The ideological burp of Don Brash is now over, and National is returning to its historic place as a muddle in the middle of the political spectrum, just a fraction to the right of Labour. The arrival of John Key at the helm of the National Party clearly represents a significant shift within the party away from any radical and ideological distinctiveness. Read on below:
There’s no doubt that John Key is much more centrist than Brash – and only Chris Trotter is likely to deny it (see: Something about this Key doesn't fit). But more importantly than Key’s place on the political spectrum is the fact that he is significantly more pragmatic and ideologically flexible.
A good indication of how pragmatic Key is – and how his pragmatism is a more important characteristic to understand than his ideology – is how he orientated himself to a number of social issues. Although he is said to be an urban social liberal, he actually voted ‘against the Civil Union bill and favoured a split drinking age - raising the purchasing age to 20’. According to a report by Ruth Berry, ‘his stance on some conscience issues reflected his conservative electorate, rather than his own private views’ – i.e. he will sacrifice any belief in favour of strategy and what his audience (or ‘market’) demand.
This approach mirrors Key’s background in financial currency trading – a field in which he clearly excelled – because as another futures trader points out, an essential quality of this profession is extreme flexibility: ‘You need to be able to change your view, or change your opinion, if the market starts doing something different to what you thought it was going to do’. It is obvious that Key is adept at changing direction.
Even prior to his leadership role, Key has played a strong role in pushing National towards the centre. As Ruth Laugesen points out, prior to last year’s election he was important ‘on everything from getting National to support the Cullen superannuation fund, to ensuring National's tax cuts targeted the middle classes instead of the rich.’
And since the election ‘Key popped up as an apparent moderate on racial issues, as one of those in the party saying Brash's hardline position on the Maori seats might need to be moderated.’ It is clear that the existing ‘race relations consensus’ is still firmly in place - all parliamentary parties are clearly signed up to it. The language of inclusiveness and diversity continues to reign supreme. Now that he’s leader, Key firmly states: ‘I believe in a tolerant and inclusive New Zealand’. While he reiterates his belief in ‘one standard of citizenship’, Key is a pains to announce that ‘within that standard of citizenship we should celebrate the cultural, religious and ethnic differences we all bring to New Zealand…. I welcome the Maori renaissance, and some of the great initiatives like the kohanga reo movement which have come from Maori, for Maori.’ This is quite a different tone to Brash. He even states that he disagreed with the view that Maori received ‘special privileges.
In line with all this, Key has signalled a sweeping review of National’s policies – and in particular those relating to race relations. Already National’s position on the Maori seats looks to have shifted – now emphasizing a change in timing, which puts National closer to the Maori Party, who also say that eventually the seats should disappear, but not for some time.
All of this is in line with Key’s genuine and smart intention of ‘building bridges’ with other parties. He has already started to ‘position the party closer to the Greens on environmental issues’ according to one report. In particular, Key has emphasised how much needs to be done on climate change. And even on the uncomfortable issue of nuclear ship visits, Key has put this bogey to rest by unequivocally stating: ‘For as long as I am leader of the National Party, the nuclear-free legislation will remain intact.’
In another recent speech, Key has also been reaching out subtly, according to Ruth Berry, ‘to the gay community, as well as to solo parents, saying he was not interested in pre-judging the make-up of New Zealand families.’
It is not only Key becoming leader that is pushing National towards the centre – the whole new configuration of the ‘shadow cabinet’ tilts more to the centre than before. Katherine Rich has been brought back onto the front bench after being dismissed from her Welfare role after disagreeing with Brash's 2005 Orewa speech. Likewise, Georgina Te Heuheu has been reinstated as Maori Affairs spokesperson. Also noteworthy is Simon Power jumping in caucus rankings from seven to four. And the Political Correctness Eradication role has been ‘eradicated’ by Key.
Also very significant is the replacement of the buffoonish Gerry Brownlee by Bill English. English is undoubtedly an impressive intellectual MP with an appreciation of National’s need to keep away from the radical economic right. What’s more, he’s relatively socially liberal too. In terms of staff, Richard Long has already departed as chief of staff, and Key has sacked Brash's far-right (yet also pragmatic) policy adviser, Peter Keenan.
