THERE’S A STORY I HEARD about Nikita Khrushchev and his famous speech to the Twentieth Party Congress in February 1956. This was the speech in which he denounced Stalin’s crimes against the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its long-suffering peoples. At the conclusion of the speech, and after the obligatory standing ovation, one of the delegates shouted out: “Why didn’t you say all that when Stalin was alive!” “Who said that?” Khrushchev shouted back. A deathly silence fell over the congress. Khrushchev waited a full minute before smiling grimly and saying: “That’s why.”
I recalled that story when I read the Editorial in today’s (18/8/22) NZ Herald. Alluding to the Labour Caucus’ decision to suspend Dr Gaurav Sharma, the leader-writer opined:
“The unanimity of the decision to suspend Sharma is significant too, as the Labour Caucus is a broad church of 65 MPs. None it seems, felt he merited another chance.”
It is difficult to conceive of a statement more revealing of the political ignorance in which so many of those who presume to pass judgement on our nation’s politics are steeped. What Labour MP in their right mind would have dared to vote against the Leader’s clear preference to eject Sharma from Caucus?
Had a Cabinet Minister done so, it would have been interpreted as a direct thrust against the Prime Minister. Backbenchers, having witnessed the emotional violence visited upon Sharma over the preceding days, would have raised a hand only if, like the Member for Hamilton West, they were desperate to escape the parliamentary snake-pit.
It might not be political ignorance, however, which prompts such fatuous commentary. It might be the news media’s shameful complicity in the Labour Party’s infamous proclivity to discipline and punish anyone who dares to draw people’s attention to the naked realities of power. It is nothing short of astonishing that the newspaper which published Sharma’s original op-ed critique was prepared, just a few days later, to assert that the very same dissident-crushing strategies he had complained of, and which had been on full display from the moment it appeared, were no more than could reasonably have been expected.
None of us should be surprised at this “suck-up, punch-down” New Zealand character trait, it has been with us for most of our history. But, even though we know how New Zealanders in authority are going to react to even the slightest challenge, it still comes as a bitter disappointment to discover just how few friends dissidents have in this country.
The sneer and the put-down are everywhere. The same day as the NZ Herald opted to suggest that Sharma more-or-less had it coming, RNZ’s afternoon host, Jesse Mulligan, spent 10 minutes talking to Dr Grant Morris of Victoria University of Wellington about the history of “rogue” MPs in New Zealand. Though both participants in this discussion agreed that the expression “rogue” wasn’t very accurate, that did not prevent them from using the pejorative term throughout the broadcast segment.
Both men agreed that the common thread running through the stories of MPs who had spoken out against the leadership and/or the policies of their party was less about principle than it was about ego. In justification of this thesis, Morris advanced the example of Herbert (Bert) Kyle, the National Party Member for Riccarton. In 1942, Kyle had a falling out with the National leader, Sid Holland, resigned from the party (before he was expelled) and left Parliament altogether in 1943.
Because it has so much in common with Sharma’s complaints about Labour in 2022, Kyle’s reason for leaving bears repeating: “The National Party organization has built up a watertight compartment that makes one become a ‘yes man’ with expulsion as an alternative.”
What Morris neglected to say in his remarks about this little-known rebel, is that his charges against Holland were, almost certainly, true. The National Party’s second leader brought New Zealand as close as it has yet come to having a fascist in charge of a major party. Holland had been a prominent member of the New Zealand Legion – a proto-fascist organisation that grew to an impressive size in the aftermath of the unemployment riots of 1932. It was Holland who drafted the viciously authoritarian “Emergency Regulations” which effectively extinguished democracy in New Zealand for the duration of the 1951 Waterfront Dispute.
Far from being a egoist, the mild-mannered veterinarian-turned-politician, Bert Kyle, was a man of principle who recognised a dangerous bully when he saw one, and was unwilling to become a “yes-man” to a politician whose personal political ideology bore a disturbing resemblance to that of the Nazi warlord New Zealanders were then fighting and dying to defeat.
Closer study of these so-called “rogue” MPs will show that in a clear majority of cases it is a clutch of very similar concerns about the leadership, policies and administration of their respective parties that lies at the heart of their rebellions. As Jim Anderton (whose example of “roguishness” Morris omitted entirely) liked to say: “I didn’t leave the Labour Party, the Labour Party left me.”
Jacinda Ardern is fortunate that her own rebel MP is more aggrieved about his party’s handling of employment issues than he is about its policies. A left-wing politician worthy of the name, with a mind to rebel against the ideological positioning of Labour under its present leadership, could inflict enormous damage upon the Ardern Government.
