Friday, October 28, 2022

The problem with Luxon

Three days ago I heard Christopher Luxon being interviewed by Mani Dunlop on Morning Report. It was profoundly depressing.

Dunlop introduced the item by saying that with a by-election approaching in Hamilton West, the National Party was under pressure – she didn’t say from whom, but we can assume she meant media commentators – to “add diversity” to a “largely male” caucus.

RNZ had done the sums and calculated that National’s caucus was 33 percent female, 6 percent Maori, 3 percent Asian and “zero percent” Pasifika – a statistical breakdown that would have looked pretty good a few years ago, but which clearly doesn’t meet RNZ’s diversity threshold.

Dunlop (and I won’t even begin to discuss the ethics of National’s leader being interrogated on state-owned radio’s flagship news programme by the partner of a Labour cabinet minister) accusingly threw these figures at Luxon and demanded to know what he was going to do about it.

You can imagine how Winston Peters or Robert Muldoon would have responded to a question like that, but Luxon is cut from different cloth. He appears desperately eager to convince the media that he’s sympathetic to the woke agenda.

This is known as pushing shit uphill with a fork, since the media are fundamentally hostile to the centre-right and will correctly interpret Luxon’s attempts to ingratiate himself with them as a sign of weakness.

Luxon has yet to grasp this, so proceeded to humour Dunlop – you might even say kowtow to her – by assuring her that National was determined to build a more diverse party and to overcome any “unconscious bias”. To this end the party was re-educating (my word, not Luxon’s, but that was the thrust of what he said) its electorate chairs.

Here was the leader of the country’s principal conservative party – or perhaps I should use the initials CINO, as in Conservative In Name Only – adopting the terminology of the woke Left in a pathetic attempt to persuade the public that he’s no right-wing ogre, as if anyone could be in danger of having thought that in the first place.

(It didn’t help that Luxon’s answers to Dunlop’s questions were laced with wretched corporate jargon presumably brought from Air New Zealand, such as the need to do better “in this space” and to be “more competitive in our offerings”. God spare us.)

Dunlop must have struggled to conceal her glee at the satisfaction of having the leader of the National Party dancing so obligingly to her tune. The tone of his responses was essentially submissive.

Someone should explain to Luxon that every time he indulges in these appeasement games in an attempt to persuade the Left that he’s no threat – a strategy that won’t win him a single vote, since they won’t vote National anyway – he alienates more of the people whose support he should be seeking.

In fact he gives conservative voters another reason to find a different party to support. ACT stands to be the major beneficiary, but it’s also likely that right-of-centre voters will gravitate to smaller parties such as New Zealand First or former National MP Matt King’s DemocracyNZ – and by splitting the anti-Labour vote, allow an incompetent and destructive far-Left coalition to squeak back into power.

No one should quibble with Luxon’s aim of making National more diverse. Not only is it desirable as a matter of democratic principle for the party to reflect more accurately the demographic makeup of the country; it makes sense politically too.  Certainly National should have learned a lesson from its disastrous propensity for choosing egotistical, entitled young Anglo-Saxon males as candidates, which seemed to be the pattern under the party’s previous president.

The problem with Luxon is essentially one of tone. In his eagerness to come across as unthreatening - a nice guy - he sounds weak. He needs to be more assertive in promoting and defending conservative values and less deferential in the way he allows the media to dictate the agenda.

He’s no longer a corporate chief executive who needs to be careful to protect the brand and not upset customers. Politics calls for a tougher approach and a realisation that to be effective, he must occasionally offend some people. He also needs to grasp – as Muldoon and his protégé Peters did – that there’s little political downside in taking on the media, because the public generally don't like journalists any more than they like politicians.

The bigger issue here is that National has an identity crisis. In two perceptive columns today, Josie Pagani and Matthew Hooton consider what it means to be a conservative party and the risks of abandoning the values that once defined conservatism. National has lost sight of what it means to be a true conservative party and lacks the confidence to uphold honourable conservative values.

I believe the party has been intimidated by the media into behaving as if conservatism is somehow shameful, and I can’t see it rediscovering, still less re-asserting, its ideological roots with Luxon as its leader. At least, not unless he radically changes gear.

 

 

 

32 comments:

LNF said...

And a Stuff headline today "Rishi Sunak's appointment as UK PM fulfils quest for greater diversity".
Sorry to ruin the "inclusive diversity" rubbish. He is UK PM because he is the best option. Nothing to do with his ethnicity

Neil Keating said...

It was clear from early days that the National Party chose the wrong man.

pdm said...

I emailed Luxon (in reply to a circular National Party email I received under his name) telling him exactly what you have said in this post. No reply received - not even an acknowledgement saying it had been received - bloody hell even Andrew Little can manage that.

