We’re in the election endgame now. With only a week to go, I’m done covering the horse race. That means I’m all in on articles about who to vote for. We kick off the series with my weighing up the pros and cons of all the parties I could vote for tomorrow. I’ve included the seven parties with a shot at being in Parliament after the election (all are extremely likely to be except for TOP, who are a possibility), and done all of them the justice of three pros, three cons.
ACT
Pros
1. Quality candidates
I don’t need to elaborate on this much as I’ve discussed it in a previous article, but ACT have a seriously strong list. I will caveat this by saying there’s no clear successor to David Seymour, and while Todd Stephenson may be improving in public appearances he’s still a weak link. Nonetheless, Seymour has clearly been the most effective party leader of the past term and done an excellent job building a successful workplace culture and attracting real talent.
2. An unparalleled focus on increasing productivity
Having leafed through hundreds of policies on policy.nz, it’s abundantly clear that ACT are bringing the most to the table. (The Greens also have a lot, but many of their policies are less substantive as they’re more around creating commissions or endorsing sentiments rather than directly altering government functions). ACT’s theory of New Zealand’s problems is that we are unproductive (i.e for every hour worked, a Kiwi makes significantly less stuff than an equivalent worker in the world’s most advanced economies), and that reforming our ministries and government policies towards the private sector will remove barriers to growth and incentivise leaps in productivity. That, in turn, means more tax dollars earned, more competition to raise worker wages and salaries, and more jobs being created.
3. They really are classical liberals
ACT stands for the principle of choice: that the state should enable people to use their best understanding of their own lives to make choices for themselves, instead of choosing for them. That informs many of their right-wing economic policies, but it also leads them to unexpected places. From legalising euthanasia (a huge win for social progress compared to, say, the Greens failing to get cannabis legalised), to incentivising prisoners to attain key skills, to assigning a former child of state care to work on Oranga Tamariki reform, ACT are not a strictly conservative party; they do attempt to empower some groups of disenfranchised people on the margins.
Cons
1. None of us really know what the true ACT is
Unfortunately for ACT, this leads smack-bang into the middle of my central issue with them. At the same time as they have shown that liberal streak and dedication to real reform, they take the conservative, unimaginative position on many issues: from a lock-em-up approach to criminals to opposing most climate action and even striking against signature pro-market or pro-deregulation reforms like the MDRS (for housing intensification) or ETS (for reducing emissions). ACT have also received huge amounts of donations from wealthy individuals and the usual concerns about corruption in NZ naturally arise.
It’s hard, therefore, to understand what ACT its voters will receive after the election: whether rural conservatives will be gutted to see ACT dragging National in a liberal direction, or if liberals will feel betrayed by ACT emboldening National’s most conservative side. And it’s hard not to see them as a party who either lack core principles and beliefs, or who are pandering to and exploiting voters to then double-cross in government.
2. Nor do we know what ACT will get out of coalition negotiations
The closest we have to bottom lines from ACT are likely reductions in government spending, abolishing the gun register, and an attempt at a referendum on Treaty principles. The first is doable, as National agrees. The second will be a bitter pill for National, but they’ll have to swallow it. The third would be hugely destabilising and ACT have been extremely shallow about how such a referendum would work or what the end result would be. National will likely do everything they can to avoid such a referendum, but it would surely also be up Winston’s alleyway.
There’s your first problem: Winston hates David and has shown in the past he’s a very strong negotiator, and he has the leverage of potentially going with Labour that David doesn’t. The second is that there’s no proof yet that David or ACT can negotiate effectively - we’ve just never seen it done and any claim to the contrary is an assertion based on wishful thinking. The third is that, outside of cutting public servants and a referendum, who knows what’s ACT’s priority? Probably education and bringing charter schools back and maybe a Pharmac review, but beyond that? We have next to no idea what takes precedence, and all of these things (with the partial exception of the referendum) seem like minor concessions you’d give to a weak partner.
