The Telegraph review of the Ardern book
Don't read this book. You won't, anyway: it's by Jacinda Ardern. But if I tell you that it's a memoir dedicated to 'the criers, worriers, and huggers,' you'll have an idea of the nightmare you've dodged. A Different Kind of Power reads like a 350-page transcript of a therapy session: 'My whole short life,' the author writes, 'I had grappled with the idea that I was never quite good enough.'
Regrettably, she persisted, rising through the two or three ranks of New Zealand society to become prime minister at the age of 37, from 2017 to 2023. And yet the practicalities of the job don't interest her: this book hinges on how everything felt .
A fairly brutal introduction.
As for what drew her into politics: was it Marx? Or Mahatma Gandhi? Well, one influence came early on: she saw a newspaper cartoon of a Tory stealing soup from children and thought, 'that definitely didn't feel right.'
Few people know this, but this is factually correct. In the 1990s, teams of Young Nationals roved the nation breaking into the homes of poor people, and stealing soup from them.
she wants us to know, too, that she replied to every child who wrote to her
As did John Key, just that he didn't feel the need to tell everyone about it.
By contrast, the anti-lockdown crowd Ardern describes protesting outside New Zealand's Parliament, wore 'literal tinfoil hats', flew 'swastikas' and 'Trump flags'.
This is exactly how centrist dads (and mums) subtly vilify their opponents: set a perfect example and imply a comparison. I am so kind that anyone who disagrees with me must be nasty; so reasonable that my critics must be nuts.
There were a few fringe figures there, but the vast majority were just people angry that they had lost their jobs on the basis of vaccine mandates that turned out to be based on an incorrect assumption that they would stop transmission.
A poll of around a third of the protesters done by Curia staff found that 27% of the protesters were Maori (so unlikely to be Nazis!) and 40% of the protesters voted for Labour, Greens or Te Pati Maori in 2020.
Post-office, Ardern became a fellow at Harvard University, teaching a course in… you guessed it: 'empathetic leadership'. The principle that the world would be a better place if we just empathised with each other is nice in theory, but codswallop in practice. How does that work with Vladimir Putin or the boys in Hamas? On the contrary, true leadership is about making tough judgments, guided by sound philosophy: St Jacinda bungled the former, lacked the latter. By reducing all government to thoughts and prayers, she transformed humility into vanity – a softly photographed carnival of her own emotions.
Ouch, and a final jab:
But there is one wonderful moment of zen. It comes when Ardern meets the late Queen in 2018, and asks whether she has any advice on raising children. 'You just get on with it,' said the monarch. It must have been a put-down; it sounds like a put-down – and yet Ardern is too naive to notice.
The Queen of course became Queen at age 26, and had two children while in office.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
12 hours ago
- RNZ News
Rats and mice to sort out: Parliament's tiny laws
Photo: VNP / Daniela Maoate-Cox The bills Parliament considers that are heavily reported by the media are generally the most contentious, the most impactful or the most far-reaching, with special emphasis on the most contentious. Bills that generate little animosity get little attention. Bills that will have scant impact receive scant love. And bills with a geographical reach that is negligible, get about that much coverage. As a result, it is easy to assume that all the things Parliament does are big and important. But sometimes Parliament manages the triple-whammy - a bill that everyone agrees on, which has negligible impact, and is also incredibly specific. So let's break with tradition look at it. This is especially true of two less common types of law: the unusual 'local bills' and the rare, and highly specific 'private bills'. These bills can be brought to the House for debate by any MP and each has a very specific impact. Local bills have a geographically specific impact, while private bills deal with a specific thing, an organisation, group, trust, charity, church, or even a specific person. The topics can be so unlikely that they might be accidentally mistaken for a lacklustre political spoof. On Wednesday for example, the House spent more than an hour on third reading speeches for a bill with an encompassing name - the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill, but that affected just one single building. It was not riveting stuff. The MP in charge was National's Simon Watts, who-whether intended ironically or not-rather grandly announced, "This is a moment we have all been waiting for". The bill had an admirable purpose - fixing an issue with the ongoing costs and rental income for a community asset; but why did such a local issue need to be debated and passed by the House? It was a fault of history. As always, history has a lot to answer for. The background for many modern local and private bills is very similar - fixing problems caused by historic legal drafting. Local organisations (including