There can be no doubt that one of the more obnoxious species that plague the world of New Zealand politics is the expert-without-portfolio.

Typically, the expert-without-portfolio (usually a white middle-aged man) will have some degree of specialised training and success within a very narrow field of human endeavour. That's a good thing, of course, and expertise is to be encouraged and admired. The problem is that when exposed to television they change like Mogwais whose owners have foolishly allowed them to have eaten after midnight.

The results are rarely much prettier.

The metamorphosis follows a reliable pattern. First, an ordinary expert will find themselves the subject of media attention, usually concerning their chosen field. As they flower under the spotlight, their confidence grows and they feel more confident about wandering outside the narrow bounds of their expertise and into questions of politics.

At this point, their minor celebrity affords them a degree of cover. However, this typically brings about a false sense of security and the expert quickly reaches the point of no return. By now, alas, the expert-without-portfolio is well out of his or her depth.

The final stage of the cycle is for the expert-without-portfolio to decide that they are going to solve some intractable problem once and for all. This may take the form of a TV series, a public advocacy campaign or even a political party. Commonly, the expert-without-portfolio will try to arm themselves with the sword of "The Evidence" to slash through the Gordian knot of democratic disputation.

On discovering that things usually are the way they are for some reason that is more complex and less resolvable than their Prometheus-complex led them to believe, the expert-without-portfolio will give up with a public display of disgust. Rather than attempt introspection at their own arrogance regarding the unfounded assumptions of their ability to easily conquer the realm of politics on the first try, they will decry the corruption of the system and the media. Very often, they will end up blaming the people for their ingratitude. and invincible ignorance.

The expert-without-portfolio is to be contrasted with the humble pundit. Not saddled with the vanity of the expert, the pundit grasps the fundamental truth that nearly all people can only ever have a superficial understanding of most things. A pundit is, therefore, often a generalist better able to approach public affairs in a spirit of modesty and a genuine interest in understanding the issues not for the sake of demonstrating brilliance, but for the sake of understanding them and passing that understanding onto others.

Pundits often receive criticism for the fact that they are not typically involved in the process of gathering, researching and reporting the news. And while that's not really their job - since they are more translators of those things than creators of them - there is plenty of bad punditry out there. But as we can see, there are worse things to be.

So much worse.