Not that expressing concern at the behaviour Sharma calls “bullying” is in any way trivial. In a caucus where there is a disturbingly large number of MPs who subscribe to the political tactic of “No Debate!”; alongside others eager to see “Hate Speech” legislation (which could see citizens sent to jail for three years for expressing unpopular opinions) passed at the earliest opportunity; and still more who will brook no dissenting from Labour’s radical interpretation of te Tiriti o Waitangi; the ability to bully and intimidate doubters would seem to be a necessary part of the modern Labour politician’s skill-set.
Not that the organs of “official” opinion are at all interested in lending their support to those foolish enough, or brave enough, to speak out on such matters. Just enough attention will be paid to such individuals to validate the claims of the Powers-That-Be that we live in a free society. But, these “out-speakers” will never be given the resources they need to explain why we don’t.
Labour does not stand for bullying…they kick out the victims of bullying.
New Zealand does not thank, let alone reward, people who puncture the veneer of calmness and universal love, the veneer we all like to believe is how we as a nation really are as people.
I’ll repeat my earlier prediction: the Dr will be alleged to have made some anonymous women feel ‘uncomfortable” at some point in time. And then he will be dropped down the memory hole by the Press Gallery and forever referred to as ‘the alleged sex abuser rogue MP’.
I fear you might be 100percent right on that ada
Yes Ada straight out of the Labour Party play book.
I think you miss the point of MP’s and the public, something I think our PM has not. MP’s we barely tolerate. We expect them to get on with doing the job they advertised themselves for, not break out into histrionics and ignore the issues facing their electorates and think the world revolves around them.
There isn’t time to give Gurav a scratch under the chin every morning and make sure he’s feeling valued. It’s not as if this attention seeker was pissed beyond redemption at Labour’s dismal housing failures or any other failings, nope, it was about the Dr being “bullied”, a manipulative term he knew would make the most mud stick the longest. He took the destructive nuclear option rather than realising adding value as a newby comes in many forms.
I’ll say it again, MP’s get a privileged well paid life to represent us and NONE are made to do so, far from it. They are there to ensure the party they represent gets its stated policies across the line and roll with the punches when challenges hit. Their lifespans in that privileged role are frequently short because of polling and Sharma was history regardless going by recent polls.
The public matter far more than they and sadly Sharma forgot that, if he ever knew that fact at all. Like a petulant only child now competing for attention in the big world. No one has respect for self entitlement in an MP. And NZ simply does not have time to waste ensuring snowflake MP’s egos are massaged sufficiently to their respective needs each day either!
There is no chance for a representative to get on with the job of parliamentary democracy where democracy is blocked. We don’t elect ministers to be ineffective seat warmers.
What Sharma has described is bullying. The word is uncomfortable because of its meaning. There is a spectrum, as there is with most descriptive terms.
Okay, lets descend into a never ending investigation about who hurt Sharma’s feelings the most to everyone’s satisfaction, that we all know will never be achievable. Yep, that’ll do it.
Meanwhile people can’t afford to live week to week, housing remains broken and sdd to that people in Nelson have no idea what becomes of their lives, but this MP is all that matters.
Honest to god, never ending navel gazing into MP’s personal feelings is the last thing we need.
If he doesn’t like it, take a hike but good luck to him getting a job after this. And I might add, I would not want to be a patient of a Dr who does creepy things like secret recordings, nor I suspect, would any one want to employ a personal grievance man like this!
As I said most of us can barely tolerate politicians as it is.
Sycophancy is not courage, nor is it altruism.
Virtue signaling is just empty rhetoric. To look rather than to do good.
What matters? – appearance or substance?
XRAY: thank you for neatly illustrating the points that Chris Trotter made in this piece.
Well said xray. Politicians need to be tough to get the tough stuff done. A good one (effective) probably won’t have an enormous amount of natural empathy etc and the beehive no doubt has it’s fair share of naturally self-serving psychpathic/narcissistic/power-needy types, and maybe they are the sort needed to get the tough stuff done. I dunno really, but I think there is some truth in that. They are a breed of their own, and no doubt more reflective of our society as a whole (than FPP was). These distractions though are woeful though. Get busy back to the hard yards beehivers! Our people are suffering for real out here. There’s heaps of mahi to do
Sinic: ” Politicians need to be tough to get the tough stuff done.”
On that basis, the current government is made up of marshmallows. None of them has got the tough stuff done. Heck, they haven’t managed to get ANYTHING done. I guess that makes them incompetents.
Very true D’Esterre incompetents.
Wolves in sheep’s clothing even.
Bob the first: “Wolves in sheep’s clothing even.”
Or sheep in sheep’s clothing, even? Though I’m maligning the intelligence of sheep: they’re group-living critters, and from my observation, can be quite smart.
