Written By:
- Date published:
9:41 am, July 14th, 2026 - 64 comments
Categories: act, chris hipkins, Christopher Luxon, greens, labour, national, nz first, Politics, polls, TOPS, vote smart -
Tags:
The RNZ Reid Research latest poll results were released this morning.
Labour is on top at 34%.
National continues to languish in the 20s and recorded 28.7%.
It fell 2.1% and this appears to have shifted primarily to NZ First (0.9%) and Act (0.8%).
The Greens increased modestly to 10.3%.
And TOP had a good day and reached 4.7%, close to the threshold for representation.
Chippie is ahead of Luxon in terms of preferred Prime Minister. This is unheard of for a defeated former PM to be ahead of the sitting PM in the first term of a new Government. And it highlights how disliked Luxon is.
The numbers are incredibly tight 61seats for the right to 59 seats for the left.
This highlights how important changes to the Electoral Law which disenfranchised tens of thousands of kiwis. These are predominately younger and poorer voters who tend to vote left. This action is comtemptible as well as undemocratic. But it is worth a couple of seats for the right and makes Labour’s ground game even more important.
And TOP, despite having a policy platform arguably to the left of Labour’s, is frustratingly ambivalent about its position.
A vote for it may be either a wasted vote or a vote for a continuation of National’s reign. For all progressives can I say don’t risk it.
This election is incredibly tight and every vote will count.
For all progressives can I ask you to make sure that every whanau member is on the roll and ready to vote.
It may come down to how everyone's feeling on election day, but currently no change to the balance of left & right outside the margin of error. Oppos likely to hold the balance of power seems the most likely result at this point. Persistent underwhelming by both left and right remains the inexorable factor driving the outcome.
I suspect tacit psychology at work here: the male of the species can't cope with reality. Most of them seem adrift, rudderless. Dunno what to do. Hipkins is thus a role model.
Lux pretends he's getting somewhere but few feel it's true. The female of the species could step in to provide a positive alternative, but that would require being more discerning than the male. No suitable contender evident yet. There's also a vacuum of moral authority, but not just here. It's global. Pope & UN head have a go sporadically, to their credit, but we need younger folk to take the lead. Chloe is trying, but…
So no change from all polls this year. All have been within the margin of error. With no clear direction for the country.
Perhaps a strong release of policy by Labour over the next few months may change this.
The Opportunity Party is the classic "plague on both your houses" option, a space previously held by United Future (gone) and NZF (still there but clearly on one side of the ledger).
Usually such parties need an MP to provide credibility (the media time and the possible electorate safeguard). But this election just might be the exception. (A few months ago I didn't think so, but this vacuum has to be filled by somebody, apart from the stay-at-homes).
National could stop TOP's rise by dumping Luxon. Labour could do it with bold new policy ("game-changer" is the media cliche here). Tinkering won't move the polls.
If neither happens, then TOP will continue to attract support, by default. Voter frustration has to go somewhere. So if Nat/Lab continue on their present course, the 5% threshold is there for the taking.
What happens after that is anyone's guess.
Have you and Mickysavage seen this:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/713437/opportunity-voters-lean-labour-but-party-says-it-doesn-t-drive-our-decision-making
Yes. It means nothing.
If TOP are above 5%, then 7 or more new MPs will be in Parliament. Who? Nobody knows.
This is a regular feature of MMP. People "vote for Winston" (or Peter Dunne or Rodney Hide or whoever leads a minor party). Then they discover that they've actually elected Biffo McBoffo, who supports firing squads for cannabis-users, or wants compulsory nostril hair removal.
Biffo and friends make headlines afterwards. But not before.
"What happens after that is anyone's guess."
Nicely observed!
It's where we are at.
Be prepared!
The result after the election will be as it normally is.
Winston will check out the baubles on offer and pick the Prime Minister. On this occasion I think it will be Labour.
Hipkins will realise that if he doesn't make it this time he will be replaced as leader before the next election. He will be happy to deal as he has no alternative. The Green Party, locked as they are in a refusal to ever speak to National, will be palmed off and accept getting a couple of Associate Ministers but will provide their votes to Labour anyway. TPM will get a couple of seats but will otherwise be ignored and Winston will run things as usual.
Winston won't get offered as much from National. They will need to have NZF and ACT to form a Government and ACT will be much harder to squash that will the Greens. They won't go along with being excluded from power.
