Maybe they're overlooking an obvious coalition

"When looking at party vote, most people think of left/right 'blocs,' which in my view overlooks certain nuances. 

"For a start, anyone who thinks NZ First is securely in the 'right' bloc doesn’t know history. NZ First has gone into coalition with Labour as many times as National. 

"Second, the differences between National and Labour are not significant, and perhaps not as significant as their two woeful leaders – the one that failed and is a meek mediocrity, and the other one who acts like he’s succeeded and is an empty vessel."

~ Liberty Scott burying the lede in his post 'So about that party vote?'

If you really *must* vote ...

Here's your regular rooting-tooting-shooting all-balls-out electorate voting guide for 2026 courtesy of Liberty Scott -- who every three years issues his voting recommendations for liberty lovers.

You already know my own.

These are his.

It includes voting for Craig Renney in Wellington Bays. And a recently sacked Labour candidate. So there are a few surprises ...

"It is futile to fight against, if one does not know what one is fighting for."

"It is futile to fight against, if one does not know what one is fighting for. A merely negative trend or movement cannot win and, historically, has never won: it leads nowhere."

~ Ayn Rand from her 1967 lecture "The Wreckage of the Consensus," collected in the book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

A dialogue with a voter

"You have to vote," they tell me.

People insist. 

"It's easy to enrol," they say (or said). 

But that's only relevant if I wanted to vote.

And I don't. I don't, because there is no one to vote for.

"But it's your duty. People fought for the right to vote."

The right to vote is also a a right not to vote. That's a vote for 'None of the Above.' And none of the above deserve my vote.

"But if you don’t choose, everyone else chooses for you."

But all the choices suck arse. So whomever everyone chooses will still suck arse.

"But you owe it to yourself and others to pay attention and make a choice!"

It's my attention to the candidates and their teams that tells me there's no choice amongst any of them worth getting out of bed for.

"But if you don't vote, the 'other team' will get in."

Things will happen that way even if I did vote. And what makes you think your team will be any better? 

"But this is the most important election in my lifetime!"

You don't think it's funny that every election is sold that same way?

"But if you don't like the government, then you have to vote against them."

You're voting against; but the team for whom you do vote for take your vote as an endorsement. As a mandate. Don't give it to them.

"But an hour of your time shapes three years of policy."

There is precisely zero chance that even three years of me voting would shape even a second of government policy. 

"But if you don't vote, you have no right to complain."

Contra that: if you do vote you're responsible for those speaking in your name. For all their theft and mendacity, all their threats and bullying, and all of their coercion and overspending. Your vote endorses all of that.

"But you can't complain about a government if you didn't vote."

Precisely wrong. It's only those who didn't vote for them who have any right to complain.

"So vote for the lesser of two evils."

The lesser of any number of evils is still evil. Why endorse that?

"But you speak for people who can’t vote. Children, the sick and the vulnerable are affected by the result but have no vote."

Then in that case they'd be better served by better candidates for office.

"But turnout is a mandate. A government elected by a bigger share of the people can claim to speak for them."

And a government elected on a low turnout might reflect that voters have refused to give them a mandate. 

"But silence reads as consent."

Precisely wrong. Silence too is a voice.

"But, but ... you have to vote."

No, you don't.

Don't vote. It only encourages them.

* * * * 

Q: Any other arguments for voting you've heard?

Who cares about parties' foreign policy policies?

"It's hardly surprising that foreign policy isn't a big issue in the New Zealand election, and to some extent it is a relief, but on the other hand it should matter -- mainly because the international environment has not been this febrile, dangerous or uncertain since the Cold War. ...

"NZ is vulnerable, not least because supply lines for everything from mechanical parts to fossil fuels to pharmaceutical, as well as export revenues, are dependent on safe shipping lanes and there being an international environment of peace and relatively open trade in goods and services. ...

"As a small country, NZ's preference traditionally has been for an international order, based on respecting the territorial integrity of nation states, and their sovereignty, to be maintained. That is increasingly difficult ...

"[T]he wider foreign policy concern is that there is just an absence of understanding that the international environment is not favourable to multilateralism anymore. ... 

"The US has decided to abandon Europe's defence ... and to appease Russia ... and to treat personal relationships as a substitute for principle and rule of law. ...  The international trade environment has seen the WTO be gutted by both the Trump Administration, and the likes of China, the EU and India, all of which are responding unilaterally.  

"So where do the political leaders see NZ going in defence? Who knows? 

"How would they respond if China attacked Taiwan? Who knows?

"What's their view on the USA as an ally? Not clear.

"Do they think NZ should contribute more to the collective defence of the South Pacific? Maybe.

"Do they think Israel's right to exist is worth defending loudly? Maybe.

"Do they fully support Ukraine remaining within its internationally recognised boundaries? Probably.