local government ones), are sometimes brought into being, empowered, or had constitutions enacted under specific legislation, written and passed by Parliament just for them. That includes many things like clubs, churches, amenities, and charities. Even patches of land or parks. That kind of empowering legislation used to be more common many decades ago, but does still happen. Unfortunately drafters are not prophetic seers, and the very specific rules and purposes included in these old laws inevitably cause issues over time. Now, when such an organisation wants to act outside its early restrictions they need Parliament to amend the original law. Let's consider this week's example. The 1923 Harbour Board etcetera law in question included stipulations for the use of a waterside property. Community activities like swimming and watersports were allowed but private gain was specifically outlawed. Just three years later, it became the Takapuna Boating Club but has since fallen into disrepair because it isn't able to raise money, for example from a café, to help cover maintenance costs. And so a new bill was required to carefully loosen those constraints. As Simon Watts noted during the debate: "It is important that while we preserve the community purpose, we don't pass a law that ends up being too restrictive in the future, meaning that another North Shore MP in a hundred years from now will have to come back and lament on the old laws that we're doing right now." That may all seem bizarrely specific and trivial, but it is, sadly, not unusual. Many local (and especially private) bills only exist to fix archaic legislation. In doing so they offer MPs a debate that is refreshingly amicable and without the usual layers of import and consequence. With so little at stake Parliament can be almost fun. This debate had MPs reminiscing about beach days, eulogising Sir Peter Blake and talking of plans to play Mahjong at the club. Simon Watts revealed his caucus referred to the bill as the "Takapuna Ice Cream Bill". Cameron Brewer suggested the bill's sponsor would get a weekend ticker tape parade through Takapuna's shopping thoroughfare. There were many oddities, but the highlight may have been ACT MP Simon Court enthusing like an awestruck fan over a dreamy possibility. "I would suggest to the member Mr Steve Abel, who spoke before, that on top of mahjong, there might even be a venue where he might be able to play some of his famous songs that he composed when he was a famous New Zealand folk singer." In the Speaker's chair, National's Barbara Kuriger chortled, "One never knows where one's endorsements might come from". The slightly breathless nature of the debate was helped along by the fact that National Party MPs seemed keen to make it last as long as possible, because they weren't in favour of some member's bills due to be debated afterwards. Governing party MPs get very little exercise in extemporising in the House about so very little. For example, Cameron Brewer's speech seemed to dawdle over every topic he could think of vaguely connected with the locality, including ice cream, cafés, local magazines and long-past America's Cups. He was not alone in the approach. When he finally concluded, Labour's Phil Twyford took the next call: "Well, the member Cameron Brewer did well to remain on his feet for nine minutes and 48 seconds, but it came at a terrible human cost. Those of us in the House this afternoon - we're the living evidence of that." *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Making ‘New Zealand' country's official name added to NZ First's ever-changing list of bills
'Inconsistency in recent years in the way public agencies and officials describe the country – including partial or informal use of other names has created uncertainty regarding the legal foundation for making those choices.' Winston Peters has been frustrated lately by the use of "Aotearoa" in Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell It's the eighth Member's Bill the party has announced this year, but due to the rules of Parliament, NZ First is only able to have four in the ballot at any one time. Only MPs who aren't ministers – NZ First has four backbenchers – can have Member's Bills and they can only have one in the ballot at a time. This has meant the party has had to shuffle out several of the bills it has previously announced, but which remain on NZ First's website as 'Our Member's Bills'. For example, the 'Conscience Acts Referendums Bill', which was revealed in March to remove conscience votes in Parliament and instead require some particular legislation to go to a national public referendum, no longer appears on Parliament's website. It was previously held in the name of NZ First MP Jamie Arbuckle. But he now has a bill protecting New Zealanders' right to use physical currency. Other bills to pulled out recently include a bill to have a binding referendum when deciding whether to add fluoride to drinking water, one to remove diversity, equity and inclusion aspects from the public service, and another to improve access to palliative care. In some instances, the bills have been overtaken by events. For example, the Government's Public Service Amendment Bill, which this week passed its first reading, intends