New Zealand politics in 2024

2023 was a year when New Zealand voters most adamantly said they wanted change. The near personality-cult around Jacinda Ardern had well and truly eroded, as the rhetoric around the government of “kindness” (implemented using the monopoly of legitimised violence of the state) and the budget of “wellbeing” (implemented by taking money from current and future generations) seemed increasingly empty. The government so committed to ending poverty had presided over the fastest increase in personal wealth by homeowners in modern history and its primary response was to tax landlords who didn’t want to rent out their properties for fewer than ten years without selling them.  It presented itself as a victim of external forces, whether it be Covid or inflation which NZ was constantly told was due to the war in Ukraine, even though many of NZ’s trading partners had lower inflation.

Although there was a brief flurry of excitement about Chris Hipkins, appearing to recalibrate Labour on “what matters”, voters were largely unconvinced. Hipkins follows Mike Moore and Bill Rowling in leading Labour to landslide defeats, albeit for different reasons. Jacinda Ardern is nearly invisible in the country that was hailed internationally for keeping Covid out, and she is now hailed internationally by those who never visited NZ, and she is now at Harvard, whose President Claudine Gay is surrounded by scandal around claiming that if a student of Harvard advocated for genocide against Jews, it would “depend on the context” as to whether it breached its policy on harassment and bullying. Claudine Gay is also now facing accusations of plagiarism in her earlier work.

The former Prime Minister of kindness hasn’t been approached for comment on what she thinks about the head of her new gig’s ambivalence about anti-semitism, but then again why would she abandon her career of highly-paid talkfests?

Meanwhile the 2023 election saw a threeway split in positions. While 27% were willing to give Chippy a go, 15% thought Labour had been far too timid and voted for the Greens and Te Pati Maori to advance a much more radical socialist, intersectionist, ethno-nationalist set of reforms including more tax, more spending, much more transfer of power from the state and Parliament to Iwi, and radical central planning around provision of health, education and the economy, let alone expansion of the welfare state to a universal benefit. 

The Greens and Te Pati Maori saw the changes as being that Labour didn’t do enough to address what it said it was doing about key issues such as climate change, poverty and Tino Rangitiratanga.  He Puapua was seen as a step along a journey of major constitutional change that would see Iwi standing side-by-side with Parliament and the “colonising” Government sharing power. Te Pati Maori successfully sold this vision to voters in almost all of the Maori seats, but Labour couldn’t sell the path of radical change to the general population, especially when questioning or criticising the path of more co-governance was simply labelled as racist and ignored.  

Fortunately around 55% (including some of the minor parties) voted in the other direction, with a mix of centre-right incrementalism (National), classical liberalism (ACT) and a touch of conservatism and nationalism (NZ First), with a couple of bones thrown at traditionalists.  It’s a historic switch in electoral support for Labour to lose 46% of the votes it gained in 2020 as a proportion of votes cast.  

The 2020 election was extraordinary, Labour got an unprecedented majority based almost entirely on having kept Covid 19 out of the country and life being relatively normal (albeit with foreign travel restricted for all but select politicians, officials and others chosen by the Government) compared to countries enduring extended lockdowns. Labour took that as a chance to embark on a series of radical reforms that ultimately saw its undoing. As it borrowed and spent to at first save businesses from collapse during the pandemic and then stimulate the economy, it went on to literally pay people money for nothing, and then blame inflation entirely on outside factors. As it increased benefits in order to address poverty (due in no small part due to a persistent housing shortage that can be blamed on governments of all stripes over the previous 25 years). it was no surprise that as baby boomers reached retirement age, a shortage of staff would emerge, as a generation withdrew from the labour force (bolstered by National Superannuation and inflated housing prices) and a growing number simply opted out of paid work altogether. Since 2017 the statutory minimum wage had been increased by just over 44%, even though prices in that same time had increased 25%. 

Reports of increasingly aggressive crime including ramraids were far too often dismissed or minimised, at least for those who were the victims of it, as it appeared that crime increasingly did pay.  Meanwhile, much needed reforms to the water sector had layered over them a complex governance structure that was to see Iwi, in four groups, deciding half of the members of boards, who would determine the members of another set of board, that would govern fresh, waste and stormwater infrastructure across the country.  This was all apparently because Te Tiriti now meant Iwi would have governance rights over whatever sectors the Government said it should – and infrastructure was now part of that.  It wasn’t enough for territorial authorities that own the infrastructure to consult with Iwi, not enough for there to be Iwi representatives on councils through exclusively Maori wards (which are democratically elected), but that Iwi would have equivalent powers to local government. Although some of the backlash against Three Waters was ill-directed mindless racism, the core issue – why should the future management of ratepayer owned assets be half governed by Iwi (who were already at the table of local government)?

Other completely unnecessary measures also gave the impression of a government less concerned about inflation and crime, than it was on social engineering and seeking to look as if it was addressing what it thought was important, when much of the public were concerned about the cost of living and threats to their families.

The aftermath of the Christchurch Mosque attack generated calls, particularly from parts of the Muslim community, to toughen laws on hate speech, primarily around religion. This raised concern that proposals advanced by the Ardern Government would constrain speech around ridiculing religions as “hate speech”.  Ultimately this was suspended, but it helped fuel a mix of genuine concerns around freedom of speech and conspiratorial concerns about a much more sinister intent.  Jacinda Ardern’s tone-deaf but well-meaning claim during the pandemic that if information “doesn’t come from us, then you can’t believe it” sounded straight out of the playbook of a dictatorship. No liberal democracy can or should claim it has the monopoly of truth, because it simply does not and cannot. 

The Public Interest Journalism Fund came from criticism that it was funding journalism that supported the Government’s policies, which although in some ways unfair, did include funding that specifically indicated a philosophical approach to some issues that was controversial, particularly around Te Tiriti. The lines between government and activism became blurred, including by the “Disinformation Project” which was clearly endorsed by the government, but which itself had its own ideological line.

The Disinformation Project of course has its own blind spots. It’s regular reporting of research by Byron Clark, former supporter of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (a breakaway communist led terrorist faction of the PLO) and the communist Workers Party of New Zealand, who was particularly focused on what he called the “far-right” didn’t ever reflect on the perspective someone clearly from the far-left would have on what is “extremist”. 

The 2021 controversy over the so-called “Listener 7” who claimed Matauranga isn’t science, and the long list of academics who sought to humiliate and denigrate them was also part of this dominant discourse in academia, media and politics. It was seen as an attempt to “cancel” and “close” debate on the topic, which extended to Dr Richard Dawkins in the UK, and responses claiming racism and colonialism emerged.  The debate around transgender rights, and the visit by “Posie Parker” supported by a coalition of womens’ rights activists and social conservatives saw similar discourse emerge, with a vehemence of anger and hatred.  All of this rubbed of on Labour, with a strong indication that there were opinions that brought “consequences” around employment and being accepted by academia, media and even business as having “correct” views on controversial topics. 

It's a side point that many of the same people who wanted “consequences” for challenging trans and Te Tiriti discourse run frightened when supporters of the Jewish community and opponents of Hamas condemn their Hamas-inspired rhetoric and slogans.

The majority of the voting public took in a mix of the narrative around the government, the cost of living crisis and concern about a lack of delivery (and performance personally about a growing list of Ministers who simply failed to meet standards of behaviour that should be expected of them).  ACT voters were dominated by those who had had enough of the growth in spending and taxation, and the politics of intersectionality and identity. National voters were primarily concerned about performance and lack of delivery, including the money wasted on expensive schemes seen as “out of touch” with what voters cared about. NZ First happily hoovered up the Covid 19 vaccine sceptics and opponents, but also returned to opposition to Maori nationalism and separatism and hitching onto other culture wars for convenience (see trans-rights).

There is now a National-led government that appears to clearly want to stem the growth in the state and, at the very least, return its size to that seen in 2017. It has clearly reversed some policies and is winding back reforms such as the centralisation of tertiary vocational training, the separate Maori health authority and Three Waters. Although some of the discourse around the government is catastrophism and projection of deranged phobia around its objectives (claims it wants to “erase” Maori or trans-people are unhinged nonsense), it is promising as a National-led government that actually is changing direction, which seems in part driven by ACT and NZ First both wanting to make their mark on the government. This should not be a surprise, as National did not win 40% of the vote, and is more dependent on both minor parties than it had been in the Key/English era.  There is also a generation of younger National, ACT and NZ First politicians who are fed up with a centre-right government simply pausing the advance towards more government and more compulsory collectivism.  

So far so good with most measures taken. It is obvious that Fair Pay Agreements had to go, along with the labyrinthine replacement to the RMA.  It’s particularly encouraging from an individual freedom perspective to see the removal of the tobacco prohibition measures, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth of neo-puritans on the left some who rightfully campaign to legalise cannabis but can’t see the inconsistency of prohibiting sales of tobacco to a growing number of adults.  We will wait to see what will come to replace the RMA.  

What I really want to see is for charter schools to flourish, to expand in number and for the thumping fist of the bureaucratic and professional union monopolies weakened in the control of the education system. I want the RMA replaced with private property rights. Nicola Willis has promisingly indicated willingness to cut core spending of many departments to 2017 levels, and for tax cuts.  

Of course, it wont be a libertarian government, but it looks like being a government that will turn back at least some of the spending and some of the regulation, and even some of the philosophical culture of the previous government. A government that is more interested in productivity and growth of private enterprise, rather than confiscation and distribution of the proceeds of production, and regulation and control of private individuals and their property. 

I can only hope that the calibre of Ministers will be on a significantly higher level than that of the Ardern/Hipkins era, and to be honest it wont be that hard. Nobody should pretend that it is easy to address crime or healthcare, because the fundamental reasons for both of this are long-standing and difficult to confront, but this government ought to focus on some key issues that it can start to turn around.  Educational choice and performance, and the barriers to enabling more housing.  If only it can adeptly take on the inevitable barrage of criticism from academia, media and the Opposition, who are eager to call it out as racist, misogynist, transphobic, white supremacist, neo-colonialist, neo-imperialist and every other blanket collectivist pejorative that can be lazily thrown around. Hopefully the front bench will have the testicular fortitude to respond intelligently and confidently to critiques, but more importantly give minimal reasons for criticism based on performance.

So in 2024 the National Party appears revitalised, and despite the critics, Christopher Luxon has emerged as Prime Minister, it is too early to tell whether the man as PM can prove to be greater than as Opposition Leader.  However, National might actually look like a government that isn’t conservative (in the sense of not changing) about Labour policies.

Labour is scarred, having few seats outside the main centres (Palmerston North and Nelson hanging on), and about to embark on a battle between the hardliners who think it lost for not being socialist enough (although if that were true, then those voters would have gone to the Greens and Te Pati Maori in sufficient numbers to give Labour a chance at government), and those who wonder how it could moderate its image and gain the confidence of voters again. For now, it looks like Labour will spend some time in the wilderness.

The Greens are buoyant because they have done very well indeed, winning two more electorates in Wellington, demonstrating very clearly the yawning gap between many Wellingtonians (including public servants, students and those working for industries supporting government) and the rest of the country, but maybe also the arrogance of Labour which thought it could parachute whoever it chose into two relatively safe seats, and win.  

ACT has a right to be pleased, because it will now have a more influential role in government than ever before. Hopefully it will be a greater success than Rodney Hide implementing Helen Clark’s vision for a greater Auckland Council, and it should enable ACT to stamp its mark on key issues such as education, gun regulation and freedom of speech.

Nobody rules out Winston anymore, as he pivoted and succeeded in being the voice for those who felt like their views, whether on Covid or Te Tiriti or on trans-issues, NZ First became the new conservatives, and a voice for those who felt unheard. The test for Winston Peters is whether he is seen as putting enough of a mark on this government to keep support for the following election. 

Finally Te Pati Maori will feel vindicated in reviving radical nationalist socialism with its support for the destruction of Israel and indifference to Russian irredentism. At best it showed Labour’s arrogance in assuming it still could own Maori voters, but at worst in indicates the outcome of many years of the promotion of intersectionality and structuralist theories in parts of Maoridom and by the state more directly. Labour funded and supported this philosophy while in government, and those who support it have found an authentic voice in favour of it – but it is not a position a majority of Maori, let alone voters in NZ, share.

Have a Happy 2024.

Which party to vote for? New Zealand General Election 2023

I’ve been remiss in not offering my opinions on the political parties registered for this general election sooner, but I thought it was about time to do so.  I tend to spend a bit of time thinking about it, but basically it comes down to two sets of choices:

• Parties that will on balance take away more freedoms, tax and regulate you more, and overall increase the role of state in people’s lives, and demote the role of the individual over politically-defined collectives vs;

• Parties that will on balance increase freedoms, reduce tax and regulation, and overall reduce the role of the state in people’s lives, and increase the role of the individual over politically-defined collectives.

And:

• Parties certainly or likely to be elected to Parliament vs;

• Parties that certainly or almost certainly will not be elected to Parliament.