"Do they think that the main meaning of the 'independent foreign policy' is being antagonistic to other liberal democracies, including our allies? Who knows?

"I suspect Hipkins and Luxon don't know or care very much about foreign policy, except (in Labour's case) where it grabs votes from more radical rivals.

"But then given NZ is not directly exposed to the consequences of the breaking world order, not many care either."

~ Liberty Scott from his post 'New Zealand election - a dud on foreign policy'

Lies

So how do you know a politician is lying?

A: Their lips are moving:

STUFF: ‘That’s a lie’: We fact-check the fiercest claims from the Stuff Leaders’ Debate...

"In short, this claim is misleading...."

"He later said he had misspoken...."

"Luxon’s office said at the time that the correspondence mischaracterised his position...."

"False. Hipkins is referring to ..."

Does it matter what he is referring to if his lips are still moving?

Reminder

"The moral case for capitalism is that your life belongs to you. Your work, your savings and your plans don’t become somebody else’s property because they have a moving speech about how they’d use them."

~ tweet by 'hamsters'

A debate might have been revealing. I'd like to have seen one.

AFTER THE "LAST DEBATE" LAST last night, I'm still yet to see the first.

That's because we seem to have forgotten what a debate is, how it's structured, how to ensure that one party doesn't continually talk over another party ...

A debate is an event in which participants address the issues and each other, moderated only a person holding a bell. Or an alarm clock. And certainly not a clipboard full of their own questions. 

They don't need to ask their own questions, or to challenge the speaker, because that's what the other speaker is supposed to do -- when they are given their time to do that. And they know their time will come, and they need to be prepared. (Each proper debate has a given time for rebuttal, starting and finishing by that bell.)

In a real debate, all that a good moderator says is things like "fifteen seconds to go," or "time's up." And the candidates themselves get to challenge each other, and we see whether or not they're able to, instead of the fellow with the clipboard trying to do it for them.

Sure, the moderator can set the topic, perhaps saying it's about health, or cost of living increases; and they can even show some figures and give some context. But after that, a moderator should wind up his alarm clock, or prime his bell, because he knows he's not involved. He's not on stage himself. Because this is a debate, not an interview. (And, yes, candidates can talk over the bell, but then it becomes obvious to everyone, including themselves, that they're an arsehole.)

LET'S SAY THAT AGAIN IN case you missed it: A debate is not an interview, which is what we had last night, and have had for the last several weeks: a two-headed or multi-headed interview conducted by a lacklustre over-talking interviewer who too often confuses himself (or herself) for a participant, perpetually injecting themselves into the discussion and too rarely allowing any actual debate to continue. 

It's not a debate. It's an unscripted two-way interview with pre-coached leaders doing their best to say nothing of any substance. 

An un-debate. 

A kind of managed “reality television” in which important issues are safely ignored in favour of the hype, fluff, bluster and insults which are breathlessly reported as evidence that one one of the candidates "won," and the others were looking "tired." (As if it matters how things are said rather than what they were trying to say, if anything.) 

That's why the debaters' lecterns are set up to face the "interviewer," instead of each other, with that interviewer often framed in the foreground, and in the middle of shot.

And so we learn about as much from the interview as we do from every interview over which the over-talking fellow (or fellow-ess) presides.

Oddly enough, the only election debates I've seen that came close to being genuine debates (as in: I'll start the clock and you each have one minute to speak) are the Tamaki and Mt Albert electoral debates hosted by 95bFM. bFM's moderators know more about allowing debate than the so-called professional broadcasters (if indeed that's a label befitting Mr Gower). 

A debate, an actual debate, gives us some idea of opponents' ability to choose their topics, to focus their attacks, to challenge their opponents' flaws or errors -- and something about their character which, in an election in which most policy is "me-too!" is about all you have as a point of difference. 

A debate is not an interview. I'd like to have seen one. It might have been fun -- and even revealing. 

The road to serfdom is paved with good elections

"The long march towards democracy has been to free men from the abuses of the sovereign’s whim. Alas ... democracy contains within it two toxic seeds. ...

"The second is what French economist Frédéric Bastiat observed in 1848: 'the State is the great fiction through which everyone endeavours to live at the expense of everyone else.'

"The longer we have had democracy, the greater demands electors have made on those elected. ...

"We are now several generations into an experiment on dependency so profound that this election we look for politicians who can fulfil central government’s promise to educate our children, pay for our entertainment, supply the news, cover our medical bills and even address our mental health issues.

"These are not the demands of a free people.

"These are the expectations of serfs."

~ Damien Grant from his column 'We escaped the whims of kings. Did we just create a new kind of dependence?'

"Freedom is not empowerment. ... Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. [Freedom i]s not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It’s not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That’s not freedom, that’s dependency. Those aren’t rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle."

~ PJ O'Rourke from his 1993 'Liberty Manifesto'

"Remember this if you plan to vote for a party that promises you 'free' stuff..."

