I’m not going to pretend that I would protest for any movement that has the support of Hamas or Fatah, but of course anyone in a liberal democracy has the right to express their views on what happens in Gaza. The consequences of some of those views are to stir up not just hatred of Israel, but hatred of Israelis and of course of Jews, despite the claims of best efforts of many protesting that they oppose all forms of “anti-semitism” (and curiously then say also “Islamophobia” et al, because you can’t just criticise Jew hatred without relativising it with hatred of the people of the religion that seems to have a disproportionate number of promoters of Jew hatred).
People can protest for an independent Palestinian state (the idea it would be “free” is fanciful, but the far-left, which dominates these protests, regarded leaders from Robert Mugabe to Macias Nguema to be “liberating” their people), but perhaps some of the following might be less likely to encourage and promote Jew hatred:
•Exclude anyone calling to “globalise the intifada”: Don’t kid yourself. If you read about what the Palestinians intifadas involved, it was targeting Israeli civilians in terror attacks. Intifada is violent resistance. If you want to undertake it globally, who do you want to target? Who will get targeted? It’s Jews (nobody undertaking such attacks.
•Exclude anyone supportive of Hamas or the 7th October attack or justifying them: Justifying most murderous pogrom of Jews since the Holocaust, at a music festival is justifying violence against civilians. It wasn’t an attack on a military target, but much worse than that, it took men, women and children as hostages. It saw the gleeful slaughter of young people because they were Jews. If you want to justify the sadistic slaughter and taking of civilian hostages because of who they are, then you’ll justify it happening anywhere.
•Exclude anyone using symbols that place the Star of David into a rubbish bin or depict it with a swastika: Equating any regime with Nazi Germany is a tall order. Russia’s actions in Ukraine could justify it, given the use of the Z slogan, the abduction of children, the direct targeting of civilians and the desire to destroy Ukrainian culture, but the Gaza protestors are uninterested in that. North Korea has many shades of Nazism, given its totalitarian system that tolerates zero dissent and promotes racial superiority. However, to link Jews to the regime that sought to eliminate them is promoting Jew hatred. That’s not a call for a Palestinian state it’s a call to wipe them out wherever they may be.
•Promote peace talks and a two-state solution, not the extinction of Israel: Most governments agree that this is the only solution for a lasting peace, but so many protestors call for Israel to be destroyed. If you are chanting for the destruction of the Jewish homeland (where Jews have lived for thousands of years), then you’ll justify destruction of those who want to retain it and to keep Jews as a global diaspora always at the mercy of others.
•Call for the overthrow of Hamas and for Gaza (and the West Bank) to be a secular liberal democracy: If you just think Gazans should live under the jackboot of Hamas, with its explicit Jew hatred and support for eliminating Jews, then you’re hardly damning attacks on Jews are you?
•Demand an end to foreign support for Hamas: Iran and Qatar both fund and support Hamas, and Iran in particular constantly expounds Jew hatred, including Holocaust denial and tropes about Jews running the world. Maybe, just once, protest against the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Of course you can criticise Netanyahu, any Israeli political party, you can call for the occupation to end, you can call for a Palestinian state, but if you are silent on Hamas, silent on the Jew hatred that drips from Palestinian political movements and welcome explicitly anti-semitic individuals and their rhetoric into your protests, you’re part of the problem.
Some activists say that if you have one Nazi at your protest, you’re at a Nazi protest. Well, there is no lack of people that are part of the pro-Palestine movement who expound Jew hatred. Whether it is the trope that the Jews run the world, or that Mossad was responsible for 9/11, the Holocaust was exaggerated (or there was a good reason for it), there is plenty of evidence that that movement attracts Jew hatred.
Maybe, just maybe, treat these like you claim to treat people who are racist…
Oh and calling "despicable" the act of lighting a museum in the colours of the Israeli flag days after it had suffered an explicitly anti-semitic attack of Jew murder, isn't caring about Jews, is it MP for Auckland Central?
Sadly I wont be holding my breath while you pretend all your colleagues, friends and fellow travellers are all good people who are “anti-violence”.
When the leftie kids go on marches shouting "globalise the intifada" alongside the geriatric tankies and the blood-thirsty Salafist and Wahhabist Islamists (who know what it mean), they probably think it means protest marches, blog posts and "deplatforming" Jews Israelis.
Well Bondi is what it means. A group of murderers out to target Jews in a place far away from the Middle East, living lives of peace. It's not just the 15 murdered by the fascist Islamists, it's the pipe bombs found and the car containing explosives. The intifada perpetrators wanted a bloodbath - in Bondi - because they hated Jews.
Whether it's about Gaza or Palestine, or the age old belief that Jews control the world, or whatever it is, doesn't matter so much. When you call for a global holy war for your cause, then this is the result. This, when Gaza is under a ceasefire.
Jews are frightened in Tel Aviv, London, Paris and Sydney, and everywhere, because politicians enable a small bunch of radicals to let fascist ideology take over marches and protests that started almost instantly after the 7th October pogrom was launched.
Jews are always afraid of Nazis, so are Muslims, so are the many others Nazis hate, but they aren't the main cause of their fear. They fear the (Iranian supported) Islamists who want to wage war against them globally, and the far-left academics and students who cheer them on, or apologise for them, or now... say this is a false flag that Mossad set up.
The problem is mainstream politicians, not just the far-left, have appeased it as well.
If you don't think there is a direct line from the ghouls who were "elated" on Sydney streets after 7th October, or stood outside the Sydney Opera House shouting "where's the Jews" or "gas the Jews" (it hardly matters), then you're kidding yourself.
It's time for those politicians to come out, to make it explicitly clear that there shall be no intifada, that Jew hatred must be expunged from the public space AND from mosques that expound it, and that Australia is no place for anyone who justifies terrorism, or wants to make any peaceful citizens fear for their existence.
Apologies, I've been following this whole segment of road for far too long, from growing up being driven through Mt Victoria Tunnel, to some work on the Inner City Bypass 20 odd years ago to living near the tunnel today.
....
The Government’s proposal for a 2nd Mt Victoria Tunnel, 2nd Terrace Tunnel, reconfiguration of the roads around the Basin Reserve and widening of Vivian St is the latest set of proposals to fix the unfinished business of the Wellington Urban Motorway. We will see whether all, some or any of it proceeds, but for the sake of Wellington at least some of it should (specifically the tunnels), because the status quo, notwithstanding the largely evidence free claims of Green Party politicians, is an absurd waste of time and energy in a city of this size.
History
It wouldn’t be hard to write a book about the history behind all of this, which started with then US consultancy firm De Leuw Cather, preparing a “transportation master plan” for Wellington. It considered the option of a waterfront motorway (see Seattle and San Francisco for now demolished versions of this), but preferred what was known as the Foothills Motorway. It follows the existing motorway, with two instead of one Terrace Tunnel (3 lanes each way), with 2 lanes continuing on a motorway going under and over various streets and, initially, demolishing the Basin Reserve for a motorway interchange, before finishing up at a second Mt Victoria Tunnel (2 lanes each way using the existing tunnel). De Leuw Cather also proposed placing the Wellington commuter rail service underground to Courtenay Place, through the reclamation land. Of course that latter proposal wasn’t going anywhere, but the motorway started from Ngauranga (not connected to Ngauranga Gorge, but rather as just an extension of the Hutt Road from the Hutt). In the 1960s and early 1970s, the motorway cut a swathe through Thorndon and Kelburn, with much of a cemetery dug up and interred in a mass grave (don’t think that this was an era of much consecration to Christian religious values). However, the 1974 oil crisis (entirely stemming from the Yom Kippur War) saw a slowing down of the project, with the Muldoon Government ultimately deciding that it (and multiple other road projects) would be terminated at Willis Street, with the segment from Bowen Street south halved in scope. One Terrace Tunnel, one lane southbound, two lanes northbound.
At the time, with the motorway only being SH2 (SH1 still being the Hutt Road from Ngauranga to Aotea Quay, and continuing along the waterfront to the termination point of Jervois Quay and Taranaki Street), this made some sense. It was never congested, and the scale of traffic through Te Aro was easily handled by the Vivian St/Ghuznee Street one way pair.
