No use being right in wrong environment

Had Don Brash led the National party to victory in 2005, as he very nearly did,  New Zealand would be a different place.

But how different?

Some of the expensive bribes with which Labour bought votes would not have been implemented. But unless National had won by a large majority many of the policies which then-leader Brash promoted would have been vetoed by his coalition partners – probably New Zealand First and the Maori Party.

It might have been able to pass some of the harder line policies but it would almost certainly have been a one-term government.

That is something that John Key and his caucus have been very mindful of, to the frustration of those further right.

Brash and others on the darker blue end of the political spectrum, including some National members and supporters, lament that the government hasn’t done enough this term.

In doing so they overlook the fact that the party swallowed several dead rats before the last election. Mindful of the damage broken promises did to the electorate’s trust of National in the past, it was determined to keep the rats down.

Critics also appear to forget that popular as the party and its leader is, they do not have a majority, they have to negotiate with coalition partners. They could pass legislation without one of those parties but would need Labour or the Green Party on side to enact anything without both of them and that is unlikely.

This is the reality of MMP and coalition governments which Brash appears to overlook in criticism of National and desire to lead Act

Whether or not he’s right in what he advocates in theory, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement many of the policies he holds dear in practice. There would not be sufficient electoral support for them.

National spent nine long years in opposition watching the country go backwards. In spite of an unprecedented combination of financial and natural disasters, it has managed to tweak the tiller and get the supertanker of the economy going in the right direction again.

In doing so it has got the message through to a significant number of voters that borrow and spend policies can’t continue. The only way to deliver the economic, environmental and social policies most people want is through savings, investment and export-led growth.

It is possible that it could have done more – Act would almost certainly have supported a tougher stance on some policies. But that would have been a recipe for a one-term government.

We didn’t get in this mess overnight and we won’t get out of it in a single term.

National has its eye on long term change and knows that if it loses electoral support the hard-won gains will be lost.

A mini might have right of way when the traffic light turns green but it would be stupid to take it if a juggernaut was running a red light at the same intersection. That’s what’s called being right in the wrong environment and it’s not a safe place to be.

A party which takes the right of way and collides with public opinion in doing so will get crushed. 

Giving way on some things and taking people with them might frustrate people who see an urgent need for radical change.

But going a bit slower is more likely to be successful than lurching one way and losing electoral support which enables a new government to come in at the next election, lurch back and reverse any progress made.