Jews are targets for being Jews in England - and it's not from the traditional far right

When Jews get targeted in what should be safe liberal democracies, it doesn't quite see the same response as when Muslims or targeted or even the general populace. We all recall that, by and large, the Christchurch mosque attack saw universal outrage and condemnation. Muslims targeted for who they are.  Utterly innocent, and nobody would utter that they had some fault because they hadn't condemned say the Taliban, ISIS, Iran or any of the multitude of Islamofascist terror or totalitarian regimes.  Certainly had anyone wanted to protest against the actions of any such groups the very next day, it would have been frowned upon and scorned.  However, when it comes to Jews, targeted by association with Israel and therefore the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza, there is no thought around taste and sensitivity.  The "pro-Palestinian" protestors (who range from people expressing concern over humanitarian conditions, to those wanting to wipe out Israel and "globalise the Intifada" (!) don't give a damn, after all it wasn't THEM doing it. Besides, "genocide". If you think that there is a deliberate campaign to wipe out an entire people, then a few Jews being killed by a jihadist are a mere detail. 

Jews, you see, have a tryptych of groups who hate them.  Traditionally their chief enemies were the (self-styled) Christian-aligned far-right, which of course inspired the Nazis, and are seen today in the actual far-right (you know, the Holocaust denying, "wrong side won the war", white power, big state type - not the current trend to call free-market liberal or traditionalist conservatives fascists).  Their attacks on Jews are rare, thankfully.

The bigger problems are Islamists, often motivated by wanting to wipe out Israel, but also buying into pretty much the whole panoply of neo-Nazi conspiratorial Jew hate, and the far-left. The far-left, who also tout the anti-concept "whiteness" see Jews as "ultra-white". Jews are rich, successful in many industries and in politics, and of course are seen as "colonists" wherever they go. In the far-left's endless desire to categorise people under critical theory as "oppressed" vs. "oppressors", Jews get placed in the latter, so they don't count... again.  They don't count.

As Nick Cohen said in the Spectator:

If they were from any other minority, no one on the left would have the slightest trouble denouncing the deaths of 53-year-old Adrian Daulby and 66-year-old Melvin Cravitz as the result of a lethal racist attack. A terrorist with the resonant name of Jihad Al-Shamie – talk about nominative determinism – went for them because they were Jews.

He continues:

Last night pro-Palestinian demonstrators couldn’t give it a rest – not even for 24 hours. They were outside Downing Street and Manchester’s Piccadilly station, chanting all the old slogans and ducking all the hard questions. ‘Globalise the intifada,’ they cried – does that mean killing Jews in Manchester? ‘Palestine will be free from the river to the sea’ – does that mean driving out all the Jews living between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan?

It should be the easiest thing in the world for pro-Palestinian demonstrators to reject accusations of Jew hate and dismiss these questions as smears. It’s not anti-Semitic to denounce Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli far right. Nor is it in any way racist to deplore the reduction of Gaza to a charnel house of rubble and bones.

Yet much of the British left cannot defend itself against charges of bigotry because many leftists (not all, but many) refuse to define anti-Jewish racism and declare it unacceptable. They can’t and won’t because any condemnation of anti-Semitism would imply a condemnation of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian theocrats. Rather than take a stand against the very people who have led the Palestinian cause to disaster, they prefer to say nothing at all.

Remember when Phil Twyford was hounded at a "pro-Palestine" rally for condemning Hamas? 

Remember also the elation expressed by Islamist preachers protesting in Sydney just after October 7th.  

As Julie Burchill said in the Spectator last year:

Excitement is the often overlooked element when it comes to anti-Semitism – an excitement that is almost sexual. There is a sadistic feeding frenzy to this anti-Jewish crusade, as though the rape rampage of Hamas made the cause of anti-Semites more, not less, worth rallying around. The ‘Paraglider Girls’ convicted this week appeared like overgrown Girl Guides, their grim insignia a twist on badges for Kayaking or being an Emergency Helper – only evil. 

The fact that the pro-Palestinian marches started before Israel actually retaliated was a big tell; these people weren’t marching against Israel defending itself, but in favour of Israel being attacked. Unless they all had access to a big old time-travel machine, of course.

Nazis did this, the far-right does this, Maoists do this, and the Islamists do it. 

It is, of course, entirely possible to protest against the Israeli Government, to call for peace and negotiations for a two-state solution. Remember though that many of the protestors for Palestinians don't want this.  John Minto's Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa explicitly says:

PSNA aims to change public opinion and bring pressure on the New Zealand government to join the majority of the international community in requiring Israel to recognize and support the following principles: 

• A just peace in Palestine depends upon the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland and the dismantling of the Zionist structure of the state of Israel, recognizing that the further partitioning of Palestine in order to create the so-called Two-State Solution would only lead to further injustice and suffering.
• Acceptance of the primacy of international law and United Nations resolutions as the basis for the ending of military occupation and all forms of ethnic discrimination in Israel.
• The international community's responsibility for upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the urgent need for the state of Israel to be called to account for its gross abuses of Palestinian human rights.
• Justice requires the establishment of a single state in Palestine, bi-national, secular and democratic, with full and equal citizenship for all with ethnic and religious rights protected in a democratic constitution.

