This left the stage at Waitangi open, and Seymour exploited the opportunity. He enjoyed himself debating the media and getting viral moments with former comedian and progressive activist Guy Williams.
The MP for Epsom then wrapped himself in a controversy of his own making thanks to his intervention on behalf of a beleaguered eye surgeon, but he diverted attention magnificently with an attempt to drive a vehicle up the steps of parliament.
In his State of the Nation, the ACT leader advocated a return to asset sales. Luxon’s response was that he was open to the discussion. Asset sales is a litmus test in New Zealand politics and the prime minister does not have an opinion on the matter.
How quaint.
David Seymour and his small coterie of MPs are setting the agenda. National is stumbling to respond. In the recent Taxpayers Union poll, National’s numbers have settled to the low 30s; on par with the Opposition, but insufficient to allow Luxon to return to power.
Yet this fall hasn’t migrated to either ACT nor New Zealand First; whose support remains torpid.
The principles bill isn’t a vote winner. What little polling we have seen indicates a Treaty referendum has wide but weak support, whilst those opposed to even holding a discussion are passionately committed.
When asked to list their top issue, less than 8% responded with Māori related matters, while the cost of living and the economy triggered over 40% of voters.
Yet what may prove decisive isn’t the specific policy, but that ACT knows what it stands for and National’s position isn’t as well defined.
Historically the party of Holyoake, Holland and Bolger benefited from an electoral system that entrenched its position, and under MMP it has enjoyed prudent management, inertia and dysfunction from its potential coalition partners.
Things have evolved. To retain its primacy, the party needs to actively compete for support rather than rely on the force of electoral habit. It is, I suspect, inoculated for the moment because the Treaty bill is obscuring ACT’s wider policy positions and deterring potential supporters.
In the middle of the year, Seymour will be elevated to the office of Deputy Prime Minister, and we will observe National voting down his bill.
Luxon has made it clear he opposes the bill but he has failed to tell us why, nor provide any guidance on how we should navigate the complex issues it has exposed. He does not have a view on asset sales. He talks about fiscal responsibility but isn’t willing to do what is necessary to achieve it.
What should worry National strategists is the contest between the clarity of ACT’s position, and the uncertainty of the prime minister’s. Luxon can tell us what he is doing, but struggles to explain why.
In the contest for Tamaki, ACT deputy leader Brooke van Velden demonstrated that blue voters were willing to vote for an ACT candidate, even if they used their party vote for National. This demonstrates an openness to a switch in allegiance. To date, however, National has done enough to hold the faithful loyal.
Could this change?
There is a mood across the Anglosphere. Donald Trump is tearing up establishment norms and being rewarded with popularity. Canada and Australia look set to replace progressive administrations this year with trenchant conservatives in Messrs Poilievre and Dutton respectively. In the home of Empire, Nigel Farage is leading the polls against both a struggling Labour government and the Conservatives discredited after 14 uninspiring years in government.
This has yet to manifest in our little corner of the Pacific and perhaps it will not. Each of these four states have their own internal drivers that are not replicated here but there is a wider trend of electoral volatility that should concern those advising the prime minister.
Seymour is a leader who took his party from the edge of oblivion to the heart of government with a decade of graft, grit and grind. Luxon is a manager who has parachuted into the most important C-Suite in the country with barely a scuff mark on his wingtips.
The difference is beginning to tell.......The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
In his State of the Nation, the ACT leader advocated a return to asset sales. Luxon’s response was that he was open to the discussion. Asset sales is a litmus test in New Zealand politics and the prime minister does not have an opinion on the matter.
How quaint.
David Seymour and his small coterie of MPs are setting the agenda. National is stumbling to respond. In the recent Taxpayers Union poll, National’s numbers have settled to the low 30s; on par with the Opposition, but insufficient to allow Luxon to return to power.
Yet this fall hasn’t migrated to either ACT nor New Zealand First; whose support remains torpid.
The principles bill isn’t a vote winner. What little polling we have seen indicates a Treaty referendum has wide but weak support, whilst those opposed to even holding a discussion are passionately committed.
When asked to list their top issue, less than 8% responded with Māori related matters, while the cost of living and the economy triggered over 40% of voters.
Yet what may prove decisive isn’t the specific policy, but that ACT knows what it stands for and National’s position isn’t as well defined.
Historically the party of Holyoake, Holland and Bolger benefited from an electoral system that entrenched its position, and under MMP it has enjoyed prudent management, inertia and dysfunction from its potential coalition partners.
Things have evolved. To retain its primacy, the party needs to actively compete for support rather than rely on the force of electoral habit. It is, I suspect, inoculated for the moment because the Treaty bill is obscuring ACT’s wider policy positions and deterring potential supporters.
In the middle of the year, Seymour will be elevated to the office of Deputy Prime Minister, and we will observe National voting down his bill.
Luxon has made it clear he opposes the bill but he has failed to tell us why, nor provide any guidance on how we should navigate the complex issues it has exposed. He does not have a view on asset sales. He talks about fiscal responsibility but isn’t willing to do what is necessary to achieve it.
What should worry National strategists is the contest between the clarity of ACT’s position, and the uncertainty of the prime minister’s. Luxon can tell us what he is doing, but struggles to explain why.
In the contest for Tamaki, ACT deputy leader Brooke van Velden demonstrated that blue voters were willing to vote for an ACT candidate, even if they used their party vote for National. This demonstrates an openness to a switch in allegiance. To date, however, National has done enough to hold the faithful loyal.