3. ACT policies are poorly calibrated to improve their voters’ lives
Check out those policies above. Cutting government costs will reduce deficits and debt, and that puts your country in a safer spot in the long term, sure, but these are abstract concepts detached from our lives. Abolishing the gun register removes an inconvenience for some passionate hobbyists. A referendum on the Treaty, at most, will abolish the cost of Treaty settlements. Which, over the entire history of Treaty settlements since 1989, have been $2.2 billion. If ACT got their full alternative budget, they would cut almost $10 billion in spending per year, of which average Treaty settlement costs per year would be a mere 00.0068%. Your kid very likely won’t go to a charter school. Pharmac changes are decently important, but really, what are we talking about here?
ACT would, of course, argue that they'll improve the functionality of your healthcare and education, they'll cut your taxes, they'll fix your roads and so on. Given the earlier questions raised about their ability to negotiate, it’s not clear in which of those areas they will make the hardest pushes beyond what National would just give you anyway.
And, hell, the tax cut maths works out terribly! It’s no surprise that ACT scrubbed their old tax calculator and haven’t uploaded a new one. Check this yourself, but if my maths is right, if you’re earning $48,000 a year - basically the minimum wage - your net taxes go up by $20 a fortnight. The median wage earner in NZ is $62,000 a year and stands to gain a few bucks a fortnight. For a party with such an ambitious policy platform and a fire breathing commitment to remould society, it’s a surprisingly slim series of offerings to reward those who entrust them with their vote.
The Greens
Pros
1. Let’s not overcomplicate this: they are the most environmentalist party
Parties like ACT will argue the Greens’ approach is counterproductive, but if you’re somebody who votes prioritising the environment you likely strongly disagree with ACT’s version of events. Simply put, the Greens have a ton of policies around using the power of the government to reduce emissions and local environmental harms, contrary to those from the right side of the aisle that generally deregulate environmental controls. It’s in line with their history, what their MPs and their membership believe in, and it’s what they’ve pushed for in government. Anybody who says that the Greens have abandoned caring about the environment in favour of another agenda does not research policies, they just read headlines and write comments.
Another thing I think is worth mentioning about Greens policies is, with most parties trying to take some kind of direction on the climate, Greens policies (mainly on the environment though sometimes also on other matters) disproportionately end up picked up by other parties years down the line, giving the Greens an indirect impact even if they don’t get them passed themselves.
2. They are also leftists, so if that’s what you’re looking for…
This feels very “how many times do we have to each you this lesson”, but yeah, once again, the Greens see being leftie and environmentalist as going hand in hand. From their perspective, good policy is all about the government taking an active role for the good of both. Naturally, the Greens support a wealth tax, more government spending on a range of priorities like free dental for all, various regulations to compel businesses, landlords etc. to provide better conditions, and more funding and easier access in our welfare system. I will caveat this: a signature policy for the Greens this year is a huge tax cut, which is bizarrely off-message for them but would also be the biggest tax cut for the lowest income earners compared to any of the other parties. What do you know?
3. They represent marginalised constituencies
Shout out to the Greens for having a way more uncomplicated pros section than all of the others. It’s very easy to pick up on this stuff and it’s pretty much true: the Greens are the kinda party who put the time into consulting with and elevating policies for disabled voters, the rainbow community, animals who obviously lack the vote and other lobbying powers and so forth. In particular, the Greens have done a lot to diversify their caucus and place an emphasis on youth interests, and with a serious policy focus on improving renters’ standards of wellbeing, it’s not hard to see why they win disproportionate love with voters my age.
Cons
1. They are ineffective
And now I get to 🔥🔥🔥 roast 🔥🔥🔥 them. This is still another of those uncomplicated truths that everybody knows: the Greens are not very good at securing much of their agenda or many ministerial positions in coalition negotiations. It’s a favoured pastime of pols commentators to rubbish the idea that the Greens would ever go with National, and it's true, but I think that often obscures the fact that the COROLLARY to "the Greens could go with National!" remains true: if the Greens were open to that, they'd have a lot more negotiating power than they do.
As it stands, they will only ever enter government alongside Labour and other Labour coalition partners like NZ First with more negotiating power, and that means Labour doesn’t have to give them a whole lot. A classic example GBL loves to use is that in 2017 the Greens secured a green investment bank, which has $100 million to make loans where a strong business and environmental case can be made, with strict enough regulations that the first loan was only given out in 2020. NZFirst got the Provincial Growth Fund, which blew $3 billion of vote bribes in the most random places with no accountability. Frankly, on top of all the leverage stuff, the Greens are probably just too dependent on being the party that plays nice to get more done in negotiations. Certainly, they won’t make threats like NZ First, ACT or TPM do to rejig governmental arrangements.