So it wants Israel to recognize (sic.) that it should be destroyed, it rejects the "so-called Two-State Solution" and wants a single state that is secular and democratic.  This is the policy of Hamas, it isn't even the policy of Fatah and the Government of the Palestinian Authority. 

The entire mainstream left, including academia and much of the media refuses to call out the extremists in the pro-Palestinian movement, who celebrated October 7th and call for destruction of Israel, chant "from the river to the sea" as part of that, and then call to "globalise the intifada".

Murdering Jews at synagogues is what globalising the intifada looks like. For all of the mealy mouthed nonsense, it's a movement of violence and harassment, and it co-opts far-left Jew haters and far-right ones to join in on their embrace of the world's oldest hatred.

Unless those wanting justice for Palestinians can purge themselves of their Jew haters, can purge themselves of those who are the Islamist far-right (a tautology I know) as much as the Zionist ultra-nationalists who want to declare Judea and Samaria as Israeli land and purge it of Arabs, are the equivalent, then they are accomplices to Jew hatred. 

Matthew Syed, a centrist journalist from The Times, went to a Palestine protest and asked "“Who do you blame for what is unfolding in Gaza? Do you think Hamas bears any responsibility?” and:

Here’s what happened next, as their friendly faces turned to, well, something else. “Go away,” one said. “Go away. You are a bad faith actor. We don’t want to talk to you. Just f*** off. It’s a really boring old line. You are disgusting.” “I am disgusting?” “Yes, you are disgusting. You are not a journalist. It’s very clear what your position is here.” Now, their voices were getting louder: “Piss off.” “Thanks for your time, I appreciate it,” I said retreating, but they were not finished. “What are you doing here anyway? You are prejudiced. Hopefully nobody will ever buy a book you write. You are a charlatan. You are a fucking racist.”

So they couldn't even accept Hamas bore some responsibility.  Couldn't even say "sure, but Israel has overreacted".

It got worse:

I wish I could tell you that this was a one-off but I spoke to at least two dozen people and, with two exceptions (including a lovely black guy from north London who conversed intelligently and politely), the motivation for being here was obvious, potent and implacable. The hatred of Jews. I heard conspiracy theories (October 7 was a false flag operation), blood libels, and the pervasive view that the Manchester atrocity was not a heinous attack but righteous comeuppance for an evil people. My sense is that many felt liberated to say what they really thought by the proximity of like-minded others; the classic symptom of mob mentality.

We all know criticising Israel isn't anti-semitic.  It's entirely reasonable to oppose Israel's actions in Gaza and not regards Jews as being to blame, wherever they may live (bearing in mind even around half of adult Israelis oppose the Netanyahu government). 

However, we also know Hamas is explicitly dripping in Jew hatred. Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas has many times expressed Jewish conspiracy theories and questioned the Holocaust. Jew hatred is central to Palestinian politics, although it need not be so.  Those who participate in pro-Palestinian protests that welcome Jew haters on marches - people who cheer on murdering innocent Jews a part of "globalising the Intifada" -  are part of a movement of Jew hatred.

Think again, if there were protest marches that welcomed people who thought the Christchurch mosque attack was a false flag, or even justified, then we all know what those protests would be called.

It's time for the "pro-Palestine" movement to either exclude Jew haters, or be branded terror-backing hate groups, and for the far-left politicians who back them to deserve to be as ostracised as Nazis.

Who was it again who said that if you go on a protest and Nazi's attend, you're at a pro-Nazi rally?

Recognising a "state" that doesn't exist

Winston Peters has done the right thing. The entirely performative act of recognising the “State of Palestine” by three countries with left-wing governments is not a reason to follow. For a start, at least in the UK and Australia, the respective Labour (and Labor) parties fear losing Muslim voter support to minor parties or independents. The UK, Labour lost four predominantly Muslim electorates to independents in 2024. Some Australian federal divisions have similar challenges, with both independents and the Greens presenting challenges. France doesn’t quite have the same challenge, but France’s colonial past drives it to take its own stance to wage power in the region. 

Objectively, nobody honestly believes that the “State of Palestine” actually exists. You’d think that might matter, but in this post-modernist age of relativism, then if you “believe” something is real, then it is true. So, let’s go through the factual basis for rejecting the recognition of something that can’t objectively be recognised as such.

The act of “recognising” a sovereign state is that of one state acknowledges another entity is legitimately its “equal” at least under international law. Almost always, this is a formality because states meet the formal legal criteria for actually “being” states. That being:

• Clearly defined borders

• Effective government over those borders and most of its territory

• A permanent population (comprising its citizens)

• The means to engage in relations with other states

The “State of Palestine” lacks most of this criteria for a whole host of reasons. It doesn’t have clearly defined boundaries. The State of Palestine has never existed, as before 1967 the West Bank was under the control of Jordan, and Gaza under Egypt. Given discussions on peace under the Oslo Accords were about this topic, it is clear this is far from settled.

There is no effective government over the borders of a not clearly defined territory as Israel and Egypt have control over those borders. Even if there were such control, there is no government with control over both the West Bank and Gaza, and even the Palestinian Authority has limited powers over part of the West Bank. With Hamas controlling Gaza, it hardly is a territory with effective control by the government.  It’s hard to imagine a sovereign state without sovereign powers including that of entry or exit of its territory.

