Matthew Hooton has written a devastating critique of Christopher Luxon, and the frightening thing is that his assessment is spot-on.
Regardless of what else you might think of Hooton, he’s astute and politically well informed. Here’s what he wrote on Sunday after watching Luxon’s “train wreck” interview on Q+A, in which the National leader was unable to answer Jack Tame’s questions on tax cuts:
“Today's interview shows that [Luxon] is clearly as stupid and empty as Ardern (without, to be fair to him, the irritating frowny-concerned face, or, to be fair to her, the charisma she was sometimes capable of)," Hooton wrote.
“But there is no evidence of Luxon even having her mental agility to get himself out of talking about things he obviously doesn't understand in the slightest, beyond further regurgitating slogans; or the humility to have prepared properly for the interview to make up for his low IQ, as Ardern would try to do, sometimes successfully.
“As I mused here a little while ago, I think Luxon's record as a hardworking model student at an elite high school who only got a B Bursary is instructive.
“He seems to be someone just clever enough to read and regurgitate a text-book or one of the self-help books he reads and recommends, but not to reflect on it, evaluate it, challenge it, or see how it might link or conflict with other ideas.
“He comes across as just one of those very-average, very-hard-working, and very boring nerds with the discipline to move up through the ranks of big multinationals, without ever getting close to the top, by following the brand manual.”
Hooton’s assessment of Luxon exactly echoes my own, except that he puts it more mercilessly.
Luxon strikes me as a man who has quite possibly never had a single original thought. He clearly thrived in the corporate environment, which prizes conformity, groupthink and buzzwords. Unfortunately that makes Luxon arguably the perfect leader for a party that is bereft of vision or imagination and seems pathologically risk-averse.
Hooton suggests Luxon is incapable of doing more than parroting slogans (the “squeezed middle” is his latest) and bluntly accuses him of being too dumb to understand National’s own tax policy and its implications. Ouch.
If that’s not scary enough, Hooton claimed – and repeats today – that National is actively plotting to exclude ACT from a National-led government and would rather govern with New Zealand First or even the Greens. His explanation, and it’s entirely plausible, is that ACT would make things too uncomfortable for National by demanding radical action to reverse Labour’s six years of disastrous mismanagement.
National's aversion to a coalition with ACT would be the ultimate betrayal of conservative principles, but entirely consistent with an approach to politics in which there seems to be no bottom line.
Hooton concluded his Sunday column by advising that anyone able to move to Australia or beyond should do so as soon as possible. My thoughts exactly – but what do you do if you have family here? You can’t abandon them.
One other thought for the day:
Chris Hipkins seems fated to reprise the role of his 1970s predecessor Bill Rowling. Like Hipkins, Rowling in 1974 inherited the prime ministership from a charismatic leader – in his case, Norman Kirk – and led Labour to a crushing defeat at the next election. An obvious difference is that, unlike Hipkins, Rowling was up against a National leader, Robert Muldoon, who was a master politician and street fighter. But in other respects, the parallels with Hipkins are striking.
Like Rowling, Hipkins was thrown into the role unexpectedly; and like Rowling, he doesn’t look comfortable. Although admired as a capable and decent man, Rowling never looked prime ministerial. Neither does the boyish Hipkins, whom Garrick Tremain wickedly depicts as wearing short pants, looking overwhelmed and anxiously clutching a teddy bear.
Gravitas counts in a prime minister, and Hipkins hasn’t got it. As I’ve written in an article for the Spectator Australia, he seems doomed to become a footnote in New Zealand history, and a minor one at that.
28 comments:
With Luxon playing the role of Jim Bolger ... never very popular among the voting public but still able to win elections given the profound fallout from radical, unpopular Labour Govt policies & the associated disillusionment of Labour voters.
The blandness of this election is a feature, not a bug. The objective is to fundamentally depoliticize the environment after the politicized acceleration of the Parliamentary protests. In the Machiavellian sense, the hatred of Jacinda rendered Labour unable to govern appropriately.
