With an election just seven months away it’s useful to reflect on the changing nature of politics - on both the left and right of the political spectrum - and what influence it might have on New Zealand.
The worst part of Antonio Gramsci’s legacy is that it has effectively transcended its Marxist origins. His outlook is now blankly taken for granted by millions of teachers, writers, even churchmen, who have no idea that they are committed to cultural Marxism.
2016 has been a year of significant political change. Establishment politics has been turned on its head. From the Brexit referendum in the UK, to the election of Donald Trump in the US, the shock waves kept coming.
It seems to be the season for tinkering with our constitutional arrangements. We have the “The report of Makiki Mai Aotearoa The “independent working group on constitutional transformation” and we have Sir Geoffrey Palmer, and his acolyte’s proposed written constitution for New Zealand
The Prime Minister’s surprise announcement that he will resign on Monday has dominated the news this week. John Key said he’s been thinking about this issue all year but firmed up his decision during a recent visit to New York.
Just a few days ago I marked the anniversary of my eighth year as Prime Minister and my tenth as leader of the National Party. Such an occasion seems a fitting time to not only take stock of the past 10 years, but to look forward.
Not content with creating the Treaty of Waitangi grievance industry and inserting ‘undefined’ Treaty principles into legislation – to enable activist Judges to invent new Treaty ‘rights’ - Sir Geoffrey Palmer now wants replace the sovereignty of the Queen with a new Constitution embedding the Treaty as superior law.
Sir Geoffrey Palmer and a fellow lawyer, Andrew Butler, have proposed a single written constitution, arguing that almost every other nation has a single written constitution, and that such a document would be more accessible and enhance the public's understanding of constitutional matters. On this ground, the proposal is disingenuous.