I also specifically told Luxon he needed to harden up and stop being a sop (should I have said sap?) to his interviewers. Maybe not exactly those words but pretty close.

Tinman said...

So close - but no cigar.

Everything you said bar one point was very good.

The point: "No one should quibble with Luxon’s aim of making National more diverse.

Yes they should!

I do.

To become relevant National should emphasise they will pick the BEST person available for the job.

Race, diversity, age, sex should not come into any consideration.

Phil

Karl du Fresne said...

I'm enough of a pollyanna to believe National should be able to select strong candidates who reflect the diverse society New Zealand has become.

Madame Blavatsky said...

If the aim is to have diversity in politics, then a great way to achieve that would be a party of predominantly White males. After all, there are no other heavily White male parties, so why shouldn't National be explicitly the party for the White male? If every other party is uniformly "diverse" then, by definition, the political scene becomes uniform. Don't White males have their own particular interests? And if they do, why is it verboten for a party to represent those interests? We know why–because the meta-political issue of the day is to shut White males up, scapegoat them for all problems, put them under the thumb of every other demographic, and to disenfranchise them. Diversity is a nice-sounding Trojan horse but its intended effects are far from benevolent.

Far from a desire for "diversity" (aka no White males), the real push is for ideological conformity and uniformity of opinion. Diversity is viewed by many as essentially a self-evident good, but "reflecting the make-up of the community" seems to be very weak justification. Because of diversity policies, the make-up of the community has changed, and because the make-up of the community has changed, we need more diversity in the institutions. This all seems very circular.

Another commenter above says that "Race, diversity, age, sex should not come into any consideration." Maybe they shouldn't be a consideration, but they are in fact very much now at the forefront of consideration. As such, White males need to start thinking and acting in terms of their collective identity, because everyone else sure is. "The best person for the job" is a uniquely White/Western concept, and it comes from a time when societies were far more homogenous. The norm everywhere else is in-group preference. Times have changed, and in a multi-cultural and multi-racial society, the demographic groups who resist acting in their group interests will be at a distinct disadvantage.

Anonymous said...

So true (and sad) of Luxon. Been obvious from day 1 that he lacks conviction on issues. When he entered parliament, he even apologized for being Christian.

Yobi said...

Labour and the greens already do diversity and look at what you get. If National think diversity will win them the election, then there is a high chance David Seymour will be our next prime minister.

Max Ritchie said...

It’s politics, not business or the Army where the best man or woman should be chosen. National should recruit someone of Pacific Island descent. And a grumpy old Pom while they’re about it.

Alex said...

Christopher Luxon is becoming a liability to the growth of the National party.
Trying to appease a rabid media only wastes valuable airtime and print space at the expense of conveying his party's policies.
Speaking of policies, here are a few ideas upon which to, hopefully, build:

To promote good citizenship and self-reliance;
to combat communism and socialism;
to maintain freedom of contract;
to encourage private enterprise;
to safeguard individual rights and the privilege of ownership;
to oppose interference by the State in business, and State control of industry.

Hopefully Christopher recognises them.

Phil said...

Luxon's approach has put National back in contention. He needs to clawback voters from Labour who seem to support wokeness.

Trev1 said...

As Sophocles wrote it seems today, “I have been a stranger here in my own land: All my life”. Ardern's New Zealand is alien. I share your assessment of this dreadful government's incompetence and destructiveness. We are rapidly approaching a crossroads. If Luxon can't lead for the conservative cause he should step aside. There is no prize for coming second and the stakes have never been higher.

Gary Peters said...

I agree with you Karl that Chris Luxon needs to take a slightly more aggressive stance but I also fully agree with Phil above. Luxon will drag a few swingers of labour and Seymour will hoover up the malcontents from all parties, even a few greenies.

Either way, whatever it takes to restore a semblance of democracy and consign ardern to the rubbish bin of history.

In my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Well said Alex, very good points and ideas for the leader to quickly build on.

mangawhio said...

Amen.

Richard Arlidge said...

Yes, you’re right Karl, Luxon does need to “change gear” insofar as he’s trying to appease everyone and in doing so he fails to impress anyone. Should he not change gear and still become Prime Minister, it will be by default and, as a political invertebrate, I predict he’ll be gone by the following election.