2. They are out of touch hypocrites
A lot of Green MPs play nice because they are nice people! They also have MPs who tried to get special treatment at the same time as they strongly supported COVID regulations. The party pushes strongly to reform our unacceptably corrupt system of political donations, while they accept cash for access deals. I don’t care about people who call them sanctimonious or preachy because, again, I think those are shallow descriptors disinterested in discussing the actual impacts of parties. Nonetheless, the Greens have clearly shown that they rub many centre voters the wrong way, and the Sapna Samant incident the other day is the latest example of that.
Far more pressing than the occasional MP behaving just as badly as most any other politician - which is bad and should be held to the same standard - is that the Green party voter base is generally blissfully unaware of the huge issue they pose. The Greens can talk all they like about how they are for the working class, the poor, beneficiaries, tangata whenua - those are not where the Greens actually get most of their votes. Henry Cooke ran the numbers the other week and the average Green voter has a higher income than the average ACT voter! If you are a Green voter you are probably either a hippie who can afford to live off the grid on Waiheke, or your parents have paid you through university and you're now a young, well-educated white female professional with the world at your fingertips.
That creates a party that doesn’t actually have to deliver at each election for the Kiwis most in need: they just need to say and signal what makes their voter base feel like their priorities have an answer, and if the Greens just had their chance they’d get it done, never mind that the Greens never create that chance for themselves. There is a lot of fingerpointing in politics about leftists just trying to soothe guilty consciences and virtue signal and that’s unhelpful - it’s fairly true but everybody has some selfish motives for doing good and the important thing is whether good gets done. The point is that the Green voter base are unaccustomed with what good looks like in practice, and will write a thousand Newsroom comments blaming the neoliberal media before they get concerned that the Greens are getting nothing done.
3. They have unique potential to get volatile
What was that whole mess with Elizabeth Kerekere? Kerekere probably was a problem MP who needed to go, but the process was not transparent and raises questions about a supposedly woke party failing to practise what they preach. There was the James Shaw ouster, which could happen unexpectedly any time in government with as much suddenness as Kevin McCarthy losing his job. And a lot of anti-vax and anti-mandate types were those hippies who went so far left they fell off the scale.
I have painted a vision for you of the Greens as broadly docile, comfortable white-collar types who will twiddle their thumbs and watch the world change around them, and in the grand scheme of things that’s kind of true. At the same time the Greens really are channelling youthful, anti-establishment energy and they really do focus more than anybody else on the apocalyptic challenges facing the world.
Coupled with the general rise in polarisation around the West and the specific uptick in Americanised activism, and acknowledging how we as the public know very little about the Green membership who actively participate in their internal democracy…if anywhere is going to see a Corbynite/Trumpesque unexpected hijack by a charismatic figure and an influx of new arrivals, it’s here.
Don’t get me wrong, that’s unlikely. Parties like ACT and NZFirst are far more reflective of those aforementioned trends. Nonetheless, you can clearly see where they’re going, and they continue to behave in tune with our generally tightly controlled party system. The Greens are uniquely different in how their co-leadership is selected and list is sorted, and who knows where that might go in the middle of a term?
Labour
Pros
1. They represent those most in need
The Greens are the only party with a strong misalignment between their base and who they exist for. Labour has plenty of chardonnay socialist voters, but at the end of the day most of the working class, beneficiaries, Māori and Pasifika vote for the Labour Party. You can come up with analysis about what this means, like that Labour has a party list representative of New Zealanders, but the plainest way to put this is that all of those voters must be onto something, right?
2. They effect incremental change
Doubling back to Henry Cooke's list of key changes from Labour, we can see, to pick a few, the Winter Energy Payment, more paid parental leave, undoing Ruthanasia, decriminalising abortion, banning conversion therapy, introducing the MDRS, a foreign buyer ban, finally getting state house builds in the thousands going, fees-free, the polytech merger, free school lunches, Fair Pay Agreements, Matariki as a public holiday, three strikes repeal, gun reform, the Zero Carbon Act, no more offshore oil and gas exploration...Labour have done a lot of little things, they have done many by building consensus or making small tweaks in budgets year on year, and many of them will survive the election.