In 1983 the Ngauranga Interchange changed all that, by around doubling traffic on the motorway, the end of the motorway became a bottleneck, exacerbated by the single lane in the tunnel. Further bottlenecks existed with Ghuznee Street and Buckle Street, with the dog leg route from the Basin Reserve to the motorway being utterly unsuitable for the traffic volumes going through it. This situation persisted for 12 years.
Meanwhile, a scaled back proposal to ease the traffic pressure came from the then National Roads Board. A motorway extension designed as an arterial highway with 70km/h speed standards. The original plan to destroy the Basin Reserve for a motorway interchange (which had been shelved some years previously) was replaced with a highway bridge across the northern boundary of the park. The Terrace and Mt Victoria Tunnels would be linked by a fully grade separated highway going under Willis and Victoria Streets, severing Cuba Street (except for a pedestrian bridge), passing over Taranaki Street before darting under Tory and Sussex Streets. One lane would extend from Mt Victoria Tunnel under Sussex Street to join a second lane from the south. Whereas one lane would exit at the Basin to Cambridge Terrace and Dufferin St, with one lane extending to Mt Victoria Tunnel.
1980 scaled down motorway extension proposal before it got dropped in a trench in 1991
Fully trenched but not covered in this brutalist image that looks like it was designed to kill it
The next decade or so would see the project rise up the regional priority rating, as other projects were built: Upper Hutt Bypass, Mungavin Interchange, Silverstream-Manor Park 4-laning etc, but then the funding system for roads was reformed. The Ministry of Works was abolished, and shortly thereafter, Ruth Richardson slashed funding for roads. At the time, funding was mostly allocated based on a cost/benefit analysis, with 25 year return periods. For around two years funding was not even sufficient to keep up with maintenance, and as the 90s progressed, the Wellington Urban Motorway arterial extension went up in cost and was always borderline for funding. However, it always had a BCR of over 2 when the threshold for funding was 5 or 4.
At the same time the nascent Green Party campaigned vehemently against it. To try to address concerns the project was first redesigned to be trenched the whole way across Te Aro, then put in a cut-and-cover tunnel to the bridge on the north of Basin (called Tunnellink). However, it was clear by the mid 1990s that funding wasn’t likely for over a decade. So a three stage project was advanced. First a simple one-way pairing of Buckle and Vivian Street, followed by what is now known as Karo Drive. Karo Drive literally took around 12 years from its inception to opening, largely because of the opposition to it by the Green Party spreading vast amounts of misinformation. Then Green MP Sue Kedgley always called it a “motorway extension”, and eventually when it got funded by Transfund, and all legal avenues under the RMA to stop it were exhausted, it got built. It was only meant to be a ten year stopgap until the Tunnellink could be built.
However, by then Transit NZ (later to be merged with Transfund and the Land Transport Safety Authority) had largely given up on the idea of a cut and cover tunnel. So the next step was to fix the Basin Reserve, and plus ça change it was stopped by an organised campaign of the Greens and Mt Victoria NIMBYs. This was for a two-lane 50km/h one lane bridge clear of the Basin Reserve, westbound.
2001 - preferred Basin grade separation without Tunnellink
2008 - one of the options for the Basin Bridge
At the tail end of the Key/English Government there was a commitment to a second Mt Victoria Tunnel, but of course that all was stopped under the Ardern Government, as the Greens made sure that the Let’s Get Wellington Moving project would prioritise emission reductions, and put little value on reducing general traffic congestion.
The Ardern/Hipkins Government did support a second tunnel, but it was to close the existing tunnel to motor vehicle traffic, and build a new one with four-lanes, two for buses. In short, no relief for general traffic.
What’s been proposed?
So here we are today with essentially five main elements to upgrading SH1 through Wellington. Once again the Greens are talking about “building a motorway through Wellington” which it absolutely does not do. It doesn’t build one metre more of motorway, but it does widen one section along an existing motorway corridor. The five elements are:
-Second Terrace Tunnel
-Upgrading SH1’s one-way pair through Te Aro
-Basin Reserve reconfiguration
-Second Mt Victoria Tunnel
-Widening eastern approach roads to Mt Victoria Tunnels.
Second Terrace Tunnel: This is sensible, because it will the single biggest measure to remove 20% of traffic from the waterfront route. It is on a smaller scale than the original proposal (will be two-lanes not three southbound and the existing tunnel will only be two-lanes northbound), but should not be controversial. What will constrain it is…
Upgrading SH1 through Te Aro: Reversing forty years of planning, Te Aro will still be blighted by heavy highway traffic pushing through it, by widening Vivian Street (which has been designated on the Wellington District Plan for many years) to three lanes one way. As a stopgap this is satisfactory from a traffic flow point of view. but is hardly a long-term solution. It should have a cut-and-cover tunnel along the line of Karo Drive, which would be expensive and disruptive, but would be transformational for Te Aro. A proper bypass would make a huge difference, but for now with the two tunnels being the major bottlenecks, that idea isn’t progressing. In short, this will be the new bottleneck, exposing the greatest number of pedestrians (and traffic) to delays and emissions. It’s the cheap part of the package, and it will need to be addressed at a later date.
What’s disconcerting is that there is little future proofing to enable a solution to his, especially with this proposal…
Basin Reserve reconfiguration: There is no shortage of options designed to fix this problem, which is essentially the need to separate east-west traffic from north-south traffic, while also allowing it to interchange. The latest proposal partially separates traffic, but it means the same number of traffic light controlled intersections westbound and eastbound on SH1. See below:
No doubt clearing Mt Victoria Tunnel congestion will improve eastbound flows, but it is far from clear that retaining a network of pedestrian controlled traffic lights and keeping SH1 at ground level in front of the Basin Reserve will not create new bottlenecks, and worsen the concentration of traffic/emissions across the northern side of the Basin. The Rugby/Dufferin Street sections outside the schools will be quieter, but be a ratrun for traffic from the city to SH1 west, and from Newtown to SH1 east. The big winner is north-south traffic to and from Newtown towards the city.
No doubt there will be a net improvement, but it is clear from the proportion of benefits of the total package that this is where not much will be gained. What’s particularly concerning is that it doesn’t look like it provides for future proofing building a parallel eastbound pair of lanes to take traffic from Vivian Street and over to the second Mt Victoria Tunnel. I understand the reluctance to elevate SH1 near the Basin, but it could be done by elevating Sussex Street over SH1 and building an artificial hill to carry the road with significant mitigation of the visual and noise impacts of a bridge. This is a mess. The new Green Link looks like it is preserving an option, or maybe it is preventing it.
Second Mt Victoria Tunnel: This is like past proposals and is entirely suitable as a solution to this problem. It is a shame that westbound its capacity will be constrained by unnecessary intersections at the Basin.
Widening eastern approach roads: Four-laning Ruahine St and Wellington Rd (six lanes at points) has long been the right approach, but the design of intersections seems bizarre indeed. Grade separating at Hataitai Park (to a new road where houses currently exist) seems over the top. The removal of Taurima St access to Mt Victoria Tunnel needs a solution, as does access to Hataitai Park, but why is this intersection getting such lavish treatment, but Wellington Rd/Ruahine St (which enables access from Newtown to the airport, from Hataitai to Newtown, and for access to southern Newtown to and from SH1 bypassing the bottleneck in front of the Hospital) is curtailed to simple slip lanes in one direction only? The latter should be a full scale intersection. Previous plans simply had an elaborate intersection at Goa Street, although there is some merit in having grade separation, it seems odd that a low traffic intersection gets it, but not the much heavier traffic ones at Kilbirnie Crescent and Evans Bay Parade (although imagine the outcry if that were proposed).
There are lots of minor details in this section which make access between Kilbirnie, SH1 and Hataitai worse, presumably to save money from more comprehensive wider intersections. Much of this looks worse for residents. In particular, anyone driving from Newtown to the airport will weirdly have to drive through Kilbirnie’s CBD (but not in the other direction). Anyone driving from Hataitai to Newtown will either have to go through Mt Victoria Tunnel to ratrun past the stands at the Basin Reserve, or go into Kilbirnie and ratrun up Duncan Tce. (a narrow street with poor visibility at the top).
