"Centre Left" parties lurched rather suddenly to the Far Left with the onset of the Pandemic, emboldened by the new authoritarian powers that it provided them with. They embarked on a programme of social transformation and calls for increasing censorship with a swiftness and ideological zeal that many centre voters found shocking, and frightening, as there was no public mandate for the radical changes that were being pushed forward wether we liked it or not, predictably creating division and polarization. Wether it was justified in the name of inclusion, or keeping us "safe", it was seeng by many as excessive overeach and an unwelcome intrusion into the civil Rights and liberties of the citizenry. Rightly voters in one Western Democracy after another are rejecting the illiberalism of the so called progressive liberals.
That puts the critical view of the left from the right very clearly, Sean. Just to add some nuance, I'd note that a centre-right government in Australia was defeated in May 2022, in part as reaction to handling of national emergencies including bush fires. In NZ, Ardern got a resounding mandate in 2020, but squandered that in the subsequent 3 years.
I do like your writing and analysis. I'm assuming you've read Jonothan Haidt's 'The Coddling of the American Mind'. Until I read this book, I could not understand why it seemed that suddenly we had descended into political polarisation. Once we could 'agree to disagree' politically, or ideologically, or philosophically, and remain civil, but no more it seems. We must either hold our tongues, or risk being cancelled or shouted down.
Re being a libertarian, I was once a member of NZ's short-lived Libertarian Party then realised quickly, in its purist form, this is an unworkable and impossible polity. A nation where taxes can only be used for police, army, and security? No. Human beings are not naturally beneficent. They will not voluntarily provide welfare, healthcare, housing, nourishment and so on to those who don't have these life-saving necessities. However, I now remain on the libertarian side of liberal. As Act drifts to the right (three strikes, Treaty Principles Bill) as a former Act MP I am politically homeless, like many of my friends - once Green MPs who are conservationists and safe food campaigners.
Thanks for your supportive comments! I admit I haven't read Haidt's book, but I have heard about it.
And I notice that, when I post something that may not please leftwing readers, like this morning's, I get a few cancellations!
I do recall your time as an MP. It's a pity that many people, across the spectrum nowadays, feel unrepresented by the parties, or homeless as you put it.
Doing this substack has been a great exercise, but isn't building much of an audience, so I'll put less time into it, and think about another book.
Actually, Grant, I believe you understate the American view of "Liberalism". In my opinion the word is thought of more as synonymous with "Communist". But then, to me, American politics are weird!
Thanks Grant. As always - balanced, serious journalism that is not afraid of complexity. As a life-long social democratic, I have found my commitment to 'liberal values' (and what Fukuyama calls the 'liberal, representative democratic democracy') has becoming increasingly fraught as those who I once thought of as my natural allies - e.g. who fight against discrimination/exclusion etc. - have become increasingly intolerant and coercive. There seems to be little room left to have a mature, reasonable - that is based on reason - conversation about questions that are currently the obsession of the extremes. The media is of little help here as - aside from a few notable exceptions - they seem to have collectively turned off their bullshit detectors and given free reign to the loudest and most aggressive voices.
I think you are very much on the money in pointing to a 'generosity of spirit' towards those with whom we disagree. A willingness to actually listen (and hear) alternative perspectives. Requires a degree of humility and in the current political arena is in short supply - over the last few years politics seems to have developed the dynamic of a noisy bar on Saturday night (with TPM and ACT facing up for a bar-fight). But having a a reasonable conversation with whom we disagree is ultimately the only hope we really have if we are to be a cohesive, liberal society.
I couldn't have said it better, Mark! Media like RNZ and Stuff seem to favour voices against Seymour's bill, even though some people have shared reasoned submissions in its favour. One other has bemoaned the poor leadership from our representatives. I didn't make a submission myself. Cheers.
I think the coalition, if it can maintain cohesion, has a strong chance at securing six years in government. It will likely establish the rest of its legislative agenda over the next few months and have another four years to consolidate and bed it in. Brian Roche looks likely to bring the civil service along, especially in unwinding some of the ideological capture we’ve seen in recent years.
