Some people just want to pay less tax. The end.
Printable View
I didn't read the article properly as it also says
"I'm not familiar with Luxon and not many people are," said Mike Williams, "I Googled him. He does a lot of talking on Facebook. He's had a charisma bypass. He is about as exciting as the Taihape public toilets. I think Simon Bridges will be given another go."
"The conservatives, people like Chris Luxon, Chris Penk, Simeon Brown, are fundamental conservatives. They are really to the right of the party.
"If you can't get that ideology together, you haven't got unity, and what you haven't got is discipline. You need those three things… then you get a leader.
"I can't see a potential leader who can put all that together with a possible exception of Shane Reti."
Act does Labours ads for them:
https://www.act.org.nz/govt_planning...wage_increases
Bridges has confirmed he is standing. So very little change to the polls if he succeeds.
To be fair ... I am not aware that there is a limit on the measure of incompetence ... and while I agree that Labour is pretty incompetent in doing what they said they wanted to do ... they did so far ok-ish in dealing with the virus. I could imagine still more incompetent governments than the current bunch - ie. I recon we need to see what National comes up with before we try to assess who is the least competent bunch.
You sound like a very one dimensional person ... is this really what you are?
Most people are multidimensional - and life certainly is.
Sure - most people stand on a certain place in the left - right spectrum, and I assume this is for most voters one of the factors influencing which party they vote for, but at least for me there are as well some other very important criteria to assess. Some examples would be:
How do the parties propose to protect the environment. No point in voting for a party which might support my selfish desire to maximise my capital if this results in a destruction of our planet, is it?
Are the people standing for the party decent, honorable people or do I know already that they are character-less liars? No point in voting for a liar who tells me what I want to hear, isn't it ... even if I like his (or her) story.
Are the people standing for election competent to do what they need to do in order to achieve the goals they promised?
Are the values of the parties compatible with my values (and this is a show stopper - I could not bring myself to ever vote for a party which supported (just an overseas example) e.g. a liar like Trump?
If I could choose I would pick a centre-right government which humanistic principles using a science based approach which really cares about the environment and the planet. It needs to be run by honest and decent people I can respect.
No party in NZ fits this bill ... which means I need to check every time which of the available choices comes closest to my requirements.
If this makes me a swing voter, then so be it ... without us democracy would not work because politicians would not have a need to perform.
While I realise that some voters would vote for any sheep as long as its wool is died in the right colour ... I don't think that this is the best approach to make democracy work.
Well, of the top of my head I can think of many questionable National candidates and staffers (many quite recent) - lets see: Andrew Falloon, Jake Bezzant, Michelle Boag, Judith Collins, Jamie-Lee Ross, Roger McClay - and I am sure that there are plenty more.
Lets face it - Nationals candidate selection is a shambles, and neither character not leadership skills seem to be relevant in the selection as long as Mr Goodfellow likes them for some reason.
While I agree with you that Labours record in picking decent and competent staff is not very impressive - I doubt National is standing in that regard on moral high ground.
Just another pick out of a bad bunch ...
Add Hamish Walker (leaking confidential patient info) & Jiang Yang (best known for training Chinese spies) to that list, plus current MP's Michael Woodhouse (the toilet seat creep) and Melissa Lee ( vindictive bully) & Harete Hipango ( using MP's taxpayer fund to buy big screen TV, & sofas, furniture for her parliamentary office, which instead went to her own home ).
Any way, we are all having a good old chin wag, some are taking the opportunity to gnash their teeth at each other, but where will it go?
The media, as is their job, will report on every murmur that comes out of any National source over the next few days.
But to the general public, so what?
I liken it to the All blacks in training, or Joseph Parker building up over 3months for his next fight.
Few of the public are there.
But come the next test match, or title fight, and suddenly most are there via TV or in person.
Bring on the title match in 2 years time.
Really? To say "democracy wouldn't work without swing voters" must be another glib, throwaway line. One that perhaps an aspiring populist politician would love to dispense. :cool:
Surely, with just a little bit of rational & objective observational skills, one can observe that a democratic political system can function without the need of swing voters!
