Why Willis is no Thatcher (and shouldn’t lead National)
After a strangely intense speech in parliament two weeks ago, National’s deputy leader Nicola Willis is being heralded as the next big thing. She is even being compared to the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher.
They’re not alike at all. Thatcher was a Conservative who intensely disliked feminists. Willis is a feminist and a Progressive.
“The feminists hate me, don’t they? And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison.” Margaret Thatcher 1985
Willis is driven by a relentless steely ambition that is visible in her eyes and her mannerisms and (leaving the ghastly accent aside) her speaking tones. She has four young children at home being largely looked after by her husband while she chases political fame in the Beehive.
Given Chris Luxon’s leadership is shaping up to be a re-run of the Todd Muller embarrassment, there is a good chance Willis will be the Nat’s leader before the next election. All that is needed is an acceptable escape strategy for Luxon.
The fast approaching Christmas period is the least damaging window for a leadership change and National’s back room operators are working on that possibility right now.
Margaret Thatcher led the UK Conservative party for 15 years and won three election victories. Could Nicola Willis match this record as leader of the Nationals?
Willis provided major input to John Key’s govt. A govt that in reality did little to address serious political problems in NZ. Key pretty much ignored popular referenda on smacking and the MMP voting system while pushing hard to have the Union Jack removed from the NZ flag. Some say at the bidding of high value Chinese donors to the National party.
Key scorned global warming prior to winning the election, but became an advocate for it soon after. Working for Families was “communism by stealth”, Key said in opposition. In govt he raised the payments.
“the new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-centre governing classes and it provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism” Margaret Thatcher 1988
Willis wrote many of Key’s speeches. In one of these speeches Key boasted of how he had made Sid Holland’s party more “progressive”.
After being badly beaten by Grant Robertson in Wellington Central, Willis entered parliament by way of the party list. She later played a big part in the leadership coup that replaced Simon Bridges with Todd Muller. A disastrous move that led to Labour winning the 2020 election with 52% of the vote.
Willis later played a similar role in replacing Judith Collins with the obviously inadequate Christopher Luxon. Given she has backed two major failures, her political judgment has to be questioned.
“Abortion only applies to the very, very early days, but the idea that it should be used as a method of birth control I find totally abhorrent.” Margaret Thatcher 1978
Wiki says Willis is a “social liberal”, focused on LGBT rights and Climate Change. She has urged brainwashed school kids to attend so called “climate strikes”, and is a leader in the “Blue Greens” faction of National. She is pro late term abortion and supports euthanasia. She stated she was “gutted” by the recent US Supreme Court decision to return abortion law to individual states.
She has said she is not about small govt but “good government”. She has been a strong advocate for Jacinda Ardern’s vaccine mandates and lock downs and signed a letter with James Shaw and Grant Robertson asking Wellington protesters to leave parliament grounds.
In a move considered a deep betrayal by some National supporters, Willis enthusiastically backed and even jointly promoted (with Megan Wood) Labour’s new environmental regulations allowing high density flats to be built on previous one house sections.
US Democrats have used similar high density housing schemes to swing voting demographics to the left in Republican strongholds, as traditional single family homes are replaced by blocks of flats housing large numbers of left voting immigrants. Why would Willis be so keen to do the same thing in NZ?
Willis has said she is open to a coalition with the Maori Party. A recent speech addressed many problems but did not touch upon the raw issue of co-governance. When asked about this Willis (according to someone who was there) responded with words to the effect that “no one under 45 was concerned with the issue”.
None of the above sounds much like Margaret Thatcher. In fact New Zealand would have been far better served politically if Nicola Willis (and many others like her, Chris Bishop for example) had joined Labour and dragged that party to the right. Rather than joining the party of Sid Holland and converting it into a “progressive” political force.
If there is indeed a version of Margaret Thatcher in NZ politics, male or female, they are yet to surface, and if they did, it is not a given they would want to be part of what Sid Holland’s party has become today. Especially if it is led by Nicola Willis.
Willis is full of praise for Ardern’s speech at Harvard University
You could be right or left.
Another great blog, Red. Thank you.
You’re spot on again, of course. What on earth has become of this party? I most certainly will not be giving them my vote next year.
Luxon and Willis are just terrible. I cannot believe how these progressives have infiltrated conservatism.
Do we proper conservatives really need to own the “far right” tag to get away from these wet pretenders? If so, then So be it. Call me “MAGA”. Not how I would normally position myself politically, but there really isn’t much of an alternative. Looking at how the left is treating the right in the US presently, we’re going to have to batten down the hatches. It’s now a global game.
As much as I like certain aspects of Act and Seymour, I simply can’t accept his Passenger attitude to the past nearly 3 years. We needed opposition to the vast powers the Government awarded itself, the rights they stripped from us, the mandates, the lies the Government told us, yet he meekly supported the status quo. Scratch Act.