Muppets in sheep’s clothing, maybe.
Ok I’ll go along with that.
They haven’t managed to get anything done? Not sure about that, D’Esterre. They haven’t managed to do what they should have been doing (lifting people out of poverty, building houses, getting more kids to attend school regularly), but they seem to be getting He Puapua done pretty quickly.
Yes Pope that’s their promise to their own caucus.
Pope Punctilious II: “….they seem to be getting He Puapua done pretty quickly.”
True that. But isn’t dismantling democracy one of the easiest things to do? No wonder they’ve managed to do it so quickly, then.
That’s biased idiocy.
You’ve missed your vocation XR. You would fit right in as an MP. You say the public matter more than his petulant entitlement. In my opinion the only reason the public matters to MP’s is for their potential vote. I’m not talking about their work in their electorates. I’m talking about their “tow the line “ policy in caucus.
Nice work.
What type of person will be required to get the 288 kids out of the cars parked in Auckland?
Maybe guts to stand up? An eye for detail? Principled? Justice driven? Doesn’t tolerate drunken and lazy employees? Mmmm who could that possibly be?
I wonder if Labour or National ever debate anything contentious within Caucus. Dissenting views are so rare and unanimity so extreme. Examples, no dissenting voices on the vaccine, none on Ukraine, none from Labour on He Puapua, and so it goes. I fear that the party line is so prearranged that nothing even gets questioned.
I suspect Sharma might turn out to be a dissenting voice on the vaccine Nick , and the consequences are in evidence.
D J S
Interesting, I hadn’t thought of that, there does seem to be a concensus of blind eyes to what is obvious.
… it still comes as a bitter disappointment to discover just how few friends dissidents have in this country. The sneer and the put-down are everywhere. …
After the last two years it’s not “a bitter disappointment”, but simple confirmation of what I’d observed in that time.
None of us should be surprised at this “suck-up, punch-down” New Zealand character trait,
Again, I’m not. I’m also not surprised to see that very human trait in action, where one only gets upset about all these things when it’s your ox that’s being gored.
All excellent points, Chris. Keep on punching. Standing up against what you see as wrong is a social good (and, it seems, a political liability). Free speech is fine, so long as you freely say what those in power want you to say.
Sadly nothing new about the great NZ sneer and put down or the gradual obliteration of all discussion and debate. Plenty of frothing and abusive haranguing over alternative views these days though. More measured articles like the above of CT’s are appreciated.
Interesting accounts of Nikita Khruschev in these links. Take your pick which you favour.
https://www.ilawjournals.com/what-bandera-did-after-the-amnesty-of-khrushchev-in-1955/
https://www.rbth.com/history/334638-we-will-bury-you-khrushchev
https://www.discoverwalks.com/blog/ukraine/top-10-amazing-facts-about-stepan-bandera/
we deserve to be second last re internations study
Sharma is grandstanding and his behaviour would not be tolerated in any…team.
I agree Blazer. I think he has backed himself into a corner and now his only honouable action would be to resign and stand as an independent in the by-election. So far his unsubstantiated claims are just clutching at straws – that the media are not interrogating his claims shows they will ‘milk’ his tantrum for their own ends.
Funnily enough the lockstep marching to the orders shouted by leaders was something that Gaurav Sharma complained about. And for those that are wondering what they Point is in having an elected Labour MP in parliament, there is non. They are not allowed to side step the provided path and do stuff on their own. Gasp, they might actually show the PM for the showpony they are.
Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.
Now that they have cut him lose, he can have all the fun he wants and i would not surprise if he will.
Accurate observations there Chris.
I thought you guys were only into The Two Minute Hate? This stuff against Sharma has been going on for days now.
The bullying will continue until Sharma is shut down and that is wanted by the Labour Party sooner rather than later.
You will see the Labour bully machine shift into top gear from today on. Personal attacks on Sharma at there most viscous.
Yes dumb Bob I saw this bullying of JLR by Paula Bennett, it was disgusting. Personal attacks at there worst. JLR sleeping with a fellow Nat MP and then being attacked by Bennett was so hypocritical given her background. Thankfully there have been no personal attacks by Labour because the party are not National.
Thats right Bert – Bennett (and Collins) were the nastiest bullies of any parties. Bennett and JLR, Collins and Benson Pope.
Yes Benson-Pope dreadful bully even when he was a schoolteacher and he’s still at it as city councillor in Dunedin.
Labour’s long list of legendary bullies make the National equivalents look like nice people.
Thanks Chris.
My wife did not get the Khrushchev joke. That is OK. We need diversity.
How does Jacinda make this right?
Apologise to the public, call on all her MP’s to stick strictly to caucus rules and investigate the claims of bullying.