But therein your statement highlights the significant challenge that we all face, but you & other swing voters especially.
Whilst the political system we have is heavily orientated towards & revolves around "party politics", we will continue to have an environment of unhealthy compromises. Furthermore and as we know, the NZ voting system is run through MMP. A system which not only survives on, but breeds continual compromise & backroom deals.
Regardless of the label on the packaging (so, it's certainly an issue not unique to National) the multiple issues that "party politics" creates will prevail. A couple of examples include:
- Different factions in a party trying to screw the scrum in their favour, rather than maintaining some sort of "True North", as determined by the party membership. Basically a hijack of the party brand & apparatus. We are certainly seeing some of this at the moment in National. With the two factions in the Waka paddling in quite different directions, the constituents scratch their heads, wondering what principles the party actually steadfastly stands for. Instead a flip-flop policy regime reigns.
- MP's told to vote along "party lines" in the house, even if the MP's constituents (the folk they are actually meant to be representing!) are clearly opposed to the proposed legislation. As we know, the Labour Party is notorious for this arrogant attitude, with party policy being that an MP should "NEVER cross the floor".
- Politicians doing deals with politicians from other parties. For the perceived benefit (read survival) of the party, rather than in the genuine interests of the constituents. "Give us confidence & supply in the House, and we will assist you in doing X (even though our party doesn't really like the idea of X)".
Having lots of swing voters is arguably a symptom of a poorly functioning system. Symptomatic of confused voters that feel they need to compromise, conflicted & compromised politicians, and quite likely a constitutional framework that is lacking substance.
So in the end what do we get?
Packaging that constantly changes, lots of air inside the packet, and product that looks nothing like what the packaging actually promised!
Condescending much. I'm not in the least bit "confused." I know exactly what I am looking for in a political party/government. When I find the party that comes closest to meeting my expectations, they will get my vote.
At this point, I do not know which party that will be.
Nearly forgot this one .........Attachment 13255
del ------
Luxton to be the new leader?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...w-party-course
Just a bit worried he might turn the leftovers of Crasher Judith into a hard-right religious sect. Maybe he could join forces with Tamaki?
Will his poll results still reach into two digit territory or is National following on the heels of "Advance NZ"? We seem to have every election some religious nutter party, so why not National doing the job this time?
And hey, Judith managed already to cut Nationals polling numbers in half after replacing Bridges, so why shouldn't Chris repeat this trick :)? It seems to be really important for National not to represent the electorate, but to try to force the views of whoever happens to lead them on the country. Worked with Judith like a charm, particularly the praying stunt - didn't it?
Not sure what Sir John thinks now about his party (but didn't he got Luxton into politics?) ... but hey ...
I see golden times rolling on for ACT ...
Get it right. It is Luxon not Luxton. As in it was Key not Keys.
What has Luxon done to make you think he’d turn National into a “hard right religious sect” ?
I think he’s much more likely to run it, if he gets selected, as a soft center-right party like John Key did.
The main thing is that they come out of this unified and start attacking this useless Government on it’s many weak policy areas
This thread may be misnamed. It seems to me we are possibly entering territory where the Centre Right can win due to the clear incompetence of Labour, but the largest party within that bloc may be ACT.
However it is, candidate selection for ACT will be a critical concern. It may have been fortunate it was not necessary to go further down the ACT List last time. Remember the rabble that came in to Parliament on Peter Dunne's coat tails a few elections ago now? Peter was a very safe pair of hands, a competent Minister in governments of both hues, and an able Parliamentary Member but the actual UF party had no depth at all and those elected with Peter on that occasion were a conspicuous fail.
If the current ACT MPs stay on task/message, keep a clean slate, and Seymour holds it all together, they may overtake National especially if disunity within that party continues and other "scandals" of whatever nature arise going forward.
