In politics these days, if you don’t measure up in the eyes of the Prime Minister, and if you are with another party which commanded less than 10% of the vote, you are forced to grimace and bear it.
That’s certainly been the case with Act’s David Seymour who will become Luxon’s right-hand man as his deputy on May 31.
Seymour is an astute actor on the political stage.
He does everything by design, knowing he’ll cause ructions, but also knowing he’ll get the attention he craves.
The end-of-life choice law is a good example. He fielded flak for it over the years but finally had his Act deputy, Brooke van Velden, steer it through the House and into law.
And of course there’s the Treaty Principles Bill which has got Seymour exactly what he wants: publicity and debate, laying the groundwork for what may come in the future.
On this he’s left the Nats up the creek without a waka by ruling it out from the very start, even though popularity for the move has grown. That’s exactly what Act wants, to be the stand-alone party advocating for a controversial piece of legislation, knowing it won’t become law, but appealing to those Nats who feel left behind in the slipstream.
But just like in the leadup to the last election, Seymour overplayed his hand again, indicating his party could end up sitting on the cross benches, unless some of his demands were met. The voter was spooked and decided to stay with National.
This young, ambitious politician is again playing a dangerous hand, publicly rebuking his political boss Luxon.
His more than 1000-word epistle on behalf of eye surgeon Philip Polkinghorne, his Epsom constituent, was written as Polkinghorne was under investigation for his wife’s death. Why did Seymour go to such lengths?
He says he was acting on behalf of a constituent, as he would for anyone who had come to him with a grievance.
The fact he went to so much trouble begged the question: was Polkinghorne an Act donor? Seymour stood in Parliament and said he could say he wasn’t a donor, but he wasn’t about to do that, suggesting others could be embarrassed?
Really!
Luxon was asked about the letter, written by one of his ministers, and called it ill-advised, even though when he wrote it he wasn’t a minister, but a constituent MP.
It was that mild rebuke that saw the cocky Act leader suggesting Luxon should be more aware of the facts before opening his mouth.
Then there was the threatening to drive up Parliament steps in a Land Rover this week. It may have been for a good cause but it was silly and not becoming of a political leader, let alone a pending Deputy Prime Minister.
Pretending Parliament’s Speaker wouldn’t mind, even though he knew he would and did, Seymour went ahead with the stunt for the television cameras.
Again Luxon was embarrassed by his untouchable minister. He’s untouchable because it’s pretty obvious what could, and probably would, happen if there was more than a mild rebuke.
The notion that Seymour should be sacked, as espoused by Labour’s Chris Hipkins, is also just plain silly.
If he was in coalition with the Māori Party just imagine what would happen if he sacked Rawiri Waititi, which he would probably have good cause to do on many occasions if that sorry saga ever came to pass.
Being a Prime Minister these days requires a lot of tongue-biting, that is unless you are lucky enough to have unbridled power, like Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins had - and look where that got us.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
