The election review the National Party board instigated is finished and the full report is being kept confidential:
Newshub understands the National Party has created two versions of its election review – the full report, and a sanitised version with all the “gory details taken out”, according to one party insider.
In an email to party members sent on Tuesday morning, National Party President Peter Goodfellow explained the move.
“I hope you can appreciate that we are unable to publish a copy of the Review Report online. To do so would give our political opponents the much-needed distraction they want from us holding the Government to account for its failings. We will not allow that to happen.”
Given that leaks were part of the problem, this is reasonable and sensible.
Newshub has been told the membership is frustrated with the closed process, that there is anger about how tightly held the report has been after everyone was asked to be open and share details during the actual review process. . .
Which part of the membership and how many members?
National is still the only party that still has 10s of thousands of members. Was a representative sample asked for their views?
I wasn‘t and I am neither angry nor frustrated with the closed process.
I was angry and frustrated over the fact that the party didn’t have a strategy for loss after the 2017 election, that MPs didn’t learn from the mistakes made by the party after the 1999 loss and almost nine years of Labour MPs doing stupid things for almost nine years from 2008.
I was angry and frustrated over the way MPs leaked and showed disloyalty not just to successive leaders but to the party and its members.
I made my feelings quite clear when invited, as all members were, to contribute to the review but that’s in the past and I support the board’s decision to hold back the full report.
We’ve been invited to a series of meetings to learn what’s in the report and the response to it.
We’ll learn what we need to know then and that is what matters.
It’s was a party review and it’s a party report. The public will be able to judge whether it makes a difference but there’s no need for them, or all party members, to know the nitty gritty details.