ACT MPs are mostly insufficiently experienced to take on big roles in a coalition government. I am certain that they are working hard to understand their shadow portfolios and the wider political environment, but one term is just not enough. Jamie Whyte might be persuaded to take a significant strategy role. And there are other previous ACT leaders who are probably already working behind the scenes.
Fair enough ... though, do you recon it pays to memorise the spelling of this name?
I guess the way I see it ... either he stays one of 120 plus more or less meaningless MP's - or he might be the man who continues the job Crusher Judith started under the watching eye of chairman Goodfellow: Crush the National Party ...
Don't know yet what it will be, but for you I will work on this spelling thingie:
Luxon, Luxon, Luxon, Luxon, Luon ... damn!
Slow news day - Key talking to 3 MPs (1 called him) is considered as ‘hitting the phone’!
But read the comments - it is clear that Clueless Cindy’s keyboard warriors are out in force and clearly panicking at the prospect of National unifying under 1 leader as was the case under sketchy. :D
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...Y6TG25IIJPCEU/
I agree with your assessment of the current government, am however not sure National has anything better to offer. Whoever starts there as leader will have a lot of work to work out and communicate what National really stands for.
I agree as well with the priorities you mentioned for National - and yes, the fact that they basically surgically removed their liberal wing makes it difficult for them to fly, doesn't it? I am however not sure I share your hopes that Chris Luxon (her we go ..) will be able to implement all the good points you raised.
I must admit I was during his time at AIR a bit concerned how his religious believes influenced business decisions in an absolutely inappropriate way - and if this is a template for his behaviour in parliament, than he is clearly not a man I would support on the way into government.
Problem is - people who think that only their world view represents the truth ("I am the way and the truth and the life" - Jesus said that, not Luxon) will always find it difficult to work with all groups in society and to represent all walks of life. How will Luxon work together with e.g. muslims, atheists (the largest religious group in NZ) or with the LGBT community? Will his religious believes (remember - "to believe" means to know that you don't want to know the truth" (Nietzsche) stop him to make sensible decisions on drug laws or e.g. anything related to assisted dying?
Being intolerant and closed to other peoples ideas is a problem for all religious fundamentalists (not just Christians) ... and therefore do religious fundamentalist seldom (never?) make good politicians.
But anyway, maybe he grew up since he worked at AIR. I am happy to give him a second chance, but I really would be disappointed if he is the best chance National has left - they clearly did cut too many good people off their wings during the dark times.
Revealing story, if completely factual.
If 'an MP' is representative of Luxons' sentiment, that "he wants the job given to him", then in my view he isn't fighting hard enough.
Mark Mitchell will have withdrawn, in endorsement of Simon, so it looks to me there is only 1 'Bridge over troubled water.'
The diversity faction will probably then want a female as deputy, but if that happens it's a low blow for Dr Shane Reti, who hasn't put a foot wrong.
Taking one for the team?, but hey, this is politics.
Chris Bishop has time on his side.
Not saying this will happen, but BP is light heartedly raising a point worthy of discussion since Luxon is a potential leader.
Luxon is an Evangelical Christian, that's fundamentalist with a core tenet being 'faith in action', with an emphasis on the action. i.e. using every opportunity to spread & push the faith & core beliefs on others.
That's not the same as being a regular Christian who aren't out to impose their beliefs on others.
Those beliefs include, anti- euthanasia, anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage, anti-drug reform.
Whether those personal beliefs would turn off a lot of middle NZ voters or influence political decisions/appointments/promotions/choice of inner circle, remains to be seen.
John Key was openly agnostic.
On the other hand, Labour has a religious base (among others) esp through its Pacifica voters, who Luxon's Christian fundamentalism might well appeal to.
If Jacinda had the casting vote, who would she choose???
Unadulterated garbage again from the resident Labour deflector.
https://fb.watch/9xEavZ-sWN/
Luzon spent 2 minutes of his 15.3 mins maiden speech on his faith. So get your facts right before peddling lies here. We are not all fools like the indoctrinated Cindy devotees.
Can feel the anxiety level rising from the clueless nincompoops in COVID Cindy’s government.
2 minutes is far too long to be speaking about religion...
