Written By:
- Date published:
1:08 pm, November 29th, 2025 - 60 comments
Categories: election 2026, labour, nz first -
Tags:
Labour has recovered from the 26.9% vote share hiding it received in 2023, and is ready to run government again.
Polling trends are now consistently in its favour. There’s no good reason they can’t seek 40% of the whole vote on this trend by polling close 2026.
And if we want a stable government delivering strong policy, you want a much stronger share of the vote than the coalition madness we have been experiencing in New Zealand for the last two years. We must stop the instability and disunity we have already, so not voting Greens or NZFirst is the best way to do that.
Labour’s narrow and targeted tax policy is near-identical to NZFirst tax policy already released.
Labour’s dedicated infrastructure fund is also very close to NZFirst policy on stabilising what and how the state funds across all of our infrastructure needs.
This makes it a small and narrow policy target for either National or New Zealand First.
Presenting a small policy target is the opposite to 2017’s expansive promises, or the super-interventionist outlier of 2020’s election.
The trending mood of people about the economy is bleak and continues to get worse, despite multiple cuts to mortgage interest rates.
It is the worst it has been in decades.
This mirrors the stagnant or weakening economy. Auckland’s Queen Street is a graveyard. The only two exceptional centres are Christchurch central and the boomtown area of Queenstown-Wanaka. They are outliers to our collective misery and survival mentality.
Tens of thousands of New Zealanders are just giving up on New Zealand and leaving.
On average 201 people are walking out of New Zealand every single day, under National’s leadership. Emigration is the worst it’s been since 2012.
Under National’s leadership, inflation rose here in the first half of this year.
Unemployment has hit 5.2% across New Zealand. That’s the worst since COVID. It is also grossly uneven, with close-to full employment in the lower half of the South Island and way over 10% for youth unemployment in Auckland with is about 40% of the population.
National have failed to rein in public debt. According to National’s economic and financial leader Nicola WIllis, that’s a real problem. “The interest bill on Government debt has soared from $3.6 billion in 2014 to $8.9 billion last year. That’s a awful lot of money”, she said in the run-up to the 2025 budget.
This year, net Crown debt is expected to hit $185.6 billion, and by 2029 rise to $238.5 billion which amounts to 45% of our entire GDP.
National are failing at the basic job they had to do, and the only one they promised in 2023 that they could do well.
The good vibes and growth that we had in the late Key and most of Ardern years are just a wistful memory.
As with the 1996 election which re-elected National to power with support from NZFirst, the main thing that will stop Labour defeating National is if the economy improves. National “should” have gone after the horrible destruction of the Ruth Richardson budgets, but it wasn’t to be. There is no “should” in the true transfer of power.
In December 2025 and January 2026, Fonterra dairy farmers and then their regional towns will receive the biggest sugar-rush of cash they’ve ever had following the Fonterra sale of its brands business and the subsequent return of capital to shareholders. Will regional towns improve as a result, or will that cash wave go to the banks repaying debt or just buying up the next door neighbour? Even if the economic impact was very strong, it may not alter the balance of electorate party vote anyway, but it may tilt National favourability.
There is no current sign of real estate prices in Auckland, Hamilton or Wellington recovering in 2026, so Labour’s Capital Gains Tax no matter how narrow will be hard to sell enough to regain seats they lost in Auckland’s isthmus. Overall Aucklanders don’t want it. But if we are ever to have a capital gains tax, this is about the best shot Labour has had in 20 years. If they lose the 2026 election it will be buried for a generation.
National’s Fast Track projects will turn into proper development projects soon, which will add to regional economic uplift for many.
We aren’t in 2026 yet. We haven’t won yet. Labour are making the right moves and tracking in the right direction.
You don’t get to say that too often while they’re in Opposition.
With policy setting right, minds will now turn to overcoming the exclusion of voters through Naitonal’s deliberate multiple means.
Only Labour has the means to chuck this government out, not any other party.
Signs are good on current track and with barbeque season in full swing it’s time to network ourselves to victory, one red steak at a time.
With New Zealand facing so many crises (cost-of-living, housing, health etc) Labour will need (and I'm guessing many will be expecting them) to move at pace once in.
We are going to need a whole bunch more heroes from the public service who are prepared to implement hard:
https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/role-and-purpose/spirit-of-service/public-service-day-awards/public-service-day-awards-2022
We already know what heroism in the public service from Health looks like from the ground up.
