In a possible delirium on Friday, David Seymour claimed to be an ‘old-fashioned lefty’. It’s an unlikely descriptor for the leader of Act, but perhaps we shouldn’t discredit his claim so quickly. Gabi Lardies investigates.

“Old-fashioned lefty” brings to mind spectres of tatty books: Marx’ Das Kapital, a German to English dictionary, Engel’s The Principles of Communism, Bloch’s The Principal of Hope; a stack of Jacobin magazines and one fresh tome – Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-first Century. Floating in front of them is a lovely armchair, a soft three piece suit, wire-rimmed glasses and a beret with a five-pointed star on it. I don’t think David Seymour has been touched by any of these spirits. And yet he called himself an “old-fashioned lefty” on the New Zealand Herald’s The front page podcast on Friday.

He was defending charter schools, which he said will “mainly benefit students from disadvantaged backgrounds”. This led to that fateful proclamation – “I’m an old-fashioned lefty, but I believe that we pay taxes for education so every child has the opportunity to be developed to their full academic potential.” The old left were in the business of serving people from disadvantaged backgrounds and collecting taxes to pay for education for all. So far, so appealing to that book-rich armchair sitter.

Apart from a love of somewhat impenetrable books and very comfortable seating, what is it that makes someone an old-fashioned lefty? The “old left” is an informal umbrella under which many western, pre-1960s left-wing political movements gather. Generally founded in Marxism, they were into class politics and labour unionisation – aka giving power to the working class and redistributing wealth more equally. What makes them “old” rather than “new” isn’t just timing but a focus on economic issues over cultural ones. In its worst light, the new left could be seen as identity politics where cultural signifiers come to be more important than material truths. In its best light, identity is another axis of marginalisation or privilege which intersects with class. The old left overlooked the oppressions people faced due to things like their gender, sexuality or colour. Some were sexist, racist, homophobic and against immigration. Their minds were filled with class and money. 

Here in New Zealand, Michael Joseph Savage is both our iconic old left daddy and one of our most beloved prime ministers. It was not unusual to see framed photographs of him on mantlepieces in the 40s and 50s. Savage was “fond of dancing” and worked digging irrigation ditches, cutting flax, mining and other working class jobs before he got into politics. He was known for spending much of his money on radical literature. To abridge greatly, he rose through the ranks of unions and left political organisations to become the prime minister when Labour won the 1935 election. That government immediately paid a Christmas bonus to unemployed people.

Then it promptly made the Reserve Bank a state-controlled central bank, union membership compulsory, began a programme of state house construction, nationalised broadcasting and guaranteed prices of dairy. At the same time it cemented an alliance with the Rātana movement by giving increased attention to Māori employment, education, health and land settlement (a bit new for the old left). In 1938, Savage introduced the Social Security Bill to parliament. It provided for a universal free health system including GPs, public and mental hospitals, and maternity care; a means-tested pension of 30 shillings a week for those over 60, and a universal superannuation at age 65. A week later, he collapsed and was diagnosed with colon cancer which needed immediate surgery. Savage chose to delay surgery so he could enact the bill and fight the election campaign. His moving campaign speeches were given to huge crowds of up to 30,000 and Labour won with an increased majority. Savage died in March 1940, at the peak of his popularity.

So could Seymour be the next Savage? Will it be Seymour’s portrait we will be framing for our mantlepieces? It could look good in a pink frame. 

On one hand, I can confirm that Seymour has been near books and sat in a comfortable seat. On the other hand he’s given clear signs he hates communism (a gesture slitting his throat) and taxes (shaking his head) and likes the Red Hot Chilli Peppers (a gleeful nod). But we only show our best selves on TikTok. We have to look deeper. If we looked into Seymour’s personal history, he’d likely accuse us of identity politics. But then so too would an old leftist. His employment history includes child acting (portraying a young Edmund Hillary), working for Canadian private sector think tanks and publishing a book. It does not include the word union or any synonyms. 

Then there’s his politics. Seymour is leader of the Act Party, started by Roger Douglas – best known for the fourth Labour government’s rapid economic restructure (Rogernomics). After that, much of the Labour Party membership considered that Douglas had betrayed what Labour stood for (that being old left values). Douglas left and formed the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, a political pressure group which became the Act Party when MMP came in and gave them a shot at getting into parliament. 

Act’s principles are based on neoliberal ideas of freedom. In its constitution, the statement of identity and purpose says it exists to promote and implement better policy “through reducing the role of government and increasing the role of free markets”. If the old leftists haven’t lost their glasses in their graves, they’d shudder to read that. To them, small government and unbridled capitalist markets are abhorrent horrors. 

Then there’s the union problem. Seymour hates them, and the Act constitution reads “Employment should be by private contract between employee and employer”. The old left are basically the old boys of unions. On Friday, Seymour painted a picture of unions as back office fat cats, rather than sites of power for workers. “It’s shameful that Labour and the Greens would rather line up beside middle class people with comfortable jobs in the union offices rather than the education professionals in general and the disadvantaged students of this country,” he said, apparently forgetting the whole point of a union. It’s a strange contortion of egalitarianism.

And there’s the problem of tax. While an old fashioned lefty would use progressive taxation as a way to redistribute wealth, Seymour’s ideal is one flat tax bracket. That’s probably a deal breaker – if there ever was a deal. I’ve also searched high and low for images of Seymour in a three piece suit, but under his sharp jacket is only ever a shirt. It seems Seymour’s portrait might stay online, in the form of TikTok videos, rather than gracing the nation’s old lefty mantles. Sorry Seymour.