So about that party vote?

 

 

When looking at party vote, most people think of left/right “blocs” which in my view is leaving aside certain nuances. For a start, anyone who thinks NZ First is securely in the “right” bloc doesn’t know history, as NZ First has gone into coalition with Labour as many times as National. Secondly, the differences between National and Labour are not significant, and perhaps not as significant as their two woeful leaders – the one that failed and is a meek mediocrity, and the other one who acts like he’s succeeded and is a empty vessel.

So following on from my exhaustive review of the electorate candidates, I thought I’d look at your party vote choices, in alphabetical order. I want to look at them from the perspectives of someone who wants to retain and build a high-trust, low crime, property owning open capitalist economy and society where individuals and the families, communities and cross-cutting relationships people have, can thrive. I want there to be progressively less government, more entrepreneurship – both commercial and charitable, I want the state to be razor focused on protecting people from the initiation of force and fraud by others, whether individuals, businesses or government overreach. That ranges from aggression from overseas (more likely through cybercrime than war), through to assault, burglary and fraud.I want a system of law and order, justice and punishment to effectively manage conflicts and disputes. I want the state to judge people’s deeds, not the backgrounds that reflect no choices. I want people judged by government on what they do and say, not other characteristics.

ACT New Zealand: Once the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, ACT is far removed from the party that was set up to campaign for the abolition of income tax in exchange for compulsory health insurance, compulsory superannuation and compulsory education accounts, and then for flat tax and less government. It still has a flavour of less government, less tax, less regulation and belief in free markets, but also embraces being tough on law and order, “one law for all” and a rather random set of popular causes. It’s not conservative, but it isn’t libertarian. ACT is a long way from the social liberalism that saw Jamie Whyte mention in an aside that consensual adult incest should be legal. While there is a commitment to freedom of speech and freedom of the internet, which is laudable, it isn’t a generalised commitment to individual freedom. The list mostly has a familiar series of names as existing ACT MPs, which despite claims from some pundits on the left before 2020, have remained coherent, well-disciplined and not prosecuted for criminal or fraudulent behaviour (unlike ACT’s former party President). It’s the broadest choice for those who want a voice for less government, but it is far from being a consistent or principled one. Perhaps its biggest issue is who replaces David Seymour? It almost certainly isn’t show pony Paul Henry, but it is unclear if he is a asset or a liability either. 2023 was its best ever performance electorally, with two electorates and 8.64% of the vote, with 11 MPs, can 2026 do better? Biggest scapegoats? Public sector unions. Most precious belief? There is too much government.

Alliance Party: Back from the dead, largely because the militant Marxist Maritime Union wants it to be (this was a union which in its previous iterations once had branches affiliated with the Maoist Communist Party of NZ). It isn’t an “alliance” anymore, as the Greens, Mana Motuhake, Democrats for Social Credit and New Labour Party broke away. It’s the People’s Front Against Judea, and the Greens and Labour. They pine for a much more centrally planned and controlled Muldoonism and the policies that took NZ from 2nd to 22nd in the world in per capita income, because they are economically illiterate. It is extraordinary that they think they have the perspicacity to know how to run a complex economy and allocate other people’s resources better than they can. You’d think they’d just join the Greens or even Labour, but it’s a social club for people who think real socialism hasn’t been tried yet, despite all the evidence to the contrary. I’m not going to discourage people from voting for the Alliance if they would otherwise vote Green, but it a social club of ideologues and the lost - blind to history’s verdict on a philosophy that is fundamentally antithetical to humanity. In its original form, it peaked in representation in 1996 with 11 seats, but in vote in 1993 (electorate only vote) with 18.21%. After Jim Anderton broke away from it, it lost all representation in 2002 with only 1.27% of the vote. It seems unlikely to reach 0.1%. Biggest scapegoat? “Neo-liberalism”. Most precious belief? It’s always better when government owns it.

Animal Justice Party Aotearoa New Zealand: A hard-left party that wants to grant animals many of the rights of humans, by and large. I’m all for being kind to animals, but the idea that animals should have the “freedom to express their natural behaviors”, is curious when it also doesn’t apply to humans. Of course, it would end a significant part of the economy (cattle, dairy and sheep farming), with no real clue as to what to do instead. I have some understanding around what it is trying to achieve but granting rights to creatures that have no understanding of those rights and unable to reciprocate, is problematic. At the least it has a unique position politically, but that’s it, and it probably competes with the Greens for these votes. It gained 0.17% of the vote in 2023, its first election. Unlikely to beat that. Biggest scapegoat? Industrialised farming. Most precious belief? Animals are better than humans.

Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party: A libertarian one-issue party which is crystal clear about what it exists for. The 2020 referendum put this issue to bed politically for a while, though that isn’t a reason to not campaign for it. As a single-issue party it largely attracts voters who are personally affected by the current legal status of cannabis, although in recent years liberalisation of hemp and medical use of cannabis have diluted its impact. Its dream is to be in Parliament and make a major party dependent on its support to be in government, but unfortunately, I suspect the use of cannabis by its members is its biggest weakness. In short, it isn’t sufficiently well organised to grab the imagination. ALCP peaked in support in 1996 with 1.66% of the vote but had dropped to 0.45% in 2023. This seems likely to be where it will be this time. Biggest scapegoat? Other politicians. Most precious belief? Weed is no more harmful than many legal substances.

Conservative Party NZ: This party, clearly on the conservative right seeks to combine embrace of laissez-faire economics with social conservatism. It’s the latest of many attempts to set up a Christian conservative-oriented party, now led by Helen Houghton, it has been plagued by leaders of various quality to be generous. It has gone through Colin Craig, Leighton Baker and Elliot Ikilei, and survived. However, it seems like NZ First has moved enough into this space to make it difficult to well. It peaked in 2014 with just under 4%, but in 2023 dropped to 0.15%. With Winston bending in this direction on some high profile issues, I’d be surprised if it reached 0.15% this time. Biggest scapegoat? Ultra social liberals. Most precious belief? The nuclear family is the core of a civilised healthy society.

Free Palestine Party: Disgraceful party of Jew hating, terror sympathising racists with a party list led by the geriatric Marxist, John Minto. It is affiliated to the communist terror group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which have murdered over 150 people since the late 1960s. It is abhorrent it is even allowed to be a registered party. Votes for it are votes for evil, or votes of ignorance. Biggest scapegoat? Jews Most precious belief? A Palestinian state replacing Israel would save the world of the worst injustice in history.

Green Party: Largest hard-left party in the country, led by two women (gender equality really doesn’t matter when one is deemed the oppressor), one of whom isn’t good at maths (and thinks Jews should “lean into discomfort” about slogans that call for destruction of their homeland) and the other thinks straight white men cause all violence. More state, modern monetary theory belief in significantly increased public debt, more tax and more spending. It wants lots of stuff to be free, paid for by taxing future generations and the groups it demonises the most – the “rich”. People who own a lot are automatically deemed to have done so unjustly, so are the scapegoats of the Greens. Antipathy to capitalism, individual freedom, military alliances among liberal democracies, private property rights, Jewish nationalism (but not Maori nationalism), freedom of speech or punishing criminals, it is the party that embraces state power, control and is full of control freaks and mediocrities. 2023 was its best ever electoral result with 11.6% support and 15 MPs. It seems likely to do better this time, largely due to how uninspiring Labour is, but has long been helped by how so much of media and academia are supportive of it. Even when it is so blatantly wrong, the “it means to do well” buys it a lot of clout despite its extremism. Biggest scapegoat? “the rich” or “fossil fuel companies” which make us addicted. Most precious belief? Climate change will make us extinct and anything that cuts emissions is worth any cost.

Labour Party: Soft-left collectivism dominated by the interests of trade unions, primarily in the public sector. The party most closely aligned to public servants, academia and the media, as it balances the desire for more government and more free stuff with the reality that a mixed market economy can’t simply be taxed into paying for everything they want. A diluted version of how the Greens see the world, whereby perceived injustice is fixed by giving people more of other people’s money, regulating those who are deemed to do bad, and by raising the cost of doing “bad things” so they can go around the world and look virtuous. As a party that leads government it is relatively moderate, but Labour has swung from the right to the left from time to time. At the moment it is more centrist than under Ardern, but more left than under Clark. Hipkins is very much of the finger wagging teacher class.There isn’t a lot of “working class” left here, but rather a party dominated by public servants, teachers and unionists, with very few small business owners or actual “working class” people. Biggest scapegoat? The National Party. Most precious belief? Unions give us what is most precious to our lives.