So below I have written an alphabetical review of each of the parties seeking to be elected under the party list, with a ranking of their likelihood to be elected to Parliament. My basis for review is whether the policies are libertarian, rational and whether the people behind it are to be trusted or ooze more turpitude than usual for politicians.

For those who can't be bothered reading so far, gere's my overall conclusion. 

Of the parties that are likely to get elected, ACT is the best of a fairly woeful bunch, and it’s primarily because of education policy and what looks like a bias towards less government. It’s far from consistent, and so much rhetoric is populist pablum, but it’s worth giving ACT its first chance to be the main supporting partner of National (which it didn’t achieve under John Key, as he could use TPM and United Future to get a majority). So, I’m reluctantly giving it a tick. Sure you could give National a tick instead, but it’s not a party that will move much towards less government and more individual choice and responsibility. It’s better than Labour, but that’s a low bar to cross. You could gamble with NZ First, but the idea Winston would pull National towards less government spending, less regulation and do anything substantial about pushing back against Maori nationalism is almost laughable.

If you don’t really care about a change in government you could vote for one of a few micro parties. Of them, the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is the most consistently libertarian because it has one policy, although it can’t organise itself to get close to being elected or indeed anything else. Of the rest, the New Conservatives might appeal to socially conservative classical liberals, but not libertarians. The other micro-parties are either blends of socialism with claims about freedom (primarily linked to the Covid vaccine, but also climate change and freedom of speech), or led by lunatics (Liz Gunn) or grifting shysters (Tamaki/Grey).

I will be hoping for a National/ACT government without NZ First, because it gives ACT its best chance to prove it can move the dial and make some substantial steps to implement reforms that are needed. 

In short:

ACT: Hold your nose and give a little less government a chance.

Animal Justice Party: Vegan fundamentalist nutters

Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party: Free the weed, but nothing else.

Democracy NZ: Conservative breakaway with an odd blend of anti-vax and anti-GMO, but it will fade away.

Freedoms NZ: Grifters Tamaki and Grey on their latest con.

Green: Blend of eco-authoritarians and commie post-modernists keen to sacrifice us all for the greater good, and if you don't like it why are you so full of hate and want the planet to burn and children to die?

Labour:  Union-tempered version of the above with a focus on much more gradualism.

Leighton Baker Party:  Pointless breakaway from the New Conservatives that is worse organised and is for social conservatives.

National: The anti-Labour party that primarily exists to obtain and hang onto power when Labour frightens or angers the public too much to stay in power, but only rarely and erratically reverses anything Labour does.

New Conservative: Social conservatism with some economic liberalism, yet with little to say about cutting state spending. A shadow of its former self having been decimated by the rise of multiple conservative micro-parties led by egos.

New Nation Party: Inconsistent unhinged blend of conspiracy, localism, lower taxes but more government spending. 

NewZeal:  Alfred Ngaro's conservatives for lower taxes but no plans for less spending. Why bother?

New Zealand First: Like dejavu Winston rises from obscurity to find new causes to advance, this time it's back to opposing racial separatism, transgender activism and to be tough on crime.  

New Zealand Loyal: Liz Gunn's mix of quackery and communism.

Te Pati Maori: Maori nationalist socialists

TOP: The party of clever leftwing policy wonks who aren't clever enough to work out how to get elected

Womens' Rights Party:  Feminist socialists against transgender post-modernism

The parties

ACT: Certain to get elected. Not at all a libertarian party, but the prime contender to pull a National-led government towards more freedom and less government. In its favour is a revolutionary approach to education, including decentralising roles and responsibilities, including what are in essence vouchers and charter schools for all. There is a tougher approach to welfare promoting individual responsibility, and what looks like a belief in significantly liberalising planning laws and a more rational approach to climate change policy. David Seymour’s rhetoric on reducing government waste ought to instinctively mean a reduction in spending, and a plan to lower and simplify income tax rates, although it is mild indeed compared with previous years. ACT is willing to take on the thorny issues of identity and governance around Te Tiriti, which has been ignored for too long. 

However, it is far from being all positive, the policies that are published are weak on some elements of economic liberalising. Water policy can’t suggest corporatisation, privatisation and user pays, but in fact is some bizarre blend of Muldoonism and its over-enthusiastic belief in PPPs (across far too many sectors). Sharing GST revenue with local government is also remarkably wasteful unless local government’s roles and responsibilities are pared back, otherwise the likes of Wellington City Council will just keep building or subsidising more entertainment and convention complexes. Those who rejected Covid vaccines, and the mandates and restrictions placed on people during the pandemic have fair reason to be disappointed in David Seymour’s comments during that period. Finally, it’s approach to personal freedom issues appears largely limited to legalising pseudoephedrine. It would be nice if it campaigned to reverse the absurd tobacco ban.  

There is a reason to support ACT, because no other party likely to be elected to Parliament will have MPs who, mostly, have instincts to put the state sector on a diet and to oppose Nanny State moves that National may just continue with.  However, it is entirely understandable why some might just find it too hard to swallow David Seymour’s pivoting on issues like housing intensification or vaccine mandates. For me, the number one reason to vote ACT is its education policy.  Education more than just about any other policy, is in crisis due to capture by bureaucracy and professional unions who want to take a monopolistic approach to how children should be educated. No other party can do something about this. I might be hopeful about reform of planning laws that could enable more housing, but I’m not optimistic about ACT on this. The cycle of politics in NZ is that ACT will likely peak at this election, especially if National is seen to do well by 2026, in which case this is the peak chance for ACT to effect real change. So on balance, a vote for ACT is defensible as a vote to give National a backbone on some issues.  8/10

Animal Justice Party: Certain to not get elected. Misanthropic lunatics with no chance of getting into Parliament. The party of mandatory veganism and those who want to equate domestic abuse between humans as the same applying to animals (including the emotional abuse of denying your dog its favourite toy – by the way you wouldn’t have property rights over any animal either). With policies to end animals in agriculture, it is fundamentally authoritarian post-modernist nonsense blending a benign hippie-level kindness with economic catastrophe and anti-scientific hatred of humans. The only good thing about the Animal Justice Party is it no doubt take votes away from the Greens, so go on and promote it among your more dull-witted Green supporters. 1/10

Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party: Certain to not get elected. The ALCP is just about legalising cannabis, so you could argue having one libertarian policy (and not wanting to increase the state’s role in anything else) means it is the purest libertarian party. You can’t be said to have “sold out” for voting for the ALCP, and for some legalising cannabis means more than anything.  A vote for the ALCP is making a statement about an issue most parties have chosen to ignore since the ill drafted referendum. However, it is just that one issue, and ALCP have little chance of getting in Parliament. Voting for ALCP indicates you rather don’t care about education, taxes, housing, environmental, economic or other policies.  These things matter so 6/10

DemocracyNZ: Certain to not get elected. Matt King’s breakaway party is a breakaway rural oriented conservative party. It prefers climate change adaptation to mitigation and looks to do little about reducing agricultural emissions beyond supporting scientific approaches towards doing so. It does seem to have a preference towards less regulation generally. It is in favour of more education choice and devolving some power. Otherwise, it is primarily about vaccine mandates, and parallels ACT and NZF on race issues. However, it does have an unscientific attitude to GMOs. The latter is irrational and odd. Still, it is likely to be relatively benign, except of course there is no plausible path to Parliament or even influencing it. It gets a 4/10.

Freedoms NZ: Certain to not get elected. Grifting megalomaniac Brian Tamaki and fellow grifter Sue Grey uses the word freedom, but freedoms are selective indeed.  Radical on lower taxes (but next to nothing on how to cut government spending), the big pushes are on compensating the vaccine injured. It claims to want to reject Nanny State but has very general statements about “better health and education. There is the touch of the conspiratorial here too, and it wholly rejects climate change and wants to significantly deregulate almost all regulation affecting the rural sector. Prosperity theology is grand-scale grift against the vulnerable and needy, and from a values point of view, someone who promotes this doctrine is not someone who believes in smaller government. Sue Grey in a different manner is a grifter of pseudoscientific nonsense, such as fear over 5G, and although I have respect for those who choose not to take the Covid vaccine, to talk of it being distributed as “genocide” says a lot about who is she and what she is about. This isn’t a party of freedom, it is a party led by confidence-tricksters who target the vulnerable.  It gets a 1/10.

Green: Certain to get elected. New Zealand’s party of socialism is the anti-thesis of more freedom, capitalism, belief in the human individual and less government. The Greens want more government, more tax (now targeting not just when you earn or spend money, but also just owning property), more regulation, more government departments, and with the exception of a less punitive approach to drugs (except alcohol), there is almost nothing for anyone who believe in freedom with the Greens.  The Greens are also in the frontline of promoting post-modernist concepts of identity defining people as privileged or victims based on immutable characteristics, and of course have little interest in private property rights. Note the Greens want Treaty settlements to include private land, wanting the state to decide that your home has to be bought by the state when you decide to sell.  This is also the party that is uninterested in helping Ukraine fight Russia, but happily puts front and centre candidates that chant slogans about wiping Israel off the map. The Greens after all carry the foreign affairs stance of self-styled “anti-imperialists” who don’t care about wars waged by anyone anti-Western including terrorists. Moreover, the Greens are at the forefront of wanting legislation on “hate speech” and are keen to define that based on who is speaking not just what they say.  A vote for the Greens is a vote to pass more power over your life, property and the community to the state.  It gets a 1/10

Labour: Certain to get elected. Green lite, full of people who wish they could go more socialist, go more identitarian, go more government, more taxes, more regulation, more bureaucracy, but know it wont win them power to do too much.  I mean why would you bother? It gets a 2/10. 

Leighton Baker Party: Certain to not get elected. If you’re going to have a personality led party, it needs to be a personality that enough people like and know. In Australia, Pauline Hanson and Bob Katter have done it, with constituencies big enough to justify it. For a start, it has three party list candidates. If it crossed the 5% threshold, it wouldn’t have enough candidates.  It’s a fairly standard conservative platform, with a few good points, like wanting charter schools, one law for all, enshrining freedom of speech and to ignore climate change mitigation. Yet it also wants direct democracy for decisions like tunnels? Baker is a conservative in the bedroom, and if you can’t rustle up six candidates on the tiny chance you get 5%, then why bother? It gets 3/10.

National: Certain to get elected. The party of free enterprise and individual freedom is generally very poor at advancing policies that reverse the statist policies of a Labour Government, let alone shrinking the role of the state even incrementally, when in power. At this election National’s big pushes are around minor tax cuts, some spending cuts, but a lot of new spending. It’s difficult to see its education policy breaking the bureaucratic/professional union monopoly on delivery and avoiding performance measurement, and likewise for its policy on planning to gut the post-RMA regulation of land use that hinders housing, supermarkets and other development. There does appear to be willingness to turn back race-based bureaucratic and funding measures, towards need, and to place more personal responsibility alongside welfare, as well as repealing the productivity-sapping “Fair Pay” measures. It would be generous to think National would turn the clock back to the spending and regulatory environment of 2017, let alone 1999. Yes voting National stops Labour getting in power, but it primarily stops the march to the left rather than reverses it much at all. You could do worse, but a libertarian would want a lot better.  6/10.

New Conservative: Certain to not get elected. The New Conservatives have clearly been gutted by the plethora of micro-conservative parties. There’s not really a lot here in economic freedom, some useful principles around property rights, but a bigger focus on family.  Although I’m more conservative on abortion than many, granting personhood to fertilised cells is not compatible with individual freedom.  There is a space for this party to represent socially conservative economic liberals, but there isn’t a lot that shows them to be economic liberals, especially a big pledge of lower taxes with nothing substantial on cutting spending. 5/10.

New Nation Party: Certain to not get elected. Starting with anti-privatisation rhetoric, there is an interesting range of positions. It wants a written constitution to protect freedoms, which is fine. Leaving the UN is conspiratorial nonsense (you don’t need to leave the UN to ignore what you don’t like).  It wants a $25,000 income tax free threshold, and no tax on benefits, superannuation or student allowances, but again no policies to cut spending except a generic “reduce powers of central government”. Sure, reinstating oil and gas exploration is fine, but more “provincial” powers is not compatible with more freedom. Then it wants to investigate decriminalising cannabis. It’s quite a mix of opposing He Puapua, more health spending, more funding for tertiary students and effectively defunding RNZ and the media generally.  I’m generous giving it 3/10

NewZeal: Certain to not get elected. Alfred Ngaro’s personal project. Another conservative party, but with a few weird policies like enabling housing deposits of only 2.5% for first home buyers. There is little interest in lower taxes and shrinking government, so the real question is why would you bother? 3/10

New Zealand First: On balance likely to get elected. Yes we do all know Winston, the indefatigable face of next generation Muldoonism. Winston put National in power once, Labour twice. He pivots between economic nationalism, anti-immigration and toughness on crime, and this time is opposing Maori nationalism and separatism in the way only Winston can. He is also waging war on “wokeness” which he discovered a few months ago, just under six years after he chose to govern with the blatantly woke Jacinda Ardern and the woke-ultras of the Green Party. The problem is this, I can believe Winston didn’t know He Puapua was being developed when he was a Cabinet Minister because he is fundamentally lazy.  He spends two years out of Parliament barely saying boo, and when he IS a Minister he’s happy travelling and having his name linked to a handful of policies. If you think Winston is going to change policies, then I have a bridge to sell you.  Winston is a populist opportunist who has three times in 27 years been given senior Cabinet positions (and his floxham and jetsam of followers) and there is no evidence it has made any substantial difference to economic or personal freedom.  Yes he might get in, but he is likely to slow down reforms than accelerate them, so 3/10.

