The Political Cowardice of David Seymour and Chris Luxon

Written By: - Date published: 3:53 pm, October 28th, 2023 - 26 comments
Categories: Christopher Luxon, david seymour, winston peters - Tags: ,

Winston Peters has done us all a favour, or rather he has confirmed what I suspected all along, which is that the other side of lazy political opportunism is political cowardice.

The Machiavellian has risen from the lagoon with his seemingly absurd tweet, which has already been covered here on TS. However, even more telling is how his new buddies Seymour and Luxon decided to stay hidden in the dirt. Not even Mark Mitchell’s special anti-gang grooming kit can cover up the stench of this political cowardice.

Peters’ ploy aimed to gain more support and influence for himself and his party, which is known for its nationalist and anti-immigration stance. It demonstrates Peters’ Machiavellian indifference to morality and his strategic focus on self-interest.

Peters also created a diversion and distraction from the issues that are affecting his own party and reputation, such as the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the New Zealand First Foundation, the resignation of some of his MPs in 2021 (Tracey Martin and Jenny Marcroft), and the low polling of his party relative to the parties of his buddies, ACT and National, and without the usual margin or bounce in the provisional election results vs. the opinion polls. Of course, Peters is also trying to appeal to his core voters and donors, who may share his views on immigration and national security. All this is to maintain and strengthen his role as the kingmaker in New Zealand politics. This is another example of Machiavellianism, as it shows Peters’ manipulativeness and cynicism.

Peters was trying to assert his independence and authority as the Deputy Prime Minister and the leader of a coalition partner, in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, which had given Jacinda Ardern a lot of power and popularity – so much, in fact, that Winston Peters and his party were booted from Parliament altogether in the 2020 General Election. By doing so, Peters is trying to move the boundaries of the pending coalition negotiations and influence the budding relationship with Seymour and Luxon in his favour. This is another Machiavellian trait of Peters and it shows his arrogance and aggressiveness.

Clearly, Seymour, Luxon, and their advisors have no suitable public response to Peters’ highly politically motivated actions. Or they decided to play it safe and not provoke to irascible character. Not since John Key’s much-lauded political pragmatism, which was actually political opportunism, have we witnessed such lack of integrity, morality, and political fortitude.

This does not bode well for New Zealand politics.

26 comments on “The Political Cowardice of David Seymour and Chris Luxon ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Incognito 1
    28 October 2023 at 5:22 pm

    Incoming prime minister Christopher Luxon is categorically ruling out commenting on Winston Peters' inaccurate claims about the Christchurch terrorist attack.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/501197/luxon-refuses-to-comment-on-winston-peters-terror-attack-claims

    Clearly, Luxon doesn’t think he’s in a strong enough position to say anything about anything anymore, which says a lot, actually.

    • observer 1.1
      28 October 2023 at 5:32 pm

      Ha ha! Everything anyone needs to know about Luxon, by Luxon, in one short sentence:

      Asked more questions on Peters, Luxon referred journalists to Peters.

      The man in charge, the tough guy, the get-things-done outcomes-driven CEO … is too afraid to express an opinion on whether the earth is, in fact, flat.

    • Anne 1.2
      28 October 2023 at 5:47 pm

      Nasty is as nasty does. No-one should be surprised. Many of us on this site saw it coming a long time ago.

      One thing I have learnt over time: cowardice and bullying are synonymous with one another. I venture to suggest both are present in all three of them. That certainly does not bode well for NZ politics nor good government.

      Thank-you for answering the question I've been puzzling over in recent times – Peter's pathological hatred of Ardern. Of course, jealousy and resentment over the praise from all corners of the globe for the masterful way she handled both the Covid crisis and the ChCh massacre. The fact he got none as DPM is because he did nothing to assist in either event.

      I tried to find that photo which appeared a few days ago of Luxon and his wife arriving for dinner with Winston Peters. It seems to have disappeared. One can't help but wonder what is really going on behind closed doors. I suspect it is not a pretty sight.

      • Ngungukai 1.2.1
        29 October 2023 at 11:40 am

        I don't understand what Winston has to gain out of making these statement's, whether he is right or wrong he keeps shooting himself in the foot and destroying his credibility.

        • Ghostwhowalks 1.2.1.1
          31 October 2023 at 1:06 pm

          Your view on his credibility doesnt matter one jot to him. its the 6-7% who put NZF in parliament that believe all this stuff and other freedumbs that matters

          eg NZF policies

          • Amend the Building Act, to require in the interest and safety of women and girls, that all public sector organisations provide separate, clearly demarcated, unisex and single sex bathrooms.
          • Amend the Sport and Recreation New Zealand Act to remove public funding from bodies that allow non-biological women to be selected unequally against biological women.
          • End all vaccine mandates, still operating in some organisations and medical facilities, and hold a credible fully independent Inquiry into New Zealand’s Covid-19 Response
  2. Mike the Lefty 2
    28 October 2023 at 5:59 pm

    There are apparently quite a few politicians on the right distinctively nervous about their prospects changing after the final results are declared.