National Party: Soft-right collectivism dominated by the interests of farmers, small businesspeople with twinges of conservativism, liberalism, free markets, paternalistic government and an overwhelming belief it is the natural party of government. Far more devolved and decentralised than Labour, it sees itself as business and economy first, but with a strong belief that a healthy economy can fund continued government provision of health, education and infrastructure. It has prided itself on bending to the winds of public opinion on issues. Christopher Luxon isn’t a typical National leader, in that he came from big business first, and runs Cabinet in a very devolved manner, with little real engagement on policy, and it shows. National traditionally has won government and done little beyond one or two symbolic changes, to overthrow what Labour did before. This time it is different, but this time National has needed coalition partners more than on most occasions it has been in power. Only 1996-1999 saw more compromises, but that was after being in power for six years with radical reforms. It bends to the middle on issues like climate change, education and healthcare, which has seen the more principled and radical arms get tired of its lack of progress to wind back long term leftwing progressivism on many matters. Biggest scapegoat? Labour Party (National exists to keep it out of power). Most precious belief? It is the natural party of government. Principles don’t matter.

New Zealand First Party: Winston First existed as a populist Muldoonist breakaway from National when it was, for once, embracing its founding principles under Ruth Richardson. However it has been adept at bending to the winds of opinion and where other parties have vacated, NZ First fills the gap. Having put Bolger, Clark and Ardern in power, it now puts Luxon. Having gone along with leftwing policies it now goes along with rightwing ones. It’s a brave, naïve or historically ignorant person who fully trusts Winston Peters as to who he will back when elected. In 1996 he said “to vote National out, vote NZ First”, then he put National back in power. Now he is constantly denying backing umpteen policies Ardern put in place from 2017-2020. Still he remains, and is now the voice of conservative NZ and anti-vax NZ, and is keen to be the “anti-woke” candidate of a party that doesn’t give a damn what others think. Central to its focus is opposing high levels of immigration, and the market liberalism of ACT, but also in being sceptical about unilateral action on climate change that generates costs with little benefit and unthinkingly adopting trendy causes. There’s a space for this, even if it attracts mercurial types like Shane Jones and Michael Laws (who can’t be relied on keeping his mouth shut). No other party can tout casual racism like one led by two Maori men originally from the two main political parties, and so NZ First remains the only party where people who feel shut down by “political correctness” can say whatever they like. Far right? Don’t be ridiculous. Populism on steroids? Oh yes. Biggest scapegoat? Immigrants who don’t share NZ First values.  Most precious belief? Ordinary people should be listened to regardless of who is offended.

New Zealand Loyal:  Most will think of this party as Liz Gunn’s anti-vax conspiracy party, but she isn’t there anymore. It is led by Kelvyn Alp, who was prosecuted for distributing a video of the Christchurch mosque massacre. It is a party pushing strong economic nationalism, social conservatism and withdrawal from international organisations along with neutrality on the world stage. It is big on nationalising a great deal of the economy, but also with a range of highly interventionist measures while at the same time claiming to want very little interference in people’s lives. You can see elements of its policy in multiple parties, but it is very much on the fringe. It gained a surprising 1.2% of the party vote in 2023, mainly due to opposition to Covid restrictions, but wont reach it now. Biggest scapegoat? “Them” (foreigners and traitors to the country). Most precious belief? Being left alone.

NZ Outdoors and Freedoms Party: Competing with NZ Loyal is Sue Grey who has fat Nazi Kim Dotcom’s wife on the list. Blending the old Outdoors and Recreation party, which was primarily a movement to defend gun rights for hunters and shooters, with the Freedom Party, which was Brian Tamaki’s once, is an odd mix. Freedoms NZ got 0.33% of the vote in 2023, it may be lucky to do that well again.  It’s big on direct democracy and devolved authority. It also wants to legalise cannabis, promote quack medicine, increasing National Superannuation, wants to end use of plastics and says nearly nothing about economics. You can see a lot from the left here as well as the obvious concerns about Covid, vaccines and the like. Biggest scapegoat? Other politicians. Most precious belief? Direct democracy.

Opportunity Party: Not TOP, not Opportunities, it is, as Helen Clark said, the lanyard party. It might be on the cusp of deciding the next government, is this party of almost entirely Labour and Green supporting ex. public servants, third sector, consultants, scientists and others of our betters who think they know what’s best and how to fix the country.  Led by Qiulae Wong who is getting flack for minutiae, when she should get it for being about “businesses with purpose” which is an utterly absurd anticapitalist piece of agitprop. All businesses have purpose, but to Opportunity only businesses that are big and successful, and then can charitably surrender part of that success to highly paid staff to direct them to virtue signal, are ones with REAL purpose (wanting to make money to raise your family and giving them a good life, isn’t a “purpose” Opportunity recognises). Weirdly, their main platform of land tax has largely evaporated from recent coverage, because there isn’t much else here except wanting more money spent on state provided health, education and welfare. Of course they want welfare for all, under a universal basic income, which is very much a policy on the hard-left. “Free money for everyone”. Opportunity is Labour without the trade unions and is called the lanyard party because it is very much made up by people who don’t set up conventional businesses or take risks with their views. They hold the same views as much of academia, most of the media and the civil service “If only the clever people could be in government”. Of course history is replete with this. The German Democratic Republic was government of the “clever people” who knew best how to allocate resources, decide what was made, what was sold and what people were allowed to do and not do. Not that they are tankies, far from it, but they are not free market liberals either. Biggest scapegoat? “Vested interests” (this doesn’t mean civil servants or professional associations.  Most precious belief? We’re neither left nor right, truly (though none of us would vote ACT or NZ First, and most of us like the Greens).

Te Pati Maori: John Tamihere’s personal family ambition party, which is now explicitly trying to rort the election for a deliberate overhang of over-representation. It swings from an almost libertarian view of devolving power to “Maori” (though not as individuals it seems) to embracing a big powerful state that uses ethno-nationalism to divide by race and opinion, it is incoherent except for what it sees as defending Maori. Maori who agree with it mind you. Those who don’t are sell outs, and not really Maori. There’s socialism, there’s anti-globalism that some of the other parties would embrace, and neutrality on foreign affairs (except when it comes to Israel, because Palestinian Arabs who descended from invaders who expelled the Jews are more indigenous than the Jews). The party of Pita Sharples has been taken over by a family and radical Marxism, and a hatred of liberal democracy because of the view that it always means Maori are “out-voted”. The idea Maori have views as diverse at the entire spectrum of parties in Parliament is seen as questionable or traitorous. Indeed, TPM agrees with the notion that the coalition government is out to “exterminate Maori”. What’s that if not spreading extremism and hatred? However, there is little about it over the election campaign. In 2023 its party vote peaked at 3.08% but it is engineering to reduce that as much as possible, so all of its MPs are an overhang to stop the parties on the right governing. It's actively anti-democratic gerrymandering, which some campaigners on the right are seeking to pursue too, although not specific parties (although ACT and NZF both benefit from that campaign).  It risks the Maori seats being cancelled if it is instrumental in denying the right a majority. TPM is definitely not going to negotiate for power, it’s going to want to hold Labour accountable in power, and demand various bottomlines, none of which are particularly clear.  Bear in mind TPM was a breakaway from Labour, and there is no love lost between them  Perhaps most disturbing is the tendency by candidates sometimes to feed into a narrative of hatred and division, although expelling Takuta Ferris has shown it does have limits. Paradoxically, a party vote for TPM contributes to reducing its number of MPs relative to other parties. Biggest scapegoat? Pakeha led government. Most precious belief? Maori suffer because Pakeha who don’t like them set up systems to ensure it.

Te Tai Tokerau Party: Breakaway faction of TPM full of more government, more spending, but not a lot about more taxes. It is, of course, the platform for Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. She once said the government had a mission of “exterminating Maori”, which is the sort of rhetoric ultra-nationalists use to spread hate, anger and justify violence. She was in TPM then and TPM agreed. Of course they all fell out over claims about money and what looks like internecine antipathy. A lot of detail in her policies looks like a highly devolved set of policies for Maori – although it’s unclear how much of it is affordable. Sure it’s on the left, and there is not much about economics, nothing about foreign policy, and it is almost entirely about Maori, but it is more coherent and less aggressive than TPM. Biggest scapegoat? Coalition government. Most precious belief? Maori can fix their problems themselves.