New Zealand Loyal: Certain to not get elected. Liz Gunn’s unhinged party that is also incapable of getting enough candidates to be represented adequately if it reached 5%. It’s easily the most conspiratorial party of all, not only is it anti globalism, but it is hysterically environmentalist. It is keen on quack remedies and a financial transactions tax. Anyone talking about Covid response as a “mini-Holocaust” is not just hysterical but vile. It wants to nationalise all communications and energy, so this is no party of individual freedom, but a party of a deranged mix of authoritarian mysticism and hysteria. It’s frankly very sad.  0/10

Te Pati Maori: Almost certain to get elected. TPM has morphed in the past few years into Hone Harawira’s Mana Party, led in the background by a grifter only surpassed by Winston Peters, John Tamihere. The “genetically superior” Rawiri Waititi and the “Tangata Whenua, Tangata Tiriti or the racists” classifying Debbie Ngarewa-Packer have made the party into a radical Marxist nationalist party. On the bright side, there are elements of its belief in self-determination that would be compatible with a small state, it is also the only party that would decriminalise drug use and possession, but on the other side is a strong belief that NZers need to judged based on their classification. You’re either people of the land (Maori), people that are allowed to remain because of Te Tiriti (forget if you are born here and have no other citizenship), and everyone else who is “dying off” and doesn’t matter. TPM wants more tax, wants private land subject to Te Tiriti claims and Mana Whenua would have first right to buy private land up for sale. This is also the party that thinks all countries should be friends with Aotearoa, including the one attacking Ukraine and including the ones that operate literal Orwellian police states (e.g., DPRK and Eritrea). Neither Marxism nor nationalist identitarianism is good for individual freedom, nor can you expect tired old “anti-imperialist” apathy towards leftwing imperialism. TPM offers little for freedom lovers, but a lot for people who think Zimbabwe offers lessons to follow. 1/10

TOP – The Opportunities Party: Almost certain to not get elected.  TOP’s priorities are a greater welfare state (putting everyone on welfare), a broader tax base, more taxpayer funded healthcare and public transport, and the reinstatement of the Southerner train from Christchurch to Invercargill.  A party of clever people who think they know what’s best. The highlight is wanting to treat cannabis like alcohol, but you could vote for the ALCP and not have the universal basic income policy for people who don’t want to work. It has no interest in liberalising education and of course like the other leftwing parties, wants schoolchildren to be able to vote. It’s main value to freedom lovers is in denying Labour 1 or 2 seats, so go on get your leftie friends to vote TOP.  3/10

Women’s Rights Party: Certain to not get elected. Feminism that is now driven by being gender-critical around trans-genderism. There’s a place for that debate, and the Greens and Labour don't seem to want it, but everything else is just another socialist party for more welfare and more regulation. 2/10. 

Footnote:  I'll be interested to see how leaders of all of the parties respond to the war against Israel from the Islamofascist Hamas. Labour has already disgraced itself and National has shown backbone.

So I'm voting ACT... quelle surprise

It wont be surprise to many, but I'm be voting ACT for my party vote.  I've been critical of ACT for many years, and until lately, David Seymour was struggling to get recognition and attention.  So why ACT?

1.  Freedom of Speech: David Seymour has been forthright in defending freedom of speech from proposals to expand laws on hate speech.  Sure he has had a few unsavoury supporters from that, but my view is that embodied in the US Constitution First Amendment.  The law prohibits threatening speech now, and there is no evidence that restricting what angry violent people say will protect anyone, but there is a risk that criminalising speech against people because of their religion will be a new blasphemy law by default. Free speech is under sustained attack from structuralist theory touters on the hard left (who seek to not only police language but police speakers because of their race, sex and political views) and from theocrats (particularly Salafist and Wahhabists).  With the exception of the New Conservatives (who get wobbly on free speech involving sex and drugs), no other significant party is strong on free speech.  National passed the Harmful Digital Communications Act, although I suspect Judith Collins is better on free speech than some of her predecessors.  ACT's view on academic freedom, specifically requiring taxpayer owned and funded institutions to ensure freedom of debate is maintained is also important.  Sure, it will mean some vileness will be permitted on campus, but this already happens, from activists on the hard-left, whether it is for the destruction of Israel, or for Islamism, or for radical Marxist perspectives, including structuralist views around Maori ethno-nationalism. 

2. Property rights:  Libertarians have been arguing to abolish the RMA for many years (2004!) but it has taken David Seymour to bring ACT on board with this properly.  Sure EVERYONE is talking about replacing the RMA, but be VERY clear, the Labour/Green version of this is a tinkering, mainly to let government build what it wants and to sustain the central planning approach that the RMA has facilitated since 1991 (note that the RMA has origins with Geoffrey Palmer under the Lange Government and then gleefully pushed forward by National under Simon Upton (so-called Hayekian).   The RMA needs to go, and be replaced with a planning system centred NOT on central or local government planning, but private property rights.  ACT's plan is much weaker than I'd like, but a strong ACT vote means the party has a chance to significantly influence replacement of the RMA, and this is one of the key steps needed to address the housing shortage.

3. Role of the state:  ACT has a plan to get back to balancing the books by cutting clearly wasteful spending, whilst simplifying and lowering taxes.  It could do a lot more, but it's a start when both major parties are promising more borrowed money spent.  ACT is also likely to be much more critical on regulation and interventionist approaches to addressing economic and social issues.

4. Climate change:  The Zero Carbon Act is an absurd waste of the legislative process. It is a law to bind governments with their policies, rather than a law that binds individuals or citizens, but is a exercise in virtue signalling (as was the one in the UK).  ACT will replace the ETS with a transparent price of CO2 that is linked to that of NZ's major trading partners, so that it doesn't undermine NZ's competitiveness internationally.  NZ can make its contribution, without it kneecapping its economy, and by having a single price it avoids the need for a panoply of interventionist policies on fossil fuels, transport or farming, among others. 

5. Smarter on Covid19: Taiwan is the great international success story on Covid19 by using technology and ACT advances this. New Zealand will suffer if it goes through another lockdown and New Zealand needs to progressively open its borders to other countries for safe travel.  National wouldn't have done much different from Labour and the NZ economy is running on a sugar hit of borrowing and printed money. This has to come to an end, by having an open economy and a long term sustainable policy to be open, but protecting the most vulnerable and taking simple steps around sanitising and use of masks where appropriate, whilst staying open.

6. Foreign Affairs: ACT is campaigning on strengthening foreign affairs and defence ties with New Zealand's traditional allies, which is important as China continues to pursue a more aggressive approach to foreign policy in the region.

Sure there is a lot else I am less enthused about.  I'd like ACT to be much more pro-active on education choice, with charter schools, funding following students and funding all schools equally per pupil, and to decentralise teacher pay. I'm more conservative on abortion than David Seymour (but not as conservative as many in the New Conservatives).  I'm non-plussed about firearms personally, and I'd love local government to get less power.  I LIKE the proposal for an independent infrastructure corporation, as a step away from politicisation. 

Will ACT bring people into Parliament who I am little uncertain about?  Possibly, but it is the same for all parties and I trust Seymour to keep them in line. What about the alternatives?  Well more on them later. 

Harmful Digital Communications Act indeed

Turn away for long enough and I find the NZ government does something outrageous to curtail freedom and to expand Nanny State, sure enough it has with the Orwellian sounding "Harmful Digital Communications Act".  Even if I supported it, if I was a Minister getting that title passed over my desk by a Ministry of Justice manager, I'd have tore a strip off of her or him for having had a complete lack of any education in either literature or history to give ANY legislation such a title.

The purpose of the Act as well has shades of Big Brother:

"to deter, prevent, and mitigate harm caused to individuals by digital communications; and

provide victims of harmful digital communications with a quick and efficient means of redress"

It's a curious post-modernist trend for laws to be created not to protect rights based on well worn principles of individual rights and freedoms, property rights, contracts and torts, but to "prevent harm" - to have laws to sanitise life so that "everyone" is protected.

However, the term "harm" doesn't mean physical harm.  There is no need for new laws covering an actual infringement of your body (although the digital dimension does justify ensuring laws protect your property and covers contracts and torts), for such laws exist - in abundance - including ones to protect you from yourself.  The harm being covered is, what "The Flight of the Conchords" would say are "hurt feelings".

Being offended, is to be harmed.  To be distressed by what someone else has said, is to harmed.  This goes beyond defamation, which is - indeed - damage to one's property in the form of your reputation. It's an almost childlike drive to make everything structured and inoffensive.  In the UK, it came out in its most absurd form a few months ago with the National Union of Students Women's Conference saying:

"Some delegates are requesting that we move to jazz hands rather than clapping, as it's triggering anxiety. Please be mindful"

I didn't make that up.  If someone is a little bit upset, then everyone else must conform to avoid upsetting that person.  It's the radical so-called "progressive" identity politics champions being manufactured by post-modernist university departments out of air headed students raised on this form of Newspeak. 

So the Harmful Digital Communications Act is about "serious emotional distress".  It is now a crime in New Zealand to make someone else upset, digitally (now now!).  I know I did that when I separated from my wife, thankfully I didn't do it by text message today, or I might be in trouble.

However, let's see how you might get into trouble, because Amy Adams, the National Party, the Labour Party, the Maori Party, NZ First and much of the Green Party thinks your freedom of speech should be curtailed, in case it distresses someone.  Kudos to ACT's David Seymour for standing up to it, and indeed Russel Norman, Gareth Hughes, Julie-Anne Genter and Steffan Browning for having thought about it.  

I know this legislation has had much coverage online for what's bad about it, but it deserves constant attention, and every single MP who voted for it needs to be exposed for their moronic endorsement of it.  It's a disgrace to all who voted for it, and if anything indicates clearly how utterly incompetent they are in being able to apply principle and concepts to problems and issues, it is this law.

I encourage all to push the boundaries of this law to expose this incompetence.

I'm voting ACT

New Zealand citizens who live abroad are entitled to vote in the New Zealand general and local elections, provided they have visited the country once within three years.  Since I have been to New Zealand no less than five times since January 2013, it was hardly an issue for me, and I do have an interest in what happens in the land of my birth.   So I am going to vote.

It is just coincidence that Peter Cresswell has written a lot of what I was going to say about ACT, that it has finally become the party I long wished it would be.  

So I'm coming out now to say I am going to party vote ACT.  

Why?  Because it offers the best (indeed only) chance at influencing a future government towards focusing less on violating people's rights, and more on protecting them.  

Yes, there is room for improvement, indeed a lot.  After all, I haven't supported ACT since the 1996 election (and in 1999 I voted for Richard Prebble in Wellington Central if not the party).  Rodney Hide was utterly disappointing as Minister of Local Government, and John Banks is far away from m position on so many issues as to have almost rendered ACT extinct.

However, there are now some people leading ACT who are, by and large, facing the way towards more individual freedom, less government where it should be doing less (whilst undertaking its core role more effectively).  The original principles of the party are coming to the fore. 

The other choices are:

• to vote for a cozy, comfortable, corporatist National Party, which has lazily slipped into how it traditionally was on policy, by scaring people about the "other lot";
• to vote for the "other lot", a toxic swill of an increasingly deluded Labour Party led by a smug, self-satisfied bully, grouping with an increasingly confident socialist Green Party expertly shrouding their control-freak instincts with warm words about clean rivers and child poverty, and the corrupt coalition of communists, ultranationalists and Al Qaeda supporters called the Internet Mana Party;
• to vote for one man bands (Dunne, Peters, Horan) largely focused on their own aggrandisement;
• to vote for a well-meaning control freak who hasn't ruled out supporting the smug bully (Craig);
• to vote to legalise cannabis, but otherwise support any of the others;
• to vote for various other has-beens, or funny money lunatics.

My real choice was ACT, ALCP or National.  Of course I personally support ALCP's policy, but it is highly unlikely to progress, after many years of trying, and although you can argue such a vote is "clean" from a libertarian point of view (you are voting for less government, albeit in one sense), ALCP would grant confidence and supply to any government legalising cannabis.  Including one that would take away many other liberties.  

