So, by his public utterances, says Christopher Luxon.
The National Party are proving to be a complete enigma. Their voter base is deserting them. The poll numbers are telling the story. They are well short of where they should be. Their stubbornness to not move properly on things their voters want fixed is causing major dissent among their supporters. The party either doesn’t recognise it, doesn’t want to, or is just determined to go its own way employing a ‘we know what’s best for you’ mantra. This is causing a mix of anger and despair among its voter base and forcing them to look elsewhere.
If Luxon continues to take National down this path then the election result for them will fall far short of expectations. Once a party steps out of line with those who put it in power they are inviting a measure of retribution at the ballot box. This will come about, not at the electorate level, but through people tactically voting with their party vote. The conversation around tactical voting is growing in right-wing circles. The need for it is becoming increasingly well publicised. Should this happen, it brings about the very real possibility that, in the next parliament, National will have no list MPs. Some might regard that as no bad thing.
People are now looking elsewhere for a party more aligned with their views and values. They are leaving because National no longer reflects their more conservative approach to life. National was founded on conservative principles. Since Luxon became leader, the party has moved from a more traditional conservative approach to a more liberal one.
It is the party’s more liberal approach to issues that is causing dissatisfaction, particularly when it comes to social and race matters. There is a fine line between right-wing conservatism and right-wing liberalism, but the differences are significant, most notably on the social issues that extend into a party’s policy on race.
This view is supported by AI, which, under a number of headings, illustrates the differences between liberal and conservative thinking and values. Looking at these allows a more informed understanding of where National sits on these various issues and thus why it currently resides where it does.
Role of Government
If Luxon continues to take National down this path then the election result for them will fall far short of expectations. Once a party steps out of line with those who put it in power they are inviting a measure of retribution at the ballot box. This will come about, not at the electorate level, but through people tactically voting with their party vote. The conversation around tactical voting is growing in right-wing circles. The need for it is becoming increasingly well publicised. Should this happen, it brings about the very real possibility that, in the next parliament, National will have no list MPs. Some might regard that as no bad thing.
People are now looking elsewhere for a party more aligned with their views and values. They are leaving because National no longer reflects their more conservative approach to life. National was founded on conservative principles. Since Luxon became leader, the party has moved from a more traditional conservative approach to a more liberal one.
It is the party’s more liberal approach to issues that is causing dissatisfaction, particularly when it comes to social and race matters. There is a fine line between right-wing conservatism and right-wing liberalism, but the differences are significant, most notably on the social issues that extend into a party’s policy on race.
This view is supported by AI, which, under a number of headings, illustrates the differences between liberal and conservative thinking and values. Looking at these allows a more informed understanding of where National sits on these various issues and thus why it currently resides where it does.
Role of Government
- Liberals believe the government should play an active role in solving social and economic problems, such as reducing inequality and protecting the environment.
- Conservatives believe that a smaller government and a free market handle these challenges better and that heavy government intervention creates more problems than it solves.
On this I rate National LIBERAL.
Economic Views
- Liberals support higher taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals to fund public social programmes, along with stronger businesses regulations.
- Conservatives favour lower taxes across the board and minimal government regulation to let the private sector drive economic growth.
On this I rate National CONSERVATIVE.
Social Issues
- Liberals tend to be more left leaning, supporting social change, civil rights and same sex marriage.
- Conservatives tend to emphasise traditional values, personal responsibility and preserving established societal norms.
On this I rate National LIBERAL.
Key Policy Differences
- Healthcare – Liberals tend to support universal government-run or regulated healthcare while conservatives prefer market based solutions.
Gun Control
- Liberals usually demand stricter background checks and firearm restrictions whereas conservatives firmly support the right to bear arms.
Immigration
- Liberals favour more inclusive paths to citizenship, while conservatives prioritise strict border enforcement.
What this shows is that, apart from the economic area, in all other aspects, including social ones, National has adopted a more liberal approach. THIS IS THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM. This is why National is losing its conservative voters and this is why NZ First and, to a lesser extent, ACT are increasing their support. National’s approach to social issues is hurting them big time. The polls are not wrong. Unless National changes, the polls will stay the same.
I think the liberal wing of National is trying to implement a strategy where they have a foot in both camps. They are hoping to keep conservative voters with their economic policies while, at the same time, trying to attract those who have a more liberal bent through their social policy. Erica Stanford is a good example. The problem for National is, if the polls are to be believed, this is not working. I think the poll numbers for National are believable because they are each pretty much in sync and have been for some time. So why haven’t National changed direction? The answer is fairly obvious.
As I and others have pointed out for some months now, liberalism is definitely evident in the leadership team of Luxon, Willis and Bishop. This is what is driving the division between the conservative and liberal factions, evidenced by the fact Luxon has recently had to call two urgent caucus meetings to quell attempts to oust him as leader. This is not a good look for a party that is the dominant one in a three-party coalition. The public expect them to be leading the way, not fighting amongst themselves.
This factional infighting will not be solved as long as Luxon is in charge. He’s dragging the party further to the left. He’s trying to position the party as economically conservative but socially liberal. It won’t work and it highlights Luxon’s demonstrable lack of political instinct.
What is the answer? Here’s my take. I still think the coalition will win the election, thanks to Hipkins and his band of lunatic fellow travellers. Luxon must then be replaced. IMMEDIATELY. National cannot afford to carry on as a factionalised party. The damage and the bloodletting must stop. Luxon won’t change so he must go. He cannot be allowed to continue to destroy right-wing conservatism. National can then return to its conservative roots and hopefully claw back at least some of its voter base. Without that course of action National is a doomed party.
The party, on the principles it was founded, is no longer. A more appropriate name would be Social Democrats.
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
4 comments:
National 2023-26 are a freaking disaster for its supporters. But a windfall for its coalition partners.
The one and only line in the sand for the exceedingly fluid opinionless Luxon is his hold on the leadership. Otherwise, he's trying to be the cool liberal woke cat, and is an annoying fool for the pretence.
Unlike Swarbrick etc, he doesn't talk to woke causes, he just kind of goes along with that world view, never criticising it.
He's the ambitious corporate guy, willing to sell his soul to get up the ladder but he's done this character for so long, Christopher doesn't know who the real Luxon is.
The thing I cannot quite connect is why John Key backs this loser like he does. Is it Keys weird clandestine fascination for Maori sovereignty causes in which he sees Luxon as that necessary stooge to finishing the job? When the subject was politely broached by a timid Mike Hosking, Luxon fudged the Maori problem for National as a subject people don't care about. That too was entirely unconvincing, but it showed just how against even mentioning the subject he is.
I agree, he's going to get rolled come the dawn of 2027, Willis, Goldsmith, etc, are looking a lot less likely to be there and when National get thumped, as it looks they will, there'll be no saving him.
What a dreadful bunch of leaders we've had for the past quarter century. National stand for nothing and fall for everything with seemingly no clue or care whatsoever as to why their voter base put them there.
JC makes some very good points but I think it is too soon to the election to dump Luxon. I will vote for my National electorate MP, but my party vote will go to ACT.
Indeed, disappointment at the direction being taken.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.