Espiner on Clark
Colin Espiner writes:
The change of Government last year left Helen Clark feeling rejected. She couldn’t and still can’t understand why Labour lost.
Nor her colleagues.
Like her Australian counterpart John Howard, or former British prime minister Tony Blair, or any other number of world leaders (in democracies at least), Clark fell victim to the curse of not knowing when it was time to go. We all thought we had given her a fair suck of the sav, to use the Kiwi vernacular.
If a party wants a good chance at a fourth term, it should have completed a massive rejuvenation by mid way through the third term – including the leadership. And for such rejuvenation to be credible, you have to start it towards the end of your first term. I hope National retires around six Ministers in 2011.
Clark felt rejected by us. She couldn’t and still can’t understand why Labour lost. Why voters wanted a fresh face on the ninth floor of the Beehive. She had given blood, sweat, and even a few tears to the job. Why wasn’t it enough?
Clark always wanted to remodel New Zealand in the social democratic traditions of Western European democracies, where the same party remains in power for decades and the support parties revolve around it.
This is what they looked to have after the 2002 election. And then Don Brash and John Key came along and spoiled the dream. Hence why they introduced the Electoral Finance Act.
Clark was the most popular New Zealand prime minister of modern times. No-one else, since the advent of reliable and regular political polling in the 1970s, has averaged such a consistently high approval rating.
This is true – her Preferred PM ratings stayed strong throughout.
The newspaper is only the first draft of history, but it is doubtful Clark’s long-term legacy will be judged as that of a great prime minister.
Great leaders have a vision, and the ability to get people to follow them to it. Clark was always more the manager than the visionary.
However, her intellect, determination, energy, accomplishments, and devotion to her country means she is likely to be remembered as a very, very, very good one.
An interesting perspective from Colin. I’m actually planning to do my own review of her career achievements, and her strengths and weaknesses – will blog it later this week. I hope it will be seen as pretty fair – I won’t be focusing on policy disagreements, but on political management, vision etc.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
I think you are very wrong about that. She understands very clearly what happened, it’s just that you seek to erase her version of events. Many, many others understand ‘what happened’. Clark’s comments on the night, ‘bonfires’ etc. didn’t pass unnoticed or unmarked.
[DPF: The comment is Colin Espiner, and I place more value on his judgement than yours]
April 14th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Helen and her party are guilty of empty rhetoric (see lifting NZ economy, 0-carbon economy), corrupt law making (electoral finance act), and gross economic mismanagement (see wasting billions of tax payer money on non-productive sectors during one of the biggest economic booms).
I won’t even mention the anti smacking law, or buying choo choo trains for hundreds of millions above market value.
Maybe the one good thing that helen did, is to introduce kiwisaver.
I know why people liked her – because she raised taxes and gave billions to those who did not earn it. Those people were quite happy to receive money they did not earn – thus explaining helens support.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
She was and is a deeply flawed personality who managed as so many so called leaders do to con and beguile the shallow thinkers into believeng in the myth of their supreme being.
She surrounded herself with syncophants and those willing to her biding. She played favourites and played off one group against another. She distained any traditional values and showed utter contempt for those who valued tradition good morals and good ethics.
The end always justified the means to achieve it no matter how repugnant the means. To win at ant and every cost no matter what the consequences.
That she is going to a place described by even the most jaded of its supporters as the heart of corruption in the UN is fitting.It will be a marriage of the contempible and the corrupt
April 14th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Clark a great Prime Minister? Espiner might have been more justified if he had written “great by NZ standards”. He (or his editor) might also have resisted the urge to rate the Great White Nark for a while to let the hype and the snipe fade away.
When Muldoon fell, you would have thought old Piggy was a Mussolini, or a Churchill even. Now most people under 40 hardly know who he was.
Generally, I would prefer to read an assessment of H1 by someone outside the goldfish bowl that is the press gallery.
