Don Brash

John Armstrong talks about Mark Mitchell being asked to take a dive to let Colin Craig win Rodney to give National a life line. The precedent is when Don Brash endorsed Rodney Hide in Epsom, at the expense of Richard Worth, and Paul Goldsmith was told not to campaign in Epsom in exchange for a safe list position.

The difference between Worth, Goldsmith and Mitchell is Mitchell has a safe blue seat, he has a 20 year career ahead of him, and like most National back benchers it is in his best interests to see National go into opposition so he can get a promotion when all the senior people leave.

Richard Worth was dependent on Don Brash for a job after 2005 so he toed the line. Paul Goldsmith does what he is told and knew what he was getting into when he ran for Epsom. Paul has admirable ideological perspectives but this does not necessarily translate to vote winning. Mark Mitchell, on the other hand, has huge vote winning potential, a strong electorate infrastructure who are now all behind him, and a bright future that becomes only brighter if National loses in 2014.

It is hard to see Mark Mitchell take a dive. A guy who has a track record like Mark likes a scrap, and won’t shy away from one no matter who it is with. Peter Goodfellow is scarcely going to have him quivering in his boots. Mark is used to facing really scary people like armed offenders as a police officer and a whole lot of seriously bad, heavily armed arabs in the middle east, hell bent on killing him.

Really stern words from Peter Goodfellow or Greg Hamilton will likely be met with a polite “Get Fucked”. Far better that National looks to throw McCully under the bus if they really want Colin Craig holding them to ransom.

The continuation of David Garrett’s guest posts on the Rise and Fall of the Act Party.

Previous installments: Part one, Part two.

Decline and fall ? Part III

In April 2011 Rodney Hide told Don Brash  he would support Brash as leader of ACT, thus putting to an end what was in effect a hostile takeover, and the public washing of dirty laundry which was  by then occurring almost  daily.  Things came to a head rather quickly, which meant the “setup” the day after the leadership change  was odd, to say the least.

Brash was the leader of a party he had joined two days before, but had no seat in the House. Rodney and John Boscawen were both MP’s and  Ministers of the Crown.  Brash wanted Rodney gone – from parliament if not the earth – because Brash  viewed Hide as “toxic”, and the proximate cause of all of ACT’s problems. In his imagined perfect world, Hide would  simply disappear, and be replaced as MP for Epsom  by John Banks, a man who did not seem any kind of “fit” with many of ACT’s  principles.

However, Hide had the confidence of the Prime Minister, and was also committed to being the “best MP for Epsom”, a position he had won and then held at two successive  general elections. He saw no reason to resign from either position, and in my view he was quite justified in  seeing  things that way. Whether one agreed or disagreed with Hide’s strategic view, there had never been any question of his competence or work rate, either as a Minister or an MP.

ACT MP John Boscawen looks on at a press conference after the first ACT Party Caucus Meeting on May 3, 2011 in Wellington, New Zealand. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

The situation was ripe for the kind of shambles that is now ironically being played out a year or so later – an ongoing and unwelcome distraction for the government, and daily further ignominy for ACT. Thankfully for all concerned, fate had delivered   John Boscawen as Deputy Leader of the Party,  a man disliked by no-one important, and trusted by anyone who mattered  as an honest broker.

One could write another book – albeit an  unsaleable one  – on the machinations which occurred in an attempt  to resolve the apparent impasse. When the smoke cleared, Brash had agreed not to continue trying to rid himself of Hide “by lunch time”, Hide had agreed to step down at the 2014 election, Boscawen became the leader of the parliamentary caucus, and the bit players continued their roles.

While all this was happening,  back at party HQ Brash was selling the idea of his mate Banks succeeding Hide as candidate and then MP for Epsom.  Those with much longer track records in ACT than me remain puzzled how Brash convinced the Board to accept Banks as the vehicle for bringing Brash himself, and presumably one or two others into parliament at the 2014 election.

Everyone else has a theory, so here’s mine. Brash had promised the Board two things if he was leader of the Party. First,  that he would bring in large sums of money which would not be forthcoming if Hide remained. Second, he would increase the Party’s vote at the election later in the year to at least 15%. It is hugely ironic given the public perception of ACT as “the rich pricks party” that in the first quarter of 2011 it was as usual broke, and scrabbling to pay the bills.

We now know that the party managed to raise and spend almost $1.3 million at the 2011 election. Presumably,  some of that money had begun to flow in  as soon as Brash became leader. If so, it  seems credible  to assume that the Board were persuaded that Brash was indeed  the new messiah – after all he had pulled off a coup that had seemed laughable only weeks before, and his promises of being able to deliver money were coming to fruition. Surely a party vote of  15% – Brash apparently thought it would be more like  40% – was as deliverable as the money?  As long as  they followed the prescription of the good doctor.