Vision New Zealand: The Tamaki Christian grifters keep on, having broken from the Freedom Party, are out to rival the Conservative Party for the social/fiscal conservative vote. The problem is that this is more of a personal family project than TPM. It is in favour of small government (big on tax cuts), although its commitment to freedom of speech is unclear and it wants a Ministry of Families. Oddly it wants only MPs who win electorates to get into Parliament, so presumably doesn’t want your party vote. Biggest scapegoat? Woke politics. Most precious belief? Nuclear families

Women’s Rights Party: Feminist breakaway on the left. Founded by Jill Ovens, formerly from the Alliance. It is mostly a response to trans-activism and the leftwing post-modernist trend to say women include anyone who says they are, regardless of their biology. Although most of its policies are around defending rights for biological women, it also includes pay equity and other feminist oriented policies. It obtained 0.08% of the party vote in 2023. It seems unlikely to do better. Biggest scapegoat? Trans-activists. Most precious belief? Only biological women are women

Any conclusion?

Well it is fairly clear that party votes for maybe seven or even eight parties might pay off, the rest are more a statement of principle.  Labour, National, ACT, NZ First, Greens. TPM, Opportunity and maybe Te Tai Tokerau Party (after all, the electorate might be won and then list seats) all are not wasted party votes, although TPM is trying to convince you that it is.  

What are you going to get? Well you make a tiny contribution towards one or another side being in power and one set of views, principles (or absence of them), policies and people having power over you and your property.  It's fairly clear what six of those parties would support, although NZF has supported both Labour and National at different times, and TPM spent much of its history helping to keep National in power. The biggest clue for me as to where Opportunity heads is to look at and listen to its candidates. Do you think they are more comfortable with a crowd of Green and TPM MPs or ACT and NZF ones?  I mean, honestly.

Just have a think about that.

Meaningless election drivel

“I’m going to bring down the cost of living”. No, you’re not. None of you are. At best you might slow down increases. Any quick drop in the cost of living will come from lower oil prices, but nothing politicians are going to do will reduce anything.  Pretty much all parties are guilty of this.

“I’m going to create xxx number of jobs”. No, you’re not. You can’t create any jobs. You can make conditions more favourable for business to create jobs. You can tax existing and future jobs, reducing those job numbers to transfer to new state-sector jobs (which is a transfer). So you wont create anything. Even big infrastructure projects don’t “create” jobs unless they result in higher productivity from what is being built.  Again pretty much all parties are guilty.

“I’m going to fix healthcare”. No, you’re not. Publicly provided taxpayer funded healthcare is always going to involve rationing. It’s never going to be enough for the medical professional unions. There is always going to be more demand for new pharmaceutical and new procedures than supply of them. It’s a matter of what gets prioritised, unless you want to radically change the system, and none of them do.  Fairly ubiquitous as well.

“We’re investing in….” No, you’re not. You’re spending other people’s money. You don’t expect a return on the investment. It wont generate more money than you spend. It’s just a euphemism for subsidising what you think is good for us. Businesses invest. Entrepreneurs invest. Savers invest. Politicians spend, and when their “investments” cost far more and deliver no net benefit, they aren’t accountable and you get the bill.  They all think they are investing.

“We’ll save you money by spending it”. No, you wont. It’s smoke and mirrors. You say you’ll give people money after taxing other people, but you’ll never know what those you taxed would have spent or invested their money on. You’ll never know the jobs, the sales, the donations, the wealth generated from it, because it’s not your money.  ACT is perhaps the only one explicitly different on this, although NZ First and National slip into it from time to time, and even Labour sometimes has flashes of inspiration.

“We’ll ensure equality of opportunity”. No, you can’t. You can’t possibly ensure everyone has the same upbringing, with similar parents, with similar families, neighbours, friends and teachers. You can’t protect everyone from sickness, disability, disease, accidents or natural disasters. It’s simply existentially impossible. This is less common, but all parties typically say it at some point.

"We're bringing down (or will bring down) the debt". No you're not. To be fair the Greens and TPM don't care about public debt because consciously or not they believe in the voodoo funny money of MMT. MMT brought you the grotesque house price inflation under Ardern and the general inflation as well, but more importantly has been behind the hypergrowth in government debt in multiple Western countries - which of course has done so much.  National, in particular Willis and Luxon, are guilty of this claim and it is wrong. Until there are budget surpluses, debt isn't coming down. They use the measure of public debt as a % of GDP to get around that, which isn't a bad measure, but even then it's not right, yet.

"We'll end dependency on fossil fuels" No you wont. Aviation is a long way from moving from fossil fuels and for now, "sustainable aviation fuels" are expensive and in short supply. The effect of forcing their use will inflate airfares considerably, which also affects air freight costs. Do you see anyone saying this? No. Moreover, there is little movement for heavy shipping to be off of fossil fuels, and it's going to be a good decade or so before much heavy trucking is as well. Given the relative poverty of New Zealand compared to other developed countries, it will be some time before most cars are electric, and notwithstanding the enthusiasm of some, much of the rail network will remain diesel because it carries so little freight. Getting off of transport, moving to 100% renewable electricity is expensive and not worth doing, as the Ardern Government's Climate Change Committee found in 2019.

The two Chris's have failed to inspire most voters

Although it’s always tempting to take a line from the late Jim Bolger and say “bugger the pollsters,” it’s hard to ignore them. They do more than observe what might happen in the upcoming election—they influence it.

Political polls are presented as reflections of voter sentiment, yet they also drive it. Most voters are reluctant to back parties that look unlikely to clear the 5% party-vote threshold or win an electorate seat. When media coverage of polls suggests a party has a realistic chance, it can encourage support.

The contest is shaping up poorly for the two main Chrises—Luxon and Hipkins—both of whom are increasingly toxic to their parties’ hopes of dominating the election. This says a great deal about the men themselves and about the caucuses that selected them.Neither National nor Labour has managed to choose a leader with anything approaching the “X” factors voters want in a prime minister: charisma, connection, conviction and communication.

 Luxon is a busted flush. Claims that rolling a first-term prime minister would be unprecedented miss the larger point: this election itself is unprecedented. Never has mainstream media influence been weaker, support for the two major parties lower, or a sitting prime minister so unpopular after a single term. New Zealand has not defeated a one-term prime minister since Walter Nash in 1960 under first-past-the-post, when Labour still won just over 43% of the vote. The parallels are limited.

Luxon’s failures as a convincing, conviction politician are obvious enough in the polls. National voters are drifting to ACT and NZ First in search of something more authentic—whether small government and free enterprise or conservatism with economic nationalism. Neither minor party is perfectly consistent, but Seymour and Peters at least say what they think with little concern for upsetting the bien pensant commentariat. Luxon and Willis sound and look as if they respond to focus groups. The supermarket policy is a case in point. It's desperate stuff.

On the other side sits former prime minister Chris Hipkins, still carrying the baggage of six years of Ardern government. He is unconvincing as someone who will achieve much when his own record is poor: a housing bubble inflated and then burst, sharply higher public spending with little to show for it, an economy fuelled by similar largesse, and a string of virtue-signalling measures paired with intolerance of accountability. The last time Labour recycled a failed prime minister was Mike Moore in 1993; he lost under first-past-the-post when National’s opponents were split between the Alliance and NZ First. Hipkins offers little beyond recycled handouts and criticism of National for failing to fix everything. Outside Labour’s base, few are buying it.

The Greens, having put away their keffiyehs and Palestinian flags, are pushing a full-throated socialist vision of a large, all-embracing state and directing anger at “the rich” in a bid to pull Labour voters. They are also attracting young radical Māori voters who hear Te Pāti Māori’s call to create an overhang by prioritising electorate seats over the party vote (a similar right-wing effort is less likely to succeed but may still cost National a couple of points). The result could be an ethnic-socialist alliance that gives the Greens a larger boost than before. Te Pāti Māori is recovering from recent splits and hopes to hold at least three seats; it usually struggles when National is in power because Labour can campaign simply to change the government.Opportunity’s emergence is partly a reaction to Labour’s lack of inspiration and to the distaste some Green supporters feel for that party’s sharp leftward shift, especially its one-sided stance on Palestine. Though it brands itself centrist, Opportunity’s policy positions are close to Labour’s without the union movement’s dominance. It is the centre-left home for bureaucrats and moderate activists. By emphasising economic fairness and tax reform it is attracting voters who think Labour is offering nothing new. Unhappy swing voters may prefer it to Labour, though what they really expect in return remains unclear.

