If we want effective politics, we need to stop fixating on personalities, values and parties. The true battleground isn’t who is speaking or leading—it’s what ideas they are pushing and actually doing
“Politics stands apart because it is the foundation for everything else. If you want to govern with no clear ideas (National in this coalition government), manage with no clear ideas (Wellington City Council), or advocate with no clear idea (the Greens), you can’t advance society forward or develop any strategies that will benefit the most vulnerable.”
You left the Labour Party off your derision list. In my view it is open to the same kind of criticism. Do you not see that?
Hi Ruaridh, thanks for your comment! My intention is not to mock or ridicule these parties—I’m simply sharing my observations. I left Labour out because, in my view, they’ve become largely invisible in today’s political landscape. They also don’t have any political mandate at the moment. In Wellington Central, the only parties with a tangible mandate are National and its coalition partners and the Greens, who won by a significant margin in this electorate. That said, if you feel Labour deserves critique, that’s fair game—but mocking wasn’t what I aimed for here.
I’m with you R or R, on getting a jolt (a different jolt, but a jolt nonetheless) from “If you want to govern with no clear ideas (National in this coalition government)”
My issue is that it is not obvious to me that National has no clear ideas.
Stand back a bit - and observe that the coalition is working at the pace of the Energiser Bunny with no ‘OFF’ switch. My take is that Luxon is being a manager. His team is on a path to create results, and I expect that this is what is in his DNA to care about. Leadership is best done with humility. The measure is, do he Winston and David manage their differences. A key job for him is the stewardship of the coalition itself.
The next years, and the next two elections will tell. (I think the coalition will hold together and retain power in the next election, the interesting thing will be how they manage in 2029.)
Kia ora Nat, thanks for all your work writing and sharing these pieces. I have found myself feeling sometimes soothed, sometimes triggered, but it's always been very stimulating and interesting. Have a great break and I hope to catch up soon!
Kia ora Frankie, thanks so much for reading and texting. My intention is never to trigger or be controversial for the sake of anything other than shaking us from our dogmatic slumber in politics. I aim to be balanced, honest, and stimulating, so hopefully, that also comes across. Let's catch up for some drinks in the new year!
I agree with you MT. People do express their thoughts as a result of assessing the ideas and policies of others. These expressions then have a number of purposes including challenging or amplifying the ideas and finding and supporting allies. The emotional freight in the expressions can be powerful and this is intentional and legitimate. I’m with you (I hope) that politics requires the odd swingeing pop on the nose of egregious horrors. My alignment with Natalia’s piece comes from me personally finding that exhausting though. I like to see thoughtful challenging of the ideas themselves, not to say respectful and steel-manning engagement, to have a better shot at uncovering what is really going on.
My note is only that after having assimilated policies, impacts and conclusions, people who say e.g. they don't like David Seymour are expressing the conclusion - and writing those people off as not focused on policy - could be an oversight - which seemed to be an opening assumption in this piece.
I hear and acknowledge and agree that what you say is fair though.
Thanks, Mountain Tui. I get it. I am not trying to dismiss anybody. I am just trying to remind us all, including myself, that if we keep focusing on personalities and not on ideas, we are limiting our capacity to think more creatively about solutions to the very complex issues we face.
Sometimes, those conclusions about not liking a particular politician come after people have engaged with the policies and impacts. I could have acknowledged that more clearly in the piece. I'm always keen to hear different perspectives. When I say I want us all to be Less Certain about our views, I include myself in that group, and we can only do that by debating, challenging and being as flexible as possible on our own views. Nat
Sometimes the ideas just don’t make a difference. My wife thinks Seymour is a weaseley little rat-faced ferret. She has a very negative reaction to him. I say, but listen to what he says. He is very reasonable. He is the most sensible, intelligent and thoughtful politician we have. (I’m only saying this for you Natalia, and MT, I don’t quite say that.) She just doesn’t like him, full stop.
