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.