National ought to be the party of less government, and occasionally you hear the phrases about it wanting people to keep more of their own money.  It isn't the National of Rob Muldoon, but it also isn't the National of Ruth Richardson (and even that barely was).  National will offer three more years of tinkering, more spending and will do absolutely nothing to increase individual freedom or deal effectively to the RMA or the state education system's continued dominance of young minds.

A vote for National may be "safe", but it is a dead-end for freedom.  ACT's chances this time are dependent on David Seymour winning Epsom, but assuming he can (given that ACT managed it with John Banks before), a party vote for ACT can deliver a handful of MPs, and so give National a coalition or confidence/supply partner that will influence it in the right direction.  At a time when the Maori Party is shrinking, Peter Dunne at best will lead a one man band and Winston Peters looms as the back up choice, it makes sense to support ACT now.

Could the campaign have been improved?  Hell yes.  It could have embraced a more positive message for government that is about getting out of the way, that makes it easier for property owners, that lowers taxes by scrapping agencies that few people would ever support, that emphasises school choice with vouchers that will allow far more kids to go to independent schools, that takes on the welfare state and the corporate welfare state equally (a major criticism of the left).  

It could have been the party that attacks privilege granted by the state to anyone, whether it be race based boards, corporatist claims for subsidies, trade unions seeking higher pay for public servants with no performance, monopolies, and all of the rent-seekers wanting government to give them help at the expense of others.  

ACT can survive this election and get around 2% of the vote and build upon that for a result in 2017 that is closer to the 6-7% it got in previous elections.   It can stake a place being the only party that is consistently against more welfare for business and individuals, and less tax for both.

However, that's for the future, for now ACT's transformative changes deserve endorsement.  It really is a party that we can build more freedom on.

As far as electorate votes are concerned, I'll be writing my familiar voting guide for freedom shortly, but for now it's fair to say that two electorate votes matter more than any others right now:

- Epsom - David Seymour (for the reasons outlined above).

- Te Tai Tokerau - Kelvin Davis (Labour), to evict Hone Harawira and so keep Laila Harre and Annette Sykes out of Parliament.

So how does ACT measure up against what I said in 2008 it ought to do?

One law for all?

Jamie Whyte's "one law for all" speech was disappointing.  Not because of what his end goals are (which are largely ignored by his critics because he gave them so much else to aim at), but because the rhetoric was clumsy and in my view, counter-productive.

One of the most corrosive elements in New Zealand is the widely held consensus amongst most political parties and indeed the bureaucracy and media, that there remains a strong element of racial determinism around the lives people lead, at least for Maori.  This being the idea that the reason Maori on average perform worse in terms of a wide range of social indicators compared to individuals from other ethnic groups, is due to a mix of the legacy of what happened to their ancestors (which seems not to hold back refugees from genocides from living memory) and a system that doesn't "meet their needs". The latter because "the system" is "designed for Pakeha" (not because state provided services aren't necessarily very tailored to individual need).

It is post-modernist structuralist theory which posits that because Maori are (the descendants of) the indigenous people of a land that was colonised (and then gained independence), they are structurally disadvantaged.  With this thinking you can conveniently blank out individual cases that prove how flawed all of this is, like the young Maori woman I once met who got a government scholarship to pursue her law studies, a scholarship open only to Maori - she was proud, because her parents were lawyers.  Not exactly a scholarship that was lifting someone from a below average background.

The view perpetuated by the Greens, Labour, Mana/Internet/Opportunist, Maori Party and much of academia is that she is inherently disadvantaged because she is a Maori woman (doubly disadvantaged).

Forget that her family easily had an income several times that of the average household (so one can argue that her family long ago climbed out of disadvantage), that gets blanked out - the system structurally disadvantages her against a young man from a single parent household with no family history of tertiary education.  Her race was deemed to transmit disadvantage in a system that "creates" it.  The same quackery justifies all sorts of affirmative action programmes, which when government funded (I couldn't care less if private companies run them) are picking winners on the basis of race, out of a sense of "fairness", as if treating individuals differently on the basis of race somehow "redresses collective unfairness".  That is, of course, nonsense.  There is no collective brain or life, just individuals living their lives, and if the state decides that one individual on the basis purely of characteristics she can't choose, deserves privilege over another, then it is simply engaging in the unfairness it is purporting to address.

Unfortunately Jamie Whyte's rhetoric hid the real point, which was I think a major strategic error for those of us who want to move on from racial determinism and neo-Marxist structuralist interpretations of power, capitalism and society.  The mistake many have jumped on is misconstruing a detail around educational quotas (which is not where the debate should lie) and the pre-revolutionary France comparison (which was historically wrong), but I think his two biggest mistakes were:

- To not focus on how the current system privileges a few Maori over everyone else (including other Maori);
- To not sell the optimistic case for individual empowerment and diversity.

Libertarianz and a new liberal party?

Unfortunately I can't attend the Libertarianz conference this weekend, not the least because I left NZ seven years ago and haven't looked back.  Unfortunately because it promises to be the best ever, largely because the political environment for a political party that explicitly believes in less government and a smaller state has changed, dramatically.

You see the primary political debate today, as it has been throughout the last century, is the role of the state.  Leaders of major parties try to evade this, because politics has become, to a large part, an exercise in show business, slogans, imagery and trivia.  Rare is there in depth discussion about policy, philosophy or principles, but often is then commentary about politicians' backgrounds, their empathy, how they speak, look and whether they care.

With the rise of television, a medium primarily of entertainment, politics has become the dark science of the sound bite, of imagery.

However, it isn't just about that.  The internet has opened up the opportunity for anyone to comment on politics, to write or talk about it.  That has started to change political discourse, so that what people see and read is not just what the mainstream media wants them to see.

For those of us who seek to advance a consistent stand for less government, both in economics and in people's private lives, politics in NZ is at a turning point.

ACT has shrunk to a rump that is unlikely to be sustainable, and is led by John Banks, a man from the past, with a past that is simply not credible in advancing smaller government on both economic and social matters.  As Peter Cresswell said, its principles are sound, but its policies and strategies have failed to come close to sustaining a party that builds a core support of those who do not want the automatic answer of a politician to any issue of the day to be "I'll pass a new law" "I'll spend some more of other people's money".

Libertarianz has never managed to pass an electoral threshold to make it more than a dedicated club of people who simply couldn't stomach compromising their principles.  Both the presence of ACT, and the very low probability of electoral success, saw Libertarianz largely ignored, perpetuating that lack of success.  Indeed, the two most successful outlets for libertarian ideas and policies have not been the party, but the radio shows hosted by Lindsay Perigo in the 1990s and most recently Peter Cresswell's excellent blog.

So what now?

Maybe this is what I would say if I had a chance to talk to the conference this weekend...

NZ politics is dominated by political parties that share one philosophy - statism - the belief that the state should intervene, should spend other people's money, should borrow on their behalf, should pass new laws and regulations, and that there is no principled reason why it shouldn't do so.

The mainstream media echoes this.  All too often journalists ask politicians what they would "do", not "do you think the government should do something about this" or "should the government get out of the way"?  The education system is dominated by statists, nurtured by leftwing unions and academics, who all sign up to a carbon copy set of beliefs.  At best capitalism is seen as a necessary evil, but along with that are the post-modernist identity politics, the neo-Marxist belief that people are defined by their race and sex, and most recently even religion and body size.  

The legitimate concerns over pollution have been transformed into an all-encompassing religion of environmentalism, where evidence is skewed to suit a particular monologue - that man is a disease, pollution is ever increasing, that key words like "nuclear" "genetic engineering" "fossil fuels" are all placed in a basket of horror.  Where legitimate concerns are exaggerated, where evidence contrary to the monologue is ignored and the message is given that without massive state intervention in the economy and people's private lives, the environment will be destroyed and so will humanity.   

Have no doubt, environmentalism is the hijacking of universal opposition to pollution and appreciation of nature, to embrace an almost misanthropic desire to control, to attack capitalism, to grow a paternalistic, regulated state that tells people what to do, what not to do and takes their money to penalise what they don't like (e.g. flying) and support what they do like (windfarms and railways).

The Greens, of course, the ones carrying the banner for this.

Never is there a problem that doesn't demand a new law, or for more money to be spent on it. 

Behind the smiling faces of bright eyed bushy tailed people who claim to be speaking for what is clean, what is good, what is right and to help the poor, are people who sometimes tout xenophobia (if you doubt me, see how they talk about foreign investors, and how that parallels communist parodies of capitalists), who claim to use science and evidence, but peddle scaremongering.  I remember in 1999 Jeanette Fitzsimons said it was the last Christmas when we could trust a potato.  The genetic engineering armageddon hasn't happened, more than a couple are only wishing the global warming one does.   Most recently has been scaremongering about mobile phone transmitters, purely on perception. 

 

They believe in big government, with the small exceptions of scepticism about unlimited state surveillance powers and drugs, it is a party that thinks the state is people.  It sees children as not the parents' responsibility, but everyone's.  It sees people not as individuals, but as races, as sexes, as sexualities, as classes, as labels.  A party of Marxists, nationalists and even misanthropes.  People who believe the way to help people is to give them more of money taken from other people.  People whose contradictions are endless.   

I'll take one favourite of mine.  CO2 emissions should be cut, they say, but foreign ships carrying freight to and from NZ, that visit several ports along the NZ coast, shouldn't be allowed to carry freight between NZ ports.   Even though a ship that is travelling anyway emits hardly any more pollution carrying some freight from say Lyttelton to Auckland, it shouldn't be allowed.  Why?  Because the Greens sympathise with the workers on board those ships, as they aren't paid as much as NZ seafarers.  So the Greens, who say they believe in the environment, and believe in jobs and say they aren't racist, would rather have more pollution to shift freight, would rather deny Filipino seafarers jobs that are, rationally, better than others they have, all to protect their well above average salary (i.e. rich by their measure) union mates.

It doesn't take long to get down to what they really believe.  The Greens want more and more laws, more and more of your money and to spend more and more of it on their pet projects.  Precious little of it is about freedom, and for them the state is your friend, even when it is telling you what to do, spending your money on what you don't want and frightening your children with talk of Armageddon. 

Of course Labour has done a lot of that as well, for much longer.  Between the Greens and Labour it's purely a matter of degree, but I recall when Helen Clark said "the state is sovereign".  She didn't think there was anything that should stop government and politicians from doing as they think is best.  It simply made me realise what drives Labour politicians today - the desire to tell people what to do, to change society by passing laws, by spending other people's money, but most of all the cold, humourless, finger pointing oppression of the suppression of free speech.  The willingness to call anyone racist, who dares question special treatment on the basis of race, or sexist, anyone who doesn't want to introduce quotas for women on boards, has infiltrated our universities, our media and the state sector, and has been a method to deny debate and to debase argument, whilst smearing those who question in like a Red Guard from Maoist China.  Phrases like "cultural safety" have spread a climate of fear in some institutions.   A belief that people should never be offended, never be upset and that the state should police this has been one of the more insidious developments in the last twenty or so years.  It parallels the demand for faux respect of young thugs who gleefully lash out violently at those who look at them the wrong way, as if everyone should be ultra-vigilant about their behaviour and language to not offend these empty esteem-less flowers.

Being able to be open, honest and unafraid of offending people is the hallmark of a liberal society.  Labour has cultivated a culture that has eroded that.  Dare criticise Islam without being labelled an Islamophobe.  Dare criticise Maori organisations or Maori specific initiatives without being labelled as racist.  Dare criticise calls for laws to enforce quotas for women on corporate boards, or to challenge the DPB, and be called sexist.   It's not just intellectually lazy, it's aggressive, confrontational and authoritarian.  Name calling is not an argument.  The left do it all the time, we must resist doing so, unless the facts speak for themselves.

Labour's saving grace is to have courage of its convictions, meaning that almost every Labour government makes changes that endure.   It is a point those of us who want to advance freedom should grasp.   However, for the good that Labour has achieved - and most of us may look back at some of the dramatic changes pushed through in the 1980s - it has also given birth to a welfare state that has promoted and sustained intergenerational dependency, it took the just cause of redress against historic state racism and property theft to create a new taxpayer funded Maori elite, to which it is blasphemy to challenge or to hold accountable.

Labour is driven by the desire for state intervention, by the desire to change people through government, and has been responsible for so much corrosion of individual responsibility, of pride in individual success, of promotion of moral relativism and envy, that it is simply the Greens diluted.

How about National then?  What a relief so many of us felt when it was 2008 and finally we said farewell to Helen Clark, as she was about to embark on a new job, in New York, ending world poverty, on a US$500,000 a year tax free salary, travelling first class and staying in five star hotels.

However, the euphoria didn't take long to end.

