Human behaviour is more complex than this article seems to presuppose. Most members of parliament, as with the rest of humanity, have altruism and ambition within their make up. Though I would concede, not all.
Most Ministers strive to make their offices (effectively a team of about 12 to 15 people) accomodating and respecting of differences. A sensitive but able person should be able to excel. Though I was certainly aware of colleagues who could be quite harsh on staff. It was not always those who might be expected to be difficult. Often it was those who presented a very different face to the public.
Ambition is certainly essential to succeed in Caucus. But most often those who succeed in that very uncompromising environment will do so on merit, not just on ambition and patronage.
Of all the political environments, Caucus is the most challenging. The Caucus meetings are typically 2 hours per week. There might only be opportunity to make one or two short contributions within a fortnight. Those contributions had to count. They had to gain respect. I have seen political careers vaporise within a minute or so, never to recover.
Was that a proper measure of talent?
In some cases, no. I have seen people who had quite exceptional prior careers never able to succeed in Caucus. On many, if not most, occasions it was a failure to read the room. Even if their views were subsequently vindicated, they had doomed themselves by making their contribution at the time they did.
Interesting thoughts Wayne. I sometimes wonder though what "merit" is expressed when you rise through the ranks. I wasn't sure what merits Muldoon had to be honest apart from the fact that he made an ancient art of mine think of Churchill, and I am pretty sure he eventually knew where all the bodies were buried.One of the merits I would have thought necessary would have been a certain collegiality? He didn't seem to show much of that to me at least although obviously I wasn't in his caucus meetings.
Certainly the ability to hold your liquor seem to have had an influence. I arranged a number of talks by politicians from both sides of the aisle as it was then, usually in the evening about 7 o'clock. Not one of them ever arrived completely sober. 😇
In politics, the ability to express appealing ideas in an easy to understand and in a compelling way. Often laced with humour. Muldoon had that, so did Lange.
In Clark's case there was also an obvious determination, the idea of a mission.
In Ardern's case the ability to viscerally move people, appealing to their better lights.
For Bolger and Key, they were just better than anyone else in the room. Both were very clear thinkers.
In all cases the Leaders had to be able to speak with conviction, so the listener could say, "yes, that is right, it is what I believe".
Yes, that last paragraph has been expressed in many different ways over the years. Who said the secret of getting things done was to persuade other people that they had already thought of it themselves and that all the humble speaker was doing was clarifying the point? One of the more successful US presidents, I suspect.
I suspect things have become more venal since your day Wayne.
Look at the White House - and although TG, we are NZers, the same themes are playing out here to a lesser extent. TPM are masterful in this, and a few handful of other cabinet, shadow cabinet ministers or senior MPs I could name so you could expect this to filter down to their staff to an extent.
And not to underestimate the ability to manipulate the press gallery, either publicly or behind the scenes, in all this. Who will ever forget "The Jessica 'n Tova" show of the covid years?
Aha! Of course I do! And, do you know, I think it left a very deep impression on the ordinary voter. For the first time he/she got to witness the full, unedited prime-ministerial presser in all its tawdry glory. Talk about things that make you go ... hmmmm.
Cast your mind back to the daily briefings for the press during the covid era. Jessica Mutch McKay and Tova O'Brien were members of the parliamentary press gallery at this time. When Jacinda Ardern opened the floor to questions after her briefings nearly every time she said "Jessica first then Tova" (or vice versa) without pausing for breath then usually closed down the question time straight afterwards. It was SO marked and unrelenting it was difficult not to think that they had been fed the questions Ardern was willing to answer, especially since it was rare that anyone else got a look in. So it became a bit of a joke - hence "the Jessica 'n' Tova show". I'm sure that politicians of all stripes would prefer to answer questions from commentators that are sympathetic to them but this was so blatant it counted as manipulation of opinion in my book.
That's the way it looked, Aroha, but the rules were well-established long before Covid.
As the two big television networks, with early deadlines, TVNZ and TV3 got first dibs. They were generally followed by Radio NZ and Newstalk-ZB, then the NZ Herald and the other major newspapers.
It's the same story overseas, there's a well-established pecking order and woe betide any media outlet that attempts to jump the queue!
Actually, Einstein, Le Corbusier, Jung, Rousseau, William Tell, Auguste Picard, several famous mathematicians I can't remember the names of, some reasonably famous architects and artists, who I also can't remember the names of and Ursula Andress, The sight of whom emerging from the water in a bikini with a knife strapped to her thigh got me and the younger Steptoe all aquiver.
