I kinda feel like the sentiment about Luxon’s apparent trainwreck of an interview with Jack Tame today is … not going to play out the way people think.
Yes, yes it’s absolutely true and correct to state that Luxon wound up caught in a bunch of contradictions – between stuff he’s talking about and claiming is a problem, with what he’s actually prepared to do if he wins an election; between things he’s said he intends to do, and how these actively feed into problems he has sought to pillory the government over … you get the idea.
Except here’s the thing.
Most people don’t have a coherent view of the universe – let alone something as infinitely more internecine as the politics of a small island nation. Our world-views are awash as a morass of mutually contradictory preferences and outrage-inducing red-flag buttons.
Some people take a look at politicians and their presumptive visions – maybe even read some policy manifestos (if anybody still does those) or commentary upon same – before they decide on who they want to vote for.
Others go on whether they feel they can ‘trust’ someone with power – and that may, indeed, arcen back to whether they can put on a decent showing in front of a camera in answering reasonably simple, straightforward questions. (Answering … does not necessarily mean answering well or truthfully, necessarily – but that is another matter)
However, for an appreciable quotient of our body politik (as with many other modern, Western democracies) – what they’re looking for is a simple resonancy with things they already either believe or can be reasonably prodded or coaxed into believing.
And, as we have observed – that DOESN’T require an internally coherent worldview to be espoused by the politician courting them. Quite the opposite.
It just requires being able to sound-off a veritable checklist of talking-points or hot-button stances – and then let the natural artifice of human cognitive filtering take care of the rest.
People no longer ‘hear’ the contradictions, if the contradictions are things they’re already subconsciously overlooking in and of themselves when it comes to their own personal preferential perspectives.
Further, to add to all of this – it has long been known that New Zealanders tend to like an underdog, and will rally behind somebody who is perceived as ‘not getting a fair go’.
I have repeatedly observed that in 2014, for instance, the year of the Dirty Politics revelations … National’s vote actually went up, precisely because we automatically insistently minimized the impropriety at hand – at least partially because the media was perceived to be making a big deal out of it.
It came across that John Key was being hounded by the press and was being beaten up upon – so people tuned out just what (and why) he was being hounded over, and considered him a more sympathetic figure.
Helluva thing, really, to have a multi-millionaire incumbent Prime Minister of six years going up against a Labour party about to deliver its worst result since 1922 … and somehow have said PM come across as being the ‘underdog’ or ‘marginalized’, but that’s how it can so easily look from the outside.
Tame’s interview was interesting and entertaining; but a whole lot of people out there will, if anything, double down in their emergent support for Luxon.
Not because anything Luxon said or did in that performance was ‘smart’ or visionary.
But rather precisely because we’ve all had a situation of some younger guy coming in and asking us ‘twisty’ questions [which may, or may not, actually have been ‘twisty’ rather than reasonably direct and straightforward as various of Tame’s were] and feeling unfairly put upon in fairly direct consequence.
Exposing that Luxon is not, in fact, (yet) the man to be able to dethrone Ardern does not induce his following to abandon ship.
Because they’ve already begun to ‘buy in’. So pointing out that the would-be emperor is, it would seem, somewhat bereft of clothing … just makes many all the more determined to dig in and declare they’re definitely backing a winner here and never mind any purported ‘evidence’ to the contrary.
One of the (many) things George W. Bush proved was that you can, indeed, ‘flunk’ your way to victory.
Is there room in the Upper Room for all of us? Hallelujah, Glory days for all of us with Luxon the saviour!
garibaldi C’ mon now, room in the Upper Room for all of us ? From the footless wonder who wouldn’t even share his big black Mercedes with his deputy, but had to hire a separate limo for the surreal pair to travel a few yards up the road to Parliament ? We needed a laugh, and by Hercules, they gave us one – it was funny – albeit an inadvertent revelation.
As Dotcom mentioned …Key could have been seen blowing kittens heads off with a shotgun…and his support would not have waivered.
Trump said he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue shoot people and they would still vote for him. Key could have blown the heads off kittens. National already had a Trump acolyte with Todd Muller and his MAGA Hat proudly displayed in his office.
The Trump citation.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/donald-trump-says-he-could-shoot-somebody-and-i-wouldnt-lose-support/
and the other citation
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/new-national-leader-todd-muller-doubles-down-on-make-america-great-again-cap/344G3IEWEGPEQBL2K2OZFY363E/
Will Luxon survive when National Party dirty politics links with the Parliamentary Occupation are uncovered?
Will the Sheriffs of Aotearoa spill the beans on who is funding them to hijack ANZAC Memorials across the country?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/wellington/128448267/anzac-service-hijacking-by-selfproclaimed-sheriffs-prompts-walkout
There’s some serious nutjob, domestic terrorism brewing in Aotearoa and it sure as hell isn’t from the left side of the political divide!
This is precisely what I said in a previous blog about the Jack Tane interview . To me Luxon came across a person not a polished politician with quick answers that really say nothing as Willie did in his interview . I was delighted to see a leader I could vote for .
Trevor Sennitt. Would you really want this country lead by a multi-millionaire who refers to the economically lower echelons of society as “ bottom feeders “ ? Whatever Luxon and his scrabbling advisors may think or say among themselves in private, this sort of very public sweeping generalisation is gutter talk designed to create prejudice against the poor and have-nots. Any sort of prejudice is socially divisive, unhelpful, unchristian, and very foolish.
Unfortunately in society there are bottom feeders who bully and terrorize others. I like it that Luxon calls these people out for what they are . While I often agree with your opinions your judgement of Luxon seems based on his appearance and this financial position rather than if he can lead this country out of a fiscal hole created by covid and the need to fight climate change . I believe Jacinda and Labour have no answers only ideological sound bites.