Like that is going to happen!
Imagine if that was any other employer.
Harassing people out of there job for disagreeing or raising concerns.
The disappointing thing is media often help.
Happens all the time. Sad!
That is why it is important that we deal with these issues decisively. Lying is OK when one protect others but it enters a new realm when one lies to protect oneself.
I don’t know the ins and outs of what happened with Dr Sharma. Love the Kruschev quote though Chris.
This of course is what is happening in the gender ideologay (NO) debate. Newsroom has dared to print an article by a Dr Sarah Donovan questioning why the Tavistock Clinic GIDS identity
service closure due to “safety concerns” and the legal action that is being taken by 1000 families and patients against the clinic has not been in the NZ media (up until Dr Donovan’s article).
nor will it be anker until reassignment of children, (no one minds what adults do but doing it TO kids is wrong) slips down the fashionability league table…and is replaced by some other mania.
The prime minister has said it is about a dispute between Dr Sharma’s staff and him, which has been an ongoing conflict for 18 months. The whips were involved, as they are bound to be, and have seen Dr Sharma as the problem and so put in interventions. Why on earth is that “bullying”? Where Dr Sharma has said his staff had made inappropriate spending, Parliamentary Services have said the money was appropriately spent. How are Parliamentary Services bullies?
If you want to see bullying drive a car daily around NZ. Also many NZers don’t like to speak up they prefer to go and line and back stab. Also when you speak up about poor service etc in NZ many people can’t handle it so many Kiwis don’t bother they just don’t go back to the shop or business.
Your comment about former PM Sid Holland is timely and revealing Chris.
That was long ago when life was pretty clear cut.
90 years later however, I wager few would recognise a National Socialist or Fascist if they fell over one, let alone a state apparatus and corporate sector choc to the gills with them.
On one fundamental point little’s changed, as both forms of government partnered with ‘stakeholders’ to further their mutual ambitions, pretty much as we do today.
Given that similarity, is it possible they’ve been so deeply embedded throughout our upper echelons over the years, that we’ve come to accept that ideology rebranded as Democracy, as ‘normal’.
A kinder face of Nazism, if you will.
Maybe someone here can enlighten TDB readers as to what happened with the many thousands of them after ’45, apart from the 13 token examples of Nuremberg.
michael-hudson.com/2022/02/america-defeats-germany-for-the-third-time-in-a-century/
I’ve often wondered about that too (last part). What factions have they sporned since?
Sharma should be expelled immediately from the Labour Party and move over to National – he’s a Tory plant. Only a fool or a person with mental problems would behave like Sharma. They have been trying to mediate for 8 months what else can be legally done. He’s going to be making all sorts of claims in next few months – no loyalty, honesty or a team player here. He needs to go back to work as a doctor where he would be of more value – definitely not as a politician.
That’s a low blow “ mental problems “
Suggest looking at some of Cynthia Chung & Michael Hudson’s work for starters.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2022/05/16/sleepwalking-into-fascism-why-cia-natos-foreign-policy-has-been-consistent-for-the-past-77-years/
https://michael-hudson.com/2022/07/mid-2022-geo-political-levers-at-play/
Well said Chris!
Several here comment about the fragility of the Hamilton MP but I think this saga reflects more on the fragility of Labour itself than this individual.
Clearly they’re desperate to avoid anyone ‘looking under the hood’ to expose the decision making mechanisms within the caucus.
The Kruschchev joke explains why few speak out within the Labour ranks.
I am reminded of what Jim Anderton once described to a small local meeting at the launch of New Labour. The third degree he was subjected to by the rest of the labour caucus to go along wit Rogernomics would have broken most people ; and of course it did breke all the other true traditional labour MPs in that caucus. It seems like little has changed.
D J S
Why are all the +s in the pseudonyms appearing? Is this something that I should do? Am I on the outer if I haven’t got a +? Is it an anti-scam device? Has there been a change required by some new program, a new OS?
This sounds familiar.
“Alarmingly, it was the German jurist and one-time Nazi Carl Schmitt, who wrote the playbook for the authoritarian takeover of democracy. Schmitt set it out in one sentence: “Sovereign is he who declares the exception.”
Simply: construct an emergency, claim extraordinary powers, and put yourself above the rules.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-21/scott-morrison-secret-appointments-weakening-australia-democracy/101350322
and cue the nats economic/spending policies…robbie
I’m sure you have all played the game of Jenga?
The game where you build a tower out of odd sized blocks and you have to remove a block one at a time with causing the tower to fall.
I think we might all be shouting “Jenga!” soon with Sharma setting the fake Dr Ardern up to have another turn at the stack to try to remove another block?
Comments are closed.