Winston is looking good right now, he’s saying the right things, at least, but his betrayal in 2017 still leaves me cold.
Which leaves New Nation as the only other party who are speaking sense around the big items currently.
Am I wrong?
Thank you once again.
Looking forward to your next drop.
Thanks for the kind words Mark. Agree with much of what you say. The way I would vote in the next election would be decided by whatever is the best option to break the power of the current political elite. That elite being the swinging door collective of Labour/ Greens and National/ ACT (and of course their mainstream media/ academia backers).
We will only know what that option is when the election is imminent. Or, will there even be a workable option available at that time? Who knows. Right now its not looking good.
The National Party has long-outlived its use-by date. If indeed, it ever had a usefulness.
One look at the past half-century of “leaders” should tell even the most casual observer the National Party has always been, at best, kabuki. I mean really, in the space of a decade they went from Holland and Jack Marshall, to bloody Jim McClay. And it’s been a steady slide leftwards since then, culminating in the sorry parade of mental midgets and fifth columnists we’ve seen through the revolving door since Key ate what was left of the party’s soul.
In fact since 1970 there’ve really been only two bright spots. Shipley, whose “wins” on welfare were a forced response to the Moore government hollowing out the economy and on following Saint Ruth Richardson’s lead. And Bridges, who proved himself so politically inept he allowed himself to get out-maneuvered by the subject of this great article – Willis.
If this party elects Willis leader, and this nation subsequently makes her Prime Minister, it will be the 4th term of the Ardern Labour government, perhaps (and only a slim chance) minus the radical racism. Last one out, please shut off the lights.
Wow! Thanks for telling us who this lady really is. She is a ‘full on’ progressive. There is now huge dilemma who to vote for at next election.
Agree Andrew, it is indeed a dilemma. MMP is not delivering the opportunities for political plurality that it should.
Where as a lot of good people have formed minor parties, the number on offer and their disparate policies makes it difficult for them to bust the 5% threshold.
If we are to be lumbered with National again, the only resort is to go to their public meetings and tell them where they are going wrong. Try to force them into a commitment on the issues that matter.
Have heard of people trying to do this, and then walking out in anger at Luxon’s inadequate responses. Don’t walk out. Stay there and serve it again and again to the weak wimpy bastards.
The thing about Willis’s speech was that it was the one time she really had something on Labour. Usually during parliamentary questions there is just shuffling of papers and back and forth on figures. The difference between the parties is so small there is really nothing there for National to hit with. There’s never any real fight taking place.
This time however Labour had done a complete turnabout on their new super tax, and of course it was an opportunity to hit them hard, and Willis did so.
Why I do not join in the applause is that there are in fact a number of issues she could hit them just as hard on if only National would grow a damn spine and stand for something. Preferably the principles the party was founded on, but WE NEVER SEE IT! Willis can’t see those opportunities because really, she’s just like Labour, and only thinks of herself as a better manager of progressive liberalism and socialism.
Those snivelling National lapdogs who frequent the NZ blogosphere frothed over what a good performance it was, and how it signaled the Nats were on their way back blah blah blah….
Its not a given, as the polls don’t show any significant rise in support for National yet, but if voters do flock back to the imposters Luxon and Willis as it seems they might, then NZ is done.
The thing about the Covid shutdowns is that they spurred a rare rebellion. If the momentum behind that rebellion is lost, the one good chance for change in the last half century will have slipped by.
Well said, my friend. And you’re right, Willis did a good job smacking Labour over the super tax. But really, that issue pales to insignificance when compared with the Covid tyranny and using the NZBORA for toilet paper, or the changes to resource management regs to allow building soviet-style apartment blocks on residential suburban sections, or destroying farmers with ludicrous taxes on cow farts. Of course, Willis agrees with all these so she couldn’t even make a pretence of ‘opposition’.
And as for the rare rebellion spurred by the lockdowns, I suspect the momentum is already gone. There was a window of opportunity for someone (and really the only two who could’ve done it were Matt King and Leighton Baker) to coalesce the forces of opposition into something tangible. But egos prevented it, and so we are consigned to an ever-increasing tyranny until one day, in the not-very-distant future, our once-great little nation will resemble the Xinjian province.
I feel we are blaming Winston for going with labour and missing what really happened.
Bill English failed to strike a decent deal with Winston because of his personal dislike for the man? So Winston joined labour and was obviously a hand brake, look what we got without Winston this current term.
National were a clown show before the last election with musical chairs on the leader front. Bad choice of leaders. Crap left wing policies drifting further to the left every cycle.
And let’s face it Key was rubbish for 3 terms, they did almost nothing in 9 years.