The judiciary, whether through the Solicitor General or the superior courts, doesn’t appear to be getting much slack for further activist policymaking. The interesting question is how much of the last 50 years of precedent-setting will survive the coalition’s legislative “clarifications.”
The politicisation of our judiciary, though, is an unfortunate own goal for New Zealand. There was a time when most people wouldn’t have known the difference between the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. Now, everyone is aware that ‘some judge’ decided that the Treaty ‘means a partnership deal’, at a time when the voting majority appears set to reject even the relatively modest measure of local board seats for Māori in October’s referenda.
I suspect the general public is startled by the extent to which constitutional politics has quietly bubbled away in the background. Polities often split into something like 25% progressives, 50-60% favoring incremental change (where I see myself), and the rest largely unengaged. The majority, then, is understandably uneasy about the perception of unconsulted, “quiet constitutional progress” being made without their input.
We’ve had two referenda on the flag (for the record, I voted for Laser Kiwi), but none on the implications of the Lands case? Decolonisation, co-governance, trans kids … ordinary voters increasingly feel that raising questions about these issues earns them labels like stupid, racist, or transphobic. (Admittedly, this is a more nuanced approach than the “deplorables” or the “garbage people” rhetoric in the US.)
The present moment reminds me of the early 1980s and what felt like a startling swing to the right under Reagan, Thatcher, and Roger Douglas. Back then, voters felt the left was bankrupt and were willing to cut the right considerable slack, for years. Meanwhile the fourth estate has nailed its colours to the mast, chosen a hill to die on and dramatically self-emasculated atop it.
If the coalition maintains discipline, I think it’s not just six years we’re looking at but possibly nine.
Thanks for your comments, John – not that I share your confidence in the longevity of the coalition! As a general principle, constitutional changes should occur openly and with public awareness and consent. A referendum is quite normal for changes of such magnitude. The flag change was merely symbolic, but even that got voted down, as you note. Governments all over the world are facing the consequences of doing things that majorities don't like. If they want to govern, parties need to learn how to bring communities alongside, and at least try to reconcile differences. I'm not sure if the present coalition is doing a good job of that, let alone the last government.
Most of the 1st-term governments in the past generation & a bit have had honeymoons. The only exceptions seem to be Bolger in 1990-93 (thanks in no small part to Ruthenasia & FPP voting) & Luxon.
I was surprised at the time just how much -inconceivable- impact the right of the 1980s had. Reagan stared down the air traffic controllers in the US; he brought in the military. Thatcher closed the coal industry down in the face of drawn out, intense and bitter resistance.
I think, proportionately, that the Douglas reforms were the biggest of all. Despite the immense pain, I think that Labour government primarily fell because of the falling out between Lange and Douglas.
In these various countries the then opposition was seen as no choice at all, leaving the rightists in an empty field. Now I think the question is, will David and Winston play nice (enough) for the sake of power.
Facing off with groups of workers is one thing, facing off with a growing indigenous demographic is quite another. Would David & Winston risk a potential sequel to 1981?
He certainly did, despite getting fewer votes than Labour, thanks to the vagaries of FPP. The Social Creditors were still a major third force at the time - the anti-Muldoon vote was bigger but split.
How things might have been different if Bob Jones' New Zealand Party had run in 1978, or MMP was around back then.
"Centre Left" parties lurched rather suddenly to the Far Left with the onset of the Pandemic, emboldened by the new authoritarian powers that it provided them with. They embarked on a programme of social transformation and calls for increasing censorship with a swiftness and ideological zeal that many centre voters found shocking, and frightening, as there was no public mandate for the radical changes that were being pushed forward wether we liked it or not, predictably creating division and polarization. Wether it was justified in the name of inclusion, or keeping us "safe", it was seeng by many as excessive overeach and an unwelcome intrusion into the civil Rights and liberties of the citizenry. Rightly voters in one Western Democracy after another are rejecting the illiberalism of the so called progressive liberals.
That puts the critical view of the left from the right very clearly, Sean. Just to add some nuance, I'd note that a centre-right government in Australia was defeated in May 2022, in part as reaction to handling of national emergencies including bush fires. In NZ, Ardern got a resounding mandate in 2020, but squandered that in the subsequent 3 years.