A four-party government is a real possibility—Labour-Greens-Opportunity-Te Pāti Māori or National-ACT-NZ First-Opportunity—with the former looking more likely.It could still change, though that now seems improbable. Labour could have replaced Hipkins, but it is unclear who would have wanted the job. A new leader would almost certainly lift Labour’s vote, mainly at Opportunity’s and National’s expense, making a three-party arrangement (Labour-Greens with Te Pāti Māori confidence and supply) more plausible. 

National could have replaced Luxon and might have fared better against Labour. If either major party had chosen a leader capable of inspiring people as a fresh prime minister who believes in something beyond keeping the other side out, the picture might look different. Instead both National and Labour appear to take their status for granted, as if their role is simply to exclude the other lot rather than offer a vision.

Vision and conviction are more visible in ACT, the Greens, NZ First, Te Pāti Māori and even Opportunity (saccharine though it is). If neither major party reaches 30% of the party vote, it will be because neither has convinced voters that what it offers is worth the effort.

Notable also is the growing divide among younger voters. Roy Morgan’s latest poll showed women aged 18–49 supporting Labour at 36% and the Greens at 20%, with National on 14.5%, NZ First on 10.5% and ACT on 3.5%. Men in the same age group were almost the reverse: National 34.5%, Labour 18%, Greens 14%, ACT 11.5% and NZ First 4.5%. Apart from NZ First (which draws more young women than men), the pattern is a clear left-right split. Younger men lean towards the government; younger women do not, and they are far more open to left-wing radicalism than young men are to the right.Among those over 50, National leads—more strongly among men than women—and support for smaller parties is roughly even between the sexes. What does this imply for a future divided by politics, philosophy and outlook? 

At the very least it should encourage people, especially those with strong views, to speak to opponents with a measure of respect and to listen. The prevailing trend appears to be the opposite.

Meanwhile, the window for National or Labour to change leaders is almost shut—not impossible, merely improbable. National has made its choice and is sticking with it. Labour’s next generation of leaders seems content to wait for defeat so they can contest the subsequent election with a clearer run.

It is not hard to see why neither party is inspiring voters.

Stupid policy ad nauseum

What MPs do you think could actually run a supermarket as the general manager? I don't mean run into the ground either.

There was an age in New Zealand when there was not something called Supermarket Policy, because, by and large, mature capitalist liberal democracies don't need a command and control approach to a sector that typically does attract a wide range of entrants.

Not anymore.  Elections are a silly season, and silly it is.

I don't expect much from the Greens around sane economics, because it is a party antithetical to capitalism, which is suspicious of all of the elements of markets. Whether it be prices (how these are reached is a mystery), profits (too high, of course), salaries (too low, of course), choices of goods (lots are disapproved of, some are supported but mysteriously something stops them being sold) or customers (who generally don't know what's good for them or "the planet"), the Greens find the idea that millions of people buy and sell goods and services without public servants and politicians "regulating" them, to be terrifying. So, of course, they want their Kiwimart.  If it were December 1989 and the Greens had been dropped into the recently liberated German Democratic Republic, they probably wouldn't have privatised a thing. 

I expect better from the National Party, after all, you'd think it would have learned from its past.  Well you'd think that if you thought that being a member of the National Party was about being committed to principles such as "Promoting a competitive market economy and providing rewards for achievement and hard work". However, in reality, most of the party's history since the late 1950s has been about winning and holding onto power, which is largely has done. The results have been fairly woeful.  

It held power for twelve years from 1960 to 1972 doing virtually nothing to prepare the country for the inevitable exit of the UK from its role as the primary buyer of all of the average unprocessed primary produce that could be exported. Nothing.  The Muldoon years were an exercise in vote bribes with National Superannuation, a gamble of billions on energy self-sufficiency and then performing like an ostrich, with bureaucratic control of prices, wages and interest rates. The Richardson years were an exception (and the RMA was an exception then too), and even the Birch years until 1999 saw some glacial reform, at least in the right direction. However, little was achieved in the Key/English years.

Now, after nearly three years. Christopher Luxon, possibly the least popular National Party Prime Minister in history, is desperate as is his brainfarting Finance Minister and Deputy, Nicola Willis, in dreaming up the supermarket policy. It is not a policy to achieve anything other than re-election. It is, no doubt, carefully been tested among "swing voters" who have been groomed to think, in no small part by Nicola Willis, that New Zealand has a particularly egregiously predatory supermarket sector which is reaping enormous profits off of "hard-working New Zealanders" (though quite how it doesn't target lazy bludging New Zealanders is a mystery, but the Greens and Opportunity tout for their votes). 

Let's be very clear here, as Damien Grant says in Stuff, there isn't much of a problem in regards to supermarket profits, certainly not enough to justify trying to split the largest chain, of largely franchise holders, into two groups. 

"We know from published accounts these profits do not exist other than in the bureaucratic imagination. Woolworths, an Australian company with close to a third of the NZ market, wrote down the value of its Kiwi holdings by $1.6 billion in 2024 on the back of rising cost of sales and weak profitability, just $108 million before taxes and interest on a whopping $8 billion in revenue."

Super-profitable businesses don't write down the value of their businesses, and such sectors do seem to attract new entrants. Note that Nicola Willis's bizarre attempt to generate international interest in entering a market that was - already open - through a Request for Information from prospective entrants, was an abject failure. There are steps that could be taken to enable more competition to emerge, largely from scrapping the ability of local government to use the RMA to control competition , but replacement of the RMA has been slowed for reasons that are far from clear. My suspicion is that both local government and the bureaucracy aren't keen on it so much, but it falls to Luxon and Willis that they haven't advanced what ought to have been the most significant reform of their government. 

It's worth noting that not a single developed country has ever forced the split of a supermarket chain. None. That includes countries smaller than New Zealand's population, geography and economy. What that tells you is that it is an intervention that probably is worth being cautious about, at best, but it also tells you that a party that is ostensibly about business, encouraging investment (especially from overseas) and free markets, that touts this nonsense is simply pandering to a narrative that it is too incompetent to confront - that is that too many NZers think supermarkets are ripping them off.

It is rare for Labour to follow the National Party on policy, it is usually the other way around, but it is a worthy footnote to see Christopher Hipkins propose an even more stupid policy on supermarkets - separating retail and wholesale arms. This actually makes Chloe Swarbrick's state supermarket chain idea seem reasonable.

No other developed country has forced such a change, and it makes little sense from the point of economies of scale, ensuring reliability of supply chains or placing competitive pressure on wholesale prices.  It's as if Labour looked at the electricity reforms of the 1990s (under National) which separated generating/retail, distribution and national grid functions by force (mostly of state/local quango monopoly entities) and of telecommunications (separating Telecom into Spark and Chorus) and think it is exactly the same. Supermarkets are not vertically integrated natural monopoly network industries, but Labour is jumping on the gravy train of making them scapegoats for the quasi-Marxist hate of grocery prices.

I expect a little better from Labour, I hoped for a lot better from National, but both are absolutely braindead. 

If you think ANY of these three policies will save you money, I should sell you a bridge, and you should think again. Yes there are problems, and these are mostly the result of local government making it difficult, expensive or impossible to get approval to build new supermarkets or open them in existing premises.  However, the Marxists in the Greens, Labour and National think their clunking fists can take other people's property and re-organise a sector absolutely none of them could manage effectively (though you think Luxon ought to know better!), and save you money.

The Greens of course know no better. Labour thinks it might know something, but what's particularly gruesome is that it is obvious many National MPs know this is nonsense and they can't stand up because they are stuck with Mr. Unprincipled, Unconvincing and Unpopular as leader, who is peddling snakeoil to trick you into thinking he is looking out for you.

Don't give any of that lot a chance (of course, you might grant your Electorate Vote to an MP or candidate who candidly tells you that he or she thinks all of this is nonsense, if you can find them).

