In my circles—both in real life and online—it’s clear who’s in the good books and who isn’t. Chlöe Swarbrick? Loved. David Seymour? Loathed. So, let’s talk about Chlöe and David.
Kia ora Mountain Tūi, thanks for commenting. Really? I hear that all the time in my little Wellington Central bubble, more specifically Vic Uni campuses and my wider friends group. Great that you dont hear that, do you have any thoughts on them as politicians? Would love to hear your thoughts on it either way :)
I've never thought of politicians like that and would raise my eyebrows if any one did.
Do I have views on them?
Absolutely! I have an opinion on almost everything.
You could probably gauge my sense of David Seymour from any of my articles, but you never got back to me on why you feel Atlas Network is too simplistic an idea fo you.
Thanks for your patience and follow up on the Atlas Network argument, so here goes. I think it’s too simplistic because it acts as a shortcut to dismissing ACT and the Right without actually engaging with their policies, ideas, or political strategy. It’s a bit of a cop-out, an easy way to say, “Oh, Seymour is just a puppet of international libertarian think tanks,” rather than actually grappling with what ACT is trying to do, why their ideas appeal to people, and how they position themselves within New Zealand politics.
Now, to be clear, the connections between Seymour and the Atlas Network are real—but they’ve never been hidden, nor has there been any attempt to downplay them. ACT has always positioned itself as a classical liberal, small-government party, and it’s no secret that Seymour has ties to libertarian organizations, including Atlas-affiliated groups. He has spoken at events alongside people associated with Atlas, and ACT’s economic positions—especially around deregulation, tax cuts, and minimizing state intervention—are broadly aligned with libertarian and free-market think tanks worldwide. Not just Atlas Network.
But here’s where I think the argument about Atlas “pulling the strings” falls apart:
1. ACT’s policies are not dictated by Atlas, nor do they need to be. Seymour and ACT advocate for ideas that already exist within mainstream classical liberal and free-market thought. You don’t need an international think tank to tell you that lower taxes, deregulation, and personal responsibility are right-wing talking points—they’re baked into conservative and libertarian politics globally. He is fairly consistent with this.
2. The influence of Atlas-affiliated organizations in NZ is often overstated. Yes, the New Zealand Initiative (formerly the Business Roundtable) has ties to Atlas, and yes, they influence policy conversations—but influence is not control. Think tanks influence debates; they don’t set legislative agendas. If Atlas were really pulling the strings, ACT wouldn’t be polling at 8-10%—they’d be running the country.
3. Seymour himself is not an ideological purist. While he aligns with free-market libertarianism, ACT under his leadership has been pragmatic in ways that purist libertarians wouldn’t approve of. His stance on co-governance, social issues, and even elements of economic policy aren’t direct copies of Atlas Network policies—they reflect ACT’s need to appeal to a specific NZ voter base.
So, is Seymour influenced by Atlas-adjacent ideas? Sure. But does that mean he’s just a mouthpiece for international libertarian elites? No. If anything, treating Atlas as some kind of grand puppeteer behind ACT avoids engaging with why right-wing, free-market ideas remain appealing to a significant portion of NZ voters.
To me, that’s the real question: not “Is Atlas secretly running ACT?” (they aren’t), but “Why do ACT’s ideas resonate with a growing number of people?” That’s the debate worth having.
I answered elsewhere but to give this thread a sense of completion, thanks for taking the time to come back to me.
You posited that Atlas Network criticisms are “simplistic” and I asked you why - and you suggest it’s because it’s a shortcut to avoid discussing and reviewing ACT’s policies, strategies and the like.
But personally, I think it’d be a mistake to think that people who reference his alignment to the Trump aligned junk tank have not examined ACT’s policies, ideas and strategy.
You also posit that Seymour has been transparent about his connections - yet he has actually patently lied on the record.
BTW congratulations on getting a shout out on The Kaka
I was made aware that you’ve been discussing my article on Reddit, framing my arguments in ways that don’t fully reflect our past conversations. Since we haven’t engaged in a while, I wanted to respond directly here for clarity. I’ve also left a comment on the Reddit thread itself to correct the record.
I’ve always welcomed disagreement and debate—that’s why I write under my real name, with my real photo, offering my genuine views for discussion. That’s why I find it ironic that you’ve accused me of political cowardice while commenting anonymously. There’s something deafening about that contradiction. If standing by my arguments publicly is cowardice, what does that make debating from behind a pseudonym?
That aside, I want to engage with your points in good faith, but I’ve noticed a pattern where you dismiss my arguments without actually addressing them. Saying you “couldn’t take my article seriously” without explaining why isn’t a critique—it’s just an easy way to discredit something without engaging with its substance. Likewise, stating that the “pure might and money of right-wing string pullers” has shaped public opinion is an interesting claim, but you don’t actually explain how this happens or why that influence is supposedly unique to the right.
Your point about the Atlas Network is another example. You suggest it’s not simplistic to bring it up, yet you don’t engage with my argument that referencing Atlas is often used as a shortcut to avoid debating ACT’s policies on their own merits. If Seymour has lied about his connections, that would be a fair point to scrutinize—but where’s the evidence? Simply stating it without backing it up isn’t an argument.
If you’re willing to engage on these points directly, I’m happy to have the conversation. But if this is just about reframing my work out of context for an audience that doesn’t have access to the full discussion, then it’s not really a debate—it’s just distortion.
I posted on Reddit without referencing your name because I don't know a lot about TOP and wanted to understand if your positions echoed TOP policies.
And learned a lot from that thread.
To be clear your quote that I referenced was:
"I do agree that the Greens' policies would be more damaging than those on thee right. Hard pill to swallow for the idealistic, left-leaning progressives...."
[in context of a discussion about ACT as I recall] so I'm not sure what you feel has been distorted.
I also attached the screen shot to your reply.
Re: Atlas Network, I've covered it in detail over the last year, and feel no need to discuss it with someone who believes David Seymour didn't lie about.
I believe Joshua Drummond has an entire article on that topic. RNZ also has the show. There are Wikipedias and extensive commentary.
What ACT is attempting to do is exactly the same thing its founders, Roger Douglass & Richard Prebble did when they were part of Langes government. The first time they did it, it completely fucked the economy (pardon my french) and started the decline of state managed assets like the railways, free tertiary education, the much more comprehensive welfare schemes in general, and most egregiously of all the loss of the huge portfolio of public housing. We are still dealing with the fallout of much of it today, almost 40 years later.
Only fools repeat the same thing and hope for a different outcome.
A lot of people, me included, think Libertarianism is evil. I guess at best, that makes David the messenger of evil. I guess to me, someone knowingly making wealthy people wealthier and poorer people poorer is evil. I guess you do not. Trying to retain moralism while he laughs his way to the bank won't help anything except helping people with money sleep at night.
Hi SaucySusan, thanks for comment. I don’t think reducing political ideologies to good vs. evil is helpful, useful or accurate. Politics isn’t a morality play—it’s a battleground of competing ideas, interests, and trade-offs. Treating David Seymour as a “messenger of evil” might feel satisfying, but it sidesteps the harder question: why do his ideas resonate with people, and why does ACT continue to grow in support? Like he is acting PM today, why is that? How did that happen?
I don’t subscribe or agree at all with the idea that anyone advocating for lower taxes or small government is always and automatically scheming to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. That’s a caricature, gross stereotype and not a smart or well informed argument.
There are plenty of reasons people support ACT—some economic, some ideological, some purely pragmatic. Dismissing them all as villains doesn’t explain their appeal; it just makes it easier to avoid engaging with the substance of their policies and fuels divisions.
If you want to argue that libertarian policies produce harmful outcomes, that’s a debate worth having. But reducing an entire ideology to “evil” and assuming that everyone who supports it does so with malicious intent? That’s just an excuse to avoid understanding your political opponents. Nat
Thanks for the response Nat - it's greatly appreciated you articulating your views. We can heartily disagree on this and that is okay. I am also grateful it is the weekend so I can respond to some parts between movies. Also apologies this is where the original comment came, I did it on my phone and am still new to the Stack.
You are right, I should be, and intent to, go out and talk to more of the voters of ACT about this. As well as people who don't vote. I am sure you are aware the majority of young people did not vote (along with many, many others) and if we take that one step further, those that did vote, are more likely to be fiscally conservative. I also grew up in poverty in Australia so know these folks pretty well. I would happily engage one of them on the theme 'Why David Seymour is Evil' - I think they would be into it. Genuinely.
A couple of reasons why poor people vote for ACT off the bat; the MPs/Party speaks their language - I mean emotive and straight shooting, not racists or bigoted, that's a new part of it all; they have not seen their lives improve one bit and ACT lies to them that their lives will be directly improved by the market; they don't trust Government and mainstream media because they feel they have been screwed over their whole lives. Little do they know, it is the wealthy people doing the real screwing; they have much less access to real information about 'economic policy'; and so on and so forth. Do you think that the general public reads details about policies, let alone looks into the implications? Or even ACT voters. Do you think they understand the policies?
Something people with great intentions keep doing is trying to 'educate' folks into changing their language either to suit the narrative of those that think they are more educated than them or because they've been told the only way to go when they go low is to go high. Poor people don't care about this. And neither do I.
Also, I only have a masters degree in economics and politics unfortunately. Maybe my years of experience being poor, working in underpaid jobs with other poor people, been on the benefit like other poor people and am friends with poor people give me a little bit of understanding?
For what it's worth, my favourite TVNZ Breakfast political panels were those with Chlöe and David. To me the two of them together epitomised respectful political debate between profoundly disagreeing worldviews. A sort of ray of hope in a world otherwise beset by polarisation, if you will.
Hi Chuan-Zheng! Oh same! I really enjoyed watching them and rarely missed them. I respected both of them for engaging with each other on TV. It did seem like a ray of hope. I guess, I am writing this article to those passionate Green voters, which Wellington Central has many to humanize both their politicians and their opposition. It will help create a more effective political landscape. I think at least.