3. They really, truly are not radical
The Labour Party remained very conservative with its budget settings in their first term, under which the economy continued to perform well despite mediocre business confidence. They have certainly spent enormous amounts in their second, but the conventional wisdom was that the response to the GFC failed by underspending, and compared to other countries, New Zealand has not had the worst results during the cost of living crisis.
Many Labour policies have found compromises with other parties, and more ambitious measures like Three Waters were often very necessary reforms. Labour sometimes do stupid things, but practically nothing overreaches what can be considered a reasonable proposition to debate. Don’t confuse how deeply unpopular Labour is and the validity of harsh indictments upon them with making them unprecedented menaces.
Cons
1. Their caucus has been exhausted
After six years of hard work and turnover, Labour have all but run out of people to staff an effective government or even Opposition with. To briefly recap from my earlier article on the subject, but reframed for the likelihood they are in Opposition: Hipkins, Davis and Jackson could land some real hits on the government; Robertson, O'Connor, Little, Parker, Mahuta, Radhakrishnan and McAnulty, Luxton might lose their seats or retire; Sepuloni, Woods, Tinetti, Henare, Verrall, Andersen, Edmonds, Prime, Webb, and Russell can be across their briefs; and they have just a couple talents like Rachel Brooking and potentially Michael Wood to develop. Currently, Cabinet is composed of 18 people, and I’m naming only around 13 people who Labour can be guaranteed to have ready to look like a government-in-waiting after the election. That’s extraordinarily poor as an option.
2. They cannot deliver
Labour’s ministers and approach to governance may have gotten plenty of significant bills passed, but they are extremely ineffective at improving operational efficiency in many sectors. Healthcare, education, housing: it’s the usual story that’s been said many times before. Hipkins’ Labour appears to have responded to this, along with the cost of living crisis, by reining in the ambition of their policy promises. Honesty’s good and all, but at what point do you become pointless as a party when you can change very few lives with so many votes?
3. They are beholden to special interests and dogmatic
The trouble with my argument that Labour is representative is that many of their top figures are former student politicians who have spent their whole lives in that white-collar world. Labour is reliant on union representatives who cannot account for most workers, and that leads them to ideological decisions like abolishing charter schools to serve the teachers’ union. Other policies like their OT reform are condemned by other parties and not what relevant subject matter experts are asking for, but they go for it anyway. Labour are not far-left radicals, but they do have a tendency to stick to decisions without merit just by virtue of the fact that they are Labour’s decisions.
National
Pros
1. They provide a steady hand
The National Party have governed for most of New Zealand’s history since they formed, and with a couple exceptions like Muldoon and Bolger-Shipley, they tend to maintain a stable state of affairs in the country. That can be a bad thing for those struggling, but by the world’s standards New Zealand is one of the best places to be and an extremely fortunate country. Any party who can largely preserve that state of affairs is achieving a lot.
2. They have a strong team
Nicola Willis is good though there are questions around her in Finance, Chris Bishop has had a meteoric and deserved rise, Shane Reti was National's best performer in 2020 and Erica Stanford in 2021. Matt Doocey is the best MP on mental health and Judith Collins, for all her flaws, is a great minister. They have been bringing in other rising talents like James Christmas, picked to go straight to Attorney-General. That's not all of their top 20, but the point is after years of struggles, National really are putting up a good team in key ministries like Finance, Housing, Health and Education. No other party looks as ready to govern the country and restore the standards of competence New Zealand saw under the first two terms of Helen Clark or John Key’s governments.
3. Their liberal side is influential
Many of those MPs, like Willis, Bishop and Stanford, reflect a minority strain in the party that combine National’s general centre-right positions with an embrace of what government can get done. National have shown a willingness in the past to bed in many of Labour’s best policies and leave them largely untouched. The party has shown initiative in surprising areas - under John Key, benefits and the minimum wage rose and Chris Finlayson worked excellently with iwi on Treaty settlements, while Bill English pioneered “social investment” (which National still occasionally mentions) intended to maximise support for those who create the most social costs, i.e those the most in need. National offer some of both worlds, left and right.
