ACTing Up

Another day, another leader.  With the news this morning that Todd Muller has fallen on his sword and resigned the leadership, National has been thrown into crisis scant weeks away from a General Election.

Of course, this is not the first crisis that the National party has suffered since its formation in 1936 and, it will not be the last.  But it is certainly not an opportune moment for such an event to occur. If National is to avoid significant defeat then it needs to present a cogent, competent team which can handle the various crises that will beset the country in the coming years.  Currently, the perception is that National could not be trusted to host the proverbial party in the proverbial brewery.

National’s success in the 1960s and from 2008 to 2016 lay in its ability to have leaders who gave the impression that they were one with their voters.  Additionally, the party was (publicly) united behind them.  The result was that Holyoake led the party to 4 consecutive election wins (1960, 1963, 1966 and 1969) before retiring.  One of the principal secrets of his Government’s success was that Holyoake was very careful to foster the image of a person not prone to rash decisions and who listened to his constituents.  The Government referred any difficult decisions to boards, inquires or committees to seek a “consensus.”  New Zealand, it was claimed, was run by committee.

Whereas, Key opted for a relaxed, calm, easy going approach that allowed him to seemingly transcend his Government.  This attitude and style endeared him to a significant number of voters and allowed National to pursue an ideologically loaded agenda on that basis. Unlike Holyoake, Key did not opt for consensus.  As long as National polled above 45 percent, he did not have to, and Key ensured that they did.

And, this was one of Key’s most significant talents. His ability to bring people “into the tent.”

Under his leadership, National once more became a broad-based party of the right.  In doing so, he monopolized the Tory vote and ensured that National polled in the mid to high 40s.

But this approach has downsides.  The downside was that you quickly burnt off potential coalition partners or parties that will support you in parliament.  Take ACT as an example.  The downside for ACT was that, aside from Epson, they withered on the political vine. Their party polling was below 1 percent and their representation consisted of one MP in a seat that was gifted to them by National.

However, since the election National’s hegemonic hold on the right vote is unraveling.  As National attempts to re-stabilize itself, the more the vote unravels.  This is good news for those smaller rightwing parties and not so good news for National.

Of course, National is always going to remain the majority right wing party.  The majority of Tories voters are economically and socially conservative and prefer a wet form of neoliberalism, rather than the extremely dry version delivered by ACT. But, a National Government that has only the support of 35 percent is in a weaker position than one that polls 45 percent.

However, the more that National appears to be in complete disarray the better ACT’s chances of increased representation become.  I would not be surprised if Act cracked the 5 percent barrier for the first time since 2002 based on the complete chaos that is currently occurring in National.

This does not mean that the Right (led by a dominant ACT) will win in September.  This election remains Labour and the Greens to lose.

---