Written By:
- Date published:
8:33 am, June 5th, 2026 - 31 comments
Categories: chris bishop, helen clark, housing, national, politicans, same old national -
Tags:
On May 21st, 2026 National’s Chris Bishop did his best to lose the 2026 general election and his Hutt South electorate.
That was the day Bishop announced that state and community house tenants would have to wear rent increases of $30 a week or $1,500 plus a year starting in April 2027.
In 2005, at age 22, Bishop was surely politically conscious enough to recall Don Brash announcing a similar policy and losing an election National was set to easily win.
Here’s what happened twenty-one years ago.
A week before the 2005 general election the usually reliable Colmar Brunton poll had National on 43% of the vote and Labour on 38%.
Despite what would normally be a death sentence, on the 17th of September the Clark Labour Government prevailed, winning a third term with 41% of the vote against National’s 39%.
This outcome was down to a 4% surge in participation over the previous election.
A quarter of a million folks who did not vote in 2002, turned out in 2005.
After the 2002 general election Labour party campaign staff undertook in-depth analysis of non- voters. The 2002 general election had seen turnout plunge by nearly 8% compared to 1999. The Labour government came close to defeat.
They found three kinds of voters: the majority who always vote; around ten per cent who never vote and around 20% who sometimes vote. It is this 20% who decide elections.
Non-voting was found to relate strongly to ethnicity, education and poverty. State house dwellers were amongst those least likely to vote. This is a group that cannot be polled except by a technique rejected by the market research industry,
National strategists obviously think that there is no political downside to increasing state house tenants’ rents by nearly a third.
They are badly mistaken.
Recent polls all predict a close result in November.
With National sitting on a buttock-clenching 30% poll average, the party can ill afford to hand votes to its opposition.
Around 250,000 voters are directly impacted by Chris Bishop’s announcement. Their voting behaviour in 2005 tells us that, under threat, they will vote.
When you’re having trouble making ends meet anyhow, the threat becoming worse off by $30 a week is just what is needed to spur these intermittent voters into action.
The obvious way to avoid the rent-rise is to give your party vote to Labour.
Mr Bishop has jeopardised his own political career.
With a majority of just 1332 votes over Ginny Anderson in 2023 and 10,212 enrolled non-voters in Hutt South in that election Chris Bishop is critically exposed to irate state and community house inhabitants.
Statistically there will be at least 3200 state and community house occupants in Hutt South which ranks just behind Porirua in the Wellington region for state house numbers,
One third of these folks will identify as Māori and half of that number will have opted for the Māori roll leaving around 2800 about to be impoverished voters, most of whom did not vote in 2023.
Another third of Chris Bishop’s state and community house inhabitants will be Pasifika – members of church groups and with extended families. They will make sure that Auntie Fa’amalosi and Uncle Samiu also cast a ballot.
They did it in 2005 and they’ll do it again.
Boris
I’m not sure the issue is that National has forgotten 2005. It may be that Bishop has drawn a different lesson.
They may be betting that the people most angered by this policy are also the hardest to mobilise, while the people most likely to approve of it are older, wealthier, more secure, and more likely to vote.
That is the brutal electoral logic of targeting state tenants. It is not necessarily that National thinks there is no downside. It is that they may believe the downside is politically containable.
A $30-a-week rent increase will land very differently depending on whether you are paying it, watching someone else pay it, or being told that someone else has been getting too good a deal. For middle and upper-income voters who already vote reliably, the policy can be sold as fiscal discipline, fairness, or ending special treatment. For the tenants affected, it is simply another cut to an already impossible household budget.
So the real question is not whether the policy is cruel. It is whether cruelty has been electorally priced in.
National may be betting that Labour lacks the organisation, credibility, or street-level machinery to turn that anger into votes. That is a much darker argument than “Bishop has accidentally lost the election”.
The policy may not be a blunder at all, but a calculated wager about whose pain matters politically. With this lot, it's hard to tell.
Labour had the machinery in 2005 and the machinery is still there.