The National Party, like ACT, has founding principles that I can largely agree with, but in reality it is a party with one single purpose - to be in power.  With the exception of three years when Ruth Richardson saved the country from bankruptcy, National's legacy has been at best to slow Labour, at worst to preside over a mammoth growth in the state that would make any socialist blush in the form of Think Big.  Right now it is, once again, the party of fiscal incontinence, with a new Think Big focused on building roads and a state broadband network.  National brought us the Resource Management Act, and sees reform of it largely to allow it to embark on its Think Big programme.  National sees the criminal justice system as going only one way, with new laws to allow stop and search of anyone, to allow search of property without a warrant.   National can sometimes throw us a tax cut, can sometimes ever so courageously try to sell a minority stake in a power company, it might even reverse the powers given to local government.

However, for all that, there is little sign National will advance real reforms to liberate planning laws by supporting private property rights, luke warm interest in opening up education to choice and liberating it from centralised command, control and rent seeking from teaching unions.  National is building, once again, the corporatist state, with fervent state intervention and investment in telecommunications.  It wont dare touch the Maori corporatist state or the race based electorates.   Beyond all that National offers absolutely nothing on personal freedom.   It wont even contemplate questioning the war on drugs, despite such radical forces as The Economist calling for an end to it.   It's behaviour on law and order says all you need to know - little respect for the presumption of innocence, little respect for due process.   To National, the people the police question or arrest are not "their" people, they are probably guilty anyway, so aren't really deserving of sympathy.

For a party that's meant to be about aspiration, individual achievement and respect of freedom and private property, this is contemptible.

Beyond all that, we have two race based parties, born from the belief that Maori, as a people, must have parties that mean the state specifically looks after them.   Parties that embrace the corporatist Maori elite, parties that believe that it is racist to have a colourblind state, that it is racist for an election to mean one person one vote, that it isn't possible for Maori to be individuals, and to not want Maori statist politicians to represent them.

No other party offers anything that consistently supports less government, less tax, more freedom, and a presumption that the answer to policy issues is not for government to do more.  

That's why we should.

ACT failed because it sold out principles for populism, for bending as the wind blew and so being a party like every other, slippery, slimy and more interested in power than principle and policies.  It is as good as finished.

Libertarianz failed because it has been unable to gather momentum for ideas, for principles and sell a convincing message about less government.   Quite simply not enough NZers believe in a future without the welfare state, without universal basic education and healthcare, and they aren't convinced that capitalism, free markets and most of all, individual initiative, can be an effective as well as a moral substitute for government.

There are good people in the National Party, people who do believe in less government.   They may mean that, in the long term, there is some hope.   However, they are in a party that exists to straddle the mainstream.  They face opponents who embrace the state, who talk of "investing" other people's money and passing new laws, and of being modern and "reinventing" politics, when virtually all of them are just rehashing statism, again and again.

Those good people in National are our allies, but National will not and cannot be a sufficient platform in itself for disseminating liberalism.   

So what do I mean by liberalism?

It isn't the leftwing definition, whereby it means being liberal with other people's money or being a moral relativist about crime.  It doesn't mean letting murderers and rapists out of prison in a handful of years because it wasn't really "their" fault.  I am using it as a synonym of libertarianism, classical liberalism or whatever you want to call it.  

I mean belief in less government.  The belief that government can't and shouldn't pick winners in the economy.  The belief that the state sector's role in the economy exists primarily to protect law and order, enforce contracts and protect property rights.  The belief that state welfare should not incentivise its usage as a choice, rather as a last resort and that those who wish to help those less fortunate should be encouraged to do so, with their own money.  The belief that the state shouldn't dominate the education system, but allow it to flourish with diversity, variety and choice, so parents choose and their choices are reflected in where the money goes in the system.  The belief that healthcare policy is not a choice between a paternalistic centralised state system or the broken US corporatist/state system.   Finally, the belief that pensions and retirement cannot be guaranteed by a ponzi like state scheme.   I do not fear foreign investment, but embrace the idea that state owned enterprises should be privatised, perhaps by handing out shares to taxpayers as well as sales to cornerstone investors.

I also think that the basis for a free, secure society is rule of law, which means reviewing all criminal laws, to decriminalise or abolish victimless crimes, including reviewing drugs policy.  A point that needs to work with welfare, education, health and even ACC policies.   The Libertarianz policy of legalising drugs needs to answer real concerns from parents that it will mean schools are awash with brain damaging substances - one of the answers is to look at Portugal.

It means that the rule based RMA, driven by local planners who just think they know best how your property should "fit in" to their grand ideas, is replaced by a property rights based framework, so that what you do and don't do with your property is based on how it affects the rights of others to do the same with theirs.

I also think that monetary policy's role in the recent financial crisis needs to be investigated and the fundamentals of monetary policy reviewed.

A new party needs to come up with some clear messages.  It needs to defend capitalism without shame, it needs to take on every attempt to create a new law, a new regulation and a new tax, with arguments based on principle, experience and reason.   It needs to harness the natural scepticism most people have of politicians and bureaucracy.  

After all, would people really expect their MPs to buy their groceries, their clothes, their holidays?  Why should they trust them to buy them homes, their healthcare, their pensions and their kids' education?

Why should the future of Maori be defined not by what they themselves achieve as individuals, as employees, employers, entrepreneurs, parents, as people - but by what the government gives them in money, jobs or "rights"?

The new party will not have the policies of Libertarianz, not because they are wrong, but because they are unrealistic in a Parliamentary term for a small party.  What we need is a clear statement that the new party will vote consistently for steps to reduce the size of the state in its non-core functions, that it will support fiscal responsibility, so that a tax cut means a spending cut, that it will support property rights and enforcement of real crimes, but not creating new crimes just on the whim of the latest outrage.  It means rejecting Think Big whether it be roads or railways, broadband or solar energy.  It means supporting steps towards individuals having more choice in health and education, and weaning people off of welfare, by making it easier to start up and sustain business without the state wanting its share from day one.

It means changing the terms of the debate. 

It means arguing for less state, not more, for the state to do what it is meant to do well, and to leave everything else to businesses, voluntary groups and individuals.

and to do so proudly.

Where to from here for those of us who believe in freedom?

ACT, Libertarianz, Freedom Party, Liberal Party, whatever name there is for the future of those at the libertarian/freedom oriented end of the political spectrum is not important right now. What is important is that those of us who share some fairly core values and principles agree to sit down and talk. The options that have been taken up till now have been somewhat spent. ACT has long been the pragmatic option, but until 2008 was never part of government. In government, many (including myself) believe it under-delivered, and certainly the strategy taken by the leadership the past few months has been an abject failure. I wont repeat my previous views on this, but needless to say ACT as a liberal force for more freedom and less government cannot limp along simply led by John Banks to the next election.  I suspect even he realises that the status quo isn't sustainable.

To be fair to Libertarianz, every election since the 2002 administrative debacle has been an improvement, both in campaigning style and result. Yet without getting virtually any media attention or having enough money to buy advertising, it struggles to get heard. Even when it had its peak in 1999, it was due to Lindsay Perigo’s leadership and presence on a nationwide radio station. Yet this end of the political spectrum has been sadly filled with the sorts of chasms and arguments that are not entirely dissimilar from that of the far left. It occasionally has been a little like the Trotskyites vs. the Stalinists vs. the Maoists. ACT has blamed Libertarianz for being too purist, Libertarianz has blamed ACT for being soft sellouts and others have said that Christians have felt excluded, along with non-objectivists, or even those who are conservatives in their personal life and have conservative values, but don't believe the state should impose them.  Bear in mind I’m an objectivist libertarian and Libertarianz member who has voted Libertarianz four times and ACT twice since MMP came along.

The bare faced truth that needs to be admitted is that there is a difference between seeking to win Parliamentary representation and influence, and to be a lobby group that seeks to influence more widely than that. Those on the left, including the environmentalists are expert in doing this, having set up a number of moderate to high profile lobby groups that focus on specific issues. Those of us who want less government, need to do more organising, less in-fighting and recognise the difference between running a successful political party, lobbying on issues and being movements of populism or philosophy. 

I agree with Peter Cresswell that those of us who are freedom lovers need to start talking. So I suggest there be a conference of some sort in that light.

The default invitees being senior members of ACT and Libertarianz, and others specifically invited by people from both parties (who may come from National or elsewhere inside or outside politics). It should be a session to think, not necessarily to decide what to do, but to spend time to chew the fat and provide the catalyst to do more thinking, before acting.  It shouldn't be a session to grandstand or for publicity seekers, but a serious closed conference.   It wont be to make final decisions, but to make substantive progress on what to do next.  It should form the basis to produce proposals for discussions with existing party members, and to reach a conclusion within a year.

The agenda should be as follows:

- Introductions ;

- What sort of objectives should exist for a political party of freedom;

o Principles and values; 

o Political goals 

- Understanding philosophy (where do our principles and values come from ((intention to understand, not debate, how different people came to the freedom/liberal/libertarian end of the spectrum));

- Key policies and issues (identifying policies that unite us, and those that divide us. Not looking for detailed discussion about tax rates, but to establish common ground and to understand clearly the issues that cause some of us problems and finding a way to address, discuss them);

- What’s right about ACT and Libertarianz, and what is wrong;

- What a successful party of freedom would look like, campaign like, and focus on;

- What to avoid (Open, frank and honest discussion about what a future party should avoid);

- Options (revitalising ACT, strengthening Libertarianz, starting from scratch, rebranding and merging) with the objective of narrowing down preferences to two;and

- Next steps (widening discussion with respective parties, another meeting to create concrete proposals). 

This should happen next year, around mid-year (so people will want to stay inside). It should be good willed, good natured and well disciplined. It shouldn’t just be a meeting of suits, or a meeting of loud mouthed angry ranters, but a meeting of good people, with good intentions, who have by and large, shared values, but haven’t been talking from first principles and objectives with each other.  Bear in mind also that what may finally come could be a two pronged strategy - one involving a political party, another involving a think tank/lobby group (or two?).

The most important thing of all, for everyone, will be to listen. 

In advance of that, those of us in ACT, Libertarianz, and indeed freedom oriented members of National, ALCP (and others if they find themselves in a less conventional political home) should sit down and talk amongst ourselves, and with each other.  It is time to rise above the morass of noise, detail and personality clashes.  Nothing should be in or out, but it should be obvious that unless there is a consistent belief in there being less government and more freedom, then we will get nowhere. 

It’s time to not be too solipsistic and realise that this election less than 1.5% of the public voted for parties that expressly espouse less government. Many of us have been doing this for some years, but we also have eager, hard working and enthusiastic young people who reject the mainstream view that the answer to any problem is automatically that the government should do more. Let’s do it for them, do it for us, do it for the country we want New Zealand to be - I believe that at the very least it means free, prosperous, optimistic, where people are judged not by their ancestry, sex or background, but by their deeds and words. A country where being a tall poppy is not something to sneer at, but something to celebrate and aspire to. 

The conservative right has got its act together, and has built a highly credible platform that could cross the 5% threshold in 2014. 

We must do the same, but better.

Who’s with me?

P.S.  The reports that John Banks is talking to the Conservative Party to consider some sort of relationship, simply exemplifies the fact that ACT is finished.  LET Banks take whatever is left of ACT with him, let him go.  He'll never win Epsom under that banner.   I'd don't need to say the three word phrase that starts with "told", but I am SO glad I did not vote ACT to be represented by Banks.   It isn't schadenfreude at all, it's just frustration when this whole debacle is res ipsa loquitur.

New Zealand election 2011 electorate voting guide

Ah yes, I've done the hard work for you, it has taken hours, but I've gone through every electorate candidate list.  My test is simple, is there someone to positively endorse who is more freedom loving than the status quo? If so, vote for him or her.  If not, is there someone positively evil and anti-freedom worthy to oppose, if so vote for whoever will remove him or her. Remember, in most seats this is the vote that doesn't count much, but in a few it is critical as it is a lifeline to some minor parties, and it also helps replace someone on the party list

So...

Auckland Central – David Seymour - ACT

Having removed Judith Tizard swiftly, Nikki Kaye gets some serious kudos for lifting the standard of Parliament across several dimensions.  It looks like a two woman race between Kaye and the Labour list MP Jacinda Ardern.  Now given I endorsed Kaye last time, and Ardern is of the Helen Clark school of wanting to tell people what to do, it would seem an easy choice this time.  Yet, last time removing Judith Tizard was a purposeful mission, now Kaye looks more like the wily political operator than any real defender of freedom and property rights.  She’s supportive of the mega city, thinks the environment is the greatest gift given to New Zealand (people should leave then) and she wants to “help progress” the inner city rail loop and a tram line.  None of that helps reduce the size and influence of government.  As such, you can’t really vote for her for positive reasons other than to disappoint Ardern and the Labour Party.  In any case, Ardern is number 13 on the Labour list and Kaye is 33 on the National list, which means both are likely to be elected anyway.  As a result, I much prefer David Seymour, the ACT candidate.  He has a solid background in electrical engineering and pushing for less government through a think tank.  Help David Seymour get his deposit back by voting for him.