Seymours reductionist rhetoric doesnt turn everyone on, and maybe your wife would cope better if she just listened to him, without watching. I dont like it how Seymour has downgraded the quality of school lunches by cancelling local production and having 1 provider. Would that be acceptable to him to eat reheated ? It is bad form aiming so low and depriving local providers of producing school lunches. Yes he seems sensible and intelligent, but he doesnt have kids, or know what good food is, so he is just an amateur.
Thanks, John, I appreciate your thoughtful take, as always! I get where you’re coming from—there’s definitely a place for those “swingeing pops” when it comes to egregious horrors. But like you, I find it more productive (and less exhausting) to focus on thoughtful challenges and steel-manning ideas. It’s refreshing to hear someone value that approach too. Thanks for aligning with the piece
That’s a fair point, but I think framing our political conversations this way can be problematic. If the only argument against this government is disliking David, Christopher, or Winston, it misses the bigger picture. It also lets us, as voters, off the hook from engaging meaningfully with their policies and ideas. We owe it to ourselves to focus on substance over personalities—it’s the only way we can hold our leaders accountable and drive better outcomes.
I don’t think only focusing on the personalities is best practice, so I see where you’re coming from, but it’s also because the positing appears as an absolute that I countered.
Eg people who say they dislike Winston Peters didn’t also offer views on policy or have deeper rationale
I think from my perspective the answer is it depends, and in some cases, where a person is very dishonest and has proven to be - it can include pointing out the dishonesty of their arguments or evidence - and the fallibility of character.
That all said I know what you are saying and I think I understand why you say it.
Discourse is buoyed by concepts and policies — and I agree with that - I just think this really has to be tempered in the current political environment with understanding motivation and characters..
The easiest example I can think of is Trump when I say at times it’s hard to complete divorce policy from personality but in an ideal world your model is good.
I’m alongside both of you on this one. ‘It depends’ is certainly reasonable and pragmatic. I would add, ‘it’s complicated’. MT I imagine the perfect world you have in mind as the one in which Natalia’s case above would fit is one where policy options are thought through and laid out for voters to see and debate. Instead, as the three of us know, the political arena is an emotional bear pit. It must have been troubling in the US for so many people to have voted for Trump, recognising him as a dreadful fellow, and at the same time the one promising lawfare and retribution to the people that see them as ‘deplorables’ and ‘garbage’. What a mess. I am an introverted conservative engineer. I would emigrate to that ideal world at the drop of a hat.
I’ve enjoyed your pieces Nat and sometimes forward them to my wife who is active in the Greens. I was GP foundation member number 13 (and a Green/Alliance candidate in 93) but declined to renew my membership when they left the Alliance. In terms of “ideas” check out millisphere.substack.com I’d like to interview you one day when I turn my gaze on Mexico
Hi Fred, thanks for sharing, and I don't blame you for not renewing your membership. I'll check out that substack and am always happy to chat about Mexico; keep in touch and have a great summer!
I think you need inspiring leaders to sell good ideas and good policies. An example is Jacinda Ardern taking over from Andrew Little as leader before getting elected. Ardern had a more inspiring narrative than Little, and was way more popular without any new policies. Luxon is struggling to show enough conviction and attitude to reach the public, and didnt speak at the Hikoi. You would be wrong to think that personalities dont count in winning elections, and Luxon needs to have more charisma and emotional conviction for the next election. He is lucky that Chris Hipkins doesnt show much conviction either, so we have to make the most of a poor selection.
Thanks for this, Mark—you’ve nailed a key tension in politics. Leadership and narrative absolutely matter, and it’s true that charisma can make or break how policies are received. Jacinda’s rise is a great example of how the right leader can galvanize people even without major policy shifts. I think where I am coming from in the piece was frustration with how often personality eclipses substance, but you’re right—ignoring the role of inspiring leadership in winning elections would be naive. Luxon’s lack of emotional connection is definitely a factor, and I agree that both he and Hipkins feel like underwhelming options right now. It’s frustrating when the choice feels more about who’s the least uninspiring. Appreciate your insights!
