The National Party’s origins can be traced back to May 1936, when it was formed from a merger between the United Party and the Reform Party. However, the roots of these parties go back even further. The United Party, formerly known as the Liberal Party until 1927, had a primary base of support in the cities and drew heavily on businesses for funding and middle-class voters for electoral support. Meanwhile, the Reform Party was strongly supported by rural voters, particularly farmers, who made up a significant proportion of the population.
Given its origins, it could be argued that the National Party has never fully embraced conservative values. Rather, the party has historically been more focused on representing the interests of business and farming communities, promoting policies that favour free-market capitalism, lower taxes, and less regulation. This pro-business stance has often been at odds with traditional conservative values. Nonetheless, the National Party has remained the dominant political force on the right in New Zealand, in part due to its ability to appeal to these key economic interests.
Another reason for the National Party’s distancing from traditional conservative values is its shift away from traditional social values. In recent years, the party has become more liberal on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, which has led to criticism from some of its more conservative members. While this shift is not surprising given the changing social attitudes in New Zealand, it has led to concerns that the National Party is no longer a home for those with traditional conservative values.
Furthermore, the National Party’s lack of engagement on cultural issues is another argument for why it does not hold traditional conservative views. Unlike conservative parties in other countries, the National Party has not engaged in the culture wars that have dominated politics in recent years. The party has been criticised for largely avoiding issues such as free speech and cancel culture, which are of great concern to many conservatives. Instead, the National Party has focused on more pragmatic issues such as economic policy, which has led to accusations that it is a party without a clear ideological compass.
To be fair, it’s not just the National Party that has faced criticism for shifting away from conservative principles. The UK Conservative Party has also been accused of abandoning some of its core values in favor of more liberal social policies and pro-business positions. Some traditional conservatives have expressed concerns that the party has become too focused on attracting metropolitan voters and abandoned its roots in rural and working-class communities. Critics argue that the party has become too “centrist” and has moved away from its traditional conservative policies, such as support for traditional family values and strong national borders.
No doubt the National Party’s shift away from traditional conservative values is a deliberate strategy to appeal to a broader base of voters, including younger and more progressive voters. This strategy has been driven by a belief that traditional conservative values are not as popular as they once were, particularly among younger voters who are more likely to be socially liberal.
In addition to the National Party’s shift towards more progressive policies, there is a growing perception among some in New Zealand that the party has moved so far towards the center that it is now indistinguishable from the center-left Labour Party on many issues.
This perceived lack of differentiation between the National Party and Labour has raised concerns among some of the party’s traditional conservative supporters, who feel that the party has lost its ideological moorings. These supporters argue that the National Party has abandoned its principles in pursuit of electoral success, and that it needs to return to its roots as a true conservative party.
Linked to this perception is the criticism that the National Party has become too tightly whipped, with MPs prevented from expressing their own opinions or the opinions of their electorates in ways that may vary from party policy. This has led to frustration among some party members, who feel that their voices are not being heard and that the party is not responsive to their concerns.
This discipline has been particularly evident in relation to social issues, with MPs such as Harete Hipango and Simon O’Connor being prevented from speaking out on issues such as Covid lockdowns and abortion rights. Most recently, Maureen Pugh was reprimanded by the party leadership for asking Green’s co-leader James Shaw to produce evidence to support some of his recent climate-related claims.
Similarly, the National Party has received some criticism for not meeting or engaging with the Parliament protesters in February last year. Although there was unease at the time that the protest was poorly organised and lacked focus, undoubtedly the primary grievance driving the protest was the Covid mandates. Stunningly, whilst parliamentarians were refusing to meet with the protesters, a judge in the Wellington High Court ruled that the police and NZDF mandates were unlawful.
These events have led to accusations that the National Party is not a truly conservative party, but rather a party that is afraid to engage in controversial issues for fear of alienating voters. Moreover, it appears to be afraid to let even one of its Members of Parliament express a view which may not align with party policy.