It may be possible to identify a permanent population, although many Palestinians identify as “refugees”, inferring they are not permanent residents of the land they live on. However, this isn’t such a barrier.

Of course, there are Palestinian ambassadors, embassies and other trapping of being a state, in terms of foreign relations, so arguably it does meet that criteria.

However, that’s not enough. There are not clearly defined borders, there is no effective government over most of the territory that could conceivably be part of a Palestinian state, and certainly not its borders. It may be easier to claim a permanent population and the means to engage in diplomatic relations, although given it can’t control its borders or airspace, it’s rather empty.

By contrast, Taiwan (Republic of China) absolutely meets all of those conditions, even if de jure it claims sovereignty over all of the territory governed by the People’s Republic of China, it’s clear where the demarcation line between the territory governed by the two Chinese governments is (and we all know the government in Taiwan has long ceded any formal interest in expanding its control beyond its current territory). However, you won’t see any serious campaigns to recognise Taiwan (for many reasons), but I digress.

Luxon and Peters had a choice. Look like they are following the UK, France and Canada (and over a hundred less than liberal democracies along with outright dictatorships), or look like they are following the US. What he did do was neither, although the critics bay it is some sort of Trumpian act (the ultimate pejorative nowadays, much worse than supporting Hamas or Iran), it is aligning NZ with Japan, south Korea and Singapore. 

When the UK and others recognised the “State of Palestine” Hamas claimed that its tactic, of the 7th October pogrom “worked” alongside its sacrifice of thousands of Gazans as human shields for its members.  “Pro-Palestine” activists don’t care about that, because far too many of them minimise Hamas’s pogrom, let alone its theocratic fascist policies (zero tolerance for political or religious dissent, zero tolerance for equal rights for women, let alone LGBT people), because they are driven more by hatred of Israel and Western capitalist liberal democracies than concern for Palestinians.

That doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a “State of Palestine” at some point, once there is a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that resolves the borders, the relationship between both entities, Israeli settlements, sidelining eliminationists on both sides, and guaranteeing peace and security for citizens in both entities. It appears difficult to envisage when neither side is willing to compromise or negotiate, but neither Netanyahu nor Abbas will govern forever. However, until there actually is a “State of Palestine” agreed which lets it fulfil all of the legal conditions for statehood, it is pointless “recognising” it.

Recognising Palestine DOES give succour to Hamas AND to Netanyahu, because it gives them both reason to snub any compromise. “You see, murdering Jews en masse DOES work, because it means they will create thousands of our martyrs and the world will hate them”.  For Netanyahu “see the world hates us, to hell with them, we will ensure there is no Palestinian state”.

It's empty showboating, there is no State of Palestine yet, it’s absolutely right to refuse to engage in the nonsense of pretending there is one to recognise, even if you wish it existed.  Peace on that sliver of land is a long way off, but it wont come from engaging in propagandist make-believe.

Voting in the 2025 local election: Wellington City Council Mayor and Eastern Ward, Wellington Regional Council - Wellington constituency

This is half serious, half humourous, because let’s face it, a majority probably wont vote, and a fair number will vote for MORE council, MORE spending, MORE stopping people doing things they don’t like and MORE making people do things they want. A fair number of people look at candidates who use clichés like “sustainable”, “equitable” and “inclusive”, and go “oh yes more of that”.

NZ isn’t like the UK, where local elections happen every year (different councils) and most candidates are party political. Those elections are used by voters to send signals about central government, which is frankly nuts. There is next to no value in voting for candidates because you like the National-led government or you hate it, because by-and-large, it wont make much difference at all. Sure there are Labour, ACT and Greens candidates, which is useful if you know you like or don’t like the party, but unlike Parliament most people who are party aligned don’t caucus together or vote identically. 

In short, judge them as individuals more than their labels. 

For my sins, I’m in Eastern Ward, so I’ll run through the Mayor, the City Council Eastern Ward, the Regional Council Wellington Ward and finally the Maori Ward vote.

MAYOR

Let’s not elect Andrew Little. The failed unionist popinjay who is looking for a sinecure in the twilight of his political career doesn’t deserve to be Mayor of Wellington. He’ll be better than the nice but dim Tory Whanau, but so would most Councillors. He wont list making Ramallah a sister city as an “achievement”, but part of his campaign is about “making public transport cheaper” which is literally nothing to do with Wellington City Council. It is a Regional Council responsibility. So he’s a pontificating poseur. Wellington has a dearth of significant private businesses located in the CBD, and is suffering the closure of retail and hospitality as the city slowly decays. A man who’s spent his life fighting employers and private enterprise and oversaw the irrelevance of unions he came to lead is not the person to revitalise Wellington. The fact he led student unions, including of course opposing voluntary membership of student unions should consign him to the dustbin of history along with the Berlin Wall. Rank him second to last.