Trevor I couldn’t give too hoots about his financial position, I’d like to see everybody with enough for whatever they think their needs are, and I’m not
“ judging “ him on his looks, he can’t help the way that he looks. I just happen to find him creepy, the way I do a couple of the Green women. It’s a gut thing, and frankly I don’t hugely like any of the current crop of politicians, there’s too big a divide between them, and the people who they are meant to represent. Yep, there are lowlifes out there, but I won’t accept a leader, designating people ‘bottom feeders.’ You can say that, anybody can, but persons in a position of leadership have a social responsibility which should be aiming at elevating and bettering the community, not creating divisions by judging them in a cavalier or lazy way. I’m sure you know enough to know that not everybody at the bottom deserves to be there.
Thank you for your measured reply . I would say if we sat down we would agree on more things than disagree but perhaps differ on the way we say it .
Well Trevor he seems to want to make everyone think he has the answers…and certain parts look very polished.
I lost some respect for Jack Tame in this interview. He asked Luxon for specific areas of excessive Government spending. Luxon answers with 5 specifics. And Jack Tame conveniently ignores numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5 while just focusing on the $100m spent on the Te Huia train. Jack’s inability to admit that Luxon had done a decent job of answering the question was of no credit to him. C’mon Jack, you’re better than that.
What is “arcen” a typo for? Arcing, arsing, arson, or something else?
I guess I should go watch the interview before commenting, but it’s hard to feel much motivation to do so. No matter how dire, it’ll likely be forgotten in a week. Polls and interviews aren’t going to mean much until after the debates next year.
I am personally more concerned about this year’s local government elections, than Central governmental general or by-elections.
“hearken” or “harken” is my guess i.e. to refer to something from the past.
And of course governments are voted out not in, meaning as long as you aren’t Judith Collins, you are a viable alternative even if your words are clumsy.
Seymour is where more answers are tho- interesting according to Damien Grant Labour won’t let Jackson debate him despite Jackson’s big words.
Co governance is insanity and must be guaranteed to lose the election.
Keepcalmcarryon “Co governance is insanity and must be guaranteed to lose the election.” Yes. The bizarre secrecy about it all rightly fuels suspicion, and Ardern will know all this, so it is unclear quite what she’s up to.
I don’t agree if you’re suggesting that John Key survived the “ Dirty Politics” revelations just because New Zealanders sympathise with the underdog ? Key an underdog ? Never. He didn’t exactly receive any sort of public flogging, as I recall.
Key survived by blithely spouting that Nicky Hager was a conspiracy theorist, and the msm, lapped it all up as they usually did with Key. They adored him just for being a rich joker who smiled at them and who fooled around like the vulgar little turd that he in fact is. A NZ Herald male journalist, a good one who I think is still used by them, and maybe one other, were the only two who appeared to have actually read “ Dirty Politics”.
The aging Fairfax girls still salivate in memory of Key.
Like all of Hager’s work, “Dirty Politics” is meticulously researched, referenced, cross- referenced, and indexed, is an easy read, and patently accurate. I suggest that anyone reading it, then hearing Key’s conspiracy theorist allegation would know this was nonsense. If any commentator saw Key as an in underdog, they were unlikely to have read the Hager report, and they shouldn’t have been commentating at all.
This Luxon person seems to have thus far garnered sympathy mainly for unkind comments made about his physical appearance by persons such as me who find him aesthetically revolting and a skincrawling creep, and I can’t help that, but pixelating his pictures might.
100% accurate Snow White.
A great summary SW.
Baldrick presents as a bit of a cross between slightly creepy and a numpty, without the emotional intelligence to realise some might not share his pride in owning 7 pads–or more likely perhaps he bloody well knows and just does–not–care. Another hollow numbers man. If Sirkey could reply “well I can find other experts” when cornered on climate disaster on BBC “Hard Talk” then so can Mr Upper Room on NZ economics.
Curwen is significantly right–I remember “Stevie’s hole” when Mr Joyce put up a bollocks financial contention on NZ Labour’s 2017 election platform. It was shot down by professionals all over, but nonetheless cost labour several vital percentage points of vote share.
As I say here regularly, it is now up to gens X Y & Z to step up and get political. My millennial son says that so many people he knows have had enough of renting over priced dumps, paying off student loans that did not get them the dream job, working for arseholes and now putting up with COVID and the fragile supply chain.
Change is coming one way or another in 2023 and 2026.
What will he do? We need something better than the same old.
Was it a train wreck really?
Tame asked him for examples of poor quality spending and he gave one. Tame asked him for another, and he gave another. Tame asked him for a third and he gave yet another. The Tame complained his examples didn’t add up to enough to be valid, based on what exactly?
It seems Luxon isn’t particularly well media trained – he should have gone on to the front foot and mentioned the 55 million bucks wasted on propping up Tame’s career. LOL
Yes, it really was a train wreck! Either that or your income and property investments are in the same realms as Luxon’s. Who would suggest that tax changes that would give the average earners $800p.a. while smugly able to pocket $18,000 a year from the same changes is equitable in his view.
Would you care to itemise and cost the ‘poor quality spending’ itemised in the interview? Tame did and it was not going to make much difference fiscally as he said. Of course, we saw Luxon in action when he was an over inflated public servant in charge of near monopoly airline. Figures don’t look good – screw the fares up on the provincial routes to keep the fares cheap for those using the major city airports.
My support of Chris Luxon has nothing to do with my view of him as being a sympathetic figure because I don’t view him in that way. I do feel, however, that a lot of party leaders give bad interviews, even Helen Clark and Jacinda Ardern, John Key, David Shearer, Don Brash, etc.
Comments are closed.