    The reason they are so silent is obvious. If the public saw the arrogance and personal ambitions at play they would be disgusted.

    It will be a classic "smoky backroom deal".

    • Craig H 2.1
      28 October 2023 at 7:56 pm

      It seems unlikely that the final result will change that much, but one can dream until 3 November. In theory there are enough special votes to completely change the election result, but can't see that happening.

      Even if NAct finish with 60/120 which becomes 61 out of 121 after the Port Waikato by-election, they would need NZ First as an insurance policy against someone going rogue.

      For anyone who remembers 1996-1999, NZ First imploded badly – I could see that happening again.

      All in all, not surprising they are sweating.

  3. Patricia Bremner 3
    28 October 2023 at 7:20 pm

    Three awful men. Luxon Seymore and Peters.

    Each with a "public" face and narcissistic tendencies.

    A true "devil's stool" of a "coalition" already wobbling.

  4. Muttonbird 4
    28 October 2023 at 7:40 pm

    I cannot believe Winston Peters is happy to dance on the graves of 51 people for political purposes.

  5. Thinker 5
    29 October 2023 at 2:46 pm

    Well, there's one silver lining in this cloud:

    While publicly discussing the incompatibility of the new trinity, I had private concerns that, somehow, they had managed to do like between Peters and Bolger and formed a workable team, good enough to fool the public.

    This reaction seems to demonstrate that they haven't.

    Thus, it seems to me, it is only a matter of time before something serious, something that matters, has to be dealt with in the same way. It won't be a good look if Luxon doesn't front the coalition, detrimental to NACT and a boost to Peters.

    • Ghostwhowalks 5.1
      31 October 2023 at 10:03 am

      Yes. No one seems to remember how ACTors imploded during the first Key government.

      Roger Douglas and Boscawen got themselves on the list because they knew the 2008 election would bring them into government

      National and Act together had a 2 seat majority ( 58+5 in 122 seat house) but Key signed up his poodles United Future and TPM ( 6 seats) so that ACT didnt have a veto

      The ACT Mps revolted against Hide and his kowtowing to Key and not enough *fiscal rectitude*- polite term for shafting the beneficaries-.

      Key threatened a snap election and kept Hide as a minister despite being dumped as party leader, so the hard right were neutered

  6. Tiger Mountain 6
    29 October 2023 at 3:28 pm

    In this particular situation the gutless “no comment” from Baldrick and Mr Seymour says rather a lot. Winston was definitely a handbrake on the 2017 Labour agenda–though I did like the Provincial Growth Fund–which is really what Governments should be doing for citizens anyway.

    • Ghostwhowalks 6.1
      31 October 2023 at 10:06 am

      Labour had a PGF in the 2017 manifesto too, but it was much lesser amount. In practice they couldnt spend the larger commitment NZF got and it was relentlessly attacked by National and Act and their media friends

    • Thinker 6.2
      31 October 2023 at 5:36 pm

      That's the whole point.

      As a centrist party Winston has to be a handbrake on every agenda he goes into coalition with, or risk being seen to be a sellout.

      It will always work in favour of the opposition parties, this time us.

  7. observer 7
    31 October 2023 at 1:43 pm

    Jo Moir at Newsroom thinks Winston will be Deputy PM. I can't believe Luxon is that stupid, but if it happens, the three (new) opposition parties will be dancing a jig of joy.

    "Do you agree with the Deputy PM's recent comments? Do you have confidence in your Ministers?" – first question to Luxon in the House every day, first question at every press conference … until the sacking.

    A New-Look Government | Newsroom

    • Belladonna 7.1
      31 October 2023 at 3:52 pm

      I recall exactly the same level of glee from the Right following Ardern's appointment of Peters as Deputy PM in 2017.
      Didn't play out in practice.

      • observer 7.1.1
        31 October 2023 at 4:01 pm

        Of course you already know the many differences between the 2 situations, so I'm not going to list them all.

        Here for good faith debate for those interested, but I realize it's not your thing.

        To repeat: I don't believe Luxon will do it, for the obvious reasons. We'll find out soon enough.

        • Patricia Bremner 7.1.1.1
          31 October 2023 at 5:05 pm

          Luxon will appoint Willis as Deputy.