In response to these criticisms, some National Party members have called for a more open and transparent approach to policy development, with greater consultation with party members and a greater willingness to consider a range of views. Others argue that the party needs to return to its traditional conservative values and differentiate itself more clearly from the center-left Labour Party.
To be fair to the party leadership, in relation to the latest controversy – the visit to New Zealand of Kellie-Jay Keen – National Party leader, Christopher Luxon did defend Keen’s right to free speech. Luxon also matter-of-factly answered the question, “What is a woman?” with the response, “an adult human female”. The sky didn’t fall in and Luxon wasn’t subject to the global mocking that was directed at the Prime Minister for his stuttering, garbled response to the same question in a post-Cabinet press conference.
The next question, however, is where National stands on women’s sports and women’s only spaces. There is clearly differing approaches now being adopted at the international level. As Keen was touching down in New Zealand to begin her ill-fated visit, the President of World Athletics, Lord Coe was announcing that he was tightening rules relating to transgender women competing in events in order to “protect the female category”.
Coe announced that transgender women who went through male puberty can no longer compete in women’s events at international competitions sanctioned by World Athletics, the governing body for track and field and other running competitions.
It follows a similar decision taken by England Rugby to restrict transgender players from competing in women’s rugby on the basis of safety concerns supported by recent scientific studies on injuries in contact sport.
These decisions were not taken to prevent or limit the participation of transgender people in sports but merely to balance competing interests relating to fairness and safety.
New Zealand in many respects is an interesting contradiction of views. On the one hand, it has embraced universal suffrage, gay marriage and abortion rights but on the other hand, the country voted against decriminalising marijuana. In any event, the country is undoubtedly socially liberal with a long history of progressive social policies.
The National Party’s historic focus on business interests has served it well but in a time of rapid social change occurring at home and abroad it will either need to articulate clear positions on social issues or it will gradually lose support within its traditional base. Freedom of expression applies not only to members of the public but also to their elected representatives. Members of Parliament should be trusted to express personal views in a thoughtful manner even if they may vary from party policy. It may add to the workload of the party leadership and whips but it will demonstrate that the National Party is a broad church that can accommodate a range of views representative of New Zealand.
Thomas Cranmer, Lawyer with over 25 years experience in some of the world's biggest law firms. This article was first published HERE
Given its origins, it could be argued that the National Party has never fully embraced conservative values. Rather, the party has historically been more focused on representing the interests of business and farming communities, promoting policies that favour free-market capitalism, lower taxes, and less regulation. This pro-business stance has often been at odds with traditional conservative values. Nonetheless, the National Party has remained the dominant political force on the right in New Zealand, in part due to its ability to appeal to these key economic interests.
Another reason for the National Party’s distancing from traditional conservative values is its shift away from traditional social values. In recent years, the party has become more liberal on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, which has led to criticism from some of its more conservative members. While this shift is not surprising given the changing social attitudes in New Zealand, it has led to concerns that the National Party is no longer a home for those with traditional conservative values.
Furthermore, the National Party’s lack of engagement on cultural issues is another argument for why it does not hold traditional conservative views. Unlike conservative parties in other countries, the National Party has not engaged in the culture wars that have dominated politics in recent years. The party has been criticised for largely avoiding issues such as free speech and cancel culture, which are of great concern to many conservatives. Instead, the National Party has focused on more pragmatic issues such as economic policy, which has led to accusations that it is a party without a clear ideological compass.
To be fair, it’s not just the National Party that has faced criticism for shifting away from conservative principles. The UK Conservative Party has also been accused of abandoning some of its core values in favor of more liberal social policies and pro-business positions. Some traditional conservatives have expressed concerns that the party has become too focused on attracting metropolitan voters and abandoned its roots in rural and working-class communities. Critics argue that the party has become too “centrist” and has moved away from its traditional conservative policies, such as support for traditional family values and strong national borders.