Having said that, there could be more despair than in 2005 which tends to translate to not voting, so maybe that's the calculation. In 1992, a policy of eliminating income-related rents and the current form of the accommodation supplement was implemented, and that didn't quite swing the elections of 1993 or 1996 (Labour reintroduced income-related rents in 1999 but has largely left the accommodation supplement untouched – notably the cash asset threshold is unchanged from 1992).
Counting on the Labour mobilisation machine is by no means as certain as it used to be.
Back when I was running an electorate campaign for Labour in 1999 and 2003, we did the full machine thing:
Ah those were the days.
Now that I'm in the Waitaki electorate, Labour does pretty well to get 15 people to a meeting, and volunteers such as they are, are much older.
Just ain't the same, and it sure ain't the machine it was.
Absolutely. I was involved in Election Day organising for Labour in three electorates in the 1990's and early 2000's. One electorate was "safe" Labour, one needed reclaiming, and one was "safe" National/Act.
In the first 2 we had done extensive canvassing and we knew who was or was not likely to vote Labour. We had scrutineers in every polling place who were recording the page and line number of every voter . We had various methodologies to cross off the ones who we knew who had voted and we had canvassers who went around knocking on doors of the likely Labour voters who had not yet voted and offering assistance to get them to the Poll.
We had 300 people working on Election Day in the second Electorate. These people all needed feeding, transporting, and telling regularly what treasures they were.
In the last one we had at least one scrutineer in every Polling place so that we were seen on the day and everyone else who was a Labour activist was working in other electorates.
That machine is still there (have been on or around the last few campaigns myself and that machine looks remarkably familiar…) but the paper lists etc. are now electronic (including electoral roll info) and there is so much early voting that the machine has had to adapt somewhat. The basics of find, classify and convince friendly voters, track voting etc. is still there though. Enrolments, door knocking, phone banking, maintaining and updating lists etc. is still the bread and butter.
Agree that there are generally fewer volunteers than in the past, so that presents a challenge to things like scrutineers at every polling booth and low Labour areas. That's probably not new, but seems to be worse than 20 years ago.
Yes can vouch for that. The activity around in Labour is still going strong. I will be hitting the phones along with the team out on the doorsteps.
"For middle and upper-income voters who already vote reliably, the policy can be sold as fiscal discipline, fairness, or ending special treatment."
They'll be NACTNZF voters already.
It's the don't-vote-(till now) State house occupiers that could make the difference.
Which was exactly my point.
Boris' theory of the case is that this policy will drive turnout among state housing tenants and therefore benefit Labour. And that's a historically defensible and reasonable argument to make.
Material economic pressure absolutely can mobilise otherwise disengaged voters, particularly when the issue is immediate, personal, and tied to housing or household survival. New Zealand political history gives at least some support for that interpretation.
But it is also entirely possible that National’s calculation is the opposite: that while the policy will anger affected tenants, the left simply lacks the organisational strength, credibility, and ground game to convert that anger into actual turnout.
And, bluntly, there is also some evidence for that. The broad mood around Labour at the moment is not exactly enthusiasm. For many voters it is closer to “meh”. Anger at National does not automatically translate into confidence in Labour.
So National may be making a fairly cold electoral wager: that reliable homeowners and middle-income voters will either support the move or tolerate it, while the people most hurt by it remain politically fragmented, disengaged, or unconvinced that voting changes anything.
They may be unable to manage a coalition, or actually govern coherently at times. But give them their due: the New Zealand right has generally been more willing to exercise power strategically and impose political costs on opponents when it believes the electoral maths works in its favour.
"the New Zealand right has generally been more willing to exercise power strategically and impose political costs on opponents when it believes the electoral maths works in its favour."
QFT. Do we give this factor enough attention? I think not – we have naivety that smooths our thinking after each awful action taken by "the New Zealand right", to my despair.
Agreed, and the policy to prevent voter enrolment in the 2 weeks prior to election day dovetails very nicely with this strategy.