So Banks was confirmed as MP in waiting in Epsom, and the train clattered on, its couplings increasingly strained, but still in one piece. For a while, it must have seemed that the storm clouds had cleared, and after November 2011, there would be a solid ACT caucus of Brash, Banks, John Boscawen and two or three others. Senior ACToids have apparently always been very optimistic.

Then, a new bombshell. John Boscawen announced he would not contest the election and would retire from politics “to spend more time with his family”, a well used political cliché normally employed to cover up something sinister. Since John is unmarried and has no children, it was assumed by the feverish media that the real reason for John’s decision must surely be something else. Wrong again. John meant exactly what he said, and knowing him as I do, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone had to explain to him  what the cliche normally meant.

For me, the next seemingly inexplicable decision was to abandon the Party’s law and order focus completely in favour of education and the usual “market forces and deregulation” economic policies. This despite the Party having achieved a major victory in the “three strikes” legislation, and  for that and other reasons, having the tacit support of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, probably New Zealand’s most effective lobby group.

The appointment of a 25 year old university student as Justice Spokesman, and the concurrent  release of some totally silly policies led quickly  to Garth McVicar publicly telling his supporters that ACT had lost its way, and urging them to consider which other party best articulated SST’s goals. This was a not-so-subtle steer in the direction of the fledging Conservatives. The result?  ACT got  a lower Party vote than the Mana Party, and the Conservatives – which none of the pundits  had  taken  seriously – got 2.8%,  six months after being formed. Coincidence? Who knows.

Then three months after the worst election result in its history, the Banks fiasco. A week is certainly a long time in politics, and who knows what the coming  sitting week will bring. Every political columnist has a theory or a prediction. The end of the week could see anything from Banks resigning from parliament – which in my view is unlikely – to the vultures in the mainstream media finding some new sideshow upon which to demonstrate how far the fourth estate has fallen since the likes of Ian Templeton or even Barry Soper began their careers as political journalists.

I understand that much of the debacle surrounding Banks stems from his refusal to take advice – which must surely have been to  STFU and keep his head down. As Rodney Hide noted last Sunday, Banks is a politician from another era. He was used to Ministers giving press conferences – from which they might exclude journos they didn’t like. He was used to  a time when journalists called Ministers “Mister” and wouldn’t dream of chasing  them through building lobbies thrusting microphones up their noses. He must think he has mysteriously found himself elected to  a foreign and not the New Zealand parliament. As they say, the past is another country.

Can ACT survive all this? Who knows.  Hide and others have pointed out that ACT has been written off many times, but Phoenix like, somehow always rises again. For what it is worth, I doubt it can survive the collective  blows inflicted on it which I have traversed in these three posts.  Even if it does manage to stay alive to  contest the next election, if the Conservative Party can avoid being branded “just another bunch of God botherers” and do significantly better than ACT in 2014,  I believe, with some sadness, that  would indeed be the final ACT, and the end of a remarkable story.

Decline and Fall? Part II

As the cliché has it, a week is a long time in politics. There may never have been – at least in New Zealand – a better example of that maxim than the week of 13 to 19 September 2010. I began the week giving a speech on “three strikes” to a Rotary Club in East Auckland on the Monday evening. The “three strikes” law had passed, and I was doing everything I could to communicate to voters that it was a major policy win for ACT. By the following Friday, I had resigned from the ACT caucus in disgrace, and was on the run in the South Island, trying to shield my children from the howling dogs in the media who were trying to find us.

The reason for my downfall has been written about ad nauseum – including by me – and there is little point going over old ground here. Suffice it to say if Rodney’s trip to Europe was the first large nail in ACT’s coffin, for those whose agenda was personal aggrandizement rather than the interests of the party, my downfall was a godsend.

To the best of my knowledge, my friend Roger Douglas never joined the “Hide brought Garrett into the party and therefore it’s all his fault” bandwagon, although he certainly would not have been unhappy that Rodney was once again having to endure a grilling from both the media and those in the Party who were determined that he should be replaced.

WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND - MAY 03: ACT MP Heather Roy talks to media after the first ACT Party Caucus Meeting on May 3, 2011 in Wellington (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

Heather Roy however suddenly developed a serious case of amnesia about what had been discussed in my office in Albany when I disclosed the details of my sorry scam 27 years before. Following her own agenda, she was at the front of the “it’s all Hide’s fault” pack of baying hounds determined that my downfall would quickly be followed by Hide’s.