The next Mega-Ministry is coming and it is going to disappoint

Notwithstanding the histrionics from the Greens and other hard-left activists, the Ministry for the Environment isn't being shut-down, it's being merged with two other Ministries and part of a Department to create the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT). 

I opposed this when it was floated nearly a year ago, and I still oppose it.  Not because of the claims that it will risk MfE's work programme (if only!), but because bigger bureaucracies are NOT more cost efficient, and they are certainly not more dynamic, nor do they result in integrated and co-ordinated thinking.

I've worked in both large and small government agencies, but it's not just that experience that informs my opinion, it's the experience seen elsewhere. The views on savings are largely from the perspective of accountants, who typically measure "X-efficiency" which is about minimising wasted resources. In the context of government it is really around the number of managers vs. output, which given the outputs are highly subjective, is hard to assess without a close understanding of the detail of those outputs. It's not goods sold or customers satisfied.  It might consider productive efficiency based on numbers of people relative to outputs, although the "productivity" of policy agencies ought to reflect the quality of output, which I'd be astonished if the Public Service Commission could identify at more than a rudimentary level. 

What definitely isn't measured is dynamic efficiency (how responsive organisations are to innovations and technology), nor do they measure allocative efficiency (allocating resources to meet most specifically what is desired - in this case by Ministers).  

From experience, large Ministries can be awfully inefficient and slow to be responsive. For example, I half wonder if I still have a live "on demand" employment contract with MBIE, even though I left its predecessor permanently 26 years ago, although I did work casually for it for a subsequent 2 years. I never received any communications terminating it.  However I digress. 

One of my favourite administrative failures of MBIE's predecessor - MED - was how it spent three years developing an all of Ministry centralised Document Management System, which was designed primarily for "security". There were full time staff dedicated to this project, who were bewildered when one senior advisor pointed out that every single document created in this system was copied onto individual PC hard drives, which were accessible to anyone who logged onto the PCs. It took another year for the system to be implemented, by which time it was already obsolete.  

As much as there are efforts to try to bring together people in a single Ministry to be co-ordinated across sectors, the record of doing so successfully, without bringing other activities to a snail's pace is not particularly inspiring. By and large, MED and its predecessor the Ministry of Commerce, largely operated in silos.  The idea there was some commonality between how energy, telecommunications, land planning (RMA) and industrial/trade policy was fanciful. Electricity was heavily regulated and resulted in structural separation, telecommunications was very lightly regulated, land use planning was largely about tinkering with the RMA (and monitoring the impacts of its implementation), industrial/trade policy focused on tariff removal and supporting MFAT on trade negotiations.  Throughout the five years I had there, the proportion of effort of the Secretary/Chief Executive in telecommunications, broadcasting, postal and IT policy as a share of activity was <5%.  In other words, mega-Ministries struggle to get their senior management across everything they do.  Small ones don't have that problem.  Of course that can be an advantage for divisions/directorates/units led by managers who want to get on with their jobs without micro-management at a more senior level, but it is hardly amenable to accountability.  Of course what it does mean is that there are multiple Ministers for the Ministry to report to, over the head of the Secretary/Chief Executive (otherwise the Secretary would spent all of her/his time at every Minister's office). 

What mega-Ministries DO implement is a rather significant in-house administrative function, which inevitably justifies more staff to perform functions across IT, HR, finance and information management. 

I've pointed out that MBIE and DIA, both large Ministries have not displayed much capability in delivering innovative reforms over recent years. MfE of course delivered an abject disaster with Labour's proposed RMA replacement with two pieces of legislation imposing greater costs on property owners and more complication through centralisation of power.  This is primarily because MfE's culture is antithetical to economic growth, development and private property rights (you can still see in the new Planning Bill which is far more diluted and modest than what is needed to address the sclerosis in development). This was so apparent when in 2023, Vicky Robertson departed as MfE Chief Executive and stated:

In her presentation she pointed to the programmes that will have a profound and lasting positive impact on our environment.

She spoke about how reforming the resource management system has been the Ministry’s key priority and remains our single biggest deliverable for a system that is future-focused, adaptable, and encourages decisions that are good for our long-term wellbeing.

I'm not sure whose wellbeing she meant, certainly not taxpayers...

“People still say what they love about the Ministry is how people care about each other. They still say that now, as they did when I started. It’s pretty incredible how we’ve gone from 320 people to 1200 and held onto our culture. I’m proud we’ve been able to do that,” she says" 

Being proud of more than trebling staff numbers says all you need to know about bureaucratic culture.  Now that is being merged with the local government arm of DIA (which spent decades responsible for the statis of water policy), the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (which was established in 2018 and presided over the country's most rapid increase in housing prices) and Transport (which itself has seen a more than doubling of staff numbers over 25 years). 

Another example. 

In 2004, Transfund New Zealand was merged with the Land Transport Safety Authority to become Land Transport New Zealand.  That entity was merged with Transit New Zealand in 2008 to form the NZ Transport Agency. The end result has been to create a bureaucratic monster.  In 2004, the three separate agencices had a combined total of around 700 staff.  In the 2023/24 financial year, NZTA had 2,769 permanent employees.

In 2007 announcing the merger, then Transport Minister Annette King said:

“Combining the functions of Land Transport New Zealand and Transit New Zealand will create one organisation accountable to one board, ensuring improved focus on value for money for land transport activities and an appropriate balance of land transport activities".

Value for money?

In Australia, a mega-Department I've previously done work for had a total of six project leads for a single project I was involved in as a contractor, over five years.  Each time the new lead had to be brought up to speed and learn again.  The reason why was because the mega-Department kept poaching anyone talented to work on other projects in other areas.  One comment I heard from a different agency was "this is the Department you send projects to so they die". That's a bit unfair, but isn't entirely untrue. Quite simply there are five layers of management on top of each project or activity, so it is easy for them to get lost.

So I'm not optimistic. I'm not sure a single entity co-ordinates better than separate entities, because the bigger the organisation the more sluggish it is to work as an integrated whole. Moreover, so much of what these agencies do is not across other portfolios. I doubt aviation policy has ever paid much regard to housing policy, local government or the environment, but I am sure there are people in a couple of those who would keen to get involved - which would slow it down.  A mega-Ministry has great potential for sclerosis.

I hope I'm wrong, but I've seen multiple mega-agencies in several countries over 30 years.  I'd love to see the example that, by an objective external measure, has delivered serious innovative reforms that have released productivity, growth and dare I say "wellbeing" for taxpayers and the public.

Is New Zealand a capitalist command economy?

Head of Lifestyle Economics at the UK's Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a free-market thinktank, has written an excellent piece at The Critic called "On Britain as a capitalist command economy". 

The central hypothesis is that the UK is both far removed from being a free-market economy with a small state and light-handed regulation, and from being a state-owned economy run by bureaucratic, politically driven trading departments.  It is worth reading in whole!  

He describes the conundrum of how to describe the UK economy...

The left call it neoliberal but neoliberals have had no meaningful influence on British governments for thirty years. The right call it socialist but neither the Tories nor Labour have shown much interest in seizing the means of production. Keir Starmer’s government is more left-wing than he wants you to believe, but even if he renationalises the rail and water companies, it will be a nostalgic gesture rather than a heartfelt effort to control the heights of industry. Only on the fringes of the left is there any desire to return to the days when British Airways, Jaguar and Thomas Cook were under “democratic control”.

Arguably New Zealand isn't much different.  Of course the Greens, TPM and parts of Labour will say the country is under the oppressive yoke of neo-liberalism, their latest scapegoat "billionaires" and "foreign capital", and of course people like me will rail against the "commie kids" on the left in Parliament, and in local government, but there's little real evidence of NZ embarking on Douglas/Richardson Mk. 2 or becoming the DDR under the last government.

Jim Bolger put the brakes on free-market liberalisation and shrinking of government after the 1993 election, although the direction of travel largely remained the same until 1999 when the Clark Government starting turning things back - notably by passing legislation to cancel the contracts of private ACC employer account providers to return ACC to a state monopoly insurer.  Clark followed by renationalising Air NZ and the Railways, setting up a state retail bank (Kiwibank) raising income taxes and vastly expanding the welfare state with "Working for Families". The Key Government did little to change this trajectory, and the Ardern/Hipkins Government doubled down, with significant spending increases (even leaving aside the Covid response), and increasing both the size of the public sector and scale of regulatory intervention in the private sector.

