Dialogue: Real leadership needed to mount siege of Helengrad

Bill English may be just the sort of pragmatic leader the National Party needs to provide a counter to the popular leaning towards centre-left policies, writes TIM BALE*.

Amid the welter of speculation which is bound to follow Jenny Shipley's replacement by Bill English, three questions stand out.

First, will ditching one leader for another make a difference to National's chances next year? Secondly, is the man they've chosen up to the job? And thirdly, will the party - and what it offers - change significantly?

How much difference does a leader make? Is he worth, for instance, the 2 or 3 precious extra percentage points that might propel the party into office instead of opposition?

Until recently, most political scientists would probably have said "no".

Despite the media's innate preference for personalities, we voters tended to be more influenced by our albeit vague and hard-to-explain feeling that a particularly party was somehow more right for or like us than any of the others.

But things are changing. Nowadays, research shows, we are increasingly likely to chop and change. Our brand loyalty, if you like, has been eroded by social and occupational change and because we feel badly let down by previously tried and true products - the parties - which in any case are now more difficult to tell apart.

The so-called end of ideology, and the decline of class and party loyalty, has meant we (and the parties) place as much, if not more, emphasis on an image of managerial competence than on what George Bush the elder once referred to as "the vision thing".

A key factor in projecting that image - especially now television and politics are almost the same thing - is the party leader.

After all, while few of us have either the time or the inclination to find out much about parties and their policies, we are all everyday experts in judging people.

No wonder, then, that party leaders in parliamentary systems the world over seem to be turning into presidential contenders.

But if leaders do make more of a difference, what about this one in particular? Isn't this the man who even some of his own caucus think simply doesn't have the mass appeal needed to do the job in this day and age?

With the exception of Bush the younger, the two centre-right leaders who have lately managed to buck the trend and take power from the centre-left provide contrasting lessons.

Compared with Silvio Berlusconi, the all-singing, all-dancing media magnate who became Prime Minister of Italy in May, Mr English is clearly lacking in charisma.

But so, too, is by far the most successful contemporary conservative leader in Europe, Spain's Jose-Maria Aznar, who was elected (with an increased majority) for the second time running last year.

Far from being charismatic, Mr Aznar is positively, even memorably, dull. Yet his former occupation (tax inspector) and his decidedly average looks (thin, pale, with an unconvincing moustache) seem to have helped rather than hindered him.

Like Mr English, he looks like someone who, although unlikely to lead you straight to the promised land, would at least give you good directions - and perhaps even a lift - to somewhere comfortable and reasonably priced in the meantime.

The other thing about Mr Aznar - and this leads us into our question about National's overall direction - is that he made his own (and his party's) mind up early on to stay firmly on the centre side of centre-right.

Some conservatives have responded to social democratic success by trying to put clear, blue water between themselves and their centre-left opponents. The British Conservative Party is the most obvious - and spectacularly unsuccessful - example.

Mr Aznar, on the other hand, quickly accepted that the tide had turned and decided not to swim against it.

Rejecting free-market zealotry and reactionary social rhetoric, his Government has pursued the kind of pragmatic, progressive but hard-to-pigeonhole policy mix most famously associated with Tony Blair - incidentally his best political friend on the European stage.

Mr English's assumption of the National Party's leadership would seem to indicate that it will go the same way - both on the economy and on social affairs.

Of course, this is not without some risks. Mr English, unlike Mr Aznar but like Mr Berlusconi, has to contend with other parties whose more vociferous anti-state (Act) and anti-immigrant (New Zealand First) lines may well rob National of votes that his capitalism-with-a-conscience conservatism may not make up for by stealing them on the other side from Labour.

On the other hand, the essential task for National is limiting and, if possible, eating into the Labour vote. Neither Act nor New Zealand First will get anywhere near government without National, so losing a little support to them is practically less problematic than it might first appear.

The same, I suspect, can be said for that supposed lack of charisma. It is, after all, likely to become less apparent as the stature and standing of the leader's office gradually rubs off on the new occupant.

So the newish National MPs who make up its so-called Millennium Club may well be right to feel like it's a mile-high club right now. But their euphoria is unlikely to last much longer than the widely expected blip in their party's opinion poll rating.

In New Zealand, as elsewhere, the values of the centre-left are probably still shared by more voters than those of their centre-right opponents.

Even if he can show that his own values are not so different, Mr English may well find himself having to lay siege to Helengrad for three or four years before he can finally storm it.

In that case, being a likeable but serious details man, someone who can trade punches with the best of them but is also capable of going the full 12 rounds, may turn out to be just what National needs.

* Tim Bale is a lecturer in political science at Victoria University.