We're going to need it from Treasury, IRD, DIA, and beyond.
Hopefully starting with overdue pay rises to FENZ and NZDF, and more.
Indeed, Ad.
Bit too soon to celebrate.
AGREED!
It's time for end-of-work barbeques where we aren't afraid to complain against Luxon, and Christmas where we donate against these tyrants, and preparing our 2026 volunteer time to get these fools out.
this is great strategy. People underestimate the power of talking in social settings.
I had to laugh at this. I'm pretty sure everyone is complaining about Luxon from all sides of the political spectrum.
I don’t read too much into polls, as I believe it’s almost as helpful as reading tealeaves.
Anyway, I think that’s the wrong graph to be staring at. We don’t know the fate of TPM and NZF is likely to worm itself somehow (??) into a kingmaker position for maximum leverage, notwithstanding the rhetorical refusals of certain personae to work together. This would mean that the leading party is likely to have first dibs on trying to negotiate a government of sorts. In the polls since about August, Labour has overtaken National and has consistently been the leading party with a widening margin, FWIW.
I find the trend useful to an extent, but generally agree that polls can be a problem.
Labour overtaking National is useful for telling voters who the winners are 😉 Still need to count all the parties to guestimate 2026 election win. NZ will be better off once Peters is out of parliament.
I do like the idea of Labour cannibalising the NZF vote by stealing their policies though 😁
🙂
So long as Labour can do it without the filthy corruption.
I'm very much for the economic, financial and public sector policies (housing, education, pay equity and fair pay, etc) that Labour are indicating and for cannibalising some NZF policies.
I would like Labour to adopt NZF policies on puberty blockers and on same sex services and other provisions.
Carmel Sepuloni said:
There is no "rainbow community" many of us who come under that diverse string of letters do not agree with the current narrative being pushed by the very powerful and influential rainbow organisations. And when we say so, we are ex-communicated.
I agree with Sepuloni on everything else, and am desperate for an end to the current govt of vandals and anti-democratic profiteers.
Absolutely, there is no "Rainbow Community". There are same sex attracted people and there are straight people. Unfortunately, the latter group contains a bunch of poseurs and paraphilics who have stolen our good name and wrapped themselves in our flag.
It would be nice if they'd go even further with the cannibalisation, ie handing off the whole identitarian bullshit demographic to the Green Party and focusing on improving the lives of working people. I don't think their activists would allow them to do it, though.
The change will happen in the courts and via activism like it did in the UK. Then parties will follow.
Their activists, they them?
You mean "drill baby drill"?
the ones mentioned in the post 😛
I've been watching from home (alas I am unwell) the sheer joy, energy, and determination from Labour members at the huge conference. I can't recall another Labour conference like it in recent years. It is marvellous in my eyes.
But have Labour really learnt about tax yet, or are they just treading water – if we have a C.G.T., it needs to be comprehensive and not targeted, not narrow. How much are they anticipating raising from this?
The Opportunity Party at the last election favoured a Land Value Tax set at 0.75c in the dollar. In return a no tax band covering the first $15,000 of income tax would offset it. It was estimated about $7 billion would get raised. T.O.P. also favoured letting councils keep the G.S.T. they collect on rates, which would get spent on infrastructure.
the problem for leftists with TOP is TOP don't understand poverty or what do to about it. The land tax will penalise low income people who are home owners, or the growing number of people who manage to buy land without a house and live in a tiny house or yurt or container or bus. Or have to wait to save to build.
TOP's UBI is likewise very problematic because it's bases in hatred of welfare. I looked recently and couldn't get any details, but previous versions have all been badly designed when it comes to people who cannot work (that's a general problem with UBIs designed by economists rather than people who centre people and wellbeing).
I ran this through their tax switch calculator.
Single person with a disability that prevents work, with a taxable income of $24,632 per year (Supported Living Payment). Owns the house they live in, in Wellington, land value is $530,000.
TOP say,
That's crippling for people with no other way to make income.
via the wayback machine,
https://web.archive.org/web/20230518022027/https://taxswitch.nz/
We must stop the instability and disunity we have already, so not voting Greens or NZFirst is the best way to do that.
Bollocks. When will Labour learn that in order to form a government they almost certainly will need a strong Green party in support. Attacking the Greens, the only viable left-wing party in NZ, is entirely counter productive.
Labour’s narrow and targeted tax policy is near-identical to NZFirst tax policy already released.
