Getting The Visuals Right: John Key's decision to lend the National Party's support to the so-called "Anti-Smacking Bill" not only reassured his more moderate supporters that he was not beholden to the Far Right, but also allowed him to share the stage with Helen Clark on the six o'clock news. Here, it seemed to say, is a leader in waiting.
IT WAS A BOLD STRATEGIC DECISION which has since repaid the
courage required to make it several times over. In the run-up to the 2008
General Election John Key could so easily have cemented-in the extreme Right to
his electoral coalition by opposing the so-called “Anti-Smacking Bill”, but he
did not. To the utter consternation and dismay of Family First’s, Bob McKroskie,
and many other social conservatives, the Leader of the National Party
Opposition did precisely the opposite.
Instead of fighting the measure, John Key offered Helen
Clark the support of himself and his socially liberal National Party colleagues
– thereby guaranteeing the passage of Sue Bradford’s Private Members Bill by a
decisive majority. At a stroke all the bitter memories from 2005 and Don
Brash’s secret alliance with the Exclusive Brethren Church were wiped away.
Middle-class liberals could now vote for John Key’s National Party with a clear
conscience.
Key’s decision also secured him some invaluable “visuals”.
Voters watching the six o’clock news saw the Prime Minister and the Leader of
the Opposition striding in lock-step towards a pair of lecterns, from which, as
equals, they delivered the good news about the proposed changes to Section 59
of the Crimes Act.
It was a major propaganda triumph for Key because until that
moment the voters had not been sure that the new leader of the National Party
was for real. Talk is cheap. But to cut adrift a potentially huge number of
angry voters was potentially very costly.
For the first time New Zealanders had seen the former
currency trader’s ruthless decision-making technique in action.
There was no disputing the fact that the forces of social
conservatism were expecting National’s new leader to throw them a bone. But
what would be the political benefit of doing so? The Far Right was desperate to
be rid of Helen Clark’s government and the surest way of doing that was by
giving National its Party Vote. That meant that its support was already safely
banked in National’s account.
But what about the votes of those who saw themselves as
occupying the centre of the political spectrum? If he threw the Far Right a
bone how would they react? Centrists were nowhere near as hostile to Helen
Clark as the social-conservatives. Should they become convinced that behind this
new fellow’s pleasant smile and friendly wave there lurked a dangerous
extremist they might conclude that it wasn’t time for a change after all.
In the end Key’s cost-benefit calculation was a simple one.
The Centre was much more important to National’s election chances than the Far
Right. Bob McKroskie and his ilk would just have to live with it.
And last Monday evening Key did it again.
This time the cost-benefit calculation involved the electoral
utility of Colin Craig’s Conservative Party.
Were National to withdraw its candidate from East Coast Bays
in expectation of Mr Craig taking the seat, then socially conservative voters
would be reassured that thanks to MMP’s “coat-tail” provisions every vote cast
for the Conservative Party would count. The resulting surge in their Party Vote
would, post-election, assist National in mustering the numbers needed to
govern. Wouldn’t that be a considerable benefit?
But at what cost? Among those crucially important centrist
voters, the prospect of Colin Craig coming anywhere close to Government was
deeply worrying. Not the least of their concerns was his policy of deciding
highly complex and deeply emotive issues by referendum. How long would it be
before capital punishment and abortion were placed on the ballot-paper? If John
Key threw Colin Craig a bone of such dangerous dimensions, then they might just
decide to hold their nose and cast their votes for David Cunliffe or Russel
Norman.
It was 2008 all over again. Where was the benefit in taking
on a swag of passengers from the starboard side of the good ship National, if the cost was to see an even
larger number hurriedly disembarking to port?
Sorry Colin.
This essay was
originally published in The Dominion Post, The Waikato Times, The
Taranaki Daily News, The Timaru
Herald, The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 1 August 2014.