Cons
1. They stand in the way of progress
The National Party epitomises the hostility amongst many voters to the idea of voting for either of the major parties. They have been able to govern for the majority of their existence because they are averse to any major changes that might upset their predominantly middle and upper-class constituents. Look at them refusing to include agriculture in the ETS and backtracking on the MDRS. Look at the kludgeocracy of subsidies, deductions and compromises we have throughout our governing system. Much can be attributed to Labour, but most of this belongs to National either by having set this up themselves, or by failing to perform their role as a right-wing party in undoing and simplifying this kind of messy, unprincipled governance. And, for good measures, there’s all the ties to business, private donations and so on. National has its reforming liberals, but its dominant core remains conservatives whose interests lie in protecting their existing wealth and power.
2. Christopher Luxon
Chris Luxon never sufficiently demonstrated why he should be leader, coming in with a scant year’s experience in Parliament and a pretty piddling record of public contribution or business performance in his private roles. He only got in because the party was in a shambolic state. He hasn’t done a whole lot to convert his considerable managerial resume into any persuasive argument to Prime Minister, and, along the way, we’ve had a whole lot of indicators he’s unfit for the role.
He has shared social views unacceptable to a good chunk of the population, failed to stand up to scrutiny repeatedly, and made weak calls on leadership like letting NZ First have their run instead of cutting them off at the knees. He is not ready to be Prime Minister, he will never be top calibre, and as soon as the polling landscape shifts enough to kick off intrigue, his leadership will be in trouble.
3. Their tax plan doesn’t work and they’re lying about it
Here’s your recap: National announced moderate tax cuts with the usual con (skewed towards higher income earners), to be paid for by raising five other taxes - already a statement about National’s approach to governance. Independent experts agreed that the plan a) did not add up based on National’s estimates and b) violated our treaties with some other countries like China. (Goldman Sachs also determined the tax cuts could increase inflation, and therefore interest rates, which is exactly what National have been hitting Labour for doing.) National have not published the calculations and assessments by their own experts that outsmart all this outside input and show an unforeseen way they can do this.
They dodge questions every time the media asks about it and move on. This is the third election in a role where the National Party, whose top claim is supposed to be economic competence, has made what independent experts agree is a fiscal error. This is much smaller in scale than screwing up an accusation of a fiscal hole in 2017, or making their own fiscal hole in 2020, but this still says that they are economically incompetent. At least they were honest in 2020 - now we’re in a cost of living crisis, and we cannot afford to be governed by liars who cannot admit their mistakes. But here we are.
New Zealand First
1. They represent many people in need
NZ First are a party for those left behind in the regions and our seniors. Each have a persuasive case that they deserve more attention: people in the regions are, by definition, not in front of the cameras in Auckland and Wellington. Many are still facing the repercussions decades later of socioeconomic shifts under Rogernomics, such as the closure of freezing works. Access to public services over considerable distances and with bad roads in areas like Northland is a real struggle. Meanwhile, many seniors are renters, a large percentage have serious health challenges, and specific policy needs like superannuation guarantees and winter heating. NZ First are the ones there for them when nobody else is, or so the PR goes. At the very least, you can be sure Winston will fight to defend super, and the SuperGold Card is locked in for the foreseeable future.
2. They have produced effective ministers
NZ First attracts some serious talent who can slot into those few roles they win with each coalition agreement. Winston is consistently described by those in political scenes as somebody who’s all smiles when the cameras are off, even to the media; he has unparalleled experience in the political scene; and he has really stepped up to the plate in times of crisis, like the terrorist attack and the initial COVID lockdowns. Ron Mark brought some real mana as Minister of Defence, Shane Jones whether you believe in him or not is a big name, Tracey Martin is a serious and competent person and they're now bringing back Shane and Jenny Marcroft and bringing in Andy Foster. If they’re only ever going to get a few ministerial spots, they can put the best people in those positions.