Again bollocks. NZF stopped the Ardern government from bringing in a CGT. NZF has always opposed a CGT.
What kind of fantasy world are you living in Ad that you see the anti-woke, anti-environment anti-CGT anti-Maori NZF as a good option for coalition with Labour while at the same time dissing the Greens?
I repeat, this is not the NZF of 2017-they have shifted way to the right.
BG, all this in your comment has been kinda obvious (well, to me) for quite a while. And as for this?
Its as old as Divide and Rule, except its self divide…..
Excellent
A shift driven by political self-interest, but the canny Winston First may be realising that even in times of economic and social stress there's only so much electoral support for anti-woke, anti-environment, anti-CGT, anti-Māori stances to be shared around.
Yes, imho the Green party serves as Labour's true (pesky) lefty spine on issues where Labour is unable to grow one of its own. Labour-Green (LG – Life's Good) is perhaps the second most natural political alliance in NZ Aotearoa, after NAct. Ad's "not voting Greens or NZFirst" comment is an indication of how challenging it might be to capitalise on that alliance, Labour's 'broad church' having fostered more than its fair share of Act pollies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT_New_Zealand#History
It's very FPP thinking from Ad.
the link goes to a Stuff piece with the headline,
Which is a kind of nonsense when they're on 33%.
Most popular party doesn't win elections. Coalitions do. The Greens have had more than their fair share of internal problems, but they can't be characterised as contributing to instability in government.
One of the biggest obstacles to a real left wing Government, is some in Labour's, antipathy to the Greens. Ad is an example.
Labour is not "entitled" to the left wing vote. The left policies which they abandoned on 1984, and never really returned to, show that.
It is reassuring that Labour candidate selections recently, have been knowledgeable, expert and effective advocates for progressive policies. Which shows there is still hope for Labour.
However, Labour will need the Greens.
Accomodating Winston is foolish. No principled party should accept a Coalition with Peters. Of course that applies even more to ACT. But Labour could not be that desperate?
The worst possibility is that Labour again just "tinkers around the edges" resulting in another one term Government and a swift return to National and ACT, economic and environmental destruction.
Some Labourites seem to still prefer a rotating comfortable Dictatorship with National, rather than having to cope with "pesky lefties"!
The post argues against 'coalition madness' in the third paragraph. The antipathy is towards "the instability and disunity we have already".
It argues against voting for either the Greens or for NZ First in favour of Labour.
Every party will advocate voting for it as the best alternative. The only downside is a possible loss of up to 5% of the total party vote if a possible coalition party fails to meet the threshold.
Where the problem lies as I see it is that there are two main blocks at the moment, N/ACT/NZF versus L/G/TPM. NZF has twice been in the latter, and the Maori Party was a coalition party member with National back in 2008.
What leverage does a major party have in coalition talks as to limiting the nonsense policies such as National supported with ACT lately which they will repeal given the chance. (You can bet your bottom dollar that National will be advocating for party vote National against ACT and NZFirst, with a little saver against the 5% threshold in a deal in Epsom.)
It seems to me the only real lever in coalition talks is to threaten to go back to the voters via a snap election, and that having never been tried carries huge risks. Or, to tell the prospective coalition partner the coalition will be buried in three years time as the electorate reacts to three years of "instability and disunity" and coalition "madness".
Of course, the minor party gets its stupidity into law for at least three years and National in the current case gets to push forward its obnoxious agenda. It has not gone to a snap election against ACT's policies.
So what is left is a voter reaction in 2026 against National with its own agenda and for supporting ACT and NZF. Is that what we are seeing in the polls?
National has no real problem with ACT's agenda. They have always used ACT for the policies they would like to promote but know that they are not electorally sustainable for National. They can then gleefully embrace them as part of a coalition agreement while maintaining a token distance.
I see the Coalition of Cockups as less disunity, and more of National pretending to be led by ACT. It suits them when they introduce the "wannabee fascist" policies, they want to do anyway, to have a degree of separation.
I can understand the thinking here, but I would like to know just how much of ACT policy would be unacceptable to a National supporter/MP. Discussion here about possible leader/deputy leadership changes in National has referred to a practice of one liberal, one conservative leader, so there is a range of views within National to be considered within that caucus/political party from the centre to the right. How much overlap is there I wonder with ACT.
