Talk:New Zealand National Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 "Right wing"? 2 Making The Page More Useful 3 fascist? 4 First Leader 5 Unremarkable resignation?

[edit] "Right wing"?

Is the characterization of the party as right wing appropriate? john k 03:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, "right wing" is always a contestable term, but is there any specific point that makes you question the designation? The party generally favours things such as reduced taxation, privatisation of state assets, and free trade, and is usually conservative in its social policy (opposing "political correctness", attacking the NZ version of affirmative action, etc). In New Zealand, at least, these things are generally considered to be right-wing rather than left-wing. The party is widely referred to as "right" or "centre-right" in New Zealand, both by politicians and by commentators. - Vardion 04:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Right" and "centre-right" seem fine to me - I was certainly not disputing that the National Party is the main party of the right, or of the centre-right, in New Zealand. But I tend to think that "right-wing" and "left-wing" should be reserved for parties that are actually out on the wings. For instance, in France, I'd say that only the Trots and the Communists should be described as "left wing", and only Le Pen, et al, as "right wing". The socialists are on the left and the Gaullists on the right, but the "wing" term implies a degree of extremism, I think. john k 05:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I think the New Zealand usage might be a bit different, but there's certainly no problem referring to it as "centre-right" rather than "right-wing" if that makes things clearer. I've reworked the article accordingly - does that seem suitable? -- Vardion 07:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would point out that at an internal National Party meeting not long ago, Chris Findlayson (who is a new MP for National, but a long established member and activist) was happy to describe National as liberal-conservative, reflecting the fact that while National's roots are conservative, the understanding of conservatism in New Zealand is more liberal than the political application of conservatism in other nations. [[User:Barzini|Barzini}} 11:05, 24 Mar 2006

I would add the when you look at the historic roots of the party, National is a coalition of the two anti-socialist parties, one representing the urban liberal/bourgeoise, the other the rural conservatives. --Midnighttonight 00:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Making The Page More Useful

Just added an infobox and removed reference to the Nats as 'tories', the term is now used rarely in New Zealand. I've also changed the logo to National's alternate, more visually pleasing logo. --Ed- 05:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fascist?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism wants to know if the person or group described in this article can be reasonably described as fascist. WikiProject Fascism defines an entity which came to power as "fascist" if it fulfills all the following criteria: exalting the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme. stressing loyalty to a single leader. using violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition. engaging in severe economic and social regimentation. engaging in syndicalist corporatism. implementing totalitarian systems. Please comment on this entity's status here or leave commentary on the project's talk page.

No, not even close. Right wing, certainly, but within the mainstream of New Zealand politics (and more frequently in Government than out of it, until 1999). You may have confused the New Zealand National Party with the New Zealand National Front.-gadfium 10:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

National are clearly not fascist. They met none of the criteria above. --Midnighttonight 10:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, Talk:Māori Party also has a question on whether they are fascist, although it was put on a while ago. --Midnighttonight 10:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Leader

The page lists Forbes as the first party leader. He is not recognised as such in the official 50 year history of the party or by the party historian whom I have checked with. He has never been acknowledged by the Party as a Leader. He led in Parliament the combined United and Reform Caucus as Opposition Leader but he was never Leader of the NZ National Party itself.

I would like to amend the list of leaders so Hamilton is the first leader. --Dpf 01:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead ;-) --Lholden 02:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unremarkable resignation?

Doesn't it strike anyone else as slightly POV that there is no hint, in this article, of the controversy surrounding Brash's resignation? --AGoon 05:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO that should be, and is covered in Dr Brashes article, not here Brian | (Talk) 05:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC) That should be "Dr Brash's article" Brian. Tsk tsk. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 06:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Brian predominately, however a small coverage is okay on the National party's article. Along the lines of "Don Brash resigned as links to insular Christian sects and undisclosed business links were being uncovered by Nicky Hager". I think that should do it --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 06:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"National party's article" yes it does read a bit as though it is their article, rather than about them ;-) --AGoon 09:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would edge for the "...and undisclosed business links were allegedly being uncovered by Nicky Hager" with a link to the section in Dr Brash's article Brian | (Talk) 07:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "Don Brash resigned immediately before a [[Nicky Hager]] book, containing allegedly damaging revelations obtained from leaked emails, was released." --AGoon 09:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks okay, however that brings up the question: where they "leaked" or Stolen... Brian | (Talk) 11:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The "allegedly" part relates to the nature of the accusations (primarily because Dr Brash denies the allegations made in Hager's book) not whether or not they damaged Brash's standing as leader. That's something I'm sure we may never find out about and can only speculate on - which of course means we can't verify anything. --Lholden 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Replace 'leaked' with 'private'. I said 'allegedly' because Don denied they were the reason for his resignation (and hence can't have been damaging :-). This sentence is just meant to put the timing of the resignation into context, rather than having it sound as though it was a quiet day and he just thought it was time to stand aside. Hager alledged the book was damaging to Brash, Brash coincidentally resigned. Going into whether the content was true/false, damaging/irrelevant, stolen/leaked isn't the point here. --AGoon 00:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'm happy with that. --Lholden 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, discussion seems to have concluded, so its done. --AGoon 09:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)