Could this change?
There is a mood across the Anglosphere. Donald Trump is tearing up establishment norms and being rewarded with popularity. Canada and Australia look set to replace progressive administrations this year with trenchant conservatives in Messrs Poilievre and Dutton respectively. In the home of Empire, Nigel Farage is leading the polls against both a struggling Labour government and the Conservatives discredited after 14 uninspiring years in government.
This has yet to manifest in our little corner of the Pacific and perhaps it will not. Each of these four states have their own internal drivers that are not replicated here but there is a wider trend of electoral volatility that should concern those advising the prime minister.
Seymour is a leader who took his party from the edge of oblivion to the heart of government with a decade of graft, grit and grind. Luxon is a manager who has parachuted into the most important C-Suite in the country with barely a scuff mark on his wingtips.
The difference is beginning to tell.......The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
10 comments:
People prefer a person with principles. Sometimes we don't agree with those principles but we can't help but observe that the person is brave and resolute. Luxon appears to have no strong views on anything. National is supposed to be a Conservative Party but Luxon could just as well be in Labour, The Greens or even TMP. Most western democracies do have a few politicians who speak for conservatives. Australia, Canada and the US for example. We only have lukewarm imitations. If ACT and NZF stuck to their principles and coalition agreements we might be a lot happier as voters.
By the 15th February 1840, virtually two thirds of New Zealand had either been sold or was under signed and witnessed contracts by the chiefs. Most of these contracts are held in the New Zealand or New South Wales courts.
Starting in 1838 and up until 1840, Ngai Tahu chiefs travelled to Sydney hunting for land buyers after the North Island tribes had invaded them and taken most of their tribes North into slavery.
By the 15th February 1840, Ngai Tahu chiefs had sold two thirds of the South Island, while over in Australia. These lands were sold by willing sellers and the deeds were registered in the NSW Supreme Court. No South Island chief had signed the Treaty of Waitangi, so had every right to sell their tribal territory (land) under Maori lore.
“Half of the South Island was sold by Ngai Tahu chiefs in 1839 to two Australians and a quarter to the New Zealand company”. (Pre-treaty and pre-emptive land buyers of New Zealand by Jean Jackson).
So, is this the same Ngai Tahu tribe that with the help of our corporate government, want to own and control ALL of the South Island, after their ancestors had willingly sold it all to willing buyers?
Governor Hobson and his newly formed colonial government had no right to overrule the NSW supreme court and refuse so many of these legitimate, registered sales. If the (apartheid) Waitangi tribunal was allowed to investigate these European confiscated lands, the same way as they investigate Maori confiscated lands, there would be very little land for Maori to claim as theirs, as they had sold it before the Treaty was signed.
Maybe only 8% are worried about "Maori issues" because they are always whitewashed in the M.S.M. as racist and anti-Maori. Even if only 30% of Kiwis don't trust the M.S.M. to report the truth, that doesn't mean they have found an alternative media source that does give wide ranging, truthful and balanced reporting.
An extremists biggest allies are public complacency and the ability to prevent the public finding out what they are doing until it's too late to prevent it.
You have to hand it to them, our M.S.M. have been doing a pretty good job so far.
"If you don't like my principles, I have others" -- Christopher Luxon
To Janine,
Last sentence - obviously. Look at the level of MPs for the salaries they earn. Two terms - they get a large pension and major connections for their next step. Easy money so no rocking the boat.
Luxon: simply put, what calibre of PM denies citizens a
referendum on this vital issue? Democracy or an ethno-state?
Time to call a spade a spade.
If PM Mr Luxon would listen intently to the recent speech VP JD Vance at the Security Conference - Munich he would equip himself to better understand leadership. Especially at 10:50 - 14:15 - 16:38 - 19:02 sections of the speech he would realise what is NOT appropriate.
ie telling millions of voters their thoughts ,their hopes their requests, for help are invalid , leaving them locked out of political debate , being unworthy of being considered . Referendum Mr Luxon???
Luxon isn't a leader, but a businessman, but he is in a leadership role and failing to act on the biggest issue facing NZ.
The reason why less than 8% appear to be less concerned about Maori matter is simply that they don't see or hear about the issues from the MSM.
They are just getting on with their lives, dealing with everyday matters, and if there are no Maori matters appearing in the MSM, then its ok.
If only they knew what was really happening and the dire future for their families if Maori get even more control, and we lose democracy entirely.
And here lies one of Luxons many great failings - Radio NZ and TVNZ.
They are Government entities that should be playing an absolutely neutral political line. They clearly to us are hard Left in all their content.
Luxon must be well aware of the fact that they are trying to remove him and the Coalition.
He has the power to make them walk a straight line but fails to do so.
I understand that he hasn't even cancelled all the PIJF funding !!!
We are bitterly disappointed with Luxon and will not be supporting him next time around.
National need to replace him with someone with the determination to fix the race issues - now !
Ask voters the question: apart from the race /CG /tribal rule issue, what is your priority?
Of course, diverse replies - including on Maori matters.
Question time in the house.
Question one.
Is it reasonable to believe that all citizens of this country deserve to be afforded equal rights under one law?
Question two.
Should the Sovreign state of New Zealand be Governed by one democratically elected government of the people , by the people, for the people?
Question three.
What is a woman?
Answer. Aww! There hard questions bro.
I guess if we have around 120 MPs who think a mountain is a person we are in big, big trouble.
Post a Comment