Bring it on DPF, or are you inside the gallery, too?.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
If she does not understand why she was rejected then why do people support the National Party. Basically people are skeptical of the state doing everything. Whereas Clark thinks the default option is for the state to do everything. There is not much debate about outcomes but there is real debate on how to get there. For instance you will achieve much more for housing if you encourage the small investor to get in and provide rental accommodation. Labour never understood that. Also the only part of the health system that does not having waiting queues are GPs who are private providers, though they may soon change. By charging a small fee one avoids malingerers wasting the Doctor’s time. It is not a big group but make it free and those malingerers cause the really sick to have to wait to see the Doctor. Labour does not get this. Also they are hand in hand with the Unions who want state monopolies for essential services so their membewrs can obtain high wages with good conditions. It is an unholy alliance. Again the public can see this (it is their taxes that fund it) but Clark and the Labour Party do not care.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Actually her “bonfires” statement didn’t just show up her lack of genuine humility, it also summed up how she never understood Key – both then, and now. The only bonfires since the election have been the burning of Mike Williams negative campaigning handbooks.
Helen thought the Trust campaign would swing nervous voters back to her, and this showed how she completely mis-read the mood of the public. But for me, her biggest error in the campaign was to go one-on-one with Key in the TV debates. She gave Key much more air-time than he would have otherwise got in a full leaders debate, and it allowed him to draw up the contrasts between them. After the first debate Labour were in full panic mode.
In 6 months Key has taught Helen some lessons in humility and graciousness, in the way he has treated her.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Kiwi Keith managed four terms 1960 – 1972 although Jack Marshall took over as PM during the last term. He would have had respectable poll ratings if polls exsted. His main alleged ‘vice’ was that he was a bit pompous. He was content to live in a modest Prime Ministerial residence (41 Pipitea St) and walked to work each day. He must have been the only Prime Minister in the world whose residential phone number was in the phone book. He wandered into a Molesworth Street barber for his haircut. These egaliterian touches would have helped his popularity at the time.
Thigs were however simpler in those times and he may have had difficulties if faced with contemporary politics.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
If Helen Clark doesn’t have a clue why she lost the election, then it would show she lost the pulse on what makes New Zealand tick. This is why she lost.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
`her preferred PM ratings stayed strong throughout’.
No pollsters ever asked me during her 9 years as PM!!!
April 14th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
It will be interesting to see how John Key fares on these same measures. Certainly I think he has a lot more of the common touch than Helen, is genuinely interested in people and is a natural optimist – all handy in making a good first impression. His track record at Merrill Lynch suggests he can wring good performance out of his team. And he’s inclusive and doesn’t seem tribal, which lets him strike deals with the Maori Party, the Greens etc – which strengthens his chances of a long stay as PM.
But I would like to see more of the “Great leaders have a vision, and the ability to get people to follow them to it.”
I think Labour started off with good intentions on the visionary front, with the “Get back to the top half of the OECD”. But they were quick to shelve that once it became clear achieving it would require tough decisions that would upset a number of Labour’s support groups. Ultimately they showed it was just a slogan rather than an honest belief.
So John … how about nailing your flag to the mast on some big goal. Get some safe hands around the Ministerial table to take care of the day-to-day stuff and get out there as a Presidential-type PM rallying the country. Getting into the top half of the OECD (perhaps on GDP per capita) wouldn’t be a bad goal to focus on.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
and devotion to her country
That’s pure revisionism.
New Zealand has never had a Prime Minister who had so much contempt for New Zealand. Contempt or those of us who built this country, who pay its taxes and obey its laws and contempt for the institutions of this country, its mores and its values.
Clark’s regime devoted itself to destabilising the institutions and heritage of New Zealand and disenfranchising ordinary Kiwis.
Due to Clark’s strict adherence to a narrow Trotskyite ideology.
Helen Clark had a choice to make. On the one hand, she had the interests of New Zealand society. On the other, she had the cause of international socialism. We all know the choice she made.
Helen Clark chose to mortgage the interests of New Zealand in order to promote the cause of international socialism. As we survey the ruins of our economy, the breakdown in social order and the rule of law, the rampant welfarism and the decaying infrastructure, we are realising the fruits of Helen Clark’s vision.
Anyone that suggests that we’re in the current predicament because of Clark’s devotion to her country should be swinging from the same rope.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I disagree with Espiner. I do not think sacking a few more flunkies would have extended the life of her Government. Rejuvenation was something she actually did better than most: witness all the new MPs Labour has despite losing the election. Besides, few people have much consciousness of the personnel beyond the top one or two. And she was to the end Labour’s greatest asset. Retiring before ’08 would not have helped Labour win.
The reason why Labour lost was that people did not like where she was taking them. The fact people thought she was good at managing the journey was therefore irrelevant (or even a negative!).
