Speaking in public tops most people’s list of fearful situations. There are some careers, however, for which public fluency is a non-negotiable pre-requisite. There’s little point in pursuing an acting career, for example, if you’re frightened of audiences. The same applies to anyone intending to pursue a career in politics. There’s a reason why the study of rhetoric was part-and-parcel of a young nobleman’s education for a thousand years. Those who wish to rule their fellow human-beings non-violently, must be able to speak to them persuasively.
It is not, however, an easy skill to master. One of the more important reasons for maintaining political parties is to allow the idealistic and the ambitious to perfect the art of public speaking in an environment that is not, in the strictest sense, public. Party meetings and conferences are realistically political, but what is said there is unlikely to inflict serious damage upon party leaders. Seasoned observers know that most conference delegates are amateurs, and that their utterances are not to be taken all that seriously.
Which is not to say that a shrewd political journalist will not be rewarded for keeping a watchful eye on low-level party gatherings such as regional conferences. In among a great deal of rhetorical dross, attentive journalists do occasionally encounter a truly outstanding public speaker. One whose understanding of the subject under discussion, evocative language, and all-round command of both themselves and their audience positively screams: “One to watch!”
As the years pass, and one party conference follows another, these outstanding performers may be observed rising steadily through the ranks. Some, of course, will fall by the wayside – victims of their own inflated assessment of their political importance. But, those whose political instincts are sound – i.e. those who avoid rocking the boat too vigorously – are generally rewarded with their party’s nomination. Not for a winnable seat, at least, not first off, but in order to further hone their political skills – under live fire.
One of the most important skills a candidate can master in these preliminary electoral bouts is that of resisting the temptation of telling voters what they want to hear. At just about every election meeting there will be an opportunity for questions from the floor. By then, experienced candidates will have already “read the room”. They know their job is not to capitulate to the audience’s opinions, but to shape them. Pandering to people’s prejudices is the essence of demagoguery – not successful party politics.
By the time these “ones to watch” are selected as candidates for winnable, or, better still, safe parliamentary seats, their rhetorical ability, tactical instincts, and strategic skills are plainly evident. But, winning a seat is only the beginning. A whole new apprenticeship looms, during which they must master the art of being a Member of Parliament.
At this point, alert readers will already be shaking their heads. This steady progression towards a parliamentary career may well have been the way politicians played the game 40 years ago, when New Zealand electoral politics was dominated by two mass parties operating under the first-past-the-post electoral system. But, it is very far from being the way the politically ambitious become Members of Parliament in 2023.
In a mass party, the competition for the role of party representative in Parliament is fierce, and “winning one’s spurs” in the cut-and-thrust of intra-party politics is both admired and expected. But, neither National nor Labour are any longer mass parties.
The era of MMP is also the era of the so-called “cadre” party. In the mass parties of the past, advancement depended on how successfully party members had mastered the art of winning over their party comrades and pinning-down their votes – the politics of democracy. In parties organised by and for societal elites, the impetus for representation comes not from below, but above. To advance in a cadre party (of which Labour and National are both now examples) one must master the circuitry of power and influence – the politics of the courtier.
Unfortunately, if selection for a winnable seat, or a high placement on a party list, becomes a matter of not what you know, but who you know, then the winnowing process which served National and Labour so well in the past, and which prepared prospective parliamentarians so thoroughly for the career of people’s representative, is undermined. Parliamentary candidates appear – as if from nowhere – chosen by the high and mighty, known only to party insiders, and, all-too-often, pitifully lacking in even the basic skills of winning voter support.
This is the weakness that saddles the New Zealand voter with Members of Parliament who are not only lacking in rhetorical ability, tactical instinct, and strategic skill, but are also alarmingly ignorant of the experiences, aspirations and values of the ordinary Kiwi voter.
The men and women who transformed National and Labour from mass parties into cadre parties may have rid themselves of bottom-up, democratic, intra-party politics, with all its embarrassments and irritations, but in the process of making their parties lean, mean, elite-driven machines, they forgot that the game they are playing, electoral politics, is, by definition, bottom-up and democratic.
National and Labour are selecting All Blacks who have never played Rugby. How else to explain Sam Uffindell and Gaurav Sharma?
