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
22 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.
JC is mostly correct, but the slide to the left didn't start with Luxon. Slippery slopes remain undefeated. The slide started long before him, but it was Key who really shoved the party to the Left. Luxon is merely picking up from, and accelerating, where Key left off.
The problem, of course, is that the conservative economics / progressive social worldview is attractive to only a small rump of the electorate, and ACT already have them wrapped up.
But I'm not sure it isn't a deliberate strategy from National. Push their traditional supporters to their coalition partners. That way they get to be the progressive leftists they so desperately want to be, while retaining power.
The Nats took all of the wrong lessons from the 21.9% shellacking they took in 2002. Only a result worse than that will have any hope of cleansing the party of its delusions.
I'm a former National supporter. I have lost all confidence in that party, but particularly in its current leader. With the exception of ACT, the other parties are an embarrassment.
I'd like to see four simple questions put to Luxon, each requiring a binary Yes or No answer, with no lecturing from him or other political murkiness - just a simple straight Yes or No answer to each. If he refuses to address them, or give a straight Yes or No, that then tells us all that we now need to know about where he and National intends taking our country.
Questions as follows -
If elected, will you immediately -
1. Abolish the Waitangi Tribunal and within a year permanently stop all further "treaty" payments to maori. Yes or No?
2. Instruct all NZ central and local government bodies, departments, and Crown-owned entities, to stop prioritising maori language and culture, in all facets of their function, and monitor them all to ensure their rapid and full compliance with that directive. Yes or No?
3. Set in place statutory law, under penalty, prohibiting any person or organisation from demanding that anyone must undergo the sort of forced indoctrination of the type that Real Estate agent Janet Dickson was recently subjected to. Yes or No?
4. Terminate the current tax advantages given to maori-owned organisations that are provably not of 100% charitable purpose? Yes or No?
"Took a wrong turn then just kept going". Then "spiked" a referendum. Not a leader, but an activist
The overarching issue of Maorification/Co-governance/He Puapua, etc. was the most important issue at the last election. It still is now! As one commenter above says: Luxon fudged the Maori problem for National as a subject people don't care about, he was wrong then and still is.Three years have passed and because of National blocking or otherwise impeding efforts to deal with it, the surface has barely been scratched on it all. I'm not sure what influence people like Key and Finlayson have exerted along with the Iwi Chairs mob but their dabs are all over this and we are all paying the price.
What is very comforting for NZ voters is the split vote for ACT will bring further genuine Parliamentary minds and ability forward.
The ACT list is exciting including Davina Smoulders .
ACT had less share of the Parliament this term , however the seriously substantial policy direction will only improve after the 2026 election.
NZF Hon Winston when marked against Nanaea Mahouta as foreign Minister is sublime,
All will be ok , just only party vote ACT or NZF
And the elephant in the room is Maori.
Luxon refuses to acknowledge the vast majority of his voters are fed up with his leniency towards Maori demands.
I will never vote National again while he is in charge.
I may well have departed permanently by the next election after 5 generations.
To Chuck Bird, Sept 19: you may be right; National's total inaction on key issues of concern to its former supporters will result in party votes for ACT.
That trend will be bolstered by the Maori Party's radical pronouncements showing they have an ethnostate as their goal.
If I'm wrong and a Labour coalition comes to power, a lot of smart people will emigrate asap, creating a New Zimbabwe. Labour will be happy to destroy democracy just to gain power.
National has to be put in its place by the voter in punishing form! National has taken NZ down the path of decline and decay over decades. Done a lot of harm which they refuse to address. National is the new Labour, indeed difficult to tell them apart. National has failed to deliver.
It is high time NZF, along with Act, take charge in governance if NZ wants any hope of change. Only way forward is for National to become subordinate to NZF & Act; and my I say subordinate to the NZ voter.
We have to send a very clear message to National! They have refused to shift their mindset, refused to represent the concerns and will of the thinking New Zealander.
Like it not we have an MMP environment. We have never shifted from the basic mindset of the two-party model. This election we have another option. This is our only opportunity for the NZ people to take charge of our country and be heard. Only opportunity to put the pollical Parties on notice, we are the nation, this is a democracy and you will listen and take notice of the thinking people of NZ!
NZ cannot continue as we are. We have to cause a major upset in this election to force change.
Democracy is more than just elections. I would advise thinking people to keep the pressure on throughout the next term of govt, tell them what you think and let them know we are ever vigilant and will hold them to account. Kind regards
Never a National voter in my life till last election when i did respect Chris Bishop for Hutt South. (ACT, of course, for sane government) Luxon is a turncoat as he completely ignores He Puapua which he campaigned to abolish. I pity those members of his caucus who feel obliged to support him, but I'd wish them more gumption to vote him out of the leadership.
obviously people are on to the problems with National.
Don't underestimate the connection with WEF ,and the UN .Luxon would rather carry out their agenda while giving a finger to Kiwis.
Luxon doesn't have the cult charisma of Trump but he sure does have the dictatorial characteristics of most of the extreme world leaders.
Meanwhile, Luxon puts his blinkers on pretending that race issues are not an issue.
Are we surprised that people like Bayley and Pugh are leaving parliament after the repugnant way Luxon has treated them.
Does anyone bring BV articles and opinions to Luxon, or are they too intimidated ?
Anonymous at 8.01 is on the money! Getting rid of Luxon is imperative. However what values will the next National leader bring to the table?
There is know doubt Bishop get things done. Will he be any better? Willis, Stanford, Brown are also unknown quantities.
Seymour is the only one who publicly advocates the future direction we must take. Ignore ACT at your peril!
National has an inbred self-righteous attitude that is alienating them from voters. Their policies range from out-of-touch to downright stupid (like splitting up Foodstuffs). They have failed to grasp why the electorate turned against Ardern and failed to grasp the opportunity that was given to them with high expectations in 2023. Their polling shows how much of a failure they have been. Party vote ACT or NZ First to deliver National a message, then after the election, create a New National network within the party to force reform.
Yet ACT struggles to reach double figures. They also need a face that has a broader appeal. David has been good, but they should be the choice before Winston, but it is NZF that is gaining.
The writer's use of the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' reflect Amurrican usage, not British or European.
"Liberals usually demand stricter background checks and firearm restrictions whereas conservatives firmly support the right to bear arms" is the most obvious example of this.
I am myself a classical British/European liberal which means that I am a social democrat who believes in the duty of care of the State. An Amurrican would call me a socialist.
Can we please stick to real English in discussions of this kind?
I agree with most of the commentary, but there is one other thing we can do, to stop empowering the ideologs on the left and promoting their message. It was they who chose to describe themselves as "liberal" and "progressive". In reality they are the complete opposite - people who want to deprive us of our freedoms and take us back to the days of rigid state control. Let's not give oxygen to their propaganda by adopting the disingenuous labels they ascribe to themselves. Describe them by what they are - the authoritarians and the regressives.
The irony here is that the classical liberals who were associated with the Enlightenment were the most 'progressive' people history had ever seen. They introduced humanity to the notion of universal human rights. 'Liberty' and 'equality' were their trademark slogans. But they also believe in a stable society governed by the rule of law at all levels and recognise duties and responsibilities as constituting the flipside of the rights and liberties coin.
Prominent classical liberals have included Margaret Thatcher, John Howard, Malcolm Fraser and Roger Douglas.
Anon@7.39, that is why I always correct those that call themselves "progressive" that they need to use better diction. What they really mean is that they are "pro-regressive".
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.