On the face of it, the post-Thatcher settlement has held, but there is nothing Thatcherite about this government, nor the ones that preceded it. 

Likewise in NZ. It's not to say the Douglas/Richardson (note it isn't the PMs noted for these reforms) reforms have been unwound. New Zealand isn't returning to rampant protectionism, nor has Labour embarked on vast renationalisation (the Government isn't going to get a national bus company, shipping company, hotel network or life insurance company), but what has happened is an accretion of central command and control.  The UK of course has long had it with the Town and Country Planning Act, the single biggest act constraining housing supply and enabling local government to be the greatest NIMBYs in the UK's history. It was passed in 1947!  New Zealand has only had the Resource Management Act since 1991 (passed during the height of Ruth Richardson's reforms, but inherited from Labour led by Geoffrey Palmer - which speaks volumes), but it too had kneecapped housing supply, inflated the cost of infrastructure and is only now with a chance of being replaced with something a bit less worse.

Snowdon writes about price caps introduced in the UK on energy, the Starmer Government's ban on "no-fault evictions" of tenants and enabling legal challenges on rent increases. 

He highlights the nonsense of the Equality Act in the UK, which is being used to impose "pay equity" claims of the sort Brooke Van Velden has put a stop to, much to the chagrin of retired former politicians. 

the Equality Act ... stipulates that men and women should be paid the same salary if they do work of “equal value”. Grotesquely over-interpreted by activist judges, this led to the bankruptcy of Birmingham City Council and 16 months of strikes after it was ruled illegal for (mostly male) dustmen and gravediggers to be awarded bonuses when (mostly female) cleaners and carers were not. ..

In the Next case, it was revealed that the company offered its 25,000 retail staff a chance to work in the warehouse but only seven took up the offer (three of whom walked out within a year). Despite one of the claimants admitting that she didn’t find the prospect of working in a noisy warehouse appealing but would have considered it if she was offered a lot more money, the company still lost.

The process used to determine what was "equal value" is what Snowdon describes as "that looks like something from a Marxist professor’s fever dream to decide the value of an employee’s labour."  This diagram is the basis for a bureaucratic central planner's view of how people's pay should be set, which bears zero reference at all to how many people want to do the job for the pay offered.  Have you seen a single politician or journalist in New Zealand outline how ridiculous this is? This is exactly the outcome of the philosophy of the capitalist command economy.

Snowdon describes it as essentially the application of activist state seeking to remould capitalism to meet centrally determined goals:

An activist state is systematically coercing the private sector in the pursuit of a range of social engineering goals, all of which are implicitly assumed to be more important than the economy. It is a form of central planning, albeit with a patchwork of different plans rather than one overarching goal.

Following on from my previous post, this is exactly what you can see from the Opportunity Party, whose leader "stepped into the world of... purpose-driven business". The purpose you can be sure is not why people and other businesses risked capital in the business, it's a purpose that is mostly about signalling virtue, and just chips away at its competitiveness, its resources to respond to consumers and competitors (especially in economies that don't have this sort of regulatory impost).

It's commonplace for people to refer to the People's Republic of China as a "communist" country. While it is led by the Communist Party, and has a great deal of central command and control, in many aspects it lets private enterprise run rip and be competitive, especially when exporting and seeking to win against foreign rivals. While it has plenty of state owned enterprises it directs and controls, it is less interventionist in the private sector.  You see China actually cares about economic growth and development, because it works.

In the UK and across much of the developed world, governments are far more concerned about social engineering goals. Snowdon notes Net Zero (regardless of cost) which in the UK sees car retailers fined for selling too many cars that people want (petrol or diesel powered) relative to cars fewer people want (EVs).  The market doesn't price goods the politicians want people to buy cheaply enough, and the public don't want to pay more for them, so the politicians penalise companies selling people what they want.  The Ardern Government did this more softly by taxing the cars people wanted to subsidise the ones the government wanted people to buy. It did it by implementing US style government procurement rules to preference responses to tenders that included Maori enterprises, just because of their ownership, regardless of the value the enterprises offered to taxpayers relative to others. 

Snowdon notes how far the public health lobby has gone in the UK (and it's obvious the same lobby in NZ wants similar steps):

Supermarkets have already been banned from offering multi-buy price discounts on “less healthy” food and are prohibited from displaying these products in certain parts of their shops. Wes Streeting plans to go even further and start fining supermarkets for selling too many calories.

I don't think New Zealand is quite so bad. A cursory look at economic statistics indicates:

- State spending as a proportion of GDP is 41% in NZ, 44% in the UK

- Tax as a proportion of GDP is 27% in NZ, 35% in the UK

- Public debt as a proportion of GDP is 41% in NZ, 98% in the UK.

It's notable that many of the command and control steps in the UK haven't been followed in NZ, although some of these were stopped with the removal of the Hipkins Government.

However, the approach of regulatory control of the private sector remains at the heart of what the Wellington bureaucracy advances to meet social goals, and it has widespread support in academia.  Some elements of the capitalist command economy remain very much in place.

Even with its replacement, the Resource Management Act will still not put private property rights first, and will still mean local government very much is in command.  

The electricity industry remains a weird blend of a market economy, with significant state investment, constrained by the planning system, which neither resembles a free market (given how difficult it is to build new generating capacity, and the state majority owning three quarters of the sector), nor a socialist system (as there is not a monopoly state provider). The previous ban on new oil and gas production (which in the current environment seems absurd) was purely an exercise in social engineering and virtue signalling, to show off a commitment to "Net Zero" even though it made virtually no impact on such targets (and no impact on climate change).  However it certainly scared off new investment in the sector, fearing a change in government could ban its industry once again.

While supermarket competition is not what some would wish, this is largely due to the planning system, although there remain calls to split up the industry in ways unheard of in other countries, with even the Finance Minister having floated it, and it still being a "live" policy with some political parties.  The fact this was even considered by a purportedly centre-right government indicates how far from the 1980s and 1990s NZ has gone. 

New Zealand lacks the compulsory centralised pay bargaining seen in Australia, which bears the cost of it because the wealth generated from mining is so significant, the loss in productivity is diluted.  However, it was only a change in government in 2023 that stopped it being implemented in NZ. 

So I'd say New Zealand isn't quite as far down the path of regulatory sclerosis as the UK, but that is not because of a lack of will to continue down that path. You can see it in Labour, the Greens and the Opportunity Party, as well as within the glance of part of the National Party and NZ First to seek to add "just another" regulation to make business have "purpose" to meet the politicians' goals.

The fascists of the 1930s (actual fascists, not David Seymour) didn't advance communist style nationalisation of the economy because they preferred to use regulation and state control over business and industry to meet their goals. The word is vastly overused by the far-left, but its approach philosophically is not a million miles away from the bureaucratic command and control state regulating capitalism to meet the lofty ambitions of politicians.

One thing is for sure, it sure isn't a free-market capitalist economy.

The Opportunity Party is clearly on the left

What was TOP and founded by the eclectic Gareth Morgan has been through a few leaders, and is into its latest one, and instead of using the acronym, has gone from the “Opportunities” party to just Opportunity. Just one opportunity, presumably for its candidates to get a handle on power.

I last wrote about it in 2020 when I said:

The centre-left policy wonks' party. For clever people that would usually vote Labour, and think they can solve many solutions if only the tax system were tinkered with. There are a couple of clever people here, but it just the intellectual wing of the Labour-Green parties, and takes its support from there.  Long may it do that.

This remains largely the case. While it avoids the Hamas-adjacent one-eyed view of Israel of the Greens, and the self-interested grifting of unions seen in Labour, it is essentially a party of left-wing activists combining those who have made careers in corporate virtue signalling and productivity sapping, or in the public sector. You need only look at the profiles of the leader, deputy-leader and some candidates to get a clear picture that this isn’t a party of free-wheeling entrepreneurs, advocates for freedom of expression and competition and choice in public services.

Leader Qiulae Wong profile states “After studying law and politics, she stepped into the world of human rights, disability inclusion, ethical fashion, climate and purpose-driven business”

Now that fits right into the standard box-ticking of left-wing virtue supporting. Human rights, inclusion, ethical and then the weirdest... "purpose-driven business"

If you think “purpose-driven business” is different from other businesses, then you don’t understand business. The purpose of business is to make a return on capital. However, she presumably thinks that isn’t enough, and business should seek to show off some noble intent beyond providing goods and services at a quality and price that customers are willing to pay for.  