It’s the ideology they both passionately believe in that’s ‘interesting’ in my view. Both ideologies have flaws and limitations. Libertarian ideology is arguably more flawed. Both ideologies can be divisive. Of course, the impacts of those ideologies filter back through the behaviour of the politicians championing each concept. The fourth estate picks up on these vibes for better or worse and reporting standards are highly variable. A seperate problem. The implementation of political ideology is where values, ethics, and integrity come into play. For example, so far, Van Velden is failing to collaborate with the countries largest union. Why? Why not meet with them? Seymour has amplified division around the Treaty with his bombastic approach. Why? Read or listen to Justin Tipa’s speech. Compare that with Seymour’s oratory. Why does he champion horrible school lunches and so on. Is that Libertarianism? Does it improve society? How? Can you explain any improvements to our society libertarianism has delivered? Thanks, good debate. In fairness: are the greens divisive? Sure, they absolutely can be, but their approach is arguably more palatable, even to those with opposing views. Morning coffee read here: http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2021/03/libertarianism-is-bankrupt.html
I agree that the ideologies themselves are what’s most interesting. Both have flaws, and both can be divisive, especially when they move from theory to implementation. And you’re right—the way these ideologies filter through politicians' behavior (and how the media picks up on it) is a whole separate issue.
On libertarianism, I think one of its biggest challenges is that it often assumes markets and individuals will self-correct without strong government intervention, which doesn’t always play out well in practice—especially in areas like education, healthcare, and inequality. At the same time, you could argue it’s brought more focus to personal freedoms, reducing bureaucracy, and challenging inefficiencies in government spending. Whether that’s a net positive depends on your perspective. One benefit I see of smaller government is that the government isn't using its enforcing and penalties capability as much as they could otherwise, which for me is always a positive.
As for division—both ACT and the Greens push hard on their respective ideological fronts, and while I get why you find the Greens’ approach more palatable, I think it depends on where you sit politically. Some would argue the Greens’ framing of issues (especially around wealth redistribution and systemic change) is just as polarizing as ACT’s stance on the Treaty or regulation.
That said, I appreciate the questions you’re raising—because they push beyond “good vs. bad” narratives and into what actually works. Thanks for the morning reading rec too! Will check it out.
Agree, it depends on one's viewpoint. Tilting right I find Chloe / the Greens less palatable. Would Labour likely lose support when the electorate thinks the Greens would need to be around the cabinet table with them. I think the majority of middle NZ would be nervous about Chloe compared to the leader she replaced.
Kia ora Kiwiana, thanks for reading and taking the time to comment! I agree—most of New Zealand would probably feel pretty nervous about Chloe at the Cabinet table. But sometimes, in my Wellington Central progressive bubble, it feels like she could be Prime Minister tomorrow. It’s a bit of cognitive dissonance for me.
No difference? I think you could argue that the very seeking of the power is corrupt. Maybe..
But only one of these two has been groomed by billionaires to act in billionaires interest to the direct detriment of the many for the benefit of the few ...I'll let people work out which one I'm talking about.
Hi Dan, thanks for chiming in. I get where you’re coming from—there’s definitely a difference between seeking power to empower others and being groomed by external forces to serve a specific agenda of a small elite. But I still think oversimplifying it like that is problematic. The right—and people like David—have a place in our political landscape just by being there. From a purely political perspective, anyone who can organize and mobilize people effectively needs to be taken seriously, whether we agree with their motives, intent, or agenda or not. I also think its interesting how we frame influence. Some see business interests shaping politics as corruption, while others see unions or activist networks doing the same thing and call it grassroots democracy. Its messy and nuanced, something I think is definitely worth unpacking. Nat
One of those forces is bottom up and the other is top down. Which do you consider is more fundamentally democratic? What the people themselves want? Or what the people are encouraged to want.
It is a sad indictment on our society that this piece is considered remotely controversial. I thought it was a fairly straightforward exposition of a self-evident principle.
That is not to denigrate you, Ms Albert - I'm disappointed at the need for people to point out that the sky is blue, not at the people who do so.
I admire both Ms Swarbrick and Mr Seymour. Both are extremely intelligent young politicians with bright, if fringe, ideas. Both sincerely believe what they are saying.
Of course, I also believe that Ms Swarbrick is almost entirely incorrect. But to steal a line from Ronald Reagan, her problem is not that she's ignorant. She just knows so much that isn't so.
Hi Qangin, thanks for comment as always. No need to call me Ms Albert, Nat is fine :) and yeah, it’s kind of wild that saying “politicians are people” is considered controversial, but here we are. I also agree—both Chlöe and David are sharp, ideological, and sincere in what they believe. And I love that Reagan quote—pretty much sums up politics in general. Thanks for reading! Nat
I'm struggling a little with your framing for this piece. You've spent a large portion of it telling us about Chlöe's background but have limited David's to engineer and policy adviser recruited by ACT. He also studied philosophy, perhaps when he discovered his love of Hayek and Friedman. I don't believe David has worked as a qualified engineer, only interned. He worked in Canada for a couple of think tanks, the Frontier Centre and the Manning Centre. It would be quite good to give his past work the same time in limelight as Chlöe. Maybe talk about the policies he promoted while working at the think tanks in Canada. His positioning towards indigenous Canadians was quite controversial I believe.
Heya Victoria, thanks for your comment! Fair call—I gave more space to Chlöe’s background because it’s more widely discussed, but you’re right that David’s history deserves the same treatment. His time in Canada, especially with the think tanks, is definitely relevant and helped shape his policy outlook. Do you know what specific policies he advocated for? I’ll do some reading to find out as well.
I’m not a journalist—I write from a political science perspective—so when I don’t know something, I work with the information that’s publicly available. But I take your point, and I’ll aim to be more balanced in future writing. As I mentioned in the piece, in my circles, I know and hear more about Chlöe, and I’ve debated her, whereas I don’t have the same proximity to David. She’s simply more accessible to me.
The controversy around his views on Indigenous policy in Canada is an interesting point too. That’s probably worth a deep dive on its own, since it gives more insight into his broader political philosophy. And I always appreciate the push to be more balanced, it's the exact ethos of aiming to be less certain.
Thanks for replying Naturals and for your commitment to being more balanced.
You asked about his policies when working for Canadian think tanks. You'll probably not be surprised to know that he advocated against public transport, against indigenous rights (in quite a worrisome way including denying the horror of mass graves found in native schools), basically against taxes and collectivism and pro the individual, where the individual is a corporation. In his time there he also did his MBA in think tanks at the Atlas Network, (you can find this info in the Atlas annual review.) He was basically a Hayek/Friedman fan but I guess since Hayek went on to consult with Pinochet, extreme neoliberals now prefer to say Friedman is their fave economist.
Whatever the reasons are for an individual entering politics, once they become MPs a strange phenomenon occurs. They are gradually seduced by the "glamour" of feeling they are at the centre of things and become part of the Wellington mythology of important people doing important things, then they become entitled quickly followed by believing they are fire-proof. I experienced it first-hand in the 70s when I was on a number of tertiary curriculum development groups and used to fly up from Dunedin at regular intervals for meetings. It was insidious. I remember feeling a buzz and a sense of being part of an in-group until I woke up to the fact that none of it really mattered in the bigger scheme of things.
Kia ora Aroha, thanks for reading and commenting. I couldn’t agree more, it is a weird phenomenon that places like the Beehive create. Barack Obama, actually writes about this in his book, The Audacity of Hope, of how becoming a Senator in the USA, turns good intentioned politicians to money hungry fierce people, and it’s hard to resist even for the best intentioned of people. I don't think NZ is nearly as bad as the USA, but there are parallels there. I loved the “important people doing important things” That’s so true. I worked in the Beehive in 2017 for 1 year and that was absolutely the underlying ethos of the place. Nat
Another great substack article by Natalia Albert (I wish she offered the same level of insight in her "Trust in Institutions" presentation yesterday, but that's for another post...)
One thought. She notes
"Let’s be real—politicians in New Zealand don’t enter politics for power. If power, wealth, or influence were the goal, there are far easier ways to get there."
The general point she is making, that cynicism about politicians is often misplaced, is right. But I think she's missed the issue. Some people go into politics and the public service because they like flummery and flunkies. They like borrowing reputation of power from their offices to feed ego.
This is not new, or in any sense specific to NZ. Hobbes (in 1651) called it "vainglory" that "consisteth in the feigning or supposing of abilities in ourselves, which we know are not". As Hobbes notes, that such people are minority - and in my experience they are a smallish minority - does not stop them having an outsized influence on the reality of the state and government.
It is, Ill try and find the link, but I might just publish my paper later today as an out of cycle article, in case you think it's worth sharing. Any views on Chloe and David John?
No look I’m sorry Nat. I just agree with what you have written.
What you said, matters, because there is a lot of distracting personalisation that creates political noise. I think you put out a clean picture, nicely.
If you do the out-of-cycle, don’t bother hunting for the link.
Appreciate the kind words, Tony (even if my Trust in Institutions presentation didn’t quite hit the mark—guess I’ll have to lift my game next time!).
You raise a fair point. While I stand by the idea that politics in NZ isn’t an easy path to power, wealth, or influence, I agree that some people are drawn to the status of the job rather than the work itself. But I also firmly believe that 90% of NZ politicians are in it for the right reasons. Do they sometimes take their pursuit of power and influence too far? Possibly. But that’s also a reflection of the system we have created—we incentivize politicians to act that way, so we all bear some responsibility for how the game is played.
And honestly, is wanting status inherently a bad thing? I’m not sure it is.
Love the Hobbes reference too—"vainglory" is a great word for it. Definitely something worth exploring further.
The short answer to "is wanting status a bad thing?" is what Hobbes believed it created a state of nature of "nasty brutish and short" life. So possibly yes!
Hobbes key insight is that only a few people need to be motivated by vainglory for it to destroy political life. Contrary to myth, Hobbes is not a pessimist about individual people, he is a pessimist about society. To put Hobbes' views colloquially: most of us just want to get along, but the jerks get off on screwing things up for others, so if we pick someone to stamp on the jerks we'll all be better off.
