Ruth Berry: Old guard under threat

As National chips away at the "unholy alliance" between the Government and Winston Peters, Labour has retaliated by questioning its opponent's recent love-in with the Maori Party.

Both relationships are something of a sight and may have left voters wondering if politicians indulged in some kind of partner-swapping post-election bacchanal from which they have yet to recover.

As the stability of the Government depends on it, there is much more at stake with the Labour-Peters partnership.

National will take every opportunity to drive in a wedge.

Its newfound friendliness with the Maori Party is nevertheless raising broader questions about National's direction.

It's not just coming from Labour, but from within its own camp confused by the contrast between its campaign rhetoric on Maori issues and its subsequent coalescing.

Dr Brash conceded as much in his newsletter this week.

"I should also make it clear, because I know there was some concern among some of our supporters on this issue, that we did not abandon any important policy positions during the discussions we had with other political parties."

National had, however, accepted there was some policy that, with only 48 MPs and no other political support, it could not have enforced should it have become the Government, he continued.

It was a clear reference to negotiations over its previously "bottom line" stance with the Maori Party on the Maori seats.

The maiden speeches of National's MPs raised more eyebrows in the House because of their repeated acknowledgments of matters Maori by the new male provincial MPs in particular.

They included salutes to Maori Party MPs, references to explorer Kupe and Aotearoa, opening mihi, the use of Maori proverbs and acknowledgment of the impact of land confiscation.

National's PC eradicator Wayne Mapp must have wondered where he was supposed to look when Napier's earnest Chris Tremain delivered nearly half his speech in te reo.

Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen went for the jugular, claiming the new MPs were "subtly distancing themselves" from Dr Brash and his pre-election Maori policy.

If the MPs were staking out new territory, Dr Brash had made a mockery of the Orewa ground he'd previously defended with his post-election talks with the Maori Party, Dr Cullen suggested. These had revealed National "as firm as a bit of jelly sitting on the equator when it comes to political principles".

Naturally the National leader denies all this, as well as any plan to reposition on Maori issues, although he wants to correct any perception that party is "anti-Maori".

But the perceived flip-flop has clearly dented the confidence of some core supporters and the maiden speeches at the least suggest new members are concerned to pitch things differently.

While key Maori policy won't change, there is a widespread view in the caucus that it needs to be softened or "re-presented" with more emphasis on positives such as National's support for Maori economic development. MPs say the browning of the New Zealand demographic - and therefore voter - is an obvious incentive.

Similar noises within the party are being made about reaching out to Pacific and women voters - as Thursday's white ribbon anti-domestic violence photo opportunity by the party's MPs demonstrated.

In Parliament the numbers game also helps explains the new Maori Party relationship.

With New Zealand First a declared enemy, United Future in a relationship with the Government and Act so tiny, limited opportunities exist to build useful allegiances.

Having confirmed it will not necessarily align with Labour, the Maori Party is now a potential future partner for National - ironically added reason to tone down its opposition to the Maori seats.

Labour was the key target of much of the "one law" offensive.

The Maori Party's presence in Parliament has shifted Labour to a "centrist" position within the Maori issues debate, replaced by the new party as the prime upholder of rights.

This, too, requires National to review its line of attack. While also accepting the need for changes, party strategists are sensitive about internal post-election hand-wringing over its race relations "hits", believing polling proves these were responsible for bringing National into contention during the campaign.

They will want to retain the ability to hike up polls in similar fashion again, but hope to avoid alienating potential, non-traditional voters by having worked harder to brand National as a broader church.

Dr Brash may struggle to get on top of that more complex task.

While liberal on a number of social issues, many floating voters' impression of him on that front is contrary; he is perceived as old-fashioned and tunnel-visioned.

This is just one of the reasons Dr Brash knows his leadership of National into the next election is far from assured.

He openly conceded in a Weekend Herald interview he expected to be dumped post-election.

A perfectionist and a clinical analyst, he was as admirably tough on himself as he has been on non-performing or recalcitrant MPs.

But the public concession - which surely weakens his authority - is further evidence of the political naivete his colleagues worry about, as is the naming of his potential successors, John Key and Bill English.

While he displayed an ability to charm audiences on the election trail, Dr Brash's lack of dynamism and agility in the House is an ongoing concern.

It is undisputed that he will retain the leadership for at least six more months, but it is privately understood it's a probation period.

The talk is that the 23 new MPs are intensely grateful to him for getting them into Parliament and are right behind him.

But from here in, his performance will determine how long that loyalty lasts - and his House performance could undermine this.

Having won more parliamentary questions at the expense of the downsized smaller parties and with Mr Peters set to tone down his attacks on the Government, much more of the spotlight in the House will fall on National.

Dr Brash will be judged by the successful or otherwise of the stewardship of this.

While his address and reply speech was rated poorly, the National frontbench gave a strong performance this week and it was a question from Dr Brash to Dr Cullen on a student loan loophole which set Thursday's news agenda.

There is no shortage of potential leadership successors, most obviously Key and English.

There is agitation, but it will be kept low-level as the various pre-election factions wait to assess the impact and potential allegiances of the new MPs.

Dr Brash's handling of the group will be critical - it's a large bunch of new and eager MPs to keep gainfully employed.

He is rated an effective manager, but if his grip becomes less certain his undeveloped political antennae may let him down.

The class of 2005 is meeting on a regular basis and, depending on how solid a block they form, has the size - nearly half the caucus - to significantly threaten the old guard.

Returning MP Tau Henare, who with former MPs Ann Tolley and Eric Roy is part of the group, is already being seen by some as trying to punch above his weight.

Dr Brash then, has a lot on his plate.