While I agree National are terrible, and (at least until he stepped down in favour of a succession of clowns and fifth columnists) Key was the worst thing to happen to the National Party since Jim Bolger, I think it’s a pretty spectacular retcon to suggest Winston went with Cindy because English didn’t want to deal with him. Winston is, has always been, and will always be all about Winston. He went with Cindy for two reasons: first, personal vengeance against the National party for Key (in one of the few things he got right) ruling him out of any coalition deal, and secondly because Cindy offered him the Precious he’d always wanted: Deputy PM and a stint as acting PM.
Anybody falling for any more of Winston’s act, after 40 years of betrayals, does not deserve a vote.
Having said all that, such differences as may exist between National and Labour are Bolsheviks/Mensheviks. The Nats would have used NZBORA for toilet paper just the same as Cindy did. They would have followed the orders of their offshore masters just as Cindy did.
When you say Key was the worst thing to happen to National, its worth remembering that during this time Willis was a big influence. Helped him with policy, wrote his speeches. Actually describes herself as his “advisor”. She’s been (IMHO) a malign influence on National since she joined, and by dint of her increased standing in the party, that influence is today worse than it has ever been.
The Nats have taken no care as to who they allowed to join the party. Never asked any aspiring MPs if they believed in the founding principles. Consequently its full today of useless commies who will only continue to betray us. Don’t like ACT much either, but its worth voting for them on the basis that the current control group in the Nats have to be removed from power. If ACT can get 20 seats or more, it will register as a failure by the Nats, but still remove Ardern from power. Hopefully then they can get rid of Luxon/ willis et all and start rebuilding.
Unlikely though. My view is that National is done and dusted. Hollowed out from the inside.
LikeLiked by 1 person
While I agree National is both (a) done & dusted and (b) needs a grown-up in the room until they inevitably shuffle off this mortal coil … I don’t believe that grown-up is the ACT Party. During the time of Covid, David Seymour has proven himself to be a totalitarian in libertarian garb. Fully supportive of the lockdowns and mandates, of police violence against peaceful protesters and launching only the most tepid, timid “attacks” on the worst of the government’s ministers. All of that in addition to their default state of being a death cult which wants to murder all the babies in the womb, all the people too old to care for themselves, and keep everyone in between stoned off their heads on their substance of choice. They really are the Brave New World Party.
No, applying Seymour’s own standard for the National Party to the ACT Party, they’ve been around for 3 decades. If they were going to be a handbrake on National’s worst impulses they would have been so before now. It’s time for something new, but I very much doubt we’ll ever get it.
the apathetic nature and stupidity of the general public is so prominent , it scares the living daylights out of me to think what is going to happen at the next election……
If someone/party doesn’t come forth to crush this trajectory of apartheid and rule by an elite minority then NZ is surely doomed…..democracy has been allocated to the rubbish bin…..
I hope people wake before its too late…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gantt- not wishing to go on with this too long, but yes, I agree with your views on ACT. I probably did not explain myself very well, but my views on voting for ACT were primarily aimed at a stepped process to disempower the frauds who inhabit National. After we get National back on track, then we can deal with ACT.
The most pressing danger to our country comes from Labour and the Greens of course, but the enablers of National are not far behind them. Looking at it strategically, the most immediate fix is to disempower the imposters of National, and we merely use ACT as a means to do this. I do not see ACT as the solution in any other way than as a strategic tool.
(BTW, have you seen that video of Ron Desantis addressing the Taiwanese group seeking to oppose the influence of the Chinese Communist Party in the US? Desantis is really worth a listen, and mostly because he is such an amazingly stark contrast to the nauseating commie arse-licker John Key.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Damn, he’s good. Such a stark contrast to the pretenders, cowards, and termites which infest the National Party!
While we have governments supporting these types we are in trouble . . .
Last night I watched the late Queen’s funeral service and procession. While I am not a Royalist, this to me was an example of pure theatre and pageantry with a lineage of more than 2000 years of societal development. Even the church was more than 1000 years old.
Compare that to our New Zealand situation where we are being asked to put all that culture to one side, in favour of one advocated by a minority group whose only connection is that they are able to list a tribal ancestor, no matter how much diluted in their individual makeup. The culture we are being asked to recognise, as recently as 200 years ago, had no written language, engaged in cannibalism and slavery, had not invented the wheel, metal smelting or even basic pottery. They survived on violence, myth and legend, and had no concept of any basic sciences – mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology.
I cannot fathom the arrogance of these tribal people who persist in the myth that their ‘culture’ is somewhat superior to British culture, and that it has been damaged by colonialism.
Willie Jackson said in the house a few days ago that whites had no culture. This is just after the queen’s funeral, which he must have seen on TV somewhere. That we have such ignorant ill-mannered people in our parliament as Jackson says so much about the state of the country today.