Given the role of hierarchy in the state, the jerk problem infuses both political and state employee/public service bits of the state. I'd suggest it's the reason the Public Service Act 2020 is so disastrous, but that's an argument for another day...
Oh and forgot to comment on the Public Service Act 202, keen to hear your thoughts on that. I think it was the one commendable thing Peter Hughes did in his tenure. Why do you think it’s so disastrous? I mean, don’t get me wrong, its far from perfect but keen to hear more as to why you think it’s a mess. Nat
Basically, I think if you dig under the rhetoric of principles, etc, it's just a way to neutralise accountability mechanisms for those working for the state.
Hey Tony, I had a read/skim through Demystifying the State—especially Chapter 5, since that’s where you pointed me for your critique of the Public Service Act 2020. I can see where you’re coming from. If I’m reading you right, you’re arguing that rather than increasing accountability, the Act has actually weakened it by embedding a more ambiguous, values-based approach that ultimately insulates officials from scrutiny? That instead of making public servants more accountable to the public, it gives them more cover to act in ways that suit their own incentives? What do you think of Sir Brian Roche speech on the public service?
I still lean towards thinking the Act was a net positive—it at least attempted to clarify a purpose for the public service beyond just delivering for ministers—but I agree that it’s fair to ask whether it’s become more about managing accountability than actually improving it. I’d love to hear more about why you think it’s been a disaster in practice. What’s the worst consequence you’ve seen play out from it so far? Nat
Your description of my view of PSA 2020 is correct. The challenge I would offer you and other academics is whether or not the contributions by academia have improved accountability or made it harder to have meaningful accountability systems in place?
As you might see, I have no time for PSM, which was used as an intellectual justifucation for the Act. There is no doubt PSM is a viable academic literature but, of course, that's not the same as being ethically good or useful. I suggest the best comparison is the way evidence family is important is used to defend some truly unpleasant ideas
I need to write something on the Act so I'll write a substack.
I will read with interest. Accountability for non-publicly elected officials has always been an area of interest for me, so this is right up my nerd alley. Thanks for sharing.
Hi Tony, thanks for coming back to me. Interesting reflections on Hobbes, I think its seems cynical that politicians are jerks that should be stamped out. I think most politicians, especially in New Zealand have good and honest intentions. I genuinely believe they are operating with their voting base in mind, which is what democracy should do. Agreeing with them or not is a diffrent story. I do agree that places like the Beehive create an inflated sense of importance, like Aroha commented below, it’s a place where “important people do important things” but I categorically refuse to believe they are jerks that need to be stomped out. or am I missing something? Keen to unpack
Sorry, should have been clearer. I don't agree with Hobbes' prescription for the "avoid mischiefs may be done them by pole-cats, or foxes; but are content to be devoured by lions" reasons articulated by Locke. However Hobbes analysis does bring out that most people having mostly good motivation is not enough for good institutions. It's why various calls for "culture change" are not effective. My experience of individual NZ politicians is the same as yours, but that doesn't mean their actions add to good system when operating through the institutions they have to use.
This post seems premised on the notion that politicians are trustworthy and they always mean what they say. It also seems genuinely ignorant of the international movement to influence politics in favour of corporate interests (going back a century).
Is it coincidence that while Seymour uses the language of equality and freedom his and ACT’s policies uniformly benefit business and the wealthy and weaken worker’s rights and protections?
I think your assertion that politics is about ideas and not people betrays a pretty narrow view of politics and the ways they shape the possible existence of people in society. You seem either uninformed in the historical context of these political ideas or just uninterested in questioning the actual motives behind the political rhetoric.
Either way, Seymour has been documented at length as a dishonest and disingenuous politician. I don’t see how your “bothsideism” is helpful when he represents an ideology that would carve up New Zealand and sell it off to corporate interests, increasing poverty and precarity among the most vulnerable.
Thank you for this analysis Natalia. I feel you have missed the most important point in this - which is that politicians can be judged by their actions, beyond the respectful debate around policies. In this case, we have proof that David Seymour has openly lied to the New Zealand public - like denying outright on TV that he had anything to do with the Atlas Network, when there are pictures of him presenting at one of their conferences. And in the wake of the Christchurch mosque massacres, Seymour was going to vote in parliament for the machine guns. No matter how you could try to couch this as a policy stance in libertarian terms, it's verging on evil. Now try apply the same test of integrity in actions to Chloe Swarbrick...
So many points of contention in this substack post. Your initial characterization of each individual is a nonsense since as you identify you don't know one and barely know the other. In both cases neither are the architect of such political discourses, rather just protagonists. Your critiquing of these diametrically opposite political positions is conducted within the constraints of a dispassionate, eronious situated, historical view of unfolding events, a kind of supercillious engagement that can be quietly and quaintly argued within the hallowed halls of academia. However you choose to personally frame the friction between these ideas let me be clear, because neither you nor Dr Bryce Edwards on his platforms seem to want to posit, ACT policies are inherently self centred, anti labour, racist, and favoring capital over all else. To argue anything else is to place yourself in the chair of the willfully ignorant of the historical impact of colonisation of Maori via theft, displacement and judiciall chicanery, of global academic economic narratives that have narkedly shaped Aotearoa since Douglass, and of global outcomes that neoliberalism has inflicted in virtually ANY western/Eurocentric governments youu care to name since Reagan and Thatcher. As an individual with any insight or interest in labour there is simply no question that capital been championed at the expense of labour. Indeed as your post unravels it is hard to believe that your life experiences or grasp of just how disgusting the policies of this current ACT Party have on labour can allow you to posit such a relativist position. Everyone on this planet deserves the right to live with dignity and to be afforded a fair share in the proceeds of economic outcomes so that they are able to fully participation in the societies they inhabit. Seymour most certainly is not the devil since these concepts are regions mumbo-jumbo. His policies, political and economic truths are anti social, and deny the concept of equity. He deliberately falsifies issues to serve a political agenda that celebrates 'ME' over 'WE'. As a septuganarian that has seen, and been the recipient of a fully functioning and caring welfare state, and who has subsequently paid a life times taxes to ensure that favour could be passed forward, I am utterly sickened by governments like the one we currently suffer under who have transferred my tax dollars, not into those who need assistance, but into the pockets of the already rich. Argue what you will in intellectual terms about there being no absolutes, but it's a middleclass and essentially priveliged position you argue it from and won't fix one more arthritic knee, buy one more ferry or put one more nutritious school meal in the belly of children most at risk.
Thanks for your comment—I appreciate the depth of thought and conviction behind it. You raise important points about the historical and structural impacts of neoliberalism and colonization in Aotearoa.
First, let’s address your claim that my assessment of these politicians is “nonsense” because I don’t personally know them. Under that logic, we’d need to personally know every politician before scrutinizing or holding them accountable—an impossible and unnecessary standard. Politicians operate in the public sphere; their policies, rhetoric, and voting records are fair game for critique, whether we know them personally or not. So I stand by my assessment.
That said, I actually agree that politicians are just vessels for broader political ideas, which is a major theme in much of my writing. I rarely focus on individual politicians because, in the grand scheme, they matter far less than the ideological frameworks they operate within.
For what it’s worth, I’m not an academic. I’m doing my PhD full-time, but my background and future are in public service. My goal isn’t to be out of touch, and I’d argue that I’m not—but if you perceive me as such, then that perception itself carries some truth. I’ll leave that open.
Now, to the real debate: You argue that ACT is categorically bad, and I don’t. I evaluate ACT with the same rigor and balance that I apply to the Greens. Both parties are divisive and ineffective in some areas but effective in others. I’m happy to agree to disagree on that.
On neoliberalism: We are all living in a neoliberal political, cultural, and economic context. Every party in New Zealand, whether they like it or not, engages with this reality—open borders, trade agreements, globalization. That’s the world they govern within. ACT leans more toward classical liberalism, prioritizing individual freedoms, free speech, and small government. We can agree to disagree on how we interpret that, but let’s at least be precise.
This part of your comment is the most problematic to me:
“To argue anything else is to place yourself in the chair of the willfully ignorant of the historical impact of colonisation of Māori via theft, displacement, and judicial chicanery, of global academic economic narratives that have markedly shaped Aotearoa since Douglass, and of global outcomes that neoliberalism has inflicted in virtually ANY western/Eurocentric governments you care to name since Reagan and Thatcher.”
You frame this as though any perspective that doesn’t categorically align with yours is either ignorant or immoral. That kind of moral absolutism and intolerance for differing views makes genuine debate difficult. Engaging critically with ideas—even ones we strongly oppose—doesn’t make someone willfully ignorant; it makes them engaged in the complexities of political reality.
Interesting that you bring up the ferry issue—I’d be keen to hear what you think Wellington Central MP Tamatha Paul is going to do about that negotiation. Do you have any views on how that will play out?
Finally, you’ve made a lot of assumptions about me through my article, which I suppose is fair. But I don’t get the sense you came here to debate. I get the sense you came here to punish and educate, and I’m not particularly interested in engaging on those terms. If you want a debate, I’m open to that. But if this is just a lecture, I’ll pass.
There is nothing to debate re: ACT! This party represents the antithesis of everything I have spent a lifetime promoting through service and personal commitment. I challenge you to defend anything that they are promoting regarding Te Tiriri o Waitangi, industrial relations, charter schools, support for meals in schools, and the RSB. There are absolutes in this world and it is naiive to think otherwise. Racism and the pursuit of private wealth at the expense of public infrastructure and service are abominations that deserve to be called out in extremely blunt terms. It may be you would like to argue the indefensible, but it is a treatise that will find no succor with me.