No doubt the National Party’s shift away from traditional conservative values is a deliberate strategy to appeal to a broader base of voters, including younger and more progressive voters. This strategy has been driven by a belief that traditional conservative values are not as popular as they once were, particularly among younger voters who are more likely to be socially liberal.
In addition to the National Party’s shift towards more progressive policies, there is a growing perception among some in New Zealand that the party has moved so far towards the center that it is now indistinguishable from the center-left Labour Party on many issues.
This perceived lack of differentiation between the National Party and Labour has raised concerns among some of the party’s traditional conservative supporters, who feel that the party has lost its ideological moorings. These supporters argue that the National Party has abandoned its principles in pursuit of electoral success, and that it needs to return to its roots as a true conservative party.
Linked to this perception is the criticism that the National Party has become too tightly whipped, with MPs prevented from expressing their own opinions or the opinions of their electorates in ways that may vary from party policy. This has led to frustration among some party members, who feel that their voices are not being heard and that the party is not responsive to their concerns.
This discipline has been particularly evident in relation to social issues, with MPs such as Harete Hipango and Simon O’Connor being prevented from speaking out on issues such as Covid lockdowns and abortion rights. Most recently, Maureen Pugh was reprimanded by the party leadership for asking Green’s co-leader James Shaw to produce evidence to support some of his recent climate-related claims.
Similarly, the National Party has received some criticism for not meeting or engaging with the Parliament protesters in February last year. Although there was unease at the time that the protest was poorly organised and lacked focus, undoubtedly the primary grievance driving the protest was the Covid mandates. Stunningly, whilst parliamentarians were refusing to meet with the protesters, a judge in the Wellington High Court ruled that the police and NZDF mandates were unlawful.
These events have led to accusations that the National Party is not a truly conservative party, but rather a party that is afraid to engage in controversial issues for fear of alienating voters. Moreover, it appears to be afraid to let even one of its Members of Parliament express a view which may not align with party policy.
In response to these criticisms, some National Party members have called for a more open and transparent approach to policy development, with greater consultation with party members and a greater willingness to consider a range of views. Others argue that the party needs to return to its traditional conservative values and differentiate itself more clearly from the center-left Labour Party.
To be fair to the party leadership, in relation to the latest controversy – the visit to New Zealand of Kellie-Jay Keen – National Party leader, Christopher Luxon did defend Keen’s right to free speech. Luxon also matter-of-factly answered the question, “What is a woman?” with the response, “an adult human female”. The sky didn’t fall in and Luxon wasn’t subject to the global mocking that was directed at the Prime Minister for his stuttering, garbled response to the same question in a post-Cabinet press conference.
The next question, however, is where National stands on women’s sports and women’s only spaces. There is clearly differing approaches now being adopted at the international level. As Keen was touching down in New Zealand to begin her ill-fated visit, the President of World Athletics, Lord Coe was announcing that he was tightening rules relating to transgender women competing in events in order to “protect the female category”.
Coe announced that transgender women who went through male puberty can no longer compete in women’s events at international competitions sanctioned by World Athletics, the governing body for track and field and other running competitions.
It follows a similar decision taken by England Rugby to restrict transgender players from competing in women’s rugby on the basis of safety concerns supported by recent scientific studies on injuries in contact sport.
These decisions were not taken to prevent or limit the participation of transgender people in sports but merely to balance competing interests relating to fairness and safety.
New Zealand in many respects is an interesting contradiction of views. On the one hand, it has embraced universal suffrage, gay marriage and abortion rights but on the other hand, the country voted against decriminalising marijuana. In any event, the country is undoubtedly socially liberal with a long history of progressive social policies.
