being flat since 93 (88%) as it was 74% in 2011.

      Also, and I cant find the data to be sure on this but its worth noting, that the percentages we are working off come from the baseline of total registered electors and not total eligible voters.

      Those could be the same or really close but again that number if different would be lower than the total whole of all potential eligible voters and in NZ its not a requirement to register to vote.

      So Im still going with popular voting has been in decline but acknowledge that recent elections have seen a resurgence. My position is given the trend down since 84 this is either the bottom bounce or a blip before another decent. I would prefer the former but I think its the later more.

      Delete
  5. To compare 1984 to 2011 is cherrypicking - you're comparing an atypical high point with an atypical low point. Let me say again, for emphasis, 1984 is the highest turnout that has ever occurred in a NZ election. It's not only higher than what came after, it's also higher than what came before. So if there's something wrong because we can't match the 93% turnout of 1984, there was something wrong in the 60s and 70s, because they couldn't match it then, either.

    ReplyDelete