Whee, politics

[labellementeuse]

Attention! Instead of reading the following boring bitching about New Zealand politicians' sex scandals, you should really just read Tze Ming Mok's hysterical latest.


Sometimes when I'm bored on my Thursday evening shift, I write little lists of what I would prefer to be writing an LJ entry about. Sometimes I write the entry, sometimes I don't, but anyway. Tonight's list had just one item: I can't believe I'm writing about Don Brash again.

That's right, boys and girls of the foreign persuasion. Don "My wife is Chinese* so I can't be racist or anti-immigration", "If National loses the 2005 election I will resign," "I lose my debates with Helen Clark on purpose because it's not nice to be rude to women", "Helen knows my party's policy better than I do" Brash, unbeloved, fuddy-duddy, conservative, frankly bad politician Leader of the Opposition, is back in the news. (National did in fact lose the election, and he... did not step down. Hm.)

Unfortunately, I find myself in the position of supporting him. Excuse me while I go bleach my brain.

This is the thing: New Zealand has something of a tradition of keeping its nose out of the private lives of its politicians, and I generally think this is a really good thing. There are exceptions, times when a politician's private life is relevant (and, obviously, things like corruption and all over everywhere) but as a rule, the validity of what a politician is saying should be judged by what they're saying, not by the politician. This is, I believe, part of the reason the NZ parliament includes a rastafarian and an transsexual.

Now, Don Brash is well-known to have cheated on his first wife with the woman who would become his second - and current, Singaporean - wife. The irony of his conservative positions on marriage is not lost on anyone, but it's not usually considered kosher to bring this up in debates. A few days ago it was leaked that Brash is having marital problems (he's taking a sabbatical, I believe, from which I suspect he will not be returning) and someone in Brash's own party basically said in Parliament that he's been cheating again.

(If anyone not a Kiwi is still reading along, there's been a whole heap of shit-slinging in Parliament lately. First Philip Field is being accused of corruption (Tze Ming Mok's analysis of what he's supposed to have done is here, if anyone has a better one gimme a shout), then the Labour party is being accused of breaking laws using the wrong money to pay for some pledge cards (no link because this is pretty cut-and-dried: it clearly wasn't an intentional mistake, I doubt it significantly affected election results, for fuck's sake, Helen, just pay back the money and everyone will call it quits.) THEN Labour basically threatened to loose the hounds dirt files. This is apparently the first taste of that although, as I said, the original volley came from within National.

Also, National has been trying to smear Labour for... some time, actually, and Labour has generally been fairly restrained about responding, so I guess it was time.)

Okay, that is a very longwinded lot of paragraphs for me to get around to saying: I don't like Don Brash. I think he's not a very good politician and on those occasions when he does manage to articulate opinion I invariably find myself in vehement disagreement (Orewa nearly gave me apoplexy); he certainly managed to revitalise failing National support but he did it in a way that really altered the shape of Parliament, to a shape I don't like (polarised, virtually two-party); and above all, I think that he should have done as he said he would and resigned after National lost the 2005 election. However! If you are going to question Brash's fitness to lead his party, there are a million and one good reasons to do so, like he's a crappy speechmaker, a hopeless debater, he has no control over his party and backbenchers (which, well, sort of proved that), he frequently doesn't know his own policy, even just that he's hopelessly out of touch and old fashioned.

But for god's sake, stay out of the man's bedroom.

Just as I believe the fact that Tim Barnett has sex with men should not be a factor in judging his fitness as a politician, I do not believe Brash's (condemnable, BTW) sexual misconducts should be brought into the limelight. It's not relevant and I want fairness to go both ways. (Although he does look pretty awful in light of the fact that his party is the one that bangs on (and on and on and on) about the sanctity of marriage.)

But if you do want to talk about it, Russell Brown discusses who he was doin' and why it was a problem.

Um, okay, that's more than enough time devoted to Don Brash's - eww - sex life. Let's talk about Bob Clarkson, shall we? Or, rather, let's let amarynth talk about Bob "I had to be told to stop talking about my testicles in public" Clarkson's latest idiocies, because he is smrt and put it very well.