I’m ranking Josh Harford of the Aotearoa New Zealand Silly Hat Party first. He is one of the smartest people standing for Mayor, and his vision for optimism is a good one. Sure some might say he is a joke candidate (and he is far cleverer, more subversive and interesting that the nihilistic William Pennywize, and there are enough unfunny clowns about), and you might say I am chosing him because I know him (although he's not the only candidate I know). In all seriousness, if he got elected it would uplift the optimism and publicity for Wellington more than any other candidates combined. Imagine the headlines if Wellington elected a young man with a sense of humour, sense of drive, sound academic record and proven willingness to work well with people across political spectrums. Leftie journalists will highlight his ethnic minority heritage, which he does not and which does him credit. He is his own man, and really will revitalise the city.

Now we all know he isn’t sure thing, so who to rank after Harford? There are three other groups of candidates.  Lefties, righties and the ones you will laugh at.

Alex Baker is the Green candidate without being branded “Green” and talks in slogans. His priorities are “affordability” (which means rates, rents, house prices and transport costs – but it’s unclear how he can keep all of these down), “jobs” and “sustainability”. He wants land value rates, which on its own is worth considering, but he also wants to “complete the Golden Mile” (which will slow down bus services by eliminating the ability of buses to pass) and focus on bike and bus lanes to get the city “moving”, although there is no evidence this will make any material difference.  His focus on climate change action isn’t credible to control spending or promote business. His ambitions suggest he will spend more money. Rank him last. 

Scott Caldwell is to left and on X is known as the Scoot Foundation. He’s pretty smart, keen on more intensive development and is a housing abundance supporter. That’s good in itself. He’s dreaming if he thinks central government will pay more rates, he’s also dreaming to push an underground rail link through reclaimed land. However, having someone so pro-housing construction and antithetical to heritage protection is worth supporting over others. Rank him above Little.

Diane Calvert is a safe pair of hands and eyes on Council. She supports fiscal prudence and her Wellington Plan has a lot of merit. She wants to speed up consenting, focus on core services and maintaining assets and downscale the upgrade to Courtenay Place, and abandon the ludicrous Harbour Quays bus corridor proposal (which will worsen traffic and weaken the Golden Mile bus core). Sure, she’s no libertarian, no free-market liberal, but she’d be far more friendly towards revitalising the decaying private sector than Little. Rank her second or third.

Ray Chung’s entire campaign has been overshadowed by his ill-considered comments, from some time ago, about Tory Whanau. He's said a lot of things that get judged poorly in 2025, but the chap is 75. He’s committed to zero rates increases, which is ambitious, but a good goal, along with eliminating non-core activities. It’s difficult to disagree with that. Leftwing journalist from the Spinoff (!) Joel McManus did a hitjob on him which is hard to completely look past, and indicates he is unlikely to be the best choice for Mayor. He’s a useful Councillor as an antagonist to wasteful leftwing virtue signallers, but as Mayor he should be ranked below the better ones on the right. I’d put him above Little of course, but below Calvert and Tiefenbacher. 

Rob Goulden has been around forever, but having been banned from Taxpayer Union events, it’s indicative that he too angry and combative. Arguably he’s on the right, but it’s not clear what he really wants and that’s not worth giving time to. There’s a lack of detail around prioritisation, cutting spending and scrutinising expenditure. I’d put him above Little, but only just.

Kelvin Hastie is another leftwing candidate whose weaknesses include being an arts promoter and venue operator, indicating he is likely to spend more on the arts. He talks of “sustainable growth” (any growth would be nice), and is committed to “affordable housing” without saying how. The Spinoff claims he wants to sell council housing to first home buyers, and supports the long-tunnel under Te Aro proposal (which isn’t happening and Council wouldn’t fund anyway). He has no chance, but rank him above Little.

Donald McDonald is well known because nobody really understands what he is promoting, bless him. Still he seems harmless enough.

William Pennywize isn’t funny.

Joan Shi seems fairly sound, focusing on core infrastructure and a business friendly environment, but also talk about “affordable public transport” (not up to the City Council).  If she had a chance, I’d rank her reasonably, and certainly above Little, Goulden and Hastie, but not much depth here.

Karl Tiefenbacher has a solid record as an entrepreneur, and clearly has a chance as a centre-right candidate against Little. His support for faster consenting for housing, more scrutiny on the quality of cycle lane spending and constraining spending (and he understand the role of the City Council) makes him a strong contender. I’d rank him a strong third after Harford and Calvert. 

CITY COUNCIL EASTERN WARD

Three councillors need to be elected here.  Five are reasonable choices.

Ken Ah Kuoi: His name is dotted all over the ward, and is keen on fiscal prudence and focusing on “core services”, being part of the Independent Together team which is loosely affiliated. Fluent in Samoan as well. I’d rank him highly.

Alex Baker: See above. Don’t rank the Green in drag.

Chris Calvi-Freeman: He’s a bit of a leftie, but he knows transport policy well as a transport planner. He’d be an asset in Council and is pushing for the 2nd Mt Victoria Tunnel to have good facilities for al modes, which should not be controversial. He’s no ideologue on these matters, although his views on other subjects are less known. I’d rank him highly.

Trish Given: She’s a lot of a leftie. Promoting homes for all (how?), wants to future-proof the city against climate change (how?) and talks about a “fairer” city (which usually is coding for higher rates and more spending).  Her website indicates she wants a very active council, so she’ll support much higher rates and spending. Don’t rank her.