Bay of Plenty – abstain/spoil your ballot

Anthony Boyd Williams Ryall still has this seat in the bag. His 17,604 majority is fairly unassailable, but can you really vote for the Minister of Health who has little apparent interest in serious reform? He doesn’t need your vote. The Labour alternative has no chance and appears to be on the left and there is no ACT, ALCP or Libertarianz candidate.  Brian Carter of United Future has no profile on that party’s website.  Ray Dolman of NZ First is phobic about privatisation.  Peter Redman of the Conservatives is an ex. cop who wants to nationalise the foreshore and seabed and raise the drinking age (although abolishing ETS gets a tick).  Sharon Stevens of Mana is a hardened unionist.  Now you might think I’d say hold your nose and vote for Ryall, but really that wont do.  He is a shoo in, he has a high list position.  He doesn’t need your positive endorsement to keep being a senior Cabinet Minister in a government that confiscates property rights.

Forget about the electorate vote here, or spoil your ballot.

Botany – Jami-Lee Ross - National

Botany was Pansy Wong’s, until she misused her Parliamentary travel perks and so it is now Jami-Lee Ross. (I said Kenneth Wang from ACT last time).  I was damning of him for simply having been a professional politician with no private sector achievements.  Yet Motella noted his maiden speech quoted Thatcher and Reagan, and Whale Oil also noted him approvingly.  He did say “the problem with this approach and the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money to spend. The problem with trying to spend your way towards closing the gap between rich and poor is that eventually we all collectively become poorer.” I was wrong about him, and to be fair his name is a little disconcerting.  He’s head and shoulders above most Nat MPs in my book and while ACT’s Lyn Murphy is a perfectly acceptable alternative, I think that given Ross has only been in Parliament for less than a year, it’s worth giving him a tick.

Christchurch Central – Toni Severin - ACT

Brendon Burns is the Labour MP, with a narrow majority.  As I said last time, he was Labour’s chief spin doctor in the Beehive, and was well up the Clark hierarchy.  Burns is once again ranked fairly low on the Labour list (number 29).  It’s easy to vote against him.  Yet the National candidate is, once again, Nicky Wagner, the list MP.  The debacle that has been the government’s handling of the earthquake is an absolute scandal.  No supporter of business and private property rights can vote for a National candidate in Christchurch Central, particularly one who is an MP in any case.   Whilst Burns was an evil spin doctor, what he did is nothing compared to how National has destroyed businesses and harmed the lives of the productive in this city. Luke Chandler, independent, has incoherent policies and has literacy issues, and so while Toni Severin of ACT is unremarkable and has little chance, she is your best option

Christchurch East – Michael Britnell – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Lianne Dalziel still has this one cornered, with National’s Aaron Gilmore having little chance. Although I endorsed him last time, the government’s response to the earthquake should have forced him to resign because of the gross violations of private property rights and as such, the principles of the National Party.  The only candidate you can trust to be pro-freedom, at least on one issue, is Michael Britnell of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party.

Clutha Southland – Don Nicolson - ACT

Bill English is a shoo in, and really can you think of a good reason to vote for him?  Don Nicolson is number 3 on the ACT list, and has ending the ETS as a priority.  As a former Federated Farmers’ President, he will do nicely to send a message to Bill not to take the locals for granted.  Don’t be seduced by Tony Corbett of the unregistered New Zealand Sovereignty Party, he’s anti-privatisation.  Give Don Nicolson a positive endorsement.

Coromandel – Jay Fitton – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Sandra Goudie is retiring, so it is an open contest, although she had a majority of over 14,000 so it is likely to be Scott Simpson’s to lose.  He is inoffensive, but unimpressive.  Not a good reason to support Labour’s Hugh Kininmouth.  Crazy woman Catherine Delahunty is standing for the Greens, but she isn’t a threat.  Jay Fitton of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is at least standing for freedom on one issue.  Give him a tick to remind the Greens and National of the importance of that issue in this electorate at least.

Dunedin North – Guy McCallum - ACT

With Pete Hodgson’s retirement, Labour is putting forward David Clark for a seat that Hodgson won with a majority of just over 7,000.  Clark is a fairly predictable moderate leftwing Labour candidate, who lists “fairness” as his first issue – which actually means promoting wealth transfers, he is proud of helping create the ETS and likes the anti-nuclear policy.  Clark needs to win this seat to get elected, as he has a low list position.  The National candidate is list MP Michael Woodhouse.  Although his maiden speech was unremarkable, his speech on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill was forthright in supporting voluntary student union membership.  However, why vote for Woodhouse when ACT’s Guy McCallum is more convincing.  He is young, keen on reducing the size of government and government spending.   On top of that, Metiria Turei is standing for the Greens and any vote for Guy will annoy her.

Dunedin South – Joanne Hayes - National

Clare Curran is the MP, with nearly 6,500 vote majority.  As I said in 2008, she’s a vile little PR hack who is seeking to portray National as enemies of the people.  She has also played silly politics by campaigning for Auckland’s new trains to be made in Dunedin, even though the new Wellington trains, ordered when Labour was in power, are being made in South Korea.  It’s better to tick Joanne Hayes, the National candidate. Kimberly Hannah, the ACT candidate, doesn’t have enough information on her profile for me to give her a recommendation over Hates.  Hayes is unremarkable, but Curran deals in dirt and deserves to be made to worry a little.

East Coast – John Norvill – ACT (if you must vote)

Censorship enthusiast Anne Tolley holds this seat, with a majority of around 6,400.  She is no friend of freedom, as her support for a major crackdown on any material that discusses sexuality among young people demonstrated.   Moana Mackey, the Labour candidate, isn’t either as she is leftwing, she likes unions, compulsory Maori language and bleats on about the 1990s being a horrible time.  John Norvill, the ACT candidate, is a business owner, although he wears his religion on his sleeve and there is nothing on his profile about reducing the size of the state (he wants to “stop the rot” whatever that means).  On balance, if you have to, you might give him the benefit of the doubt, given a history of owning small businesses, but don’t feel guilty if you don’t vote for any of them.

East Coast Bays – abstain, spoil your ballot

Murray McCully is a shoo in, so doesn’t need your vote and frankly doesn’t deserve it either.  ACT candidate Toby Hutton has a three line profile which is completely uninspiring, so isn't deserving either. Labour candidate Vivienne Goldsmith is a teachers’ unionist so should be avoided.  Conservative Simonne Dyer is, well, conservative, and was once deputy leader of the Kiwi Party, not a friend of freedom.  McCully is not the worst Cabinet Minister, but I can’t positively endorse him.  He wont bring more freedom to government.

Epsom – abstain/spoil your ballot

Rodney Hide had a huge majority, nearly 12,900, when he won it last time, with an absolute majority.  This time you know the score.  National’s Paul Goldsmith at number 39 on the list, will probably get in on the list anyway.  He’s a historian and public affairs consultant, but rather inoffensive.  John Banks, well you all know his record of fiscal imprudence and social conservatism.   Independent candidate Matthew Goode has some merits, but these are cancelled out by his policies to ban mining, introduce some new taxes to replace others, ban guns, pay mothers a living wage and a belief in fighting global warming by penalising car use.   So you can’t avoid the obvious choice.  Do you tick Banks knowing he is the passport to getting Brash and Isaac elected, holding your nose? Or do you tick Goldsmith?  There is no good reason to tick Goldsmith and he doesn’t need it.  The question for you is can you live with yourself having endorsed John Banks for three years, knowing ACT depends on him, and his decidedly authoritarian views on personal freedom?  If you accept that ACT could get 2-3% of the vote and bring in Brash and Isaac, then you could justify voting for Banks, even though you’ll need to shower afterwards.  Yet I couldn’t do it.  I couldn’t vote for the man who as Mayor led an overspending council, who voted to keep criminalising consenting adult homosexuals, who has absolutely no interest in the idea that there are victimless crimes.  Consider this, do you honestly think John Banks, fan of Rob Muldoon, will vote for MORE freedom than John Key?  Really?  Now of course you're being told that the entire Key government depends on John Banks.  Think about this.  


Who fought the reforms of the 1980s? John Banks.  
Who didn't resign in sympathy with Ruth Richardson being demoted?  John Banks
Who pushed for a supercity as long ago as 2001?  John Banks


When National next pushes to increase search and surveillance powers, when National next ramps up the war on drugs, when National next moves to deny Christchurch downtown property owners the rights to enter their property and recover it, do you really think John Banks will be crying out for individual rights and property rights?  Do you really think he wont have the upper hand in the ACT caucus? John Banks and ACT have five days to prove me wrong and change my view.

Hamilton East – Garry Mallett - ACT

David Bennett is the National MP for this seat, with a respectable majority of 8,820, but he is likely to win again and has been unremarkable.  Labour candidate is the former Student Union President, the easy on the eye, but frightfully politically correct Sehai Orgad.  Former ACT President Garry Mallett is a perfectly respectable candidate to endorse, as an entrepreneur and a man who has supported ACT being about less government.  Give Garry a tick.

Hamilton West - Tim Wikiriwhi – Independent

National’s Tim Macindoe narrowly pushed Labour’s Martin Gallagher out of Parliament.   Yet he led Arts Waikato, and seems to be into environmentalism (Sustainable Business Network).   He’s not really worth endorsing, even though he is up against the awful Sue Moroney, who wants a subsidised passenger train service to Auckland (that would be slower than a bus), and wants to force “pay equity” and longer compulsory paid parental leave.  Moroney is number 10 on the Labour list so is a sure thing, Macindoe is 49 on the National list so may not make it if he loses here, but then that isn’t a real loss for those who believe in less government.  Yet there IS a candidate who does passionately believe in freedom and less government.   Although he has chosen not to stand for Libertarianz this time, he is still worthy of my support.  Vote for a man who has turned his life around, and who is passionate about what he does, and works very hard to get across his message.  He is his own man, true to himself through and through, and while you may not always agree with him, he deserves your vote – Vote Tim Wikiriwhi.  If he got in, Parliament wouldn't know what’s hit it.

Hauraki-Waikato - Nanaia Mahuta - Labour

Princess Mahuta won this narrowly last time, against Angeline Greensill for the Maori Party.  The hard leftwing Greensill has slid over to Mana, so Tau Bruce Mataki is representing the Maori Party.  Princess is no hero, but it makes sense to vote for her to keep Maori and Mana from having an overhang, and to keep a Labour list candidate out.

Helensville – Nick Kearney - ACT

John Key doesn’t need your vote, he is in on the list and with a majority of over 20,000 he is at no risk from Jeremy Greenbook-Held from Labour, who himself is quite pathetic (Whaleoil revealed that) and a great believer in more government spending.   I don’t have strong reasons to support Nick Kearney, the ACT candidate, but he deserves your vote more than the others and sends a small sign to John Key that he isn't the bearer of all Helensville votes on the right.

Hunua – Ian Cummings - ACT

The awful patronising prick Paul Hutchison (I am speaking from experience here) is the National MP with a majority of just over 15,800.   Young Labour candidate Richard Hills is predictable demanding higher incomes and hates privatisation, and then implies ACT is sexist, racist and homophobic, so he should just STFU.  Quite a few wacky candidates here, but you could do worse than vote for Ian Cummings from ACT.  He says “I strongly believe that people should be able to keep what they earn and to invest, save and meet their needs as they see fit. So, for the most part, the best thing government can do is to simply extract itself from its citizens’ lives to the fullest possible extent”.  That’s a man you can vote for.

Hutt South – Alex Speirs - ACT

Trevor Mallard doesn’t need your vote here, and why would you give it to him with his majority of 4,000 (and a high list position).  National is throwing up Paul Quinn again, who is a reasonably respectable National list MP, who at 54 may or may not make it through.   ACT candidate Alex Speirs says he “is a passionate advocate of freedom, both social and economic, and individual choice”. Speirs deserves your vote in his own right, but you could do worse than Quinn as a Nat MP.

Ikaroa-Rawhiti - Parekura Horomia - Labour

Parekura should hold this with his 7,540 majority.  The alternatives are Mana candidate Tawhai McClutchie and Maori candidate Na Raihania (no Derek Fox) and the rather odd Maurice Wairau.  Hold your nose and vote for the big man Parekura Horomia – he will be in anyway on the list, but this is about reducing the Maori and Mana Party potential overhangs.