Following my resignation, I was largely out of the loop, but I record my everlasting gratitude to John Boscawen, who continued to extol my virtues and my achievement with “three strikes”, and was personally a great support to me and my family during the worst crisis of our lives. John Boscawen’s decision to leave politics immediately prior to the 2011 election was another mortal blow to the ACT Party. John is one of those rare people who no-one dislikes, but who also holds firmly to his principles, and is totally unafraid to stand out from the herd. I am very honoured to count him among my few true friends.

The real problem for Rodney following my departure was my replacement, Hilary Calvert, a long time ACT stalwart from Dunedin. From my limited acquaintance with her, Hilary is a delightful woman, but she quickly became known for a series of gaffes, and she provided even better sport for the left leaning media than I had been. More importantly, whereas with me the ACT caucus was firmly 3 -2 behind Rodney as leader, Hilary’s loyalties were soon revealed to be far less committed.

When the end came for Rodney seven months after her arrival, Hilary’s support for Don Brash over Rodney became decisive.

Don Brash – in many respects a most unlikely politician – had led National in 2005, and but for the debacle involving the Exclusive Brethren church, probably would have led National to victory in the election that year. There is certainly no doubt that his “Orewa” speeches about “one law for all” – another long time ACT policy – were directly responsible for the National Party virtually doubling their vote as compared with the previous election in 2002. The quite brilliant John Ansell billboards – the best of them the now legendary “Kiwi not iwi” series - reflected the concerns of middle New Zealand, and expressed in visual sound bites what Brash had articulated in much more detail in the speeches.

Following National’s defeat by a whisker in 2005, Brash was quickly replaced as leader by John Key, and Don largely disappeared off the political radar – although I do recall him not infrequently coming into the chamber and watching the proceedings from beside the Speaker’s chair, as all former MP’s are entitled to do. Clearly “the Don” was not finished with politics.

At one time, Brash was known among ACT insiders as “ACT’s tenth MP”. His sympathies were and clearly always had been in favour of the free market, limited government, a hard line on law and order, and no laws favouring one race of New Zealander over others – all key ACT policies. That notwithstanding, during February and March 2011, as it appeared more and more obvious that he would challenge Rodney for the leadership, no-one anywhere on the political spectrum could quite believe it. Political soufflés rarely rise twice – particularly in two different parties.

Two who did rise a second time were Brash – albeit fleetingly – and Peters.

Leaving aside differences in political principles and beliefs, the contrast between the wily, suave and teflon coated Peters and the bumbling Brash could not be more stark. That is the main reason no-one in ACT – or the media – initially took Brash seriously.

But by early 2011, ACT’s poll support was dismal, and major backers had deserted the Party. Brash promised that he would rejuvenate the Party’s fortunes – both in financial terms and in the polls. There is no doubt he truly believed that the 40% odd support National had gained in 2005 was down to him personally, and that were he to be leader, ACT’s support among voters would leap dramatically.

AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND - APRIL 28: Dr Don Brash speaks to the media after ACT leader Rodney Hide resigned.

As the “Mr Magoo” like Brash managed one astonishing and unexpected triumph after another in his drive for the leadership of ACT, the tide against Hide became stronger and stronger. Hilary Calvert – whose vote in support of Hide was crucial – changed sides a number of times. Eventually, even the loyal and stalwart John Boscawen came to believe that Rodney ought to step down for the good of the Party.

I firmly believe Rodney Hide always had the good of the Party – and the country – paramount in his mind. Although he has been accused of “selling out for the baubles of office”, I am convinced that is not the case. As a recent interview with the reptilian Guyon Espiner makes clear, once Rodney saw the writing clearly on the wall, he did his best to assist Brash carry off his coup – although he did draw the line when Brash asked him where he should park his car before administering the coup de grace at ACT headquarters in Newmarket, before a phalanx of eager reporters and their cameras

I watched that press conference from a back room, and after it was over, saw Rodney take Brash into a private meeting with then Chief of Staff Peter Keenan to discuss the mechanics of the handover. I was astounded at Hide’s dignity and apparent good humour, when a lesser man would, at the very least, have simply walked off and left Brash to it.

And so Dr Don Brash – who joined ACT on the day of the coup which made him leader – took over the reins of the party, firmly convinced that in short order he would deliver not the 15% of the vote which he publicly claimed, but the 40% he truly believed would defect from National and follow him to ACT. The third four inch nail in the ACT coffin – the first two being Rodney’s disastrous trip, and my departure in disgrace – was nailed home.

News is everywhere that David Shearer has officially selected Alistair Cameron as his new Chief of Staff.  Or has he?