          She will carry the load.

          Any problems with those two desperate members… Luxon will say.. "If Willis agrees".

          This is Winnie's last chance saloon and David is salivating about power, the threat of another election would tame their adour some what.

          Both would be diminished by and blamed for another election. imo.

        • Belladonna 7.1.1.2
          31 October 2023 at 6:04 pm

          The main difference appears to be Right and Left. Peters is, always, Peters.

          This Centrist finds the same arguments being recycled from 2017 – but from the other side…. rather amusing.

          Time will no doubt tell.

          • observer 7.1.1.2.1
            31 October 2023 at 11:27 pm

            Centrism is not an excuse to ignore all relevant facts. You have only one pre-written script ("everything anyone else says is due to partisan bias, so they're wrong") so you don't bother to engage.

            Here are just some of the many differences between 2017 and 2023, not due to left/right bias but basic maths:

            Numbers in the parties involved – very different

            Relative strength of NZF to the "flank party" – different (2023 ACT much stronger than NZF, whereas in 2017 NZF stronger than Greens)

            Attitude of leaders of those "flank parties" to Winston Peters – very different. On election night 2017 James Shaw begged WP to join him (he was sole leader at the time). Contrast Seymour's open contempt for Peters.

            Options for NZF due to result: Labour or National in 2017, National only in 2023. So … negotiating strength of Lab 2017 versus National 2023 – very different.

            Pre-election promises on Lab/Nat choice by NZF: very different in 2023 from 2017.

            NZF voter base post-Covid protest and mandates – different. MPs in on the list – different.

            And so on.

            In summary: Ardern and the Greens had to accept Peters as Deputy PM. Luxon doesn't have to at all.

            If you'd like to say which of those statements are false, feel free. That would be engaging in debate. It would make a nice change from your usual dismissal of any other opinion as all the same, because we are all incapable of independent thought.

            • Belladonna 7.1.1.2.1.1
              1 November 2023 at 10:20 am

              In summary: Ardern and the Greens had to accept Peters as Deputy PM. Luxon doesn't have to at all.

              A sterling example of lack of independent thought.

              Assuming that the special votes go the traditional way (and therefore National/ACT don't have a majority), then Luxon will have no realistic alternative to negotiating with Peters (just as Ardern didn't)

              Technically, they both had/have the alternative of refusing to form a government with him. In 2017 – this would have resulted in a National led government (something Ardern certainly didn't want). Today this would result in another election (something Luxon certainly doesn't want).

              If the price of Peter's support is deputy PM; there is no greater shame in Luxon agreeing to this, than there was for Ardern to do so.

              • observer …
                1 November 2023 at 11:07 am

                sigh

                You really do refuse to read what people say. I explained the differences in great detail, and you simply don't bother. (I note that you have not engaged with any of the facts I listed).

                I did not say "Luxon doesn't have to negotiate with Peters". Why pretend that I did? Of course he has to.

                But If Luxon offered less than Deputy PM (policy wins, some bauble outside Cabinet, etc) do you seriously believe NZF would walk away? Where would they go?

                There is zero chance of NZF trying to force another election, because the voters would punish them, probably put them out of Parliament. I'm sure you know this, you're not stupid. Peters certainly isn't.

                Again, please pause and read before replying to things people don't say. It's basic respect.

                • Belladonna …
                  1 November 2023 at 11:37 am

                  sigh

                  You really do refuse to remove your Right-is-bad, Left-is-good blinkers.

                  Yes. It's entirely possible that Peters may negotiate for something other than Deputy PM – we actually have no way of knowing what is on the table ATM.

                  Given that you’ve explicitly agreed that Luxon has to negotiate with Peters – your only issue appears to be that he should never (under any circumstances) be given Deputy PM as his bauble of power.

                  I fail to see why Peters as Deputy PM is an utter disaster, but Peters as Speaker or Foreign Minister (both of which have been floated by the commentariat) are OK in your eyes. Either role is considerably more powerful than Deputy PM (except in the Ardern instance, where maternity leave made Peters de facto PM for an extended period – I'm pretty sure that's off the cards with Luxon)

                  IMO – the provincial slush fund was a much greater negative, than Peters as Deputy PM (where he was surprisingly (to me, at least), disciplined and effective.

                  Or do you somehow think that Luxon will be able to negotiate Peters’ support without any baubles of power (a nice trick, but not one I think Luxon can achieve)

          • Muttonbird 7.1.1.2.2
            1 November 2023 at 10:15 pm

            This Centrist finds the same arguments being recycled from 2017 – but from the other side…. rather amusing.

            What a preposterous claim. Haven't laughed so hard in ages.