Luxon’s weak capitulation on Uffindell shows he is no leader
With Jacinda Ardern leading the (arguably) worst govt in NZ’s history, polling shows that voters still lack the expected enthusiasm for a National alternative. Christopher Luxon’s recent weak surrender to the corrupt legacy media and their Labour party comrades over the Sam Uffindell allegations will no doubt add to this unease.
Details of Uffindell’s misbehavior as a teenager (20 years ago) were released by a recognised left wing
journalist activist, who had probably known about it for some time. This suggests the public release of the information was strategically timed to benefit the Labour party. Probably to dampen the Nat’s criticism of Labour due to current “bullying” problems with their MP Dr Sharma.
Of course Nat party toadies are busy on social media writing effuse praise for Luxon’s “handling” of the issue. Trying to convince us he did the “sensible” thing by establishing an enquiry. But how does the enquiry matter?
The only question really is whether Uffindell should remain as an MP, and that is a question Luxon would have already answered if he’d only had the guts and know-how to confront the corrupt cowards of the consistently pro-Ardern legacy media.
Luxon should have said straight up, with conviction and courage, that Uffindell’s misdeeds were well in his past. He should have stated that the pre-selection committee had known of the events but had disregarded them because the candidate was clearly a man who had changed since his teenage years and developed into a sober and responsible adult.
Luxon should also have forcibly made the salient point that if every MP was to be held to the same standard as Mr Uffindell, there would be few if any who passed that test unscathed. He could also have remarked on the hypocrisy of the Labour party who have promoted members demonstrating a propensity for violence and amorality not in their youth but in late adulthood. In fact one of their worst offenders is now speaker of the house.
Instead of defending Uffindell with these simple and rational arguments, Luxon (as usual) capitulated immediately to the media/ Labour narrative that painted Uffindell as only one step removed from an uncovered Auschwitz concentration camp guard. Showing Luxon’s political nous is not much better than that of his tragically incompetent (penultimate) forerunner Todd Muller.
The bigger problem here is that National’s issues run far deeper than its effete leader. Whisperings that Nicola Willis may take over the leadership only emphasize this point. Willis was a key influencer and speech writer for John Key, and under her guidance Key took the party deep into the mire of “progressivism”, something that both he and Willis were too politically immature to recognise as a euphemism for neo-communism.
Willis’s actions as an MP show she is as politically lost as Muller and Luxon, and that she championed both as leaders makes it clear her political judgment is deeply flawed. In fact it can be said that Willis’s constant undermining of Simon Bridges and her eventual success in pushing Muller into the leadership is the primary reason NZ is in such a parlous state today.
That she was rewarded for this subversion with the deputy leadership is a disgrace. To further this mistake by making her leader would render the Nats even more impotent than they are today. If such a thing is possible.
The core issue is that none of National’s current leading clique (Luxon, Willis, Chris Bishop and Erica Stanford) recognise the importance of the culture war. They have stated publicly that they have no wish to fight it. (When Stanford was asked about the Greens moving Churchill’s parliamentary portrait she said she couldn’t care.) So they will not fight for such staples of civilisation as free speech, one man one vote, and worst of all, they have enabled the left in replacing political pluralism with the uniparty.
The solution? Because ACT can’t be fully trusted either, NZ’s salvation lies with individuals or groups who are not in the political mainstream right now, but milling around on the fringes. MMP is their path to power, but the difficult 5% threshold means they can’t win as separate entities. They have to coalesce into one measurable anti-Labour anti-progressive political force.
This amalgamated party needs to take enough votes off National and ACT to force them into a coalition, with the terms of this alliance guaranteeing the newer party meaningful influence in the decision making process.
If this far more representative tri-party outcome does not occur within (at the latest) the next two election cycles, NZ’s fate of becoming a Zimbawe/ Venezuela style banana republic will most likely be sealed. Change will then only come through economic and social devastation. Sad indeed, but if the uniparty swinging door election cycle of Labour Greens/ Nats Act continues, its the odds on outcome.