Or, for that matter, Christopher Luxon?
Experience in the management of large corporations is one thing, experience in the rough-and-tumble of democratic politics, quite another. National has not only saddled itself with a politician with zero experience of cutting and thrusting his way up the spiral staircases of the National Party, but it was also willing to anoint as leader a man with barely 13 months’ experience as a Member of Parliament.
Put a person of Luxon’s political inexperience in front of a hall full of conservative voters and he is almost guaranteed to make the beginner’s error of telling them what they want to hear. If that involves abandoning Medium Density Residential Standards, the bi-partisan plan National agreed with Labour allowing three-storey dwellings to be built on all residential land in the main cities, then so be it. What was he supposed to say to these angry NIMBY voters? No?
Athletes and musicians talk about developing “muscle memory” – the practically unconscious mastery of their occupations that only comes from thousands of hours of practice, and years of experience. Effective leaders develop a political muscle-memory of their own. In answering tricky questions from the media. In delivering a stump speech as if it is the first time the words have passed their lips. Of knowing exactly how to lure their opponents into a policy trap – and then spring it. Of instinctively veering away from the “creepiness” of AI-generated images.
That National can no longer lay its hands on such a leader, tells us something about the state of New Zealand politics four months out from the 2023 General Election.
It’s not encouraging.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
94 Comments
Not very impressive is it....
- Alternately the greens have MPs that attack each other instead of the opposition
- Labour has a radical Maori Caucus who do not respect their leader, and are happy to jump Waka's.
- The Maori Party keep getting kicked out of the house on Cultural reasons, but will accept Waka jumpers.
- Winnie cannot even get into a Waka, he is looking desperate for a cup of tea deal.
- And good old Act just keeps trucking and collecting National voters....
- Hippy attacks National but has no policy ideas of his own..... Hard to see how a party that represents workers won't give those workers a tax cut? Who/What does Labour represent nowdays, people who won't work?
What a mess. I am more interested in the RWC
Hippy attacks National but has no policy ideas of his own..... Hard to see how a party that represents workers won't give those workers a tax cut?
LOL
Also as Labour has repeatedly said, they will be bringing a fully costed tax policy to the election. I'm expecting it will have tax cuts targeted to the bottom end, probably with a tax-free threshold, but unfortunately such things are very expensive so will likely need some form of tax increase elsewhere, and unfortunately there are very diminishing returns in increasing the tax rates of upper tax brackets.
We may not have reached peak oil but we have reached peak tax and hoping to raise further tax in the coming recession/depression is tantamount to signing a death warrant politically at least. If you don't own investment property or require prescriptions the removal of tax deductibility or non payment is not a tax reduction its just political virtual signalling.
Well said. Ask yourself these two questions
1 - Do you support co-governance/apartheid (depending on your political leaning and level of rhetoric employed)?
2- Do you support tax incentives for housing investors - ie no CGT, landlord subsidies, internet deduct ability?
Then answer who you would vote for
I would say it is more making people think outside the box they have traditional had their views categorised into. It is leading to some very good conversations with friends and family I've found, finding different views on policies etc and rationales. Hopefully we get a bit more diversity in the next government and some new ways of thinking that aren't 30 years in the past.
I'm not sure how shared governance in a water entity is apartheid. It's not racial segregation is it. And as far as I'm aware black people in South Africa had no vote at all and had to live in separately away from whites. But don't let facts get the way of a bad metaphor.
National and Labour are selecting All Blacks who have never played Rugby. How else to explain Ben Uffindell and Gaurav Sharma?
Oops - I think you mean Sam Uffindell :-).
And then there are the jurisdictions who choose football players who have played football - lol;
Trotter needs to remove the eye patch.
Despite Luxons perceived issues he has lifted National, against Ardern and Hipkins, and people forget how quickly Ardern fell from the Kindness falsehood until she realized her idealism was a failure.
This rise was on the back of three failures by national leaders. At the same time Labour has fallen from the 2020 high
Same reason as always in NZ: governments are voted out once they become out of touch and they see an opposition capable of doing a better job.
At present Labour is doing just-enough to hang on to power - and that is BEFORE the election campaign has started properly, in which Labour will be bringing out lots of policies and National are going to be parading Luxon around as if he has the skills to be prime minister (he doesn't).