Hi Mike, thanks for coming back to me. I disagree, anything and everything within the political sphere is up to debate. I have written my honest thoughts on ACTS Treaty Principles bill, where I disagree with some but understand why it’s needed in others. If you go to my homepage you can find them, I’ve written a few actually. I can also argue the benefits of charter schools. Your idea that there are absolutes will always make your perceptive on politics and policy narrow and superficial. I don’t argue the indefensible, I argue the complex, messy and nuanced, which is what politics is. What you’re doing is advocating, punishing and being unable to see things from different perspectives. You are on a moral grandstand that is the extract grandstand dividing us further. So if you are willing to have a debate, im always here for that.
And yet you have not answered or offered any rationale in a critiquing of my substantive claims that the ACT Party in particular champions capital at the expense of labour, willfully misconstrues the meaning of 'equity' over 'equality', and abuses the concept of the democratic process both in current practice and future legislation. I'm all ears!
Hi Creek, Good catch! You’re right—Jeanette Fitzsimons won Coromandel in 1999, so Chlöe isn’t the only Green MP to win an electorate. I’ve corrected that in the article. Appreciate the heads-up!
Technically Jennette was part of the alliance. She was a green mp but the alliance consisted of more than one party who entered MMP in a single list/party approach.
The tactic was that the jeopardy of not reaching 5% was less for the cohort than it would have been for individual parties like green. Not saying that significantly impacted her ability to win the seat which was a big success... but people take more notice in MMP of existing parties and ones polling over 5% (and the media reinforces that through who gets to go on TV debates).
Well, actually no, the Green Party left the Alliance in 1997 and Jeanette Fitzsimons won Coromandel in 1999. I think you are thinking of the 1996 election maybe David?
Hopefully this is a good place to point to Natalia that though there is a correct version, the incorrect paragraph is still there too.
First time reader, very enjoyable thank you. Theres definitely Mahi to be done here to try and minimise the harmful effects of tribal politics that we've seen in other countries so clearly recently.
Hi PlantingLemur, thanks for reading and commenting. Yes, this is a good place to chat with me. I try to get back to everybody, it takes me a day or two, but I always come and chat and get back to my comments. Which I am always very grateful for you folk engaging with Less Certain. I agree re the mahi needed to neutralize the tribal politics, polarized groups we have turned into. Also, I’ll go back to my post and correct again, thanks for pointing that out. Nat
Thanks David, that’s a fair point! Jeanette was elected while the Greens were still part of the Alliance, which makes her win a bit different from Chlöe’s, but it was still a significant achievement. Definitely worth noting in the broader context of how the Greens have navigated MMP over the years.
No she never won the seat as an Alliance MP. She entered Parliament in 1996 on the Alliance list. She only won the seat (i.e. the Coromandel electorate) in 1999. She was a Green MP then.
Great article - very much enjoyed your theme. I was an Act MP 2002-2005 and sat alongside the Greens in the House. We often voted with them. Eg, social freedoms such as prostitution law reform, same sex marriage, boy racers…I remain good friends with ‘the two Sues’ - Bradford & Kedgley, & was friends in the House with Nandor & Keith Locke. You’d hardly call those people power hungry. Remember, it’s the House of Representatives - no more, no less. It reflects the voting public.
Hi Deborah, stoked you found my Substack—especially as someone who’s been both in the press gallery and in Parliament! Really appreciate your perspective. It’s easy to forget how much crossover there actually is between different political camps on key issues—social freedoms being a great example. And you’re right, Parliament is ultimately just a reflection of the people who put it there. No more, no less. Fascinating to hear about your time sitting alongside the Greens and working with them on certain votes. That kind of cross-party collaboration feels increasingly rare these days. Thanks again for reading—really appreciate your insight! Nat
Another insightful and apposite commentary, Natalia- well said.
I agree that most politicians are sincere and well meaning. Like all groups there are a wide range of personalities- some more likeable and others more ego driven and others given to hectoring and bombast.
Unfortunately the majority of those in the MSM seem incapable of realising this or putting aside their own preconceived “left wing” biases.
What I do see lacking in many of our politicians is real world experience. Many such as Chloe or even “Chippie” have never had “real job” - like the ones most of us have - producing/earning/supporting/ being accountable/paying the bills/worrying. So most of us are not much interested in ideologies or critical theory. We want to get on with life without undue hindrance from the government. Except we
Would like them to provide the basic infrastructure and services that we pay taxes for.
My leaning is clearly and obviously liberal. That doesn’t mean I think Chloe is the devil or a bad person. I do think she is naive and unrealistic and she doesn’t engage me.
Nor do I think David is a white night slaying the monster of the state. He too is divorced from my world but less antagonistic than Chloe towards it.
I think we need them both for the presentation and balancing of different ideas. What we need is reasoned and unbiased examination of those ideas. We could also use a lot more pragmatists in the mix.
We would do well to remember that we are all people not caricatures and that we are all in this together.
Thanks, James! I appreciate the kind feedback, and I agree with your comments. I’m also not particularly interested in ideologies or critical theory. I also just want to get on with life without unnecessary interference from the government. Except, of course, when it comes to the basics, we actually pay taxes for. So, completely agree.
Also with you on the fact that most politicians are well-intentioned, but like any group, there’s a mix—some are in it for the ideas, some for the influence, and yeah, some probably just for the ego boost.
The real-world experience point is a big one. Politics is often dominated by people who’ve spent their whole careers in activism, which isn’t where most of us operate—so it makes sense that many voters feel disconnected from them. And totally with you on pragmatists. We could use more of those in the mix. Really appreciate your take—glad you found the piece balanced! Nat
The true test is how much damage either ones policies would do if they were fully enacted. I suspect that David Seymour would do less damage to New Zealand than Swarbrick's to Aotearoa.
The problem with Swarbrick's groupies is that the standard of NZ politicians is so incredibly mediocre, that anyone with a gift for glib sound bites aimed at the Thicktok generation and repackaging failed ideologies in easily memorised and parroted slogans has a level of intellect and positive characteristics ascribed to them that they really don't deserve.
Hi LDA, thanks for your comment. I think the real test isn’t just about potential damage but also about trade-offs. Every policy comes with consequences—some good, some bad—depending on what you prioritize. That said, I do agree that the Greens’ policies would be more damaging than those on the right. Hard pill to swallow for the idealistic, left-leaning progressives, but even if they somehow got enacted (wealth tax assumed and all), we’d never be able to afford them. That alone would diminish trust in politics, not included the strong public backlash to them, as we have started to see already.
On the ‘groupies’ point—yeah, NZ’s political talent pool isn’t exactly overflowing, so anyone who’s articulate and can capture attention tends to get a bit of a halo effect. That’s not unique to Chlöe, though—we’ve seen plenty of politicians across the spectrum benefit from the same dynamic.
Thank you for the well measured, reasoned response. Perhaps the answer lies in attracting candidates to politics who are focused more on beneficial outcomes, rather than political ideology.
I've also held the view (considered radical)that we need to disetablish political parties to have a truly democratic political system which would mean that decisions truly benefited voters rather than the party.
Kia ora LDA, thanks for comment. That’s an interesting idea to disestablish political parties to have a truly democratic political system. How would you organize the people then? Or how would you know what ideas would be promoted over others? Super keen to expand on this. I understand that the idea of citizens assemblies is a popular one. I don't think they are as effective as we think, but super keen to hear more of how you think this could work? Nat
Hi Nat, we'd have to look at the Greek model of democracy where representatives were directly elected by citizens to represent them. So you could form broad voting blocs if issues aligned, but it would have to be if enough people agreed to align on those issues. Literally direct democracy. So in NZ, we'd disestablish political parties and direct representatives would have to put forward policies which were likely to meet with broad agreement. Currently party policies take precedence over citizens wishes, which is not really democratic as the public don't always get the best candidates.
That final thought got me lol. It would just be a hate swap like being in an alternate universe... assuming their views changed with them. I can totally see Chlöe as a snobby Epsomite lol, but its harder picturing Davie dressed in jeans & a T, unshaven wearing those hippie bracelets... yikes.
Are there easier paths to a $160K base salary plus perks with zero qualifications? :) We might have to agree to disagree on that one haha, but I totally see where you're coming from as it relates to the public scrutiny. For many that's off-putting but a lot of politicians are wired differently & don't care, some see it as a good thing. Public scrutiny means increased profile which is a huge asset post-politics.
I agree its very rare to get power-hungry narcissistic control freaks like you-know-who. If politicians are are natural pro-active leaders who want to execute a policy vision then they're probably seeking some level of power to do so, definitely not a bad thing. Often those who don't seek power don't know how to wield it once they get it. IMO those types are ill-suited to cabinet.
Hi Paul, thanks for reading and commenting. I can definitely see Chlöe settling into Epsom life—David in hemp pants, though? Agree, that’s harder to picture. We did see him dance once, which I wish we could all collectively forget.
On the salary point, I’d argue there are plenty of non-publicly elected public servants in that pay band with zero qualifications PLUS zero accountability—so we might have to agree to disagree on that one. Even if we accept that politics comes with a solid paycheck, it’s hardly the easiest or most lucrative way to make money. Between relentless public scrutiny and the three-year cycle of essentially having to reapply for your job, it’s a tough gig. Some people thrive on that, but I think a lot underestimate what it actually feels like until they’re in it.
And yeah, seeking power isn’t inherently bad—what matters is why you want it and how you use it. The ones who pretend they don’t want it often struggle the most once they have it. Totally agree.
What a peculiar characterisation. I don't think Chloe is a saint, nor David a villain.
Kia ora Mountain Tūi, thanks for commenting. Really? I hear that all the time in my little Wellington Central bubble, more specifically Vic Uni campuses and my wider friends group. Great that you dont hear that, do you have any thoughts on them as politicians? Would love to hear your thoughts on it either way :)
Really?!
I've never thought of politicians like that and would raise my eyebrows if any one did.
Do I have views on them?
Absolutely! I have an opinion on almost everything.
You could probably gauge my sense of David Seymour from any of my articles, but you never got back to me on why you feel Atlas Network is too simplistic an idea fo you.
