Written By:
- Date published:
5:36 pm, May 18th, 2026 - 35 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, elections, politicans -
Tags: adultery, broken promises, election promises, empty promises, gaslighting, lying liars who lie, populists, pork barrel
In the courting stage, politicians woo prospective partners (aka objects of interest, prey or plebs) with promises and shiny little trinkets. They put on their best clothes, to make the most favourable impression, brush their teeth and comb their hair. Without hesitation, and without fail, they swear that their love interest is the one and only for them and forever will be. It’s the stuff of fairytales and romantic dramas. Many people like to hear it, nobody truly believes in the picture-perfect picture, and yet many fall for it, repeatedly, roughly the frequency of the election cycle.
Once they’ve hooked the witless, their behaviour changes. This happens in the best relationships and can be a sign of growth and development, of the individuals and of the relationship. However, some politicians show their pathological persona and become downward mean. They lie, they break promises, they cheat, they threaten violence – some opt for the passive-aggressive silent treatment or confiscate the credit cards. In short, they screw their partners over.
To keep the increasingly-unhappy partner onboard, politicians resort to a regular pattern of re-beguiling & making up. They buy flowers or shiny trinkets, bush their teeth and comb their hair and whisper inaudible words into their partners’ ears while they’re half-asleep pretending it’s intimate pillow-talk but in reality amounts to brain-washing and gas-lighting. This increases in intensity with intervals of roughly the election cycle.
Some partners of politicians run away to never return. Some run into the arms of another politician who’s got shinier hair. This can lead to feelings of guilt & remorse. Some partners remain loyal till the bitter end, and bitter it is – people are complex and irrational. Some become swingers.
There are some good politicians too, of course, but they tend to be less popular in the dating pool and tend to opt for more natural hook-ups. Those relatively few politicians who’ve got a genuine interest in and respect for others, do not use elaborate online presence & profiles to market themselves, for example.
It’s not easy to break up and get over a bad relationship. Support from friends & family can be a life-saver. When the emotionally & psychologically battered partners come out at the other end, after a couple of years usually, they often have an increased sense of self-worth and a better awareness of politicians who’re pathological liars and abusers. They’ll be able to recognise the warning signs of flowers & trinkets, brushed teeth & combed hair & over-groomed appearances, of sweet-talk, and flashing bank cards at lunch dates – there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Such people are despised by aforementioned politicians.
By their deeds you will know them.
Clever now I understand why pollies go round whistling whoo-whoo along with much kerfuffle.
And they carry their sultry attitudes further – they adulterate their supposed responsibilities, they adulterate our good water with their toxic ideas come-to-pass; their childish behaviours show delayed adulthood.
Some politicians are highly skilled at cat-calling using dog-whistles.
"In the courting stage, politicians woo prospective partners…"
"Once they’ve hooked the witless…"
"To keep the increasingly-unhappy partner onboard, politicians resort to a regular pattern of re-beguiling & making up…"
Soooooo cynical!
I’m a trans-groundhog; I used to be a meerkat (before that I was a mole).
"and comb their hair."
So mean to Luxon!
If he stands close enough to Winston, he might catch some when he combs his hair.
Winston? Comb his hair?
Have you seen how a cat grooms its fur with its tongue?
Winston.
As Meercurio says!…Soooooo cynical!
The pollie Morris dance – has ceased to be frivolous, become menacing and sinful, as well as cynical.
Terry Pratchett's Discworld book 'Truth' around an attempt to knock a leader off his prominence, and look at the nature of reporting to the citizens, and what they take from the details delivered, besides the laughs, useful.
I think his message is you can fool the people by regular confusing confabulations. Hence the rollback of hard-gained good advances, the rise of paltry pollies not deserving representation of citizens. What to do? – citizens learn, try computer gaming Simcity, do participatory democracy* and basic political education for everyone. Not a few getting hints, powered-up, in the UK, Canada, USA.
Yeah, nah. Basic sex education for everyone with psychology and philosophy. That should be the basis of all politics – make politics sexy, attractive, and relevant to almost every person with a pulse. Then we may have a chance at voting for adults instead of adulterers.
greywarshark, your analysis is correct as is that message.
"The pollie Morris dance – has ceased to be frivolous" I don't think that either politicians or morris dancers are frivolous. Politicians certainly are not and Morris dancing has been a tradition in England for 600 years practised by hundreds of sides.
In England, some Morris dance sides wear blackened faces, not because they were miners nor because of the reputed Moorish origins of Morris dance but to protect them from their disapproving employers and social superiors.
Morris dance was a dance of the people where local traditions were passed down through many generations, the participants could celebrate with dance, costume and socialising after the dancing, musicians could play old tunes, customs were handed down, and entertainment given to the local villagers. It was an expression of local identity.