3. They are excellent at negotiations
NZ First have a lot of leverage by virtue of the fact that they are extremely willing to go with either side of the aisle. The personal trust invested in Winston and his ability to rise from the dead means you can never count out the prospect he might go to the other side, so you have to bid heavily for his support. And it’s far from his first rodeo. We saw this most profoundly in 2017 with everything they won from Labour and held them back from doing in government, such as agriculture in the ETS or a capital gains tax, and up against an inexperienced National front bench they’ll be sure to make hay.
Cons
1. They have moved from beyond the pale all the way into the dark
NZ First have always been a repulsive party. Whatever else they stand for, the central pitch has always been that there are too many Asians, Muslims, or whatever the other demographic of the day is in New Zealand, not to mention too many Māori behaving outside a certain boomerised vision of what a Winstonian Māori is meant to be. That will always be incompatible with the existence of non-Pākehā as New Zealanders.
This year marks a new resonance to Ben Thomas’s statement that there is no bottom to reach in politics, it’s just an endless pit that always has further depths to explore. I continue to highly recommend the latter half of GBL’s “Is Chris Luxon the new Paul Newman?” episode, which eviscerates the turn Winston has taken. When those conspiracy theorists showed up outside Parliament, there was collective agreement along the political spectrum and amongst most of society that you would not work with the grifting, opportunist vessels for those fanatical disrupters, like Brian Tamaki or Liz Gunn. Peters has shown himself to be on their level, and capable of a disturbing level of assimilation to a disingenuous set of beliefs.
2. They wreak havoc on governments they participate in
It's not rocket science, people. NZ First are an oppositional and anti-establishment party. When they become the establishment, they don't know what to do with themselves, so they keep opposing the government they're in to get headlines and almost out of force of habit. They destroyed Bolger’s government and ripped away from Jenny Shipley within two years, they made Clark’s last term a misery and through Ardern’s first term, they would constantly show apparent assent to policies behind the scenes, wait until the policy was just about to come to fruition, and then snooker it, wasting everybody’s time and resources in a petty and fruitless display. They are, in a sense, the ultimate libertarians - nobody does more to stop the government governing.
3. It’s not like they’re bringing good policies to the table
NZ First's sheet of plans is and always has been pitifully small. This was epitomised by their manifesto being dropped a week before the election, and mere minutes later, Peters contradicting it and lying in the minor party leaders’ debate, prompting the manifesto to then be edited. NZ First are a party about sending a message to urban elites and the trusted personality of Winston Peters. They don’t actually have a plan for what to do when they get there because they don’t need to and because that’s not what they’re about.
Competent people like Andy Foster have been conned just because NZ First’s branding is that they’re a centrist party - that doesn’t mean that NZ First have this common-sense, sensible way to run the country, it just means in this case that they leave that to the governments they support and look out for themselves. And you can be pro-immigration or anti-immigration, but Labour have anti-immigration positioning handled and NZ First are not only untenable stewards of the issue, Winston openly backpedalled and supported more short-term immigration the other day. If NZ First now back immigrants urgently arriving, what are they even for anymore?
4. They are the ultimate subject to special interests
Insofar as they do have a serious policy platform, it is about looking out for those who are already loaded - in short, elites. Rich boomers don’t need the SuperGold Card to ensure their trip across to Waiheke Island is free - that’s a ludicrous use of the tax money of the ordinary working Māori person in Taranaki or Gisborne that Winnie wants to defend, but here we are. Needless to say, bashing non-Pākehā is not exactly sticking up for a marginalised minority way of life. Most ominously of all, Peters’ economic agenda in government often looks very different from what he campaigned on - here is an excellent read that skewers how NZ First break their promises and give back to campaign donors, not you, the voter.
5. You cannot trust Winston Peters
Almost everybody who is voting for NZ First this year is doing so because they hate Labour's agenda on co-governance and they want to kick them out. It's absolutely bonkers to do so by voting for the guy who put them there and signed off on He Puapua discussion papers. Peters said he would change the government in 1996 and then he didn’t. He said he wouldn’t accept the baubles of office in 2005 and then he did.
He is lying to you while he smiles or scowls, and he can do so because his voter base are old people who were betrayed by all the mainstream politicians too in the 80s and 90s, share his fear of outside sources like the media, and aren’t fact checking online. Underneath all of these issues with NZ First is that it is the party of Winston Peters, a funny, experienced, obsessively political and consistently racist 78 year old, who is clearly starting to exhibit physical and mental issues consummate with his age.