So another win for Winnie. He and Hipkins will both, sanctimoniously, tell us that their pre-election promises not to deal with other have had to be abandoned in the interests of the country and their party members will accept being lied to again.
Here endeth the second lesson.
Alwyn, for every 2017 there's a 1996.
In 1996 it was possible to form a majority with just National and NZF. You wouldn't have had one with only Labour and NZF and I don't think that Anderton would have sat on the sideline the way the Greens seem to be willing to do.
I think that Labour and NZF will be able to form a stable Government as the Green Party aren't willing to co-operate with National but will probably sit there and vote with Labour even though they will get very little for it.
In 1996 Winston chose National not Labour, despite huge public sentiment against it.
In 2017 Winston chose Labour despite National having the higher vote. Bill English was in that context most graceful.
Agree Greens are in a dreadful position from the view of coalition options – unless the can get a vote share in the 12-13% range, or form a new coalition with Opportunities to outflank NZFirst.
We have had far too much Wag the Dog in our politics and regrettably it's only going to get worse in 2026.
P1. Who were those making up the "huge public sentiment"? If it wasn't those people who voted for, and preferably belonged to New Zealand First they didn't matter. It shows, however, hat Winston does feel bound in any way by things he might imply or say before the election. That is why I don't see him having any trouble with going along with Hipkins.
P2. Why should he have gone along with English? It is almost his duty to go into coalition with whoever will provide actions that most agree with his own parties policies. National, and English, have no reason at all too be aggrieved because he went with Labour. Where is the commandment that says the highest polling party must be in the Government.? It doesn't make any sense at all.
P3. I don't see it happening The Greens tend to drop, not increase, between the later polls and the election.
P4. I quite agree. That is the inevitable outcome of MMP though. Just look at Israel.
??
There's certainly no budget for the scale of coalition agreement they got in 2017, when they got billions for their Provincial Growth Fund.
Surely, they’ll manage to negotiate for funding of more MonS (Mines of National Significance) and other extractive activities in the provinces & wop-wops. Big overseas pillagers are salivating at getting their greedy claws on NZ’s natural riches.
" in the provinces & wop-wops".
You are illustrating the approach that is causing so mush trouble for the Democrats in the USA. The large-city "woke" individuals who form the Modern Democrats have only scorn for the majority of the population who inhabit the "wop-wops".
A straw man grasping at straws.
I once read about the mythical Australian town of Woop Woop.
Maybe our "wop wops" comes from that?
How much government funding do they need for MonS? Isn't is simply giving foreign interests a licence to dig and drill?
Nope, $80 million has been ring-fenced for mining of critical minerals.
It is probably that to form a Government National will have to provide things for both NZF and ACT. ACT will be a great deal more hardnosed than the Green Party will be, at least in my opinion. Look at what the Greens did in 2017. No Ministers in Cabinet
Winston extracted his pound of flesh from National (and ACT) in 2023. Based on current polls, he’d extract even more from National (and ACT) in 2026 as opposed to Labour (and the Greens) – he’s also repeatedly ruled out joining a Government with Labour [under Hipkins]. NZ First has become a haven of political misfits & mischiefs, so much better suited to National & ACT, at least in my opinion.
Better suited to the dustbin of history, in my opinion.
A change of Government after one disastrous term would make for some interesting history, I reckon. In future, people can ask me: ‘where were you on 7 Nov 2026?’.
I will be able to reply.
"I was in the same town as I was on 26 November 1960 and 29 November 1975"
On those dates of course we had the end of one term Governments. On 7 November 2026 of course we can only propose that we will be at the start of an interminable period while Winston casts his bones and reviews the baubles he is offered before telling us whether it is, or is not, the end of a one term Government. The important date will probably be in mid-December.
Bu the way. Do you seriously think that "he’s also repeatedly ruled out joining a Government with Labour [under Hipkins]." will mean what it says?
The cards will be dealt on 7 Nov 2026.
It doesn’t matter what I think. Winston has to be taken at his word until he flip-flops. Perhaps he thinks this way he can ‘force’ National to have a first go at coalition talks unless they’ll get seriously trashed. If polling changes in favour of a Labour-led coalition, we might see changes in Peters’ messaging. I think watching grass grow in the middle of winter is more interesting than trying to read something meaningful in the polls or second-guess what Peters may do after 7 Nov 2026.
