NZ National’s Election Strategy

On election night, 17 October, Labour won 64 seats out of 120, thereby having enough to govern alone, if the result stands after special votes are counted. In any case Labour’s preferred coalition partner, NZ Greens, currently on 10 seats, will certainly have enough MPs to enable Labour to govern, This represents a disaster for National, which was the largest party in Parliament after the 2017 election, but which failed to come to an agreement with king-maker Winston Peters of NZ First. Peters went into coalition with Labour and loyally supported Labour/Green Marxist policies while at the same time alienating NZ First voters, which meant an ignominious and probably final defeat for the party.

Labour clearly benefited from its handling of the global ‘covid crisis’. However, whether National chose the best strategy in confronting Labour’s advantage is questionable. Todd Muller, leader of the National Party from 22 May to 14 July 2020, declared in his maiden speech:

‘First and foremost, I’m about what’s best for you and your family – not what’s wrong with the Government.  I’m not interested in Opposition for Opposition’s sake. We’re all tired of that kind of politics.’

Which amounted to an announcement that National had no fundamental problems with Labour policy. While Muller himself was replaced in July by the more feisty Judith Collins, there was no noticeable change in strategy. All year, non-mainstream commentators have desperately tried to expose the more extreme policies of the Labour/Green partnership, in terms of:

• The numerous measures to undermine traditional property rights;
• Bribing of landowners to convert pasture to pine (just when China is planting up huge forests which will come on stream at the same time as New Zealand’s);
• Encouragement of foreign interests to buy up huge swathes of New Zealand farmland provided they convert it to forestry (inevitably monoculture pinus radiata);
• The child-abusive education policies, such as the curricula for Sexuality Education and Climate Change;
• The lack of a scientific basis for its zero carbon policy;
• The fact of the zero carbon policy being in breach of Article 2 of the Paris Accord, which specifically prohibits countries from restricting food producers;
• The lack of scientific basis for its panicked response to the Covid19 ‘pandemic’, for its mask mandate on public transport, and for its withdrawal of hydroxychloquine from the market;
• Refusal to acknowledge the economic consequences of the government’s cancellation of tourism, its policy to replace farming with forestry, and its aim to convert New Zealand to renewables;
• The determination to further the policies prescribed by the United Nations with total disregard for New Zealand’s interests.

Questioning the corporate narratives on either climate change or the ‘pandemic’ would entail declaring war on the corporate sponsors of those narratives, most obviously the Gates and Rockefeller foundations.  Any party who did this would, at the very least, be vilified mercilessly in the domestic and international press, and its leader compared to Donald Trump but there are other issues, however, that one might have expected that National could safely address, in fact had a duty to do so.  The National opposition, however, has steered clear of any major issues – its strategy strongly relied on being seen as a safe pair of hands. 

‘Strong’ leadership

This strategy depended on convincing the public that management of the ‘pandemic’ would have been handled at least as well by National, and that National was a safer pair of hands to manage the economy. At the same time National, like Labour, has been careful to avoid spelling out the extent of the looming economic crisis, which would raise questions of whether the lockdown was worth it and bring the heavens (or at least the corporate media) down upon the party.

Thus the National Party continued to keep clear of criticising the government on any fundamental issues.  So rather than exposing the false premise behind Jacinda Ardern’s ‘test, test, test’ strategy, that there is a test that actually works (probably too risky to mention that the virus hasn’t even been isolated), Collins preferred to make capital out of any perceived failures in ‘securing the borders’, and promise even more draconian measures to combat the dreaded virus.

National’s boldest policy was its agricultural policy, which proposed to modify the provisions of the Zero Carbon Act which affected farmers. The policy also removed the exemption that streamlines the process for forestry applications in the Overseas Investment Office. However National did not campaign on the government’s pasture to pine policies. So when I raised the issue at a candidates meeting in Ohariu, NZ First minister Tracey Martin was able to point to Pan Pac, given permission by Environment Minister Eugenie Sage to buy 20,000 hectares, as a ‘New Zealand company as it already did business in NZ (so why did it have to be given special permission?). There was no attempt from the Ohariu candidate Brett Hudson to query this ridiculous claim, or to ask whether the European aristocrats who have also been able to buying up land on this basis were also ‘NZ companies’, or to address the principle. Incidentally, the effect of the agricultural policy was to put itself in competition with ACT, its natural partner, which had garnered huge support in the rural sector when sole ACT MP David Seymour voted against the Zero Carbon Bill.

National also committed itself to repealing the Resource Management Act, but the stated aim of this policy was to facilitate development – the party did not set out to make an issue of the provisions in the Act which are being used to undermine property rights, nor the Urban Development Act which allows the compulsory purchase of private homes for development. Nb: the founding objectives of the National Party were stated as:

‘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.

National founding principles, therefore, are in direct conflict with the policies of Karl Marx, the UN and the NZ Labour/Green partnership to to eliminate property rights of homeowners.

Regardless of outcome, National’s strategy was deeply worrying to many of Labour’s critics. Even if it worked, and National gained the Treasury benches and maybe rolled back some of Labour’s more obnoxious measures, little or none of the Labour/Green agenda to serve global Marxism (including a massive transfer wealth upwards and ultimately global government), would be exposed. After a couple of terms the public would inevitably get bored and, still unaware of some vital issues, vote Labour/Greens back in, to pick up where they left off.

See also:

CO2 is Not Causing Global Warming

Coronavirus: WHO Backflips on Virus Stance by Condemning Lockdowns

WHO (Accidentally) Confirms Covid is No More Dangerous Than Flu/