But who are you really, Mr Luxon? (Patreon)

The moment had arrived. Christopher Luxon was giving his first major speech (apart from that major speech where he appeared to side with protesters). We've imported that horrendous Americanism "State of the Nation" to describe these speeches. But they're not.

Luxon had apparently wanted to introduce himself to New Zealand, so we'd get to know him as more than just the former Chief Executive of Air New Zealand. But when he had to move the speech, he pivoted to try make the speech a presentation of ideas to show that National was no longer focused on itself, but focused on New Zealand. 

So what were those ideas?

• Social investment, as developed by Bill English
• Tax indexation as developed by Simon Bridges
• Undoing some of Labour's ideas

Pretty shit at new ideas if I'm honest.

And his big takeaway from the speech? Tax cuts. It's always tax cuts. Tax cuts and roads. That's all National seem to offer. In the year 2022 Anno Domini, National's big idea is the same fucking idea it's had since forever.

At a time when just about every public sector is being stretched due to a lack of funds, when our health system teeters on the brink of collapse, when our public transport network is dire at a time when it needs to be great, when our housing stock needs constant replenishment, when teachers, nurses, and just about every other member of the public sector is underpaid, National wants to defund the government.

Absolute clownery.

But the thing I'm interested in is actually what Luxon wanted to talk about. Who is Christopher Luxon?

In an interview on Newshub Nation the day before his speech, Luxon said he was a feminist. That he wanted his daughter to have the same opportunities as his son. The ol' classic "as the father of a daughter" feminism. Not because it's the right thing to do. But because it directly impacts his progeny. And also he is on record as saying that abortion is tantamount to murder. So not sure he's that much of a feminist.

Onto the speech, and there was a weird little reference to Russia that I found the most illuminating.

I remember sitting in a modest Moscow flat with a couple in their late 40s on a dark and snowy afternoon. It couldn’t have been clearer that socialism – in terms of Government control of everyday life and lack of rewards for hard work – had abjectly failed and actually created misery.

There is quite a bit to unpack here.

First off, Luxon didn't leave university until 1993. That's two years after Boris Yeltsin banned communist activity from taking part in Russia. And that's being charitable with the timeline. He said that he travelled when he was a manager at Unilever. So probably not straight out of university.

I checked his LinkedIn page, he became a "Brand manager" in 1994, based here in Wellington. It'd be weird for a brand manager based in Wellington to fly to Russia for work. Then he was "Brand manager, Australia and New Zealand" in 1995. This was based in Sydney. So it's possible this was when he took the trip, but still unlikely. In 1999 he became "Group Brand Manager/Asia Innovation Centre Manager, Australia, New Zealand, Asia "

That seems the most likely.

1999.

Eight years after communism was banned.

Even at our most charitable, Luxon was in Russia four years after the fall of communism, during which time Russia experienced intense capitalism and free market ideology. So Luxon's depiction of the ruins of socialism actually happened under capitalism.

But also what the fuck? His description of the bleakness of socialism is that the weather was shit? He's putting a lot of stock into centralisation controlling the weather.

And then finally does he know what New Zealand's housing is like for people struggling? How many folks live in cars, or garages? Because it ain't good here either mate. And we're definitely not a socialist country.

That one portion of his speech was illuminating for me on a number of levels. He's used a massive misrepresentation to try and drum up terror of an ideology that isn't in play in New Zealand, and fails to even make it look bad. 

It's dishonest, clumsy, and just a bit shit. Now one could argue that those three words could be used for every government ever and I wouldn't disagree. But it shouldn't be the case for leaders of parties. They should be the first among equals.

On top of all this, he was also just really fucking boring.

And if National truly appreciated what was important then maybe he would have given more than a glance to the brewing European war, to Covid, and to climate change.

Instead we got hacky analogies and Diet John Key.