I suspect the media de-escalation, the preemptive narrative setting about tax and crime, the dynamic silence on the alternative parties and the sudden media attention to Winston Peters is about getting a boring National government in.
Hipkins is my local MP, I used to participate in the local Labour party and my general assessment of Hipkins is not dissimilar. He presents well, he uses the proper vocabulary and positions himself well. But the man has never done anything except climb the ranks of the Labour party. From Head boy to running VUWSA to Labour party advisor, he has used his talents for hard work, adequate communications skills and political connections to grind his way up. But he is temperamentally a reactionary, conservative politician with a lukewarm bath view towards fabian progress.
The fundamental problem though is the machine politics of professional politicians who can navigate the dialogue tree and provide the correct response to media has selected entirely for these wordsmiths like Jacinda, Tory Whanau, Nicola Willis managing the 24/7 media pressure. Yet the domestic and international challenges faced by the contemporary liberal democratic order are immense and require great men of immense skill and ability to resolve. Our political party system selects for the ultimate careerists, who climb the ladder as yesmen. How many of the current MPs of both parties are former party advisors and staff?
I largely believe the regime (media, government, academia) are largely post-truth in their disposition towards power. They seem to believe if they just de-escalate the situation by refusing to talk about the complex problems at hand (how about those enormous immigration numbers or the total lack of available rents or the still ridiculous housing prices), then they can just lie to cover them up. The 'crime' problem is roughly in line with the trend for criminality, it is simply being talked about now.
This is creating the environment where people simply turn off from regime media and find alternative media. The legitimacy of the state, the media, the academics and others is non-existent to huge swathes of the population who simply don't believe the regime tells the truth or looks out for them.
This is a devastating assessment of Luxon (that Hipkins is useless is now irrelevant, he’s a has been even before he became an is) from two perceptive observers. Hooten is of the centre-right; his living lies in that area of the community. He is also a well-regarded insider. I’ve no doubt that Luxon is our next PM. Sadly all he’ll achieve is to just slow down NZ’s descent to a cold Fiji.
The election campaign reminds me of the TV infomercial channels where you get a chance to buy a range of items at a ''low'' price if you ''call now''. Then soon after you get ''wait there's more'' call now and you also get this or that...and so it goes on until you get a house full of ''bargains'' for next to nothing. Not credible.
The ''wait there's more'' is like the never -ending election promises that stretch belief... now it's chuck in free dental care for everyone under 30... freebies all round. Someone has to pay actually ... of course that will be the ''rich'' ...those so and sos who earn or have more than me and shouldn't be allowed. They got it by mercurial means.
To my mind Rowling lost many votes in 1975 (he was losing anyway) when, in his final broadcast, he promised a $500 bonus for every new baby born. It was a desperate final beg for votes.
My parents, both solid Labour voters, groaned; it was so obviously a beg for votes.
National is pitching itself as a won't rock the boat too much alternative to Labour and hoping that does the job. If they get more than 40pc it will be because Labour fails rather than National offers much. And with Labour bleeding votes to the Greens and ''Maori'' Party rather than Nats the vote is far from decided yet. -Paul Peters
There is army of wannabe Labour MPs working in MP and Minister offices right now. More of the same Hipkins clones
The Luxon interview reminded me of John Clark's satirical political portrayals, except it was real life. This election seems like a battle of the inept and the duplicitous. For example, Labour and Greens attempt to prevent unwanted audience questions:
https://www.speakupforwomen.nz/post/media-release-wellington-central-candidates-censor-free-speech
Is this the same Matthew Hooten who thought Todd Muller was a good idea?
I suppose it could be, except that this Hooton spells his name with an "o".
Mr Luxton does not seem to register, nor does the party's president that we are no longer in the1980's or even in the early 90's. There is a pretty hefty push from Marxists in Labour, the Greens of course and in Te Parti Maori. Going Woke Labour light is sensless. These other psrties mean business.
