Talk:New Zealand National Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag New Zealand National Party is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:


[edit] "Right wing"?

Is the characterization of the party as right wing appropriate? john k 03:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, "right wing" is always a contestable term, but is there any specific point that makes you question the designation? The party generally favours things such as reduced taxation, privatisation of state assets, and free trade, and is usually conservative in its social policy (opposing "political correctness", attacking the NZ version of affirmative action, etc). In New Zealand, at least, these things are generally considered to be right-wing rather than left-wing. The party is widely referred to as "right" or "centre-right" in New Zealand, both by politicians and by commentators. - Vardion 04:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Right" and "centre-right" seem fine to me - I was certainly not disputing that the National Party is the main party of the right, or of the centre-right, in New Zealand. But I tend to think that "right-wing" and "left-wing" should be reserved for parties that are actually out on the wings. For instance, in France, I'd say that only the Trots and the Communists should be described as "left wing", and only Le Pen, et al, as "right wing". The socialists are on the left and the Gaullists on the right, but the "wing" term implies a degree of extremism, I think. john k 05:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I think the New Zealand usage might be a bit different, but there's certainly no problem referring to it as "centre-right" rather than "right-wing" if that makes things clearer. I've reworked the article accordingly - does that seem suitable? -- Vardion 07:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would point out that at an internal National Party meeting not long ago, Chris Findlayson (who is a new MP for National, but a long established member and activist) was happy to describe National as liberal-conservative, reflecting the fact that while National's roots are conservative, the understanding of conservatism in New Zealand is more liberal than the political application of conservatism in other nations. [[User:Barzini|Barzini}} 11:05, 24 Mar 2006

I would add the when you look at the historic roots of the party, National is a coalition of the two anti-socialist parties, one representing the urban liberal/bourgeoise, the other the rural conservatives. --Midnighttonight 00:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wooly policy section?

Is it just me or are the "policies" under this section incredibly vague and wooly? Is this the fault of this page, or the party? I've been trying to find out what their actual policies are (eg if they will impose interest back onto Student Loans) and I'm buggered if I could find it anywhere. NZ forever 03:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making The Page More Useful

Just added an infobox and removed reference to the Nats as 'tories', the term is now used rarely in New Zealand. I've also changed the logo to National's alternate, more visually pleasing logo. --Ed- 05:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fascist?

 Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism wants to know if the person or group described in this article can be reasonably described as fascist. WikiProject Fascism defines an entity which came to power as "fascist" if it fulfills all the following criteria:
  1. exalting the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
  2. stressing loyalty to a single leader.
  3. using violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.
  4. engaging in severe economic and social regimentation.
  5. engaging in syndicalist corporatism.
  6. implementing totalitarian systems.

Please comment on this entity's status here or leave commentary on the project's talk page.
No, not even close. Right wing, certainly, but within the mainstream of New Zealand politics (and more frequently in Government than out of it, until 1999). You may have confused the New Zealand National Party with the New Zealand National Front.-gadfium 10:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
National are clearly not fascist. They met none of the criteria above. --Midnighttonight 10:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, Talk:Māori Party also has a question on whether they are fascist, although it was put on a while ago. --Midnighttonight 10:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Leader

The page lists Forbes as the first party leader. He is not recognised as such in the official 50 year history of the party or by the party historian whom I have checked with. He has never been acknowledged by the Party as a Leader. He led in Parliament the combined United and Reform Caucus as Opposition Leader but he was never Leader of the NZ National Party itself.

I would like to amend the list of leaders so Hamilton is the first leader. --Dpf 01:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead ;-) --Lholden 02:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the background information regarding Forbes is correct. It's clear that Barry's opinion (as relayed by Dpf) about whether Forbes was the parliamentary party leader is contradictory to that published by some earlier prominent historians, and as also published in a number of earlier records of the era. It's worth remembering that by convention the Leader of Opposition (and there is no issue regarding Forbes on this point) is the parliamentary leader of the largest party not in government. And it would also be improbable (if not impossible) that the parliamentary wing of the opposition party would be completely leaderless for nearly half a year while parliament was in session (i.e. after its formation and prior to Hamilton's election).

Dpf is correct that Forbes led in Parliament the combined United and Reform Caucus as Opposition leader; but this occured after the 1935 defeat to Labour and up to May 1936 only. The New Zealand National Party existed in the place of the United and Reform parties from May 1936.

NZHIST (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unremarkable resignation?

Doesn't it strike anyone else as slightly POV that there is no hint, in this article, of the controversy surrounding Brash's resignation? --AGoon 05:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO that should be, and is covered in Dr Brashes article, not here Brian | (Talk) 05:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC) That should be "Dr Brash's article" Brian. Tsk tsk. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 06:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Brian predominately, however a small coverage is okay on the National party's article. Along the lines of "Don Brash resigned as links to insular Christian sects and undisclosed business links were being uncovered by Nicky Hager". I think that should do it --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 06:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
"National party's article" yes it does read a bit as though it is their article, rather than about them ;-) --AGoon 09:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I would edge for the "...and undisclosed business links were allegedly being uncovered by Nicky Hager" with a link to the section in Dr Brash's article Brian | (Talk) 07:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
How about "Don Brash resigned immediately before a [[Nicky Hager]] book, containing allegedly damaging revelations obtained from leaked emails, was released." --AGoon 09:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks okay, however that brings up the question: where they "leaked" or Stolen... Brian | (Talk) 11:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The "allegedly" part relates to the nature of the accusations (primarily because Dr Brash denies the allegations made in Hager's book) not whether or not they damaged Brash's standing as leader. That's something I'm sure we may never find out about and can only speculate on - which of course means we can't verify anything. --Lholden 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Replace 'leaked' with 'private'. I said 'allegedly' because Don denied they were the reason for his resignation (and hence can't have been damaging :-). This sentence is just meant to put the timing of the resignation into context, rather than having it sound as though it was a quiet day and he just thought it was time to stand aside. Hager alledged the book was damaging to Brash, Brash coincidentally resigned. Going into whether the content was true/false, damaging/irrelevant, stolen/leaked isn't the point here. --AGoon 00:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok I'm happy with that. --Lholden 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, discussion seems to have concluded, so its done. --AGoon 09:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Nat logo main.gif

Image:Nat logo main.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)