Ilam – John Parsons - Labour

Gerry Brownlee will slide into this easily, with his majority of nearly 11,900.  He does not deserve your vote as he has been the Cabinet Minister responsible for the response to the Christchurch earthquake.  So while it would be easy to support ACT candidate Gareth Veale (number 20 on the list, not 3 as the ACT profile suggests) as he “describes himself as a classical liberal, believing in smaller effective government in all spheres of life - social and economic freedom”, Brownlee has been such a disgrace that it is worth considering voting for Labour candidate John Parsons to deprive Brownlee of his electorate (although he’ll be in on the list), National’s only Christchurch electorate (which is a reason given for his role in the earthquake reconstruction).   So do so, hold your nose and vote John Parsons to shrink Brownlee’s majority – he can’t be any worse, as Parsons has long been a businessman, and was once Dominion/Air New Zealand businessperson of the year

Invercargill - Shane Pleasance - Libertarianz

National MP Eric Roy should manage to keep Labour's Lesley Soper out of Parliament (she’s just another braindead unionist), and Roy is just one of the mediocre middle ground of National. So give Shane Pleasance your electorate vote, he’s the Libertarianz candidate, Director of the Southland Chamber of Commerce and he believes in Invercargill, freedom and personal responsibility.  He definitely deserves it.

Kaikoura – Ian Hayes - Libertarianz

National’s Colin King is comfortable here against Labour’s Liz Collyns with a majority of over 11,000.  However, Libertarianz give you an alternative.  Ian Hayes believes in freedom, so give him your vote in this safe National seat.

Mana - Richard Goode – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Labour’s Kris Faafoi took this in the by-election last year and Whaleoil revealed the rather appalling tactics that were used there.   Yet the awful “Pakeha owe Maori loads” public sector consultant/list MP Hekia Parata of National is simply vile - from personal experience. You wont get a colourblind state sector with her.  Richard Goode, standing for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is mild mannered and one of the most rational speakers on liberalising drug laws in New Zealand today.  He has decided not to stand for Libertarianz this year, but he is still libertarian. Vote for Goode.

Mangere – Claudette Hauiti - National

Labour's Sua Sio won this last time and has a fairly unassailable majority of over 7,000, but now Philip Field has been removed, there is no good reason to support Sio – who is singing the usual Labour song of promoting a Capital Gains Tax and more state intervention.   National is putting up Claudette Hauiti, a lesbian Maori businesswoman who used to be Labour affiliated.  Lindsay Mitchell rates her well, as she talks of less government and more personal responsibility.  So give Sio a bit of a wake up, by ticking Hauiti.  Casey Costello of ACT is an ex. Cop and ex. Police unionist, which isn’t enough for me to think she is more deserving.

Manukau East - Kanwal Bakshi – National or Jono MacFarlane ACT

Ross Robertson is one of the Labour MPs I dislike least, and he isn’t on the party list, which means if he wins, it helps keep the likes of Steve Chadwick out of Parliament. However, he is pretty much guaranteed to get elected with his majority of over 12,000. Kanwal Bakshi of National is a businessman who set up a voluntary organisation to help teenagers. Jono MacFarlane of ACT is a Christian Conservative who does not believe government is the solution.  Either man is worthy of your vote, I would lean towards Kanwal because he has a better chance of narrowing Labour’s majority, but don’t let Jono’s Christian background put you off him. 

Manurewa – David Peterson - ACT

With George Hawkins retiring, Labour is putting up Louisa Wall who needs to win here as she has no list position.  Hawkins had a majority of around 6,700, so Wall is likely to win.  She doesn’t deserve to though, she says “A measure of this leadership is how we distribute society's resources”, so your property is everyone’s in her book.  Given last election she talked about how she used to “advance the needs and aspirations of Maori working within public bureaucracies as a Maori specific representative”.  So, as a Maori lesbian, her identity matters for you.    Dr Cam Calder is National’s candidate, and a list MP at number 50 (which on current polling means he is probably ok) but he is no libertarian.  He has a health background, and is a Blue-Green.  He mentioned freedom once in his maiden speech, but has simply been a loyal lieutenant in the government, so really it makes little difference if he keeps Louisa Wall out or not.  ACT’s David Peterson is proudly libertarian, believes in Austrian school economics and says “I support letting peaceful people live their lives how they like, even if they're making personal choices radically different to those I would make as freedom is universally for all not just those I agree with”.  He deserves your vote.

Maungakiekie - Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga - National

This was a surprise win for National after Mark Gosche’s retirement in 2008, and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has a majority of nearly 2,000 in a seat Labour believes should be its own.

The vile Carol Beaumont of Labour is vying for this seat. She’s a proud unionist and thinks Labour has benefited democracy, and that asset sales will raise prices.  Although at 22 on the list, she has a good chance of getting in anyway.  Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has been a good local MP, and has a strong business background, and believes in lower taxes and less bureaucracy.  There are no other candidates that come close to this, so you can vote for him positively to try to keep the Marxist Beaumont out of Parliament.

Mount Albert – Steven Boyle - ACT

Helen Clark won this with a majority of over 10,000, and David Shearer took it for Labour again with a slightly lower majority in the 2009 by-election.  He doesn’t talk about his pro-mercenary background nowadays, preferring to focus on “social justice” (the euphemism for fiscal transfers).  Yet he voted against Voluntary Student Union membership and was sarcastic about it.   National is putting up Melissa Lee, list MP who is number 34 on the list (so is fairly certain to get elected).   She’s notable for being the first Korean woman to be an MP outside Korea, but also for her comments on crime, race and the new motorway.  She’s not exactly a great success, and there is no sign she is a great supporter of less government.  Steven Boyle is ACT’s candidate, he’s a civil engineer and more deserving than Lee.

Mount Roskill – Jasmin Hewlett – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Phil Goff gained a majority of 6,400 last time, and I DID endorse him because I figured he’d pull Labour back from the Helengrad left, and he has – a little.    National list MP Jackie Blue is standing here, and at 46 on the list is reasonably likely to get elected.   However she is keen on the war on drugs, so you can’t give her support.  Pratima Nand is ACT’s candidate, but her profile shows no sign of an interest in less government.  Jasmin Hewlett of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party shows a passionate belief in addressing the injustice of peaceful people imprisoned for using cannabis.  She deserves your vote, especially to send a message to Jackie Blue.  Goff, after all, will be history in a few months.

Napier – John Ormond - ACT

Chris Tremain is the successful businessman who is now the local MP, a Nat, and his 9,000 vote majority in what was once a safe Labour seat is notable.  Labour list MP Stuart Nash is standing, and at number 27 is fairly comfortably in anyway.  Nash is not one of the worst Labour MPs, but then again Tremain as a local businessman has lots of “plans for Napier” which isn’t exactly consistent with less government.   John Ormond is ACT’s candidate is a strong opponent of ETS, so deserves your vote.  Tremain should be safe in any case at 22 on the list.

Nelson - Maryan Street - Labour

Maryan Street is one of Labour’s best and smartest candidates. Yes she is Labour left through and through, but she isn’t Nick Smith. Nick Smith is the most loathsome of National MPs, a little control freak, who doesn’t believe in private property rights, who embraces the RMA. Nick Smith is a major reason why National looks a lot like Labour.  So vote Street, because for all she is, she is better than Smith.  Smith has a majority of nearly 8,500, and ACT’s Paul Hufflett has no profile.  Smith is number 6 on National’s list and Street is number 7 on Labour’s so both are guaranteed in, but Smith deserves a bloodied nose for simply being completely uninterested in private property rights.  Hold your nose and tick Street, at least she is honest about what she stands for,  but if you can’t handle that, you can vote for the unknown Hufflett knowing it wont make a difference.

New Lynn - Tim Groser - National

Local MP Silent T is a vile nasty character, whose intelligence belies a cold instinct to love power and step on those who get in his way.  He has proven his vileness even more this time with his sexist comment about Judith Collins.  He has the knife out for Phil Goff assuming Labour loses in this election.  Silent T has a 4,000 vote majority, which isn’t unbeatable. National’s Tim Groser is a list MP at number 12, so is a shoo in, silent T at number 3 is as well.  Barbara Steinijans is the ACT candidate who strongly supports free markets and is critical of the welfare state.  You may choose to vote for her, but I’d prefer a vote for Groser, to give Silent T a kick where it hurts.  He is, after all, one of those vying to be a future leader, and his political career is worthy of cauterising.

New Plymouth – Jamie Dombroski – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Jonathan Young of National slipped past Harry Duynhoven in 2008, with a razor thin majority of 105.  Jonathan Young opposed allowing Easter shop trading, and as Venn Young’s son, he isn’t exactly a great friend of freedom.  ACT has stepped to one side to ensure Young fights Labour’s Andrew Little, a long standing unionist, but that's hardly consistent with more freedom and less government.  Little is number 15 on the Labour list, so is in anyway, Young is number 45 on National’s so is probably in too.  The only candidate supporting freedom is Jamie Dombroski of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, so give him a tick. 

North Shore – Don Brash - ACT

With Wayne Mapp’s retirement, National is putting forward Maggie Barry, who is unlikely to get elected on the list at number 57.  Barry has nothing serious to offer in terms of fighting for less government.  She doesn’t deserve your vote and is an insult to thinking voters who believe in less government.  Labour's Ben Clark writes on The Standard, which demonstrates a love of gutter politics, so should be ignored.   However, there is one candidate who deserves your vote above all other.  Don Brash winning North Shore would do two things, it would shake National from its complacency in selecting a celebrity over an achiever, but it would also mean ACT would have a presence in Parliament that is NOT reliant on Banks.   As much as Michael Murphy, the Libertarianz candidate is a fine chap and unrelenting defender of freedom, Brash deserves your vote here.  This is ACT’s last chance to be the party committed to individual freedom, and so is by far the most important electorate vote for freedom lovers.   Most of all, it would free ACT from being dependent on Epsom and indeed is a natural constituency for that party.  Vote Brash, remembering that many of you did in 2005 anyway.

Northcote - Peter Linton - Libertarianz

Dr Jonathan Coleman is the Nat MP. He’s a clever chap but at 16 on the list he’s in anyway and has a 9,300 or so majority, so is at no real risk. Pick Peter Linton of Libertarianz because he'll send a signal about belief in small government.  He’ll stir them up and be a strong advocate for your self defence and your right to decide on your health care and education.  You can vote for Peter positively.

Northland – Lynette Stewart - Labour

Hone Carter’s retired so Mike Sabin is National’s candidate.  Carter held the seat with a 10,000 vote majority, so Sabin should be in, but does he deserve it?  Well no.  His profile is impressive, but his big thing is drugs.  He has a long history in drug law enforcement and in reducing drug use.  Now I can empathise with wanting to reduce drug use, but none of what I saw indicated an interest in considering an alternative approach to criminalisation.  Sabin is no friend of freedom.  

Labour’s Lynette Stewart believes in the government “resetting the economic environment” to increase wages and jobs, without really knowing how, so she wont be any help.  At number 39 on the Labour list, she might make it anyway.  Sabin is 60 on the National list, so he needs to win Northland.  Barry Brill of ACT has a long history in politics, having once been a solid National MP, and is now an opponent of ETS.   Now Stewart may not be any help, but she is better than Sabin.  Parliament has enough people who are narrow minded about drug laws and who don’t have any time for hating drugs, but respecting the right of adults to choose what they put into their own bodies.  So, I’d advise a vote for Lynette Stewart purely to stop Sabin getting elected.  If you can’t stomach that, then Brill is certainly deserving of your vote.

Ohariu – Sean Fitzpatrick - Libertarianz

Ahh yes a very important seat. It’s simple. Dunne has to go. This man has voted to keep Labour in power for two terms and to grow bureaucracy, and now he is Minister of Revenue.  The one thing you can be sure of is he will support whatever government is in power.  He lost his socially liberal credentials years ago when he merged with the Christian Democrats, and how can you back the man whose greatest recent achievement is creating the Family Commission - a new bureaucracy?  Dunne’s majority last time was only 1,000, with Labour’s Charles Chauvel and National’s Katrina Shanks closely behind.   Yet you can't back Chauvel.    Chauvel is 11 on the Labour list and is a fairly typical centre-left MP, he isn't going to help shrink the state.  Shanks is ok, but been an uneventful Nat MP.  However, Libertarianz Deputy Leader Sean Fitzpatrick is far more interesting.  He runs a successful martial arts school in Wellington, and a more honest candidate you couldn’t find.  Eschew mediocrity and focus group driven candidates, and proudly give Fitzpatrick your vote.   Bear in mind a few will confuse him with someone else!

Otaki - Peter McCaffrey - ACT

National MP Nathan Guy won this off of Darren Hughes, but he is into Transmission Gully, his maiden speech used the word “free” once and he talked favourably about how important Nandor’s “Waste Minimisation Bill” is. You can’t seriously vote for this guy, and his 1354 majority makes him vulnerable.  Labour’s Peter Foster talks about people paying a `’fair share of tax” and “core state assets”, so is far too leftwing to deserve a tick.  Nathan Guy may be a bit vacant, but he’s not so evil to remove with such a character.  Peter McCaffrey of ACT led ACT on Campus Wellington, and was instrumental behind pushing for voluntary student union membership.  He soundly deserves your support.

