A friend and I recently discussed my experience with the National Party – specifically my experience in the meetings that were held post their 2020 election collapse.
This is not a specific criticism of the National Party; rather, other than Labour and the Greens, all parties seem to have this issue.
After I had listened to the proceedings and the party strategists’ ‘determinations’ as to why things had gone so badly, my ideas had crystallised.
I agreed with some of their deliberations; however, they seemed unaware of their Achilles heel – and the same modus operandi exists to this day.
As a background: sometime before that meeting, I had seen a televised debate between a National MP and a Labour MP. As part of the debate the National MP declared that the ‘diversity dividend’ was a “well-established fact”.
No, it is NOT. Diversity can be positive; it can be neutral, and it can be detrimental to any organisation (the studies of Robert Putnam attest to this but are studiously ignored by diversity advocates and educators). And ‘diversity’ to the benefit of an organisation is not determined by a person’s skin colour, or gender, or religion etc; the value lies in their skills, learning, competence, conscientiousness, and ability to both work independently and within a team, depending on the role.
This is a point that I dearly wish the NZ Institute of Directors would take on board, as I believe they have been significantly swayed by the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion narrative; and that is a governance problem. The fish rots from the head.
To the party gathering, I espoused that National (and other parties) have a fundamental issue – they fight their battles with the language and hence the narrative of their opposition.
While at the meeting I had heard the words “diversity, equity and inclusion” so many times it made my eyes roll. What are you saying? Do you hear yourselves?
For example, the convenor of the meeting espoused, “We want to be a more inclusive party”. Really? Who says you are not inclusive? Looking around the room it seems you are? Or are you just reacting to an accusation and then rolling over to the Left’s narrative? Will you change the fundamental precepts of your party just so you can get more people to join?
Or are you going to be a “welcoming” party that has firm and established principles that we want all New Zealanders to have the opportunity to embrace – because we sincerely believe that this will be a good thing for ALL New Zealanders. In this environment, all opinions are welcome for discussion within the group, without rancour or penalty.
I don’t think “inclusive”, in the Orwellian sense that it is being promoted by the Labour Party and the Greens, means what you, or indeed many, think it means. In fact, it is exclusive. Whether you know it or not, the group understands that signing up creates an ‘obligation of compliance’, and this will be collectively enforced. While anyone can naively or knowingly join, if you don’t toe the party line then you will be punished and if necessary excommunicated. Membership is contingent on opinions not challenging the dogma.
When I criticised National’s preoccupation with ‘diversity’ there was an immediate outcry. I thought to myself, “Am I at a Labour Party meeting?” “You can’t say that,” they shrilled and they demanded I shut up and sit.
Much to the horror of my local MP (Simeon Brown) I refused to yield the floor because I had not finished my point. And I replied to those complainants, words to the effect that “So ‘cosmetic diversity’ is OK? But diversity of opinion is unacceptable – even here at the National Party meeting”?
Round about this point the lady was coming for the microphone so I hurried my comments on to ‘equity’ – to the effect that ‘equality of opportunity’ rather than ‘equality of outcome’ is surely more on-point with the National Party’s ethos… and I had been hearing the word “equity” so many times that evening I wondered where I was… and the microphone was taken from me…
My suggestion to the National Party (and other parties) to restore your credibility is to adopt your own slogan. Here’s a suggestion. Promote yourself as a party of these values:
Welcoming – it is a large tent and under this roof we have a broad church;
Equality – this extends across all areas and can be enhanced through help, i.e. equality of opportunity;
Merit – people should be chosen for roles based on ability, character, and results.
These sorts of words don’t ‘roll off the tongue’ – yet – as easily as “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” only because they have not been marketed. Yet they are far more relevant today and they are easily understood by everyone. Heads will nod to the ideas.
Both liberals and conservatives need to understand that they need their own narrative and they need to have the policies to match. They need to realistically offer people ‘choice’.
Currently, the National Party doesn’t offer anything characteristically or substantively different. What points of differentiation they do have are old and tired. They have the substance of the cobwebs of a political era long departed. ACT is not far behind. Mostly they are ‘shades’ of the current incumbent’s narrative.
- WEM can be used to build your own, very strong narrative.
There are significant opportunities within the context of “Welcoming, Equality and Merit”. These include the currently under-addressed issues of education reform, banking reform, NGO reform, corporate tax evasion, bodily autonomy, state administration accountability, municipal infrastructure, and freedom of speech.
These issues are a list of what Labour and the Greens are not doing, or that they are addressing ideologically rather than for the common good, e.g. Three Waters. It suits them better to push through ideological legislation based on ‘Diversity, Equity and Inclusion’, even to the detriment and future hazard of New Zealand as a peaceful, prosperous, and cohesive nation, e.g. Labour’s current divisive and segregationist focus on ‘co-governance’.
All opposition parties should adopt WEM to make a unified case that is plain and relevant to all the people of New Zealand. Consistently present WEM as an alternative, a better way forward – or continue to fight your battles on the beaches of the DEI political lexicon.