Helen Clark’s deification by her party should be studied carefully by other New Zealand politicians. I think it was the calculated result of a conscious and very successful strategy to make her great, and not just  the natural outcome of superior leadership skills.

Most of us probably think that true leaders must continually earn their authority, by being seen to take responsibility in the toughest times, being seen to lead when there is trouble, and and being seen solving it.

Clark’s strategy appeared to me to be quite different. She certainly ensured that trouble was faced, but someone else was almost always the public face of the problem, at least until it was clear how it was going to be dealt with. Only then did she emerge to put it to bed.

I think that was a sensible strategy. It meant that she was continually associated in the public mind with success. She rarely got drawn into strife at the messy stage where the outcome and the resolution were unclear. She could nearly always look commanding. Over time public (and media) perceptions of omnicompetence werre continually reinforced.

The strategy was beneficial even to those who took the fall for her (or their collective) misjudgments. They all benefitted from her continually burnished reputation of success and competence. The strength of her rarely sullied reputation for decisive management meant she could come to their rescue, and often squelch issues that would have been running sores in lesser hands.

I’m reminded of the Samoan division of  authority between a titular and a talking chief. See JAC Gray’s Amerika Samoa for more then the dictionary definition of the term. There is  a happy coincidence of peoples’ desire to feel that they are led by superhumans, with the leader’s interest in being seen that way. To achieve that the ruler must ration his or her appearances, and preferably be almost always the bearer of good news.

Thus we get the common belief that a ruler in "interesting times" is basically sound, but wickedly advised. Revolutions commonly started to get rid of courtiers while the revolutionaries professed or even held a love for the sovereign.

I saw the Clark strategy slip a few times, most notably in the initial reaction to the Court of Appeal’s foreshore and seabed decision. Fresh from her success in slapping down the Waitangi Tribunal’s silly report on the Taranaki claim to oil and gas, she took over from Margaret Wilson after 5 days of dithering following the Court decision. The attempt to use the same reasoning ("not in the interests of New Zealand") had a calamitous result. Her obvious fumbling in Parliament that day fuelled the storm, as Parliament and Maoridom sensed the weakness of her position when compared with so much earlier rhetoric on Treaty issues.

Michael Cullen took over the next day and the PM was scarcely seen on the issue again for months, while Cullen stoically endured the calumny. In my opinion, given where they started from he did a great job, but it would have been much easier for him if he had not been landed defending the indefensible from the initial fumbling. The "interests of New Zealand" would have been defensible, but not from a leader and a party that had previously panned that as an insufficient and illegitimate counter to treaty claims.
 

An election campaign is all consuming. The objectives, the competition and the gamble energise like nothing else.

 There’s no substitute for being inside a Parliamentary party if you have a consuming passion for improving the law. Some plans and policies germinate there. Other policy seedlings are transplanted in. Whether germinated within or transplanted they can be fragile. Great solutions can be punctured in a casual instant. Stupidities may consume months of effort if that puncturing shaft is delayed. 

The key results before reporting special votes are as follows:

For Dominion Post coverage of election night see Victory in the Shadow.

After reflecting this morning about endorsements I’m of course appreciative of Peter Mckeefry’s in Kiwiblog’s guest "editorial" this morning. I’ve generally sought author approval before citing endorsements, but I am sure that this excerpt is public enough to lift:

"I can and will vote Stephen Franks. He has major intellectual grunt. He is a hard worker and has been successful in his career as a lawyer and as a politician. Stephen has similar values to myself and I will be proud to have him represent me and my family in Wellington Central. The Labour Party have been spreading lies about him – such is the mentality of the negative campaigning. I have taken much joy in ripping down those lies that are posted on private property around the city."

I did not know you were among the graffiti cleaners, but thanks Peter for the endorsement.

Peter really cleared the air at a multi-candidate meeting in St Joseph’s beautiful new church hall in Mt Victoria, with some blunt questioning of cliches about poverty from Labour (Grant Robertson) and Green spokespeople (not Sue Kedgley). 

My companions in the lift  on the way up confirmed my suspicion that lunch was supposed to include some chewing on me. Yet the audience and the questions were courteous at Monday’s lunchtime debate with the Labour candidate before 60 – 80 members of the Public Service Association.

Scrupulous chairing and the natural good manners of the public servants made it a pleasure.

My key point was the one I have made throughout – that I want to be their strong advocate inside a new National government.  Wellington will need that if the rest of the country turns to grumpiness in tighter times. An electorate MP outside government will have far less influence for Wellington than the city has been used to. 

The PSA’s partisan support for Labour is not in doubt, but some at least of the audience were looking for a change in government, because they told me so (though discreetly as they left).

