Table of Contents
The poll numbers are not kind to National or Luxon. Why? The answer is simple. National is not kind to its voter base. Can we identify the problem? Yes: it stems from the leadership of the party’s parliamentary team – Christopher Luxon, Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop. These three are driving the party down a road paved with ‘politically correct’ bitumen. Bitumen is a raw and sticky binding agent, now preferred to tarseal in the paving of roads, and National is using a political equivalent when it comes to matters of climate change and race relations. They are binding themselves to these issues in a ‘sticky’ manner that is very much at odds with their voter base.
On these two issues, climate and race, they are tarring themselves with a left-wing brush and this is driving voters away. Can we identify why this is happening? Yes: look around the world at other leaders and there’s your answer. Starmer, Albanese, Macron, Carney – all from the left and all becoming increasingly unpopular. It is no stretch to say that Luxon, Willis and Bishop fit right in there.
These politicians are pretty much all from the same generation: the generation that spawned what has become known as ‘political correctness’. These types lack a spine, are afraid to offend and are very comfortable supporting causes and groups whose actions lie outside what many of us regard as the ‘norms’ of society. Society may have changed somewhat but the majority of those living in it have not. They support things such as the ‘nuclear family’ and they vote right. THIS is what is getting National into trouble. A reassessment by the party caucus is badly needed. A wake up call to reality is sorely required.
For decades National was my natural home. Registered to vote in the Epsom electorate, the advent of MMP brought choices previously unavailable under FPP. Consequently my electorate vote has for some time gone to the ACT Party to ensure they have a place in parliament. For many years David Seymour was the party’s lone voice. Last election the party secured the next door seat of Tāmaki. This was not a surprise. National will probably not regain it. A fairly large swathe of East Auckland is now represented by the ACT Party.
Looking at the three parties on the right, all have different characteristics and appeal, and the one which has the least appeal for many is National. These are mainly people who would have voted National under FPP but under MMP have deserted the party. National could be defined as the most ‘middle of the road’ of the three. ACT is the most ‘laissez-faire’ appealing to those voters who want an approach that keeps government as much as possible out of their lives. NZ First believes in a more hands-on approach with a dose of patriotism along the lines of Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ thrown in. These positions are strategic rather than ideological.
And, of the three, National looks the weakest. In today’s political climate the party comes across as too politically correct for its own good, giving the impression of not wanting to rock the boat. This is not an accusation one could level at the three parties on the left. Of those three, Labour are closest to National in terms of ‘middle of the road’, hence we often hear commentary on this site of a ‘grand coalition’. The big difference is, Labour, like their prospective coalition partners, are ideologically driven whereas National is not. Vote for the parties on the left and you are in no doubt what you are getting. Tax and spend, an expanded public service, climate change nonsense and racist laws. Right there is the problem: vote National and on climate and race you’re getting pretty much the same.
These are exactly the issues National need to deal to if they want to improve their political standing amongst their potential voters. BUT THEY ARE NOT. I’ll cut them some slack on the tax and spend due to the financial situation they inherited and now they also have the energy crisis to deal with. The other two are much simpler to sort. On climate change, which dovetails into the energy equation, National need to decide to what extent they genuinely support it. Are they with NZ First on the policy of mining, drilling and further exploration or do they favour wasting huge amounts of taxpayers’ money buying in to ridiculous organisations like the Paris Accord. Where is that money going? What is it spent on? Does the government even know? Shane Jones is in no doubt – get out. He’s right.
National must adopt the same strategy. The priority must be on the acquisition of fossil fuels in order to keep the economy afloat and, of those fuels, coal will be a necessity. Oil and gas exploration must be permitted on a permanent basis. We are hearing agreement from National, but stressing the need to do so is lacking. Shane Jones as Energy Resources Minister is leading the charge on the topic. The problem for National is he is not from their camp. Jones has every right to speak on the issue but National need to be equally vocal in their support. National is letting Jones occupy the high ground on the topic. National should, at the very least, be talking in unison.
Not doing so creates an additional risk for National and this is why it could well lose the West Coast electorate, not to Labour, but to NZ First. National holds the electorate by only a slim majority. National needs to emphasise the fact that fossil fuels, particularly coal, will be needed for at least the next 50 years. On a 1–10 scale of showing determination on this issue, National rates about a six. NZ First, through Shane Jones, rates a ten. He is hammering energy as not only vital to the country’s survival but also for regional and economic growth and development.
National have done some good things and are putting some good policies in place that reflect long-term goals. But there are areas where the political wing are letting themselves down. The air of political correctness that is pervading the party, led by the top three, must be dispensed with. It is an aberration to its voter base. If this doesn’t change then neither will the dismal poll numbers. That does not necessarily mean National will be on the opposition benches but it does mean that they will only retain government thanks to two things: the abhorrent alternative and the rise in support for ACT and NZ First.
This is not a satisfactory way to retain power. The aim should be not to win reliant on other factors but to win big yourself with policies that appeal to the majority of voters. In this regard National has some work to do. Toughen up on climate and race, halve the number of people on the morning train from Johnsonville and get back to basics. By that I mean the very principles the party was founded on. Circumstances will forever change but, whatever they are, the party’s founding principles should be applied. It is only through this that voter trust will be regained.
Finally, a change in leadership is not an answer and cannot be satisfactorily achieved due to a lack of suitable contenders. A change in direction, which certainly can be achieved, is an answer. The ball is in National’s court.
