Simon O'Connor: Pierre and Peter

Two fascinating election results in both Canada and Australia have all the commentators talking, and understandably so - but I think there are a few misdirections in play.

For both Pierre Poilievre and Peter Dutton, a win for their respective centre-right parties seemed almost certain early on in the election cycle. However, as we now know, both parties failed spectacularly. Adding to the humiliation, both men lost their electorate seats which, for Party leaders is both galling and problematic for their parties moving forward. To be fair on Peter Dutton, his Brisbane seat has always been marginal and he has done well to actually hold it for as long as he did. In Pierre’s case, a newly elected MP in a safe conservative seat has stepped aside which should allow him to win the by-election and return to Parliament.

To me, the reasons for failure are relatively simple. Neither was nimble enough to adjust their policy and messaging to the changing political environment. I think this was particularly true of Pierre who, early on, was confident and clear in his messaging, but as the narrative changed and particularly around the US tariffs, he didn’t seem to have a response. For Dutton, a further issue was an inability to clearly take positions on often controversial issues which erodes voter confidence. It is not about the issues themselves even, it is people seeing someone who is clear, confident, and definitive.

Running alongside all of this, neither Peter or Pierre had policy platforms that inspired the voters. Nor did Carney or Albanese, but as incumbents, the voters clearly decided to stick with what they had rather than risk something new and to a large degree, unknown (which comes back to the lacklustre campaigns). The same is true of the recent Singapore elections, with voters preferring the incumbent party.

Much is being made of the Trump effect, but I am not convinced this is the reason for the electoral outcomes. Undoubtedly the new US administration has an impact but I wouldn’t be overstating it. Trump is Trump. He’s unique. Pierre and Peter are neither Trump nor Trumpian. Suggesting they are is simply an attempt to undermine by association and consequently a political act by commentators and media.

I would also make the quick point that people vote on domestic issues – the economy, or access to health and education. They don’t vote on the nature of another country’s President or foreign policy. The caveat of course is tariffs, but even then, the debate remains theoretical to most voters at this stage.

Most laughably is the growing refrain that this is a win for social democracy - that somehow left-wing governments are the ones that drive democracy, social cohesion, and unity. This is a joke and an offence to reason.

When we look at New Zealand and around the world, much of the damage to social cohesion and our democratic structures has been instigated by the left. This is not say that centre-right parties are perfect - far from it! They can contribute to the decline in our institutions and culture as well, particularly when they go soft, weak, and woke.

Even a cursory glance at Labour under Jacinda Ardern illustrates this. Consider the Covid years - just about every mandate and rule has been thrown out by the courts as breaching fundamental human rights. Add to this the Public Journalism Fund, which further undermined trust in New Zealand mainstream media as too Labour’s incessant desire to divide New Zealand on racial lines, the attacks on free speech, and much more.

One can see parallels in Canada and Australia too, with Trudeau and Albanese also seeking to limit free speech or applying a heavy handed approach to the likes of the freedom convoy.

I think the point also needs to be made – opposing many of the absurdities of progressivism does not make someone anti-democratic or wrong. It’s deeply ironic to even suggest that one can only approach political, social, and cultural issues from one perspective. Most progressives hold a moral arrogance that only they have the right ideas, and everyone else is wrong and should be silenced. It’s the ongoing irony that the very things the left accuses others of, are in the fact, an articulation of their own faults. They often speak of those on the right as believing ‘they are born to rule’ and yet it is the left who believes only they have the moral mandate. They are currently screaming about ‘importing culture wars’ and yet they import foreign fights on a near daily basis – Palestine or BLM anyone?

Many are also suggesting these results are a significant and indicative sign of a change in Western democracies and a re-embracing of left wing and progressive policies. I think this is both far too early and selective. Certainly Canada and Australia have re-affirmed the left wing, yet the opposite is true in many European countries. I don’t observe any trend beyond the impact of immigration policies and voting patterns.

A final point. A political colleague of mine used to say often and rightly – the voters are always right. But what is also true, are voters get the government’s they deserve.

If Canada really wants more of the Liberal Party, and Australia Anthony Albanese and Labour, well full power to them. Fortunately, it’s not my job to clean up the mess.

Simon O'Connor a former National MP graduated from the University of Auckland with a Bachelor of Arts in Geography and Political Studies . Simon blogs at On Point - where this article was sourced.