Builder Baker

I'm not quite sure what to make of this election billboard in Christchurch East.

Candidates in the Christchurch East by-election:

• Baker, Leighton. Conservatives. A builder.
• Doocey, Matthew. National. Healthcare manager at the CDHB. His website notes a BSc (Hons), MA, and an MSc. It also says he's studying towards a doctorate in health by distance at Bath University in the UK. 
• Gaskin, Ian. Independent. Who knows. But he wants to go into coalition with Key.
• Holland, Adam. Independent. Who knows. I don't think he's an academic.
• Lambert, Paula. Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party. Described as "Christchurch East mother Paula Lambert", no occupational or education details listed. Nice policy statement - maybe she has an academic background, but it's hard to say. 
• Lichtwark, Jenner. Democrats for Social Credit. Mystery fiction writer. 
• Moorhouse, David. Greens. Canterbury BCom in Accounting, works in IT. 
• Park, Sam. Independent. Who knows. I don't think he's an academic. 
• Veale, Gareth. ACT. Earthquake claims specialist, recent graduate in Politics at Canterbury. 
• Williams, Poto. Labour. Notes she attended Auckland Girls' Grammar, but no mention of tertiary. LinkedIn has her living in Auckland working as General Manager at SJOG Waipuna and lists Southern Cross University. [Update: James Dann suggests Poto might be working towards a doctorate part time.] [Update 2: Rupert points to confirmation.]

Matthew Doocey comes closest to being an academic as he's working towards getting a doctorate while working as a CDHB manager. But it would be a pretty big stretch to call him an academic. [Update: same holds for Poto, see above.] Unless anybody with book learning (as opposed to Book learning) counts. iPredict says National has a 24% chance of winning the by-election; Williams has a 76% chance. 

None of the minor party candidates, according to the betting markets, have any chance of taking the seats. We then should read most of their positioning as building the party vote for the next general election. The Conservatives are placing themselves as the party for those who disdain academics. There's probably a reasonable market there. But boy would it be sad if we ever traded a party on the right that grounded itself in Hayek and Friedman for one that seems more likely to send the academics out to join the shearing gangs.

Update: James Dann comments here, noting other billboards contrasting, effectively, trades versus suits. That's at least a totally fair comparison for Christchurch East. And pro-trades would, and should, resonate really well in Christchurch. "Just let the tradesmen start building and get the darned suits out of the way" - not nuts at all. Their identity politics play isn't a bad one. But the anti-academic flavour puts me off.

Update2: Alternative reading: this is all just part of the trades/suits framing, with anybody who doesn't work with his or her hands being counted as an academic. Not quite the standard definition, but not an unpopular one.