For me the key parts of his message were in two sentences - one a warning and the other a statement of fact.
The warning was his observation that the Party had drifted away from its founding principles and was now more likely to support a “Centre Left” coalition with all the baggage that entails.
The statement of fact was that The Opportunity Party founding principles were designed to appeal to “Centre Right” tradies (working class Kiwis), on whom the Nation’s wealth is built.
I believe Morgan’s timely observation could be the key to saving us from a disastrous mistake based on false propaganda.
It has become clear over recent months that there is a sizeable constituency out there (maybe as much as 6% of those who intend to vote) who have either become disillusioned with their traditional party of choice or have decided some other idealogical theory needs to be added to the mix of government in order that we all benefit more than we have been
Unfortunately, but thankfully, the promise that the conveyor of that new hope had arrived in the form of the Opportunity Party has been well and truly shattered with Gareth Morgan’s revelation..
And my hope is that voters who were thinking of supporting a party who were not being straight with them will also be asking is it a good reason to be reassessing whether their intended choice was misplaced.
Questions should be being asked whether this relatively “new kid on the block”:could be trusted as a partner in Government as well.
Love him or hate him - Christopher Luxon has up until now, steadfastly refused to engage with the Opportunity Party as a potential Centre Right Coalition Partner.
His reasons for doing so have been vindicated by Gareth Morgan’s observation.
Let’s hope we have received this information in time to make informed choices about the best group of politicians to lead us through the next 3 uncertain years.
l’m not sure who wrote this (or words to the effect) but the comment :“Democracy is an imperfect form of Government but all the rest are so much worse!” surely resonates at times like this.
And we are so fortunate that, inspite of the obvious flaws associated with our own chosen system, it has served us reasonably well in the past
It’s just that we need to be vigilant in ensuring enough safeguards are in place in order that it functions in a manner that has the capacity to protect us from ourselves.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who now lives in Taranaki.
13 comments:
I suspect this was the comment that Clive has in mind, being by Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”.
I think the comment about democracy being alluded to here is the following made by Winston Churchill in 1947:
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
This is the same guy who is on record as saying that the best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter ..........
Barend
Do l detect a degree of cynicism in your final sentence or are you simply questioning the Great Man’s uncanny ability to judge the public mood even if it accurately reflects the flaws associated with the systems we have chosen.
For my money, it just goes to show how lucky we are living in a society that allows freedom of expression.
And for what it is worth, we constantly hear from successful politicians who are happy to confess they base their whole political strategy on what the “cabbies” tell them on the way to the airport.
Aren’t they part of the group Churchill is referring to as well?
Scottish historian Alexander Fraser Tytler.(Attrib:)
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits, with the result that the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”
As is playing out in France right now. Napoleon did a good job fixing things in 1799, I wonder who the dictator will be in 2027?
Churchill was an enigmatic figure. On the one hand he was a staunch advocate of the traditional class structure of British society and had paternalistic notions about their relationship with the 'lower classes'. On the other hand he was a staunch defender of the House of Commons as the bulwark of British democracy and turned down a hereditary peerage in the House of Lords (although there were pragmatic reasons for this as well, including having his sights on the PMship). Churchill believed in "The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate" model of society but he also believed in helping the 'poor man at the gate' to raise himself above his current lot in life - many of his admirers would like to think this position was based on principle, but (cynic than I am) I suspect it was a pragmatic stance aimed at averting a Bolshevik-style revolution (bearing in mind that Moscow was very active in labour union subversion at the time (1920s and 30s). Yes, Churchill was most interested in the views of the 'common man' - although it is highly debatable whether there was any altruistic sentiment involved.
Barend - Churchill said in 1911 that the Dardenalles could not be taken, and yet in 1915 he sent in the the ANZACs with disastrous results.
Again, in 1940, he sent ANZAC troops into to defend Greece against impossible odds.
These are two of Churchill's many faults.
BV is correct. As a young politician Churchill became convinced of the need to concede reforms to counter the rise of the Labour Party (then much more socialist than it is now) and ultimately to fend off revolution. Hence his switch from the Conservatives to the Liberals in 1906, and his support for the programme of the Liberal Government elected that year; a programme the included among other things the first old age pension in Britain, free school lunches (goodness me!), and the 1910 “people’s budget” , which (modestly) raised taxes on the wealthy to pay for the reforms.
Anon153, I can't see any connection between Churchill's military competence and his attitudes and policies towards his own people back at home.
I am sure the man had many 'faults' as do all, but the aspects of him that interest me are those concerning governance, social class and privilege.
Barend : Churchill considered the ANZACs expendable - thats my gripe with him.
It wasn't our homeland that we were defending, it was his, and we were sent into impossible military territory.
Churchill's image among WW1 veterans remained very high after that war. They did not hold him culpable for the "glorious failure" at Gallipoli. In 1922, NZers again queued up to volunteer to fight Turkey again during the Chanak Crisis.
As is so often the case, attitudes changed after the last veterans had succumbed to old age, and a new breed of historians and opinion-makers had viewed the Great War through a different lens. Attitudes to imperialism had changed too - a WW1 combatant would not have agreed with you that "It wasn't our homeland that we were defending, it was his" as England was still "the old country" and NZ was still an offshoot that owed the imperial order for its very existence.
The Gallipoli campaign was a disaster owing to where it was launched, wrong place. Anzac troops were no more ''dispensible'' than others and that line . We were very mucg part of the empire and (bar some) identified as such.
Anan seems under the impression only Anzacs fought at Gallipoli. As for WW2 the line it was not our war is daft.
The Gallipoli Campaign resulted in approximately 250,000 to 300,000 Allied casualties and roughly 250,000 to 289,000 Ottoman casualties.
killed in action or died of wounds/disease.
• British and Irish: ~213,000 total casualties (~22,000 to 29,500 deaths).
• French: ~27,000 to 30,000 total casualties (~8,000 to 12,000 deaths).
• Australia: ~26,111 total casualties, including about 8,141 to 8,709 deaths and ~17,000–19,000 wounded.
• New Zealand: ~8,000 to 8,500 total casualties, including about 2,700 to 2,779 deaths and ~4,700 wounded.
Anybody who would vote for TOP is not a thinker.
I feel sorry or Clive Bibby , Author of said article which was focused on the Opportunity Party, sadly referring to Winston Churchill that set "off' the comments posted.
The Opportunity Party how -
- it has taken in many New Zealander's as being 'the next possible Party that could swing change.
- it has taken in many National party Supporters (they believe Luxon should consider them as 'partners'), a TVNZ interview with some in the South Island showed how many are "out of touch".
- how many New Zealander's have not sourced/researched the Opportunity Party Manifesto and differing verbal versions as espoused by Qiulae Wong, that if any Kiwi listened to them- "you should become very concerned".
On this website there is an article by Gareth Morgan on this Party - go read.
As a final note, people should also research who is involved in this Party - which has "some" that are not New Zealander's, their Country of origin is interesting (at this moment is flexing it's 'muscles' for the forth coming Mid term Federal Govt elections), as said Country has many 'bright star' pupils who have a Socialist background, no doubt garnered from their University Lecturer's, whose ultimate goal is the destruction of America.
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.