National Party’s changed principles mirror its drift towards socialism

Is Judith Collins the one to turn the National Party into a real opposition to Labour? Or will it remain a collection of limp numpties with nary a clue concerning the behemoth that is global socialism?

We’re hoping Judith can do it, but her biggest opposition is going to come from within her own party, as demonstrated by a re-write of the party’s beautiful and meaningful founding principles. The original principles were written by Sid Holland upon the formation of the party and recorded in Nat Party history and various NZ encyclopedias. They were-

  • 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.

These words show a clear commitment to small government and the right of the individual to build his own life, enter into contracts as he sees fit, and with minimal regulation from the state.

However the Nats have rewritten these principles, and the fact that current management allowed this to happen is a sign that the party is about as useful as a one legged man at an arse kicking contest in respect of today’s political battle.

An impression accentuated by the words in the rewrite. They don’t even call them principles anymore. They’re called “values” and they are-

  • Loyalty to our country, its democratic principles and our Sovereign as Head of State
  • National and personal security
  • Equal citizenship and equal opportunity
  • Individual freedom and choice
  • Personal responsibility
  • Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement
  • Limited Government
  • Strong families and caring communities
  • Sustainable development of our environment

Note they no longer oppose socialism or communism. Note also the absence of the phrase “self reliance”. Changes reinforced by the statement the government is responsible for equal citizenship and equal opportunity. What does this even mean?

John Key and Barack Obama were good friends

Note the word “equal” was not mentioned once in Holland’s principles. This was because Sid Holland understood that it was a given that there was never any special treatment. There was no treatment at all. There was only a legal and constitutional framework, and each man had to make the best of that framework with no assistance or hold back from govt.

That’s why Sid used that phrase “self reliance”. The new principles talk about “caring communities”. Once again, what does that even mean? Just feel good hogwash. Again suggesting govt overreach.

Competitive enterprise is good, but what are these “rewards for achievement”? Once again, this seems to imply a need for government to play a hand in defining someone’s path in life, when the previous set of principles with its respect for the right to contract, made it clear each man made his own decisions, upon which he fell or profited.

The final value “Sustainable development of our environment” would seem to be yet another fashionable add on which again conflicts with the right of individuals to contract with each other, and cancels out at least three of the previous values. It is an open invitation to unbounded govt and excessive regulation.

The overall stark difference in the two sets of principles is in the new, a shift in emphasis to the govt being a benevolent guardian (strong families and caring communities) rather than in the old, the administrator of a neutral legislative framework that allows each man to make his own way.

These weakly worded new values have the compromiser Key’s style all over them, especially the cowardice over communism and socialism. So many of us supported John Key for his courage in speaking against communism when in opposition, only to see him embrace it heartily when in power. Not the only promise he went back on and something he can never be forgiven for.

There was nothing wrong with the original principles. They were far more clear and distinct and attuned to what the National Party was meant to stand for than the fashionable wet wittering hogwash they have replaced them with. IMHO anyway.


  • National, party of the rich tyrannical globalists. Their mission shouts it from the rooftops. They have sold us out for a handful of beans. With disgust I spit you out of my mouth. [Revelation]


  • As observed, it’s all very in-the-now to have vague, touchy-feely and fashionable vacuous rhetoric as a set of (so-called) values. But at least it reflects the current lot of rudderless, going-nowhere flotsam and jetsam adrift on the red sea of NZ-style socialism.

    Apart from a complete and utter clean-out, I see no hope for any National Party future.

    A reported anomaly today was the limp-wristed hogwash from Chris Whinlayson, going on about the National Party’s candidate selection process. As I dimly recall, he was rejected by voters every time he stood in an electorate, only making it in to Parliament as a list MP. Once there, he did almost irreparable damage to NZ as the Monster of Treaty Sell-Outs (Minister / Negotiations).


    • Emailed Chris with the view that “liberal conservatism” is a political oxymoron. A flawed concept that has played a large part in the National Party’s disunity. I received a one word reply – “Rubbish”.


  • Reflecting further, the gNats no longer have any principles beyond that of continued sucking on the public purse teat. (A la Tytler principle)