I am inclined to the view that the Clark Labour Govt was always more left-wing than Kiwis were truly comfortable with, but it lasted as long as it did because National was unable (until ’08) to offer a credible moderate alternative that people were confident would be closer to what they wanted.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
s.russell … I agree. The Nat’s should have won the election in 2005, but Don Brash just wasn’t someone that enough of the electorate could warm to. He’s an incredibly clever guy, and would be great as a Minister of Finance. But I could never see him as the front-man if you wanted to win an election. He doesn’t have the personal charisma, and he’s too much from the right-hand end of the Nats to carry a good share of the centre vote with him.
Yet, despite having a wooden leader, the Nats oh so nearly tipped out Labour in 2005. With a better front-man than Don then Helen would have been turfed out 3 years ago. I have long thought the Nats lost in 2005, rather than Labour winning.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I wonder if we will still be debating this in 2 years time. Isn’t it time to move on?
Helen was hurt by the loss. Ask any politician who has lost the election about how they feel and they will say the same thing. Losing is terrible, after sweating blood sweat and tears for an extended period it is awful to lose and the feeling of rejection is automatic. Helen is not the only politician to feel rejected, all politicians feel that way when they lose. Why criticise her for what is an entirely predictable feeling?
She was a very gracious loser. Her behaviour during the last week of the campaign and on election night was exemplary. It is clear to me now that she knew that she would not make it. I just wished the charming intelligent Helen that we saw during that time had appeared earlier.
Her standing down as leader was obviously planned and the handing over of power was conducted in the best possible way. I have been reading recently of Muldoon’s antics in 1984, if you want an example of a sore loser you need go no further than that.
So maybe it is time to move on. Helen certainly has.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Agree with s russel and Virtualmark….while adding the naked cynical desperate nastiness and low behaviour re Key,The EB’s,Winston,smacking,tax cuts etc etc….was the icing on the cake.There was an air of a rotten stench going about from Labour and Kiwis wrinkled their noses and decided it was time to bury the dead.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
IMHO Helen was an exemplary loser.
Sure she was hurt by the loss. All politicians who lose elections feel the same. It is the worst feeling that you can have where you sweat blood trying to get re-elected and then lose. Show me a politician who does not feel this way and I will show you one who no longer has a pulse.
Helen was an extraordinarily good loser. Her behaviour during the last week of the election campaign was exemplary. I just wish that we saw more of the gracious funny Helen that we saw then. It is obvious to me that she knew that she was going to lose. Her standing down on election night and her transfer of power to the new regime were faultless and planned. I have been reading recently about Muldoon’s behaviour in 1984 and if you want to see an example of a sore loser you need look no further than that. Helen’s response was completely different.
So how much longer are you going to flog Helen DPF?
It is time to get over it. I know that Helen has.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I’m sorry to say this mickey but gracious is not a word that you could apply to the election night fiasco. Others without the rose tint saw a shocked and bitter person who could not hold her head up with pride, but instead threw in the towel in a sort of “if I cant be the captain, I don’t wish to be in the team, and good luck without me” sort of way. It was a true hospital pass and has been followed up with an exemplary example of non-contribution at the taxpayers expense. Few with pride could have taken the salary for this long for doing so little and even after getting another job is yet to resign. Playing timing games to the end in the same way as the games over the election date were played, keeping not only the oppostition in a state of confusion but the treating with contempt the entire voting population of New Zealand.
Never fear though little mickey, the scales may fall from your eyes before you die and you will see the truth.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
One thing in your favour though mickey is that Miss Clark (WTF was that about) set herself up as the indispensible figurehead and as such the rest of that sorry lot we called a Government escaped the public approbium that should have been their lot. Did Miss Clark attract criticism that wasn’t deserved? Possibly but then a bunch of others stood by and let her take it so perhaps there is a clue as to the degree she was disliked by her own and a demonstration of their secret desires to see her gone at any cost.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
virtualmark wrote:
You’re forgetting the 2005 election was considered the ‘unlosable election’ with the economy humming along thanks to high international commodity prices. And yet Labour almost lost.
I reckon the reason Helen won had more to do with Labour’s huge overspend – hundreds of thousands of dollars over the electoral cap which is defined as a corrupt practice by the law (something a government suppose to take very seriously because laws are precisely how they keep a hold on us). Not to mention the deal with Winston Peter’s was probably already sown-up before the election thanks to Owen Glen (I’m alleging major corruption here I know).