It is clear that Key’s National Party stands a good chance of winning the next election. As Colin James says, ‘He will win back liberal non-voters in 2005 and win votes off Labour whom Don Brash could not reach.’
But National won’t win because they constitute any alternative to Labour – after all they merely occupy the same mushy swamp that makes up the centre of NZ politics. Their victory will be more because they are fresher and relatively more dynamic in appearance. As a friend emailed to me recently, it is true that ‘Dowdy, aging, non-personable social liberals committed to the maintenance of the key parts of the 84-93 economic reforms will be replaced by younger, shinier, better-looking more personable social liberals committed to the maintenance of the key parts of the 84-93 economic reforms.’
To assert that Key’s leadership will be a much more moderate National Party is not to endorse him or his party. Chris Trotter has written an angry column about all the misinformed commentators that he suggests are merely apologists for National because they have ‘swallowed the carefully constructed myths’ about Key.
The analysis of Key in this post is merely how I see it. What is more, I think that National and the right will benefit from Key’s new moderate direction. In many ways Key will be more valuable to the right than Brash, whose chances of forming any kind of stable government in 2005 were always negligible. Key in contrast is much more switched on to the electorate and what coalition building requires. In particular, Key will not campaign negatively as Brash did. And he won’t run down the economy in critiquing Labour’s economic management.
There is no doubt that Key represents business and will push to look after their interests of the rich. After all, although he was once lived in a state house, he now lives in a $8m Parnell home, and is said to be personally worth about $50m. He and his wife apparently also own the following:
two properties in his West Auckland electorate of Helensville, a beach house north of Auckland, a share of a large dairy farm and commercial property here and overseas. They also have shares and options in Merrill Lynch, the investment bank whose dealing operations he headed for six years in London, and investments in several private companies.
But Key is not a born-to-rule Nat with little understanding of other perspectives. Obviously his background of being brought up by a Jewish Austrian widower in a Christchurch state house means he can’t be dismissed as your usual ruling class politician. What’s more, according to one article, his own mother ‘Mrs Key was also a staunch Labour supporter who loathed long-time National leader Robert Muldoon. "She thought he was a Nazi," Mr Key says.’
Clearly Key is going to bring some other perspectives and some credibility to National in eyes of many swing voters who will appreciate his ultra-flexibility.
While it is always good to see parties of the right retreat from their more rightwing positions, I don’t think that National’s newfound pragmatism is good for party politics in New Zealand. It will mean that political competition will be even more of a muddle in the middle, lacking proper choice. Even Ruth Richardson is quite correct in saying that Key’s elevation is a ‘retreat to the wishy-washy middle.’ She says the choice for the electorate will now be ‘Cullen and Cullen-lite’, and she is right in saying that ‘the demise of Brash means the bland will triumph.’
Furthermore, the flipside to Key’s pragmatic strength is his weakness to flip-flop on policy. He is clearly a politician who lacks bearings – except that of steering the party back on the journey towards the centre after its radicalism of the late 1980s and early 1990s. In this regard, Colin James astutely outlines the recent ideological past of National:
Since [the time of] Richardson National has threshed through four leaders' careers trying to recalibrate its compass, from Jim Bolger's implausible "decent society" through Jenny Shipley's reassertion of "National blue" over "coalition grey" and Bill English's premature, floundering new conservatism to Brash's divisive "iwi-Kiwi". "Iwi-Kiwi" produced the temporary bounce in the polls which restored National's belief in itself after its awful 21 per cent in 2002
Now National may have found its very own ‘end of history’ in which it can settle into being the tweedle-dee to tweedle-dum.
----------------------------------------
For other profiles on Key, see the following articles:
Nick Venter profiles Key as a rising star in 2004:
Colin James on how Key is business-friendly but rather moderately so
UPDATE: Where is National going?
National caucus has now elected its first ever woman chief whip - Anne Tolley. National is generally promoting many of its female MPs. Tolley jumps from 29 to 16 in the caucus rankings.