National would love Labour to announce the rent increase would be reversed by them in Government, because the first question would be how would Labour pay for it.
Also, there will be a lot of households on the Accommodation Supplement who would agree with state house tenants paying closer to market rents.
Yes, Mercurio the problem with some of those middle to upper income voters is many got a leg up from previous governments the ladder had not been pulled up unless they were born into wealth which many weren't. I suggest if you want state house voters go knock on their doors and speak to them and put up billboards in their area and make yourself seen.
And who really receives special treatment in this country. When you have someone like Paula Bennet getting a 60% pay increase at a time when many women can't even get pay equity, something is wrong. If her getting the job at Pharmac isn't special treatment and then getting a hefty pay rise to boot isn't this special treatment.
"…the left simply lacks the organisational strength, credibility, and ground game to convert that anger into actual turnout."
Te Ao Māori, just quietly, seems to have mobilised in this way soon after this hideous, anti-Māori coalition made its first move to destroy what leverage Tangata Whenua had won/did hold. Iwi-by-iwi, communication networks facilitating registering and ultimately, voting, have been operating. I count these as "the Left" for the purpose of forming the next Government. My observation is anecdotal.
I entirely believe that this has been going on – and effectively invisible through polling.
My observation is that *none* of the polling companies are effectively polling Maori roll or TPM voters – which is why the percentages fluctuate so dramatically (even a single percentage point shift is dramatic for a party polling under 5%).
And, more importantly from a potential overhang scenario, no one is reporting on (perhaps justifiably) who is likely to win the Maori electorates.
Kamikaze Chris has also argued that falling house prices are a good thing. That housing prices were unaffordable and that the values represented artificial wealth.
He is actually right about all of this, but saying it is not a vote winner. And I'm not sure he banked on the prices falling to 2016 levels when adjusted for inflation. Some of this house value slump is due to the slash and burn policies of the CoC and to the constant negativity they exude.
This is a feel-bad issue that will not help the Nats at the election, especially in Auckland.
“…Auckland and Wellington have had bigger falls – 37 percent in Auckland and 39 percent in Wellington once inflation-adjusted.”
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/597172/why-house-prices-are-actually-down-about-30-percent
BG, if your children were waiting for your death and the will distribution to get their house deposit, neither you nor they would want your property value to go down.
Bank of Mum and Dad is the primary source of first home house deposit these days.
Falling house prices are on the whole not good for many people at all, old or young.
Ad-in 2000 the median house price in NZ was about $170k.
The median house price now (2026) is about $775k.
Well keep hanging around until it hits a mil BG and then you pop off and everyone's got enough to start again in Australia.
Only us old fools staying here now.
Actually, most 'bank of Mum and Dad' financing is while the parents are still alive and in the 'big expensive family home'.
The housing market tide floats all boats. If the family home is worth less, but also the property that the kids want to buy also costs less – it's a zero sum game. M&D have to supply less $$$ in order to provide the 10% deposit.
I'm sure a lot of it is, but the old greeting card
"Sorry about your loss of beloved Grandfather … (turns page)
"Happy New Home"
fits with many as people have children far later and take longer to save.
I don't know about the falling house price thing being completely a feel-bad issue
On the one hand, rising house prices make people feel 'wealthy' – and more inclined to purchase things (whether that's a new car, or a new kitchen, or an overseas holiday) – which drives the market (and inflation), and gives them a dopamine hit.
On the other hand, many people – especially older people – have been, and continue to be, really concerned over their children and grandchildren being shut out of the housing market, by ever-increasing prices. So long as they are sitting on a paid-for (or substantially paid-for) asset – they aren't too worried about theoretical prices dropping – since they felt they were over-inflated to begin with.
The people most likely to be negatively affected are youngish individuals and families, who bought at the peak prices, with a high mortgage – and are seeing the value of their investment wiped out by dropping house prices. And, even then, they are more likely to just sit it out (unless forced to sell for other reasons) – and wait for the prices to increase again (which they will – although it may take some time). Some of those will be National voters, some won't – but I don't think that the house-price thing is what will drive their vote.
