Starting As They Mean To Finish: Simon Bridges' opening parliamentary gambit has made it more-or-less impossible for National’s period in opposition to be anything other than a bloody, no-holds-barred fight to the finish. Bill English had hinted that this might be the Opposition's game-plan when he told the NZ Herald that “it’s not our job to make this place run for an incoming Government […] we have no obligation to smooth [Labour’s] path. None whatsoever.”
WHAT WAS HE THINKING? When Simon Bridges pulled his little
parliamentary stunt and extracted his procedural pound of flesh – what was he
thinking? Was it no more than a spur-of-the-moment bluff? Did Labour’s Chris
Hipkins give in too readily? What would have happened if the Government had
been prepared to call his bluff? We’ll never know. We never do. History turns
on such moments. The course our political leaders end up taking is always just
one of an infinite number of alternatives they could have followed. But the
courses chosen: the paths followed; they matter. You can put a ring around
that, they matter a lot.
What Simon Bridges was thinking, probably, was that it was a
risk worth taking. As the Shadow Leader of the House, he had given the
Government his word that National would support Trevor Mallard’s bid to become
Speaker, providing that, in return, his colleague, Anne Tolley, would be
elected Deputy-Speaker. Labour had agreed. A deal had been struck. As an “honourable”
Member of Parliament, Simon’s word should have been his bond. So, yes, his bold
parliamentary gambit represented a huge breach of trust. It was risky. But the
potential reward was worth it.
Welching on the Speaker deal. Slapping Labour’s face in front
of the whole world. Making them look weak and incompetent by turning the first
sitting of the House of Representative into a shambles and a farce – and coming
out of it with a concession that promised many, many more opportunities to
frustrate and humiliate the Government. These were all victories – his
victories – and they would transform him into National’s warrior knight.
Bridges’ actions had achieved something else. Such an open
and unconscionable breach of trust made it more-or-less impossible for
National’s period in opposition to be anything other than a bloody,
no-holds-barred fight to the finish. Bill English had hinted that this might,
indeed, be National’s plan when he told the NZ Herald that “it’s not our job to
make this place run for an incoming Government […] we have no obligation to
smooth [Labour’s] path. None whatsoever.”
But like this? On the first day? Surely not.
Jacinda Ardern must now decide how her Labour-NZ First-Green
government should respond to Bridges’ ambush. Like Barack Obama, she has come
into office with an all-embracing programme of social, economic and cultural
uplift. A programme in which she hoped the losing party would not only be
willing to play the role of her government’s necessarily critical opposition,
but also that of a patriotically constructive partner in the urgent task of
national renewal. It is now very clear that this objective will only be
achieved over the broken body of the National Party. With all hopes of
collaboration and compromise dashed on the very first day, Jacinda’s new
government is faced with the additional challenge of advancing its ambitious
legislative programme in the face of the Opposition’s implacable and
unrelenting resistance.
The most effective way for the National Opposition to resist
Jacinda’s reforming government is by doing everything within its power to
shatter its supporters’ faith in the political system’s capacity to deliver
real change. The most terrifying sight the National Opposition has witnessed so
far must surely have been the size and enthusiasm of the crowd of ordinary New
Zealanders who gathered in Parliament Grounds to welcome the newly sworn-in
Prime Minister and her Cabinet back from Government House. Bill English and his
caucus would have observed all those expressions of hope and joy and realised
that unless this new-found faith in politics – Jacinda’s “stardust” – was
dispersed, and rapidly, then the new government’s lease on the Treasury Benches
was likely to be a long one.
National is well aware that its own supporters’
understanding of politics is very different from that of Labour’s, the Greens’
and NZ First’s followers. National voters see politics as a purely instrumental
activity: the means by which their interests and aspirations are secured and
encouraged. Most of them are well aware of the fact that this can only be
achieved at the expense of the less prosperous half of the New Zealand
population – and most of them are quite okay with that. In their eyes, the poor
and the marginalised have only themselves to blame for the multiple misfortunes
which assail them. If you’re a loser in this society, it’s obviously because
you haven’t tried hard enough to win!
It is this ruthlessly competitive approach to life and
politics which allows them to respond to Simon Bridges parliamentary ambush
with nothing but unalloyed admiration. Whatever it takes to win is fine by
them. If their opponents label such tactics “dirty politics”, then they will
simply shrug-off the accusation. “Dirty politics?”, they will chortle. “Is
there any other kind?”
What was Simon Bridges thinking when he staged his
parliamentary ambush? That it would not hurt his political career to be seen to
be responding so unequivocally to the expectation of his party’s supporters
that everything must be done to make politics appear tawdry and mean-spirited?
That every stratagem which serves to make people despair of politics; and every
act that causes them to turn away from politicians in disgust; will be heartily
approved by National’s voters?
Those would certainly have been the thoughts of a young,
ambitious leader-in-waiting, brashly confident that the National Opposition
will retain the unwavering support of all those New Zealanders intent on
recovering their lost social and economic ascendancy – no matter what it does.
Use any means necessary – just so long as that bloody
stardust settles!
This essay was
originally posted on The Daily Blog
of Thursday, 9 November 2017.
