Lynley Hood: There's nowt so daft as politicians

Lynley Hood

Historical research takes you in unexpected directions. You find yourself reading fascinating documents that may be peripheral to your project, or totally irrelevant. Often they seem nothing more than historical curiosities.

In the mid-1990s, during my research for A City Possessed, I spent several months exploring the background to the 1989 law changes that swept away the rights of suspects to a fair trial in child sexual abuse cases.

I interviewed scores of former Labour Party insiders, both politicians and bureaucrats. I read reams of documents and found, scattered through cabinet papers of 1988 and 1989, a series of frantic reports on Labour's then dive in the opinion polls.

The October 10, 1988 document headed Poll Summary made riveting reading: "The polling tramlines in 1988 point to a substantial defeat in 1990 ... If we fight 1990 on a 1987 script we will lose and lose badly ...

"Putting National on trial should be a primary strategic objective leading up to the 1990 campaign ... We cannot [at present] win on our own record ... We need an aggressive anti-National strategy."

A companion document, Towards a Political Strategy to Win the 1990 Election, (also dated October 10, 1988), advises that: "A paper on National strategy is going to Cabinet every week and meetings of officials to assess National strategy/develop anti-National strategies are also held weekly."

Thereafter, a succession of memos headed Main Anti-National Themes for the Week were produced and circulated.

I was so transfixed that I couldn't resist taking a few notes. I found myself reading a report that surpassed all the others and reminded me of former United States President Richard Nixon's dirty tricks campaign. So I took a copy.

The objectives of the campaign were listed on the front page, under the heading Interim Report to Cabinet on Anti-National Strategy. They were:

* To stop National being perceived as a viable alternative Government.

* To create a weak, destabilised and demoralised National caucus.

* To render a Winston Peters-Ruth Richardson combination impossible.

Over the next six pages the means by which these objectives were to be achieved were outlined. These included one page of negative comments about National "to be repeated constantly" ("negative - no policy alternatives, whingers"; "a divided party - couldn't govern"; "Promises - where's the money coming from?" "no team to govern") and two pages of negative comments about National MPs ("key lines to be repeated").

The recommended lines for National's "top tier" MPs were: "[Jim] Bolger - not up to being PM - a lame duck leader - weak, boring, timid, gutless - trying to 'sleepwalk to victory', repeat other Winston lines"; "ignore McKinnon - 'Don Who?' "; "discredit Richardson - inconsistent, expedient (for business comments) - naive, impractical (electorate); [Bill] Birch as 'shadow treasurer' "; "destroy Peters - no policies, lacking in substance - arrogant - flashy, superficial - a third party appeal, now fading fast, shrill".

Advice regarding "second tier" National MPs included, for Doug Graham, "ignore". There was also a category headed: "Nobble the 'wild cards' with some potential" "[Maurice] Williamson 'arrogant"'; "[Murray] McCully, 'selfish' ").

The paper also advised Labour MPs to: "Take full advantage of right-wing nuts - [Ross] Meurant - [John] Carter - [Graeme] Lee").

But the proposal that would have made Tricky Dick proud was this: "Create a series of 'incidents' to exacerbate National's problems" (1. Aim at four by Christmas. 2. Develop an action plan, assigning Ministers to follow through specific aims in media strategies").

Call me naive, but I would have thought that the obvious lesson to learn from all this is that the strategy did not work. So why are they doing it again?

* Dr Lynley Hood is the author of A City Possessed: The Christchurch Civic Creche Case (2001). She is not, and never has been, a member of any political party.