Rob Goulden: See above. You might prefer him over the green/left, but that’s it.

Luke Kuggeleijn: The sole ACT candidate is a young man keen on avoiding wasteful spending, like the Golden Mile project. Standing for ACT in this ward full of lefties is brave in itself, so rank him highly, he’ll need it, and if he wins he'll be a breath of fresh air to shake this Council up into being more efficient and smaller.

Michelle McGuire: As with Ah Kuoi, she is with Independent Together with the focus on core spending and rates control.  She has a private sector background. I’d rank her fairly highly.

Thomas G.P. Morgan: He has had nearly 30 years’ interest in local government, he uses his profile to talk about more… bus shelters.  He has a lot of ideas, but I’m unsure that’s what is needed. I’m not ranking him highly.

Sam O’Brien: The Labour candidate is an urban planner, which is reason enough to rank him very lowly.  He wants an affordable, accessible, resilient city, but clearly he wants to direct people’s property and businesses. He has a good chance of getting elected so rank him very low.

Jonny Osborne: A public servant standing for the Greens is enough to rank him the lowest. Like Andrew Little, he thinks he is standing for the regional council calling for “cheaper and reliable” public transport which is mostly regional not city council business. He’ll want more council and higher rates. Rank last.

Karl Tiefenbacher: See above, he’s worth a shot. Rank highly. He'll be an asset in Council.

WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL - WELLINGTON CONSTITUENCY

Five councillors to be elected here. It’s slim pickings. I can only get enthused about two, another three I might hold my nose and choose just to stop the hardened socialists.

Sarah Free: Was a Green City Councillor, now standing as an independent for the regional council.  She’s not the worst option, being obviously a leftie she’ll back rates increases and more council spending and control. However, I’d rank her above the actual Green and Labour candidates. Middling ranking.

Glenda Hughes: She was a regional councillor before losing last time, and is trying again. Centre-right (former Nat), fiscally conservative, former cop and media minder, she’s safer with ratepayers’ money than the lefties. She should be one of the top five.

Alice Claire Hurdle: ACT’s candidate is the only one clearly offering a change of direction. Wanting less red tape on farms and businesses, and cost effective transport solutions, she will be valuable in constraining the ever expansionist regional council. Rank her first.

Tom James: This Labour candidate has as his top priority “faster, cheaper and more reliable” public transport, which is going to mean higher rates. For him “tackling climate change needs to be at the heart of our council’s work”, not core infrastructure or addressing key local issues. This makes him likely to hike rates, restrict development and virtue signal. Rank very lowly.

Tom Kay: Green in drag. He cares about our communities and environment, wants us safe from the impacts of climate change, with “cheaper, faster” buses. He will focus on protecting and restoring streams, rivers and wetlands, and reducing emissions. We don’t need an environmental scientist making the regional council a greater drag on development, and hiking rates. Rank lowly.

Mark Kelynack:  It’s unclear really what he believes in, except much better public transport including a passenger reward scheme it seems. He seems practical, and the lack of ambition for the regional council doing more deserves a better ranking than the lefties. Maybe deserves to be in the top five.

Belinda McFadgen: Her career has been on environmental policymaking, science and law. She wants climate resilience, cost effective solutions and improving waterways. So she says she is evidence based, without the rhetoric of the lefties.  She’s in the middling group, maybe above Sarah Free.

Henry Peach: Worst of the Green candidates, just say no.

Daran Ponter: The Regional Council chair and Labour candidate, he’s the Andrew Little of the regional council. This former public servant who was involved in the expansion of local government powers with the “power of general competence” wants more regional council rates, power and control. It’s telling that the second thing he lists is “lifting driver wages”, as if that delivers outcomes for bus customers or ratepayers. He’s a socialist who wants to end competitive tendering for public transport, lowering farebox recovery for public transport, and restoring wetlands. He is part of the problem of a regional council that is inflating rates and its role.  Rank him very low.

Yadana Saw: Better of the Green candidates, but like all of the candidates (except Hurdle and Woolf) she is committed to hiking rates to increase pay above market rates at the council, and like Ponter talks of increasing public ownership of public transport, for ideological reasons (including the 18 new trains 90% funded by taxpayers through a central government she opposes). Just say no to her too.

Simon Woolf: By regional council standards he’s centre-right, but he’s really a centrist and quite sensible. Going to be much less keen on rates rises and ideological based expansion of the regional council’s functions. Rank him number two.

MAORI WARDS

Just say no. The last Maori ward city councillor won with only 872 votes. The lowest winning general ward city councillor had 2841 votes. It’s disproportionately unfair for there to be one councillor with so few votes having the same power as those with over three times as many. That’s without the more fundamental argument that it’s wrong to divide the electorate by ethnic identity, and treat that single councillor as the authentic voice of Maori in the city.  Politicians talk about reducing division and working collaboratively. In a liberal democracy, voters are represented by whoever is elected by their constituents, including those who many voters disagree with. STV enables preferences to get the most preferred candidates elected. Maori voters included, and their preferences will be as varied as any other voters. 