Cheers,
Tui
Hey Tui,
Thanks for your patience and follow up on the Atlas Network argument, so here goes. I think it’s too simplistic because it acts as a shortcut to dismissing ACT and the Right without actually engaging with their policies, ideas, or political strategy. It’s a bit of a cop-out, an easy way to say, “Oh, Seymour is just a puppet of international libertarian think tanks,” rather than actually grappling with what ACT is trying to do, why their ideas appeal to people, and how they position themselves within New Zealand politics.
Now, to be clear, the connections between Seymour and the Atlas Network are real—but they’ve never been hidden, nor has there been any attempt to downplay them. ACT has always positioned itself as a classical liberal, small-government party, and it’s no secret that Seymour has ties to libertarian organizations, including Atlas-affiliated groups. He has spoken at events alongside people associated with Atlas, and ACT’s economic positions—especially around deregulation, tax cuts, and minimizing state intervention—are broadly aligned with libertarian and free-market think tanks worldwide. Not just Atlas Network.
But here’s where I think the argument about Atlas “pulling the strings” falls apart:
1. ACT’s policies are not dictated by Atlas, nor do they need to be. Seymour and ACT advocate for ideas that already exist within mainstream classical liberal and free-market thought. You don’t need an international think tank to tell you that lower taxes, deregulation, and personal responsibility are right-wing talking points—they’re baked into conservative and libertarian politics globally. He is fairly consistent with this.
2. The influence of Atlas-affiliated organizations in NZ is often overstated. Yes, the New Zealand Initiative (formerly the Business Roundtable) has ties to Atlas, and yes, they influence policy conversations—but influence is not control. Think tanks influence debates; they don’t set legislative agendas. If Atlas were really pulling the strings, ACT wouldn’t be polling at 8-10%—they’d be running the country.
3. Seymour himself is not an ideological purist. While he aligns with free-market libertarianism, ACT under his leadership has been pragmatic in ways that purist libertarians wouldn’t approve of. His stance on co-governance, social issues, and even elements of economic policy aren’t direct copies of Atlas Network policies—they reflect ACT’s need to appeal to a specific NZ voter base.
So, is Seymour influenced by Atlas-adjacent ideas? Sure. But does that mean he’s just a mouthpiece for international libertarian elites? No. If anything, treating Atlas as some kind of grand puppeteer behind ACT avoids engaging with why right-wing, free-market ideas remain appealing to a significant portion of NZ voters.
To me, that’s the real question: not “Is Atlas secretly running ACT?” (they aren’t), but “Why do ACT’s ideas resonate with a growing number of people?” That’s the debate worth having.
Nat
I answered elsewhere but to give this thread a sense of completion, thanks for taking the time to come back to me.
You posited that Atlas Network criticisms are “simplistic” and I asked you why - and you suggest it’s because it’s a shortcut to avoid discussing and reviewing ACT’s policies, strategies and the like.
But personally, I think it’d be a mistake to think that people who reference his alignment to the Trump aligned junk tank have not examined ACT’s policies, ideas and strategy.
You also posit that Seymour has been transparent about his connections - yet he has actually patently lied on the record.
BTW congratulations on getting a shout out on The Kaka
Hi Mountain Tūī,
I was made aware that you’ve been discussing my article on Reddit, framing my arguments in ways that don’t fully reflect our past conversations. Since we haven’t engaged in a while, I wanted to respond directly here for clarity. I’ve also left a comment on the Reddit thread itself to correct the record.
I’ve always welcomed disagreement and debate—that’s why I write under my real name, with my real photo, offering my genuine views for discussion. That’s why I find it ironic that you’ve accused me of political cowardice while commenting anonymously. There’s something deafening about that contradiction. If standing by my arguments publicly is cowardice, what does that make debating from behind a pseudonym?
That aside, I want to engage with your points in good faith, but I’ve noticed a pattern where you dismiss my arguments without actually addressing them. Saying you “couldn’t take my article seriously” without explaining why isn’t a critique—it’s just an easy way to discredit something without engaging with its substance. Likewise, stating that the “pure might and money of right-wing string pullers” has shaped public opinion is an interesting claim, but you don’t actually explain how this happens or why that influence is supposedly unique to the right.
Your point about the Atlas Network is another example. You suggest it’s not simplistic to bring it up, yet you don’t engage with my argument that referencing Atlas is often used as a shortcut to avoid debating ACT’s policies on their own merits. If Seymour has lied about his connections, that would be a fair point to scrutinize—but where’s the evidence? Simply stating it without backing it up isn’t an argument.
If you’re willing to engage on these points directly, I’m happy to have the conversation. But if this is just about reframing my work out of context for an audience that doesn’t have access to the full discussion, then it’s not really a debate—it’s just distortion.
Nat
Hi Nat
I posted on Reddit without referencing your name because I don't know a lot about TOP and wanted to understand if your positions echoed TOP policies.
And learned a lot from that thread.
To be clear your quote that I referenced was:
"I do agree that the Greens' policies would be more damaging than those on thee right. Hard pill to swallow for the idealistic, left-leaning progressives...."
[in context of a discussion about ACT as I recall] so I'm not sure what you feel has been distorted.
I also attached the screen shot to your reply.
Re: Atlas Network, I've covered it in detail over the last year, and feel no need to discuss it with someone who believes David Seymour didn't lie about.
I believe Joshua Drummond has an entire article on that topic. RNZ also has the show. There are Wikipedias and extensive commentary.
Tui
What ACT is attempting to do is exactly the same thing its founders, Roger Douglass & Richard Prebble did when they were part of Langes government. The first time they did it, it completely fucked the economy (pardon my french) and started the decline of state managed assets like the railways, free tertiary education, the much more comprehensive welfare schemes in general, and most egregiously of all the loss of the huge portfolio of public housing. We are still dealing with the fallout of much of it today, almost 40 years later.
Only fools repeat the same thing and hope for a different outcome.
Oh yes, I’ll reply to that tomorrow promise!
A lot of people, me included, think Libertarianism is evil. I guess at best, that makes David the messenger of evil. I guess to me, someone knowingly making wealthy people wealthier and poorer people poorer is evil. I guess you do not. Trying to retain moralism while he laughs his way to the bank won't help anything except helping people with money sleep at night.
Hi SaucySusan, thanks for comment. I don’t think reducing political ideologies to good vs. evil is helpful, useful or accurate. Politics isn’t a morality play—it’s a battleground of competing ideas, interests, and trade-offs. Treating David Seymour as a “messenger of evil” might feel satisfying, but it sidesteps the harder question: why do his ideas resonate with people, and why does ACT continue to grow in support? Like he is acting PM today, why is that? How did that happen?
I don’t subscribe or agree at all with the idea that anyone advocating for lower taxes or small government is always and automatically scheming to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. That’s a caricature, gross stereotype and not a smart or well informed argument.
There are plenty of reasons people support ACT—some economic, some ideological, some purely pragmatic. Dismissing them all as villains doesn’t explain their appeal; it just makes it easier to avoid engaging with the substance of their policies and fuels divisions.
If you want to argue that libertarian policies produce harmful outcomes, that’s a debate worth having. But reducing an entire ideology to “evil” and assuming that everyone who supports it does so with malicious intent? That’s just an excuse to avoid understanding your political opponents. Nat
Thanks for the response Nat - it's greatly appreciated you articulating your views. We can heartily disagree on this and that is okay. I am also grateful it is the weekend so I can respond to some parts between movies. Also apologies this is where the original comment came, I did it on my phone and am still new to the Stack.
You are right, I should be, and intent to, go out and talk to more of the voters of ACT about this. As well as people who don't vote. I am sure you are aware the majority of young people did not vote (along with many, many others) and if we take that one step further, those that did vote, are more likely to be fiscally conservative. I also grew up in poverty in Australia so know these folks pretty well. I would happily engage one of them on the theme 'Why David Seymour is Evil' - I think they would be into it. Genuinely.
A couple of reasons why poor people vote for ACT off the bat; the MPs/Party speaks their language - I mean emotive and straight shooting, not racists or bigoted, that's a new part of it all; they have not seen their lives improve one bit and ACT lies to them that their lives will be directly improved by the market; they don't trust Government and mainstream media because they feel they have been screwed over their whole lives. Little do they know, it is the wealthy people doing the real screwing; they have much less access to real information about 'economic policy'; and so on and so forth. Do you think that the general public reads details about policies, let alone looks into the implications? Or even ACT voters. Do you think they understand the policies?
Something people with great intentions keep doing is trying to 'educate' folks into changing their language either to suit the narrative of those that think they are more educated than them or because they've been told the only way to go when they go low is to go high. Poor people don't care about this. And neither do I.
Also, I only have a masters degree in economics and politics unfortunately. Maybe my years of experience being poor, working in underpaid jobs with other poor people, been on the benefit like other poor people and am friends with poor people give me a little bit of understanding?
For what it's worth, my favourite TVNZ Breakfast political panels were those with Chlöe and David. To me the two of them together epitomised respectful political debate between profoundly disagreeing worldviews. A sort of ray of hope in a world otherwise beset by polarisation, if you will.
Hi Chuan-Zheng! Oh same! I really enjoyed watching them and rarely missed them. I respected both of them for engaging with each other on TV. It did seem like a ray of hope. I guess, I am writing this article to those passionate Green voters, which Wellington Central has many to humanize both their politicians and their opposition. It will help create a more effective political landscape. I think at least.
It’s the ideology they both passionately believe in that’s ‘interesting’ in my view. Both ideologies have flaws and limitations. Libertarian ideology is arguably more flawed. Both ideologies can be divisive. Of course, the impacts of those ideologies filter back through the behaviour of the politicians championing each concept. The fourth estate picks up on these vibes for better or worse and reporting standards are highly variable. A seperate problem. The implementation of political ideology is where values, ethics, and integrity come into play. For example, so far, Van Velden is failing to collaborate with the countries largest union. Why? Why not meet with them? Seymour has amplified division around the Treaty with his bombastic approach. Why? Read or listen to Justin Tipa’s speech. Compare that with Seymour’s oratory. Why does he champion horrible school lunches and so on. Is that Libertarianism? Does it improve society? How? Can you explain any improvements to our society libertarianism has delivered? Thanks, good debate. In fairness: are the greens divisive? Sure, they absolutely can be, but their approach is arguably more palatable, even to those with opposing views. Morning coffee read here: http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2021/03/libertarianism-is-bankrupt.html
Appreciate the comment, James!