Really..just enough? So why did they find it so necessary on their first day of the Labour conference to choose to engage in nasty, cheap political point scoring..as in personality attacks .One could say that's politics, and to be fair it most probably is, although I'd really like to think as a nation that we could move on and attack the policies and not the person.Forever hopeful.
I think the decline of career politicians is a good thing.
I'd much prefer someone who's actually achieved something in the real world.
Give me someone who is actually competent at achieving things, not someone who just sounds competent. The challenge is getting them elected...
What are National thinking with their attacks on Māori and desire to build houses all over green fields. Anyone who has spent time in Wales can see that it is possible to have bi-lingual road signs and place names without people swerving off the road in confusion. Māori is an official language of NZ and the only way to protect a language is to use it everyday. Labour and Greens have covered the steep grazing land in pine trees, now National want to cover the flat vegetable, crop and dairy land in houses. Please can we have some intelligent leadership.
Reinstate the 44 ton weight limit for trucks?
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1003/S00493.htm
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-rules-trucks-increase-productiv…
yup - and no one mentions by how much. Back in the 70's a loaded articulated truck and trailer (very small by todays standards) did 250 times the damaged to the road as a car (TRRL poster paper). Now that will have changed and maybe upwards by big numbers. The question is then why don't trucks pay road user charges according to damage to the road - user pays. If they did, maybe rail would get a look in. I expect the farming lobby will react but it is necessary to use the appropriate data in the discussion. Could well be that RUC's on private vehicles is subsidizing heavy trucks!
Helen Clark's Labour Government acknowledged the trucking industry was subsidised by all the other road users, as they were not directly charged for that damage. They identified that 90% of the damage to roads was caused by trucks. That situation has only got worse as National allowed the trucks to get bigger. So yes you are correct.
Māori is an official language of NZ and the only way to protect a language is to use it everyday.
You are right. But also wrong.
Taura Whiri chief executive Glenis Philip-Barbara said language revitalisation for communities relied on sustained immersion, inter-generational transmission and language being relevant to every social context.
Signs = helps that, and teaches learners words for bus stop and expressway. Great
Using words like 'mahi' and 'motu' sprinkled in your sentences doesn't save a language. It waters it down while decreasing the communicative value of the language it's interspersed with. What te reo Māori needs is people to learn to use it as a daily language, both at home and in professional contexts. Otherwise the language shrivels and dies. The answer doesn't lie with the government and Pākehā though:
''Language belongs to hapu and iwi and they've got to take ownership of it,'' [Pita Sharples] said.
Currently too much direction was given by the government and Sharples said he hoped empowering iwi through the creation of a new board which would drive the strategy would force them to focus on growing the language and to invest more of their own money to do so.
Road signs. Whatever the official language it's safety that counts. And simplicity with clarity when drivers have multiple things to manage is vital.
Brainless to use them to promote a language or to make a political point.
When a place is actually bilingual there can be a use for bilingual signs.
The Irish and Welsh must be brainless too by your definition.
https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/bilingual-scotland-british-uk-road-…
Interesting article on the topic. There are pros and cons but overall it really doesn’t cause any issues and shows respect to the original culture and language of the Country.
Don't even get me started on the appalling indicating, especially at roundabouts
https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/132095258/five-things-you-may-be-getting-wrong-about-roundabouts
They should also highlight that you should be indicating BEFORE you enter the roundabout.
Mirror, Signal, Manoeuvre!
Too small a thought. NZ, Australia, and the pacific islands (fiji, samoa, tonga, rarotonga, etc) should all band together and create a pacific dollar. All issued and overseen by the mighty Pacific States Bank. Especially when the smaller pacific states are in hock to China and unable to afford their debt repayments with the small population and tax base they all have. Spreading the costs with Australia and New Zealand much more effective economy of scale and gets rid of China setting up military bases in the south pacific as they currently are in the disputed japanese islands.
Lets fast track this sort of thing then?
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/05/25/mining-giant-sets-sights-on-nz-inclu…
National already tried in the first term of their last government to look at mining Great Barrier island and listened well to the resounding no from the electorate.
Things could have changed since then though.