When Morris dancing came to NZ it immediately opened up the sides to men and women to dance together and a side I was associated with could have a scientist PhD, a surgeon, a psychologist, a PE teacher (who saw the value of the dance as exercise as well), a nurse, a language teacher, a secretary, a physiotherapist, a librarian, all dancing together.
When our side danced on a marae one Waitangi Day, a local young Māori man spoke of the parallels between the taiaha and Morris stick dancing, Māori I think understood the value of old tradition and social connection that they saw there. Welcomed onto another Marae, Morris dancers from all over Aotearoa were treated with much respect as the Morris dancers were able to put up speakers in te Reo. The dancers in all their colourful regalia peddled a waka in the harbour and were trusted to take the waka into the marina because of the rhythm and discipline shown by the dancers, A kuia who observed from the hillside said the waka crewed by the dancers looked like a butterfly fluttering its wings.
I saw Morris dancing as being as frivolous as cricket where eleven people dressed in white clothing and school boy caps throw and hit balls at each other and then after an afternoon's exercise adjourn to the pub for a pint.
Instead, we mock Morris dancing and mock politicians.
Both at our peril. Instead we should respect and trust our politicians because of their importance and power. We should be like the countries of Scandinavia where social trust is very high in public institutions and politicians.
Why have we lost that trust? Why, when we vote for them, and some (but not enough in my opinion) select them as candidates and form their policies in parties do we not trust them?
That is a question that we need to answer and rectify, because the lurch to the Right we see here and overseas is served by denigrating our democracy through mocking its politicians and the free media while buying its compliance and power.
Do we get the politicians we deserve- the politicians we have created, the politicians we have allowed to control our democracy?
Trust is essential but it’s also fickle and vague. In my humble opinion, many people too easily and too often project their trust issues onto others, in this case onto politicians. Of course, political trust is a lot more complex than inter-personal trust in personal relationships, but this can be a starting point for thinking about the questions you posed.
So, what can each of us do to influence/change dwindling trust in politicians/politics?
Starting at/with ourselves, we can choose where we get our information from, what to read/listen to/watch, and how to interpret that. And what and how we share that with others.
We can choose how we discuss politics, e.g., fair, objective, impartial, cynical, mocking, etc.
We can choose to give in and follow peer pressure or tribal/party to accept their ‘norms’ of distrust & judgement instead of thinking independently and critically for ourselves. NB some lack of trust or distrust is entirely logical & rational when it’s based on evidence and direct experience.
We can choose to be led by our assumptions (heuristics), generalisations & stereotypes, and habitual reactions. For example, the critique of [some] Lefties being too liberal with calling [all] supporters of far-/hard-Right fascists, which is an over-generalisation that back-fires.
We can choose to accept that people, including ourselves, are complex, emotional & irrational, ambiguous & contradictory, and far from pure & perfect (unless you’re over-dosing on love hormones).
Anybody can make any of these choices.
Considering these things, we can do trust better at the individual level, I’d like to think, and make it more flexible, adaptable, and responsive to changing circumstances, changing information & evidence, and adjust our trust accordingly, up and/or down, rather than making it fixed rigid default lens through which we view politicians – lenses need to be cleaned regularly, re-calibrated, and re-focussed.
PS It wasn’t my intention to make my reply as long as your comment. I started responding with a short reply in mind but it ran away from me.
Don't mind a lengthy answer! I got sort of sidetracked onto a defence of Morris dancing. (I learned earlier today that a friend who was a Morris dancer in Auckland had 6 doctors in their side.)
So, in terms of political fidelity, how many Kiwis change their votes or parties? It seems that a shift has happened and combined National/Labour votes is barely in the 60% range. and 20% have changed their votes recently. (As well, one third of voters are splitting their votes, voting tactically, in provincial NZ).
https://www.farmersweekly.co.nz/politics/voter-volatility-in-the-provinces-is-here-to-stay
The following academic study shows some interesting data and conclusions.
https://www.psychology.org.nz/application/files/3616/7573/1344/Satherley_49-58.pdf
It identified between 2013 and 2020 elections three classes- core National 50,5%, core Labour 39.1% and a switcher 10.4% class. The National core comprises National leaning voters who never would vote Labour; the Labour core is Labour leaning voters who never would countenance National, and the 10% Switchers who tend to be younger as well. Switchers turned out for Labour in 2020 it seems.
The trick for Labour is keep and turn out the core 39%, persuade the Switchers to go Labour as in 2020, and to allow the National core to divide between the three parties of the Coalition and even become disillusioned enough to stay away. It seems that the Core percentages are variable and affected also by voter age.
It does leave that problem of where NZF decides to go, if needed by either side.
Just for interest and comparison, adultery rates in NZ are 31% and one in three marriages ends in divorce.