This is all details though in intersection design, which I expect locals to have their views on. The Greens are claiming a big increase in traffic in Moxham Avenue will occur, but that’s mostly a shift from Taurima Street and the existing intersection on Ruahine Street.
Thinking more widely
There is talk of tolling the route, although no details have been presented, it is difficult to envisage it not simply being at the tunnels. On its own this would have merit if the whole proposal enabled free flow traffic all the way. It doesn’t. Paying a toll to drive through the Terrace Tunnel to end up at Vivian Street isn’t a compelling proposition, and would divert local traffic from the tunnel to The Terrace. Likewise paying to use Mt Victoria Tunnel to reach a pair of traffic light controlled junctions by the Basin Reserve. A full scale freeflow bypass would be another proposition, offering a high value fast trip, but that isn’t what is proposed.
On the other hand, a central Wellington congestion pricing scheme within the boundaries of SH1, which helps pay for this, would have much more merit as it would reduce traffic towards the city at peak times, and enable better flow of traffic around it. An AM peak inbound, PM peak outbound price for driving in and out of Wellington on weekdays would have some merit.
Much has been raised about the BCRs of the project, but although I put some value on economic analysis, when it comes to tunnels, the return period for them is much longer than any conventional highway or bridge. Tunnels last almost forever once dug, and only need moderate upgrades throughout their existence. So I treat the two tunnels as very long term investments in addressing the resilience of the city’s transport network, and enabling a future full scale bypass of the city.
Claims from the likes of the Greens that “car tunnels” (a deliberate misinformation campaign to diminish the role of freight and buses) will just induce more traffic are largely nonsense, especially if congestion pricing is introduced in parallel. There is no more capacity that will be build north of Ngauranga Interchange, so more traffic cannot be attracted from that direction, and with much of the traffic on the route bypassing the city, little of that is going to be attracted from public transport to driving. Modern cities have good bypasses, Wellington has lacked it for decades.
So I’m in favour of the tunnels, in favour of the widening east of Mt Victoria Tunnel (with some caveats), but the upgrade through Te Aro is cheap and nasty, and needs to make provision for something better once the two tunnels are built. It will be obvious the city needs a proper bypass. The Basin Reserve proposal is messy and poor value. It’s unclear why north-south traffic going in a four-lane trench is better than being on a four-lane bridge over the east-west traffic, and why so many light controlled intersections should be kept. It should be reconsidered.
And for the opponents...
"A City for People" is, of course, a Green Party oriented activist site (they always claim to be non-partisan, even though the members are largely not) ideologically and philosophically aligned to the other Green oriented activist ginger groups (which have a lot of interchangeable members) like Generation Zero, Parents for Climate Aotearoa, Cycle Wellington, Women in Urbanism, Renters United and the Sustainability Trust.
The propaganda inference is that if you don't support their policies, you don't want a "city for people". It's a shade of the People's Republics, which imply if you oppose them, you're opposed to The People. While I have some support for their campaign to enable more intensification, this isn't a group in favour of more freedom and less government. It is not in favour of people who want to drive, or people who ship goods or deliver goods.
It claims "A whole generation of people are being forced out from the city spending hours every day in traffic jams". While I have lot of sympathy about housing prices, the idea that people in Wellington are spending "hours every day in traffic jams" is nonsense.
It states:
The cost of this project is truly bananas. Per kilometre it’s the most expensive roading project in the entire country. It’s $2.9-3.8 billion (with a B - looks like this).
And it’s all about a relatively small aspect of Wellington’s transport problems: private-car congestion at selected times.
It makes no attempt to fix what will make the most difference to people (and LGWM’s origin story): the bus-network that’s already at capacity and hamstrung by being stuck in general traffic.
Even just for general traffic congestion, this project is jumping to a platinum-plated mega project solution before we’ve tried all the other things first.
It could do irreparable harm to Wellington, just as we’re starting the transition to being a real city.
It IS expensive, but tunnels are. I'd note that the Let's Get Wellington Moving project to build a single tram line to Island Bay and a second Mt Victoria Tunnel that added no new road capacity (but freed up the existing tunnel entirely for cycling and walking, and added lanes for buses) was $7.4 billion. That would have delivered a tram to Island Bay that would have been no faster than current bus services, and only modest relief to traffic congestion at the Basin Reserve.
The claim that the proposal is just about addressing "private car congestion" is misinformation, and minimises a situation that exists most of the day during weekdays and much of the weekends. It also affects bus congestion from the eastern and southern suburbs at the Basin and Kilbirnie Crescent. It isn't just cars, it's also trucks (the Greens pretend freight doesn't matter), taxis and rideshare services, besides the majority of trips undertaken in Wellington are by car, either as drivers or passengers.
It WILL fix bus network capacity issues, especially at the Basin Reserve, Kent Terrace and from the Eastern Suburbs, as traffic will flow much more freely, and take 20% of traffic off of the waterfront route. It's wilful blindness to pretend otherwise (because these people think any new road capacity is malign).
The claim it is a "platinum plated mega project solution" before "we've tried all the other things first" is pejorative nonsense, especially from people who were happy to spend double that, mostly on a tunnel and tram line. The only option that might help somewhat is road pricing, but the advocacy for that is muted. There is no realistic chance of significant modal shift for trips that bypass the city, because they have a diverse range of origins and destinations. Likewise, without an additional tunnel to the eastern suburbs, there will not be modal shift from there as buses cannot flow freely. It's fair to object to spending a lot on transport infrastructure, but not when you're solutions are more expensive and require significantly more taxpayer cost over time to subsidise their operations.
The claim it could do "irreparable harm" to Wellington is pejorative hyperbole. The land for the second tunnels is hardly significant, part of it is within the motorway corridor in any case.
Finally, their claims about the proposals are weak:
It aims to “fix” traffic congestion by building a bigger road in the centre. Never, not ever, has this worked.
If you look at the numbers for how LGWM’s package was going to “fix traffic”, it wasn’t the very expensive road-building that was going to do the heavy lifting: it was congestion charging (digital infrastructure and some gantries) and the second spine for public transport (paint, signage, timetabling). And the costs for civil construction (which this expansion project is all about) have rocketed since then.
There are lots of flaws with the logic: smooth, faster-flowing traffic through the city centre while also somehow not worsening severance in Te Aro, and while also allowing lots of cars to turn on and off it…
Its Cost-Benefit Ratio is already low (even with the extra-low discount rate now allowed to be used) and the Inner City Bypass was found to have been probably not worth the money spent on it (we lose more than we gain from having it) so it’s highly likely this will be worse given its far greater costs. The opportunity cost of this public money is dismaying.
First bullet is wrong. It is not a bigger road in the centre at all, and yes building new roads has fixed congestion in many cases, especially in smaller cities. Many cities have inner bypasses that work, such as Oslo, Berne and Bergen, and they DO relieve congestion. The first motorway in New Zealand, the Johnsonville-Tawa segment, remains adequate for traffic at most times and there is NO proposal to widen it. It's time that the oft-claimed "every new road induces traffic until it fills up" is tempered by reality that this is only true in some cases.
Yes, congestion charging will have a big impact on traffic, which is also being enabled by this government. The second spine for public transport wont work effectively without a better bypass to take through traffic off the waterfront (and any good congestion charging scheme enables traffic to bypass it because public transport does not do well serving most demand that does not start or terminate in the central city). Furthermore, just converting lanes on the waterfront to bus lanes will make congestion worse, which backs up to buses elsewhere in the network.
The third bullet has a point. Not building a proper bypass under Te Aro will worsen the severance due to SH1, but the Greens spent years campaigning against a cut and cover tunnel under Te Aro to fix this. Nothing will magically fix this problem, short of kneecapping the economy and demand for travel.