Speaking of Australia, their Liberal Party is the equivalent of the UK Tories & US GOP in being pro-free enterprise.
Trump & Bolsonaro also got tipped out over their inaction on COVID.
I do like your writing and analysis. I'm assuming you've read Jonothan Haidt's 'The Coddling of the American Mind'. Until I read this book, I could not understand why it seemed that suddenly we had descended into political polarisation. Once we could 'agree to disagree' politically, or ideologically, or philosophically, and remain civil, but no more it seems. We must either hold our tongues, or risk being cancelled or shouted down.
Re being a libertarian, I was once a member of NZ's short-lived Libertarian Party then realised quickly, in its purist form, this is an unworkable and impossible polity. A nation where taxes can only be used for police, army, and security? No. Human beings are not naturally beneficent. They will not voluntarily provide welfare, healthcare, housing, nourishment and so on to those who don't have these life-saving necessities. However, I now remain on the libertarian side of liberal. As Act drifts to the right (three strikes, Treaty Principles Bill) as a former Act MP I am politically homeless, like many of my friends - once Green MPs who are conservationists and safe food campaigners.
Hi Deborah
Thanks for your supportive comments! I admit I haven't read Haidt's book, but I have heard about it.
And I notice that, when I post something that may not please leftwing readers, like this morning's, I get a few cancellations!
I do recall your time as an MP. It's a pity that many people, across the spectrum nowadays, feel unrepresented by the parties, or homeless as you put it.
Doing this substack has been a great exercise, but isn't building much of an audience, so I'll put less time into it, and think about another book.
Cheers
Grant
If it hasn't been previously posted, history is littered with the ruins of failed "libertarian paradises"...
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Libertarian_paradise
And political polarisation has a visibly proportional relationship with billionaire oligarchy...
https://thesocietypages.org/ssn/2016/12/20/politically-active-billionaires-threaten-democracy/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8608558/
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abd4201
https://political-science.uchicago.edu/news/income-inequality-has-led-erosion-democracy-countries-around-world
Can’t fault them for not trying!
Yep, people are free to FA&FO when they attempt a real-world division-by-zero experiment.
Actually, Grant, I believe you understate the American view of "Liberalism". In my opinion the word is thought of more as synonymous with "Communist". But then, to me, American politics are weird!
Shows how distorted things have gotten
America's 2-party duopoly is long past its use-by date. It's the same in Britain.
Thanks Grant. As always - balanced, serious journalism that is not afraid of complexity. As a life-long social democratic, I have found my commitment to 'liberal values' (and what Fukuyama calls the 'liberal, representative democratic democracy') has becoming increasingly fraught as those who I once thought of as my natural allies - e.g. who fight against discrimination/exclusion etc. - have become increasingly intolerant and coercive. There seems to be little room left to have a mature, reasonable - that is based on reason - conversation about questions that are currently the obsession of the extremes. The media is of little help here as - aside from a few notable exceptions - they seem to have collectively turned off their bullshit detectors and given free reign to the loudest and most aggressive voices.
I think you are very much on the money in pointing to a 'generosity of spirit' towards those with whom we disagree. A willingness to actually listen (and hear) alternative perspectives. Requires a degree of humility and in the current political arena is in short supply - over the last few years politics seems to have developed the dynamic of a noisy bar on Saturday night (with TPM and ACT facing up for a bar-fight). But having a a reasonable conversation with whom we disagree is ultimately the only hope we really have if we are to be a cohesive, liberal society.
I couldn't have said it better, Mark! Media like RNZ and Stuff seem to favour voices against Seymour's bill, even though some people have shared reasoned submissions in its favour. One other has bemoaned the poor leadership from our representatives. I didn't make a submission myself. Cheers.
I think the coalition, if it can maintain cohesion, has a strong chance at securing six years in government. It will likely establish the rest of its legislative agenda over the next few months and have another four years to consolidate and bed it in. Brian Roche looks likely to bring the civil service along, especially in unwinding some of the ideological capture we’ve seen in recent years.
