Christopher Luxon is not your consummate politician. Not by a long shot. And politics is nothing like running a business. The National Party, or indeed the coalition, is not Unilever. The MPs representing ACT and NZ First are not Luxon’s staff. They are more like suppliers adding products (ideas) to help sustain his business (government) and keep it profitable (in power). Unlike business, which vies with competitors for market share, in politics it can be an accommodation with competitors (ACT and NZ First) that attains and keeps the market share (percentage of votes). Luxon has failed to discern the difference.
Next come your customers (the voters). Going to the polls every three years, is akin to temporarily closing a business while reorganizing it. New products (policies) will be on offer that hopefully will have sufficient appeal to the voters and the suppliers will offer new products too. Their products may be similar and may be under a different brand name. Some of these may not have personal appeal but, if the voters want them, they need to be put on the shelves (legislate for them).
There is an old saying ‘what the customer wants is what the customer gets’. I’ll relate a little story. Shortly after joining the EU Britain was bound by EU law to sell its goods in metric measurements. A market stall owner was arrested for continuing to sell his fruit and vegetables by the pound. His reply was he was only giving his customers what they wanted. He said if they preferred the metric system he would implement it. He went on to say ‘In my world, what the customer wants, the customer gets.’
In this context, Luxon’s outspoken opposition to David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill was a massive political blunder. His blanket refusal to support it beyond the first reading (despite the coalition agreement), was a huge tactical error; one for which he and National are still paying the price. It was the equivalent of telling his loyal voters that whether they want it or not, the product will not be available in his shop. His decision not actively reject the bill smacked of a PERSONAL animosity towards it. A very bad look.
He should be well aware that in business you can’t afford to turn customers away and in politics, you can’t afford to turn voters away. National is languishing around the 30 per cent mark in the polls and, when you look at the pathetic numpties on the other side of the House, National should be nearer 40 per cent. Luxon has compounded his situation by failing to remove the race-based products the customers clearly wanted removed and many remain on the shelf unsold and unwanted.
The Taxpayers’ Union has pointed out that we now have councils rushing to embed relationships with local iwi from which they will never be able to extricate themselves. Why? Simply to avoid having to pay koha if iwi wishes are not acceded to. Evidently, councils want to do this before the new Resource Management Act is passed forbidding them to engage in this type of behaviour. Some arrangements are already in place.
National repealed Labour’s Three Waters bill but then let the same co-governance model back in through their “Local Waters Done Well” policy.
If a business owner kept stocking his shelves with products people didn’t want, he would soon be out of business. Is that what's going to happen in November?
Keeping your voters satisfied matters and is in fact vital to holding on to the reins of power. An MP is elected to be at the behest of, and to serve, the electorate and to stay true to the policies the party campaigned on. No products provided and people will shop elsewhere.
It's time MP's woke up - You are not elected to change tack and force your will on your supporters - you are there to deliver on the promises that got you elected.
This is a lesson Luxon clearly has yet to learn.
There's also an issue with his personality. You can’t change that. His personality may suit a business environment. He may have been a huge success at Unilever. He swims in the pool of the higher echelons of big business where he evidently mingles easily with those in power, initiating trade deals and the like. Maybe he fits in there and, without wishing to be cruel, perhaps it's where he should have stayed. He certainly doesn't swim in the local public pool with the electorate and that shows in his polls.
There are some MPs, Shane Jones is one that springs to mind, where you could go down to the pub, sink a couple of beers with him and have a good yarn. That is not Luxon. It’s not his fault: he is who he is. But it is a negative and lecturing voters on the Treaty Principles Bill or climate change just exacerbates the unfortunate situation. The favouritism being shown to Māori is the opposite of what people voted for. They wanted legislation passed that would unite the country – ONE people under ONE name and ONE flag.
The real problem with Luxon and National: the leadership of the party is WOKE. Luxon, Willis and Bishop fit the description. Much of the electorate has had more life experience than them and those people have no truck with a woke social agenda. A significant section of National's usual voter base regards them as Labour lite. There is talk of the possibility of a Grand Coalition. It won’t happen, but National need to wake up as to why people are talking about it.
National MPs need to wake up and realise the party has to reconnect with its voter base. The odds are that ACT and NZ First will, between them, have the numbers to put the coalition back in, but that is not how it should be. National should itself enjoy sufficient support to ensure a coalition win.
The answer lies with Luxon. While he is leader it will be policy that wins the election for National, not personality. Trump described the departing British PM Keir Starmer as no Winston Churchill and similarly Christopher Luxon is no John Key.
If we like the policies, can we trust they will be legislated for? Trust has been breached. The ship’s GPS needs to be reset so tracking is improved going into the election.
Will this happen? I guess time will tell.
The ball is in Luxon’s court.