Yes it is a low value project, but it underestimates the real lifecycle benefits of tunnels (which last for much longer than any appraisal period). It is fair to argue about the opportunity cost of the money, but then I don't think the people pushing this want people to pay lower taxes and spend the money themselves! The Greens opposed the project when it had BCRs of 2-5 in the 1990s, with a much higher discount rate and 25 year appraisal period. It is difficult to believe that if it had a BCR of 5 or 10 the opposition would change, it is a blanket opposition to any new road capacity regardless of whether it is priced or not.
The whole wording of the opposition is childish and sneering towards people's choices. The language that sneers at ""popping down to Moore Wilsons” and “going to pick the kids up cos it’s raining”" is misanthropic. So what if people want to do that, as long as they pay at peak times. Most people can't live within walking or cycling distances of where they want to go.
These groups stopped Wellington getting a proper bypass in the 1990s and beyond, and the blight of having at at-grade SH1 through Te Aro is because of this philosophy.
Could it be better? Yes. Should there be pricing? Yes. Should it mean the tunnels shouldn't proceed? No.
When Jews get targeted in what should be safe liberal democracies, it doesn't quite see the same response as when Muslims or targeted or even the general populace. We all recall that, by and large, the Christchurch mosque attack saw universal outrage and condemnation. Muslims targeted for who they are. Utterly innocent, and nobody would utter that they had some fault because they hadn't condemned say the Taliban, ISIS, Iran or any of the multitude of Islamofascist terror or totalitarian regimes. Certainly had anyone wanted to protest against the actions of any such groups the very next day, it would have been frowned upon and scorned. However, when it comes to Jews, targeted by association with Israel and therefore the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza, there is no thought around taste and sensitivity. The "pro-Palestinian" protestors (who range from people expressing concern over humanitarian conditions, to those wanting to wipe out Israel and "globalise the Intifada" (!) don't give a damn, after all it wasn't THEM doing it. Besides, "genocide". If you think that there is a deliberate campaign to wipe out an entire people, then a few Jews being killed by a jihadist are a mere detail.
Jews, you see, have a tryptych of groups who hate them. Traditionally their chief enemies were the (self-styled) Christian-aligned far-right, which of course inspired the Nazis, and are seen today in the actual far-right (you know, the Holocaust denying, "wrong side won the war", white power, big state type - not the current trend to call free-market liberal or traditionalist conservatives fascists). Their attacks on Jews are rare, thankfully.
The bigger problems are Islamists, often motivated by wanting to wipe out Israel, but also buying into pretty much the whole panoply of neo-Nazi conspiratorial Jew hate, and the far-left. The far-left, who also tout the anti-concept "whiteness" see Jews as "ultra-white". Jews are rich, successful in many industries and in politics, and of course are seen as "colonists" wherever they go. In the far-left's endless desire to categorise people under critical theory as "oppressed" vs. "oppressors", Jews get placed in the latter, so they don't count... again. They don't count.
If they were from any other minority, no one on the left would have the slightest trouble denouncing the deaths of 53-year-old Adrian Daulby and 66-year-old Melvin Cravitz as the result of a lethal racist attack. A terrorist with the resonant name of Jihad Al-Shamie – talk about nominative determinism – went for them because they were Jews.
He continues:
Last night pro-Palestinian demonstrators couldn’t give it a rest – not even for 24 hours. They were outside Downing Street and Manchester’s Piccadilly station, chanting all the old slogans and ducking all the hard questions. ‘Globalise the intifada,’ they cried – does that mean killing Jews in Manchester? ‘Palestine will be free from the river to the sea’ – does that mean driving out all the Jews living between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan?
It should be the easiest thing in the world for pro-Palestinian demonstrators to reject accusations of Jew hate and dismiss these questions as smears. It’s not anti-Semitic to denounce Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli far right. Nor is it in any way racist to deplore the reduction of Gaza to a charnel house of rubble and bones.
Yet much of the British left cannot defend itself against charges of bigotry because many leftists (not all, but many) refuse to define anti-Jewish racism and declare it unacceptable. They can’t and won’t because any condemnation of anti-Semitism would imply a condemnation of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian theocrats. Rather than take a stand against the very people who have led the Palestinian cause to disaster, they prefer to say nothing at all.
Excitement is the often overlooked element when it comes to anti-Semitism – an excitement that is almost sexual. There is a sadistic feeding frenzy to this anti-Jewish crusade, as though the rape rampage of Hamas made the cause of anti-Semites more, not less, worth rallying around. The ‘Paraglider Girls’ convicted this week appeared like overgrown Girl Guides, their grim insignia a twist on badges for Kayaking or being an Emergency Helper – only evil.
The fact that the pro-Palestinian marches started before Israel actually retaliated was a big tell; these people weren’t marching against Israel defending itself, but in favour of Israel being attacked. Unless they all had access to a big old time-travel machine, of course.
Nazis did this, the far-right does this, Maoists do this, and the Islamists do it.
It is, of course, entirely possible to protest against the Israeli Government, to call for peace and negotiations for a two-state solution. Remember though that many of the protestors for Palestinians don't want this. John Minto's Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa explicitly says:
PSNA aims to change public opinion and bring pressure on the New Zealand government to join the majority of the international community in requiring Israel to recognize and support the following principles:
A just peace in Palestine depends upon the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland and the dismantling of the Zionist structure of the state of Israel, recognizing that the further partitioning of Palestine in order to create the so-called Two-State Solution would only lead to further injustice and suffering.
Acceptance of the primacy of international law and United Nations resolutions as the basis for the ending of military occupation and all forms of ethnic discrimination in Israel.
The international community's responsibility for upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the urgent need for the state of Israel to be called to account for its gross abuses of Palestinian human rights.
Justice requires the establishment of a single state in Palestine, bi-national, secular and democratic, with full and equal citizenship for all with ethnic and religious rights protected in a democratic constitution.
So it wants Israel to recognize (sic.) that it should be destroyed, it rejects the "so-called Two-State Solution" and wants a single state that is secular and democratic. This is the policy of Hamas, it isn't even the policy of Fatah and the Government of the Palestinian Authority.
The entire mainstream left, including academia and much of the media refuses to call out the extremists in the pro-Palestinian movement, who celebrated October 7th and call for destruction of Israel, chant "from the river to the sea" as part of that, and then call to "globalise the intifada".
Murdering Jews at synagogues is what globalising the intifada looks like. For all of the mealy mouthed nonsense, it's a movement of violence and harassment, and it co-opts far-left Jew haters and far-right ones to join in on their embrace of the world's oldest hatred.
Unless those wanting justice for Palestinians can purge themselves of their Jew haters, can purge themselves of those who are the Islamist far-right (a tautology I know) as much as the Zionist ultra-nationalists who want to declare Judea and Samaria as Israeli land and purge it of Arabs, are the equivalent, then they are accomplices to Jew hatred.
Here’s what happened next, as their friendly faces turned to, well, something else. “Go away,” one said. “Go away. You are a bad faith actor. We don’t want to talk to you. Just f*** off. It’s a really boring old line. You are disgusting.” “I am disgusting?” “Yes, you are disgusting. You are not a journalist. It’s very clear what your position is here.” Now, their voices were getting louder: “Piss off.” “Thanks for your time, I appreciate it,” I said retreating, but they were not finished. “What are you doing here anyway? You are prejudiced. Hopefully nobody will ever buy a book you write. You are a charlatan. You are a fucking racist.”
So they couldn't even accept Hamas bore some responsibility. Couldn't even say "sure, but Israel has overreacted".
It got worse:
I wish I could tell you that this was a one-off but I spoke to at least two dozen people and, with two exceptions (including a lovely black guy from north London who conversed intelligently and politely), the motivation for being here was obvious, potent and implacable. The hatred of Jews. I heard conspiracy theories (October 7 was a false flag operation), blood libels, and the pervasive view that the Manchester atrocity was not a heinous attack but righteous comeuppance for an evil people. My sense is that many felt liberated to say what they really thought by the proximity of like-minded others; the classic symptom of mob mentality.
We all know criticising Israel isn't anti-semitic. It's entirely reasonable to oppose Israel's actions in Gaza and not regards Jews as being to blame, wherever they may live (bearing in mind even around half of adult Israelis oppose the Netanyahu government).
