How Brash won
The evidence in the Sunday Star-Times today that Don Brash received advice about his toppling of Bill English from a line-up of Rogernomes should come as no surprise. He has always been thought of as a man who believed our New Right reforms of the 1980s and 1990s didn’t go far enough - as someone who is here to finish the job. Nevertheless, the line-up of Rogernomes is impressively long: Ruth Richardson, Roger Douglas himself, Roger Kerr, Act organiser Brian Nicolle, NBR publisher Barry Colman, and various other Business Roundtable members.
This does add weight to the suggestion that Dr Brash’s attempts to present himself as a reasonable, moderate centrist are little more than window-dressing: a “noble lie”, as Brash might put it.
To place this in context, imagine if Alliance members (back when that party was viable) helped a member at the far-left of the Labour caucus win its leadership. Imagine if Matt McCarten and co engineered a takeover of Labour by its most stridently left-leaning MPs. The conservative parties in Parliament would be apoplectic, and paint a picture of a looming period of communism in New Zealand if Labour won office.
However, Brash’s ideological positioning is now reasonably well known, so the most interesting question for me is who is leaking all these embarrassing documents three weeks before an election. There are two possible explanations: Act supporters pissed off that National isn’t cutting them a deal in Epsom, or members of the National Party who wish to undermine Brash in the hope of picking up the leadership post-election. The divisions within the National caucus are notorious, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if there is already jockeying going on for the post-Brash era.
Whatever the explanation: this kind of thing is seriously distracting for a party trying to stay on the tax message 24/7. Brash must be pulling his hair out at the indiscipline bedevilling his party in recent days.
August 28th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Not much hair to pull out.
Here are the people I can see toppling Brash as soon as humanly possible:
John Key - not as stupid
Gerry Brownlee - can debate against girls
Tony Ryall - looks like a Don Brash caricature with an exagerated combover.
It’ll obviously take ’till after the election, but it’ll happen win-or-lose!
August 28th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Can we please get UN weapons inspectors in here, stat - I smell weapons of mass distraction here.
August 28th, 2005 at 4:39 pm
fwwog look yous dont get too tight like you blames us to be, yous talk yuself in circle fwwog you ramping and ramping between yous so much left jingo sexist green talk jungle,
big deal fwwog, you win, helengrad 3, doom,
lose bright best genetically advanced peoples fwwog,l
August 28th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
I liked your analogy. would have been more accurate if it had the Greens allegedly advising on a Labour coup.
This reminds me of my most fundamental issue with the “new right”, and that is that many of them have an open contempt for the democratic process, and by extension their fellow citizens. Roger and Ruth et al knew that their policies would be extremely unpopular, so did they come out and openly argue their case and try to convince the voters? Did they accept they might lose? No, they basically lied. And still express no regret.
Brash seems increasingly to be of the same mold.
August 28th, 2005 at 6:42 pm
Jingyang:
With all due respect, what the hell are you going on about? I think you’ve just laid out the reason why this story is just going to flop like a fat man diving into an empty swimming pool - paranoid conspiracy mongering doesn’t really go down well outside the flaming fringes.
August 28th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
Craig - This is the Green party, you mean we don’t qualify as a flaming fringe?
respectfully BJ
August 28th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
BJ:
I think even the Greens can do a damn sight better than turning the world into some hyper-paranoiac Oliver Stone script.
August 28th, 2005 at 8:28 pm
Heh.. yeah that’s why I’m here :p
If (*ahem*) National looses how long to you peeps thing Brash will be around for?
August 28th, 2005 at 8:47 pm
Craig - You should read the Conyers report.
August 28th, 2005 at 10:41 pm
Stymied:
Much longer than Clark will if she loses - and I’m not being facetious.
August 29th, 2005 at 2:48 am
Craig, did I say anything about conspiracy theories? I fail to see where. It is a pretty secret that the Rogernomes didn’t have have a lot of respect for the democratic process, as evidenced by their behaviour in power, and I would say much the same about Ruth and her cronies.
As i said, i think Brash is in the same mold. Where is the conspiracy?
August 29th, 2005 at 7:11 am
sorry, i meant to type open secret.