"In the country I'm from, we have a saying: 'Free cheese can only be found in a mousetrap.' And it couldn't be more accurate. Please remember this if you plan to vote for a party that promises you 'free' stuff."

~ Ira P.

A gentle reminder...

 

[Hat tip Mary Ruwart]

PS: "Why?" ... "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in..."

You know it's a close election when it's time to demonise the unemployed [update]

You know it's a close election when it's time to demonise the unemployed.

On Wednesday, welfare campaigner Lindsay Mitchell pointed out that what's missing from this election campaign is any sensible discussion about welfare.

And then bang, just like that, discussion turned yesterday to Louise Upston wanting to drug-test the unemployed. Red meat (she hopes) to National's voter base. 

Two things.

First, you may think I might agree with Upston, which is why I needed to write this, especially since I quoted Lindsay in this morning's post (set it up to automatically post, in fact, before Upton opened her gob yesterday). So let me quickly explain that Lindsay is saying that the silence about welfare is a silence about long-term welfare dependence. That welfare dependence is now generational. That this really is the massive social problem New Zealand needs to grapple with.

Upston doesn't deal with that -- her proposal is, she hopes, simply a quick fix for a bigger electoral return. (Yes, she does say "they don't want young people wasting their lives on welfare, and for some drug use is a barrier to work," but we all know this is no fast-fix cure to that.)

So, second, if she were truly genuine about lifting up the unemployed, she'd recognise that for the most part (aside from the likes of departing Reserve Bank governors and should-have departed MBIE chief executives) unemployed folk have no responsibility for the parlous state of the job market. And, therefore, any decent politician might instead focus on creating the conditions for private job creation and for reducing long-term welfare dependency, rather than moralising against the jobless themselves. 

It has been one of Javier Milei's positions since he took over the presidency in Argentina -- resisting demonising those who bear no responsibility for the dire state of employment, and instead bearing down on getting the hell out of the way of employers.

That might work better for all of us.

PS: Yes, this is the same Louise Upston who was dunning the taxpayer $1000 per week (on top of her minister's salary) to live in her own Wellington apartment. Did someone mention bludgers?

UPDATE:

Lindsay Mitchell has her own take on Upston's five-point welfare plan, whose headline item is drug-testing for Jobseeker/Work Ready beneficiaries.  In short, "while sounding good in theory, it's a not a sound plan," says Lindsay. "It ignores the problem of inter-generational, sole parent driven dependency, and it will move people around in the benefit system rather than out of it."

Read her detailed objections here.

Chronic welfare dependence "is markedly missing from 2026 election campaign issues."

"Welfare is markedly missing from 2026 election campaign issues. ...

"Super isn't sustainable.

"But what of working-age people? ...

"[A]mong physically capable people, long-term and inter-generational dependence is growing fast. ... Why? Is the shortage of paid work that severe? ...

"Work-aversion is learned and handed down. Children in long-term dependent homes have no working role model. Nearly three quarters of all beneficiaries up to age 25 had a parent on welfare while they were a child.

"At the end of 2025 over a quarter million children were dependent on benefits. ... Many of these children will spend their entire childhood and teenage years in an unemployed household, mostly with a 'single' parent. This impacts strongly on their life chances in respect of not just health and education, but security and safety. Of all children who had a finding of maltreatment by the age of five, 83 percent were on a benefit before age two. There is significant overlap between the Work and Income cohort, Oranga Tamariki and Corrections.

"So back to the election campaign.

"While much-needed fiscal savings could be made by tightening Super eligibility, it cannot be claimed that reliance on a pension at the end of one's life is damaging in the way chronic welfare dependence is, growing up and thereafter. That is the massive social problem New Zealand needs to grapple with.

"So why aren't political parties talking about this?"

~ Lindsay Mitchell from her post 'Welfare missing from 2026 election'

The Greens's multi-billion dollar fiscal hole

I did know that the Greens are economically illiterate. I hadn't realised just how innumerate until I saw the so-called Taxpayers' Union's Bribe-O-Meter -- prepared for the election so you can see how much each party promises to bribe you with your own money.

As irresponsible as the ACT Party is, their bribes only amount to three-quarters of a billion. More than they should be, but less than they might be.

As profligate as Team National is, they're still just promising bribes amounting to two billion dollars.

And then there's a big jump. Barbara Edmonds is still barely to quote a number of her own this year, but the Taxpayers Union reckon her Labour Party will be bribing you with over fifty billion -- about the same as Winston First.

If you think that was a big jump, then settle back: Chloe Swarbrick's Greens -- the party who reckon she should be the Finance Minister in the next government -- are bribing you with a total of $236.72 billion over the next parliamentary term. Almost a quarter of a trillion dollars! That equates to $114, 245 per household!