From where I sit it looks very much as though Grant Robertson has selected HIS new Chief of Staff.

Let’s have a look at a few aspects of Alistair and you decide if he is ‘somewhat’ aligned to Robertson:

1. Worked with Robertson in Beehive days
2. Was the architect of Teletubby Hobbs’ train wreck (Oooh, can’t wait for that with Shearer)
3. Is an active member of the rainbow faction
4. Is great personal friends with Robertson and his partner, Alf.

Oh yes, he sounds like a Chief of Staff who will have the best interests of Labour’s Leader at heart. Or should that be the Deputy Leader?

Let’s then look at his suitability for the role.

Positives:

• Grant’s mate

Negatives:

• a lawyer specialising in ETS and climate change
• Questionable political management skills as was part of Hobbs trainwreck
• Close friend of Robertson so will undermine Shearer’s leadership
• No mongrel
• Chair of AIDS Foundation
• Never worked in Opposition

It should be noted that in recent political history that a change of Chief of Staff has always preceded a coup.

Bill English had Sue Foley and then briefly Glenda Hughes before Richard Long came in. Shortly there after Don Brash knifed Bill English.

Richard Long remained as Chief of Staff until Wayne Eagleson replaced him and then John Key knifed Don Brash.

So there is certainly a political precedent for a change of Chief of Staff leading shortly thereafter to a coup. The interesting part therefore is upon, that is the the coup…which is certainly shaping up to be a 3 way battle between Shearer, Robertson and Cunliffe.

Time to invest in popcorn futures.

ᔥ the tipline

Whale

As an anonymous but reliable source I want you to know that when serial rooter Trevor Mallard outed Don Brash for running one up Dianne Foreman, Trev spent the next few weeks crapping himself because a jealous husband in Trev’s electorate sent Don a message telling him that Trev had been tupping his wife.

Don was too much of a gentleman to do anything about it, but Tau Henare has never been concerned about gentlemanly conduct, so goaded Trev and Trev ended up being prosecuted.

Your friendly anonymous and reliable source.

Gee that’s a bit of a conflict of interest, I wonder if even the wife gave two ticks for National after that little episode?

This comment by Ronnie Johns Chopper best sums up my feelings on Kevin Rudd’s bottled coup attempt:

By all accounts Kevin Rudd has bottled his coup attempt and appear to not have the numbers. Then again neither did Don Brash…twice.

David Shearer is missing in action.

This week of all weeks he needed to be front and centre, leading debate on all things political.

In more than six years there has never been an opportunity like a meddlesome judge throwing foreign ownership back on the plate, asset sales and a Finance Minister with incredibly loose lips, and the appearance of political interference by political appointees…all in the same week.

Where was David Shearer?

Missing in Action. Sure he was in the house but Labour is intent on following National’s poorly thought out play book that they used for Don Brash. They are protecting Shearer in parliament and letting others smack up ministers…the only problem is they are bombing their opportunities.

Clare Curran has appalling delivery, she tried for three days straight to shoot a possum, startled in the headlights and missed every time. She would stand to ask questions and take the call despite having no idea what question it was that she was going to ask…she would uhhmm and ahhh and make up her question on the fly and bomb it. She should have spanked Craig Foss who isn’t living up to all his Gilmore-esque hype. She failed.

David Shearer ceded the asset sales and foreign ownership debate to Winston Peters, who is looking more and more like the leader of the opposition…or at the very least like a co-leader with Russel Norman.

By fronting Campbell Live together with Winston Peters he put Winston on the same level as him. And Winston Peters, in one of his more lucid moments pwnd David Shearer.

David Shearer should never have fronted with Winston Peters, but then again it may have been part of the deal he made at less than secret dinner at Trade Kitchen on Wednesday night. Another part of that dinner deal was the handing of an additional parliamentary question from labour to Winston Peters on the Crafar farm issue.

Winston was given the question ostensibly to land a hit on the Prime Minister. It failed, Winston bombed the question…leaving me questioning why Labour would even bother handing a platform to Winston Peters again. If they had taken just a moment of thought they would have withheld that question, the Prime Minister is never int he house on Thursday anyway, and neither was David Shearer.

The fact that Winston Peters bombed the question shows what a poorly thought out decision it was, and then when Clare Curran was left hanging just when she really needed another question to smash Craig Foss in the face it wasn’t there. This was a poor house strategy, one can only imagine that Trevor Mallard was distracted with his own problems to have thought that one through properly.

Which brings me to the Mallard Problem that David Shearer faces. Trevor Mallard destroyed any momentum Labour had this week. Totally and utterly destroyed…once again through ineptitude and political stupidity labour was left shaking their collective heads at their political strategist.