....
Sounds like a other crackerjack...
:cool:cc
We don't really want Luxon leading Nats and maybe becoming PM one day ... have same sentiments
National leadership contender Chris Luxon is the standout candidate - so why am I worried?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...y-am-i-worried
If we look objectively at our performance over the last three decades, we can see a gradual decline in our economic quality of life as successive regimes have prioritised the politically safe over the economically necessary.
This was quite good on twitter
The year is 2035. Chris Hipkins is currently the third Prime Minister of the 6th Labour Government. Current National Party Leader Max Key has just lost a vote of no confidence. Mark Mitchell puts his hat into the ring for the 17th time. People still need to Google who he is
And houses in Auckland are $2.5m (minimum) now and the waiting list for state housing is 243,600.
Gangs now roam freely and control South Auckland, Rotorua & Bay of Plenty with Poto Williams still Police Minister.
Parliament is racially structured with 50% Maori representation under the co-governance bill pushed through by the Maori cabal in Cindy’s government.
And Cindy is travelling around the globe as UN’ s roaming ambassador for disasters and special advisor on how to eliminate diseases.
Australia seems to cope with a dedicated church guy as PM
What a load of rubbish and another own-goal embarrassment to yourself. 233 words of his 2,518 word maiden speech were dedicated to his faith. Here's what he actually said:
"It seems it has become acceptable to stereotype those who have a Christian faith in public life as being extreme, so I will say a little about my Christian faith. It has anchored me, given my life purpose, and shaped my values, and it puts me in the context of something bigger than myself. My faith has a strong influence on who I am and how I relate to people. I see Jesus showing compassion, tolerance, and care for others. He doesn't judge, discriminate, or reject people. He loves unconditionally.
Through history, we have seen Christians making a huge difference by entering public life. Christian abolitionists fought against slavery. Others educated the poor and challenged the rich to share their wealth and help others less fortunate. The world is a better place for Christians like William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King, and Kate Sheppard contributing to public life. My faith is personal to me. It is not in itself a political agenda. I believe no religion should dictate to the State, and no politician should use the political platform they have to force their beliefs on others. As MPs, we serve the common cause of all New Zealanders—not one religion, not one group, not one interest. A person should not be elected because of their faith, nor should they be rejected because of it. Democracy thrives on diverse thinking and different world views."
NZ society has deteriorated under Ms Adhern's leadership, to the point that Mr Luxon, or anybody else, would be given more mana & credence if they said they were an ex gang leader.
Update ya CV's guys!
.. and it all started with a misnamed chair called "Goodfellow" hand in hand with an appropriately nicknamed "Crusher" (or perhaps slightly misspelled) "Crasher" Judith Collins destroying the National party while a poster misnamed "balance" was trying to tear down an (admittedly) imperfect government instead of helping to build a better alternative.
We clearly have too many people wielding sledgehammers and throwing hand granades but not enough people seeking to find consensus and rebuilding a decent society ... and hey, we all knew it in 2021.
Somehow it feels again like the 1920íes - political adversaries turning into mortal enemies, political extremists getting stronger on both sides of the spectrum and countries more and more following populist hypes ("us first") instead searching for the common good.
We all know how the 1920íes ended ... lets hope the 2020'es aren't a re-run, shall we?
We clearly need better leaders able to unify the people and we need better people looking for the common good instead of increasing their level of selfishness and hate towards everybody with a different view.
Referencing the religious content.
Luxon's speech was deliberately & clearly crafted to front foot the issue of his Evangelical Christian beliefs which risk being a big turn off for middle NZ voters.
"The trick for Luxon is to convince the public there's no threat, that he'd be a leader for all, not just the religious right."
It's a big vulnerability esp when you look more closely at Evangelical Christians beliefs, including broadly that women should submit to the authority & leadership of their husbands, they encourage women to have a submissive role. You won't find women in leadership roles in Evangelical churches.
You'd have to think seriously about someone who attends a church where sermons from the pulpit are laced with, while a wife may not agree her husband, she should just do whatever he says, because that's what women are called to do.