I enjoy your articles even where there are parts I don’t agree with.
Ideas are the guts - yes. Liberal democracy is fragile because it is marbled through with colonialism, patriarchy and capitalism - I think that misses the point of where the strength of liberal democracy comes from.
Why politics is so interesting at the moment, I think, is because we are watching an inflection point with identitarian ideologies, not one with liberal democracy. Are they hitting a speed bump, a temporary check maybe? Or in some deep way has the tide turned for them? Have we reached and passed Peak Woke?
I suspect the latter of course, but look forward with interest to seeing what unfolds in New Zealand over the next two years. We can also see the turbulence in the UK, USA, Canada and Australia where I think similar themes are playing out.
Have a great Christmas and I look forward to reading your crisp, passionate and well written articles next year. (That they can be so deeply mistaken at times is just part of their mystery, but then that is a feature not a bug.)
Hi John, Thanks for the thoughtful comment—and for sticking with my articles, especially when we don’t always agree! I appreciate your take on liberal democracy, and I agree it has many strengths, which is why I moved from Mexico to New Zealand. I chased these advantages and tend to think more right of centre because I like what it offers and support and want to protect it. However, I do that by acknowledging that liberal democracies are built on the foundations and legacy of colonization, capitalism and patriarchy, and that requires a political and social reckoning, which is what the Left is trying to shine a light on, even if poorly at times.
Thanks for the kind words (and the funny dig—I’ll take it!). Have an awesome Christmas, and I’m looking forward to more of your sharp insights next year. It's always good to hear from you! - Nat
Policies from political parties that will enhance the likely survival of humanity would seem like a pretty good guide I reckon. Like y’know, traditional western cultural values - people first!
I enjoyed your opinion until I got to this:
“Politics stands apart because it is the foundation for everything else. If you want to govern with no clear ideas (National in this coalition government), manage with no clear ideas (Wellington City Council), or advocate with no clear idea (the Greens), you can’t advance society forward or develop any strategies that will benefit the most vulnerable.”
You left the Labour Party off your derision list. In my view it is open to the same kind of criticism. Do you not see that?
Hi Ruaridh, thanks for your comment! My intention is not to mock or ridicule these parties—I’m simply sharing my observations. I left Labour out because, in my view, they’ve become largely invisible in today’s political landscape. They also don’t have any political mandate at the moment. In Wellington Central, the only parties with a tangible mandate are National and its coalition partners and the Greens, who won by a significant margin in this electorate. That said, if you feel Labour deserves critique, that’s fair game—but mocking wasn’t what I aimed for here.
I’m with you R or R, on getting a jolt (a different jolt, but a jolt nonetheless) from “If you want to govern with no clear ideas (National in this coalition government)”
My issue is that it is not obvious to me that National has no clear ideas.
Stand back a bit - and observe that the coalition is working at the pace of the Energiser Bunny with no ‘OFF’ switch. My take is that Luxon is being a manager. His team is on a path to create results, and I expect that this is what is in his DNA to care about. Leadership is best done with humility. The measure is, do he Winston and David manage their differences. A key job for him is the stewardship of the coalition itself.
The next years, and the next two elections will tell. (I think the coalition will hold together and retain power in the next election, the interesting thing will be how they manage in 2029.)
Kia ora Nat, thanks for all your work writing and sharing these pieces. I have found myself feeling sometimes soothed, sometimes triggered, but it's always been very stimulating and interesting. Have a great break and I hope to catch up soon!
Kia ora Frankie, thanks so much for reading and texting. My intention is never to trigger or be controversial for the sake of anything other than shaking us from our dogmatic slumber in politics. I aim to be balanced, honest, and stimulating, so hopefully, that also comes across. Let's catch up for some drinks in the new year!