However, we also know Hamas is explicitly dripping in Jew hatred. Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas has many times expressed Jewish conspiracy theories and questioned the Holocaust. Jew hatred is central to Palestinian politics, although it need not be so. Those who participate in pro-Palestinian protests that welcome Jew haters on marches - people who cheer on murdering innocent Jews a part of "globalising the Intifada" - are part of a movement of Jew hatred.
Think again, if there were protest marches that welcomed people who thought the Christchurch mosque attack was a false flag, or even justified, then we all know what those protests would be called.
It's time for the "pro-Palestine" movement to either exclude Jew haters, or be branded terror-backing hate groups, and for the far-left politicians who back them to deserve to be as ostracised as Nazis.
Who was it again who said that if you go on a protest and Nazi's attend, you're at a pro-Nazi rally?
Winston Peters has done the right thing. The entirely performative act of recognising the “State of Palestine” by three countries with left-wing governments is not a reason to follow. For a start, at least in the UK and Australia, the respective Labour (and Labor) parties fear losing Muslim voter support to minor parties or independents. The UK, Labour lost four predominantly Muslim electorates to independents in 2024. Some Australian federal divisions have similar challenges, with both independents and the Greens presenting challenges. France doesn’t quite have the same challenge, but France’s colonial past drives it to take its own stance to wage power in the region.
Objectively, nobody honestly believes that the “State of Palestine” actually exists. You’d think that might matter, but in this post-modernist age of relativism, then if you “believe” something is real, then it is true. So, let’s go through the factual basis for rejecting the recognition of something that can’t objectively be recognised as such.
The act of “recognising” a sovereign state is that of one state acknowledges another entity is legitimately its “equal” at least under international law. Almost always, this is a formality because states meet the formal legal criteria for actually “being” states. That being:
•Clearly defined borders
•Effective government over those borders and most of its territory
•A permanent population (comprising its citizens)
•The means to engage in relations with other states
The “State of Palestine” lacks most of this criteria for a whole host of reasons. It doesn’t have clearly defined boundaries. The State of Palestine has never existed, as before 1967 the West Bank was under the control of Jordan, and Gaza under Egypt. Given discussions on peace under the Oslo Accords were about this topic, it is clear this is far from settled.
There is no effective government over the borders of a not clearly defined territory as Israel and Egypt have control over those borders. Even if there were such control, there is no government with control over both the West Bank and Gaza, and even the Palestinian Authority has limited powers over part of the West Bank. With Hamas controlling Gaza, it hardly is a territory with effective control by the government. It’s hard to imagine a sovereign state without sovereign powers including that of entry or exit of its territory.
It may be possible to identify a permanent population, although many Palestinians identify as “refugees”, inferring they are not permanent residents of the land they live on. However, this isn’t such a barrier.
Of course, there are Palestinian ambassadors, embassies and other trapping of being a state, in terms of foreign relations, so arguably it does meet that criteria.
However, that’s not enough. There are not clearly defined borders, there is no effective government over most of the territory that could conceivably be part of a Palestinian state, and certainly not its borders. It may be easier to claim a permanent population and the means to engage in diplomatic relations, although given it can’t control its borders or airspace, it’s rather empty.
By contrast, Taiwan (Republic of China) absolutely meets all of those conditions, even if de jure it claims sovereignty over all of the territory governed by the People’s Republic of China, it’s clear where the demarcation line between the territory governed by the two Chinese governments is (and we all know the government in Taiwan has long ceded any formal interest in expanding its control beyond its current territory). However, you won’t see any serious campaigns to recognise Taiwan (for many reasons), but I digress.
Luxon and Peters had a choice. Look like they are following the UK, France and Canada (and over a hundred less than liberal democracies along with outright dictatorships), or look like they are following the US. What he did do was neither, although the critics bay it is some sort of Trumpian act (the ultimate pejorative nowadays, much worse than supporting Hamas or Iran), it is aligning NZ with Japan, south Korea and Singapore.
When the UK and others recognised the “State of Palestine” Hamas claimed that its tactic, of the 7th October pogrom “worked” alongside its sacrifice of thousands of Gazans as human shields for its members. “Pro-Palestine” activists don’t care about that, because far too many of them minimise Hamas’s pogrom, let alone its theocratic fascist policies (zero tolerance for political or religious dissent, zero tolerance for equal rights for women, let alone LGBT people), because they are driven more by hatred of Israel and Western capitalist liberal democracies than concern for Palestinians.
That doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a “State of Palestine” at some point, once there is a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that resolves the borders, the relationship between both entities, Israeli settlements, sidelining eliminationists on both sides, and guaranteeing peace and security for citizens in both entities. It appears difficult to envisage when neither side is willing to compromise or negotiate, but neither Netanyahu nor Abbas will govern forever. However, until there actually is a “State of Palestine” agreed which lets it fulfil all of the legal conditions for statehood, it is pointless “recognising” it.
Recognising Palestine DOES give succour to Hamas AND to Netanyahu, because it gives them both reason to snub any compromise. “You see, murdering Jews en masse DOES work, because it means they will create thousands of our martyrs and the world will hate them”. For Netanyahu “see the world hates us, to hell with them, we will ensure there is no Palestinian state”.
It's empty showboating, there is no State of Palestine yet, it’s absolutely right to refuse to engage in the nonsense of pretending there is one to recognise, even if you wish it existed. Peace on that sliver of land is a long way off, but it wont come from engaging in propagandist make-believe.
This is half serious, half humourous, because let’s face it, a majority probably wont vote, and a fair number will vote for MORE council, MORE spending, MORE stopping people doing things they don’t like and MORE making people do things they want. A fair number of people look at candidates who use clichés like “sustainable”, “equitable” and “inclusive”, and go “oh yes more of that”.
NZ isn’t like the UK, where local elections happen every year (different councils) and most candidates are party political. Those elections are used by voters to send signals about central government, which is frankly nuts. There is next to no value in voting for candidates because you like the National-led government or you hate it, because by-and-large, it wont make much difference at all. Sure there are Labour, ACT and Greens candidates, which is useful if you know you like or don’t like the party, but unlike Parliament most people who are party aligned don’t caucus together or vote identically.
In short, judge them as individuals more than their labels.
For my sins, I’m in Eastern Ward, so I’ll run through the Mayor, the City Council Eastern Ward, the Regional Council Wellington Ward and finally the Maori Ward vote.
MAYOR
Let’s not elect Andrew Little. The failed unionist popinjay who is looking for a sinecure in the twilight of his political career doesn’t deserve to be Mayor of Wellington. He’ll be better than the nice but dim Tory Whanau, but so would most Councillors. He wont list making Ramallah a sister city as an “achievement”, but part of his campaign is about “making public transport cheaper” which is literally nothing to do with Wellington City Council. It is a Regional Council responsibility. So he’s a pontificating poseur. Wellington has a dearth of significant private businesses located in the CBD, and is suffering the closure of retail and hospitality as the city slowly decays. A man who’s spent his life fighting employers and private enterprise and oversaw the irrelevance of unions he came to lead is not the person to revitalise Wellington. The fact he led student unions, including of course opposing voluntary membership of student unions should consign him to the dustbin of history along with the Berlin Wall. Rank him second to last.
I’m ranking Josh Harford of the Aotearoa New Zealand Silly Hat Party first. He is one of the smartest people standing for Mayor, and his vision for optimism is a good one. Sure some might say he is a joke candidate (and he is far cleverer, more subversive and interesting that the nihilistic William Pennywize, and there are enough unfunny clowns about), and you might say I am chosing him because I know him (although he's not the only candidate I know). In all seriousness, if he got elected it would uplift the optimism and publicity for Wellington more than any other candidates combined. Imagine the headlines if Wellington elected a young man with a sense of humour, sense of drive, sound academic record and proven willingness to work well with people across political spectrums. Leftie journalists will highlight his ethnic minority heritage, which he does not and which does him credit. He is his own man, and really will revitalise the city.
Now we all know he isn’t sure thing, so who to rank after Harford? There are three other groups of candidates. Lefties, righties and the ones you will laugh at.