BTW, no one-term Governments under MMP so far.
"BTW, no one-term Governments under MMP so far".
That is really an old fashioned, FPP viewpoint isn't it? It relies on the concept that somehow the National and Labour Parties have some special status and count for more than do the other parties in Parliament.
In 1999-2002 the Government was made up of Labour and the Alliance with the Greens as C&S. In 2002-2004 it was Labour and the Progressives with the Greens and United Future as C&S. Then in 2005-2008 it was Labour and the Progressives with Greens, United Fure and New Zealand First as C&S.
Were they really the same Government just because Labour were always there? If you think that you have to say that Labour are somehow different from the smaller parties.
Still grasping at straws and now looking for a camel. But to humour you: Helen Clark, NZ PM 1999-2008, i.e. 3 (three) full terms.
So, are you saying that the decision on whether it is a single Government is that it has the same PM for multiple terms?
If so that means that in the MMP era we have had three single term Governments. In fact worse than that we have had three Governments that didn't even have a full term.
Shipley, English and Hipkins.
Basing the definition of a single Government on who was the PM is even sillier than on whether the Labour or National Party were in a consecutive Governments from multiple elections. We have an MMP system of Government, not a Presidential one with a supposedly elected PM. Get with it baby. FPP with, effectively, only two parties in most cases died in 1996.
The poor camel just died by flogging to boredom with your final straw.
I think we sometimes forget that Labour has agency here too. Elections aren't about us voting and then simply allowing Winston Peters to decide who governs.
If NZ First's demands are incompatible with Labour's programme or require too many compromises, Labour can simply say no. Staying in opposition for another three years may well be preferable to striking a poisoned bargain that causes more long-term damage than good.
Given Peters has explicitly and publicly ruled out a coalition with Labour under Hipkins, Labour could probably justify walking away far more easily than people assume. That would leave NZ First carrying the political responsibility for refusing to negotiate, rather than Labour being seen as compromising its own principles simply to form a government.
Agreed. Reveal Peters as welded to National and totally unwilling to be reasonable. As his expressed repulsion for the Greens exposes.
"Staying in opposition for another three years may well be preferable…"
I think your opinion of our MPs is unduly kind. I cannot think of any of them who would disagree with the opinion that the worst day in Government is better than the best day in opposition. They dream of it almost without exception and would defenestrate any of their leaders that it wasn't going to happen because the leader wouldn't let it. The party leaders also know that their time in the leaders seat, and limo, will be gone if they turned down the chance at the expense of the fellow party MPs.
Most of those fellow MPs believe in Napoleon's claim that "Every French soldier carries the baton of a marshal of France in his knapsack". They nearly all believe that they deserve to be in the Cabinet and that anyone who deprives them of the chance should be overthrown. Were Hipkins, for example, choose to do it would cost him his position.
Some MPs, but only a very few don't want Cabinet rank. Only a very, very few though .
Am I cynical about this? Well perhaps a little but I have seen the thirst in quite a lot of MPs I have known through the years.
The No Greens in Cabinet in 2017 was to appease Peters – who refused to go into coalition with them (this has been, to date, a consistent position for him).
He had no such ban on ACT.
But the GP effectively have no leverage in this situation. Regardless of the size of their vote share, they will be shut out of government, if Labour needs NZF (and can broker a deal).
ACT "hard-nosed"?
More, "flint-hearted bastards", imo.
National got 38% of votes and Labour got 27% in 2023.
If that's reversed approximately in 2026s' result ie Labour 37-38% and National 27%, it will undercut this theory that the two party system is in permanent decline.
The post's title says it all – "too close to call." Perhaps a stronger ‘performance’ by CEO Luxon may change this. Kiwis have a choice – vote for change, or for more of the same.
https://www.greens.org.nz/tax_system_for_all – – – https://vote.nz/
"Speaking from a rooftop bar in central Auckland…"
Paul Henry, man of the people.
It's a sick joke.
Seymour is laughing.
(I've linked but hope no one will click.)
Is he still alive? Or just part of the walking dead?
They shuffle amongst us…
Winston has been ghosting us for decades.