Many of these seem to me to have been a lot more use than Machiavelli, though not necessarily than Leonardo or Michelangelo.
Yes, a useful corrective, Harry Lime was not to be taken too seriously as an expert on human affairs (no more so than the Kevin Kline character in a Fish Called Wanda, who thought that the core principle of Buddhism was to do it to them before they did it to you.)
Chris the next question after reading your essay would be, can good government that achieves something, be administered differently. Parliament is advertorial as is the judiciary. Our court cases are argued, and both prosecution and defence have been known to tell half truths, or in some cases hide the truth to tip the scales. They lie. The opposition and the media keep the sitting government as honest as possible but as you have described they lie also. The opposition is happy to point to any failings of government and will twist the truth to serve it’s purpose and the media can easily lie by not printing a story the public should know about, or asking misleading or irrelevant questions in an interview.
My answer is that old saying “You can fool some of the people all of the time………” Eventually the people see through it. Not all, but many know when the politician is evading a question. They know when the court has handed out an unsatisfactory verdict and they know when the media is asking the wrong questions to get that “gotcha” moment which in most cases is out of context and meaningless. Human nature has us using these skills to further our agendas regardless of the truth.
Ministers and whips bullying staff or members into line, I do have trouble accepting . The public can’t see that, unless it’s brought to light. It must be emotionally damaging and is unethical. Towing the party line opens the door to this sort of abuse but I can’t see that changing anytime soon.
Generally I feel parliament gets it right in the end and hopefully less of this behaviour is tolerated. The media is getting it’s own punishment via the ratings and loss of advertising revenue.
Thanks for correcting my word choice GS. I confess to not knowing the correct word, and take your point about the boxing reference that I had heard of somewhere. Maybe "having no choice but to accept the party line" opens the....... , would be more acceptable english.
Human behaviour is more complex than this article seems to presuppose. Most members of parliament, as with the rest of humanity, have altruism and ambition within their make up. Though I would concede, not all.
Most Ministers strive to make their offices (effectively a team of about 12 to 15 people) accomodating and respecting of differences. A sensitive but able person should be able to excel. Though I was certainly aware of colleagues who could be quite harsh on staff. It was not always those who might be expected to be difficult. Often it was those who presented a very different face to the public.
Ambition is certainly essential to succeed in Caucus. But most often those who succeed in that very uncompromising environment will do so on merit, not just on ambition and patronage.
Of all the political environments, Caucus is the most challenging. The Caucus meetings are typically 2 hours per week. There might only be opportunity to make one or two short contributions within a fortnight. Those contributions had to count. They had to gain respect. I have seen political careers vaporise within a minute or so, never to recover.
Was that a proper measure of talent?
In some cases, no. I have seen people who had quite exceptional prior careers never able to succeed in Caucus. On many, if not most, occasions it was a failure to read the room. Even if their views were subsequently vindicated, they had doomed themselves by making their contribution at the time they did.
I think, Wayne, that you just proved my point!
Interesting thoughts Wayne. I sometimes wonder though what "merit" is expressed when you rise through the ranks. I wasn't sure what merits Muldoon had to be honest apart from the fact that he made an ancient art of mine think of Churchill, and I am pretty sure he eventually knew where all the bodies were buried.One of the merits I would have thought necessary would have been a certain collegiality? He didn't seem to show much of that to me at least although obviously I wasn't in his caucus meetings.
Certainly the ability to hold your liquor seem to have had an influence. I arranged a number of talks by politicians from both sides of the aisle as it was then, usually in the evening about 7 o'clock. Not one of them ever arrived completely sober. 😇
What is merit?
In politics, the ability to express appealing ideas in an easy to understand and in a compelling way. Often laced with humour. Muldoon had that, so did Lange.
In Clark's case there was also an obvious determination, the idea of a mission.
In Ardern's case the ability to viscerally move people, appealing to their better lights.
For Bolger and Key, they were just better than anyone else in the room. Both were very clear thinkers.
In all cases the Leaders had to be able to speak with conviction, so the listener could say, "yes, that is right, it is what I believe".
"What is merit?
In politics, the ability to express appealing ideas in an easy to understand and in a compelling way. Often laced with humour. "
Well that pretty much embraces Hitler. So I'm not sure we should call it merit as such. Perhaps we could find another word?
Yes, that last paragraph has been expressed in many different ways over the years. Who said the secret of getting things done was to persuade other people that they had already thought of it themselves and that all the humble speaker was doing was clarifying the point? One of the more successful US presidents, I suspect.