I think that the piece might miss that people express thoughts about people because they have evaluated and assimilated their ideas and policies.
Thanks.
I agree with you MT. People do express their thoughts as a result of assessing the ideas and policies of others. These expressions then have a number of purposes including challenging or amplifying the ideas and finding and supporting allies. The emotional freight in the expressions can be powerful and this is intentional and legitimate. I’m with you (I hope) that politics requires the odd swingeing pop on the nose of egregious horrors. My alignment with Natalia’s piece comes from me personally finding that exhausting though. I like to see thoughtful challenging of the ideas themselves, not to say respectful and steel-manning engagement, to have a better shot at uncovering what is really going on.
And that's a very fair take.
My note is only that after having assimilated policies, impacts and conclusions, people who say e.g. they don't like David Seymour are expressing the conclusion - and writing those people off as not focused on policy - could be an oversight - which seemed to be an opening assumption in this piece.
I hear and acknowledge and agree that what you say is fair though.
Thanks, Mountain Tui. I get it. I am not trying to dismiss anybody. I am just trying to remind us all, including myself, that if we keep focusing on personalities and not on ideas, we are limiting our capacity to think more creatively about solutions to the very complex issues we face.
Sometimes, those conclusions about not liking a particular politician come after people have engaged with the policies and impacts. I could have acknowledged that more clearly in the piece. I'm always keen to hear different perspectives. When I say I want us all to be Less Certain about our views, I include myself in that group, and we can only do that by debating, challenging and being as flexible as possible on our own views. Nat
I agree with you FWIW!
Sometimes the ideas just don’t make a difference. My wife thinks Seymour is a weaseley little rat-faced ferret. She has a very negative reaction to him. I say, but listen to what he says. He is very reasonable. He is the most sensible, intelligent and thoughtful politician we have. (I’m only saying this for you Natalia, and MT, I don’t quite say that.) She just doesn’t like him, full stop.
Seymours reductionist rhetoric doesnt turn everyone on, and maybe your wife would cope better if she just listened to him, without watching. I dont like it how Seymour has downgraded the quality of school lunches by cancelling local production and having 1 provider. Would that be acceptable to him to eat reheated ? It is bad form aiming so low and depriving local providers of producing school lunches. Yes he seems sensible and intelligent, but he doesnt have kids, or know what good food is, so he is just an amateur.
Thanks, John, I appreciate your thoughtful take, as always! I get where you’re coming from—there’s definitely a place for those “swingeing pops” when it comes to egregious horrors. But like you, I find it more productive (and less exhausting) to focus on thoughtful challenges and steel-manning ideas. It’s refreshing to hear someone value that approach too. Thanks for aligning with the piece
That’s a fair point, but I think framing our political conversations this way can be problematic. If the only argument against this government is disliking David, Christopher, or Winston, it misses the bigger picture. It also lets us, as voters, off the hook from engaging meaningfully with their policies and ideas. We owe it to ourselves to focus on substance over personalities—it’s the only way we can hold our leaders accountable and drive better outcomes.
I don’t think only focusing on the personalities is best practice, so I see where you’re coming from, but it’s also because the positing appears as an absolute that I countered.
Eg people who say they dislike Winston Peters didn’t also offer views on policy or have deeper rationale
I think from my perspective the answer is it depends, and in some cases, where a person is very dishonest and has proven to be - it can include pointing out the dishonesty of their arguments or evidence - and the fallibility of character.
That all said I know what you are saying and I think I understand why you say it.
Discourse is buoyed by concepts and policies — and I agree with that - I just think this really has to be tempered in the current political environment with understanding motivation and characters..
The easiest example I can think of is Trump when I say at times it’s hard to complete divorce policy from personality but in an ideal world your model is good.