No more politics for another six months, promise.

*Singaporean, in fact

Comments

[derrick-reeves.livejournal.com]

We're stuck in mid-term. There is absolutely nothing for the opposition to do, other than think long and hard about why they lost last time. Well, not about the real reasons, of course, but about who to blame. And because you can only go so far blaming your PR people (minions, despite the evidence from 80s cartoons, really aren't that disposable), the right way to point fingers is upward.

On that basis, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say:

This isn't the media, and it isn't the NZLP slinging mud. It's just casus belli for some likely lad in the party ranks to knife dear old Don between the shoulderblades and rise to become head honcho. Based on the nature of the "scandal" Bill English looks like natural replacement, provided that he isn't too principled to do unto Don as Don did unto him.

Ha.

Of course, this is New Zealand, and we don't do comebacks here - but there's a first time for everything, isn't there?

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Oh, please, please, please let it be Bill "I led the National party to its worst defeat ever" English.

I really mean that because he's really pretty harmless in comparison to Brash - certainly a lot less radical.

And of course you're right about it merely being an excuse but, dammit, there are lots of *valid* reasons to get rid of him!

[blademistress.livejournal.com]

I don't believe that Don Brash's private life is any of our business, but I do believe this is important because of the image he tried to portray - the new comer untainted by long years of corruption, crusader for "kiwi values", etc. From what I've heard he's been having this affair for maybe upto a year, and the woman's a member of the Round Table. I think that's pretty significant, because now they're literally in bed with those folks. But yeah, at the same time, oh so not cool.

So who do you think it is trying to knife him? I don't believe it's Brownlee or whatever his name is. I think it's the one who he said was going to be his Deputy and then had to get rid of after about 24 hours. I'd be freaking pissed too.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I do believe this is important because of the image he tried to portray - the new comer untainted by long years of corruption, crusader for "kiwi values", etc.

Yeah. This is the sticking point, the point where I am still undecided... it's obviously not right, in the general run of things, to out a closeted gay MP. But if that closeted gay MP is actively campaigning against, say, the CUB, or is just voting against it... is it then right to out them? I'm not sure and this is really the same thing, so.

and the woman's a member of the Round Table.

Actually, I heard that it's the woman who dictated that National's financial support from the Business Roundtable would depend on who was leading the party - that is, "no Brash, no cash" as Russel Brown said. So, just a TAD dodgy, huh?

I don't remember that. Izzat Key, maybe? I'm still hoping for dear old Bill... :P

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

Actually, I heard that it's the woman who dictated that National's financial support from the Business Roundtable would depend on who was leading the party - that is, "no Brash, no cash" as Russel Brown said. So, just a TAD dodgy, huh?

Just a tad. The revelation of WHO it is is making me consider stepping back a bit on the none-of-our-business thing; having an affair, whatever, having an affair with a major party funder, and not only that, one who could be considered to have had a role in him becoming leader...uh. That's kinda crossing the line into public business.

God, though, I feel for her husband. He's busy denying that any affair ever took place. (Isn't it interesting that we're all presuming his guilt? I am mostly on Russell Brown's word, but even so.)

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

The situation is, to me, parallel to Helen Clark having an affair with a major trade union leader. There are issues of nepotism involved.

No Mr Brash, I expect you to die.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I'm still hoping for dear old Bill... :P

That's always been Bill English's problem - he's the National leader most loved by people who will never in a million years vote for National. Although I didn't see much love for him in '02!

But if that closeted gay MP is actively campaigning against, say, the CUB, or is just voting against it...

I'd have to disagree. I know a lot of gay people who didn't support the CUB. (Although admittedly none who actively opposed it). Indeed, the identification between gay rights and civil unions is IMO tenuous at best... I know we've already had this discussion, and I'm not trying to restart it, I'm just pointing out that homosexuality and support for the bill aren't incompatible. A good example is Lockwood Smith, who is only semi in the closet, but since his positions on issues, while dubious, have nothing to do with homosexuality, outing him just isn't much of an issue (not to mention it would be very hypocritical of Labour).