New Zealand has just breathed a sigh of relief that the Labour led government is on its way into ignominy .
New Zealand will now perform a collective intake of breath as they realise who will replace them.
It's a good thing then that we aren't electing a president. Luxon is only the *first* minister, basically the captain of the rugby team. No game of rugby has been won by the captain of the team alone. And thankfully the team has some very promising players on it, like Erica Stanford.
So far Luxon has shown us that he can form National into a tight team, playing together, with no disastrous leaks. If he becomes PM and continues to do this, and doesn't take on challenging portfolios he will have performed his role well.
And Hooton is as much of a political savant as Mike Williams. OK fodder for the boomer panel show on RNZ but hardly a sage.
'Hooton is astute and politically well-informed' ?
Sorry, this is the guy who brought us the Todd Muller disaster.
I'm no defender of Luxon, but I wouldn't give tuppence for Hooton's opinion on his suitability to lead the country.
Are National grass-root members (and traditional voters) perhaps beginning to realise just that?
I visualise ACT getting a lot of party votes from previous National voters - who will at the same time vote for the many quite decent local electorate National MPs who were ousted during the two Jacinda-manic elections - except perhaps Botany!!. Here an ACT candidate is standing against Luxon!! She looks quite good and she may actually split the National vote - thus letting Labour take the seat. Wouldn't that be fun?
And I visualise ACT as our future main conservative party - while Labour and National will merge. They really always were quite similar most of the time - didn't we call them Tweedledum and Tweedledee?
But yes - your are so right Karl : It is indeed frightening if that is the sort of government the coming election will produce. Everything depends on how many party votes (i.e.from other parties) ACT will receive.
I totally agree with Hooton and many of the comments above. My family is chomping at the bit to go off to Oz. My husband and son have renewed their Aussie passports and keep hinting about them going on a reccie tour whilst the rest of us sort ours out.
I love my country and dont want to go but I cant see a good future here for my younger adult family. Its kind of now or never before they all go their separate ways. The confirmation that the Nats might even consider the greens as partners is very sobering and tells me it almost certainly wont be worth sticking around to 'wait and see'.
There is only one imperative at this election: to remove Labour from office. They have done so much damage to the economy and our social fabric. Labour have denied the basic precept of equal rights for all and are turning this country into an ethnostate. I believe Luxon is more competent and personable than you give him credit for; he presents well at public meetings and answers questions from the audience thoughtfully. I doubt very much National would ever contemplate a coalition with the Greens, that is a scurrilous suggestion from Hooton. I myself will be voting for Act to put some steel in a National-led Coalitions's spine; New Zealand needs real change.
Ignoring Luxon for a minute... the next level of Nats candidates are really great. Lot's of them have real life work experience not just political hacks. They give me confidence.
Luxon is pragmatic enough to realise that MMP will determine what the makeup of a coalition government will look like in the absence of an outright majority
To be fair to Chris Luxon he has seen the media onslaught against Simon Bridges, Todd Muller and Judith Collins. Labour have to be removed from power and hopefully the dubious funding of some media outlets will stop and lead to a rethink from the media.
When you stop to think, Matthew Hooton’s outburst against Luxon is quite phenomenal : less than a month after leaving the National party team where for years he was a trusted advisor (ostensibly to return to his family in Auckland), Hooton explodes into a furious attack on National party politics and the competence of its leader – whom he (presumably) was a party to selecting.
It must have come as a tremendous shock to the leadership of the National party. Can Hooton’s disloyal action not also be regarded as unethical? Could the real reason be that Hooton now realises that National over the last couple of decades has lost its true, conservative spirit - and that the party therefore is no longer worthy of his support?
If so – I would like him to say so.
Mathew Hooton, in my opinion has little of value to add to the debate right now. He hunts with the hounds and runs with the foxes.