Pakuranga – Chris Simmons - ACT

Maurice Williamson’s seat. Maurice is one of National’s better MPs, being an opponent of the awful move to the left of English in 2002, and supporting Brash in 2005. Key had stomped on Maurice, but then he found the “leaky homes” issue a bit of a challenge.  Maurice’s majority is nearly 14,000 and he is 19 on the list, so he will be in anyway and having been emasculated why bother? Vote Chris Simmons of ACT, just to put ACT ahead of the Greens, again.

Palmerston North – Leonie Hapeta - National

Labour candidate Iain Lees-Galloway holds this seat with a thin 1117 majority. This man is just vile, being anti-individualism and a unionist. Vote to keep him out, he is 37 on the list so may not make it if Labour does badly.  Leonie Hapeta is National’s candidate, she is unremarkable (mispelt “safety” on her website), but Lees-Galloway would be good to remove and one can always hope that any new talent for National will help, at 65 on the list she needs to win this seat to get elected.

Papakura – John Thompson - ACT

Judith Collins holds the seat with a majority of over 10,000.  Labour’s Jerome Mika is a unionist and not deserving.  Give John Thompson of ACT your vote, as Collins is number 7 on the list, and is at no risk of being removed, it will remind her a little that some people want less government than John Key offers.

Port Hills - Geoff Russell - ACT

Dyson is awful, and National is putting up David Carter, list MP to challenge her. Dyson is number 5 on the list anyway, Carter is 10, so both will be in anyway.  Dyson’s 3452 majority is likely to keep her safe, but this seat deserves a shake up.  Vote ACT’s Geoff Russell to make Carter think about those who want less government.

Rangitata – Tom Corbett - ACT

Jo Goodhew is the Nat MP, she has a majority of just over 8,000 and at 23 on the list is safe.  She described herself in her maiden speech as one who “juggle work and family, who scorn political correctness, who value self-reliance and believe that working hard should bring personal benefits, not increased taxation”. Not great, but not bad, yet of course she is part of the government.  I backed her last time, but this time give her a little clip around the ears, vote Tom Corbett of ACT.

Rangitikei – Hayden Fitzgerald - ACT

Simon Power is standing down, so National has put forward Ian McKelvie.  He ought to win easily, as he has been Mayor of Manawatu and has a 12,000 vote majority to inherit.  ACT’s Hayden Fitzgerald says he is a libertarian, so is a far better bet for freedom than the unremarkable McKelvie.

Rimutaka – Alwyn Courtenay - ACT

Labour’s Chris Hipkins barely won this seat in 2008 with a majority of only 753.  National has chosen Jonathan Fletcher as candidate, with no list position, so he needs to be considered.  He says “At the age of 20, a visit to the United Nations inspired me with the vision that I could contribute to our country through politics.”  Hmm, not promising, especially since he has absolutely nothing on his campaign website saying what he stands for and what he wants to achieve.  I can’t endorse an open book, because someone else will write what he will do and think.  Especially given Hipkins is 30 on the Labour list so likely to get in anyway.  Annoy Fletcher by voting for Alwyn Courtenay of ACT.

Rodney – Beth Houlbrooke - ACT

Lockwood Smith is retiring, but he leaves a 15635 majority for National candidate Mark Mitchell who has a long career in the Police, as a hostage negotiator and built a business from scratch.  He will almost certainly win, but a better bet for freedom is Beth Houlbrooke from ACT.

Rongotai – Joel Latimer - ACT

Annette King is hardly threatened by Chris Finlayson, with a 9,000 vote majority and being number 2 on the list, although he is one of the better Nat candidates, that isn’t a high threshold to cross.  Vote ACT’s Joel Latimer, as the best option to make a small stand for less government.

Rotorua – Abstain, spoil your ballot

Todd McClay is the National MP with a 5,000 vote majority and he is no friend of free markets and small government.  The empty headed Steve Chadwick is running for Labour so no better.   You really can’t do anything here, so abstain or spoil your ballot.  McClay isn’t worth saving.

Selwyn – Jo McLean - Labour

Amy Adams of National is the MP with a majority of around 11,000.   However, she has been supportive of the response to the Christchurch earthquake.  Labour’s Jo McLean has no chance of being elected, she is not on the list, Adams is 28 on the Nat list so is likely to be elected anyway.  Tick McLean to give Adams a bit of a fright, but if you can’t, just abstain or spoil your ballot.

Tamaki – Stephen Berry -  Independent

Sadly Allan Peachey passed away recently, so National selected Simon O’Connor to succeed him.  However, one candidate stands out above the others.  Stephen Berry is a libertarian and fighting tooth and nail for freedom in this electorate. This is one candidate you can soundly tick for and know he believes in less government.

Tamaki-Makaurau - Pita Sharples - Maori Party

Pita Sharples is the MP with a majority of nearly 8,000.  Shane Jones is Labour’s challenge, and although he is a list MP who will be in at number 18, he is really just a professional bureaucrat.  For all his faults, Sharples is the only Maori Party MP worth supporting.   It’s a tough call.  After all, eliminating the Maori Party removes a barrier to eliminating the Maori seats, but Sharples will probably make this his last term.  He’s a better man than Shane Jones, so he should – just, deserve support.

Taranaki-King Country – Shane Ardern - National

Shane Ardern, yawn. Yep, what a star.  A majority of over 15,000 so he is a sure thing, and is 27 on the list.   Labour’s Rick Barker is having a shot, but doesn’t deserve your vote, as he is number 25 on the list so fairly secure.  You could vote Victoria Rogers of United Future, but there is no good reason to do so.  Tick Ardern because he is inoffensive and because he will be in anyway, and is likely to question ETS at caucus.

Taupo – Roseanne Jollands - ACT

Louise Upston is the MP, with a majority of around 6,400.  The quote attributed to her “The police are good. The criminals are bad. It's that simple” doesn’t bode well for freedom.  Labour’s Frances Campbell isn’t worth your vote on freedom grounds.  ACT’s Roseanne Jollands would give Upston a small message, but her profile is hardly inspiring either.

Tauranga - Simon Bridges - National

Simon Bridges helped keep Winston out in 2008 and gained a majority of over 11,000.  You could consider Kath McCabe from ACT, but she is an environmental lawyer.  Could you trust her to replace the RMA with private property rights?  I’d give Bridges another go, just because he deserves it for having helped keep out Winston.

Te Atatu - Tau Henare - National

Labour is putting Phil Twyford up to replace Chris Carter.  Twyford is a scaremongering socialist who reminds me somewhat of Sue Kedgley.   At 33 on the Labour list he is likely to get in anyway.  I’m going to endorse Tau Henare, if only because Twyford needs to be avoided.  Henare gives the Nats a bit of a shake up, which is actually worth something.

Te Tai Hauauru – Soraya Peke Mason - Labour

You can’t vote for Tariana Turia, she’s mad as can be. Tick Soraya Peke Mason of Labour, to remove her, and replace a Labour list candidate whilst reducing the overhang caused by the Maori Party winning more seats than it is entitled to get with party votes.

Te Tai Tokerau – Kelvin Davis - Labour

The loathsome Marxist Hone Harawira doesn’t deserve your vote.  Tick Kelvin Davis of Labour, he is the best bet to remove him, and at 23 on Labour’s list, you wont feel guilty about voting for him, as he is in anyway.  However, removing the Mana Party is a worthy mission like removing a cancerous growth on liberty.

Te Tai Tonga – Rino Tirikatene - Labour

Removing Maori Party MPs will remove the overhang and reduce a barrier to eliminating the Maori seats.  Vote Rino Tirikatene for a Labour MP who replaces someone from the list (who is typically worse) and to send these seats back to a party that thinks wider than race based policies.

Tukituki – Romana Manning – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Yes well Craig Foss is the Nat MP, with a majority of 7800.  He is also unremarkable. ACT’s Robert Burnside doesn’t have a profile that mentions freedom in any form, so how can he be endorsed.  Vote Romana Manning of ALCP, as you know what she thinks on one issue, and she wears a Police outfit on her profile - which is intriguing.

Waiariki – Louis Te Kani - Labour

Remove the Maori Party’s Te Ururoa Flavell by voting Louis Te Kani of Labour.  Bear in mind that this is also about rejecting the evil cheerleader of 9/11, Annette Sykes.  Again, returning this to Labour replaces a Labour list MP and helps eliminate the overhang.

Waikato – Robin Boom - ACT

Lindsay Tisch hasn’t been a star but with a majority of nearly 13,000 has this covered.  Kate Sutton isn’t the worst Labour candidate, but at number 35, she might be in on the list, so don’t give her a second thought. Robin Boom of ACT rejects the ETS and Tisch needs that message, so give him a tick for that, though not much else.

Waimakariri - Clayton Cosgrove - Labour

Keeping Clayton Cosgrove around will annoy the Labour left and Kate Wilkinson of National doesn’t deserve to win because of National’s performance over the earthquake (and is number 19 on the list so will be in anyway).  Tick Cosgrove as a protest against National in Christchurch and because he is a moderating influence in the Labour caucus.

Wairarapa - Richard McGrath - Libertarianz

Vote for NZ’s most freedom loving GP – Dr Richard McGrath for Libertarianz. He’s a fine man, and has a good profile in the electorate.  You don’t need to think twice about this.   National’s John Hayes will probably win given his comfortable majority of around 6,700, but I strongly endorse McGrath politically and personally as the one candidate of all I most would like to see elected, across the country.  He would shake up healthcare, the war on drugs and would always take a balanced and measured approach, that adds up to whether any government measure reduces freedom and individual rights or increases it.  Vote McGrath with pride.

Waitakere – Peter Osborne - Libertarianz

Paula Bennett of National has a tiny majority here of 632, and faces a real challenge from Carmel Sepuloni of Labour.  Bennett is number 14 on the list though, so she isn’t going to be out.  Sepuloni is 24 on the Labour list, so is also likely to be in as well.  However, you have a real freedom loving candidate here, Peter Osborne of Libertarianz deserves your vote more than Bennett.  After all, it’s not like either the major candidates face getting ejected.

Waitaki – Colin Nicholls - ACT

Jacqui Dean is the current MP and an enemy of freedom, voting against her is like voting against Jim Anderton.  She wanted to ban party pills and is a Blue Green.  Labour’s Barry Monks has NO profile on the party website, so I can't even start to consider him.  Jacqui Dean’s 11000 majority is unassailable, even with her number 41 list placing which is likely to be good enough.  ACT’s Colin Nicholls supports lower taxes, abolishing ETS, one law for all and privatisation.  That is the best deal you can get here, and better than Dean.

Wellington Central – Reagan Cutting - Libertarianz

Labour’s Grant Robertson has a majority of 1904 here, so National has a chance here with Paul Foster-Bell (his number 56 list placing is too low to be likely).  Yet while he claims to be classically liberal, he also claims to be a Blue Green.  Stephen Whittington of ACT is quite the libertarian candidate, but why vote for him when you can choose the real thing with Reagan Cutting.   After all it is better for him to beat the Alliance, Conservative Party and NZ First and show that Wellington Central isn't just bureaucrats voting to feather their nests.

West Coast-Tasman – Steven Wilkinson – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Chris Auchinvole is the Nat MP who ousted Damien O’Connor and gained a narrow 971 majority.  O’Connor is standing for the seat only, not the list.  He is better than any on the Labour list.  However, O’Connor is not exactly a freedom fighter, so no point ousting Auchinvole for O’Connor.  Auchinvole has list position 43 so is probably safe anyway.  You might consider Allan Birchfield of ACT, who is anti RMA but he thinks there is a carbon tax.  So on that basis, better choosing Steven Wilkinson of the ALCP for the obvious reason.

Whanganui - Alan Davidson - ACT

Chester Borrows is the Nat MP here, he thinks all children are ours and like Sue Bradford says “I want to live in a country that claims all children as their own and accepts the glory and the responsibility of that”. The Labour candidate isn’t worth ticking, as he was grateful for the welfare state even though he is decidedly middle class.  He also volunteered for John Kerry’s Presidential campaign!  ACT is standing Alan Davidson again, a man who strongly believes in personal freedom, so give him a tick.

Whangarei - Helen Hughes - Libertarianz

Phil Heatley is another shoo in here, so you can safely vote for someone who does passionately believe in individual freedom. Vote Helen Hughes for Libertarianz, with pride. She’s more charismatic and better looking than Heatley any day, and she'll mean more for freedom than he ever will.

Wigram – Geoff McTague – Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Jim Anderton is retiring and his party is gone, so Labour expects to win this with Megan Woods, a former Andertonian.  It might be tempting to vote for National’s Sam Collins, but this is Christchurch and he is supportive of what the government has done.  You can’t endorse this.  Geoff McTague of the ALCP is your only choice for freedom.

It total this adds up to:


26 ACT
8 Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party
2 Independents
11 Labour
8 Libertarianz
9 National 
1 Maori Party
4 Abstain

P.S.  If any candidate thinks I have unfairly ignored her or him, then feel free to plead your case for being a positive vote for more freedom and less government.  Social creditors, xenophobes and believers in theocracy need not apply.