Apart from the anti-euthanasia, anti same- sex marriage, etc stuff,
this risks a big turn off to a section of National supporters as well as middle NZ, and don't think the liberal's in National's caucus as well as Labour's media team won't be thinking about this already.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-in...-ground-voters
Any observations from the elder statesman Jim Bolger's interview on Q & A this morn?
It was good to see Jack Tame let him express himself, and give opinion, without being bombarded and taken off on tangents.
The media reports it quite differently:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/former...RYXRZBW27XJM4/
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...s-christianity
But could anyone really separate their beliefs (Whatever they may be) from their politics? Your core beliefs if they are strong enough run through all your life and the decisions you make whether right or wrong. I would call Luxon a moderately conservative Christian and I think the Evangelical label is unhelpful, he would get my vote based on his values and huge business/economic experience, I mean he's done substantially more than fry a basket of fish and chips.
And so you voted for Clueless Cindy - has she showed she can separate her atheist beliefs from her politics and policies?
Maybe you need a religion reset like Cindy did with all her failed policy resets - CGT, Kiwibuild, Elimination, Child Poverty, Mental Health, Immigration, 3 Waters ...the list goes on and on.
Does he believe in a rapture?
Oooga booga.
I was waiting for you to show up ;)
I have never yet voted for National because they have never yet met my brief for what I expect/want from a government. Previous leaders religious beliefs have not been a consideration to date, but as I just said, Evangelical Christianity is a different kettle of fish to mainstream religions. So, right now, I would not vote for National if Luxon was leader. My personal experience with evangelicals is that they cannot separate their religion from their politics. Luxon would have to work hard to convince me that he would be the exception to the rule.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, what I have or haven't done in the past, has no bearing on what I might do in the future. If someone else becomes leader, and National manages to pull off a miracle before the next election, maybe I will vote for them. I do not know who I am voting for yet. But it will not be National with an Evangelical at the helm.
You may label him what you like if it makes you comfortable, But, Luxon openly defines himself an Evangelical Christian & attends an Evangelical church.
Whether its helpful or not is irrelevant since that's how he defines his beliefs himself. See how you get on telling him he's wrong.
Anyway, can we look at the big picture everyone, what middle NZ voters might think, instead of arguing over who you or I might vote for.
National need to reclaim the middle ground if they are going to be the next govt, and astonishingly this will be the 5th National leader Jacinda has faced since becoming Prime Minister.
They can't afford to screw it up again.
I don't mean to go on about the religious thing, but am raising it because I can see it becoming an issue with a large number of voters in the campaigns leading up to the next election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvhnRZsv4Q4
Australia's evangelical PM has made it illegal to criticise religion in Australia.
Shocking, the bill will allow people to override anti-discriminatory Federal laws, on the basis of a persons religious beliefs.
e.g. a school principal might not employ a gay teacher or discriminate against a gay student, or allow a business to discriminate against a person of another religion, or a doctor to object to certain procedures. They're even seeking assurances it won't allow discrimination against people with a physical disability.
After the Israel Folau incident, you would think they would have learnt their lesson but I suppose he got a lot of support from some religious groups.
Such a backward step.
Not much different to the Taliban.
https://www.theguardian.com/australi...imination-bill
All the legislation in the world will not prevent discrimination. No law can control what you think. - Discriminate all you like - just keep the reason to yourself.
If you don't like Muslim bi-sexual dwarves, no law can make you employ one. Just don't tell her why.
Not when Israel Folau's free speech is incredibly damaging to other people, esp younger vulnerable teenagers struggling with sexuality or any vulnerable person battling repression.
It's like the appalling stories of Catholic priests & nuns in Ireland (& elsewhere), telling unmarried mothers they would spend eternity in hell & taking their babies off them, or controlling abused children with similar threats of damnation if they told their parents.
No thinking decent person could 'fully support Free Speech - whatever it is', & I think/hope you don't mean that.