You can see I do my due diligence in thinking up and working on reasons that legitimate every party in our political sphere, and I’ve given NZ First every pro I could think of too. You can also see what I plainly think of them. I’m not gonna tell you not to vote for NZ First, because you’re probably not going to. I’m gonna tell you, if you are one of those people thinking of voting for them, that is a sign you’re vulnerable to being conned. That’s not supposed to be some epic own, this is advice from me.
Get a little more wise as to the ways of the world and not go so far the other way against the boring, normal establishment as to think you can trust the other guy. Winnie’s a politician too, and he wants to ride your vote to getting Foreign Affairs again and taking French beachside holidays you’ll pay for while you sit in your mouldy flat and worry about your family. He’s just cleverer than most at getting that vote off of you.
TOP
Pros
1. They stand for necessary reforms to our government
Look, can I be real with you for a second? I do my research but I’m broadly a vibes and headlines person, not a full policy wonk. TOP have a strong case for their reforms, which are mainly about shifting the tax burden away from working people and onto land, providing young people with free and discounted access to more public services, and finally giving Christchurch a new wave of post-quake era support. But a lot of that stuff on the national scale about the taxes and so on is beyond me to explain, and so I’m better off saying just go look into it online. Surely reddit or wherever has the kinds of people who know this stuff best. Or, hell, get in touch and I’ll find those of my friends who can explain these sorts of things.
2. They are constructive centrists
It’s easy to diss centrism and that’s largely because centrism tends to look in practice like not making enough change. TOP are centrist in the sense that a) they lack a clear ideological grounding and b) they’ll work with either side of the aisle, but their reforms do not lack for ambition or desire to make change. Nor are they going to be the kind of people who blow things up. Despite coming in as outsiders, it’s clear that TOP’s candidates and membership are united in thinking they have positive ideas that could make New Zealanders a better country to work and live in.
3. Get Raf some friends!
No, seriously, this is one of the top (pun intended) pros. When you have a single MP, that MP has to be your party spokesperson on finance, health, education…it’s an enormously difficult task. Raf in particular will have to balance two things at the same time; whereas, say, David Seymour could focus for some time on the euthanasia bill, Raf has to a) cater to the TOP base in working in components of the Teal Card, their tax reform plans etc., and b) stay in touch with Christchurch and serve as our voice in Parliament. More MPs alongside him means that they can take on the burden of being spokespeople in their key areas, and he can focus on leading the party and leveraging his unique experiences. (You can read my article on Raf to find out more about his biography.)
Cons
1. Their reforms aren’t given as a good
I mean, I have to say this to balance it out, but, again, I can’t explain the details. My point is if you’re considering voting for TOP, you’re probably the kind of person who already moves within this space and can evaluate the pros and cons, but if you’re not it’s definitely still worth checking out their quick explainers. Raf in particular is a good communicator and any videos you can find on his social media of him pitching their policies will be a great start. I'm allowed to turn this into a kind of a positive, because if you read this blog you know I thought the Teal Card was pretty ridiculous. I'm just trying not to insert my overall TOP take too much here, which is that I'm personally here far more for the Raf & Christchurch side of things than the national TOP agenda.
2. They are technocrats
I have placed a heavy emphasis earlier in this list on discussing which groups parties do and don't represent and what interests they are beholden to. I think that's an important way to understand, as issues of the day come up and parties formulate changing responses to conditions, what directions they will err in, and how they will serve their voters. TOP’s candidates are technocrats for the most part who come together with degrees and brainstorm on what policy ideas could improve the country, rather than coming from their community after having heard from their constituents about what can make their lives better. (I think Raf is an exception, but saving that for another day.)
3. They are the only likely wasted vote on this list
I say this as somebody who believes in Raf Manji and will soon explain his chances in Ilam. He is an underdog and there is a good chance he will not make it into Parliament. If he doesn't make it into Parliament, TOP aren't getting in - no polls have shown them anywhere near the 5% threshold, and the past two elections suggest they hover around 2% support. Besides NZFirst, who are still near that line, any other party on this list you vote for will definitely benefit from your vote. Voting for TOP even if they don’t make it may be what makes you happy and symbolise a group of voters other parties can try to capture in future, but it is a risk you should know you’re taking.