The judiciary, whether through the Solicitor General or the superior courts, doesn’t appear to be getting much slack for further activist policymaking. The interesting question is how much of the last 50 years of precedent-setting will survive the coalition’s legislative “clarifications.”
The politicisation of our judiciary, though, is an unfortunate own goal for New Zealand. There was a time when most people wouldn’t have known the difference between the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. Now, everyone is aware that ‘some judge’ decided that the Treaty ‘means a partnership deal’, at a time when the voting majority appears set to reject even the relatively modest measure of local board seats for Māori in October’s referenda.
I suspect the general public is startled by the extent to which constitutional politics has quietly bubbled away in the background. Polities often split into something like 25% progressives, 50-60% favoring incremental change (where I see myself), and the rest largely unengaged. The majority, then, is understandably uneasy about the perception of unconsulted, “quiet constitutional progress” being made without their input.
We’ve had two referenda on the flag (for the record, I voted for Laser Kiwi), but none on the implications of the Lands case? Decolonisation, co-governance, trans kids … ordinary voters increasingly feel that raising questions about these issues earns them labels like stupid, racist, or transphobic. (Admittedly, this is a more nuanced approach than the “deplorables” or the “garbage people” rhetoric in the US.)
The present moment reminds me of the early 1980s and what felt like a startling swing to the right under Reagan, Thatcher, and Roger Douglas. Back then, voters felt the left was bankrupt and were willing to cut the right considerable slack, for years. Meanwhile the fourth estate has nailed its colours to the mast, chosen a hill to die on and dramatically self-emasculated atop it.
If the coalition maintains discipline, I think it’s not just six years we’re looking at but possibly nine.
Thanks for your comments, John – not that I share your confidence in the longevity of the coalition! As a general principle, constitutional changes should occur openly and with public awareness and consent. A referendum is quite normal for changes of such magnitude. The flag change was merely symbolic, but even that got voted down, as you note. Governments all over the world are facing the consequences of doing things that majorities don't like. If they want to govern, parties need to learn how to bring communities alongside, and at least try to reconcile differences. I'm not sure if the present coalition is doing a good job of that, let alone the last government.
Most of the 1st-term governments in the past generation & a bit have had honeymoons. The only exceptions seem to be Bolger in 1990-93 (thanks in no small part to Ruthenasia & FPP voting) & Luxon.
I was surprised at the time just how much -inconceivable- impact the right of the 1980s had. Reagan stared down the air traffic controllers in the US; he brought in the military. Thatcher closed the coal industry down in the face of drawn out, intense and bitter resistance.
I think, proportionately, that the Douglas reforms were the biggest of all. Despite the immense pain, I think that Labour government primarily fell because of the falling out between Lange and Douglas.
In these various countries the then opposition was seen as no choice at all, leaving the rightists in an empty field. Now I think the question is, will David and Winston play nice (enough) for the sake of power.
In the end they’ll do whatever it takes to retain office
This just in: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/539242/labour-passes-national-in-new-poll
What does it mean when an ex-RANZ pollster with ties to the Atlas Network is posting poll results like these?
Facing off with groups of workers is one thing, facing off with a growing indigenous demographic is quite another. Would David & Winston risk a potential sequel to 1981?
Don’t forget that Muldoon won the 1981 election due to support in marginal provincial seats
He certainly did, despite getting fewer votes than Labour, thanks to the vagaries of FPP. The Social Creditors were still a major third force at the time - the anti-Muldoon vote was bigger but split.
How things might have been different if Bob Jones' New Zealand Party had run in 1978, or MMP was around back then.
I think there is nothing surer.
I think the last few decades have raised expectations in Maori advocacy that are unlikely be able to be met.
As woke retires from the field, this is the next fault line.
And all of a sudden, the first shot in the next potential class war is heard round the world…
https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/insurance-executives-murder-sparks-online-praise-hate-rcna183017
And the most unrealistic expectations come from those for whom billions in wealth still isn’t enough…
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/16/i-knew-one-day-id-have-to-watch-powerful-men-burn-the-world-down-i-just-didnt-expect-them-to-be-such-losers