Ryan Bridge: He might have lost the battle, but has David Seymour won the war?

David Seymour's lost the battle but has he won the war?

If the goal was to redefine the Treaty principles in one fowl swoop with a bill that didn't have the support to get pas first reading... which was clearly going to be ambitious given how much the opposition hated it.... then he's lost.

But if the goal - and Seymour's not stupid.... was to start a national conversation .Have the debate. Move the goal posts on partnership... so much of which had been defined by the previous Labour lot... then it's hard to argue he hasn't been somewhat successful .

He made a couple of interesting points in his stand up today.

95% of submitters opposing the bill doesn't mean 95% of the country. The End of Life Choice bill was opposed by 90-odd percent of submitters but passed on referendum two-thirds to one.

It's the age old problem with consultation - you see it with cycleways and councils - only those who really love to get on a bike bother to turn up and make an oral submission.

Everybody else is too busy stuck in traffic getting to work to bother.

So the fact this bill has failed doesn't mean it would fail if put to the public.

But the bigger issue here for Seymour, I reckon, is timing.

This  Treaty question is an existential, largely theoretical one.

Trying to have this debate during the worst recession in 30 years and coming off the back of sky high inflation is bad timing.

People want their government talking about mortgage rates not race.

One day the time might come... the moment might be right... and we can afford to confront this issue which... given the number of submissions - clearly has a fair whack of kiwis rather exercised.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
So David Seymour's lost the battle, but has he won
the war? If the goal was to redefine the treaty
principles and one fel sweep with a bill that didn't
have the support it needed to get past the first reading,
which was clearly ambitious and never going to happen, then
he's lost. But if the goal, and Seamol's not stupid,
was to start a national conversation, to have the debate

(00:21):
to move the goal posts on partnership, so much of
which had been defined by the previous labor lot, then
it's hard to argue he hasn't been somewhat successful in
doing that. He made a couple of interesting points in
a stand up today. Ninety five percent of these submitters
opposing the bill doesn't mean ninety five percent of the country.
The end of life Choice bill was opposed by ninety

(00:41):
odd percent of submitters, but passed on a referendum two
thirds to one. It's the age old problem with consultation.
You see it with cycle ways and councils. And I've
spoken about this before because it's a pet peeve of mine.
But only those people who really love to get on
a bike bother to turn up and make an oral submission.
Everyone else is too busy and stuck in traffic getting
to work. So the fact this bill has failed doesn't

(01:05):
mean it will fail if put to the public. But
the bigger issue here, for Seymour I reckon is timing.
The treaty question isn't question is an existential one. It's
a largely theoretical one. Trying to have this debate during
the worst recession in thirty years and coming off the
back of sky high inflation is just bad timing. People

(01:26):
want their government talking about mortgage rates, not race. One day,
the time might come, the moment might be right, and
we can afford to confront this issue, which given the
number of submissions, clearly has a fair whack of us
rather exercised. For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, listen
live to news Talks it'd be from four pm weekdays,

(01:47):
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.