He help in a coup to get rid of a good leader in Simon Bridges and inflicted Todd Muller on the National Party.
Mathew says what his paymaster pays him to write about.
I am no big fan of Chris Luxon, but at least he understands trade offs and spending priorities. That is something that cant be said of the current Labour Party.
Labour have buried the country in debt, have waste cash on heaven knows what and embedded useless Maori tikanga in places it is not required and is a positive detriment.
Mathew has been grinding an axe against elements of National he doesn't like since the English government cut him off from government contracts - don't believe me then go do some research
In his defence, Matthew at least writes under his own name, so any connections with vested interests can be traced. On the other hand, we have no way of knowing what interests people who write under pseudonyms might represent (if any).
Another obvious difference between Hipkins and Rowling is that Bill Rowling was not a liar. As for Hipkins, think: "Northland Hookers", the Charlotte Bellis affair, and his latest, "no one was compelled to have the vaccine, it must have been you".
One thing about a National/Act Government there will at least be plenty of healthy unbridled criticism towards them, something we never saw towards Labour/Green from a fawning news media. They only criticise now as they know it's all over for Labour, they must be bitterly dissapointed. It does seem a for gone conclusion unless nothing less than a miracle like an apparition of some saintly like creature or a weird and unexplained outcome. ??//
Good to get a bit of criticism from media towards our polliticians again, something we haven't seen for a while.
Hmm...in my humble opinon, Hooton is the idiot, not Luxon. And so is Jack Tame, by demostrating his inability to conduct an unbiased interview. He was far more interested in pushing his own agenda, prefering not to let Luxon even answer his 'questions'. Comapring Luxon to Hipkins is jsut a joke. Luxon commands a hard-working and honest team with ability, as opposed to the Labour team who is runnig around telling lies and attacking the opposition becasue they have absolutely no plan at all, ably demonstrated in the last 6 years.
Very true Karl.
But as I work a lot on contract in a small city, being hounded for my political views is not something i wish to endure.
Once upon a time i made a few comments in my own name criticising the Left.
I was then threatened by a leftie via my email available on my LinkedIn profile... It was a threat to write to firms I worked for.... He was dealt with as I easily found out who he was and made it known I wouldnt allow him to threaten me with no consequences.
I need an income and therefore I am careful nowadays.
You have the shield of a reputation and distinguished career which provides opportunity and cant really be cancelled ( writing pieces for Spectator etc)
We no longer live in the Eighties or Nineties when being political in sending letters to the editor etc wouldnt threaten livelihoods. The 2020s are a radically different era
Re the comment by anon "We no longer live in the Eighties or Nineties when being political in sending letters to the editor etc wouldnt threaten livelihoods. The 2020s are a radically different era''
True. There is an ex Stuff staff member in NP who does just that. Campaigns for people to be cancelled and hounded for views he finds unacceptable. No compromise. And has a swathe of supporters spanning teachers and hospital staff and hardline race activists I note. They lend support.
Like Karl I can put my name as I am not reliant on paid work. But in my current work environment there are a few who would certainly move against people (health sector public) but I am employed via a contractor so some space. Also I keep my trap shut at work these days except for one or two people who have similar views . Gone are the days, it seems, of being able to have a discussion amicably among people of diverging views. Safe topics are animal photos and babies.
In the staff room ( I avoid now and take my breaks outside) I recall one day a person of correct views on all subjects waxing away; everyone else kept their eyes down and said nothing. Except me. I drew out of her (a nurse) that she had no problem with people of the wrong views (gender pronouns and all the issues) being required not to speak under ''hate'' rules and, equally, no problem with cancelling and removing TV shows with which she disagreed...even Benny Hill as sexist should be banned.
I pointed out that such a line was totalitarian. He answer was ''so what's wrong with that''
-Paul Peters
I have only ever written one article which was on a technical work matter. I had people ringing me up to have a go at me. I hate to think what journalists go through.
Post a Comment