Election sideshows tell their own stories
Every election has its sideshows – some which happen spontaneously, others that seem planned and engineered carefully and still others that are a bit of both. In the run up to next Saturday’s election, the political campaigning has seen its own share of sideshows and is quite likely to see some more in the remaining week.
While a campaign sideshow can be seen exactly as that – a sideshow – it can also hint at a lot of the goings on behind the scenes in political parties, their style of working, their policies, their leadership, their attitudes and responses toward their rivals – and even a nation’s electoral system.
And what might well be called a sideshow of a sideshow, it also exposes the media’s biases and prejudices as it goes about reporting these sideshows in an atmosphere that is charged with a sense of anticipation as election day approaches.
Driving around some parts of Auckland in the past couple of weeks, I found a number of National Party billboards – or hoardings – that were either defaced or had messages added to them. At first I thought it was some random, rather inspired vandalism. But as more such doctored signs came in sight I wondered if there indeed was a coordinated plan to deface them in what is a known Labour stronghold.
This week it emerged that it was indeed an act of planned vandalism on a nationwide scale, with more than 700 of National’s signs defaced or doctored. Curiously, it has turned out to be a member of the Green Party who was responsible for the coordinated action. What’s more, he was a partner of the party chief Russel Norman’s executive assistant, who has since been stood down after it was revealed that she knew about the plan weeks in advance.
As well as damaging the party’s image severely, especially at a time when it has been doing so well in pre election popularity polls and is being touted as a potential kingmaker, the action has belied its stand as a party that attracts thinking, intelligent persons with evolved, modern views. In fact it has done the opposite: it has revealed the extremist fringe of the Greens – the side one sees in environmental issue protests, be it in anti-whaling or anti-palm oil protests.
Though Mr Norman handled the crisis well and offered to work with the National Party to set right the vandalised billboards, the damage has been done and the Green’s impressive juggernaut has suddenly lost steam – all because of the mindless extremist action of one person.
But what is even more damaging is that it happened right under the nose of the party’s chief without his knowledge but with the full knowledge of perhaps his closest confidant – his secretary – something thing that speaks poorly of the cohesiveness and the culture in the top echelons of the party.
For many people like me who were seeing the vandalised signs as we drove around, the first and obvious question that popped in our minds was whether Labour’s supporters had lost all hope and were stooping so low to derail its main rival’s campaign in such a crass manner.
Even worse, the act of vandalism will also create confusion in voters’ minds about the possibility of the Greens supporting the National Party if at all the latter falls short of the vote necessary to govern alone – a thing which was increasingly being discussed as the latest polls showed a slight decline in support for National and an increase for the Greens.
The vandalism has definitely raised doubts if elements within the Greens are really up to a possible blue-green alliance – or was the act essentially random one, with the perpetrator acting alone. But can someone acting alone mount such coordinated action on a nationwide scale without likeminded support? As well as a full investigation – which it will do after the election – the Green Party will also do some soul searching.
Sideshow Act-II
The word “storm” has been the media’s flavour of the week. First, they described Prime Minister John Key and Epsom ACT candidate John Banks meeting over cups of tea as the proverbial storm in the teacup. A few days later, when Mr Key walked away from persistent media questioning about this storm in the teacup, he was described as having “stormed out” of the stand up press meet.
On both counts the media got it wrong. The meeting and its aftermath are anything but a storm in a teacup – though the National Party would love to describe it as that. For the more Mr Key and the party try to downplay it, the more it seems there is something inconvenient for them about it.
But there is little doubt that in the next few days, details will peter out. If it indeed contains the uncomplimentary things that were supposedly discussed about the ACT leadership and senior citizens, it could rock National’s boat for whatever it’s worth. In any case, it is unlikely to be the “game changer” that one senior journalist described it as.
However, the important issue that has not received the attention it deserves in this sideshow is the quirkiness of the MMP system that National’s arrangement with ACT demonstrates.
It is counterintuitive to see the leader of a major party to tell constituents not to vote for his own party but for someone else if he must be voted to power. This is the confusing bit of the MMP system, which according to surveys, most people do not understand – even in a country like Germany where it has been in use for decades.
Also, there hasn’t been much by way of voter familiarisation campaigns on the various alternatives to choose from for people to make an informed choice, giving rise to a situation where people are likely to vote with a “stick with the known devil” mindset.
So, we are expected to vote in a referendum whether to keep MMP or go for some other electoral system, come next Saturday. Despite the three-yearly cups of tea and coffee that ACT and National leaders somewhat awkwardly quaff in Epsom, MMP has its pluses.
For instance, if it wasn’t for MMP, for example, it would have been impossible for ethnic minorities to find their representatives in Parliament – though they are unelected and often comprise individuals almost foisted on the people by the party is indeed a sticking point with many.
No electoral system, however, is perpect. The MMP system in use in New Zealand most certainly needs tweaking and refining – which is quite likely to be the opinion of a majority of the people voting at the referendum.
Stand by for a few more sideshows between now and next Saturday.
