The S-Files

A Dead Rat Too Many

Contra Celsum nominates John Key for an S-Award

John Key is leader of the National political party which seems to be on-track to form the next government after the November elections.

Citation:

When political leaders are decisive, people respect them, albeit at times grudgingly. But not always. It all depends what political leaders are being decisive about.

When National leader, John Key announced that he would not deal with Winston Peters in any post-election negotiations to form a government on the grounds that Peters did not meet the required standards of integrity and rectitude, his decisiveness was widely applauded. He was respected if not liked. It was a principled decision. It drew a line in the sand. It put Peters beyond the pale—which is where we believe he deserves to be put.

But maybe it was not so principled. Maybe it was just one more example of political machinations where truth and integrity remain far distant and unknown factors. Key's recent “decisiveness” in removing Lockwood Smith and Maurice Williamson from their shadow cabinet positions of Immigration and Transport respectively would suggest that political calculation rather than principled decisions plays far too important a role in Key's mind.

Maybe his political opponents are right. Maybe he is shifty and manipulative after all. In any event, these recent decisive actions appear to demonstrate more cravenness and cowardice than integrity. They grant credence to his opponent's mantra—that the current election is all about trust, and that Key cannot be trusted.

Of course we are not privy to any behind the scenes prior admonitions or requirements Key has made of his shadow ministers or his caucus. Maybe Smith and Williamson were disregarding clear instructions already given by the leader. If so, maybe there is an arguable case for their immediate dismissal.

But let us assume not, for a moment. Let us reflect on Key's decision to remove Smith and Williamson in terms of what we know. Both were speaking about areas of concern and of legitimate political debate. Both were speaking about issues for which they are the Party spokesmen. Smith was reflecting the concerns of horticulturalists over the flaws and inadequacies of the scheme to use temporary foreign labour to harvest our horticultural crops. These shortcomings and flaws are real. Williamson was reflecting on potential road tolling charges and made a perfectly reasonable remark.

However, in both cases political opponents seized upon the statements, as did the media, and made political hay out of them—but only by employing devices of deceit, misrepresentation, and cant. Smith was cast as a racist by the leader of a racially based political party, Tariana Turia—one of the great ironies of the election. The media fed like frenzied sharks. (A statement made by Winston Peters, the very same day, to the effect that Singaporeans, being small, were naturally gifted jockeys and that under his regime would continue to receive preferential visa treatment was completely ignored by all the brazen trumpeters. )

Williamson was musing on the potential cost of long distance toll charges. National's policy is virtually identical to Labour's—yet once again a frenzy broke out.

So Key took some decisions with far reaching and long term ramifications for his team as a way of dealing with the lies, innuendo, cant, and flat-out hypocrisy of his political opponents. He turned upon his own colleagues. Decisiveness or cowardice?

Let's roll back the cameras. Imagine if Key had responded differently. Imagine if he had insisted on a full briefing from both Williamson and Smith, then gone on the attack. Imagine if he had stood up to carry the charge for his colleagues, defending them as decent blokes, who were doing their job. Imagine if he had argued that he wanted a government where ministers were not craven cowards, under Helengrad type control, and that he expected his ministers to think and act appropriately. Imagine if he had told the country that is the kind of leadership they could expect from a Key led government--a government based upon confident leadership that did not stifle debate, responsible free speech, or reflection; a government that would not be based upon sanitized PR spin. Imagine is he had used this as a perfect example of the differences between himself and Clark and her Isengard-cavern-bred army of PR manipulators. Imagine if he had fronted his opponents down and accused them of engaging in silly political games, of playing the race card. Imagine if he had showed some genuine moral outrage and indignation at the deceit and cant of his opponents.

We believe that's the kind of decisiveness people respect.

But John Key did not do that. He swallowed another dead rat. But the consequences of such actions will be far reaching indeed. What have his colleagues now learnt? They will have learned that if they get to form a government, and if they speak in public and their words are misinterpreted by the media and by political opponents, they will be gone by lunchtime. Key will sack them. Helengrad will be replaced by Johnkeygrad, soon to elide into Donkeygrad.

Did Smith or Williamson lie, obfuscate, act unethically? Did they break the law? Did they act in dereliction of their duty? Absolutely not. But they are gone—before lunchtime. Key is starting to show us the kind of Prime Minister he would be. Put some political and media pressure upon him and he would flip-flop like a beached flatfish. Step out of line, as interpreted and defined by his political opponents and the media, and you would be fired. The end result will be a climate of fear, apprehension, doubt, indecisiveness, resentment and ultimately disloyalty in Cabinet and caucus.

Paul Keating once characterised a political opponent as a yellow streak looking for a backbone to run up and down. John Key shows signs of attracting similar disdain.

John Key, leader of the National Party and aspiring Prime Minister: S-Award, Class II, for actions that appear to have been Stupid, Short Sighted and Stupefied.