I agree that the ideologies themselves are what’s most interesting. Both have flaws, and both can be divisive, especially when they move from theory to implementation. And you’re right—the way these ideologies filter through politicians' behavior (and how the media picks up on it) is a whole separate issue.
On libertarianism, I think one of its biggest challenges is that it often assumes markets and individuals will self-correct without strong government intervention, which doesn’t always play out well in practice—especially in areas like education, healthcare, and inequality. At the same time, you could argue it’s brought more focus to personal freedoms, reducing bureaucracy, and challenging inefficiencies in government spending. Whether that’s a net positive depends on your perspective. One benefit I see of smaller government is that the government isn't using its enforcing and penalties capability as much as they could otherwise, which for me is always a positive.
As for division—both ACT and the Greens push hard on their respective ideological fronts, and while I get why you find the Greens’ approach more palatable, I think it depends on where you sit politically. Some would argue the Greens’ framing of issues (especially around wealth redistribution and systemic change) is just as polarizing as ACT’s stance on the Treaty or regulation.
That said, I appreciate the questions you’re raising—because they push beyond “good vs. bad” narratives and into what actually works. Thanks for the morning reading rec too! Will check it out.
Agree, it depends on one's viewpoint. Tilting right I find Chloe / the Greens less palatable. Would Labour likely lose support when the electorate thinks the Greens would need to be around the cabinet table with them. I think the majority of middle NZ would be nervous about Chloe compared to the leader she replaced.
Kia ora Kiwiana, thanks for reading and taking the time to comment! I agree—most of New Zealand would probably feel pretty nervous about Chloe at the Cabinet table. But sometimes, in my Wellington Central progressive bubble, it feels like she could be Prime Minister tomorrow. It’s a bit of cognitive dissonance for me.
No difference? I think you could argue that the very seeking of the power is corrupt. Maybe..
But only one of these two has been groomed by billionaires to act in billionaires interest to the direct detriment of the many for the benefit of the few ...I'll let people work out which one I'm talking about.
Hi Dan, thanks for chiming in. I get where you’re coming from—there’s definitely a difference between seeking power to empower others and being groomed by external forces to serve a specific agenda of a small elite. But I still think oversimplifying it like that is problematic. The right—and people like David—have a place in our political landscape just by being there. From a purely political perspective, anyone who can organize and mobilize people effectively needs to be taken seriously, whether we agree with their motives, intent, or agenda or not. I also think its interesting how we frame influence. Some see business interests shaping politics as corruption, while others see unions or activist networks doing the same thing and call it grassroots democracy. Its messy and nuanced, something I think is definitely worth unpacking. Nat
One of those forces is bottom up and the other is top down. Which do you consider is more fundamentally democratic? What the people themselves want? Or what the people are encouraged to want.
It is a sad indictment on our society that this piece is considered remotely controversial. I thought it was a fairly straightforward exposition of a self-evident principle.
That is not to denigrate you, Ms Albert - I'm disappointed at the need for people to point out that the sky is blue, not at the people who do so.
I admire both Ms Swarbrick and Mr Seymour. Both are extremely intelligent young politicians with bright, if fringe, ideas. Both sincerely believe what they are saying.
Of course, I also believe that Ms Swarbrick is almost entirely incorrect. But to steal a line from Ronald Reagan, her problem is not that she's ignorant. She just knows so much that isn't so.
Hi Qangin, thanks for comment as always. No need to call me Ms Albert, Nat is fine :) and yeah, it’s kind of wild that saying “politicians are people” is considered controversial, but here we are. I also agree—both Chlöe and David are sharp, ideological, and sincere in what they believe. And I love that Reagan quote—pretty much sums up politics in general. Thanks for reading! Nat
I'm struggling a little with your framing for this piece. You've spent a large portion of it telling us about Chlöe's background but have limited David's to engineer and policy adviser recruited by ACT. He also studied philosophy, perhaps when he discovered his love of Hayek and Friedman. I don't believe David has worked as a qualified engineer, only interned. He worked in Canada for a couple of think tanks, the Frontier Centre and the Manning Centre. It would be quite good to give his past work the same time in limelight as Chlöe. Maybe talk about the policies he promoted while working at the think tanks in Canada. His positioning towards indigenous Canadians was quite controversial I believe.
Heya Victoria, thanks for your comment! Fair call—I gave more space to Chlöe’s background because it’s more widely discussed, but you’re right that David’s history deserves the same treatment. His time in Canada, especially with the think tanks, is definitely relevant and helped shape his policy outlook. Do you know what specific policies he advocated for? I’ll do some reading to find out as well.
I’m not a journalist—I write from a political science perspective—so when I don’t know something, I work with the information that’s publicly available. But I take your point, and I’ll aim to be more balanced in future writing. As I mentioned in the piece, in my circles, I know and hear more about Chlöe, and I’ve debated her, whereas I don’t have the same proximity to David. She’s simply more accessible to me.
The controversy around his views on Indigenous policy in Canada is an interesting point too. That’s probably worth a deep dive on its own, since it gives more insight into his broader political philosophy. And I always appreciate the push to be more balanced, it's the exact ethos of aiming to be less certain.
Thanks for replying Naturals and for your commitment to being more balanced.
You asked about his policies when working for Canadian think tanks. You'll probably not be surprised to know that he advocated against public transport, against indigenous rights (in quite a worrisome way including denying the horror of mass graves found in native schools), basically against taxes and collectivism and pro the individual, where the individual is a corporation. In his time there he also did his MBA in think tanks at the Atlas Network, (you can find this info in the Atlas annual review.) He was basically a Hayek/Friedman fan but I guess since Hayek went on to consult with Pinochet, extreme neoliberals now prefer to say Friedman is their fave economist.
Hi Victoria, thanks for this. I’ll keep looking at this and get back to you. Thanks for engaging.
Sorry about the autocorrect error with your name.
Whatever the reasons are for an individual entering politics, once they become MPs a strange phenomenon occurs. They are gradually seduced by the "glamour" of feeling they are at the centre of things and become part of the Wellington mythology of important people doing important things, then they become entitled quickly followed by believing they are fire-proof. I experienced it first-hand in the 70s when I was on a number of tertiary curriculum development groups and used to fly up from Dunedin at regular intervals for meetings. It was insidious. I remember feeling a buzz and a sense of being part of an in-group until I woke up to the fact that none of it really mattered in the bigger scheme of things.
Kia ora Aroha, thanks for reading and commenting. I couldn’t agree more, it is a weird phenomenon that places like the Beehive create. Barack Obama, actually writes about this in his book, The Audacity of Hope, of how becoming a Senator in the USA, turns good intentioned politicians to money hungry fierce people, and it’s hard to resist even for the best intentioned of people. I don't think NZ is nearly as bad as the USA, but there are parallels there. I loved the “important people doing important things” That’s so true. I worked in the Beehive in 2017 for 1 year and that was absolutely the underlying ethos of the place. Nat
Another great substack article by Natalia Albert (I wish she offered the same level of insight in her "Trust in Institutions" presentation yesterday, but that's for another post...)
One thought. She notes
"Let’s be real—politicians in New Zealand don’t enter politics for power. If power, wealth, or influence were the goal, there are far easier ways to get there."
The general point she is making, that cynicism about politicians is often misplaced, is right. But I think she's missed the issue. Some people go into politics and the public service because they like flummery and flunkies. They like borrowing reputation of power from their offices to feed ego.
This is not new, or in any sense specific to NZ. Hobbes (in 1651) called it "vainglory" that "consisteth in the feigning or supposing of abilities in ourselves, which we know are not". As Hobbes notes, that such people are minority - and in my experience they are a smallish minority - does not stop them having an outsized influence on the reality of the state and government.
Where can I find the Trust in Institutions presentation? Is it online?
It is, Ill try and find the link, but I might just publish my paper later today as an out of cycle article, in case you think it's worth sharing. Any views on Chloe and David John?
No look I’m sorry Nat. I just agree with what you have written.
What you said, matters, because there is a lot of distracting personalisation that creates political noise. I think you put out a clean picture, nicely.
If you do the out-of-cycle, don’t bother hunting for the link.
Appreciate the kind words, Tony (even if my Trust in Institutions presentation didn’t quite hit the mark—guess I’ll have to lift my game next time!).
You raise a fair point. While I stand by the idea that politics in NZ isn’t an easy path to power, wealth, or influence, I agree that some people are drawn to the status of the job rather than the work itself. But I also firmly believe that 90% of NZ politicians are in it for the right reasons. Do they sometimes take their pursuit of power and influence too far? Possibly. But that’s also a reflection of the system we have created—we incentivize politicians to act that way, so we all bear some responsibility for how the game is played.
And honestly, is wanting status inherently a bad thing? I’m not sure it is.
Love the Hobbes reference too—"vainglory" is a great word for it. Definitely something worth exploring further.
The short answer to "is wanting status a bad thing?" is what Hobbes believed it created a state of nature of "nasty brutish and short" life. So possibly yes!
Hobbes key insight is that only a few people need to be motivated by vainglory for it to destroy political life. Contrary to myth, Hobbes is not a pessimist about individual people, he is a pessimist about society. To put Hobbes' views colloquially: most of us just want to get along, but the jerks get off on screwing things up for others, so if we pick someone to stamp on the jerks we'll all be better off.
Given the role of hierarchy in the state, the jerk problem infuses both political and state employee/public service bits of the state. I'd suggest it's the reason the Public Service Act 2020 is so disastrous, but that's an argument for another day...