Alex Baker is the Green candidate without being branded “Green” and talks in slogans. His priorities are “affordability” (which means rates, rents, house prices and transport costs – but it’s unclear how he can keep all of these down), “jobs” and “sustainability”. He wants land value rates, which on its own is worth considering, but he also wants to “complete the Golden Mile” (which will slow down bus services by eliminating the ability of buses to pass) and focus on bike and bus lanes to get the city “moving”, although there is no evidence this will make any material difference. His focus on climate change action isn’t credible to control spending or promote business. His ambitions suggest he will spend more money. Rank him last.
Scott Caldwell is to left and on X is known as the Scoot Foundation. He’s pretty smart, keen on more intensive development and is a housing abundance supporter. That’s good in itself. He’s dreaming if he thinks central government will pay more rates, he’s also dreaming to push an underground rail link through reclaimed land. However, having someone so pro-housing construction and antithetical to heritage protection is worth supporting over others. Rank him above Little.
Diane Calvert is a safe pair of hands and eyes on Council. She supports fiscal prudence and her Wellington Plan has a lot of merit. She wants to speed up consenting, focus on core services and maintaining assets and downscale the upgrade to Courtenay Place, and abandon the ludicrous Harbour Quays bus corridor proposal (which will worsen traffic and weaken the Golden Mile bus core). Sure, she’s no libertarian, no free-market liberal, but she’d be far more friendly towards revitalising the decaying private sector than Little. Rank her second or third.
Ray Chung’s entire campaign has been overshadowed by his ill-considered comments, from some time ago, about Tory Whanau. He's said a lot of things that get judged poorly in 2025, but the chap is 75. He’s committed to zero rates increases, which is ambitious, but a good goal, along with eliminating non-core activities. It’s difficult to disagree with that. Leftwing journalist from the Spinoff (!) Joel McManus did a hitjob on him which is hard to completely look past, and indicates he is unlikely to be the best choice for Mayor. He’s a useful Councillor as an antagonist to wasteful leftwing virtue signallers, but as Mayor he should be ranked below the better ones on the right. I’d put him above Little of course, but below Calvert and Tiefenbacher.
Rob Goulden has been around forever, but having been banned from Taxpayer Union events, it’s indicative that he too angry and combative. Arguably he’s on the right, but it’s not clear what he really wants and that’s not worth giving time to. There’s a lack of detail around prioritisation, cutting spending and scrutinising expenditure. I’d put him above Little, but only just.
Kelvin Hastie is another leftwing candidate whose weaknesses include being an arts promoter and venue operator, indicating he is likely to spend more on the arts. He talks of “sustainable growth” (any growth would be nice), and is committed to “affordable housing” without saying how. The Spinoff claims he wants to sell council housing to first home buyers, and supports the long-tunnel under Te Aro proposal (which isn’t happening and Council wouldn’t fund anyway). He has no chance, but rank him above Little.
Donald McDonald is well known because nobody really understands what he is promoting, bless him. Still he seems harmless enough.
William Pennywize isn’t funny.
Joan Shi seems fairly sound, focusing on core infrastructure and a business friendly environment, but also talk about “affordable public transport” (not up to the City Council). If she had a chance, I’d rank her reasonably, and certainly above Little, Goulden and Hastie, but not much depth here.
Karl Tiefenbacher has a solid record as an entrepreneur, and clearly has a chance as a centre-right candidate against Little. His support for faster consenting for housing, more scrutiny on the quality of cycle lane spending and constraining spending (and he understand the role of the City Council) makes him a strong contender. I’d rank him a strong third after Harford and Calvert.
CITY COUNCIL EASTERN WARD
Three councillors need to be elected here. Five are reasonable choices.
Ken Ah Kuoi: His name is dotted all over the ward, and is keen on fiscal prudence and focusing on “core services”, being part of the Independent Together team which is loosely affiliated. Fluent in Samoan as well. I’d rank him highly.
Alex Baker: See above. Don’t rank the Green in drag.
Chris Calvi-Freeman: He’s a bit of a leftie, but he knows transport policy well as a transport planner. He’d be an asset in Council and is pushing for the 2nd Mt Victoria Tunnel to have good facilities for al modes, which should not be controversial. He’s no ideologue on these matters, although his views on other subjects are less known. I’d rank him highly.
Trish Given: She’s a lot of a leftie. Promoting homes for all (how?), wants to future-proof the city against climate change (how?) and talks about a “fairer” city (which usually is coding for higher rates and more spending). Her website indicates she wants a very active council, so she’ll support much higher rates and spending. Don’t rank her.
Rob Goulden: See above. You might prefer him over the green/left, but that’s it.
Luke Kuggeleijn: The sole ACT candidate is a young man keen on avoiding wasteful spending, like the Golden Mile project. Standing for ACT in this ward full of lefties is brave in itself, so rank him highly, he’ll need it, and if he wins he'll be a breath of fresh air to shake this Council up into being more efficient and smaller.
Michelle McGuire: As with Ah Kuoi, she is with Independent Together with the focus on core spending and rates control. She has a private sector background. I’d rank her fairly highly.
Thomas G.P. Morgan: He has had nearly 30 years’ interest in local government, he uses his profile to talk about more… bus shelters. He has a lot of ideas, but I’m unsure that’s what is needed. I’m not ranking him highly.
Sam O’Brien: The Labour candidate is an urban planner, which is reason enough to rank him very lowly. He wants an affordable, accessible, resilient city, but clearly he wants to direct people’s property and businesses. He has a good chance of getting elected so rank him very low.
Jonny Osborne: A public servant standing for the Greens is enough to rank him the lowest. Like Andrew Little, he thinks he is standing for the regional council calling for “cheaper and reliable” public transport which is mostly regional not city council business. He’ll want more council and higher rates. Rank last.
Karl Tiefenbacher: See above, he’s worth a shot. Rank highly. He'll be an asset in Council.
WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL - WELLINGTON CONSTITUENCY
Five councillors to be elected here. It’s slim pickings. I can only get enthused about two, another three I might hold my nose and choose just to stop the hardened socialists.
Sarah Free: Was a Green City Councillor, now standing as an independent for the regional council. She’s not the worst option, being obviously a leftie she’ll back rates increases and more council spending and control. However, I’d rank her above the actual Green and Labour candidates. Middling ranking.
Glenda Hughes: She was a regional councillor before losing last time, and is trying again. Centre-right (former Nat), fiscally conservative, former cop and media minder, she’s safer with ratepayers’ money than the lefties. She should be one of the top five.
Alice Claire Hurdle: ACT’s candidate is the only one clearly offering a change of direction. Wanting less red tape on farms and businesses, and cost effective transport solutions, she will be valuable in constraining the ever expansionist regional council. Rank her first.
Tom James: This Labour candidate has as his top priority “faster, cheaper and more reliable” public transport, which is going to mean higher rates. For him “tackling climate change needs to be at the heart of our council’s work”, not core infrastructure or addressing key local issues. This makes him likely to hike rates, restrict development and virtue signal. Rank very lowly.
Tom Kay: Green in drag. He cares about our communities and environment, wants us safe from the impacts of climate change, with “cheaper, faster” buses. He will focus on protecting and restoring streams, rivers and wetlands, and reducing emissions. We don’t need an environmental scientist making the regional council a greater drag on development, and hiking rates. Rank lowly.
Mark Kelynack: It’s unclear really what he believes in, except much better public transport including a passenger reward scheme it seems. He seems practical, and the lack of ambition for the regional council doing more deserves a better ranking than the lefties. Maybe deserves to be in the top five.
Belinda McFadgen: Her career has been on environmental policymaking, science and law. She wants climate resilience, cost effective solutions and improving waterways. So she says she is evidence based, without the rhetoric of the lefties. She’s in the middling group, maybe above Sarah Free.
Henry Peach: Worst of the Green candidates, just say no.