to remove diversity provisions. When the party announced a Member's Bill to clarify the definition of a woman and man in law, it removed another bill that would fine people who use a single-sex toilet not matching their own sex. Peters said the new proposal addressed the issue more comprehensively. The party says if it could have all of its bills in the ballot at once, it would. Those not currently in the ballot, but which have been announced, remain current policy and could be returned. MP Andy Foster has had a number of bills under his name. Photo / Mike Scott The party's MP Andy Foster has been the sponsor of many of the bills, before they have then either been picked from the ballot, transferred to another MP or removed. For example, earlier this year, his bill to stop banks withdrawing services from clients for 'woke' reasons was picked from the ballot and began going through the parliamentary process. This meant he could add another to the ballot, which ended up being the bill to remove diversity elements from law. Eventually, however, this was dropped and he picked up another requiring government buildings to only display the official flag of New Zealand. But after the resignation of NZ First's Tanya Unkovich, this bill was transferred from Foster to new MP Dr David Wilson. Foster now has the bill about the country's name. The four bills currently in the ballot for NZ First are: Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill – Jenny Marcroft Cash Transactions Protection Bill – Jamie Arbuckle Display of Flags (Government Premises) Bill – Dr David Wilson New Zealand (Name of State) Bill – Andy Foster. NZ First MPs in Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell The newest bill comes after several showdowns between Peters and Parliament's Speaker Gerry Brownlee over the use of 'Aotearoa' in Parliament. Peters has bristled when other MPs have used it in questions. In March, Brownlee ruled 'Aotearoa' was 'regularly used' as a name for the country including by the country's geographic board. He noted it appeared on the country's passport and currency, and Parliament's rules allowed MPs to use English, te reo Māori or sign language. Peters subsequently told the Herald that Brownlee was 'wrong' as the matter had 'never gone to the people of this country'. The NZ First leader raised the issue again last week, leading Brownlee to reiterate his previous comments. Brownlee said: 'In his time serving New Zealand, in the capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs, he would've, over some five years or more, presented the New Zealand passport at various passport stations around the world and never had questioned the fact that our passport has the word Aotearoa on the front of it. 'It was always a New Zealand passport despite the use of that word. That is the end of the matter.' Following that, Minister for Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden confirmed the New Zealand passport would eventually be updated to have English appear before the te reo Māori text. In a release on Friday morning, Peters said 'a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, officials, government departments and politicians trying to change our country's name by stealth – with no permission or consent from the people'. 'The 'New Zealand (Name of State) Bill' confirms that 'New Zealand' is our country's official name, and it is only parliament and the people, not bureaucrats, government departments, or officials, that have the authority to make decisions about the name of the country.' NZ First's coalition agreement with National includes a commitment about not changing the country's name. 'Commit that in the absence of a referendum, our Government will not change the official name of New Zealand.' Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Eliminating DEI Appointments A Step Closer
ACT is celebrating the passage of Public Service Amendment Bill through its first reading in Parliament which will remove divisive DEI appointments and strip out the ideological rot embedded in the public sector. The Bill reflects commitments made in ACT's coalition agreement. Diversity mandates were implemented by the Labour-NZ First-Green Government. 'Taxpayers don't care about your race or sex – they care if you can deliver them essential services,' says ACT Public Service spokesperson Todd Stephenson. 'With ACT in Government, we're putting public servants' focus back on solving the problem, instead of the demographics of the person solving it. 'We've long called out the obsession with diversity targets and virtue signalling. Now we're cutting it out. ACT's coalition agreement secured a commitment 'to clarify the role of the public service, drive performance, and ensure accountability to deliver on the agenda of the government of the day,' and this bill is delivering on it. 'The identity of the person procuring life-saving medicines, improving the education system, or responding to natural disasters doesn't matter – so long as it's the person with the best skills and experience doing it. 'We're proud to see more of ACT's influence driving real change. Every New Zealander deserves to be judged on their ability and achievements, not their identity – we're making sure that happens.'