Te Pāti Māori
Pros
1. They are the only party exclusively for tangata whenua
Does what it says on the tin, right? More specifically, Labour and TPM are the only competitive parties in the Māori electorates, and by definition MPs from the Māori electorates exclusively represent Māori. Any Labour MP from a Māori electorate must balance that representation with serving within the wider Labour Party, which courts a centre ground mostly composed of a white, housed middle class without much in common with those Māori voters in the most need. If you’re a Māori Party MP there is no conflict; you can spend your entire time and effort serving those you represent.
2. They can engage in forceful oppositional politics
The left of politics right now is composed of Labour, who are collapsing and, as I noted earlier, have very few strong public performers left, and the Greens, who have been a soft-touch party since the days of Russell Norman and Metiria Turei and who fail to draw much media attention. Neither of these parties will be effective critics of a National-ACT-NZ First government for at least the next few years. TPM have already shown under Labour that they can be strong critics and garner attention. Imagine what they can do to hold such a government to account on failure to abide by the Treaty or look after their people.
3. They are the “true left”!
Compared to their previous iteration that worked with National, this version of TPM has raced off to the left with a bevy of policies, from several new taxes to a promise to abolish prisons by 2040. Perhaps, if you were looking for a party that could supplant the mild-mannered Greens and their ineffectual approach, the Māori Party are in a position where they can show some real backbone and push policy leftwards in the long run.
Cons
1. They’re not really the “true left”
On the other hand, the leaders’ debates have made it abundantly clear the Māori Party’s leaders don’t see themselves this way. They have shunned any opportunities to compete for a wider voter pool and are clearly focused only on Māori voters. The Māori Party’s policy platform and priorities cannot be well understood by simply slotting it into a left-right continuum; they are taking an approach premised on sticking up for the Māori working class and beneficiaries, which looks very different from the Greens doing so for the wider public. Moreover, as I’ve noted before, the Māori Party also may have aspects of leaning to higher-income voters, #5 on their list is an academic, and in the past the party has been criticised for prioritising the interests of iwi leadership over everyday Māori members of the public.
2. Their candidates have been suspect
I have no complaints about Debbie Ngarewa-Packer - she’s a great contributor to our Parliament. Rawiri Waititi is clearly shaky on details and she had to puppeteer him a little at the recent leaders’ debate, and he has a host of controversial remarks (from criticising support for Ukraine to a suspicion of democracy to whatever that name suppression incident was, though we necessarily don’t know enough to place that in the pros or cons column) that would place him on the fringe if he wasn’t with a party of some repute. Meka Whaitiri bruised a staffer years ago and defected from her party in TPM’s latest show of fanfare that’s big on rhetoric and unclear how it delivers for Māori in need. Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke is a 21 year old, and you are welcome to disagree just as she would with me, but I do not think a 21 year old has sufficient organisational experience or a stable enough place in the world to be in Parliament. It’s not a great top four - never mind the fact the best tane co-leader they could produce last election was John “Sieg Heil” Tamihere.
3. It’s not clear how they will affect change or fit into our democracy
None of this excuses the fact that every day, people with family and jobs and lives open Facebook or NZ Herald and write disgusting things about these people. Claims they will destroy our democracy are nonsense - find me one example around the world. A Māori Party coming to Parliament and participating in “our” laws is a compromise with a lot of sacrifice involved on their end.
Nonetheless, there is no avoiding the fact that the essential concept of the Māori Party is that Westminster democracy as it stands is incompatible with adherence to Tiriti principles, and so they want to alter it. The policy plans to do so will never get through, so it’s not clear what compromises they would like to reach in the meantime to inch in that direction - essentially, what’s their own, affirmative version of co-governance or sovereignty that’s better than Labour’s.
Nor have we heard about how staying on the cross benches and lobbing poma will deliver results. This is a party grounded in a rich political world of thoughtful debate about how to improve people’s lives, but the rubbish hand dealt is that they gotta participate in a Parliament with plenty of arcane and weird rules that produces all kinds of good outcomes. It’s up to them to figure out how to change Parliament or use Parliament, but they’ve got to try.
Comments