I don’t want to relitigate the 2005 election, but the injustice that was the 2005 election and the subsequent treatment of Don Brash is what got me interested in politics.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Not to mention the deal with Winston Peter’s was probably already sown-up before the election thanks to Owen Glen (I’m alleging major corruption here I know).”
I agree…..Im damm sure the 9th floor acted to get Winnie out of the mess he was in re Jim Peron. Mary Ann Thompson was getting directions from the beehive on what was to happen with Peron being allowed back into NZ…Peron saw the replys from Thompson to the hive but not the mail going to Thompson….it was a dirty and certainly corrupt affair to save Winnies arse if Peron came back and fought the charges as he would.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
I think a major factor in Labour’s loss has been overlooked by most commentators including DPF. Imho the country just got tired of the sheer nastiness that came from Clark Mallard Cullen Peters Goff etc etc (it became a torrent in the 3rd term). Of course this made them look outright hypocrites when the electoral overspend and then the protection of Peters through Glengate filled the news bulletins.
That is why John Key’s sunny disposition is going across so well. The contrast could not be more obvious and the electorate’s relief is palpable and reflected in the polls.
Of course this is the last thing a malignant narcissist like Clark would ever admit.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
NX … fair call on Labour’s illegal overspend also being a crucial reason why they won the 2005 election. And I agree that Don Brash got treated fairly harshly post-election, but then that is the nature of politics.
But I can’t help thinking that if John Key had come to politics a year or two earlier than he did, and had been in a position where he could have led the Nats into the 2005 general election then they’d have won that election, irregardless of how much money Labour threw at it.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Well no for the reason the Scummy McCully bagged his only support team. He was responsible for attacking the ACT vote and that is what cost National the Govt. benches in 2005. and that is why the are there now, because they had enough votes to ensure the Nats. made it. Had they not then the choice may have been Nat./ Maori or the green headed Maori/ Anderton etc/Labour hydra headed monster.
Close thing really when you think about it. and the Nats. shouldn’t start to think about being smug at the next election for they still hang by that whisker and will then.
I predicted the 2005 result months before the election and was concerned that we would have a close result this time, which we did. Its much closer than you think.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Wow
My first post disappeared and I decided to post again.
Then they both turned up, the first post only recently.
This is freaky. Have the SIS been holding up my posts?
April 14th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Well Micky.
I work in the SIS and i can tell you
That right now.
Standing behind you
Is an agent who is going to …
… Whoops too late, sorry Micky.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
“So maybe it is time to move on. Helen certainly has.’
Well I am sorry Mickey Savage, could you just bear with me a little while longer? I usually bounce back from bad life experiences, but her and her government really did take the cake.
It is taking me some time to get over what Helen did to the country, my freedoms, my libertys and my kids education, to name just a few. It’s taking me a little while to get over the fact that many of my dear friends have left NZ in disgust. It is taking me a little while to shake off the memory of waking to hear on the radio of the latest government attempt to control my life, and to hear Helen talking on the radio sounding as controlling and unapproving of my behaviours as my mother in law!
Sorry Mickey, please give me a little more time to get over the trauma. Or help me pay for a counsellor…one or the other.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
TSM
You are taking some time to get over things.
The country? It was in as good a shape as I have seen it for the past 40 years.
Your freedoms? They were preserved. You did not have the the “right” to smash your children in the name of discipline, nor could you spend more than $12,000 on political activity for most of last year unless you filled in a single sheet form and if you did you could spend up to $120,000. Your kids’ education? They were in as good a shape last year as they have ever been, unless you insist on sending them to a private school and insisting that the state should pay for this or you insist on having them tested insistantly to the detriment of their real education.
Your friends are probably like mine. They went overseas to the population centres to make their fortunes. Smaller communities like those in New Zealand do not allow this because we are small communities. It is amazing how many expate have kids and then return to New Zealand because it is better.
Helen never wanted to control your live. She only wanted to make it better.
You should seek the help of a professional because your grasp of reality is shaky at best.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
New Zealand is better off without Helen Clark.
It is now up to the National/ACT Government to make New Zealand a better place worth living in again.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
OECD rank 22 kiwi
Here here. The Labour party policies are the failed policies of the past and we need to move on.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
mickysavage
No, I think the content filter though you were a Scientologist describing L. Ron Hubbard.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Mickey, you are either trying to imitate dopey lefty types to make them look bad or you are just a dick head.