Oh and forgot to comment on the Public Service Act 202, keen to hear your thoughts on that. I think it was the one commendable thing Peter Hughes did in his tenure. Why do you think it’s so disastrous? I mean, don’t get me wrong, its far from perfect but keen to hear more as to why you think it’s a mess. Nat
The second part of chapter 5 here explains my problems with the 2020 PSA.
https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/reports/demystifying-the-state/
Basically, I think if you dig under the rhetoric of principles, etc, it's just a way to neutralise accountability mechanisms for those working for the state.
Hey Tony, I had a read/skim through Demystifying the State—especially Chapter 5, since that’s where you pointed me for your critique of the Public Service Act 2020. I can see where you’re coming from. If I’m reading you right, you’re arguing that rather than increasing accountability, the Act has actually weakened it by embedding a more ambiguous, values-based approach that ultimately insulates officials from scrutiny? That instead of making public servants more accountable to the public, it gives them more cover to act in ways that suit their own incentives? What do you think of Sir Brian Roche speech on the public service?
I still lean towards thinking the Act was a net positive—it at least attempted to clarify a purpose for the public service beyond just delivering for ministers—but I agree that it’s fair to ask whether it’s become more about managing accountability than actually improving it. I’d love to hear more about why you think it’s been a disaster in practice. What’s the worst consequence you’ve seen play out from it so far? Nat
Your description of my view of PSA 2020 is correct. The challenge I would offer you and other academics is whether or not the contributions by academia have improved accountability or made it harder to have meaningful accountability systems in place?
As you might see, I have no time for PSM, which was used as an intellectual justifucation for the Act. There is no doubt PSM is a viable academic literature but, of course, that's not the same as being ethically good or useful. I suggest the best comparison is the way evidence family is important is used to defend some truly unpleasant ideas
I need to write something on the Act so I'll write a substack.
I will read with interest. Accountability for non-publicly elected officials has always been an area of interest for me, so this is right up my nerd alley. Thanks for sharing.
Hi Tony, thanks for coming back to me. Interesting reflections on Hobbes, I think its seems cynical that politicians are jerks that should be stamped out. I think most politicians, especially in New Zealand have good and honest intentions. I genuinely believe they are operating with their voting base in mind, which is what democracy should do. Agreeing with them or not is a diffrent story. I do agree that places like the Beehive create an inflated sense of importance, like Aroha commented below, it’s a place where “important people do important things” but I categorically refuse to believe they are jerks that need to be stomped out. or am I missing something? Keen to unpack
Sorry, should have been clearer. I don't agree with Hobbes' prescription for the "avoid mischiefs may be done them by pole-cats, or foxes; but are content to be devoured by lions" reasons articulated by Locke. However Hobbes analysis does bring out that most people having mostly good motivation is not enough for good institutions. It's why various calls for "culture change" are not effective. My experience of individual NZ politicians is the same as yours, but that doesn't mean their actions add to good system when operating through the institutions they have to use.
This post seems premised on the notion that politicians are trustworthy and they always mean what they say. It also seems genuinely ignorant of the international movement to influence politics in favour of corporate interests (going back a century).
Is it coincidence that while Seymour uses the language of equality and freedom his and ACT’s policies uniformly benefit business and the wealthy and weaken worker’s rights and protections?
I think your assertion that politics is about ideas and not people betrays a pretty narrow view of politics and the ways they shape the possible existence of people in society. You seem either uninformed in the historical context of these political ideas or just uninterested in questioning the actual motives behind the political rhetoric.
Either way, Seymour has been documented at length as a dishonest and disingenuous politician. I don’t see how your “bothsideism” is helpful when he represents an ideology that would carve up New Zealand and sell it off to corporate interests, increasing poverty and precarity among the most vulnerable.
Thank you for this analysis Natalia. I feel you have missed the most important point in this - which is that politicians can be judged by their actions, beyond the respectful debate around policies. In this case, we have proof that David Seymour has openly lied to the New Zealand public - like denying outright on TV that he had anything to do with the Atlas Network, when there are pictures of him presenting at one of their conferences. And in the wake of the Christchurch mosque massacres, Seymour was going to vote in parliament for the machine guns. No matter how you could try to couch this as a policy stance in libertarian terms, it's verging on evil. Now try apply the same test of integrity in actions to Chloe Swarbrick...
So many points of contention in this substack post. Your initial characterization of each individual is a nonsense since as you identify you don't know one and barely know the other. In both cases neither are the architect of such political discourses, rather just protagonists. Your critiquing of these diametrically opposite political positions is conducted within the constraints of a dispassionate, eronious situated, historical view of unfolding events, a kind of supercillious engagement that can be quietly and quaintly argued within the hallowed halls of academia. However you choose to personally frame the friction between these ideas let me be clear, because neither you nor Dr Bryce Edwards on his platforms seem to want to posit, ACT policies are inherently self centred, anti labour, racist, and favoring capital over all else. To argue anything else is to place yourself in the chair of the willfully ignorant of the historical impact of colonisation of Maori via theft, displacement and judiciall chicanery, of global academic economic narratives that have narkedly shaped Aotearoa since Douglass, and of global outcomes that neoliberalism has inflicted in virtually ANY western/Eurocentric governments youu care to name since Reagan and Thatcher. As an individual with any insight or interest in labour there is simply no question that capital been championed at the expense of labour. Indeed as your post unravels it is hard to believe that your life experiences or grasp of just how disgusting the policies of this current ACT Party have on labour can allow you to posit such a relativist position. Everyone on this planet deserves the right to live with dignity and to be afforded a fair share in the proceeds of economic outcomes so that they are able to fully participation in the societies they inhabit. Seymour most certainly is not the devil since these concepts are regions mumbo-jumbo. His policies, political and economic truths are anti social, and deny the concept of equity. He deliberately falsifies issues to serve a political agenda that celebrates 'ME' over 'WE'. As a septuganarian that has seen, and been the recipient of a fully functioning and caring welfare state, and who has subsequently paid a life times taxes to ensure that favour could be passed forward, I am utterly sickened by governments like the one we currently suffer under who have transferred my tax dollars, not into those who need assistance, but into the pockets of the already rich. Argue what you will in intellectual terms about there being no absolutes, but it's a middleclass and essentially priveliged position you argue it from and won't fix one more arthritic knee, buy one more ferry or put one more nutritious school meal in the belly of children most at risk.
Thanks for your comment—I appreciate the depth of thought and conviction behind it. You raise important points about the historical and structural impacts of neoliberalism and colonization in Aotearoa.
First, let’s address your claim that my assessment of these politicians is “nonsense” because I don’t personally know them. Under that logic, we’d need to personally know every politician before scrutinizing or holding them accountable—an impossible and unnecessary standard. Politicians operate in the public sphere; their policies, rhetoric, and voting records are fair game for critique, whether we know them personally or not. So I stand by my assessment.
That said, I actually agree that politicians are just vessels for broader political ideas, which is a major theme in much of my writing. I rarely focus on individual politicians because, in the grand scheme, they matter far less than the ideological frameworks they operate within.
For what it’s worth, I’m not an academic. I’m doing my PhD full-time, but my background and future are in public service. My goal isn’t to be out of touch, and I’d argue that I’m not—but if you perceive me as such, then that perception itself carries some truth. I’ll leave that open.
Now, to the real debate: You argue that ACT is categorically bad, and I don’t. I evaluate ACT with the same rigor and balance that I apply to the Greens. Both parties are divisive and ineffective in some areas but effective in others. I’m happy to agree to disagree on that.
On neoliberalism: We are all living in a neoliberal political, cultural, and economic context. Every party in New Zealand, whether they like it or not, engages with this reality—open borders, trade agreements, globalization. That’s the world they govern within. ACT leans more toward classical liberalism, prioritizing individual freedoms, free speech, and small government. We can agree to disagree on how we interpret that, but let’s at least be precise.
This part of your comment is the most problematic to me:
“To argue anything else is to place yourself in the chair of the willfully ignorant of the historical impact of colonisation of Māori via theft, displacement, and judicial chicanery, of global academic economic narratives that have markedly shaped Aotearoa since Douglass, and of global outcomes that neoliberalism has inflicted in virtually ANY western/Eurocentric governments you care to name since Reagan and Thatcher.”
You frame this as though any perspective that doesn’t categorically align with yours is either ignorant or immoral. That kind of moral absolutism and intolerance for differing views makes genuine debate difficult. Engaging critically with ideas—even ones we strongly oppose—doesn’t make someone willfully ignorant; it makes them engaged in the complexities of political reality.
Interesting that you bring up the ferry issue—I’d be keen to hear what you think Wellington Central MP Tamatha Paul is going to do about that negotiation. Do you have any views on how that will play out?
Finally, you’ve made a lot of assumptions about me through my article, which I suppose is fair. But I don’t get the sense you came here to debate. I get the sense you came here to punish and educate, and I’m not particularly interested in engaging on those terms. If you want a debate, I’m open to that. But if this is just a lecture, I’ll pass.
There is nothing to debate re: ACT! This party represents the antithesis of everything I have spent a lifetime promoting through service and personal commitment. I challenge you to defend anything that they are promoting regarding Te Tiriri o Waitangi, industrial relations, charter schools, support for meals in schools, and the RSB. There are absolutes in this world and it is naiive to think otherwise. Racism and the pursuit of private wealth at the expense of public infrastructure and service are abominations that deserve to be called out in extremely blunt terms. It may be you would like to argue the indefensible, but it is a treatise that will find no succor with me.
Hi Mike, thanks for coming back to me. I disagree, anything and everything within the political sphere is up to debate. I have written my honest thoughts on ACTS Treaty Principles bill, where I disagree with some but understand why it’s needed in others. If you go to my homepage you can find them, I’ve written a few actually. I can also argue the benefits of charter schools. Your idea that there are absolutes will always make your perceptive on politics and policy narrow and superficial. I don’t argue the indefensible, I argue the complex, messy and nuanced, which is what politics is. What you’re doing is advocating, punishing and being unable to see things from different perspectives. You are on a moral grandstand that is the extract grandstand dividing us further. So if you are willing to have a debate, im always here for that.