Local government elections 2025 for a libertarian

Libertarians don’t like local government much, generally. While some aspire for maximum devolution, similar to Switzerland, so that most government power (outside defence, foreign affairs and border control) is at the more local level, that would require a transformational constitutional change. Switzerland works because its best and brightest get concentrated at the canton level, and also because the crazy only happens on a relatively small scale, so is easily purged from public policy.  The culture of referenda means more engagement on issues by the public, but it also delivers a wide range of results. Conservative, liberal, free-market, socialist views all get some airing, but by and large Swiss politics is one of gradual evolution.  None of this describes local politics in the Anglosphere, and especially not NZ.

Local government to many libertarians is an anathema, because a fair proportion of the people drawn to it tend to have one of two sets of philosophical positions:

• Socialism (government should spend more, do more, regulate more)

• Cronyism (local government should preserve, to protect the business, property and interests of the councillor).

Many in local government are well intentioned, but it does attract people who aspire to central government, but most of all a lot of busybodies (albeit Wellington is much better off with far-left wingnut Tamatha Paul being a backbench MP in Opposition, than a Wellington City Councillor).

Some of them brand themselves as such. Of course the Greens and Labour campaign, always thinking that local government should address poverty, “save the planet” and grow, spending more and taxing more (notwithstanding claims of prudence, none of them want to cut the role of local government).  The ones who want local government to get involved in foreign affairs are the worst. Whether it be sister city junkets or "recognising "Palestine"" or declaring a city "nuclear free", it's absurd wasteful stuff.

However, the busybodies aren’t always branded.  Tory Whanau pretended not to be a Green, and in Wellington this election, Alex Baker is the Green Mayoral candidate not branding himself as such.

It’s less common to find candidates and even less common to find councillors who want local government to do less.

Since the Clark Government granted local government the “power of general competence” (which the Key Government did not repeal, nor will the Luxon Government), councils have felt free to do more and more with ratepayers money.  We can see the results in the areas that councils have had responsibility for.  Nothing exemplifies this better than water.

The state of water infrastructure is, in much of the country, a debacle, and that has until recently been left entirely in the hands of local government. It’s local democracy in full effect, implementing what both the left, and conservative devolutionists want, and they have failed due to incompetence and ineptness. 

We saw this a few decades ago when they owned monopoly local bus companies, which were characterised by ever declining services, ever increasing pay for drivers, and a starving of capital for new buses.  We can be forever grateful that this was taken off them, along with responsibility for local electricity distribution and retail (which was facing the same dearth of investment as water), and indeed even milk supply.  Many are too young to remember what an absolute joke of an airport Wellington had when it was run as a joint local-central government entity.  Once corporatised and part-privatised, decades of arguments about who and how a new airport terminal was going to be funded and built evaporated.

In the planning and regulatory space we see it in housing.  Left to their own devices, Councillors choose District Plans and apply the RMA to drastically constrain the supply of new housing. While some of it is NIMBYism, most of it is because the culture of local government institutionally and politically is to be a block to development.  It's a culture of no, not of yes, and a culture of "not there" rather than "why not there?".

Had the RMA existed a century plus ago, the railway lines through our cities wouldn’t have been built, and neither would any motorways (although I’m not saying the Robert Moses approach was the right one either), and many airports wouldn’t have been built, but most importantly most of the current housing stock wouldn’t have been built either.  The RMA handed local government a powerful tool on development and it chose to strangle it.

So what do we face in 2025? Some candidates campaign for sticking to core spending and keeping rates under control, but plenty also push a series of cause celebres.  Some want to “save the planet” by making driving less attractive because of “climate change”, even though it will make no measurable difference. Some want to ease poverty by… taxing property owners more and restricting house building.  Some of course are “opposed to privatisation” because they are brain-addled socialist morons who think you’re all better off being forced to share in the ownership of some “asset” that, by and large, can’t be managed well by council at all (or is in a structure that doesn’t allow such management, like an airport or port). 

Most candidates are “passionate about the community”, so much they want to pass bylaws on it, control development and decide how much to take from the community by force through rates, to spend on what it thinks is important. More than a few think my money should be spent on promoting arts and culture I don’t consume or want.

It’s worse at the regional council level.  Candidate Tom James (Labour of course) says “For me, tackling climate change needs to be at the heart of our council’s work”. Really? How will we measure your success in doing that? Should you be punished if global temperatures keep rising? Candidate Tom Kay also say he wants to be “reducing emissions to slow climate change”.  How deluded are these people?

Current regional council chair Daran Ponter says “I am committed to active community engagement, a vibrant Wellington , and supporting a thriving economy”. Really? Have you done that? How much are you making it thrive now?  Like him, Green candidate Yadana Saw talks about having “helped fund” 18 new trains, which are in fact 90% funded by taxpayers through central government. She didn’t fund anything, she made ratepayers fund a sliver of it.  

Even the highest profile candidate of the lot in Wellington, failed former Labour leader Andrew Little, campaigns on controlling public transport fares as Mayor – a function that is completely outside the purview of Wellington City Council. 

So much is just pure charlatanism.  Finger-wagging showboating by people you wouldn't trust to run you a bath, let alone run infrastructure competently (and of course they don't). 

