Jonathan Milne: National leader makes futile attempt to turn the tide

At Wellington College in the 1980s, long-serving headmaster Harvey Rees-Thomas would rage, rage against the dying of the knight.

That knight, that chivalrous epitome of manhood whom Rees-Thomas sought to carve from callow youth, would hold open the door for a lady, give her his seat on the bus.

National leader Don Brash showed himself this week to be similarly old school in explaining his diffident performance against Prime Minister Helen Clark in a televised debate.

"I don't think it's a good look for adults to shout and scream at each other. And it's particularly a bad look for men doing that to be shouting at women. I think it sets a very bad example," he demurred.

Helen Clark dismissed Brash's approach to such blood sports as "quaint" in an age of equality: "I don't really think it's credible in this day and age to say that you treat someone differently because they are female."

And Act leader Rodney Hide turned the tables: "Don Brash is a gentleman but Helen Clark is no lady."

Both Clark and Hide recognised the irrelevance of Brash's approach, despite its superficial attraction to many. Certainly, some will say there is merit to the old-fashioned courtesy espoused by Brash.

But the unavoidable response to Rees-Thomas was, why not hold the door open for anyone, male or female? And the unavoidable response to Brash is, good manners should not be dependent on your opponent's gender.

Commentators have dismissed the furore around Brash's comments as a silly distraction from the serious debate around National's tax cuts and Labour's baby rebates.

Though partly true, Brash's comments also betray a social conservatism previously concealed by his initial support for reforms like civil unions. National remains an innately socially conservative party - as shown by its strategists twisting Brash's arm to vote against the third reading of the civil unions bill. In that respect it remains close to NZ First, but distinct from the social liberalism of its struggling potential coalition partner, Act.

Polls show voters reacting against the social reformist tendencies of the Labour-led Government, seen as "nanny state" stopping smoking in bars and intruding in the bedroom. To that extent, moral right conservatives will welcome Brash's old-fashioned chivalry, just as they will probably welcome NZ First leader Winston Peters' old-fashioned biffo with a student heckler at a university campaign meeting. British Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott suffered no harm whatsoever in the polls when he bopped an aggressive heckler.

But at the same time, Brash's good manners are failing to woo the female vote: this month's Herald on Sunday-DigiPoll showed more men voting for National, while vastly more women supported Labour - giving Labour a healthy lead.

Brash is King Canute, standing futilely at the foreshore bidding the incoming tide to turn back. The tide of equality for women has been unstoppable since 1893 when New Zealand's Parliament first granted the vote to women.

And Brash paid the price: his dated ideas of courtesy to ladies served only to hold open the debate's door to his tougher opponent, Helen Clark.

At Wellington College, Rees-Thomas' fight against the dying of chivalry, conservatism and moral righteousness seemed to end in desperate flailing in the dark. One of his last edicts was that all his young gentlemen Nugget out the yellow stitching on their trendy Doc Marten shoes.

So, too, may Brash be raging against the dying of the right.