I think the only situation where outing a closeted MP would be relevant would be if they were advocating laws which would directly effect their rights as they currently practice them - for instance, an MP saying that gays should not be able to stand for parliament, or hold public office, or whatever. Thankfully even the most paleolithic of our MPs, such as a certain man whose name rhymes with Clob Barkson, aren't proposing that.

Re: No Mr Brash, I expect you to die.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I'd have to disagree. I know a lot of gay people who didn't support the CUB.

I'm very aware of that and I'm familiar with the arguments against it (mostly the second-class citizen ones.) HOWEVER, I believe that in this situation it would be relevant. For example, if Lockwood Smith was indeed campaigning against the CUB, I think it would be highly relevant, important even, to acknowledge the fact that he is gay and ask him to publicly explain why, as a gay man, he does not support a bill that was seen as being mostly a gay rights issue (I know that that wasn't really what it was, but that is how it was both pushed and attacked.) That would actually open up dialogue as to why the CUB might not be the best way of going about it - which would fulfill his function as an elected MP of NZ, speaking for his constituents. :P

Dude, I love how they keep saying "Chris Finlayson, National's only gay MP..." Is there anyone who really believes that?

That's always been Bill English's problem - he's the National leader most loved by people who will never in a million years vote for National. Although I didn't see much love for him in '02!

Post-election, I was his greatest fan... ;) Actually, English pulls a lot of love from class of '04 because he was relentless on the NCEA thing. ('02 was the year NCEA was introduced; class of '04, of which I am a member, were the guinea pigs every. single. fucking. year.) The way he went about it pisses me off but hey, there is that.

Thankfully even the most paleolithic of our MPs, such as a certain man whose name rhymes with Clob Barkson, aren't proposing that.

Homosexual Law reform bill? Unfortunately, Clob doesn't seem to be too far away from wanting to repeal that...

Re: No Mr Brash, I expect you to die.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I think it would be highly relevant, important even, to acknowledge the fact that he is gay and ask him to publicly explain why, as a gay man, he does not support a bill that was seen as being mostly a gay rights issue

The critical word here is, as you've pointed out, 'seen'. Seen by whom? The media? The general public? Members of the political micro-culture? If I were Dr Smith and I was questioned about my sexuality in relation to the CUB (I have no idea how he voted - he may have supported it, for all I know), and presuming I didn't want to leap clear of the closet door, I'd simply say 'this bill has nothing to do with homosexual rights, and I do not intend to discuss my private life with the media' and present all the familiar arguments about why it isn't. So I guess it would be fairly harmless, but in my mind it's not fair game because it makes policy making less a matter of ideas and more a matter of personalities.

Dude, I love how they keep saying "Chris Finlayson, National's only gay MP..." Is there anyone who really believes that?

Actually I've often seen it formulated as National's only -openly- gay MP. Not that there aren't a fair few closet doors on Labour's side. Ruth Dyson, for example.

Actually, English pulls a lot of love from class of '04 because he was relentless on the NCEA thing.

Ah, I guess I kind of missed out on that vibe. The question is, as National leader, let alone as Prime Minister, do you think he would continue to show the stirling qualities displayed back then, or is it more a case of it being a big mess brewed up by the government and Bill was lucky enough to be the relevant opposition spokesman when it occurred?

Homosexual Law reform bill? Unfortunately, Clob doesn't seem to be too far away from wanting to repeal that...

In his heart of hearts, he might well, but he'd never seriously propose it, and even if he did his own party would shout him down. Even the homosexual law reform bill controversy, it must be remembered, was about repealing an existing law rather than introducing a new one, and there's always a slightly higher bar in terms of political capital to strike down a functioning law (even though, in legal terms, the difference is fairly slight). That's why discriminatory laws are usually weaselled in indirectly rather than through overt 'people of group X are banned from doing Y activity or having Z right' formulations - think the 90 day bill, for instance, which was phrased as intended to enable employers rather than disable employees.

Of course there is a wide perception among conservatives like Clarkson that homosexuals (or maori, or non-english speakers, or whatever) enjoy 'privilege', but they're usually spare on the details of exactly which acts of parliament enshrine this privilege, and presumably should be repealed.