So what’s left? Well my first preference for Mayor will be going for a young man with ideas. Josh Harford. On a day like today, his policy of erecting large sails at the ends of Wellington to redirect wind to Upper Hutt “where it belongs” makes more sense than a busybody popinjay like Little. His mandate for optimism is well founded, but more generally the “Aotearoa New Zealand Silly Hat Party” has at its core the intellectual and cultural foundations of a good democracy. Not taking itself too seriously.

Josh wont be raising rates, he wont be telling people what to do, and best of all he doesn’t use the anti-concepts of 21st century post-modernist corporate, public relations double-speak that bastardises the relationship between reality and the public.  He doesn’t talk about a city that is:

- Vibrant (it’s on a Faultline!)

- Inclusive (except for people who disagree with them)

- Innovative (like Council ever is!)

- Accountable (nobody is really held accountable for wasting money)

- Affordable (nobody is cutting rates)

- Collaborative (stop conspiring to spend more of my money)

So until New Zealand elects a central government to put the shackles on local government property (more than the removal of the four “well-beings” which frankly does little to achieve this), vote for whoever talks least about trying to do more, spend more and especially save the planet.

I might be bothered writing a voting guide for Wellington Eastern Ward, once I've worked how who to hold my nose and vote for!

Te Pati Maori's populism veers towards danger

When Te Tai Tonga MP Takuta Ferris complained about non-white immigrants campaigning for Labour "against Maori", was he saying the quiet bit out loud, or was he just being a racist moron?

To their credit, Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi disavowed it, but they should know that their own rhetoric about “superior genes”, and Oriini Kaipara’s celebration of the proportionality of her Maori heritage is going to lead towards this. It isn’t the exclusionary racist blood and soil nationalism of the actual far-right, but none of this would be uncomfortable in a far-right ethno-nationalist party.

TPM did once state that it wanted to curb immigration until the supply of housing met demand, but later withdrew that policy. 

The win by Te Pati Maori (TPM) of the Tamaki Makaurau by-election is hardly surprising, although that success is tempered by a low turnout, it reflect TPM’s underlying strength. Its populism. It's that populism that can lead into trouble for TPM, but also lead it towards nurturing dangerous narratives among its members and supporters. 

Most of the media has too much unconscious bias in favour of the Maori national renaissance that it, by and large, neglects to see what a key part of TPM's success comes from. Populist rhetoric, policies and behaviour that promotes a strong emotional response from Maori, especially it would seem, rangatahi wahine.  The decision to get Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke to lead the haka in Parliament was entirely strategic. It made her world famous (I even caught it being mentioned, approvingly, on the Gutfeld! show on Fox News - which is, by and large, MAGA central for US evening talk shows), which for TPM lifted them up for a new generation.

The term populist politics is almost universally used as a pejorative, because it largely plays to gut instincts and emotions, rather than a depth of thinking and reflection. Populism tends to thrive on an "us against them" narrative, which TPM hones very effectively. So much more rhetoric from TPM, from statements to their attire in Parliament is about differentiation, and as much as it may irritate some older people, especially non-Maori, that's the point.  It's very easy to accuse National and Labour for being parties that bend to the wind and are weak on principles, but TPM isn't scared of being controversial. It thrives on it, because it literally doesn't care what the majority think.

It starts by its claim of being unashamedly Maori, but it drifts further into claiming it is the most authentically Maori (because it doesn't need to accommodate the "colonialists", like Labour). 

Populism is all about a simple framing of what is wrong, and a simple framing of how to fix it. We’ve seen this before, as NZ First was built on it. The clue is in the name.  NZ First had at its core anger at what was seen as a “betrayal” of the country ("us") by “them” – being the Lange/Douglas and Bolger/Richardson Labour and National governments. Betrayal to foreign investors and concern over immigration, essentially a xenophobic fear that foreigners who own businesses or foreigners that move to NZ are only in it for themselves and not for "ordinary New Zealanders". 

NZ First was a response to a belief that neither major party put New Zealand first, and “sold out” the country to foreign investors, who bought privatised state businesses, and were “buying up land”. Furthermore, new immigration, particularly from Asia was “alienating” the local population, including Maori. After all, the 1996 General Election saw NZ First win a clean sweep of the Maori seats.  It was a brief time when the dominant policy narrative was on free-market economics (although this had only minor impact on social policy areas like health and education), and NZ First could cater to this disenchantment differently from how the hard-left Alliance did (which was essentially the socialist wing of Labour having broken away). 

Of course what NZ First did in the 1990s was scaremonger about immigrants. TPM isn't too far away from doing the same thing, as fear of immigration resonates with Maori who see it as another wave of newcomers that dilute their proportion of the population.  Those immigrants tend to be wealthier than average Maori, more highly educated, and have children that do better than the local population at school and university. They also are less likely to be engaged with the criminal justice system. In short, because many immigrants are successful, well-behaved and peaceful, they feed narratives among some as to "why don't Maori do the same?".  At its worst this antipathy towards immigrants is seen in violent crime and abuse towards them, and there are plenty of anecdotes of migrants facing racial abuse from Maori as much as other New Zealanders.  Ferris's outburst last week hardly negates that.

