What big teeth you have!

John Armstrong in his opinion piece yesterday discussed what is seen by many as the push to the right by the Key government. The long awaited secret agenda. Except for the fact that as Armstrong makes clear Key and National did not hide their intentions.

As Armstrong notes:-

If anyone thought National was going to be some pale reincarnation of Labour minus the political correctness, then they were fooling themselves.

Then:-

National did not spend its longest period in Opposition since World War II just to keep the government benches warm for Labour’s eventual return.

Nevertheless, the Government is a more ideological beast than many expected. The pertinent question is how ideological?

Perhaps the answer is actually contained in the first of the two paragraphs

Guy Body - NZ Herald - 22 March

above. National intends to retain power. Therefore, the ideology will be tempered with pragmatism. Hence also the relationship with the Maori Party.

Armstrong notes that whilst National may to some appear to have been a wolf in sheep’s clothing, the cartoonists love that by the way; National in fact flagged much if not all of the programme in their manifesto and policy statements pre-election.

Logically therefore why should anyone be surprised or upset. Perhaps it is the fact that Key has set about delivering the programme more rapidly and audaciously than anyone might have presumed.

National – and particularly Key – are much more unpredictable than Clark and Labour were. Each week brings surprises, be it the restoration of knighthoods or the swift appearance of legislation allowing private companies to run prisons.

There is a window of opportunity to do things not that popular before the Budget in late May. After that, circumstances may not be so politically benign with the onset of winter and mounting job losses.

Internal factors may be forcing the pace. Key is results-driven. He does not stand still. He has written to all his ministers asking them to spell out their priorities. He intends to talk to them about their portfolio work and actual or potential problems. This performance review style of management increases the pressure on ministers not only to deliver, but to look tough and in control

Armstrong like Fran O’Sullivan picks up on the potential problem of Nick Smith . According to Armstrong, and Adam is glad to see this as it accords with his own thinking, on Nick Smith:-

His inflammatory remarks about the corporation’s accounts, its levies and costs, and the effect on entitlements helped create the perception that National was moving rightwards.

Smith’s behaviour indicated the Government was not above using the tight fiscal constraints as the rationale for pushing more to the right. But in the Beehive, Smith is seen as having badly overcooked things. The subsequent ruckus has probably made it impossible for National to privatise ACC, even if it wanted to go beyond its stated intention of opening the work account to competition.

Smith should have been reined in and told to put up or shut up.

Adam suspects that Key will take a firm line with errant and non-performing ministers

Then at the end Armstrong writes:-

But all this ignores the other half of the right-left ledger. Such things as increasing the minimum wage, financial help for the unemployed and those on a nine-day fortnight, stopping the SIS monitoring MPs without good cause, fixing up state houses, continuing with the electrification of Auckland rail, being relaxed about flying a Maori flag on Waitangi Day …

On those scores, the Key Government not only echoes its Labour predecessor, it surpasses it in some instances. It is a world away in ideological terms from National during Ruth Richardson’s heyday.

Indeed it is and in terms of electability that is the right position to be in.

Armstrong notes as well that on other issues Key has taken stances at variance with the rightist tag.

Adam reckons that the conclusion is probably on the money:-

In short, the Key Government is hard to pigeonhole. It is likely to remain so. Its excursion to the right may only be temporary as the dictates of a three-year electoral cycle make themselves felt.

When that happens, National will – as always – not be so much inching back to the left as charging back.

Overall, Adam would like Key to remain hard to pigeonhole. That will make it harder for Labour to fight back. It is clear that Key is not a Brash clone, nor does he have much time for the past ways of doing things. He is as he describes himself a centre-right pragmatist who believes in doing what he set out to do. We are seeing leadership by Key, leadership of a type and style that varies considerably from what we have been used to.

Advertisement