Paul Goldsmith says he wants to win Epsom, but he doesn’t seem to be trying very hard

National is allegedly running a two-tick campaign in David Seymour’s electorate. Did anyone tell their candidate? 

Things are getting weird for strategically minded right-wing voters in Epsom. Ever since John Key shared a staged cup of coffee with Rodney Hide in 2008, the message has been clear: give your party vote to National but your electorate vote to Act. Now, the game has flipped. 

The "split your vote" campaign, backed by Harry Mowbray, father of the billionaire Zuru siblings, is urging voters to do the opposite: give their electorate vote to a National candidate but their party vote to Act or New Zealand First in the hopes of creating an overhang. 

The original goal of the teapot deal was to exploit MMP’s coat-tailing rule. By winning an electorate, Act could get multiple MPs into parliament even if it fell until the 5% threshold in the party vote. It never quite worked out that way: Act won Epsom in 2011, 2014 and 2017 but its party vote was so low it was still only entitled to a single MP. And ever since then, Act has been well above the 5% threshold. So the deal never really worked as intended, though it helped to keep Act alive during a period of weakness and provide National with a key coalition partner.

National’s Paul Goldsmith has run and lost in Epsom five times in a row and is back again for a sixth round. Goldsmith, who has made it into parliament via the list in each of those elections, is good at taking one for the team; as the minister for arts, culture and heritage he has spent the last three years showing up to arts events and getting resoundingly booed by the crowds. But this election is different: Goldsmith isn’t guaranteed a place in parliament via the party list. Ranked at number six, with Chris Bishop and Nicola Willis ahead of him, an overhang or even a close result could see Goldsmith turfed out. 

This election, National is running a two-tick campaign in Epsom, and party leader Christopher Luxon, who lives in the electorate, spent three days campaigning with Goldsmith there earlier this month. “No strategic voting in Epsom, please,” he told voters in Newmarket. “You need to vote for Paul Goldsmith and you need to vote for the National Party.” 

Last election was also a two-tick campaign for National in Epsom, though not a successful one. Despite National winning 52% of the party vote there, Goldsmith managed just 24% of the electorate vote and lost to David Seymour by a margin of 8,142 votes. In part, that’s because National has struggled to get the messaging out about the change in strategy. But more significantly, it’s because after four terms, Seymour has built a reputation as an active local MP. 

When questioned by RNZ’s Tim Watkin in a debate at Somervell Presbyterian Church in Remuera last week, Goldsmith said his failure to win the seat in 2023 was “not from any lack of desire on my part”. It “would be the honour of my life” to represent Epsom, said Goldsmith, adding: “I haven’t won yet, but this could be the time!”

If he loses the electorate race this time, Watkins asked, will Goldsmith be out of parliament and “off playing golf?" His reply was, “Not golf. Maybe tennis."

Goldsmith’s desire to avoid a tennis-based future didn’t seem too strong, however. When asked about his main rival, Seymour, he said, “I’ve got nothing critical to say about him.” 

The thrust of his pitch was simply “if you want two local MPs, you need to vote for me”. He's reiterated this message in leaflets and social media posts.

While Seymour doesn’t need to win Epsom to ensure his party’s return to parliament, he clearly takes pride in his role as an electorate MP and doesn't want to give it up. “I'm surprised Paul is talking down his chances,” he said, assuring voters that National would probably lose enough electorates for Goldsmith to be returned on the list.

The closest Seymour and Goldsmith came to conflict was in a section about transport policy. While arguing that new roads would make it easier for tradies to get around, Goldsmith said “think of the humble concrete mixer…” Seymour butted in: “How often do you think about the humble concrete mixer, Paul?” 

Seymour was the only candidate to put a particular focus on local issues, by railing against the proposed plans to allow higher-density housing in his central Auckland suburbs. “A lot of people want to be in this community,” he said. “We’ve pushed back against that.” He won plaudits from the crowd for his efforts to build a new secondary school on the former University of Auckland Epsom campus site. And he railed against tax increases, saying they went “against the wairua of this electorate”. 

Goldsmith spent most of the debate lounging in his chair as if he was already at the tennis club enjoying a Pimm’s & Lemonade. He left many of the issues alone, hanging back while other candidates squabbled and only jumping in when something sufficiently amused him. 

When Labour’s Camilla Belich and Seymour were in a heated argument about employment law reforms, Goldsmith butted in to ask, “When are we going to talk about the Mongrel Mob?” He kept bringing up the Mongrel Mob during off-topic sections to the point where even Seymour was laughing at him. 

Mostly, Goldsmith seemed bored, like this debate was a chore he was forced to complete rather than an opportunity to win crucial votes. The lasting impression for many in the crowd would have been that Seymour genuinely wants to represent the people of Epsom, while Goldsmith doesn’t really give a fuck.