As a former politician myself, I find that – especially at general election time – I increasingly reflect on whether our democracy is doing its expected and proper job for us.

As the word itself suggests, “democracy” is often defined as “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. “The people” in this context means all of us, not just some sectors of the population.

The campaign for democracy, in its early days, was driven by the realisation that, in a market economy, power would inevitably concentrate (as Adam Smith pointed out) in fewer and fewer hands – and would remain there and grow unless challenged. The benefits of a market economy therefore had to be offset by ensuring that the majority of people would not be continuously and mercilessly exploited by those who had gained over-riding economic power and who could then use that power to protect and perpetuate and increase their advantage and to resist any challenge to it.

Democracy was, in other words, the price that the rich and powerful had to pay if their economic advantage was allowed to subsist and was not to be eventually overthrown by popular revolution.

How effective has democracy been in achieving an acceptable balance between economic power and political influence?

Sadly for the proponents of democracy, they have almost always under-estimated the ability of the rich and powerful to use that wealth and power to swing the results of elections in their favour. Whether it is their control of large segments of the media, or the standing they enjoy in the popular estimation, or the sums of money they can spend on propaganda, or – quite simply, their ability to determine employment opportunities and wage rates – the rich and powerful have demonstrated time and time again that they can persuade ordinary citizens to use their political power, not to advance their own interests, but to entrench the privilege of those who exploit them.

As a result, we repeatedly see – not just in our own country but right around the globe – voters using their democratic power to hand that power back to those whose purpose and raison d-etre is to exploit them for economic purposes. My conclusion? We need to work a good deal harder and more thoughtfully if we are to enjoy the benefits of living in a truly democratic society, where outcomes are not determined – all too often – by the luck of the draw and where the benefits of living in society are fairly shared.

As a former politician myself, I find that – especially at general election time – I increasingly reflect on whether our democracy is doing its expected and proper job for us.

As the word itself suggests, “democracy” is often defined as “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. “The people” in this context means all of us, not just some sectors of the population.

The campaign for democracy, in its early days, was driven by the realisation that, in a market economy, power would inevitably concentrate (as Adam Smith pointed out) in fewer and fewer hands – and would remain there and grow unless challenged. The benefits of a market economy therefore had to be offset by ensuring that the majority of people would not be continuously and mercilessly exploited by those who had gained over-riding economic power and who could then use that power to protect and perpetuate and increase their advantage and to resist any challenge to it.

Democracy was, in other words, the price that the rich and powerful had to pay if their economic advantage was allowed to subsist and was not to be eventually overthrown by popular revolution.

How effective has democracy been in achieving an acceptable balance between economic power and political influence?

Sadly for the proponents of democracy, they have almost always under-estimated the ability of the rich and powerful to use that wealth and power to swing the results of elections in their favour. Whether it is their control of large segments of the media, or the standing they enjoy in the popular estimation, or the sums of money they can spend on propaganda, or – quite simply, their ability to determine employment opportunities and wage rates – the rich and powerful have demonstrated time and time again that they can persuade ordinary citizens to use their political power, not to advance their own interests, but to entrench the privilege of those who exploit them.

As a result, we repeatedly see – not just in our own country but right around the globe – voters using their democratic power to hand that power back to those whose purpose and raison d-etre is to exploit them for economic purposes. My conclusion? We need to work a good deal harder and more thoughtfully if we are to enjoy the benefits of living in a truly democratic society, where outcomes are not determined – all too often – by the luck of the draw and where the benefits of living in society are fairly shared.

Who cares about facts and figures – especially if they don’t back up political prejudices?

In the light of today’s Prefu forecasts as to where the economy is heading, which showed a pretty positive picture of the economic future, National’s Luxon and Willis were not to be deterred. “Labour has left the cupboard bare,” Willis proclaimed – a statement flatly disproved by the Prefu figures.

“Kiwis deserve better,” said Luxon – apparently, like Willis, relying on the Herald’s headlined reporting of their remarks to convey a misleading impression to the unwary reader.

With political opponents ever-ready to bend the truth, and a leading newspaper keen to give currency to their mis-statements, what chance do we poor voters have of reaching an informed view?

Aimless kicking is a failing that has afflicted New Zealand rugby for far too long. Even the least informed rugby fan would understand the simple proposition that advances cannot be made or tries scored unless the ball is in possession; to kick it away, in other words, is no more than a confession of impotence and an invitation to the opposing team to see what they can do with it.

Why, then, do New Zealand coaches (and they include, of course, Ian Foster) allow – and, it seems, often, encourage – their teams to do precisely that? The loss to France in the opening match of the World Cup was a classic illustration of the price that is inevitably paid for such an avoidable error.

So now we know. We heard it from the man himself. Christopher Luxon told us that he is “incredibly confident” that National’s calculations about their tax proposals are accurate – and “incredible” is exactly what they are.

There is another small indication that the proposition is shonky. Did you notice that the benefit to taxpayers was constantly expressed in terms of a fortnightly sum, rather than the more usual weekly amount? The effort was made, in other words, to present a figure to the unwary that was twice as large as the real one – and that’s assuming that either could be believed.

Slippery, eh?