Pretty much agree with CT's core message here - the politicians have thoroughly lost touch with the people they supposedly serve. And any one who fronts up on a platform that includes serving their constituency will be firmly, but politely (gotta have the suave rhetoric you know!) excluded from the club!
I agree. I believe the basic problem with MMP, (despite its virtue in promoting a degree of broader representation,) is that "the party" has become the main power base, and by "party" I mean an increasingly centralized clique holding day to day control over the annointed party nominees. The role of the local constituency with strong roots within its boundaries has diminished. To me this seems at odds with our whole system of "representative" democracy. Who do those nominated list mp's actually "represent"?
I feel the STV system would have better encouraged local constituent representation (ie no "party" vote) albeit with a slightly greater complication of finding a candidate "win" on the election day.
All quite peculiar considering the public's endorsement of MMP was to get rid of perceived party tyrants like Rob Muldoon,....but I am not holding my breath that there is any call to ditch MMP!
Jim Bulger, during an interview, acknowledged that when the public voted for MMP despite politicians not wanting a bar of it, they deliberately created a mutant of a system that they felt would be rejected by the voters. What they completely underestimated and misunderstood was that the public was so frustrated with the political elite at the time, that ANY system that made them more accountable to the people would be acceptable.
So no we are not likely to ditch MMP, and the pollies are equally unlikely to ensure they will be more accountable to the people (they won't make that mistake again!).
The fear of the gaffe and misinterpretation of it is the problem here for the professional politician.
The real secret, shown by Obama's more human political style, followed by Trump and Biden, is that the political gaffe is what makes you endearing and human. People like the human fallibility of their political leaders and trust them more when they see it. The professional robot style is offputting.
Interesting...I was thinking the opposite. Although Hipkins seems to be a nice enough kiwi bloke being a career politician indicates to me that he could be rather boring to engage with and lack experience in the real world .Life out in the real world is a whole lot different to living within the comforts of Parliament and gives one a different perspective on life.
A while ago I found the "Mimetic societies"* characterisation for countries or societies. While, you can argue how much of NZ society revolves around rewarding people for following ritualistic behaviour (a series of actions or type of behaviour regularly and invariably followed by someone) I think it's the best way to understand the National Party and especially Luxon.
National are just going though the motions repeating what the party has previously done many years ago because it was though to have worked then. Every press release is just a bad rehash or "mime" of what past National has done, they disagree with Labour because it's what National does and what they think the public wants of them. Luxon is the prime of this, to me, why is he there? I have never heard him demonstrate any purpose for a National government he's just going though random aspects of what previous conservative leadership has done hoping something will stick with the public. (Is he there just because others have said he should be?)
*I am asking you read to read the link and try to make scene of it. Otherwise sorry, just skip this comment.
I think the "What is a woman?" question is a very difficult question, that must be sidestepped to some extent. The word or concept has so many subjective meaning or senses that it's contextually dependant and you would get lost and confused going through the possible options. (Think about how who you consider a woman changes subtly as you get older)
It's how it's side stepped that matters. It's a test of who you willing to offend. Sure, you can simplify it to "an adult female human being" and just repeat the dictionary but it's more complex than that if you think about it.
Yes, "an adult female human being" is the best and least offensive answer that's roughly correct (and "foundational" to other definitions). He could have been prepared and side stepped the issue with this answer but he showed he was unwilling to risk offending people who will vote Greens anyway and looked weak.
Let's explore the adult part of definition quickly. Is it a girl's sport (or team) or a woman's sport. This will change depending on the person especially their age or gender. Is the under 18/21s a girl's or woman's team? (sure there's a politically correct answer but you will find not everyone will agree in causal conversation and when it differs it might offend). The word is more situational and personal than its dictionary definition.
It's June. Election is in October. There is gong to be a long, wet, and cold winter where veges will cost double what they did not long ago, and nobody believes Labour can implement anything.
Luxon does not need to be charismatic. He needs to be pragmatic. Table a f**king plan to get the cost of food down in a net food producing nation and you win.
Chris, I have far more faith in a government to find policies for issues of the day when that government comprises people who have actually worked in varied roles outside of politics rather than just a group of idealists that have done nothing but political work or politically motivated work (such as for the unions).
