Heather Roy’s Diary

You have to be careful how you describe things in politics. In my early days as a politician I described ACT to a friend as being on the Right of politics. She confessed years later that she’d had to ask another more politically savvy friend what the Right of politics was! That was a ‘Fail’ for me.

When I’m asked now I describe ACT as a free enterprise Party, economically and socially liberal. Liberal with a small ‘l’: less government interference in people’s lives – so lower taxes, legislation that doesn’t stray into people’s homes and certainly not into their bedrooms.

Having to explain what your Party stands for is never good. It should be evident from the policies promoted and from voting records.

The Greens have an international brand: saving the environment. This might or might not be correct, but it is the public perception in politics that counts. For the other political Parties the perceptions are: Labour cares for people; National supports business; the Maori Party is for Maori people; Peter Dunne sits in the middle. And ACT? I’d be pleased to hear less government, lower taxes but for many the answer might well be hard-Right.

What does that mean? What is Left, Right, and what is Centre? It’s a simplistic way of describing political ideas and Parties on a one-dimensional axis. It’s an easy way for journalists to add an adjective in front of the Party name noun – eg: the ‘Centrist’ United Future Party – but it really doesn’t giving meaningful description to any Party.

Each year I’m invited to speak to the Victoria University POLS 111 class, which I did this morning. I began with trying to place each Party on a one-dimensional axis from Left, through Centre to Right. There are always protracted debates about where the smaller Parties should be placed, showing the limitations of a very simplistic world view.

It’s much easier when you do the same exercise on a two dimensional model with the X-axis Socialist vs Capitalist and Y-axis liberal (top) vs conservative (bottom). You end up with the National and Labour Parties broadly in the middle of the chart with some overlap, Greens top left (socialist, liberal) and ACT top right (capitalist, liberal). United Future is in the middle and there is still debate about the Maori Party and New Zealand First. It’s much easier to view this in a diagram, and I have posted the slides on my YouTube channel. Those interested can view them there or on my website (www.roy.org.nz).

It is interesting then to see how people’s perception of a Party tallies with their own beliefs. It’s not uncommon for the two to be different based on perception of what a Party stands for. One way of assessing this is by using a political compass – a series of questions that, when collated, tells individuals where they sit on the political spectrum. There are a number of political compasses available – google can help find them! The one I recommend is the World’s Smallest Political Quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz). It’s quick and gives a reasonable approximation of one’s place on the spectrum – and a better feel for whether or not they are voting for the Party that best represents their views.

Worst of all are those who think it really doesn’t matter who you vote for because all politicians and Parties are the same. I can tell you from up-close examination and experience that this is not the case, and you should use your two votes wisely. The majority Party may set the scene, but its support Party or Parties also have a significant influence on policies examined and put in place. That’s the nature of MMP, and in the 2011 election you get a say on that as well.

Lest We Forget – March 25, 1847
Featherston and Wakefield are well-known Wellington names, now immortalised with streets named after them. Less known is the 1847 duel between the two - Dr Isaac Featherston and Colonel William Wakefield. It is thought to have been the last duel in Wellington.

Dr Featherston was the editor of the 'Wellington Independent' and, in his March 24 1847 edition, attacked the land policy of the New Zealand Company. Col Wakefield, the company’s Principal Agent in New Zealand, took umbrage at the editorial – assuming it was a thinly-disguised accusation that he was a thief. The result was a duel – a means for upper class men to reclaim their injured honour – held at Te Aro, Wellington the following day. History has it that Featherston fired first and missed; Wakefield then fired into the air, saying he “would not shoot a man who had seven daughters.”

Featherston later served as a member of the House of Representatives, Colonial Secretary and Minister without portfolio. Wakefield led long drawn-out negotiations with the Government over land transactions after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, and his last act as Principal Agent was to reach final agreement on the settlers’ claims. He died 18 months after the duel of apoplexy.

ENDS

© Scoop Media