In Scotland, the Scottish National Party (SNP) was built on the belief that Scotland could be independent from the UK and be better off, but it did nurture unabashed Anglophobia. Furthermore, it also promoted the idea that not supporting the SNP was traitorous to Scotland. Of course, the SNP was undone by actually having power and performing poorly, as there is only so much patience for constantly scapegoating Westminster as the source of your ills, when you get significant power to make your own decisions about what you do with your budgets. TPM almost certainly wont face that sort of scrutiny, which makes its own rhetoric potentially more dangerous. TPM knows that without radical and unlikely constitutional change, it will never lead a government at all.  It can always blame the failures to meet the expectations of its voters on the "colonialists".

As much as TPM wants to be seen as inclusive and welcoming of all, its core belief system can easily be interpreted as highly divisive and hierarchical.

Four years ago Debbie Ngarewa-Packer wrote in the NZ Herald outlining the party's division of New Zealanders into three groups:

- Tangata Whenua (us);

- Tangata Tiriti (supporters of "us");

- Everyone else (racists).

For her, that essentially say that unless you embrace the TPM view of the world, you are an outsider. She says that Tangata Tiriti are "comfortable loudly declaring they’re recovering racists, and they teach anti-racism, extremely secure in knowing their place side by side with tangata whenua ushering in a new Aotearoa.... Tangata tiriti accept and appreciate the reason they live in Aotearoa is because the Tiriti gives them citizenship and mana equal to tangata whenua... Tangata Tiriti are people of the covenant that is Te Tiriti o Waitangi. When you find a tangata tiriti that has a heart for the covenant it’s like meeting a long lost friend, the kind you know our tupuna fought to help treasure and protect. They want to make the burden light, hold up their side of the promise, clean up their own mess. They don’t want to lead our space they want to own their own, removing barriers of discrimination and clear the way to let us through, so we can live united in peace."

This is extraordinary stuff. Tangata Tiriti are original sinners who have to recover from their sin of racism and to "clean up their own mess". They only get the right to live in Aotearoa because their citizenship comes from Te Tiriti, not birth-right nor citizenship granted by a liberal democracy. Te Tiriti is like a Biblical text that grants "peace", what happens if you dare disagree?

Tangata Whenua can't be racist, presumably, which gives Takuta Ferris some reason to think he could say what he said.

Ngarewa-Packer, whether she knew it or not, was singing from the populist nationalist playbook. There are Maori (“us”), there are those who embrace our political-philosophical-cultural opinion (“Pakeha allies”) and the enemy. It’s a hierarchy that elevates its voters, as the indigenous people who are simultaneously superior to all others in Aotearoa, but also oppressed and marginalised. The scapegoat is the “colonialist” state.

TPM doesn’t really care about immigrants being upset with it, because its base isn’t keen on immigrants. TPM also doesn’t care too much about non-Maori being upset with it, not least because it sees Pakeha opponents as simply anti-Maori racists (seeing those that ridicule or denigrate Te Reo and claiming Maori just abuse their kids and waste their lives on benefits as being what many Pakeha “really think”) that fuel its base. It ought to care about calling those Maori who don’t support it “not really Maori”. That smacks of the Orwellian nonsense of Marxist-Leninists who claim that workers who don’t support the “workers’ party” are actually traitors to their class.  The idea that Maori who are not with TPM aren’t really Maori is toxic nationalist racism.  It resembles the nonsense concept of Third World Democracy which formed the basis for the one-party states of many post-colonial African states being dictatorships. 

Clearly TPM's populism is working for it. 

However, as much as Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer want to promote an image of inclusion and simply wanting Maori to manage their own affairs (which is entirely consistent with a genuine libertarian view of humanity), it's difficult to reconcile that with populism driven by nationalism which by definition deems them and their supporters as special, and others as redeemable sinners (and redeemable only if they concede to the TPM world view). 

When TPM President John Tamihere tells Maori that they are living under a government "worse than Nazi Germany", he is feeding not just fear, but hatred and a justification to use all means necessary to overthrow the government.  Of course no sane person could possibly equate the government to the Nazis, unless it was to rabble rouse and generate passion and anger.  After all if you are fighting Nazis, is anything out of bounds?  

This is not isolated rhetoric. Claiming the government is "pure evil" is akin to this, along with claiming the government is "erasing our future". This is absolutist eliminationist rhetoric which is alongside the claims of far-right white supremacists of the "Great Replacement Theory" that there is a programme to wipe out people of European ancestry.

Liberal democracies thrive when people with differences of opinions on how to address contemporary problems debate with some respect and acknowledgement that all are entitled to their views and expression of those views. They don't thrive when politicians seek to balkanise the population into a battle between "us" and "them", no matter what historic injustices have occurred by past generations.  Particularly when they push a narrative that paints opponents as evil people who want to wipe their supporters out.

TPM leaders may think that all it does is change how people vote, but if it bleeds into changing how people interact in daily life, including giving succour to those who think they can commit or threaten violence against opponents, then it is dangerous divisive rhetoric that is every bit as racist and unhinged as any far-right ultra-nationalist movement. TPM isn't there yet, but the danger that it emboldens such thinking is very real.