Thanks for the conversation
I’m alongside both of you on this one. ‘It depends’ is certainly reasonable and pragmatic. I would add, ‘it’s complicated’. MT I imagine the perfect world you have in mind as the one in which Natalia’s case above would fit is one where policy options are thought through and laid out for voters to see and debate. Instead, as the three of us know, the political arena is an emotional bear pit. It must have been troubling in the US for so many people to have voted for Trump, recognising him as a dreadful fellow, and at the same time the one promising lawfare and retribution to the people that see them as ‘deplorables’ and ‘garbage’. What a mess. I am an introverted conservative engineer. I would emigrate to that ideal world at the drop of a hat.
I’ve enjoyed your pieces Nat and sometimes forward them to my wife who is active in the Greens. I was GP foundation member number 13 (and a Green/Alliance candidate in 93) but declined to renew my membership when they left the Alliance. In terms of “ideas” check out millisphere.substack.com I’d like to interview you one day when I turn my gaze on Mexico
Hi Fred, thanks for sharing, and I don't blame you for not renewing your membership. I'll check out that substack and am always happy to chat about Mexico; keep in touch and have a great summer!
I think you need inspiring leaders to sell good ideas and good policies. An example is Jacinda Ardern taking over from Andrew Little as leader before getting elected. Ardern had a more inspiring narrative than Little, and was way more popular without any new policies. Luxon is struggling to show enough conviction and attitude to reach the public, and didnt speak at the Hikoi. You would be wrong to think that personalities dont count in winning elections, and Luxon needs to have more charisma and emotional conviction for the next election. He is lucky that Chris Hipkins doesnt show much conviction either, so we have to make the most of a poor selection.
Thanks for this, Mark—you’ve nailed a key tension in politics. Leadership and narrative absolutely matter, and it’s true that charisma can make or break how policies are received. Jacinda’s rise is a great example of how the right leader can galvanize people even without major policy shifts. I think where I am coming from in the piece was frustration with how often personality eclipses substance, but you’re right—ignoring the role of inspiring leadership in winning elections would be naive. Luxon’s lack of emotional connection is definitely a factor, and I agree that both he and Hipkins feel like underwhelming options right now. It’s frustrating when the choice feels more about who’s the least uninspiring. Appreciate your insights!
Hi Nat
I enjoy your articles even where there are parts I don’t agree with.
Ideas are the guts - yes. Liberal democracy is fragile because it is marbled through with colonialism, patriarchy and capitalism - I think that misses the point of where the strength of liberal democracy comes from.
Why politics is so interesting at the moment, I think, is because we are watching an inflection point with identitarian ideologies, not one with liberal democracy. Are they hitting a speed bump, a temporary check maybe? Or in some deep way has the tide turned for them? Have we reached and passed Peak Woke?
I suspect the latter of course, but look forward with interest to seeing what unfolds in New Zealand over the next two years. We can also see the turbulence in the UK, USA, Canada and Australia where I think similar themes are playing out.
Have a great Christmas and I look forward to reading your crisp, passionate and well written articles next year. (That they can be so deeply mistaken at times is just part of their mystery, but then that is a feature not a bug.)
Hi John, Thanks for the thoughtful comment—and for sticking with my articles, especially when we don’t always agree! I appreciate your take on liberal democracy, and I agree it has many strengths, which is why I moved from Mexico to New Zealand. I chased these advantages and tend to think more right of centre because I like what it offers and support and want to protect it. However, I do that by acknowledging that liberal democracies are built on the foundations and legacy of colonization, capitalism and patriarchy, and that requires a political and social reckoning, which is what the Left is trying to shine a light on, even if poorly at times.
Thanks for the kind words (and the funny dig—I’ll take it!). Have an awesome Christmas, and I’m looking forward to more of your sharp insights next year. It's always good to hear from you! - Nat
I look forward to becoming properly educated by you in these things in the New Year.
Policies from political parties that will enhance the likely survival of humanity would seem like a pretty good guide I reckon. Like y’know, traditional western cultural values - people first!