She led the “B Corp” movement in NZ which is a corporate grift that seeks to extract money from businesses to get a virtue signal stamp to: 

“Be part of a growing global movement working to create an economy that benefits people and the planet”

This is largely vacuous nonsense. The economy exists because people produce goods and services that benefit people.

However, if you want to be part of a movement that is about putting productivity and wealth creation secondary to sacrificing shareholder value to identitarian and zero net impact climate change goals, then good for you, but let’s not pretend this is “centrist”. I am sure they will think I am some awful mean nasty capitalist individualist who thinks it's ok to run people over and kill pandas and whales to make a buck, but this sort of language and empty concepts are largely conceived by small groups of people who are very much the same as each other.  They are all trying to prove to one another that despite their considerable wealth, education and relative luxury level of living, they are actually altruistic and generous people who care about something beyond themselves and their family, and this is proven by showing off credentials that are popular amongst themselves.  

You can be sure probably none of them donate to Iranian's fighting the Islamic Republic, North Koreans trying to defect to the free world, Mauritanians fleeing slavery or Ukrainians repelling Russia. It's far more glorious to save a few tonnes of emissions from installing a solar panel or getting equal numbers of highly paid women on the local board of a major accounting multinational.

It could be right from the Green Party.  You see these movements are great for big companies that can afford to waste money hiring people or consultants to do zero-value research, publicity and branding to look good to airhead consumers, finger-wagging politicians and activist NGOs. However, they are deadly for small entrepreneurs just trying to break even, minimise costs and maximise consumers in taking on competitors like this.  

Deputy Leader Daniel Eb is cut from the same cloth. “Dan works to transition Aotearoa New Zealand to a just, regenerative food system”. Wait, what? How is it unjust now? How is not regenerative? Well he might tell you because…

“Dan founded a communications agency to help tell stories about rural innovation, community building and nature-positive farming”

Again, this could be right from the Green Party. Marketing and spin oriented.

Dr Kayla Kingdon-Beb (Wellington Bays candidate - where she is up against Julie Anne Genter) is “a well-known environmental policy leader and advocate. She believes Aotearoa’s most crucial (and undervalued) asset is nature”. She is Chief Executive of WWF-NZ and before that was Director of Policy at the Department of Conservation.  Again, could be right from the Green Party, and probably a good candidate to win votes from the far too frequently angry Julie Anne Genter.

I wont go through all the candidates, although this image of them tells a story that shows how it isn’t like the Green Party. The Green Party isn’t keen on white males as candidates anymore, whereas the Opportunity Party is.  Indeed a majority of candidates are male. Maybe it's centrist to not just select people on identitarian grounds nowadays?

Yet it is policies that tell you how leftwing the Opportunity Party is:

Universal Basic Income: Welfare for all. Paying people to be idle (of course it’s not characterised as that), by taxing some people more is a distinctively leftwing policy. It is directly redistributive, taking from some to give to all, and it is distinctively uninterested in productivity or wealth creation. $370 a week to everyone isn’t enough for some to live on but is a nice handout to the daughters and sons of lawyers, doctors and policy wonks at university. Note it doesn’t replace all benefits. The proposal is that solo parents get extra money, there are extra payments for people with children, housing support. So “admin” savings on this aren’t going to be total. With labour shortages in some sectors, the idea that people should receive other people’s money unhindered by any obligation to do anything is fundamentally socialist.

Fully subsidised Public Transport: This is another transfer from taxpayers to a small number of people, which has been proven elsewhere to achieve little. It is a blunt tool to help the poor (many of whom don’t live in places with much or any public transport, or certainly not public transport that goes to where they need) but is a big hand out to middle income taxpayers who work downtown in major cities like Auckland and Wellington. Overseas experience indicates it does little to relieve traffic congestion but does a lot to attract people from walking and cycling. Making the supply of a service free at the point of use is a fundamentally socialist concept. Imagining it is “just” for a six-figure sum public servant in Wellington to get a free trip into work, but for the shift-worker in Naenae who starts at the airport at 4am to not do so (because she drives) is quite something.  Of course the party also wants to pour more money into public transport, regardless of net benefits (because well… socialism).

Land Value Tax: New Zealand already has this in rates, but this extends it to central government. The premise being that it could replace some income tax, but the proposal is that there would be three income tax brackets – 28%, 34% and 39%. Lower income tax rates are abolished because of the welfare to everyone payments. The point of the Land Value Tax is to encourage more intensive use of land, except in rural areas (the party is keen on zoning of course). There would be lots of exceptions as well including Māori land, conservation land, land owned by NGOs, government and social housing.  Woe betide government be taxed the same as the great unwashed “speculating land bankers”. Now I don’t think Land Value Tax is necessarily left wing, if done simply and lowers income tax equally, but this isn’t it. 

Citizens’ Assemblies: Heaven help us all if this comes in so that the curtain twitching finger-wagging brigade of semi-retired activists get to dictate public policy. This sort of direct-democracy will inherently exclude business-owners and people with multiple jobs (who won’t have the time to participate), but be perfect for lobbyists, activists and retirees who are just aching to get involved in running other people’s lives. It’s exactly this sort of approach to planning that has caused NIMBYism, and which ultimately gets hijacked by people who want to interfere, who want to tax and spend other people’s money and run any policy area like a village.  It’s the atmosphere that has no place for radical individuals, doing something different in business, community, society, art or even just in their own lives that doesn’t harm anyone else.  The Greens would love it.

There’s other stuff like creating a “circular plastics economy” presumably regardless of cost or impact. Implementing Labour’s previous ban on smoking for adults as they age (helping grow the black-market in tobacco for organised crime). Raising youth court jurisdiction to 25 (soft-pedalling on repeat offenders who cause untold harm to victims). 

It’s interesting it has dropped capital gains tax because it wouldn’t have the same impact as a land value tax, but let’s not pretend the Opportunity Party cares much about economic growth and productivity as much as it cares about redistribution and being virtuous. 

It talks about bringing left and right together. Well it brings left for sure, I’m not sure what it brings on the right.

For example, what does it say about fiscal prudence? There is little about saving on government spending, the main emphasis appears to be to let the economy “grow” to surplus (although that seems a bit like Nicola Willis to be fair).

What does it say about foreign affairs? Nothing

What does it say about greater choice in health and education provision? Nothing

What does it say about improving New Zealand’s competitiveness internationally? Nothing. Just keep sliding down below the per capita GDP of Italy (and well below Australia)

I’m very happy for the Opportunity Party to attract some voters from the Greens or Labour, but let’s not pretend this is some haven for disaffected National voters who think there is a chance for any principles of smaller government, personal responsibility and individual freedom to be respected. This is still a party of policy wonks, now led by a grifter of “corporate social responsibility”.

Luxon or not

It's hardly news to most people, other than some members of the National Party caucus, that Christopher Luxon is not doing well as Prime Minister in convincing even a plurality of voters that he is the right person for the job.  He defeated Chris Hipkins in 2023, and now more people think Hipkins would be a better Prime Minister than him, although I suspect a significant plurality think neither of them are any good (and a smaller number dream of minor party leaders, especially Winston Peters).

Luxon was clearly a competent CEO, and his best characteristic is that he is a good delegator. He has largely left most portfolios to their Ministers, and it shows. The Ministers that are most highly rated are those that have shown results, or at the very least, show competence in dealing with difficult issues.  Regardless of what I think of any of them personally or even some of their policies, it is fairly clear that Erica Stanford, Chris Bishop, Simeon Brown and Mark Mitchell (of the National Ministers, as there is competence in NZ First and ACT as well), have all shown themselves to be able to "get things done".  

I would be one of the first to criticise Stanford in many ways, in particular I think she is just another wet who is almost wholly submissive to the teaching unions, but she has shown both a willingness to effect change and a passion for what she does. Her efforts for curriculum reform, pushing structured literacy and passion for lifting standards is clear.  She projects confidence and communicates clearly and competently, even if I think the government is incredibly weak in opening up the education sector to more choice, this isn't about libertarians, it's about the general public believing in competence and leadership.