Every election has its sideshows – some which happen spontaneously, others that seem planned and engineered carefully and still others that are a bit of both. In the run up to next Saturday’s election, the political campaigning has seen its own share of sideshows and is quite likely to see some...
Every election has its sideshows – some which happen spontaneously, others that seem planned and engineered carefully and still others that are a bit of both. In the run up to next Saturday’s election, the political campaigning has seen its own share of sideshows and is quite likely to see some more in the remaining week.
While a campaign sideshow can be seen exactly as that – a sideshow – it can also hint at a lot of the goings on behind the scenes in political parties, their style of working, their policies, their leadership, their attitudes and responses toward their rivals – and even a nation’s electoral system.
And what might well be called a sideshow of a sideshow, it also exposes the media’s biases and prejudices as it goes about reporting these sideshows in an atmosphere that is charged with a sense of anticipation as election day approaches.
Driving around some parts of Auckland in the past couple of weeks, I found a number of National Party billboards – or hoardings – that were either defaced or had messages added to them. At first I thought it was some random, rather inspired vandalism. But as more such doctored signs came in sight I wondered if there indeed was a coordinated plan to deface them in what is a known Labour stronghold.
This week it emerged that it was indeed an act of planned vandalism on a nationwide scale, with more than 700 of National’s signs defaced or doctored. Curiously, it has turned out to be a member of the Green Party who was responsible for the coordinated action. What’s more, he was a partner of the party chief Russel Norman’s executive assistant, who has since been stood down after it was revealed that she knew about the plan weeks in advance.
As well as damaging the party’s image severely, especially at a time when it has been doing so well in pre election popularity polls and is being touted as a potential kingmaker, the action has belied its stand as a party that attracts thinking, intelligent persons with evolved, modern views. In fact it has done the opposite: it has revealed the extremist fringe of the Greens – the side one sees in environmental issue protests, be it in anti-whaling or anti-palm oil protests.
Though Mr Norman handled the crisis well and offered to work with the National Party to set right the vandalised billboards, the damage has been done and the Green’s impressive juggernaut has suddenly lost steam – all because of the mindless extremist action of one person.
But what is even more damaging is that it happened right under the nose of the party’s chief without his knowledge but with the full knowledge of perhaps his closest confidant – his secretary – something thing that speaks poorly of the cohesiveness and the culture in the top echelons of the party.
For many people like me who were seeing the vandalised signs as we drove around, the first and obvious question that popped in our minds was whether Labour’s supporters had lost all hope and were stooping so low to derail its main rival’s campaign in such a crass manner.
Even worse, the act of vandalism will also create confusion in voters’ minds about the possibility of the Greens supporting the National Party if at all the latter falls short of the vote necessary to govern alone – a thing which was increasingly being discussed as the latest polls showed a slight decline in support for National and an increase for the Greens.
The vandalism has definitely raised doubts if elements within the Greens are really up to a possible blue-green alliance – or was the act essentially random one, with the perpetrator acting alone. But can someone acting alone mount such coordinated action on a nationwide scale without likeminded support? As well as a full investigation – which it will do after the election – the Green Party will also do some soul searching.
Sideshow Act-II
The word “storm” has been the media’s flavour of the week. First, they described Prime Minister John Key and Epsom ACT candidate John Banks meeting over cups of tea as the proverbial storm in the teacup. A few days later, when Mr Key walked away from persistent media questioning about this storm in the teacup, he was described as having “stormed out” of the stand up press meet.
On both counts the media got it wrong. The meeting and its aftermath are anything but a storm in a teacup – though the National Party would love to describe it as that. For the more Mr Key and the party try to downplay it, the more it seems there is something inconvenient for them about it.
But there is little doubt that in the next few days, details will peter out. If it indeed contains the uncomplimentary things that were supposedly discussed about the ACT leadership and senior citizens, it could rock National’s boat for whatever it’s worth. In any case, it is unlikely to be the “game changer” that one senior journalist described it as.
However, the important issue that has not received the attention it deserves in this sideshow is the quirkiness of the MMP system that National’s arrangement with ACT demonstrates.
It is counterintuitive to see the leader of a major party to tell constituents not to vote for his own party but for someone else if he must be voted to power. This is the confusing bit of the MMP system, which according to surveys, most people do not understand – even in a country like Germany where it has been in use for decades.
Also, there hasn’t been much by way of voter familiarisation campaigns on the various alternatives to choose from for people to make an informed choice, giving rise to a situation where people are likely to vote with a “stick with the known devil” mindset.
So, we are expected to vote in a referendum whether to keep MMP or go for some other electoral system, come next Saturday. Despite the three-yearly cups of tea and coffee that ACT and National leaders somewhat awkwardly quaff in Epsom, MMP has its pluses.
For instance, if it wasn’t for MMP, for example, it would have been impossible for ethnic minorities to find their representatives in Parliament – though they are unelected and often comprise individuals almost foisted on the people by the party is indeed a sticking point with many.
No electoral system, however, is perpect. The MMP system in use in New Zealand most certainly needs tweaking and refining – which is quite likely to be the opinion of a majority of the people voting at the referendum.
Stand by for a few more sideshows between now and next Saturday.
Leave a Comment