You can read the detailed breakdown here. Here's a summary:

• Social spending is costed at $178.7 billion over four years, or $86,234 per household, by far the largest single category. 
• Extending ACC to cover all injuries, disability and illness regardless of origin accounts for $96 billion of that alone
• Lifting benefits to "liveable rates" adds a further $27.6 billion
• On education, a universal student allowance to cover basic needs is costed at $14.4 billion, and free tertiary education up to a first degree at $8 billion
• The party's proposed student loan write-off carries a $16.2 billion balance sheet impact
• Free early childhood education for all is costed at $5.4 billion
• Free school lunches for all kids in all schools at $2.2 billion
• Expanding free apprenticeship programmes at $200 million

That's an awful lot of "free" stuff to be paid by someone else: That's you, the voter.

But we haven't even finished the promised bribes.  Their next biggest bribe is on something they call "economic development" ....

• Economic development spending is costed at $40.8 billion over four years
• The largest confirmed commitment is a nationwide rapid rail network, costed at $17.2 billion
• Comprehensive bus lanes in all cities are costed at $1.2 billion
• EV subsidies at $337 million, based on reintroducing the Clean Car Discount scheme.
• A further $9.4 billion is costed for tens of thousands of new public homes, based on forecast 2026/27 house-building spend and the maximum build rate achieved in 2023/24, 
• This is alongside $21 million for a Certified Rental Warrant of Fitness.
• Regional support commitments add $2.4 billion for the Te Rangatiratanga Trust, $2 billion for a new intergenerational fund, and $400 million for a Te Rākau restoration fund.
• Energy policies add a further $3.05 billion, made up of Kiwipower ($980.6 million), expanding Warmer Homes ($969.8 million), solar on all public housing stock ($460 million), zero-interest solar loans ($428.7 million), community-owned energy ($200 million), and increased EECA funding ($12.4 million).
• The Greens' plans to purchase 120 supermarkets to form a state-run supermarket chain is costed at $4.7 billion, or $2,259 per household. 
• Creating a tribunal for dealing with disputes arising from auctioning off commercial leases on unoccupied lots has been costed at $7.2 million.

I don't know about you, but I don't see a lot of economic development coming therefrom.

Next biggest item is on developing bigger government. This doesn't come cheap.

• The Greens' policy to lift core public service pay by 10 percent is costed at $15.5 billion over four years

Over fifteen billion to employ more bureaucrats.

And finally, on to their bribes in Environment and Arts -- only a comparatively minor item, considering they were once an environmental party ...

• Environment and conservation commitments total $1.5 billion over four years
• This includes $1.2 billion to expand Jobs for Nature, $200 million to introduce a price on agricultural emissions, $90 million to restore the Ministry for the Environment, and $13.5 million to increase funding for the EPA and community environment groups.
• $200 million has also been promised for the promotion of te reo Māori.

=> And that's how we get the figure, for all of the promised bribes, of $236.72 billion over the next parliamentary term (equating to $114, 245 per household).

And just how does this all get paid for?

I'm glad you asked, because it hasn't apparently occurred to the innumerate Auckland Central MP to reconcile bribes with revenue. As of today's date ...

The Greens' tax plan, released in June, promises more than $32 billion of new revenue over four years. It relies on a "super-rich tax" (their renamed wealth tax) and an inheritance and gifts tax. (The current Wealth Tax has already been revised down by fifty percent since last year's "alternative budget." Expect any return, if implemented to continue that trend.)
They would also lifts the corporate tax rate for some firms and reverses the coalition's changes to interest deductibility.

Consistent with their something for nothing promises, that's all the revenue they promise to extract from you. So how would the rest of those bribes be paid? Answer: borrowing.

• The Taxpayers' Union describes a $60 billion infrastructure borrowing programme as part of the Greens' pledges, with interest of about $12 billion.

But even with that aspirational fantasy of a $32 billion Wealth Tax and saddling the few remaining taxpayers with $60 billion of borrowing (and another $12 billion interest bill), that still leaves a massive hole. 

A hole of nearly one-hundred and fifty billion  dollars!

How would that be paid? Somehow. That's how.

UPDATE: Of course Greens supporters will object that there is. no fiscal hole, that governments can spend as much as they like -- that money does grow on trees just as long as it's government that grows them. 

In its latest guise, called MMT by its supporters (aka Magical Monetary Theory) -- the  populist idea (already promoted by the UK Greens) that governments can spend spend spend and do not need to raise tax to finance it. Professor John Hearn explains that it's not just wrong, but dangerously wrong...

“The traditional politician asks for your vote so that they can fix your life, as if they know what you need."

“The traditional politician asks for your vote so that they can fix your life, as if they know what you need. What I say is, I ask for your vote so that I can give you back the power to be the architect of your own life.” 

~ Javier Milei, from his Nov 2024 interview with The Economist