DemocracyNZ arguably just lost its best people with the resignation of five candidates: Dr Matt Shelton, Kirsten Murfitt, Lee Smith and Bill Dyet, after the board fired Waikato farmer Steve Cranston, who was also the party’s spokesman on climate change.
Cranston says terribly sensible things like this:
The National Party speaks with a forked tongue – on the one hand it says it stands with farmers, while on the other it maintains policies that will still destroy farming communities, just at a slower rate. Democracy NZ won’t sell out our farmers. We will end the carbon emissions madness.
National has been for decades a fork-tongued perpetrator of the climate alarmism hoax – and all the preposterous legislation built up around that entirely false edifice. And we know the farmers cop all the restrictive hoop-jumping in its wake, right down to the now common land grabs. Yeah, that’ll destroy farming communities pretty quickly.
My question has been, can the board of DemocracyNZ back its truth-telling talent in their candidates, or are they already fully focused on future compromises they know they must make in order to even be in the game at a higher level?
No, they obviously didn’t back them.
Murfitt’s statement of resignation includes this issue with their board:
4. The systemic issues that threatened the party and the board refuses to address and resolve these issues. We have been told that the board will no longer be transparent with its decisions and that if we do not like the way the party is conducted then we should resign. The culture of the party does not give us confidence that the party will be successful at implementing changes if we are taking into parliament.
We do not agree that the issues we identified were normal, and they risk the party’s ability to grow and deliver. We have learnt, if we didn’t know already, that politics is a cut-throat business, but it is a recipe for disaster for us if DemocracyNZ operations and culture are not congruent with the promise of a genuine new and exciting political party and breed of politician.
At this early dawn in the party’s foundational culture, Matt King is playing old-school politics with the tired old pragmatic trope of ‘loyalty to party’ over the objections of very motivated, intelligent and serious candidates, who are professionals, having spent the last three years on the frontline of our new Totalitaria, fighting mandates, lockdowns and a blitzkrieg of punitive rulings and legislation from our state. The DNZ party is in the fledgling process of still forming: is King not going to allow some of his ablest and boldest to be a pillar in that forming?
Obviously not.
The DNZ board seem to be making King acquiesce to what they know would be non-negotiable issues for coalition partner National, should they be so lucky and get somewhere in the election.
I can hear Cam Slater channelling Darryl Kerrigan: “Tell em ’e’s dreamin’!”
Or worse, “This is Monty Python level stuff: Judean Peoples Front vs the Peoples Front of Judea,” as he said yesterday on Reality Check Radio with Paul Brennan.
Hopium, he calls it.
It’s no secret that Slater has always held a dim view of minor parties as a general rule, because they tend to be idealistic wannabes (he uses the term “purists”), instead of pragmatic, and they often revolve around one main issue causing them to only appeal to single-issue voters. This is often truly the case.
I, on the other hand, despite the obvious high crash and burn rate, like to see minor parties try to make a go of it, especially after watching our system of the last 50 years land us squarely in status quo, bleak pragmatism, without a noble ideal in parlance anymore, as the techno commies take us over from within. It gives us a signal that democracy’s little wild bouquet can still even be waved with sincerity.
I wouldn’t be the only one who would like to see Winston Peters, or someone who does have a hope in hell of getting five per cent of the vote plus (snake Seymour doesn’t count), who also has an understanding of how effing serious this unpatriotic globalist smashing of national sovereignty is from the supranational bodies of WHO, the UN, the WEF and the BIS.
Would Winston have the courage and focus on liberty to pick up these high-calibre NZDSOS candidates and endorse them as the type of bold talent that all parties now clearly lack? He’s cleverly positioning himself almost daily to take on the global fascists and these candidates have put themselves forth at a fair cost to themselves, knowing that’s where the war is. True convictions are a luxury now that most people can’t afford, yet we need them now more than ever.
Politics as we know it runs on loyalty to party first, which I find rather revolting as a principle set in stone – as if it were the most ennobling virtue in the universe.
Loyalty must be well placed to be worth anything at all.
These candidates have now just proved themselves to be a right, honourable, bloody handful, and no political leader such as Mr Peters would welcome that kind of serious “and I mean it!” candidate into his small pond that runs on loyalty to the party first, second and last. Given his age and experience, maybe he ought to, if his party is to survive and kick-ass over the next five to 10 years. At the moment it looks to me as if an iconic brand is fading.
As Murfitt wrote in her resignation letter:
It is a recipe for disaster for us if DemocracyNZ operations and culture are not congruent with the promise of a genuine new and exciting political party and breed of politician.
A new breed of politician. Amen.
DNZ had an opportunity here to have exceptional people help set the very culture of the party in its foetal form, in the fundamental integrity of new politics [and] knowing the gravity of what is as stake. But it looks to me as though they weren’t serious enough about backing their own talented professionals who were seriously messed with over the last three years by our system. If amending the Bill of Rights – in order to get it entrenched – means overturning 30 years of law and legislation, so be it! (My own view.) Amend it to entrench it! No other legislation should have the ability to override any part of the BOR, especially the wokified Human Rights Act.
Pragmatism is “whatever works”. It’s largely what got us into maintaining these lowlands of bleak political status-quo, because whatever works has proven to be “whomever is able to be bought”.
Listen to someone whom I believe won’t be bought. Dr Matt Shelton in his interview with Paul Brennan this morning on the exit from DNZ.