But I feel I must too "quibble" with this ‘diversity’ nonsense. I agree with Tinman, in that people should be judged on their character, experience, capability and performance - their ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual persuasion, age (assuming they're an adult) etc. should have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Any mention of it (IMHO) surely is a signal of someone who undoubtedly practices conscious bias, for by counting and pigeonholing they are sitting there in judgement, and let's be frank, 'diversity' here is all about race? I say why should we care? For the more we consciously seek diversity, the more these biases come to the fore. Shouldn’t we just be looking to appoint the best people to these roles, or is it that some nonsensical diversity aspect should take precedence? And please spare me that this diversity brings a different voice to the table. If that voice can offer the best experience or perspective to that specific role, then I'm entirely fine with that, but don’t appoint purely because it’s different and meets some woke diversity quotient. And if having true ‘diversity’ is the be-all and end-all in being ‘representative’ of the wider populace, what about then appointing some of those that are mentally challenged; some disabled; exceeding tall, short, obese, skinny, sick; etc etc – after all, I’m sure these people all have daily challenges and experiences that many of us don’t have and they all represent a portion of the population that could bring a different perspective to the table? So for me, no, diversity per se is a nonsense, but in a country that seems possessed with dividing its population on racial grounds, why does this not surprise me.

Alex said...

Christopher Luxon should have been in Wayne Brown's office 8.01am Monday after his election finding out what Waynes plans and problems are, and formulating a joint plan to work for a common good.
From memory, I think on that particular day Luxon was visiting various charities.
Make of that contrast what you will.
To fix New Zealand we first need to fix Auckland.
Luxon is like a graduate who has scraped through on fifty percent pass marks and been dropped into the top job thinking that he's qualified just because of the fact that he's in the top job.
Brown isn't perfect and won't get everything right but he's a realist and that is a skill Luxon needs to learn.
New Zealand is facing real problems. We need real solutions, not platitudes.
We have the people in this country, not necessarily in parliament, who can start us on the way to a proper future for all of our children.
If Luxon isn't one of them, then he is in the way.

The main problem every New Zealand government has is MPs running government departments.
It is like appointing an apprentice of a single day to run the company in the belief that they will astonish us all with their great skill an insight that they have, to date, cleverly hidden in order to maximise aforesaid astonishment.
MPs should run their electorate office and that's it.
We should hire the most qualified experts available to run our infrastructure and leave the members free to represent their constituents in parliament

Doug Longmire said...

I agree with Richard's (somewhat long and drawn out) comment above.
If "diversity" is the major criterion for selection - then, Yes, we will have to have representation from all the categories above, plus a diverse range of criminals, plus the appropriate quota of Asians, middle Easterns, dementia patients etc.

All in the name of "diversity" which the wokesters seem to value more than competence.

Karl du Fresne said...

I've long argued that the quota of buffoons, misfits, scoundrels and non-entities in Parliament (and on city/district councils, come to that) is representative of society and thus a shining example of democracy in action.

Glenn I said...

Well said, Karl. Agree entirely. Luxon is too woke and too indecisive. The same goes when it emerged about Sam Uffindel's apparently bullying 20 years ago and Luxon's comment to the media was "Well, that's for Sam to explain". He should have stuck up for his colleague and shown some leadership. National are trying too hard to be all things to everyone.

Richard Arlidge said...

Thanks for your support Doug. I’m sorry if its length annoyed, but since I was challenging Karl (you’ll appreciate it’s only by his very good grace this typically thought-provoking site exists), I felt it was only appropriate to give him (and others) some reasoning to my thinking - be it misguided or otherwise?

It seems though, despite your comment I should have perhaps been a little more fulsome, given you’ve only otherwise repeated with one exception the type of cohorts I’d already outlined. While I also did think of “criminals”, I thought the better of it - for even the woke have drawn a line in there somewhere.

And, in terms of your latter response Karl, I see you've taken it all in excellent spirit and you've acknowledged that you don't need a conscious diversity quotient. Over time it's inherently organic within the system as, no matter how hard the majority of us try, buffooons and scroundrels et al, will always slip in (or should that be, abound?) - for as you've indicated, it's the very nature of politics.

Gary Peters said...

"people should be judged on their character, experience, capability and performance"

That may be true but you are missing the point. Who is doing the judging? Unless you have a decent spread of decent people selecting the candidates to put forward for the voter to elect or reject you risk "more of the same".

If every candidate wannabe was exposed to the entire local party members for selection in a type of primary things may be different without the need to look to ratios to appease the minority of woke whiners.

Doug Longmire said...

Apart from our humorous comments about "diversity" to ensure we have the appropriate number of LGBTQ, dark and hearing impaired etc candidates, the main point that Karl makes is absolutely right on.
Chris Luxon is coming across as a watery, semi woke, weak alternative to the train wreck that is currently in charge.
I just can't understand why his party officials and fellow members cannot get the message across to him that the public want him to be strong, firm and to make a definite stand that he will in fact stop all the racist apartheid and crazy "climate control" economic suicide that is currently under way. He needs to become a firm, safe pair of hands !!!

Tom Hunter said...