So good
So fun during Labour conference to see Vance reveal Bishop and Luxon knifing each other.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/360900736/anatomy-failed-coup
Labour are going to win 2026.
The satirists are having a field day.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/11/29/the-secret-diary-of-christopher-luxons-last-seconds/
There is a very long way to go. Never count chickens, etc.
That NZF rooster keeps crossing the road confusing the chickens no end.
Tova O'Brien displayed malicious glee in this recent TV3 interview, trying to catch Chris Hipkins out and cause doubt, with her juvenile repeated questioning about him stepping aside for Winston Peters. Hipkins came across as positive and unfazed by her.
O'Brien's lack of professionalism was on display, as during her interviewing and press conference questioning of Jacinda Ardern and other Labour MPs during their time in government. O'Brien, her TV3 cronies and others in the media frequently repeated their often inane questions.
As prior to the 2023 election, National is presumably posting continuous attack comments and disinformation about Labour, to distract from their own damaging policies.
"If we subtract negative posts from positive posts, about 63 percent more Labour posts included positive self-presentation than negative attacks. In comparison, when we do the same for National, it had a net positivity score of just 5.5 percent". https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/news/2023/10/negative-campaiging-in-the-2023-new-zealand-election
It seems evident that some in the media have vested interests in assisting the Coalition to remain in power. Labour MPs appear assured in interviews; stating facts, avoiding defensiveness and irritation which O'Brien seemed to be trying to evoke, and not letting their Government counterparts or interviewers speak over them.
What's your take on this one (link below)?
[This is diversion trolling. Instead of addressing Vivie’s substantive comment, you divert to a YT clip of > 30 min long without any comment or opinion of your own. If you want to keep commenting here in the election year then you mustn’t do this and this is your warning – Incognito]
Mod note
No.
You need to clam down. There was no sinister plot to diversion troll. If you wanted my thoughts, you merely had to ask.
Seeing as Vivie provided such a "substantive comment" on the Tova O'Brien Hipkins interview, I thought they may want to share their thoughts on the latter. Impartial from my input.
Is this not allowed on here?
It’s fishy when a notorious sealion tells a Mod to clam down whilst ignoring the danger warning of a dorsal fin of an orca that’s about to catapult it out of TS waters.
The ‘sinister plot’ is a nice straw man. Indeed, if I were interested in your thoughts, which I wasn’t, I could have asked. Clearly, my interest is in your reoccurring behavioural pattern in TS waters, hence the bolded Mod note and not a mere comment.
You’ve received and acknowledged your warning, and then belligerently rejected it, which doesn’t bode well for your future here. Oh well …
Have to agree Vivie……Jack Tame interviewed Barbara Edmonds over the weekend for Q&A……here is someone with real finance and tax credentials, a person once employed by the National Party and even head hunted to join up…….thankfully Barbara puts people ahead of economic policies that marginalize especially the workers who work in critical social areas of our society…….healthy people means a healthy economy…… but read the nonsense by the bad actors trying to discredit her……..the mainstream media in New Zealand is in bad shape…….Tova O'Brien is a rank amateur and mainly focuses on gotcha click bate drivel……..
I have a few issues with the CGT. One is how it is going to be spent.
In that clip they stated about 1 in 6 can't afford to see a GP.
So, in all their wisdom Labour decided it would be wise to pay for every one's 3 free visits?
Why not better fund those that actually need the money?
Further, if the CGT is going to be all spent on providing 3 free visits for every one, how are they going to obtain the funding required to fix the rest of the mess?
Additionally, it is going to take 3 years to implement 3 free visits. Yet, many voters are struggling now, thus expect help much sooner
Good point – payments for GP visits should be targeted, not handed out to all and sundry. Alternatively, give people the option of transferring their subsidy to someone who really needs it.
Big problem here is that politicians rarely keep their promises.
I've had young people (who seldom see a GP) ask if they can cash them in for food or to pay the power bill?
Did you miss the debate here on this?
Most people will not need or use the 3 visits.
Based on what information? Most would be not be using it.
There is this.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/360903781/labour-offers-low-interest-loans-gps-set-new-practices
🙂 Apparently not. The Concern Man (as transparent as a transparent thing) expressed a number of concerns here ["Why do Labour want to fund free visits for the wealthy? And what's with this Medicard?"], and is pursuing this zealously.
https://thestandard.nz/is-that-it/#comment-2048195
https://www.tiktok.com/@oceanconnections/video/7331514824075136298?lang=en
"If elected, Labour will use the income to fund three free doctors visits a year for everyone from July 2028"
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/577107/royal-new-zealand-college-of-gps-backs-funding-for-doctors-from-labour-s-capital-gains-tax
If one doesn't use their allocated 3 free visits, can they cash them in or allow them to build up?
