Swinging between Labour and National: being pragmatic rather than ideological

How are you feeling about New Zealand politics generally?

I’m not feeling super great about New Zealand politics. That’s because, even though politics shouldn’t be a personality sport, it is a little disappointing at the moment that we have two totally uninspiring leaders for the main two parties. But more importantly, beyond the leaders, so far there has been very little actual policy discussion—like on critical issues such as the cost-of-living crisis. Most of the discussion has focussed on issues of very little relevance to most people. For ages the media was talking about whether road signs need to have Maori names. Or the media gets preoccupied on politicians’ gaffes, such as when Luxon described New Zealanders as ‘negative, wet and whiny’. OK, it’s not a great thing to say about your own voter base, but this story was on the news cycle far longer than it deserved. And these issues are not going to help anyone put food on the table. Sometimes more meaningful issues are brought up only so that a party can win a cheap jab at the opposition. For example, National might bring up the important crime issue but basically just to say ‘look at this horrible crime’, without any meaningful discussion about possibly policy responses. So I would say both our main parties are fairly policy-less at the moment. National has had this problem for a long time: they are quick to take jabs at the Government but are very light on actual policies. For Labour, I think there is a noticeable change post-Jacinda. One of the first things Chris Hipkins did was to undo much of what Jacinda’s Labour had done; so they became more defined as being policy-less. I’m hoping we will see more meaningful discussion on policy issues closer to the election.

Who would you vote for today and why?

I can’t see myself voting for any party apart from the main two. But I also can’t see myself ever being a core voter for either. That’s because I see myself more as pragmatic rather than ideological. I don’t believe enough in the ideology of Act or Greens to vote for either of them, or to think they’re right all the time. In fact, I think they both get things wrong because they can be blinded by their own ideology. Whereas National and Labour are both more pragmatic and fairly centrist. For instance, you see National introducing policies that you’d never see a conservative government in the US or the UK supporting. So when it comes to the election, my approach is to assess the main two parties based on their policies, and what I think is best for this particular season. That said, TOP is a party I might consider—as they take a pragmatic, centrist approach—but it seems like a wasted vote because they are not going to get over the 5 percent threshold. It’s pretty hard to get over that psychological burden.

How do you perceive voters who vote for parties further on the left (like Greens) or right (like Act)? What do you mean by saying they are ‘ideologically driven’?

Well, each side is a diverse group of people, so I’m generalising here. On the Left, a lot of it is basically wanting people to have a fair go, as well as issues around sustainability and environmental protection. (Sometimes, for at least some leftist voters, this can get a little nasty: talking about Luxon’s seven houses and focussing more on bringing people like that down rather than lifting other people up. But this likely only a small number.) I would say these left-wing voters are ideologically driven in this sense: while they are well-intentioned and wanting good things, pointing out a bad or unequal outcome does not mean there are the resources to fix it. And therefore deciding against fixing the outcome, perhaps due to unavailability of means, doesn't make a person or party neglectful or uncaring. The Greens have talked a lot about providing free dental care, for example, because people from poorer communities often have poor dental hygiene. Fair enough, we all want this; but that doesn’t mean there’s enough money to pay for it.

For people on the Right, the focus is very much the idea that people need to take responsibility for their own lives. "Why should you take money of honest, hard-working families to support others who are worse off. They should just work hard themselves." I think there is some value in the message of taking responsibility; I agree that the onus is on people to work hard and try to make the best of their situation. Yet that’s not always enough. Some burdens people face are not surmountable, and some start a long way behind others. So neither viewpoint, from the Left or the Right, is sufficient on its own; in isolation, both are damaging. We need to listen to both and then pragmatically work out what’s best and also what’s actually achievable in each situation, and on each policy issue.

How do you think people who are more passionately Left or Right would perceive your approach?

In practice, people from either side typically think I’m the opposite to them, because I tend to play devil’s advocate; and also because I am able to take on different points of view from either side. But if these more passionate voters read this blog or knew all about my approach to politics? I think they would call it indecisive. One friend I shared with basically said it’s all very well pleading ignorance, but at some point you have to make a decision and do something. That’s somewhat fair enough. It’s normally the people who believe in something strongly who take action. The way I see things, it would be great if the country as a whole took a similar approach to mine—seeing both sides as reasonable and being somewhat in the middle. But it would be terrible if every individual was like me, because then nothing would be get done. A country needs some people who are passionately either side, as well.

How are you feeling about the state of political discourse in New Zealand?

I think I’m cautiously optimistic. It’s not as heated or nasty here as it is in the US or probably the UK. But it was getting bad towards the end of Covid, with the vitriolic and hateful speech against Jacinda. That’s toned down since then, whether because the pandemic and lockdowns are over or, as is unfortunately possibly true, because New Zealand is somewhat misogynistic. One area where things could get nastier is around race, especially in the upcoming election with questions around co-governance and the Maori Health Authority. National could potentially be accused of dog whistling here, thinking again of the tangle they got into over Maori street names.

But again, our political discussions is really not too bad. You get comments about Luxon’s seven houses and him being out of touch, and so on, but that’s probably all within the boundaries of acceptable political discourse. On the whole, I think New Zealand is relatively reasonable. A big reason for that is that our two main parties are pretty centrist, which means you can slightly laugh at and dismiss the absurdities of the more extreme, ideological parties without worrying that they might actually end up running the country. I recently heard a leader from one of these parties say that the source of all violence in the world is cis, white, men. That’s a bit silly and simplistic. But you can safely roll your eyes a little because you know they are not going to be your future prime minister. One final thing I’d add is that our media do seem to want to stoke more controversy and focus on stories where they can engage in a bit of rage-baiting. But I don’t see New Zealanders taking the bait that much at this point.