@Richard
agree with Tinman, in that people should be judged on their character, experience, capability and performance - their ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual persuasion, age (assuming they're an adult) etc. should have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

and Madame Blavatsky
As such, White males need to start thinking and acting in terms of their collective identity, because everyone else sure is.

You should all read this, How We Got Here: An Intellectual History. It's long I'll grant you but worth every bit of your time if you want to know why we're dealing with this bullshit.

He's a former NYT music and art critic. It covers both the old PostModernism that, he argues, collapsed with the 9/11 attacks, and what has risen in it's place, Woke, the exact opposite that argues very much against universalism - but grounds it's "truths" specifically in race, ethnicity, gender and much else.
f there is no universal, and if every culture has equivalent claims, what we have are not human societies in which our varied experiences come into play but assemblages of jostling identities. Identity is the source of true allegiance. It cannot be challenged. It is an atom: Irreducible and unchangeable by outsiders, every atom claims equality even if all it really knows is itself. The result is a society of conflicting or cohabiting atoms. Identities find common ground not by reason — not by trying to understand the “other” and engaging in conversation and argument based on shared ground — but only in their resentments, their intersectional overlaps. That is why there is such a strange uniformity in the middle of identity politics; every identity is different, but as far as Woko is concerned, they all see the world the same way, bearing the same resentments and struggling against the same oppressive forces.

No, not by reason, but by power. I know where "Madame Blavatsky" is coming from and the joke of Woke is that her argument - which would have been dismissed as a version of White Supremacy" - cannot now be dismissed in the age of Identity Politics and Woke, although the proponents of both will desperately try to pretend that it's the one "ism" that is not acceptable, even though their own rules say otherwise.

hughvane said...

Swimming against the flow (maybe) but to me, much-trumpeted ‘diversity’ is little short of patronising posturing and tokenism.

If someone of any race, creed or culture stood for election where I live (thoroughly Blue territory) - and I knew beyond reasonable doubt that the person was the right one for the job - I’d vote for her/him, and possibly her or his political party.

What our munted country has descended to however is moving to elect and/or promote people on the basis of their race or gender, regardless of ability, purely for the sake of 'diversity', leading to the pandering to sectional interests, rather than everyone’s benefit.

EP said...

So what to do about it? I think the one good thing Andrew Little did was to recognise that he was not leadership material and resign in favour of Ardern, who, whatever else she lacks, does have that quality. I agree with most others that diversity is much less important than political ability, and also that we are in danger of splitting the vote because the people willing to front up with defying Labour (only those not falling faint with fear of being called racist) are loath to co-operate with one another. Luxon is not a bad person at all, but he has never sounded full of confidence for the role. Is there anyone who does?

Richard Arlidge said...

No Gary, you're missing my point. No-one should be doing the judging - leastwise on the shallow issue of diversity - naturally assuming that there's no bar to involvement. If you do "get more of the same", 'they' presumably must be doing the job? If not, then democracy should eventually win out. But as Karl indicated, democracy still doesn't inoculate you from getting those undesirables for obvious reasons.

Richard Arlidge said...

Yes, Tom and hughvane, in a democracy I believe diversity essentially leads to tribalism and the largest/strongest tribe will win out. When we don't have democracy. diversity leads to division, disharmony and potentially societal unrest/revolt. A functioning democracy is vastly more important than diversity, and our democracy is currently under seige.

Anonymous said...

The larger the state, the larger it is an attractive force to charlatans and scoundrels.

Stever said...

What's with all this hand-wringing about National? Just vote ACT. Job done.

John Hurley said...

Josie Pagani
The evidence around the world is that right-wing parties are learning the wrong lessons from populism. Some may outlast the shelf life of a lettuce.
.....
Well she's wrong Conservatism isn't about "shaping" identity it is about conserving identity.
People voted for Brexit because of the high levels of immigration; under Boris they increased.
"data based pol sci academic" Eric Kaufmann
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ckdzejrc0z8&t=2696s

Melting Snowflake said...

Well I'll be skewered here, but hey... I find it funny (in a sardonic way) that Karl dedicates an entire separate blog to apparent media misuse of the term "far-right", whilst referring to the Labour coalition (correct me if wrong, but didn't that include NZ First?) as "far-left". Excuse me, I don't mind being told off for using "far-right" to describe pretty much every political party right of the Greens (obviously I consider it a relative term :), but don't try to tell me that Labour or NZ First are "far-left"! My political compass says that they are very much centre on the economic scale, whilst National (far from being centrist) is quite literally out in "right field". Actually, not sure I believe there is that much of a difference economically, seems that both major parties are corporate slaves chained to (imagined) past neo-liberal capitalist glories. Oh well, over on my left-leaning side there are really only two options, and tbh they are both pretty much wretched idealists. Maybe TOP is better, although a bit too righty for me. At least you "far-right" whingers have some choice these days...