The National Party’s historic focus on business interests has served it well but in a time of rapid social change occurring at home and abroad it will either need to articulate clear positions on social issues or it will gradually lose support within its traditional base. Freedom of expression applies not only to members of the public but also to their elected representatives. Members of Parliament should be trusted to express personal views in a thoughtful manner even if they may vary from party policy. It may add to the workload of the party leadership and whips but it will demonstrate that the National Party is a broad church that can accommodate a range of views representative of New Zealand.
Thomas Cranmer, Lawyer with over 25 years experience in some of the world's biggest law firms. This article was first published HERE
7 comments:
Maybe MMP is the factor that is changing National.
Ultimately even if National was identical to Labour in policy its the coalition partners that are included that define the final flavour of the formed Govt.
We know that the Greens will never go with National and we know that ACT will never go with Labour so when you vote for National rather than Labour the final mix is right of center.
>Freedom of expression applies not only to members of the public but also to their elected representatives. Members of Parliament should be trusted to express personal views in a thoughtful manner even if they may vary from party policy.
There is no point in having political parties if sitting members are not bound by them. In the British tradition, unlike in the US, a sharp distinction is made between matters of party policy and issues in which members are allowed a conscience vote.
I agree with Barend. While it may superficially seem “reasonable and fair” for parties to allow dissenting views within its ranks, it is inconsistent with having a party in the first place. Parties have policy schedules, and presumably candidates sign up to them when selected - otherwise they could not campaign on behalf of the party! While individual party members may have differing views, and try to have them added to agreed party policy, this cannot be seen to be the case with candidates and MPs, at least not in public. Even for voters, if they cannot be sure that their prospective MP actually agrees with the policies of the party that they are voting for, they are being duped.
For many years, NZ parliament was a group of independent men, voted in partly for their knowledge, experience and skills, and partly to represent their voters. If they went against their voters, they would suffer at the next election.
That is the problem we have today, particularly with the party list system. No voter has a say in the dimwits who get into parliament on party lists. They usually contribute nothing but a count in the party vote: they might as well be cadavers, rather than living persons (and it would be cheaper).
Here's the thing, do you want to work for a govt. corporation climbing the ladder? The pays very good particularly if there's a Labour govt. Or w.ould you like to either work in partnership with a business or create your own business and have some autonomy?
Let's forget the Gay marriage thing it's already here and is so around the world. Personally I don't see what the problem is with civil unions myself as it's just the case of a legal partnership.
But nevertheless people can get over it and if not puke all they like until they are blue in the face. Not my problem.
The current abortion law is diabolical. Please if you you need to terminate can't you get it done within the first 12 Weeks. If there's an abnormality detected upon reaching 4 months then that would be a good case to allow. Late term pregnancy seems alotosinister to me!!
Late term pregnancy seems a lot more sinister to me.
The anti vax issue, it's about personal choice. Having the freedom to access the appropriate information and knowing the risks involved in taking an untested vaccine which uses messinger RNA which has never before been used.
Climate change? Still yet to see any evidence that convinced me, as far as I'm aware plants need co2.
And I want to say a hard no to neo colonialism. And a NO to a one world govt.
Can National do that for me? I seriously doubt it.
AMLO is looking pretty good at this point.
Anonymous
"The current abortion law is diabolical. Please if you you need to terminate can't you get it done within the first 12 Weeks. If there's an abnormality detected upon reaching 4 months then that would be a good case to allow. Late term pregnancy seems alotosinister to me!!"
That's just an arbitrary distinction – if you can abort a baby at 12 weeks, then why not 4 months? If it's wrong at 4 months, then it's also wrong at 12 weeks. Nearly all abortions are abortions of personal convenience, and none of them should be allowed. Once conception is achieved, that's that – a woman's "choice" comes at the point of sexual intercourse, and not after conception. The issue is one of promiscuity outside or wedlock – fix that, and abortion becomes a non-issue.
The right are now socialists and the left raving mad Marxists/Communists.
It is just one big Uniparty working for the 'Legal Fiction Corporation' that masquerades as our Government.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.