Catholic churches in NZ preach eternal damnation - burning in hell for all eternity and similar nonsense. Some other churches aren't much different. If that's their belief surely they can say so. As far as threats to tell parents if kids have been abused (by the church I imagine) that's so different. It's criminal stuff. Threats of violence etc - definitely not. That's criminal. Personally I wouldn't let children near any religous organisation while they're young and gullible. If I believed in banning speech - religous instruction to kids would be the first to go, Sunday schools, bible classes and camps etc. Plenty of time to explore such things when they can reason - not when they're into Noddy and Superman. So I'm all for free speech but with age limits for certain things, a bit like we have movie censorship e.g. Adults, R18 etc.
The traditional teaching of hell is not even scriptural, it has its origins from the Italian Poet Dante and then was picked up by the Roman Catholic Church, until the King James Bible was printed the only words used in the Hebrew and Greek for the place of the dead was Sheol and Hades. I was also taught this myth 40 yrs ago when I started following the Christian faith and believed it for many years but have since seen its absurdity. The idea that God will have some eternal torture chamber running in the background forever is completely insane but yes it is the tool of fear used against many.
No, it is not different to the Taliban. It’s the same philosophy to dominate those who are “other.”
The bill is about maintaining about white supremacy.
In the most basic sense, white supremacy is a philosophical, material, ethical, economic, scientific, religious, and political system that works to maintain the dominant and relative superior group position of those identified as "white" (and their allies) over those marked as "non-white." Not just white, but heterosexual, Christian and male.
White privilege is central here: those people considered “white” are also judged to be “normal”; the experiences of white people are taken to be universal and a baseline for how others are to be evaluated; blacks are judged en masse as having “bad culture” while whites are de facto viewed as having “good culture.”
White people are viewed as individuals where the bad behavior of one white person does not reflect at all on the merits of the group. By comparison, people of color are not afforded that freedom.
Implicit and subconscious bias, as well as taken for granted stereotypes and “common sense,” can also serve a white supremacist order.
https://www.alternet.org/2014/04/10-...ite-supremacy/
I read about someone defending their right to free speech as believing they have the right to point out the flaws in others. Those at the top point out the flaws of those beneath them, the poor, the unemployed, non-whites, non-Christians etc.
I think it is time to use our right to free speech to focus on the flaws of those at the top who see themselves as the dominant group, which I describe as the stale, pale, male who does not believe in equality. Society reflects the views of the dominant group, with institutionalised racism and sexism widespread in Western culture.
Garbage. Everyone has the right to point out flaws in others, whether they are above, below, or equal. Whether they should or not is another matter. The poor, the unemployed, the non-whites, non Christians, those you see as being beneath others, are undoubtedly just as good at finding flaws in others.
But Luxon then wants to limit other people’s freedoms because of his religious beliefs. He is entitled to his personal views, but he does not have the right to impose them on others or to judge others who make decisions to have abortions, euthanasia or use recreational cannabis.
Luxon told Morning Report that he was anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia and doesn’t want to legalise recreational marijuana.
Unfortunately, many people with strong religious views do want to impose their views on others. This does not show compassion, tolerance and care for others.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...seat-of-botany
What does it mean to be an evangelical Christian?
Chris Trotter discusses it in this article.
“Chris Luxon has been identified as an evangelical Christian. That’s why I believe Chris Luxon owes New Zealanders a working definition of evangelical Christianity – and how he intends to practice it.
A private matter? Well, that might be true if Luxon was a person moving into private life.
What, then, is generally understood by the term Christian evangelism? At its core, evangelism is about the active spreading of Christ’s teachings – especially among those who are ignorant of his message. For a politician to identify himself as an evangelical Christian is, therefore, a matter of considerable importance.
If such politicians are genuine in their self-characterisation, then they will take every opportunity their public office provides to proselytise on behalf of their faith. They will also feel obliged to bear witness against beliefs and practices they believe to be evil. To do all they can to save the souls of those who are in the grip of sin. Christian evangelism is, above all else, faith in action.”
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2019/11/0...s-chris-luxon/