IF THE NATIONAL PARTY was a genuine conservative party, Simon Bridges would no longer be its leader. In a genuine conservative party, the outcry against his performance on Radio Hauraki last Friday (22/6/18) would have extracted his resignation within 24 hours. A great many voices would have joined the outcry against Bridges’ boorish denigration of the prime minister and her family, and for a great many reasons. Let’s examine just a few of them.
Genuine conservatism upholds the traditional values of society. The extending of courtesy to all human-beings, regardless of their station in life, is one of the oldest expectations of civilised society. Indeed, the ability to remain courteous at all times is held to be one of the surest signs of true nobility. It is the acknowledgement which those fortunate enough to wield power make to those who lack it entirely.
Bridges discourtesy towards Jacinda Ardern, Clarke Gayford and their baby not only demonstrated his ignorance of the way someone in his position is expected to behave, but was also proof that he is sorely lacking in the qualities associated with a true political leader. He showed himself to be a man without grace, generosity or sensitivity.
More importantly, he showed himself to be a man without judgement. To handle the shock-jocks of commercial radio requires the ability to think clearly and remain in complete control under pressure. Matt Heath and Jeremy Wells are, after all, entertainers who specialise in embarrassing their guests. John Key had a flair for this shock-jock vulgarity and generally handled such encounters with aplomb. Unfortunately for the National Party, Bridges is no Key. His Hauraki hosts led him by the nose into a slime-filled pit and encouraged him to wallow in it. In the immortal words of Dirty Harry: “A man’s got to know his limitations.” Bridges’ doesn’t know what he can’t do.
Bridges conduct also revealed a disturbing lack of moral strength. When one of his hosts demanded to know whether he hated Jacinda’s baby, there was only one correct answer: “No, of course I don’t! What a question!” What we heard, instead, was the weak-kneed equivocation: “Hate is a pretty strong word.” As if a less emphatic – but no less negative – characterisation of his feelings towards the child might be acceptable.
It was that same moral fragility which led Bridges’ into the other traps laid for him by his hosts. Trigger expressions, such as “gender-fluid”, elicited responses that showed him to be a person trapped in the rigid moral binaries of his Baptist upbringing. The kindest description of Bridges’ attitudes towards the LGBTI community is that they demonstrate a profound lack of both empathy and understanding. There are many less generous interpretations that could be offered for his willingness to find humour in the crudest of stereotypes.
Bridges was quick to reach for the excuse of humour when the full awfulness of his Hauraki performance became known. His comments were, he said, “light-hearted”. It is an interesting turn of phrase. Anyone who can make discriminatory comments about his fellow citizens with a light heart may not be the best qualified person to lead his country. Making trans-phobic comments with a light heart does not make them any less objectionable. A genuine conservative might even recall the old saying: ‘Many a true word spoken in jest.’
The most decisive voice raised against Bridges’ behaviour, however, would be the one that decried his lack of gravitas. Only political bomb-throwers like Richard Nixon and Joe McCarthy made use of crude demagogic terms like “pinkos” – and that was nearly seventy years ago!
And what is a genuine conservative to make of a person who holds at least two university degrees, and has studied at Oxford, publicly accusing the prime minister of picking up “funny ideas” at university? Such a knee-jerk reversion to the anti-intellectualism of the National Party’s least attractive supporters indicates a deeply conflicted individual who is, at the very least, unwilling to acknowledge his own indebtedness to the power of higher education to expand the possibilities of a young man raised in modest circumstances.
If Simon Bridges was blessed with gravitas – behaviour indicating a serious and dignified personality – the idea of depicting higher education as something dubious or subversive, would be utterly abhorrent. Equally repugnant to him would be the idea of espousing one set of ideas and attitudes to one group of voters and a second, diametrically opposed, set to another. Such dishonesty; such cynicism would be anathema to a genuine conservative.
The ideas and attitudes to which genuine conservative politicians proclaim their allegiance do not change with the audience they are addressing. The serious business of governing one’s fellow human-beings requires honesty, consistency and a full measure of that solemn passion which should distinguish the political life.
