The jab ‘tryanny’ of the closing of the national president shows that the party is not on the same page before the reconstruction attempt

ANALYSIS: For most party deputies and delegates, the night before the annual meeting of the National Party is a lobbying frenzy.

With three seats on the board and the party presidency at stake, the various parts of the party machine want to make sure they have their friends in the right places for what will be three very painful years in opposition.

But leader Judith Collins spent the night in the party’s meeting room in Parliament with Pacific Blues, the Party’s group for Pacific members.

Collins, National spokesperson for Pacific Peoples, called the meeting a few weeks ago.

READ MORE:
* The battle for control of National heats up as the board candidate retires
* Election 2020: What does it take to bring National back from the dead?
* Election 2020: Complete National Party bloodbath, but Judith Collins stays

He said the discussion, held over a meal, was frank.

“It was also a great opportunity for people to come into our meeting room, walk into Parliament and meet with me,” Collins said.

“I wanted to make sure that I, as a spokesperson for the peoples of the Pacific, was listening very clearly and listening very carefully.”

At the same gathering, members of Pacific Blues sang, while central party figures, from Collins herself to former leader John Key, spoke of the need to reflect the international and ethnically diverse society New Zealand had become, and move on of the party’s ethnic composition in previous decades.

“What I think is important is that we not only be more inclusive, but that we be more inclusive,” Collins said.

“It is important that the National Party is always aware that what could have worked 30 years ago will not work now; as a party, we must move with our country, “said Collins.

It was a strong rebuke from both Collins and Key that the party had to take into account one of its key shortcomings of the last term in the opposition: from the party’s strange flirtation with far-right politics to its opposition to the pact. of migration from the UN, down to its Deeply Pākehā front bench, in the face of any number of unusual pronouncements on race and diversity, National has backed down when it comes to reflecting the population of the country it wants to rule.

There were many more signals like this from Collins, and the members welcomed them.

His message was pretty basic. This was not the time to play the blame game – to complain to the government, the media and the electorate – National’s own failures cost him the election and if the party ever wanted to rule again, it would have to fix it first.

It was kind of an apology to the delegates, an apology to the people who volunteered time and donated money to a lost cause. It was also a kind of prostration from MPs to the membership, which likes to think of itself as one of the most democratic organizations in New Zealand politics.

“We, your national MPs, are indebted to you,” Collins said.

“We must seize the opportunity to regain their confidence. I hope that each of your parliamentarians lives up to your faith and makes you proud, “he said.

“I know it has been a difficult year for many supporters of the National Party. I know that for the National Party we were too focused on ourselves. We didn’t spend enough time thinking about the things New Zealanders cared about, ”Collins said.

Key’s speech was greeted with a reception that ranged from messianic to melancholic; Messianic because it is John Key speaking to the National Party, and melancholic in the sense of a relationship that has ended, but no one is willing to admit it.

Key was no less frank.

“We have to be honest enough to admit that our own failures played a role in our loss,” Key said.

“I know it sounds difficult, but it’s true. If we don’t recognize that, if we don’t take responsibility for it, we won’t learn from it, ”he said.

He urged the party to demonstrate competence to voters: National has to appear to be able to govern itself before asking voters to entrust the government of the country to it.

But he said the clock was ticking at National. Labor, he said, would be working hard to consolidate with voters who beat National and other parties in the election. National had to make sure it got the voters back from the center. He urged members each morning to think about the 413,800 people who voted for the party in 2017 but went elsewhere in 2020 and what the party could do to get them back.

Just waiting for those voters to fall in love with Jacinda Ardern wouldn’t be enough.

“That is an error. It’s what the Labor Party said about me for almost a decade.

“If we underestimate Jacinda and her advisers, we will be in opposition for a long time,” Key said.

But while Collins and Key made notes of contrition and reckoning loud and clear, President Peter Goodfellow turned his fire on more conventional enemies: the government and the media.

The unusual speech drifted into unusual excuses for why National failed to bring down Labor.

“For an opposition party, trying to hold a famous government accountable for its decisions and policies, it was suddenly a crime to ask legitimate questions to comment and the daily broadcasts became tele-evangelistic as a gospel to the masses.” Goodfellow said.

This was followed by an even greater outcry: “Democracy at one time gave way to a form of temporary tyranny; no one should fear death threats or violence for expressing an opinion no matter how much you disagree, but that was the reality in a Jacindamania world and I’m sure you felt that too throughout the year, I certainly did ”, Goodfellow said.

But it wasn’t entirely clear that the people in the room shared Goodfellow’s opinion at all. The line was met with deathly silence.

It was telling that Collins herself would not accept some of Goodfellow’s specific attacks on Ardern and the media. Speaking after the speeches, he thought Goodfellow delivered “an excellent speech,” but would not endorse the specific attacks made on it.

“He’s perfectly capable of answering for himself,” Collins said.

Key and Collins’ more thoughtful speeches were better. For Goodfellow, the stakes were high. His speech was partly a tone for reelection.

He faces reelection as a board member and reelection as president. Since the election, Goodfellow has come under increasing pressure, not just from his own leadership, but from the corporate-style party structure over which he presides, which some members consider insufficiently democratic.

His speech delivered something of a direct rebuke to that criticism.

“The high level of delegate attendance is a sign of a vibrant and healthy democracy within the party and that this will continue for a long time,” he said.

But at least one candidate for the board, former President David Carter, believes there is enough discontent over the lack of democracy in the party that he has included him in his election speech to the board.

The party members, it seems, are listening. Goodfellow has strengths, is well connected, and is very good at fundraising. It is also protected by the fact that it is very difficult to evict a president. The position is appointed by the board and Goodfellow clearly has a good relationship with most of its current members.

But that might not be enough to save your job. Delegates at the conference seemed to be in the mood for introspection rather than excuses. No party likes to lose, but National, which likes to think of itself as the natural party in government, has a particular allergy to opposition seats.