Politics: brutal, petty, vain and alarmingly disconnected from the world most of us inhabit

It would be a gross overstatement to say we’ve seen politics at its worst over the past few weeks. Politics at its worst can involve assassinations, coups, repression, persecution, nepotism, violence and corruption, all of which we’ve been spared. But we’ve certainly seen politics at its most unlovely, at least in a liberal democracy: freighted with hubris, schadenfreude, vanity, infighting, score-settling, folly and self-pity.

If the drama surrounding the two changes of leadership in the National Party achieved nothing else, it at least served as a reminder of how unpleasant politics can seem to those outside it – and how damaging it can be to those seduced by its allure. We all know that politics is ultimately about the acquisition and exercise of power, but rarely do we see it displayed so nakedly.

First, there was hapless Todd Muller – an apparently decent man who allowed himself to be persuaded, or perhaps convinced himself, that destiny had chosen him to lead National out of the wasteland. He fell at the first hurdle, not so much because he failed the media’s confected front-bench diversity test as for his shambolic attempt, with comically inept assistance from Nikki Kaye, to justify himself to scalp-hunting political journalists.

You’d have thought that with all the media trainers available to them, Muller and Kaye would have anticipated the trap set for them and sorted out a response. That they didn’t marked them as ill-equipped to cope with a basic challenge facing every political leader – namely, dealing with an aggressive and querulous media that constantly probes for weaknesses.

It was basically downhill from there on. The media were never going to favour Muller – male, white, privileged, middle-aged and bland, if well-intentioned – with the honeymoon they gave (and are still giving) Jacinda Ardern.

Meanwhile, in the background, the deposed Paula Bennett was doing her strange disco-dancing thing with a comedian (a word which these days almost automatically calls for inverted commas) whom I would guess most New Zealanders – in other words, all those outside the political and social media bubble that some press gallery journalists apparently believe represents the real world – had never heard of.

Video of Bennett and Tom Sainsbury dancing to I Will Survive was repeatedly replayed on media platforms, no doubt to the puzzlement of many who watched it. We were told this was Bennett, the street-fighter from West Auckland, exacting her revenge on those who dumped her, but I suspect the point of the “hilarious” video (as the New Zealand Herald described it) was probably lost on anyone outside the incestuous and self-absorbed world occupied by press gallery journalists and political obsessives. In other words, it was a political in-joke. To coin a phrase, you had to be there.  

As it turned out, the sequence of events that eventually led to Muller standing down was triggered not by disaffected losers in the caucus power struggle, but by a rogue first-term MP who, in a clumsy attempt to defend himself after issuing an alarmist statement that sought to stoke fears about Asian immigrants spreading coronavirus, blindsided his leader by leaking the personal details of people who had tested positive for Covid-19.

Muller acted reasonably promptly in cutting Hamish Walker loose but by then the crisis had assumed almost unstoppable momentum, destabilising the party caucus and piling more pressure on a leader who was already clearly struggling to cope.

Walker thus becomes the second consecutive Clutha-Southland MP, after Todd Barclay, to march into political oblivion (and obloquy) after just one term in office. The irony is that as holders of the safest of all National electorates, Walker and Barclay, had they behaved themselves, could have looked forward to a job for life.

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to lose one junior MP in a deep-blue seat may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness. Senior figures in National might do well to ask themselves what it is about the party’s selection process that results in the election of cocky young men (Barclay was elected at the age of 24, Walker at 32) with an apparent Masters of the Universe complex.  The name of Aaron “Do you know who I am?” Gilmore, who quit Parliament in disgrace in 2013 after bullying a Hanmer Springs waiter, also comes to mind.

But of course Walker’s was not the only head to roll as a result of the Covid-19 breach of privacy. Michelle Boag’s fall from grace, as the leaker who abused her position as acting CEO of Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust, was far more spectacular.  

Boag has long been regarded as a political kingmaker, wielding influence behind the scenes (well, mostly behind the scenes) via a formidable network of political and business connections. Her strategy, as far as I can tell (and I stress that I speak with no inside knowledge), has been to make herself indispensable as an adviser to those in power and those who aspire to it. Go back as far as the Winebox inquiry of the 1990s, where she acted for merchant bankers Fay Richwhite, and you can see her fingerprints everywhere.

She has long struck me as one of those people who get an adrenalin buzz out of proximity to power. I suspect this can become something of an addiction, and Boag herself seemed to confirm as much with a remarkable mea culpa in which she admitted an “unhealthy” relationship with politics that had put her on a “self-destructive path”.