If Simon Bridges was such a politician he would never have agreed to appear on Radio Hauraki. If he still aspires to become one, he will never do so again.
Blue Dragons
I’m NO conservative either, but Bridges has nothing else to offer anyway, he is simply a true dick of sorts, not grown up, and lacking a true sense of humour, also being short of charisma.
He will not be National’s leader for all that long, of this I am sure.
simon bridges is a store-bought sort of fellow. A nylon suit off the rack. He’s a second hand Toyota Corolla driver. He has an elevator for the express purpose of listening to his favourite music in. Huey Lewis and The News perhaps?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psycho_(film)
He’s as true a Blue Natzo as they come. They’re entirely money and entirely without class. ‘Nobility’ is as foreign a word to them as ‘Geiger Counter’ would be to a Native Amazon Indian.
All radio Hauraki did was mine his bottomless bad taste for the shits and giggles of the ocean of moronic masses just out there.
How much money are we paying the budget Ken Doll with the brain fart function again, by the way…?
That Bridges possesses two University degrees is information I find quite staggering. Why then is his thinking so narrow and limited? Why is his life experience so shallow and boring? As evidenced by his lack of such qualities. Why does he not understand nuance or subtlety of any kind? Why doesn’t he have a sense of humour?I had the unfortunate experience of meeting him recently . He’s a poorly spoken short ass with zero understanding of what is happening in regional NZ. He is a small man with a small mind in a ghastly blue suit. A money grbbing twat. National to a “T”
Don’t know about Bridges but so some “Oxford” educated Kiwis did their undergraduate degrees eg at Waikato, then Masters or Hons in a further one year at e.g. Oxford, without necessarily having the immersion in a collegiate experience. Bridges as ‘university- educated’ typifies the Steven Joycean attitude to tertiary education as just job focused.
This lack of respect for our woman PM was probably started by Mark Richardson who is as devoid as social graces as the whole of the National Party is – who appointed Bridges leader presumably as the best of a bad bunch. Some of their women can be complete harridans too, and Key was hopeless, but Kiwi men related to his boorishness.
Maybe National can inveigle Kennedy Graham to join them – he’d be a splendid conservative leader. Or raise Ted Heath from the dead – he was musically gifted as well. Imagine.
i remember kennedy graham staring blank-faced at me when i raised the possibility of our eating animals fucking over the planet/environment…
i dunno w.t.f. he was doing in the green party..
a tory in green drag…
Shona you could just as easily be describing our last PM the one that quit.
While I can’t see Bridges remaining leader before the next election, imo Key was every bit as boorish, rude and insensitive and never faced any significant leadership challenges. I suspect a lot of National voters actually like this sort of attitude (see also Trump’s increasing popularity). Anyway Chris seemed to have missed a link for the interview in his article, so here it is:
http://www.hauraki.co.nz/video/hauraki-tv/matt-jerry-interview-national-leader-simon-bridges/
When was the last time a government lost power after only one term? The Nats know they’re in for at least 6 years in Opposition. Bridges won’t be the PM when the Nats finally get back into power, for the same reason Goff didn’t before him, and English didn’t before him (2002). The Nats have picked a disposable leader to get them through the loss of the next election, one who they think will attract a lot of publicity along the way, good or bad, it doesn’t matter (see my comment on Bomber’s piece on Bridge-gate).
John Key did exactly the same thing, but was smart enough to get away with it, which makes him twice as dangerous
National like Labour has to encompass both liberal views and conservative views. Its a problem neither resolve at all well. If we were better at MMP and the opportunities it provides for broader coalitions and debate we might resolve this better.
National like to think they are the Conservatives, but in character they are more like real Tories – an adaptation of an old Irish term for brigands or robbers.
Yes National are true Tories – reverse Robin Hoods, outlaws that steal from the poor to give to the rich.
