There is an insane double standard in political journalism in NZ.
The media always scrutinise the Greens for any disagreement over policy as if it is the Cuban Missile Crisis, yet the media NEVER scrutinise the relationship between ACT and National with anywhere near the same standards.
ACT just opened up on National this week…
He was quick also to turn the firehose on potential coalition partner National – and its leader Christopher Luxon.
“I will do my best throughout this speech to differentiate the Chris’s but it won’t be easy,” he said.
“It simply isn’t good enough to paint a red government blue, and then pretend it’s all fixed by endlessly promising to just ‘get things done’ … every time I hear Chris Luxon say that the Labour ‘doesn’t get things done’, it makes me a little nervous. Could he seriously want them to do more?”
“Five times National has vigorously opposed Labour’s policy from opposition and five times they’ve followed Labour into government and bedded in all the policies they’ve said they’ll remove.”
…if the Greens attacked Labour like that, the Media would be screaming the Left are fighting and can’t be trusted, David Seymour declares war on National and the Press Gallery is silent.
It’s amazing what the Right can get away with that the Left aren’t allowed in the NZ media.
This is problematic because none of the media are asking how a ACT/National Government will actually work.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media
Seymour gets incredibly light treatment generally from NZ’s media. He pops up in articles or on TV as a friendly, harmless dweeby politician and I have never heard him face a hard question on any of his incredibly extreme and divisive policies. I don’t know why that is – maybe these questions are too uncomfortable for general consumption and no-one wants to hear the answers.
What are some of ACT’s “extreme and divisive policies”?
So is David Seymour saying that there is not much difference in direction between the Labour and National parties?
In effect tweedledum and tweedledee are just a pair of teases so give your vote to someone who will seriously fuck you!
But he’s correct: other than some minor tinkering around the edges, National and Labour agree on everything of substance (particularly social issues), which is why, no matter who is in government, things always keep going in the same downward trajectory. They all operate within the confines of the neo-liberal Western orthodoxy (aka the “rules-based international order). The reason for this uniformity is that anyone who would come along with a genuinely heterodox approach would be set upon by the Establishment, which gatekeeps itself. It amazes me how either party’s tribal core gets bent out of shape at the prospect of the other gaining power.
The Greens are happy with crumbs and thus achieve little. They blindly support Labour and go along with anything they decide. They are worse than useless because a lot of voters (you & me for example) think they might actually make a difference, but they never do. ACT is really going to shake up the New Zealand political environment. Buckle up.
Oh Helen and the Maori party and the United future party and the ACT party were no different under Key’s National government? Jesus wept!
Neither party (especially ACT with one MP) had any real power to wield. That will be different this time.
Comments are closed.