I suspect things have become more venal since your day Wayne.
Look at the White House - and although TG, we are NZers, the same themes are playing out here to a lesser extent. TPM are masterful in this, and a few handful of other cabinet, shadow cabinet ministers or senior MPs I could name so you could expect this to filter down to their staff to an extent.
And not to underestimate the ability to manipulate the press gallery, either publicly or behind the scenes, in all this. Who will ever forget "The Jessica 'n Tova" show of the covid years?
Aha! Of course I do! And, do you know, I think it left a very deep impression on the ordinary voter. For the first time he/she got to witness the full, unedited prime-ministerial presser in all its tawdry glory. Talk about things that make you go ... hmmmm.
I pretty much classify myself as an ordinary voter and it certainly made an indelible impression on me, as it did on many of my friends.
It seems I took it all at face value. What was the manipulation to which you refer?
Cast your mind back to the daily briefings for the press during the covid era. Jessica Mutch McKay and Tova O'Brien were members of the parliamentary press gallery at this time. When Jacinda Ardern opened the floor to questions after her briefings nearly every time she said "Jessica first then Tova" (or vice versa) without pausing for breath then usually closed down the question time straight afterwards. It was SO marked and unrelenting it was difficult not to think that they had been fed the questions Ardern was willing to answer, especially since it was rare that anyone else got a look in. So it became a bit of a joke - hence "the Jessica 'n' Tova show". I'm sure that politicians of all stripes would prefer to answer questions from commentators that are sympathetic to them but this was so blatant it counted as manipulation of opinion in my book.
That's the way it looked, Aroha, but the rules were well-established long before Covid.
As the two big television networks, with early deadlines, TVNZ and TV3 got first dibs. They were generally followed by Radio NZ and Newstalk-ZB, then the NZ Herald and the other major newspapers.
It's the same story overseas, there's a well-established pecking order and woe betide any media outlet that attempts to jump the queue!
Conspiracy? No. Hierarchy? Definitely.
Indeed. However I would think that there were other journalists there who would meet those criteria so I stand by my supposition!
"and what did that produce? "
Actually, Einstein, Le Corbusier, Jung, Rousseau, William Tell, Auguste Picard, several famous mathematicians I can't remember the names of, some reasonably famous architects and artists, who I also can't remember the names of and Ursula Andress, The sight of whom emerging from the water in a bikini with a knife strapped to her thigh got me and the younger Steptoe all aquiver.
Many of these seem to me to have been a lot more use than Machiavelli, though not necessarily than Leonardo or Michelangelo.
You missed the most important one of all. Henri Nestlé. :)
Yes, a useful corrective, Harry Lime was not to be taken too seriously as an expert on human affairs (no more so than the Kevin Kline character in a Fish Called Wanda, who thought that the core principle of Buddhism was to do it to them before they did it to you.)
Very very good
Chris the next question after reading your essay would be, can good government that achieves something, be administered differently. Parliament is advertorial as is the judiciary. Our court cases are argued, and both prosecution and defence have been known to tell half truths, or in some cases hide the truth to tip the scales. They lie. The opposition and the media keep the sitting government as honest as possible but as you have described they lie also. The opposition is happy to point to any failings of government and will twist the truth to serve it’s purpose and the media can easily lie by not printing a story the public should know about, or asking misleading or irrelevant questions in an interview.
My answer is that old saying “You can fool some of the people all of the time………” Eventually the people see through it. Not all, but many know when the politician is evading a question. They know when the court has handed out an unsatisfactory verdict and they know when the media is asking the wrong questions to get that “gotcha” moment which in most cases is out of context and meaningless. Human nature has us using these skills to further our agendas regardless of the truth.
Ministers and whips bullying staff or members into line, I do have trouble accepting . The public can’t see that, unless it’s brought to light. It must be emotionally damaging and is unethical. Towing the party line opens the door to this sort of abuse but I can’t see that changing anytime soon.
Generally I feel parliament gets it right in the end and hopefully less of this behaviour is tolerated. The media is getting it’s own punishment via the ratings and loss of advertising revenue.
Sorry to be a pedant, (Well only mildly) but "towing" the line annoys the crap out of me. It's a boxing reference and it's "toeing".
Thanks for correcting my word choice GS. I confess to not knowing the correct word, and take your point about the boxing reference that I had heard of somewhere. Maybe "having no choice but to accept the party line" opens the....... , would be more acceptable english.