Most of them have absolutely nothing in common with true conservatism, which although I don’t personally agree with – I at least have some respect for.
We have had other parties who have called themselves Conservatives, the most recent of which was Colin Craig’s bunch. But they weren’t really conservatives or parties, they were essentially wealthy businessmen (always men! never women!) who didn’t think they were rich enough and wanted to create their own fiefdom where they could operate to their own rules. To make it look more genuine they gathered a retinue of anonymous followers and called themselves conservatives.
The last old class conservative who led National was probably Keith Holyoake. Whatever his faults he at least he didn’t pretend he was a liberal or progressive on anything; unlike National now who mask their neo-liberal ideology under the euphemistic catchphrase – sound fiscal management.
Their real intent is to enrich themselves and their parasitic allies and screw the rest of the country.
That they have done a good job of this, and at the same time make it look like business as usual says something of their evil genius and vapidity of the people who are supposed to be the nation’s watchdogs – the MSM (what we used to call “The Press”).
It also says a lot about us as a nation that we just go along with it and close our eyes and pretend everything is hunky dory.
Sleepy hobbits indeed!
That is what a lot of us have become.
You’re onto it Chris. That interview was so heinous, like he was trying to play go along to get along with a pair of smarmy hyenas. Straight disturbing.
Bridges is too ambitious for his meagre talents, he lacks Key’s con-man’s guile.
If idiot Trump was removed, the smarter and therefore more dangerous Pence, Bolton and Miller would take over -so with Bridges removed we’d get (encouraged by commercial media) the much more dangerous Collins, Ross and Mitchell .
When Si pitched up with his plug for Deputy PM a couple of years ago he said that he should get the job because he brought stability and change. That told me all I need to know.
They’re the National Party, not the Conservative Party
There’s just no substance there. The man lacks lateral thinking , being dogmatic , over-reactive , petulant and aggressive. His assumed ‘conservatism’ comes from his upbringing,… but it is convoluted…
MIKE THE LEFTY says : ” The last old class conservative who led National was probably Keith Holyoake. Whatever his faults he at least didn’t pretend he was a liberal or progressive on anything; unlike National now who mask their neo-liberal ideology under the euphemistic catchphrase – sound fiscal management”…
I believe this to be the case somewhat ,… one could hardly imagine Holyoake to conduct himself in the same manner. Perhaps it could be argued that it is the result of the times we live in ,… but do core values really change that much?… I don’t think so.
Ever since I saw the interview between John Campbell and Bridges I was not only stunned with the screeching , belligerent Bridges but was convinced of his wholesale inability to actually be the leader of the National party. I thought it would be a gift to the Left for a very long time if he did become leader.
And yet unbelievably so he did.
But I believe we will not have this gift for long,… I rather believe he was and is an ‘interim ‘ leader until National find another person in the mould of Key ,- and nothing more.
Perhaps we should not be reveling in the mans supercilious antics too long or hard,…because rest assured,… the Nats, Farrar and their minions will be watching and observing all of this with eagle eyes , ready to make their move when they believe they have found that person.
Holyoake was pompous.
Jack Marshall was a better breed of conservative. So was Geoffrey Palmer.
I’d be hard-pushed to find Radio Hauraki on the band. Who listens to this guff anyway? Are the listeners really blue? Or likely to turn?
If not – what was Bridges doing in the sewer?
Simple Simon – sucks the Hauraki Boys
Now, as we know, Simon thinks he is the best thing since sliced bread. Everyday his followers kneel down before him and say: “Ye whom we follow with your two law degrees, we acknowledge your Wonderment”.
Paula smiles upon him – when he screams – she is his follower.
Simon can do no wrong. He has a talent. The greatest of which is putting everyone beneath him down. Most of all the poor.
He is after all a Capitalist – A wealthy troll.
It’s New Zealand, 2018 and Bridges is a perfect politician for the times and for a lot of the people we have in the country. That is how low we are.
Simon is the perfect fit for the young upwardly mobile yuppies, religious conservatives ?
Comments are closed.