Daran Ponter: The Regional Council chair and Labour candidate, he’s the Andrew Little of the regional council. This former public servant who was involved in the expansion of local government powers with the “power of general competence” wants more regional council rates, power and control. It’s telling that the second thing he lists is “lifting driver wages”, as if that delivers outcomes for bus customers or ratepayers. He’s a socialist who wants to end competitive tendering for public transport, lowering farebox recovery for public transport, and restoring wetlands. He is part of the problem of a regional council that is inflating rates and its role. Rank him very low.
Yadana Saw: Better of the Green candidates, but like all of the candidates (except Hurdle and Woolf) she is committed to hiking rates to increase pay above market rates at the council, and like Ponter talks of increasing public ownership of public transport, for ideological reasons (including the 18 new trains 90% funded by taxpayers through a central government she opposes). Just say no to her too.
Simon Woolf: By regional council standards he’s centre-right, but he’s really a centrist and quite sensible. Going to be much less keen on rates rises and ideological based expansion of the regional council’s functions. Rank him number two.
MAORI WARDS
Just say no. The last Maori ward city councillor won with only 872 votes. The lowest winning general ward city councillor had 2841 votes. It’s disproportionately unfair for there to be one councillor with so few votes having the same power as those with over three times as many. That’s without the more fundamental argument that it’s wrong to divide the electorate by ethnic identity, and treat that single councillor as the authentic voice of Maori in the city. Politicians talk about reducing division and working collaboratively. In a liberal democracy, voters are represented by whoever is elected by their constituents, including those who many voters disagree with. STV enables preferences to get the most preferred candidates elected. Maori voters included, and their preferences will be as varied as any other voters.
Libertarians don’t like local government much, generally. While some aspire for maximum devolution, similar to Switzerland, so that most government power (outside defence, foreign affairs and border control) is at the more local level, that would require a transformational constitutional change. Switzerland works because its best and brightest get concentrated at the canton level, and also because the crazy only happens on a relatively small scale, so is easily purged from public policy. The culture of referenda means more engagement on issues by the public, but it also delivers a wide range of results. Conservative, liberal, free-market, socialist views all get some airing, but by and large Swiss politics is one of gradual evolution. None of this describes local politics in the Anglosphere, and especially not NZ.
Local government to many libertarians is an anathema, because a fair proportion of the people drawn to it tend to have one of two sets of philosophical positions:
•Socialism (government should spend more, do more, regulate more)
•Cronyism (local government should preserve, to protect the business, property and interests of the councillor).
Many in local government are well intentioned, but it does attract people who aspire to central government, but most of all a lot of busybodies (albeit Wellington is much better off with far-left wingnut Tamatha Paul being a backbench MP in Opposition, than a Wellington City Councillor).
Some of them brand themselves as such. Of course the Greens and Labour campaign, always thinking that local government should address poverty, “save the planet” and grow, spending more and taxing more (notwithstanding claims of prudence, none of them want to cut the role of local government). The ones who want local government to get involved in foreign affairs are the worst. Whether it be sister city junkets or "recognising "Palestine"" or declaring a city "nuclear free", it's absurd wasteful stuff.
However, the busybodies aren’t always branded. Tory Whanau pretended not to be a Green, and in Wellington this election, Alex Baker is the Green Mayoral candidate not branding himself as such.
It’s less common to find candidates and even less common to find councillors who want local government to do less.
Since the Clark Government granted local government the “power of general competence” (which the Key Government did not repeal, nor will the Luxon Government), councils have felt free to do more and more with ratepayers money. We can see the results in the areas that councils have had responsibility for. Nothing exemplifies this better than water.
The state of water infrastructure is, in much of the country, a debacle, and that has until recently been left entirely in the hands of local government. It’s local democracy in full effect, implementing what both the left, and conservative devolutionists want, and they have failed due to incompetence and ineptness.
We saw this a few decades ago when they owned monopoly local bus companies, which were characterised by ever declining services, ever increasing pay for drivers, and a starving of capital for new buses. We can be forever grateful that this was taken off them, along with responsibility for local electricity distribution and retail (which was facing the same dearth of investment as water), and indeed even milk supply. Many are too young to remember what an absolute joke of an airport Wellington had when it was run as a joint local-central government entity. Once corporatised and part-privatised, decades of arguments about who and how a new airport terminal was going to be funded and built evaporated.
In the planning and regulatory space we see it in housing. Left to their own devices, Councillors choose District Plans and apply the RMA to drastically constrain the supply of new housing. While some of it is NIMBYism, most of it is because the culture of local government institutionally and politically is to be a block to development. It's a culture of no, not of yes, and a culture of "not there" rather than "why not there?".
Had the RMA existed a century plus ago, the railway lines through our cities wouldn’t have been built, and neither would any motorways (although I’m not saying the Robert Moses approach was the right one either), and many airports wouldn’t have been built, but most importantly most of the current housing stock wouldn’t have been built either. The RMA handed local government a powerful tool on development and it chose to strangle it.
So what do we face in 2025? Some candidates campaign for sticking to core spending and keeping rates under control, but plenty also push a series of cause celebres. Some want to “save the planet” by making driving less attractive because of “climate change”, even though it will make no measurable difference. Some want to ease poverty by… taxing property owners more and restricting house building. Some of course are “opposed to privatisation” because they are brain-addled socialist morons who think you’re all better off being forced to share in the ownership of some “asset” that, by and large, can’t be managed well by council at all (or is in a structure that doesn’t allow such management, like an airport or port).
Most candidates are “passionate about the community”, so much they want to pass bylaws on it, control development and decide how much to take from the community by force through rates, to spend on what it thinks is important. More than a few think my money should be spent on promoting arts and culture I don’t consume or want.
It’s worse at the regional council level. Candidate Tom James (Labour of course) says “For me, tackling climate change needs to be at the heart of our council’s work”. Really? How will we measure your success in doing that? Should you be punished if global temperatures keep rising? Candidate Tom Kay also say he wants to be “reducing emissions to slow climate change”. How deluded are these people?
Current regional council chair Daran Ponter says “I am committed to active community engagement, a vibrant Wellington , and supporting a thriving economy”. Really? Have you done that? How much are you making it thrive now? Like him, Green candidate Yadana Saw talks about having “helped fund” 18 new trains, which are in fact 90% funded by taxpayers through central government. She didn’t fund anything, she made ratepayers fund a sliver of it.
Even the highest profile candidate of the lot in Wellington, failed former Labour leader Andrew Little, campaigns on controlling public transport fares as Mayor – a function that is completely outside the purview of Wellington City Council.
So much is just pure charlatanism. Finger-wagging showboating by people you wouldn't trust to run you a bath, let alone run infrastructure competently (and of course they don't).
So what’s left? Well my first preference for Mayor will be going for a young man with ideas. Josh Harford. On a day like today, his policy of erecting large sails at the ends of Wellington to redirect wind to Upper Hutt “where it belongs” makes more sense than a busybody popinjay like Little. His mandate for optimism is well founded, but more generally the “Aotearoa New Zealand Silly Hat Party” has at its core the intellectual and cultural foundations of a good democracy. Not taking itself too seriously.
Josh wont be raising rates, he wont be telling people what to do, and best of all he doesn’t use the anti-concepts of 21st century post-modernist corporate, public relations double-speak that bastardises the relationship between reality and the public. He doesn’t talk about a city that is:
-Vibrant (it’s on a Faultline!)
-Inclusive (except for people who disagree with them)
-Innovative (like Council ever is!)
-Accountable (nobody is really held accountable for wasting money)
-Affordable (nobody is cutting rates)
-Collaborative (stop conspiring to spend more of my money)
So until New Zealand elects a central government to put the shackles on local government property (more than the removal of the four “well-beings” which frankly does little to achieve this), vote for whoever talks least about trying to do more, spend more and especially save the planet.
I might be bothered writing a voting guide for Wellington Eastern Ward, once I've worked how who to hold my nose and vote for!
To their credit, Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi disavowed it, but they should know that their own rhetoric about “superior genes”, and Oriini Kaipara’s celebration of the proportionality of her Maori heritage is going to lead towards this. It isn’t the exclusionary racist blood and soil nationalism of the actual far-right, but none of this would be uncomfortable in a far-right ethno-nationalist party.