Power is the common factor here. We don’t need Lord Acton’s famous axiom to know that the desire to exercise power, or even simply be close to it, can erode values, warp judgment and compromise principles.

There have been other reminders lately of the seediness of politics. Judith Collins used her just-published memoir to settle an old score with John Key, but in doing so also revived memories of the opaque machinations surrounding her damaging association with the blogger Cameron Slater in 2014. 

And just to prove that politics can be equally unattractive on the Labour side, sacked minister and departing MP Clare Curran recently gave an exit interview to Spinoff journalist Donna Chisholm in which she oozed self-pity and, while purporting to nobly accept responsibility for her own failings, simultaneously sought to put the blame on the toxicity and bullying she claimed to have been subjected to.

All of this adds up to a deeply unflattering picture of politics and the politicians who supposedly represent and serve us. It looks petty, vain, self-centred and alarmingly disconnected from the world most of us inhabit.

Muller’s departure in particular raises a worrying question: if politics is this brutal and damaging (Audrey Young of the Herald reported today that Muller had experienced a breakdown), who in their right mind would put their hand up for election? Do we really want a political environment so toxic that only sociopaths and egomaniacs will be prepared to stand for office?

Unfortunately, the news media must accept some responsibility for this state of affairs. Coverage of politics has become a blood sport in which aggressive pack leaders such as Newshub’s Tova O’Brien constantly crank up the heat and the pressure on political players. To use a phrase made famous by the British Conservative prime minister Stanley Baldwin, the media exercise power without responsibility. They may claim to be acting on our behalf but their central purpose is to produce drama for the six o’clock bulletin. The blood they leave on the floor is someone else’s problem.

 

PUTTING THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE

Fran O’Sullivan has an excellent commentary in today’s New Zealand Herald setting out aspects of the ACC fiasco that the rest of the media has largely ignored.

While journalists and the government’s political opponents focus on shortcomings within ACC – and can claim the scalps of former ACC minister Nick Smith and now ACC chair John Judge as well – it’s clear that a huge part of the problem, right from the outset, has been the determination of claimant Bronwyn Pullar and her advocate, former National Party president Michelle Boag, to exploit their political connections to advance Pullar’s case.

Some of those connections, notably Smith and ACC deputy chair John McCliskie, whom O’Sullivan says unwisely agreed to intervene on Pullar’s behalf, have exacerbated the affair by getting involved when they should have seen the danger signs – Pullar might as well have had a flashing red light surgically implanted in her skull – and stayed well clear. But their bad judgment shouldn’t be allowed to obscure the fact that Pullar and Boag have used their contacts, inside knowledge and media savvy to pull every string they can in order to extract a settlement on the most advantageous terms.

These women take no prisoners. Pullar clearly has a highly developed sense of entitlement and isn’t content to take her place in the ACC queue along with the hoi-polloi. She and Boag have used a repertoire of sophisticated tactics not available to run-of-the-mill ACC claimants, and while they have presumably operated entirely within the law, I don’t buy the spin that Pullar is the helpless victim that she has been made out to be. O’Sullivan’s piece helps put the whole malodorous affair in perspective.

Meanwhile, the old forces of the Left have seized the moment and are seeking to exploit the ACC crisis by pushing for a complete cleanout of the corporation’s board and a return to a more “client-focused” culture.

Lawyer Hazel Armstrong, an accident compensation specialist who previously served on the ACC board herself and has deep connections with the union movement, urged on Morning Report this morning that a revamped board should include union representatives. Well, she would say that, wouldn’t she? Unions have wielded powerful influence over the ACC in the past – the Labour government made Ross Wilson chairman after he resigned as head of the Council of Trade Unions – and would like nothing more than to regain control. But unions represent less than 18 percent of the labour force; why should anyone assume that union officials speak for ACC claimants?

Armstrong talks about rebuilding trust, but I suspect that what the unions and union-friendly accident compensation lawyers really want is a return to the soft, benign ACC culture of the past. It may well be that the ACC is in need of a tune-up, and that some of its staff need reminding that claimants shouldn’t be seen as the enemy. But we shouldn’t forget that when National came to power in 2008, ACC was a financial basket-case. As O’Sullivan reminds us in her article this morning, that has since been remedied.

The Left gripes that under the present ACC regime, the bottom line is all that matters. The problem is that under previous administrations, it sometimes didn’t seem to matter at all.