I understand anyone who admits or suggests Simon 'Bill' English may not be the next elected Prime Minister will be liable for a good kicking.
But he has an unusual ability to give his opponents and their allies in the Media Party mud in quantity to throw at him.
He mismanaged Todd Barclay's clearly 'beltway' contretemps. Buying or even attempting to purchase peace will inevitably become sticky, just like "The Tar Baby" as Aarron Smith is being forced to confront today.
Elevation by appointment from a predecessor, even one so protected as Sir John Key, has an air of denial of due process. Those still standing and willing to continue may well have a contrary opinion to that of a departing General.
The National Party who have consigned too much of their foundation declarations to file thirteen, have a long tradition of moving on from losers and in 2002 Simon was a biggest loser by any measure.
Yes he presented a very laudable and in the minds of many, marketable traits as 2ic and finance guru in the Key Government, but there were many measures taken, that dismayed some who remember and hold dear, the noble and still appropriate words in the first declaration of the people who formed National from The United party under George Forbes and The Reform party led by Gordon Coates in 1936, to gain the treasury benches in 1949 under Syd Holland.
“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”.
Not quite Declaration of Independence but not bad as an initial statement of intent for an emerging right of center political movement formed from previously warring factions clinging by their fingertips, sometimes with support from the natural enemy, NZ Labour, who in 1935 buried both the United and Reform Parties.
The two electorally devastated groups who realised divided they fell, joined up a year later as National, first under Adam Hamilton then Holland.
Note there are no references to separatism, need for the state to save the country, need for social advance by government intervention. It was classic "do what you can do for your country".
I am guessing they assumed within the social rules of, self reliance, personal responsibility, sensible approach to advancement by work and enterprise, and personal pride, with established care for the disadvantaged, such matters would follow.
I am wondering if Mr English or any of his current supporters and colleagues have recently critically read those principles as flirting with the left becomes survival mode under MMP
Dodger and a growing number of his acquaintance and close circle are more than a little dismayed at where our country is headed.
A two state solution although a little more achievable under a majority in NZ who see having an elite race based group reaching out for every opportunity as nothing to worry about when compared to the zero chance of succeeding in Modern Israel, it is not the way forward here.
Immigration from lands with very divergent cultures with an accompanying total lack of any desire to integrate , merely wanting a new land to continue traits that failed miserably where they came from and led to a search for better.
Minimalising sometimes destructive outcomes from a softening approach to crime against the law abiding, driven by costs and modern thinking opposing imprisonment as a legitimate sanction.
Taxes targeted at sectors of commerce arbitrarily designated by political parties have no place in a society that claims success as a multicultural democracy.
Shameless vote buying replacing strategic economic planning where tax relief for 'families' holding down what should be natural wage growth, becomes entrenched in the economic fabric while those artificially low wages are then targeted by raising minimum wage levels by fiat with no regard for value of labour, cost of living and social desires, merely sustaining further Bureaucratic stupidity.
Picking winners whether potential political support, commercial activity, or any other judgment based guessing might have an attraction but is garbage best left to the more desperate. Mr English with a foray into the widely assumed and accepted independence of the Reserve Bank Governor has just handed his opposition another baseball bat over criticism of LVR settings
John Key was in a very good position to make known a preference for who should follow him but I remain unconvinced as a voter, out of the beltway, he was entirely correct and am still to be convinced.
Scaremongering generated by assessing the quality of the alternative is not a great basis to decide what a fickle electorate might wish to see happen. It will only dilute thinking that should be more strategic.
When an alternate leader is given brownie points for youth, TV presence, and alleged good looks, another is similarly talked up because of manipulative skills and longevity, while a third potential leader for our country is disgraced due to admitted welfare fraud and replaced by a shadow, we should all be very worried.
If NZ's very own Mr Joyce is the best National could appoint as campaign director after his clear and damaging failure in managing an already serious series of failures in Northland that led directly to Lazarus for Johnnie Walkers best mate, The National Party needs to have a total review of their process and look seriously at a reassessment of the thinking from 1936.
Should that result in different principles from a discovery that out of date thinking is no longer fit for purpose, then set out a new one.
At least that will have a potential to proclaim what they pretend to believe for consideration by the voter.