The win by Te Pati Maori (TPM) of the Tamaki Makaurau by-election is hardly surprising, although that success is tempered by a low turnout, it reflect TPM’s underlying strength. Its populism. It's that populism that can lead into trouble for TPM, but also lead it towards nurturing dangerous narratives among its members and supporters.
Most of the media has too much unconscious bias in favour of the Maori national renaissance that it, by and large, neglects to see what a key part of TPM's success comes from. Populist rhetoric, policies and behaviour that promotes a strong emotional response from Maori, especially it would seem, rangatahi wahine. The decision to get Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke to lead the haka in Parliament was entirely strategic. It made her world famous (I even caught it being mentioned, approvingly, on the Gutfeld! show on Fox News - which is, by and large, MAGA central for US evening talk shows), which for TPM lifted them up for a new generation.
The term populist politics is almost universally used as a pejorative, because it largely plays to gut instincts and emotions, rather than a depth of thinking and reflection. Populism tends to thrive on an "us against them" narrative, which TPM hones very effectively. So much more rhetoric from TPM, from statements to their attire in Parliament is about differentiation, and as much as it may irritate some older people, especially non-Maori, that's the point. It's very easy to accuse National and Labour for being parties that bend to the wind and are weak on principles, but TPM isn't scared of being controversial. It thrives on it, because it literally doesn't care what the majority think.
It starts by its claim of being unashamedly Maori, but it drifts further into claiming it is the most authentically Maori (because it doesn't need to accommodate the "colonialists", like Labour).
Populism is all about a simple framing of what is wrong, and a simple framing of how to fix it. We’ve seen this before, as NZ First was built on it. The clue is in the name. NZ First had at its core anger at what was seen as a “betrayal” of the country ("us") by “them” – being the Lange/Douglas and Bolger/Richardson Labour and National governments. Betrayal to foreign investors and concern over immigration, essentially a xenophobic fear that foreigners who own businesses or foreigners that move to NZ are only in it for themselves and not for "ordinary New Zealanders".
NZ First was a response to a belief that neither major party put New Zealand first, and “sold out” the country to foreign investors, who bought privatised state businesses, and were “buying up land”. Furthermore, new immigration, particularly from Asia was “alienating” the local population, including Maori. After all, the 1996 General Election saw NZ First win a clean sweep of the Maori seats. It was a brief time when the dominant policy narrative was on free-market economics (although this had only minor impact on social policy areas like health and education), and NZ First could cater to this disenchantment differently from how the hard-left Alliance did (which was essentially the socialist wing of Labour having broken away).
Of course what NZ First did in the 1990s was scaremonger about immigrants. TPM isn't too far away from doing the same thing, as fear of immigration resonates with Maori who see it as another wave of newcomers that dilute their proportion of the population. Those immigrants tend to be wealthier than average Maori, more highly educated, and have children that do better than the local population at school and university. They also are less likely to be engaged with the criminal justice system. In short, because many immigrants are successful, well-behaved and peaceful, they feed narratives among some as to "why don't Maori do the same?". At its worst this antipathy towards immigrants is seen in violent crime and abuse towards them, and there are plenty of anecdotes of migrants facing racial abuse from Maori as much as other New Zealanders. Ferris's outburst last week hardly negates that.
In Scotland, the Scottish National Party (SNP) was built on the belief that Scotland could be independent from the UK and be better off, but it did nurture unabashed Anglophobia. Furthermore, it also promoted the idea that not supporting the SNP was traitorous to Scotland. Of course, the SNP was undone by actually having power and performing poorly, as there is only so much patience for constantly scapegoating Westminster as the source of your ills, when you get significant power to make your own decisions about what you do with your budgets. TPM almost certainly wont face that sort of scrutiny, which makes its own rhetoric potentially more dangerous. TPM knows that without radical and unlikely constitutional change, it will never lead a government at all. It can always blame the failures to meet the expectations of its voters on the "colonialists".
As much as TPM wants to be seen as inclusive and welcoming of all, its core belief system can easily be interpreted as highly divisive and hierarchical.
For her, that essentially say that unless you embrace the TPM view of the world, you are an outsider. She says that Tangata Tiriti are "comfortable loudly declaring they’re recovering racists, and they teach anti-racism, extremely secure in knowing their place side by side with tangata whenua ushering in a new Aotearoa.... Tangata tiriti accept and appreciate the reason they live in Aotearoa is because the Tiriti gives them citizenship and mana equal to tangata whenua... Tangata Tiriti are people of the covenant that is Te Tiriti o Waitangi. When you find a tangata tiriti that has a heart for the covenant it’s like meeting a long lost friend, the kind you know our tupuna fought to help treasure and protect. They want to make the burden light, hold up their side of the promise, clean up their own mess. They don’t want to lead our space they want to own their own, removing barriers of discrimination and clear the way to let us through, so we can live united in peace."
This is extraordinary stuff. Tangata Tiriti are original sinners who have to recover from their sin of racism and to "clean up their own mess". They only get the right to live in Aotearoa because their citizenship comes from Te Tiriti, not birth-right nor citizenship granted by a liberal democracy. Te Tiriti is like a Biblical text that grants "peace", what happens if you dare disagree?
Tangata Whenua can't be racist, presumably, which gives Takuta Ferris some reason to think he could say what he said.
Ngarewa-Packer, whether she knew it or not, was singing from the populist nationalist playbook. There are Maori (“us”), there are those who embrace our political-philosophical-cultural opinion (“Pakeha allies”) and the enemy. It’s a hierarchy that elevates its voters, as the indigenous people who are simultaneously superior to all others in Aotearoa, but also oppressed and marginalised. The scapegoat is the “colonialist” state.
TPM doesn’t really care about immigrants being upset with it, because its base isn’t keen on immigrants. TPM also doesn’t care too much about non-Maori being upset with it, not least because it sees Pakeha opponents as simply anti-Maori racists (seeing those that ridicule or denigrate Te Reo and claiming Maori just abuse their kids and waste their lives on benefits as being what many Pakeha “really think”) that fuel its base. It ought to care about calling those Maori who don’t support it “not really Maori”. That smacks of the Orwellian nonsense of Marxist-Leninists who claim that workers who don’t support the “workers’ party” are actually traitors to their class. The idea that Maori who are not with TPM aren’t really Maori is toxic nationalist racism. It resembles the nonsense concept of Third World Democracy which formed the basis for the one-party states of many post-colonial African states being dictatorships.
Clearly TPM's populism is working for it.
However, as much as Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer want to promote an image of inclusion and simply wanting Maori to manage their own affairs (which is entirely consistent with a genuine libertarian view of humanity), it's difficult to reconcile that with populism driven by nationalism which by definition deems them and their supporters as special, and others as redeemable sinners (and redeemable only if they concede to the TPM world view).
When TPM President John Tamihere tells Maori that they are living under a government "worse than Nazi Germany", he is feeding not just fear, but hatred and a justification to use all means necessary to overthrow the government. Of course no sane person could possibly equate the government to the Nazis, unless it was to rabble rouse and generate passion and anger. After all if you are fighting Nazis, is anything out of bounds?
This is not isolated rhetoric. Claiming the government is "pure evil" is akin to this, along with claiming the government is "erasing our future". This is absolutist eliminationist rhetoric which is alongside the claims of far-right white supremacists of the "Great Replacement Theory" that there is a programme to wipe out people of European ancestry.
Liberal democracies thrive when people with differences of opinions on how to address contemporary problems debate with some respect and acknowledgement that all are entitled to their views and expression of those views. They don't thrive when politicians seek to balkanise the population into a battle between "us" and "them", no matter what historic injustices have occurred by past generations. Particularly when they push a narrative that paints opponents as evil people who want to wipe their supporters out.
TPM leaders may think that all it does is change how people vote, but if it bleeds into changing how people interact in daily life, including giving succour to those who think they can commit or threaten violence against opponents, then it is dangerous divisive rhetoric that is every bit as racist and unhinged as any far-right ultra-nationalist movement. TPM isn't there yet, but the danger that it emboldens such thinking is very real.