" I learned earlier today that a friend who was a Morris dancer in Auckland had 6 doctors in their side."
Well, with all those sticks a'flailin', that's a good thing!
Thank you for those links; I’ll read the second one later, as it looks quite interesting but it’s also bit longer.
Those stats of NZ adultery and divorce rates seem high; do you know whether they’re going up or down?
I’d assume that people who’ve had bad experiences in the past with trust, deception & betrayal, and ulterior motives of others, for example, may have clouded views of others, incl. politicians, at least for a while. This is the ‘projecting’ I was talking about in my previous comment. Of course, I could be miles off the mark.
It seems that figures are remaining at the 31-33% mark for at least one unfaithful occasion. Females are catching up with increased economic and social opportunity. Older people are more at risk in the figures for divorce as younger people marry later now.
A brief synopsis of what AI tells me.
The figures currently are as I stated so Google search tells me from more than one source. Same for some more historical figures. Things are about the same.
Well I don't know.
$1000 Kiwisaver kick start at birth gets a big tick from me.
Renationalising a big trading bank gets a big tick from me.
Opposing the India FTA gets a big tick from me.
Remind me again why I should vote for that stuffed shirt drop kick Hipkins? I watched his hopelessly evasive and wooden Q&A performance, and I looked at his one piss-water policy so far – Three free doctors visits? WTF? Get serious man.
Hipkins – and by extension Labour – exhibits no indication they have grasped the desperate mood of the electorate. Mealy mouthed and no trousers from Labour far. Hipkins seems to have caught the colonial disease of looking to the mother country and taking precisely the wrong lessons. He seems to think he can do Kiwi-esque Starmerism, without understanding that without building a proper coalition with decent, popular policies within six months he'll be leading the most rapidly unpopular government ever, just like Starmer, and he'll preside over the complete PASOKisfaction of Labour with then next ten years.
Three free doctor visits? Good grief. Get real. Give me some sweet, sweet left wing populism and give it to me now or bugger off. If Winston Peters didn't lead a party of such naked corruption, I would be leaning towards a vote for him.
"If Winston Peters didn't lead a party of such naked corruption…"
But can he be forgiven for that?
No.
His pie in the sky promises are pure flim-flam.
Hipkins has to navigate the 'promise everything' wave coming from all of the other parties and at the same time resist playing the same smoke-and-mirrors game, if he's going to represent his team fairly.
Hipkins Q&A performance was, you say, "hopelessly evasive" but I would say, necessarily evasive; evasive of Jack Tame's efforts to cause him pain. Hipkins did well. Under the same pressure, Luxon would have filled the studio with the smell of burned toast.
"burned toast" …If they were lucky !
The base fragrance you cite, with subtle notes of burnt toast.
Bottle it.
Label it; "Miasma de Lux"
You got it. Luxon won't even turn up.
Well
, our sorted CEO is very hardworking – his time is money.
Lovely lovely money. Move on.
https://yeehawtheboys.substack.com/p/luxon-tells-unions-theres-no-bottomless
Three tricks, what more do you need? You’re hooked!
3 tricks and a grin.
Well..thats an Opinion. Have certainly seen your antipathy towards NZ Greens. So really… not Labour or Green. Or TPM. Leads you to…..
Agree on with the $1000 Kiwisaver idea and making Kiwibank bigger by investing more capital into it….maybe a billion?
But where are you going to get the $30 billion for BNZ? It's a non-starter. Peters had no idea when he was interviewed on RNZ yesterday.
A promise by one has to be witnessed in the affirmative by two others – otherwise it will come to nought.
Social media has no shortage of witnesses, and promise-keepers.
The point isn't whether or not you are sucked in by the empty promises of a political charlatan and his shabby band of corrupt blowhards.
The point is of the three policies I mentioned one, possibly two and perhaps even all three should be obvious Labour policies.
Peters once promised to buy back Meridian, Mercury and Genesis
That would cost $15B (half the cost of BNZ)
He would have another $15B left to boost Kiwibank.
I'm starting to lean towards Winston.
Like a lamp post.
Winston "plays the game". He knows "small promises won't cut it for his last throw of the dice", may as well promise the moon.
3 doctor visits, "piss water policy". No not really. Each person gets this paid x3 visits from Labour.
A family of 4 would have 12 visits paid. This is a great chunk of money from the family budget, and far out weighs the $260 down tax cut.
Personalising actions as evasive paltry and poor is typical anti talk.
Making solid but meaningful changes to build back a damaged public system, where rebalancing is being done clearly is preferable to wild promises, followed by further asset stripping public service damage to scrape up the dollars.
Winston is a clever suitor, but a dead loss as a faithful partner. History proves that. He is a serial divorcee.
I know politicians are good at kissing ass, but this is a new one (and only if I haven't manscaped that week)