When the issue broke Labour’s leadership ordered Mallard to apologise, repay and shut up. He chose to ignore them all despite repeated attempts to silence him. He went on a one man rampage through the media trying to justify a position that could not ever be justified. He proved himself to be an embarrassment and he still has not used the hardest word.

Trevor Mallard thumbing his nose at the leadership is the very obvious signal to every one watching on from the beltway outwards that David Shearer is not  control of his party. He needs to show some leadership and show it quickly. Trevor Mallard provides him with a perfect opportunity.

If I was David Shearer what I would do is immediately strip him of his Shadow Leader of the House position and find him a seat out of camera shot of the front bench. I would remove his spokesperson role for America’s Cup and give him something that requires zero travel…like Statistics or something equally demeaning. When he throws his toys, as he will as sure as the sun rises each morning, then I would invite him to resign his seat, he may as well anyway because I would be explaining to Trevor that with the loaded constitution of the party it is very unlikely he will get selected in Hutt South ever again. He may like to think that the residents of Hutt South love him but the political reality is that the rest of the country hates him.

Unless it is over politically for Trevor Mallard it will be over politically for David Shearer.

Don Brash did it, twice…it is a play that is straight from the leadership coup playbook:

In the days before challenging Kevin Rudd for the prime ministership, Julia Gillard personally handed to her Labor colleagues copies of secret internal polling designed to undermine his leadership.

Labor MPs told Fairfax that Ms Gillard used the polling as part of an effort to persuade them to support her for the prime ministership.

The revelation casts fresh doubt on Ms Gillard’s protestations that she was a reluctant challenger who decided to move against her leader only at the last minute – on the day she openly declared herself.

Heh, straight from the playbook:

In the days before the strike on Mr Rudd on June 23, 2010, his deputy prime minister told some members of the caucus she believed the Rudd government was heading for electoral disaster and gave them copies of the polling to drive the point home.

The polling, which the Herald has seen, included a comparison between her and Mr Rudd that showed Ms Gillard favourably. In contrasting word-clouds of voters’ most common, one-word descriptions, the dominant words for Mr Rudd were “arrogant” and “weak”. The dominant words for Ms Gillard were “strong” and “capable.”

Party polling is supposed to be kept confidential between the federal secretariat, which organises the research and polling program, and the leader’s office.

I’m not sure what David Shearer’s advisors are thinking after the first week back in parliament finished on Thursday.

They certainly won’t be lauding it as a huge success, that is unless they are following National’s playbook on leadership minimisation that they last used when Don Brash was their leader.

Back then, after he rolled Bill English, National’s brains trust thought up a way to protect the thoroughly intelligent policy wonk who was in reality politically dim.

Their method was a  couple of tame questions focussing on areas of Don’s expertise and then more questions by other “stars” of the caucus would enable them to avoid the inevitable scrutiny that would eventually trip up the affable leader.

It didn’t work because back then Labour just ignored him and waited, and waited until the inevitable lack of traction and then pounced, bashing him up one side and down the other in the house. Don Brash had to change, he was forced into it by Labour.

Then came Orewa.

I don’t think David Shearer has got an Orewa speech in him. I just don’t see it. But right now he is being protected, or is it perhaps ignored by his caucus. The questions he asked in the house this week were tame, weak actually, ineptly delivered and ineffectual. Even Trevor Mallard refused to call him his leader instead preferring the term “colleague” in what can only been a calculated slight against the leader.

Labour’s caucus isn’t united. They simply weren’t cleaned out as badly as National was in 2002. The factions still exist. Now there is the oldies faction. You know they still have control because Annette King is still fronting against Steven Joyce on NewstalkZB. Trevor Mallard struggles to his feet to defend the young ones and Winston and Phil Goff is sitting there looking over Shearer’s shoulder with Darien Fenton scowling at us all as though we were the enemy.

Right along the opposition benches too is Winston Peters who after this week can claim the title of Leader of the Opposition, not because of his performance, which was dreadful but simply because Shearer ceded control of the opposition benches to Winston and his motley crue by being missing in action.

About the only things that David Shearer hasn’t done which Don Brash did is work his way through the skirt relentlessly, described his favourite dishes made with corned beef or washed his undies in motel sinks. Things are going to have to change otherwise Labour is ceding their role as opposition to the fools of NZ First.

Right now from where I am looking at it, David Shearer and Labour certainly look like Don Brash and National prior to Orewa.

This is the secret that John Banks wanted no one to know. He thought Don Brash was a “strange fella”.

John Key didn’t disagree.