We all know the anti smacking law does not criminalise smashing since that was already illegal.
The anti-smacking law criminalises minor smacks, albeit giving police some discretion. And, we all know how much discretion the police use (see gun shop owner who shot machete burglar, or Indian dairy owner who protected his store from thugs). cops are too scared to use discretion anymore.
April 15th, 2009 at 4:07 am
“if she does not understand why she was rejected then why do people support the National Party”
Just over one million people voted National. What about the other three point two million? Do they support National?
April 15th, 2009 at 6:44 am
uh, they are a) under 18 and cant vote b) stupid and voted Labour c) stupider and voted Green d) voted ACT e) couldnt care less
April 15th, 2009 at 8:37 am
I am pleased Labour has gone. Making prostitution a career choice for young women was but one example. In Manurewa old people cannot go to the public toilet now because prostitutes are plying their trade in the toilet cubicle. Underage teenagers are following their older sisters example by walking the streets in Christchurch. Thanks Labour-well done.
Homosexuality is now on the same plane as marriage which was in my opinion always one of the big goals of Helen Clark and Labour. Thanks Labour.
Just two examples off the top of my head of the most of what I consider the most morally corrupt government in NZ history.
And I haven’t even got to forcing parents how to raise their children by government fiat,namely the anti smacking people- thanks Labour.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:42 am
What a gutless prick Espiner is, he like the rest of the pinko media had to wait until she left the house (not resigned of course, she still wants her wages for as long as possible) before printing something that is mildly critical.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Totally agree big bruv. The previous government would never have got away with such radical social legislation as they did without the connivance and agreement of the media. The anti-smacking bill is the best example. If the mainstream media did not basically agree with it, the legislation would never have been passed.
Unfortunately the mainstream media are at odds with the 80% of New Zealanders who did not agree with the anti-smacking bill.
Imagine the outcry by the media if the national government decided to make Sunday school compulsory for example? There would be bedlam, and justifiably so. But making Sunday school compulsory is no more outrageous than banning corporal punishment by parents of their own children. The difference can only be found in the basically left wing and anti-family world view of our mainstream media opinion makers.
My hope is that bloggers and other alternative media outlets will somehow break the stranglehold of the mainstream media’s Marxist Leninist/radical feminist ideology.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:50 am
“Great leaders have a vision, and the ability to get people to follow them to it. Clark was always more the manager than the visionary.However, her intellect, determination, energy, accomplishments, and devotion to her country means she is likely to be remembered as a very, very, very good one.”
How nauseating, and what a disgrace to the craft of journalism. Espiner and his mainstream media cronies needed to be bringing us stories about Klark’s underhanded deals with Winston Peters and Owen Glenn, and her apparent use of taxpayer money to buy herself a position at the UN.
This disgusting example of journalism is more proof that NZ’s so called democracy is in the grip of a cadre of leftist politicians who dominate parliament and the bureaucracy, and their propagandising cronies in the mainstream media.
If only we had a real media.
If only we had a couple of hundred more Ian Wisharts.
If only we had the diversity leftists profess to be so concerned with in race and gender issues in the mainstream media.
Geez I’m so sick of their damn left wing bullshit.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Sadly, he’s probably against human cloning.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Very droll Mr. Sproull, but democracy cannot function unless the population is informed. That Ian Wishart is marginalised by the mainstream media says so much for the ideological pollution that exists therein. A pollution that has apparently bred a strain of ideolocially deformed Progressive whitebait. Hundreds of flitting little shoal fish with hardly an original thought amongst the lot of them.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Good old Colin. Still fighting last year’s personal slanging match. V. impressive. Not…
April 15th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Shes gone.
Move on.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Hey, you’re preaching to the choir over here, Redbaiter. I can’t think of any mainstream media in New Zealand that would seriously present my view that the government shouldn’t exist at all. Then again, very few people in New Zealand would take the notion seriously. The mainstream media is to some extent reflective of the mainstream of people.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
“The mainstream media is to some extent reflective of the mainstream of people.”
Completely wrong actually. Whenever surveys have been carried out, so called mainstream media journalists have always been discovered to have for more left wing pseudo liberal views than the mainstream population.
They’re actually on many surveys less popular than used car salesmen and real estate agents. A sad state of affairs for a profession that was once deservedly due a lot more respect.