The issue has been covered.
https://thestandard.nz/open-mike-07-11-25/#comment-2049655
It only added investment in commercial property to the former regime, a bright-line test on residential property investment by landlords.
Given Treasury supports a bright-line test of a 20 year duration (10 years longer than one Labour has already applied) it is National out of touch by returning to the John Key level two year one.
Which the PM immediately profited on. Conflict of interest at the very least.
'Government' by and for the sorted 🙁
I did not vote that year, because it was too obvious NZF was dividing the opposition vote with the intent of going with National.
Peters continued a regime with low MW, the ECA and market rents for state houses. All while the oldies who were among the unemployed (at slashed benefit rates along with solo parents) were waiting longer to get onto super. Making it a long 1984-1999 period of growing inequality.
The last 2 years has been more of the same.
The best thing the left can do between now and Christmas is the following message:
"Were coming into election year and Luxon is going to turn on the Kool aid, and tell you to forget about all the hardship and misery they caused you for the last two years and tell you they've succeeded and the next term will be all milk and honey, provided you vote him and his coalition back in".
Then, when they try that trick, voters will have been warned and it will fall flat, at best.
At worst, it will show the Nats up for their dirty politics.
I think that warning is already baking in on its own. National’s been trying to sell a “fixing the basics / cost-of-living turnaround” story for months, but people still aren’t feeling it, and polling shows their honeymoon’s thin at best.
So, any late pivot to some kind of magical second term utopia will likely land badly because it doesn’t match voters' lived reality. Hard to sell milk and honey when the single line that sums up this government is “I’m wealthy and sorted.”
People hear that and think: sorted for who?
The real danger for the left isn’t the pivot itself; it’s people defaulting to business confidence/tax-cut vibes even when the record doesn’t stack up. Make the contrast about outcomes, not personalities.
Here's an idea.
Why doesn't Labour just come out and say the system largely benefits the top 1 to 10 percent and it's not sustainable.
So they plan to make major changes in their first 100 days that won't crash the system but will see a far better redistribution of wealth (taxes, wages etc) that will make the system more sustainable and the country a better place to live.
To win, Labour needs to win the center, to get the center Labour needs to look viable which is around 35% consistently in polling.
To get to 35% labour needs to shore up its left flank and excite the base while not scaring the horses and also getting those center left voters who stayed home last time but who are too working class small c conservative-ish to vote Green or Tpm.
How to do that? Well they need to be a little bit more populist or radical than loans for Gp's.
I think people mistake the center for boring as much as they mistake the left for "progressive"
In my honest opinion the best way to woo back the center and get non voting working class leftys from "none of these/don't know" is knicking a few of TOPs radical center policies, top is radical and populist but doesn't spook the horses it offers the vague change both the center and the disseffected stay at home lefty crave. Policies like first $20 k tax free, land value tax, an elected upper house, free uni for needed skill sets if they say in NZ for x amount of years, are popular even though top itself isn't (though it consistently gets around 2% in elections, 3 seats btw)
I'm not saying all of those or any of those policies but something exciting
Labour needs to shore up its base in order to attract the center and the center needs to wooed as much as non voters and the center doesn't equal boring or right wing.
Finally, since MMP the only two times Labour have gone from opposition to government is when it had an electoral pact with the second largest party of the left (alliance in 99, greens in 17) we need an MOU with the Greens, we don't run in a few seats, they don't run in a few seats, on current polling Labour and the greens are at 47% in the polls, Dwarfing National whose two coalition parties are both non committal about a second term.
Everytime a poll is released it'd show the red/green block dwarfing national and success begets success, people would jump on cos it looks like a sure thing.
In 99 and 2017 it took the left nearly a decade in opposition each time to work together, let's not lose three elections to work together again.
It can be a loose agreement but an MOU will be the only thing saving some of these gerrymandered former labour strongholds like Mount Albert who without an MOU are certainly going National for the first time.
NZ wants neoliberalism as well, otherwise we'd have a Green government by now. There's only so much Labour can do.
Because it's easier to make change under a Labour led government than under NACTF.