When a question led to the issue of Ministerial disloyalty to their public servants, audience faces showed I did not need to labour the point. The PSA’s ideological suspicion of National has not blinded them to Labour’s unworthiness to loyalty. 

If it had not been so obvious I had a little reminder list of public servants who’ve been slagged off or otherwise damaged by Labour:

• Madeline Setchell
• Erin Leigh
• Kit Richards
• Six involved in the motorcade scandal (five police and one ministerial driver)
• Immigration officials: former Minister Lianne Dalziel lashed out at immigration officials in 2000 after a bungled dawn raid on a Filipino family wrongly deported this week
• SFO – Cullen attacked them re Privileges Cttee evidence against Winston.
• Treasury – advice to cut taxes dismissed as "ideological burp" but then this year Clark said govt had not considered tax cuts til now because never had any advice from Treasury that it was possible
• MFAT – Air NZ ferrying troops to Afghanistan.  Simon Murdoch had to carry the can
• Peter Doone
• MSD speechwriters: Ruth Dyson claimed that she never delivered the "triples" speech, because often the speeches that were written for her weren’t up to scratch
• Kevin Brady, Auditor General, for his finding regarding the pledge card
• Human Rights Commission when they criticised the Electoral Finance Act
• Helena Catt, CEO of the Electoral Commission, who has had to understand and interpret the EFA
• Mark Prebble who carried the can for H Clark during the Corngate storm in the 2002 election campaign when she promised full disclosure of documents because her government had nothing to hide but it became apparent that a key memo had been withheld.
• Te Puni Kokiri blamed by Trevor Mallard and Helen Clark for not providing good advice to Parekura Horomia (when Parekura Horomia was unable to answer questions about Te Mangai Paho in the House ”the Minister is sitting at the top of an advice structure which has served him very, very badly”   

Good job interviewers know that referees rule. I’m therefore incredibly grateful to the more than 60 Wellingtonians who offered endorsements, with their consent to give them to the job interviewers – i.e. the voting public.  They’ve earned the primary right to hold me to account as an MP.

Of course I’ve been touched by people who must be publicly neutral who’ve nevertheless gone out of their way with encouragement.

But public endorsement is humbling. Some people I’ve known for 30 years and some I’ve worked with on the campaign.  Some are young and idealistic and others have given more to Wellington in their generous and busy lifetimes than I could hope to achieve. 

The messages are here or under the button "What do Wellingtonians think of Stephen?"   These are the first five:

Stephen Franks is a wonderful Wellingtonian! He is vastly experienced commercially, but more importantly has a lovely family, is intelligent, passionate, honest and committed. Regardless of your political persuasion Wellington Central could not have a better MP to represent it in Parliament. Lloyd Morrison, businessman and arts and sports benefactor, Kelburn.

 I am confident that Stephen is the right person to represent our Wellington community.  I have always been impressed with how he takes time to listen, think and follow up to fully understand issues that need to be dealt with effectively. David Carson-Parker, arts patron and administrator, Mount Victoria.

Vote with Both Eyes Open has tried to get more traction for its smear poster campaign.

I’ve now had a chance to talk to the Young Nats about the website statement. They regard this as a beat-up, designed to attract attention to the slur campaign in the poster, and to keep an irrelevancy running. They’ve dealt with these posters incidentally, and paid no organised attention to them.

A keen cyclist myself, I enjoyed showing these cyclists round Parliament during their Cape Reinga to Bluff ride.  They’re called the Antique Riders, all aged over 60 and averaging 150km per day fundraising for St John Ambulance.  They were having a good time encouraging people of their age to be active.

Wellington medical friends have told me of their work frustration.  Now I’ve had earfuls of chapter and verse from three months of door-knocking.  

The Labour candidate has been fond of telling Wellington Central meetings about Labour’s impact on GP fees. Unmentioned is a consequence – worried people in our region who simply can’t find a GP who’ll enrol them. Anecdotally they’re in the thousands.

Discovering the true state of health care has been a revelation for me. The background work by Tony Ryall and his team on health policy has made it an area in which I’ve been most proud to represent National. We do not promise revolution. We’ll make Health much better in the next few years, not by magic bullets, but simply by having people who know productive management as well as they know political management. National MPs have employed out of their own pockets. They know that good businesses and organisations come from letting your good employees do lots of little things better.

So I’m optimistic.

The Labour system exploits the dedication of clinical staff to keep going. It continues because others don’t want to know or believe the rundown of care in our first world capital city. Clinicians (and I) are baffled by the way Labour has not been gored despite official report after report showing disastrous political mismanagement.