National has made the bet, that beneficiary bashing and punching down is more attractive to potential swing voters than, looking after people.
Sadly.
They seem to be correct!
This is absolutely their core strategy in every election.
They regard working taxpayers as being their core constituency – and design their policies accordingly. They believe (with good reason) that the majority of beneficiaries don't and won't ever vote for them.
Benefits are always framed as a 'hand up, rather than a hand out' – with the implication that they are temporary and conditional. [Yes, IKYK that this doesn't work for long-term sickness beneficiaries, but Labour doesn't have a good record there, either]
It's only obvious if Labour comes out and explicitly says that they will reverse this policy, if elected.
So far, I haven't seen this statement from them.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/595926/labour-and-greens-say-social-housing-shake-up-will-see-public-housing-tenants-evicted
The time to make the policy-reverse impact is immediately after the government policy is released. It's a lot harder to get media coverage, and therefore traction with voters, later.
Right now, I'd say the obvious way to avoid the rent-rise is to give your party vote to the Greens – who have a whole suite of already-released policies friendly to tenants.
"
It's only obvious if Labour comes out and explicitly says that they will reverse this policy, if elected.
So far, I haven't seen this statement from them.
[You’ve been hijacking this site with your link whoring and diversion trolling since the beginning of this year. One link in particular has been over-used 6 times. Each time, long copypastas have piss-poor formatting with missing block quotes and minimal commentary without substance from you to distinguish from the copypasta. Each time, those copypastas are hyper-biased attacks against Labour and the Green Party and not much more. Constructive criticism is welcome here, but ultra-biased attacks and baseless & nonsensical accusations are not. Here, you’ve thrice hijacked a Guest Post and tried to sabotage it.
Despite your shambolic history here under other user names, I’m putting you in Pre-Moderation to give you a chance to lift your game substantially. If you choose to waste Moderator time, you’ll be sent off to your own blog site for commenting till at least after the election. Don’t make me regret this decision – Incognito]
Mod note
National didn't debate policies leading up to the 2023 election it just pointed to inflation and interest levels and repeated how bad everything is under Labour…..numbed by post covid blues the electorate fell for it……… and now we have had two and a half years of arguably the worst govt since the Muldoon era…..and an increasing number of voters with buyers remorse……
Labour certainly has policies and wisely have ignored the taunting to release policy at the wrong moment just to provide a handy diversion for opponents in the govt and click bait media….
"… Around 250,000 voters are directly impacted by Chris Bishop’s announcement. Their voting behaviour in 2005 tells us that, under threat, they will vote…"
Their voting behaviour also suggests they are the group most likely to lose their vote through National's electoral gerrymander.
How National think they are going to be able to govern when hundredss of thousands of New Zealanders discover too late they are disenfranchised is anyones guess.
They'll probably be betting on a full court press of disinformation and misinformation in the billionaire Grennon media and a cowed rump MSM to suppress spreading discontent.
The obvious way to avoid the rent-rise is to give your party vote to Labour.
No, it's not obvious. Once again, someone can't get out of the FPP mindset. There are other parties, and in the case of anything to do with beneficiaries, state housing, low income in general, Labour doesn't give a damn and they haven't for decades, they just pretend to.
Currently the only party that specifically represents us is the Greens, and a Labour-Greens coalition- with a vastly increased vote for the Greens that would give them a lot more influence- is our best hope.
" Currently the only party that specifically represents us is the Greens, and a Labour-Greens coalition- with a vastly increased vote for the Greens that would give them a lot more influence- is our best hope "
Kay the Greens are totally ineffective in any governing arrangement with LINO.
This week, Labour leader Chris Hipkins made that reality even clearer. Hipkins openly floated the idea of forging a bipartisan arrangement with National after the election. His words were revealing: 'So what I’m offering now … is a very competitive election campaign but then an ability to say, ‘Okay, the election result has been delivered, the voters have had their say, for the next few years let’s work together to figure out how to actually move forward.'