Chris Bishop on infrastructure has also demonstrated a commitment to results. You can criticise the replacement of the RMA on multiple grounds (as Nick Clark from the NZ Initiative competently did), but you can't criticise his passionate commitment to a long-term fix of the housing crisis, and his efforts to hold Kainga Ora to account, and take interim steps making it easier to build some homes and infrastructure.  Furthermore, I've never encountered a Transport Minister in New Zealand or anywhere in the world who both believes in road pricing and sees it as a tool to improve conditions for drivers, and to make better investments in road improvements. Whether it is housing, transport or social infrastructure, he doesn't just talk in carefully curated soundbites, he speaks off the cuff and shows a passion for change and results. It helps that he has twice won the usually safe Labour seat of Hutt South (Luxon, Stanford, Brown and Mitchell all have safe seats), which takes considerable effort and shows a cut-through to much more than the party base.

Simeon Brown, despite childish and cheap jibes directed at him on social media, has demonstrated calm, capable competence in delivery. In health, traditionally an albatross around the neck of politicians almost anywhere, he quickly got across the issue of Dunedin Hospital, and made a decision about its future. This matched developing a five-year health infrastructure plan and setting five key health targets. As Transport Minister his great achievements were in turning around the spending plans of NZTA to meet those of the government, and to reverse the widespread speed limit reductions.  He has a financial and economic competence as a "dry" member of Cabinet, which reflects his education and previous career in banking.

Finally Mark Mitchell has been the face of National's commitment to law and order, cracking down on criminal gangs and delivering a demonstrated reduction in violent crime, following increases in Police numbers and corrections staff. Although this was undoubtedly supported by policies from both ACT and NZ First, Mitchell is convincing as a Minister against crime.

All of this contrasts with Luxon.  He is unconvincing, he seems unable to show a serious passionate spirit that chimes with much of the population.  As much as delegating is good, people want a Prime Minister to be across it all. Not necessarily like Helen Clark was (as she was a control freak Prime Minister, micromanaging most policies and not trusting most Ministers on major issues), but at least as well as John Key and Bill English could.  PMs need to be able to ad-lib, to respond spontaneously without briefing notes, based on a philosophical and policy grounding about the direction of government and principles. Some might say it is a bit too much to ask a Prime Minister, especially a National Party one to base thinking and what he says on principles, but principles and passion are where authenticity comes from, and authenticity helps win elections.

People want political leaders to believe in something and to express it, showing their passionate commitment to not just results that people want, but the basis for getting there. Luxon hasn't got it, he didn't have it before the last election, but the public were so fed up with the failed performance of the Ardern/Hipkins years, post-Covid, that they were willing to give him a go. That willingness has been eroded considerably.  There is a chance he can pull together enough support at the election to defeat Chris Hipkins, in part because Winston Peters has clearly positioned himself on the conservative right, and David Seymour continues to have a decent base of support for those who think the National Party is too wet, but that chance is far from a safe bet.  

Much more importantly, New Zealanders deserve a Prime Minister who they have confidence in, who can take a clear, principled stand on issues, without fluffing his lines.  I'm not fussed really if Luxon wants to support the US and Israel over Iran, or oppose it because he thinks it may be against international law, or claim that NZ is watching, not involved and does not want to take a stance out of respect of our allies.  Just believe in something. 

So he needs to go. Stanford or Bishop look like the leading contenders to replace him. Mitchell hasn't the breadth and depth for the role, and Brown is too young and too conservative to attract the non-politically engaged middle voters National needs.  However, Brown would be an excellent Finance Minister.

Stanford is Auckland based, and socially liberal, with the undoubted advantage of being a woman, with a clear, pleasant voice. She would need a deputy who is more conservative and able to moderate concerns she is too wet and centrist. Some may think she could look a little like a National Jacinda, but that is under rating Stanford. It seems unlikely she would characterise herself by emotions and over-ambitious targets.  To address concerns about being wet, Brown would be an ideal deputy to Stanford, although two Auckland leaders is not ideal, it is not as problematic as two Wellington ones.

Bishop, notwithstanding the alleged failed plot late last year, is equally as compelling. Being Wellington based is no asset, but the Hutt is a bit different, and he is much more of an "everyman" able to reach across to a broader group of voters.  He would need a deputy who is not Wellington based, and although he isn't a "wet" at all, he is socially liberal, so a more conservative deputy who is either Auckland or regionally/rural based would be ideal. Brown again would deliver this, although the push for a woman would suggest Stanford could be a choice, two social liberals might grate against part of the caucus.

I've not mentioned Willis although some would suggest she is the automatic choice, as the current Deputy. There is a clear couple of reasons for that. Firstly, she has anchored herself as a Luxon loyalist, it's difficult to see his weaknesses as not reflecting on her. Secondly, and far more importantly, she has not delivered on substance, particularly on the cost of living, but also notably in turning around the economy. Rather she has pushed relatively insignificant policy measures and issues with little real result.  You can predict exactly what the Opposition is going to say, because so much of what she has pushed has delivered little.

I doubt more than 10% of voters could name Family Boost as one of her signature policies, because it's achieved little despite her efforts to publicise the handout.  The Opposition has portrayed her as a harsh austerity Finance Minister, which if it were true, would have demonstrated results, with a path to surplus being sooner (and commensurate impacts on inflation and interest rates). She would have upset public sector unions, recipients of government largesse and leftwing academics, but at least would have some respect from the public for taking difficult decisions that were unpopular with some, for the sake of better long term outcomes.  She didn't need to be Ruth Richardson to just take spending down to the levels (as a proportion of GDP) when Labour got elected in 2017. In reality she has stemmed the growth in government spending, but wears the banner of "cuts" and hasn't been able to repudiate it.  What's much worse than her weakness on spending is the populist hobby horses she has chased to no avail.  The utterly fake dressing down of the head of Fonterra for the high price of butter, when no one credible thought anything could be done about it (bear in mind she used to work for Fonterra as a lobbyist), was cringeworthy. Furthermore, she cried wolf so much about supermarkets so when it was clear that the main solution - RMA reform - was actually out of her hands, and given the price of groceries in New Zealand (when GST is taken into account) is not disproportionate to Australia, she couldn't communicate reality and back down after fuelling hype that delivered nothing.  Finally, while she has claimed credit over lowered interest rates, that all about to reverse, thanks to a lowering dollar and now the war in the Middle East.  She couldn't even get the Reserve Bank's profligacy under control.  The public want action on the cost of living, but few believe she can do anything.

She might think she is entitled to be the next Prime Minister, but it's not clear what she has to offer. Most recently, her speech in Parliament about Iran demonstrated a patronising tone that focused not on the events in the Middle East, but what it means for New Zealanders. In foreign affairs, the public wants someone to talk convincingly about what is happening in defence and humanitarian terms, balancing the death and destruction of war, with the optimism of potentially ending a brutal tyranny, and concern about the end-game and what it means for the people involved.  New Zealanders know they are far away, and they are not just concerned about inflation and trade, they do not just think of foreign relations as transactional, but as a matter of what is right and its global impacts.

So no, Willis is not the answer.  She should not be the next Prime Minister and if Luxon is replaced, she should go too and be replaced, with a Finance Minister who understands what it takes to raise productivity and make New Zealand more attractive for starting and sustaining businesses. It isn't tax breaks for movies. 

Of course nothing might happen. Maybe some National MPs want to retire early (!), maybe some think Luxon is misunderstood and the media is to blame, or the polls are missing those who are undecided and will be drawn to him for stability on voting day.  They are all wrong. Luxon has been a disaster. 

Labour has twice had one-term governments, and twice had two-term governments. National has never had a one-term government, or even a two-term government, but it nearly had a one-term government in 1993.  It was saved not just by the voting system, but because voters rejected Mike Moore's second attempt to be Prime Minister as Bolger, just, convinced voters that tough decisions were made for later gain, which proved to be true.

There is a risk in rolling Luxon (and Willis) that it makes the government look like a mistake from the start, that it draws into question the whole period since the last election.  However that risk is smaller than just fumbling along and hoping Labour will look less credible, and people will be frightened by the Greens and Te Pati Maori. 

With a passionate principled Prime Minister, and a competent, economically literate and sharp minded Finance Minister, a blend of time and courage can convince voters than the National Party has listened and wants to give the public confidence in a new Prime Minister and refreshed impetus to focus on what matters the most to them.  It needs to purge the mediocrity, the man who forever says "you know" (when you know he is trying to convince himself as much as you) and give New Zealanders passionate, competent and principled leadership.  The time for change is now.