And yet you have not answered or offered any rationale in a critiquing of my substantive claims that the ACT Party in particular champions capital at the expense of labour, willfully misconstrues the meaning of 'equity' over 'equality', and abuses the concept of the democratic process both in current practice and future legislation. I'm all ears!
Pretty sure Jeanette Fitzsimons won Coromandel electorate for the Greens in 1999, so Swarbrick is not the only one.
Hi Creek, Good catch! You’re right—Jeanette Fitzsimons won Coromandel in 1999, so Chlöe isn’t the only Green MP to win an electorate. I’ve corrected that in the article. Appreciate the heads-up!
Technically Jennette was part of the alliance. She was a green mp but the alliance consisted of more than one party who entered MMP in a single list/party approach.
The tactic was that the jeopardy of not reaching 5% was less for the cohort than it would have been for individual parties like green. Not saying that significantly impacted her ability to win the seat which was a big success... but people take more notice in MMP of existing parties and ones polling over 5% (and the media reinforces that through who gets to go on TV debates).
Well, actually no, the Green Party left the Alliance in 1997 and Jeanette Fitzsimons won Coromandel in 1999. I think you are thinking of the 1996 election maybe David?
Yeah that's right. Didn't pick up the 1999 and was thinking of when she first won. Good stuff
Hopefully this is a good place to point to Natalia that though there is a correct version, the incorrect paragraph is still there too.
First time reader, very enjoyable thank you. Theres definitely Mahi to be done here to try and minimise the harmful effects of tribal politics that we've seen in other countries so clearly recently.
Hi PlantingLemur, thanks for reading and commenting. Yes, this is a good place to chat with me. I try to get back to everybody, it takes me a day or two, but I always come and chat and get back to my comments. Which I am always very grateful for you folk engaging with Less Certain. I agree re the mahi needed to neutralize the tribal politics, polarized groups we have turned into. Also, I’ll go back to my post and correct again, thanks for pointing that out. Nat
*Jeanette sorry typo
All godo re typo, I know I'm a serial typo person.
Thanks David, that’s a fair point! Jeanette was elected while the Greens were still part of the Alliance, which makes her win a bit different from Chlöe’s, but it was still a significant achievement. Definitely worth noting in the broader context of how the Greens have navigated MMP over the years.
No they left the Alliance in 1997, she won in 1999 as a Green MP.
True. 1999 didn't cross my mind. I was thinking of when she first won a seat. She did hold the seat as a Green MP. But she already had it
you are correct
I didn't read the 1999 in your comment and also hadn't remembered she had won more than once. I just recalled that she won as an alliance
No she never won the seat as an Alliance MP. She entered Parliament in 1996 on the Alliance list. She only won the seat (i.e. the Coromandel electorate) in 1999. She was a Green MP then.
Yes, my point exactly. Good commentary on David / Chloe by the way. It's a nice counter to the heroes v villains echo chamber narratives
Thanks David, I appreciate that. I'm just trying to cut through the noise of imposed narratives, polarized thoughts, etc etc etc ...
Great article - very much enjoyed your theme. I was an Act MP 2002-2005 and sat alongside the Greens in the House. We often voted with them. Eg, social freedoms such as prostitution law reform, same sex marriage, boy racers…I remain good friends with ‘the two Sues’ - Bradford & Kedgley, & was friends in the House with Nandor & Keith Locke. You’d hardly call those people power hungry. Remember, it’s the House of Representatives - no more, no less. It reflects the voting public.
Hi Deborah, stoked you found my Substack—especially as someone who’s been both in the press gallery and in Parliament! Really appreciate your perspective. It’s easy to forget how much crossover there actually is between different political camps on key issues—social freedoms being a great example. And you’re right, Parliament is ultimately just a reflection of the people who put it there. No more, no less. Fascinating to hear about your time sitting alongside the Greens and working with them on certain votes. That kind of cross-party collaboration feels increasingly rare these days. Thanks again for reading—really appreciate your insight! Nat
Thank you. I enjoy your clear, thoughtful writing, and your perspicacity. Rare in political commentary.
That means a lot, thanks Deborah.
Another insightful and apposite commentary, Natalia- well said.
I agree that most politicians are sincere and well meaning. Like all groups there are a wide range of personalities- some more likeable and others more ego driven and others given to hectoring and bombast.
Unfortunately the majority of those in the MSM seem incapable of realising this or putting aside their own preconceived “left wing” biases.
What I do see lacking in many of our politicians is real world experience. Many such as Chloe or even “Chippie” have never had “real job” - like the ones most of us have - producing/earning/supporting/ being accountable/paying the bills/worrying. So most of us are not much interested in ideologies or critical theory. We want to get on with life without undue hindrance from the government. Except we
Would like them to provide the basic infrastructure and services that we pay taxes for.
My leaning is clearly and obviously liberal. That doesn’t mean I think Chloe is the devil or a bad person. I do think she is naive and unrealistic and she doesn’t engage me.
Nor do I think David is a white night slaying the monster of the state. He too is divorced from my world but less antagonistic than Chloe towards it.
I think we need them both for the presentation and balancing of different ideas. What we need is reasoned and unbiased examination of those ideas. We could also use a lot more pragmatists in the mix.
We would do well to remember that we are all people not caricatures and that we are all in this together.
Thanks Natalie - keep being a voice of reason.
Thanks, James! I appreciate the kind feedback, and I agree with your comments. I’m also not particularly interested in ideologies or critical theory. I also just want to get on with life without unnecessary interference from the government. Except, of course, when it comes to the basics, we actually pay taxes for. So, completely agree.
Also with you on the fact that most politicians are well-intentioned, but like any group, there’s a mix—some are in it for the ideas, some for the influence, and yeah, some probably just for the ego boost.
The real-world experience point is a big one. Politics is often dominated by people who’ve spent their whole careers in activism, which isn’t where most of us operate—so it makes sense that many voters feel disconnected from them. And totally with you on pragmatists. We could use more of those in the mix. Really appreciate your take—glad you found the piece balanced! Nat
The true test is how much damage either ones policies would do if they were fully enacted. I suspect that David Seymour would do less damage to New Zealand than Swarbrick's to Aotearoa.
The problem with Swarbrick's groupies is that the standard of NZ politicians is so incredibly mediocre, that anyone with a gift for glib sound bites aimed at the Thicktok generation and repackaging failed ideologies in easily memorised and parroted slogans has a level of intellect and positive characteristics ascribed to them that they really don't deserve.
Hi LDA, thanks for your comment. I think the real test isn’t just about potential damage but also about trade-offs. Every policy comes with consequences—some good, some bad—depending on what you prioritize. That said, I do agree that the Greens’ policies would be more damaging than those on the right. Hard pill to swallow for the idealistic, left-leaning progressives, but even if they somehow got enacted (wealth tax assumed and all), we’d never be able to afford them. That alone would diminish trust in politics, not included the strong public backlash to them, as we have started to see already.
On the ‘groupies’ point—yeah, NZ’s political talent pool isn’t exactly overflowing, so anyone who’s articulate and can capture attention tends to get a bit of a halo effect. That’s not unique to Chlöe, though—we’ve seen plenty of politicians across the spectrum benefit from the same dynamic.
Thank you for the well measured, reasoned response. Perhaps the answer lies in attracting candidates to politics who are focused more on beneficial outcomes, rather than political ideology.
I've also held the view (considered radical)that we need to disetablish political parties to have a truly democratic political system which would mean that decisions truly benefited voters rather than the party.
Kia ora LDA, thanks for comment. That’s an interesting idea to disestablish political parties to have a truly democratic political system. How would you organize the people then? Or how would you know what ideas would be promoted over others? Super keen to expand on this. I understand that the idea of citizens assemblies is a popular one. I don't think they are as effective as we think, but super keen to hear more of how you think this could work? Nat
Hi Nat, we'd have to look at the Greek model of democracy where representatives were directly elected by citizens to represent them. So you could form broad voting blocs if issues aligned, but it would have to be if enough people agreed to align on those issues. Literally direct democracy. So in NZ, we'd disestablish political parties and direct representatives would have to put forward policies which were likely to meet with broad agreement. Currently party policies take precedence over citizens wishes, which is not really democratic as the public don't always get the best candidates.
That final thought got me lol. It would just be a hate swap like being in an alternate universe... assuming their views changed with them. I can totally see Chlöe as a snobby Epsomite lol, but its harder picturing Davie dressed in jeans & a T, unshaven wearing those hippie bracelets... yikes.
Are there easier paths to a $160K base salary plus perks with zero qualifications? :) We might have to agree to disagree on that one haha, but I totally see where you're coming from as it relates to the public scrutiny. For many that's off-putting but a lot of politicians are wired differently & don't care, some see it as a good thing. Public scrutiny means increased profile which is a huge asset post-politics.
I agree its very rare to get power-hungry narcissistic control freaks like you-know-who. If politicians are are natural pro-active leaders who want to execute a policy vision then they're probably seeking some level of power to do so, definitely not a bad thing. Often those who don't seek power don't know how to wield it once they get it. IMO those types are ill-suited to cabinet.
Hi Paul, thanks for reading and commenting. I can definitely see Chlöe settling into Epsom life—David in hemp pants, though? Agree, that’s harder to picture. We did see him dance once, which I wish we could all collectively forget.
On the salary point, I’d argue there are plenty of non-publicly elected public servants in that pay band with zero qualifications PLUS zero accountability—so we might have to agree to disagree on that one. Even if we accept that politics comes with a solid paycheck, it’s hardly the easiest or most lucrative way to make money. Between relentless public scrutiny and the three-year cycle of essentially having to reapply for your job, it’s a tough gig. Some people thrive on that, but I think a lot underestimate what it actually feels like until they’re in it.
And yeah, seeking power isn’t inherently bad—what matters is why you want it and how you use it. The ones who pretend they don’t want it often struggle the most once they have it. Totally agree.