There it is, laid out plainly. No talk of offering an economic alternative. No recognition that the neoliberal framework of the past four decades is the source of the crisis. No willingness to confront the structural failures that have produced soaring inequality, a cost-of-living crisis, and a generation locked out of secure housing. Instead, Hipkins is signalling that Labour’s priority is not to challenge National but to work with it. The message to voters is unmistakable: a vote for Labour is a vote for a Labour–National alliance in everything but name.
This is extraordinary even by Labour’s standards. For years the party has drifted steadily rightward, shedding any pretence of being a vehicle for transformative change. But Hipkins’ comments mark a new stage in that evolution. Or should that be devolution? Labour is no longer simply timid or risk-averse; it is now openly positioning itself as a partner to National in the management of the very system that is immiserating its own base. The differences between the two parties on economic policy have shrunk to the point of near-irrelevance. What separates them is not ideology but emphasis: Labour promises to feel your pain while National promises to ignore it. But both promise to keep the system exactly as it is.
This leaves voters with a bleak choice. On the one hand, a National Party committed to deepening the market-driven policies that have already failed. On the other, a Labour Party that has abandoned even the pretence of offering an alternative. The result is a political landscape in which the major parties are converging, not diverging. And Hipkins’ bipartisan overture only accelerates that convergence. If Labour is already signalling its willingness to work hand-in-glove with National, then what exactly is the point of voting Labour at all?
This also exposes, in the starkest possible terms, the failure of the Green Party’s election strategy. For years the Greens have tied themselves to Labour, insisting that their influence within a Labour-led government is the best path to progressive change. But if Labour is now openly contemplating cooperation with National, where does that leave the Greens? If Labour is willing to work with National, then by extension the Greens—who have tethered themselves to Labour—could find themselves indirectly propping up a Labour–National arrangement. Is that what Chloe Swarbrick and her colleagues intend to tell voters on the campaign trail? That a vote for the Greens could end up supporting a government that includes National?
The Greens have spent years insisting that their role is to 'pull Labour left.' But Labour has made it abundantly clear that it has no intention of being pulled anywhere. It is not being dragged to the right; it is sprinting there. And the Greens, by refusing to break with Labour or articulate an independent political identity, have trapped themselves in a position where their fate is tied to a party that has abandoned the very idea of systemic change.
https://nzagainstthecurrent.blogspot.com/2026/05/vote-labour-for-labour-national-alliance.html
"On May 21st, 2026 National’s Chris Bishop did his best to lose the 2026 general election and his Hutt South electorate "
But losing doesn't have the consequence it once did when it simply gives its ideological neoliberal partner LINO / Green some ammunition to take its place on the treasury benches while pretending they care about the war being waged against our many economic refugees by the economic policies they will not deviate from and deceive the voters that they will improve the current decline with both hands tied behind their back.
"
At least one parliamentary voice was willing to break the spell. Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick stood in the House and said plainly what Labour would not: “Austerity. It’s how you break a country in slow motion.” In a speech that cut through the fog of euphemism, she laid out the consequences of the Government’s programme — the hollowing out of public services, the deepening of inequality, the slow erosion of social cohesion. It was a rare moment of clarity in a Parliament that too often treats economic ideology as a natural law rather than a political choice.
But even this moment of truth is undermined by the Greens’ own strategic choices. For all Swarbrick’s rhetorical fire, her party remains tethered to Labour — a Labour Party that refuses to name austerity, let alone fight it. The Greens urge New Zealanders to “fight for each other,” yet they will not fight the party that has spent years defending the very neoliberal framework that makes austerity inevitable. Where is the leadership in that? Where is the courage to break with a partner that has repeatedly chosen managerialism over transformation, orthodoxy over imagination?
https://nzagainstthecurrent.blogspot.com/2026/05/budget-2026-wheres-opposition-to.html