Oh, sorry; I forgot that today our journalists make us follow a 'presidential' brand of politics where policies come in second place to the manufactured appeal of a party's leader. Shame really because we won't actually be focusing on policies or solutions when we go to an election.
Chris Trotter marks up political skills. But we have too many politicians who are politicians only. They have no limits.
I prefer some honesty and analysis on some basis - not that I always agree.
The worse are the convinced party people who are politicians 100%
That's why I prefer Luxon.
Chris, All Black captains come and go, but we rate the team vs the opposition,
Hipkins cannot carry Labour to victory for the very same reason Jacinda could not.....
Labour are not a team, they are a collection of fractions, none who appeal enough to win 5%, together just stumbling towards certain defeat.
After the election we may well see the Maori caucus split off, a right and a left Labour appear. Its only in recent times that parties have held together for so long.
This is the weakness that saddles the New Zealand voter with Members of Parliament who are not only lacking in rhetorical ability, tactical instinct, and strategic skill, but are also alarmingly ignorant of the experiences, aspirations and values of the ordinary Kiwi voter.
Summed up well Chris. We have too many in parliament who have no real world experience and their only skill development has been on how to schmooze and gain more power. I'm sure many local MP's etc eventually make it to parliament with good intentions, only to be up against a brick wall in the beehive of having to bargain, cajole and sell their souls to those above them to get anywhere, thus creating the barrier between them and the people who elected them.
Still waiting for any politician to come up and tell the country we're stuffed and need to do X, Y and Z to pay down our debts. Pragmatism and practicality are needed and will be more respected than ever now after years of failed promises.
I think that Chris Bishop would make a far better leader. He appears appears sincere in his desire to help Kiwi citizens. The only politician that I have hear say that we need to get home affordability down to a price income ratio of 3-4. Handles interviews far better and in command of the facts and issues. Not charismatic, but trustworthy and likable. We have had enough of media stars. - All ego.
Chris Bishop is a really good debater, that's it. When he talks all I see is someone who has been tasked with affirming or negating a point, and he does it really well regardless of his personal beliefs.
Have you seen his Q+A when he worked for Phillip Morris?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoTUo5iRI1Y
This guy cannot become the PM, there's no way.
Chris Bishop is totally dishonest with his hypocrisy comment. Labour can now choose age 65 for Super because of the growth of Labour's NZ Superfund and Kiwisaver. Pity National lost us tens of billions by not contributing to the Superfund. National learnt nothing since they repealed Labour's contributory superannuation scheme.
I'd say neither of today's main party leaders passes Chris T's test. Possibly that's why Chris H isn't that far ahead of Chris L in the preferred PM poll? A point the media seems to overlook. Contrary to what this article is saying, I'd say the desire to have all manner of flag bearers in today's parliament representing everything from ethnicity to sexual orientation, the concern is much more about what members represent rather than how they represent it. The art of public speaking would not seem as important as in days gone by. Let's not forget that the Labour Party kept, what they would no doubt now say, was one of their greatest leader communicators away from any leadership roles for 9 years.
There's always some truth in CT's articles, that's what gives them readability. And his point about our pollies not having any real life experience is valid, on both sides of the house these days, sadly.
I was at the in-laws for dinner on Saturday night & saw the first 20 minutes on 1news for the first time in many, many (10 or more) years. It was so embarrassing to see how far our msm media have fallen. As well as this, I got to listen to the smart-arse comments from Robbo bagging the blues, such as which we've come to expect from him these days. There he stood, showcasing his smug urban elite-ness in his talking down to the rest of us manner, lacking of sort of humility what-so-ever, once considered a wonderful Kiwi trait - much admired long & far. I think of all of Labour's condescending attitudes, right across the board really, their complete lack of any humility on anything at any time, is what makes their version of the virus the most deadly.
In 5 short years they have pretty much dismantled any hope for the future these small lands have.
If they weren't so soft on crime I'd have them locked up.
There's now so little differentiation in the big ideas I wonder when we'll see the grand alliance between National and Labour to prevent themselves being ransomed by extremist small parties who see themselves as the key to power.
A contributing factor in the talent vacuum might be that the membership of the political parties has fallen so dramatically from their heyday in the 1970s that the talent pool from which to make the secret selections is now very small.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.