Thanks to the generosity of my paid subscribers this post is now free for anyone to read.
My Local Election voting papers arrived last week and I finally found some time yesterday to open the envelope and read the little booklet that came with them. It’s filled with tiny bios in a print size I found a challenge both to my eyesight as well as my insight – because the tiny amount that each candidate has been allowed to write about themselves, doesn’t really give me a clear understanding of their values and beliefs.
Well, that’s not quite true. Candidates presenting themselves under the banner of The ACT Local Party at least reveal their underlying ideology by doing so, and while I commend them for it, I’m sure you will not be surpised to learn that I won’t be voting for a neigbourhood version of the politics and economics of selfishness that David Seymour’s party represents.
One ACT Local candidate says he’s an “advocate for anti- car policies that make it harder to get around”. He claims he lives in our area of the North Shore, so I don’t understand how he can be blind to the massive traffic congestion that happens on the motorway feeder roads in our neck of the woods every weekday morning, and by wanting to get even more fossil fuel powered vehicles onto our already overcrowded roads he is clearly unconcerned for the health of our planet,
So, ACT Local – it’s a No from me.
Next cab of the rank in terms of making it easy for me understand their values are the candidates from The Conservative Party, one of whom who wants me to “Vote for the most right-wing conservative voice available.”
Thanks again for the transparency, but that’s also a “ Hell No!” from me.
But then choosing who to then vote for by just using the booklet gets harder, because my choice now it seems, is either between a number of independent candidates, or a collection of former independents who have now gathered under a brand name that is so generic it really doesn’t give me a clue to what they collectively stand for.
The booklet does refer me to a website if I want to know more, but when I go to it what I get are the very same bios, but in larger print! So, I’m going to have to go to a candidates’ meeting and ask some questions, because who gets to control our local communities not only impacts on the quality of our daily lives, it can also be the entry point for some politically ambitious candidates who want to use theselocal elections as a stepping stone on the road to parliament.
Some fringe groups are certainly using Local Elections as “entryism” - the strategy where they try to gain a foothold in the community for promoting their beliefs in order to build a “ground up” movement. However, the candidates who hold such subversive beliefs are not always transparent, about them.
One investigative writer, podcaster and social commentator who has been deep diving into local politics, and inquring into who might be funding some of these fringe candidates, is Paul Barlow.
When I interviewed him a couple of weeks ago for one of my Head2Head podcasts, he introduced me to the term “Astroturfing” which broadly refers to a person or group pretending to be something else in order to subversively gain political influence . It gets its name from a product that looks like grass but isn’t.
Paul has created a useful Local Government Election Hub which is well worth checking out before you choose who you want to represent you on your local Council or Board.
You can find it here:
https://paultheotherone.com/lg25/
Amongst other things his site contains is a link to an informative 40 minute documentary he’s made about local government called Fabricated Consent – Astroturfs go local, which you can watch here.
Here’s what he says about his film in his programme notes:
“They look like grassroots movements upset about Councils, rates and transparency, but many of them are linked to far-right groups, disinformation spreaders and pseudo law followers, being presented as calm and rational. In this documentary, we explore the webs they have built, the cross over between them, the impact they can have on communities and individuals and what we can do to ensure they don't get a stranglehold on local democracy.”
One of the groups who are widely reported as Astroturfing is Voices For Freedom (VFF) which was originally founded in December of 2020 by Claire Deeks, Libby Johnson, and Alia Bland as an anti-vaccination driven response to the New Zealand Government’s COVID‑19 restrictions.
They critique what they claim is overreach by governments or official agencies in health, regulatory, or policy domains and often frame their liberatrian arguments using terms such as “freedom” and “choice,” by which they mean to promote individual rights over collective responsibilty for the well-being of society. They are also fond of using the word “transparency ” as part of their campaign against government control.
Which is ironic, to say the least, because VFF’s activities are anything but transparent, especially when you try to find out exactly who is funding them and their internet radio station Reality Check which the three Voices For Freedom founders own through their company NZ MEDIA HOLDINGS 2023 LIMITED.
You can find a good article about Reality Check Radio here:
https://articles.skeptics.nz/2023/03/13/a-reality-check/
Voices For Freedom has applied several strategies to try to influence local politics / local body elections by encouraging “concerned New Zealanders” to stand as independents supporting them with candidate guides, advice on messaging, campaign‑tools, training (e.g. social media, communication) etc.
Local body elections often have lower voter turnout, and in many districts fewer people stand for election, so some positions are unopposed or lightly contested. VFF seems to see this as an opportunity — easier to get in, or easier for a motivated minority to have influence.
Back in 2022 Voices For Freedom produced a candidates guide which you can find here:
https://www.voicesforfreedom.co.nz/local-body-election/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Media analysis at the time identified over 200 candidates in at least 159 races as being linked to VFF or aligned movements,
However, I could only find two candidates who had electoral success and this Radio New Zealand item is well worth reading.
Why are they doing it ?
As I say, the idea is to use local elections as a way to gain influence from the ground up to become influential at national level.
Frankly, I don’t want any potential Robert Kennedy Jrs being elected to any local office especially if they have political aspirations of progressing to our national stage.
So I’ll be checking all independent candidates in my area for any sign of Voice For Freedom influence or by any other kind of fringe rhetoric group, and would encourage you to do the same.
Some key words to look for in their blurbs that might make you want to go..mmmm.. are “transparency” “accountability” and “limiting the role of government.”
But all that said, the most important thing is to make sure you do vote because you can be certain all those fringe elements with their destructive agendas will be voting especially in areas where the turnout is often low.
Kia kaha
This one definitely needs to be made public. There are candidates all over the country trying to present themselves as the "voice of reason", campaigning on the basis of limiting "wasteful" spending. As just one example, that often means they oppose council support for safe cycling and walking facilities and public transport, claiming these are either merely 'nice to have' or actively opposing them as frivolous spending (or worse, interfering with the god-given rights of car drivers to go wherever they want as fast as possible). They fail to acknowldege that for a growing sector of the population (the disabled, the elderly, the poverty-stricken and children), such services are essential. These people are proposing cities in which little that is good or enjoyable happens, and a large proportion of the population will find themselves isolated in their own suburbs. We need to think very carefully before voting for anything that claims to represent "common sense" in this election, and in next year's general election. It probably won't be sensible, and support for such views shouldn't be common.
A good litmus test is whether candidates have signed the ‘pledge’ promoted by the TPU (who really put the grassburn into astroturf). My rule of thumb is that if they sign it they lose my vote - they are effectively signing a contract with the devil at the expense of the locals…