Mummy, Why Does National Suck So Much?

In 1834, nearly 550 years after Edward I first called a parliament to get some moneys, the chapel and most of the Old Palace of Westminster was destroyed by fire. One of those tour guide facts that one comes across is that the rebuilt floor of the House of Commons, separating those in Her Majesties government on the Speaker's right hand side and Her loyal opposition on the left, is designed to be two swords lengths apart.

The decision to do this was probably more symbolic than necessary. The message was that there are two ideological camps implacably opposed. And never the twain shall meet. This design, like many of the traditions and systems of the Westminster system spread throughout the Empire. 168 years later here in New Zealand we might as well redesign our parliament as a nice non-confrontational circle or line, because Her Majesties Opposition have apparently not only missed the point of being directly opposite those in power, but have presumably forgotten the reasons why they did not join Labour in the first place.

You don't need to be a brain surgeon to know how things are supposed to go. Labour are the party of trade unions, regulation, the good of the country, egalitarianism. National (at least according to their website) are the party of individual freedom, market freedom, individual responsibility and hard work - just a bit less so than ACT.

True, both parties have had times where they reversed roles - National with Muldoon and Labour with Prebble and Douglas, but at the moment we are faced with a National party that doesn't (just) stand for the wrong policies and principles - but doesn't actually have any policies or principles at all.

Michael Laws, in the Sunday Star Times wrote last year about Bill English :

"Asked to articulate his [English's] philosophy last week, he could only pronounce himself as 'forward thinking.' When asked to define 'forward,' he floundered. Well, he said, he wasn't going to live in the 1980's or 1990's."

The Dominion noted that "Mr English warned there would be no return to the free-market policies of earlier decades and suggested there would not be any wholesale changes to some of the Labour-Alliance Government's more controversial policies with business, including its Employment Relations Act."

So what would be the point, then, of any change in government? The recently deceased Freddy Heineken had it right, he decided to package his beer in green bottles as opposed to the standard brown. He had to have a point of difference between Heineken and other beers. Why bother voting National if there is no substantial point of difference between them and Labour, if their leader rejects the two times in history (1984-87 & 1990-93) when government policy was in accordance with the principles commonly associated with National, and if their leader can't even define his philosophy?

What National also needs to do is find the capacity to recognize error. Labour have done so, and effectively. Labour state quite clearly that the period from 1984-1990 was a pox on the house of the Left and a horrible mistake all round. National doesn't do the same when confronted with 1993-9 and that virtually ensures that they will lose each and every head to head with the government. Our obsolete army radios and other equipment were still obsolete when National was in power. Same with police, health, edumacation, justice, maori affairs. In all areas, National is effectively forced to sit back down by the fact that "you were in power for 9 years and you either did nothing or made things worse."

For instance, look at these three items from a recent National Party Press release entitled "The Government's Top 25 Blunders For 2001" ask yourself if the situation was any better under National:

*Projected student debt has increased by 40%. Total debt will now reach $20 billion by 2020.

- Surely National cannot be serious when complaining about loan debt!

*Violent crime reached its highest level in history - an 8.6% increase for the year to June 2001.

- And who's justice policy led to the harsher sentencing referendum in the last election?

*Alcohol is now banned in public places, thanks to a drafting mistake. Labour realised the mistake at the last minute but passed it anyway.

- What about National's policies on smoking?

Does National then say "yep, we fucked up, but we've changed now, we're going to do things differently." No, no they do not. October 2000 aside, has National ever been ahead in the polls? No. Coincidence?

Those are my opinions anyway, if National wants my vote.

Actually, National have made it clear that they don't want my vote. Arthur Anae spoke at last year's University Orientation about how National was the party for "average New Zealanders" - unfortunately for them I'm above average.

-- Qohelet.

10/2/02