Duck day afternoon: When political plotting goes badly bonkers
Sunday, 31 May 2026
Mike White is a senior writer and columnist.
OPINION: Honestly, who’d be a politician?
Your jaw aches from fake smiling in selfies while campaigning, you’re assailed by opponents and dimwits, and then some pesky snitch leaks recordings of your dimwitted jokes.
So it was, this week, that a window into Labour’s election machine flew open, and out flew a reminder of the dreary reality of what occurs behind the scenes, and a glimpse into the personality of some of those involved.
Read more by Mike White
“A duck-faced horse.”
This, truly, sadly, was what Labour’s finance spokesperson, Barbara Edmonds, called her National counterpart, Nicola Willis, during a party meeting.
This, truly, sadly, was apparently her best joust and joke. She liked it very much though, because she immediately chuckled at her clever-clogness.
This was the scene: as part of Labour’s list-ranking process, candidates were taking part in a training exercise, answering questions they may receive on the campaign trail.
The session was in a church. It was just after 3pm. Scones, tea bags, and urns of hot water were readied for participants’ afternoon tea.
Around the table the politicians went, each taking a turn to explain what could be learnt from Labour’s previous time in government.
“We just did amazing things,” one said. “We did heaps.”
There was a lot of talk of being “ambitious” and “true to our values”.
Someone, inevitably, used the word “learnings”.
“Promise… deliver… entrench.”
“Mobilisation.”
Jargon and corporate buzzwords lined up shoulder-to-shoulder waiting their turn to be uttered.
Someone talked of where we needed to go as a country, and “communicating that North Star”, seemingly oblivious to the fact you can’t see the bloody North Star from New Zealand.
Of course, it was a metaphor - maybe a metaphor for the disaffected leaving New Zealand seeking goals at the other end of the world.
It was tribal, it was Team Terrific vs Team Terrible.
And then the very chirpy and chipper moderator decided to finish the session with this gem mined from a faraway land called Absurdity.
“Would you rather fight 100 duck-sized horses, or one horse-sized duck?”
The question had come from someone in the room. Possibly someone who’d read Sun Tzu and Black Beauty one weekend and had a political awakening.
But on the hopeful MPs marched, to inanity and beyond.
The chirpy moderator told them: “These are the types of questions that come up at all sorts of community meetings.”
Really?
To be fair, a couple of candidates gave it a commendable shot.
Wellington Bays’ Craig Renney perhaps got closest to the truth when he labelled the question “mad”.
Yep, mad and maddening, in the same way as those imbecilic team-building workshops where you have to say what kind of animal you are - dolphin or dragon.
Some approached it like faltering improv comedians, one burst into a song about a duck, but most used it as a feeble platform to sling insults at their Government foes.
And then up stepped Edmonds, who made it personal and puerile, with her “duck-faced horse” taunt.
It was the stuff of schoolyards, petty stone-throwing, shabby abuse dressed up as jocularity.
Of course it was a mistake, and of course Edmonds regretted it - when it was made public.
But her contrition was almost as bizarre as her original comment.
Edmonds claimed she got the question muddled and should have written it down but, “I didn't have a pen and paper with me”.
It’s hard to believe Edmonds’ jibe was the result of confusion and lack of a biro, rather than a considered cheap shot for giggles, mocking the most basic and banal of targets -someone’s physical appearance.
But the chipper moderator was celebrating as he adjourned for afternoon tea at 3.20pm: “And you’ve seen here the political art of answering the question you want to be asked, and dealing with the question when you’re not even sure what it’s asking, in front of a room of people.”
And therein lies the concern beyond Edmonds’ slurs: Behind closed doors, politicians are plotting to evade and avoid, training to twist truth, conniving to control debate.
Of course none of this is new. Of course all parties do it. Of course it’s the crutch of every politician with modest vision or honesty.
But it’s not what the public want. It’s not what voters value - transparency and trustworthiness.
Politicians are meant to be our best, guardians of our vaunted democracy.
But would it be any wonder if people used this week’s tawdriness as another reason to bypass that democratic process and reject voting in November?
Perhaps the simplest thing to quell such voter cynicism and apathy would be for those putting themselves forward to construct a better country, to use rocks to build the foundations of something good, not waste them by throwing them at each other.
What do you think? Email sundayletters@stuff.co.nz. Please include your full name and address.