Well, he's the man of some of the people…. 🙂
Like all ex broadcasters he has a certain name recognition which often bears fruit at election time. Although, as a list-only candidate, this will be less important/useful to his party.
TBH – I doubt that he'll add or subtract much from the ACT polling.
NB: I don't see the link in your post….
There are people who regard Paul Henry as "The Man"?
Really??
Must be his blue balls.
Mickey – what do you mean, "call"?
Is it even vaguely possible to make a call at this point in time?
If not, why do we feel obliged to refer to "calling"?
idk.
Reposted as email address incorrectly entered – sorry mods.
None of these polls factor in the extremely large contingent of eligible Kiwi voters living it up in Queensland.
Nearly everyone I talk to here, that confirms they are still on the roll, are tossing up between Lab/Green for their party vote. Im telling them all to electorate vote Labour, and party vote green (except for the former Epsom resident who I vociferously encourage to electorate vote National if only to see Seymour lose his seat – and which should have happened in 2020 if only enough Labour/Grn voters held their noses and EV Paul Goldsmith at that time).
These polls don’t seem to consider the large overseas voting bloc. I think Greens are a good 3% higher than is stated based on anecdata (and previous years where overseas votes typically favoured Green).
I've tried voting Goldsmith in Epsom several times + party voted Labour/Green. It never has worked yet to get Goldsmith as electorate MP. I've given up.
Hipkins has pointed out that a vote for TOP may very well be a vote for National, ie, NOT a vote for change at all.
On this evidence alone Opportunity, should they achieve 5%, is bound by their own commitment to deal with the party with the largest share, and that party is the Labour Party.
Although I have no idea why dealing with the party with the largest share is a rule. I mean, why?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/713438/national-slumps-to-new-low-is-luxon-the-problem
I asked question about who, how the polling was done.
From the article:
"This poll of 1000 people was conducted by Reid Research, using quota sampling and weighting to ensure representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between 2-9 July 2026 and has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent at a 95 percent confidence level."
From Reid's site, the interviewees are self selecting.
As for "using quota sampling and weighting to ensure representative cross-section by age gender and geography" I've got no idea.
Why does so much attention and hand wringing get given to these sniff tests months out? It is this type of carelessness that leads to the likes of Trump getting elected to many people's surprise.
The methodology described here actually looks fairly standard: an online panel, quota sampling, and weighting to produce a representative sample. "Self-selecting" sounds alarming, but it is not unusual for online polling and is one of the reasons quotas and weighting are applied.
Traditional polling methodologies came under pressure around the same time that traditional voting patterns became much less stable. People are more willing to switch parties, make late decisions, or back smaller parties than they were 20 or 30 years ago.
That means the electorate itself is much less predictable than it once was. So I'd treat this as a useful description of how voters felt in early July, not a prediction of how they will vote in November.
In that sense, it's still valuable information to have. The important part isn't the poll itself: it's the story we tell from it. A poll can tell us something meaningful about where public sentiment is today, but it can't tell us with any certainty where that sentiment will be four months from now.
I think the left is spending far too much time worrying about what TOP may or may not do after the election. Whether they ultimately lean towards one coalition or another is less interesting than the fact they're on the cusp of entering Parliament at all. The real story here is that a growing share of the electorate clearly feels that neither of the two major blocs is adequately representing them.
As for the polling itself, we're still too far from election day to treat it as a prediction. But it is a useful snapshot of how voters are feeling. Right now that seems to be: disappointed with National, cautiously more positive about Labour, but increasingly willing to look for alternatives that might break the current political stalemate.
I agree but I think that people in general, not just on the Left, worry far too much about things/people that they’ve got no influence or control over (e.g., Trump, TOP, Winston Peters, oil prices, etc.). This can easily lead to a state of chronic semi-permanent anxiety, which pollutes our [clear] minds and negatively impacts [on] our sound judgements. A heightened level of anxiety can also make us more receptive to manufactured outrage and populism. We all know the picture-story.
We have control over Winston: we can not vote for him.
Trump, not so much.
I think that’s illusionary control; I don’t vote for Winston, but others do.
Unless I acquire a controlling stake in media such as the NZ Herald or The Platform, I cannot influence those other voters but even if I could, I might still only ‘control’ Winston indirectly.
Worrying about such things is a mug’s game, in my view.
Well, most folk in a democracy only have the choice to vote various ways. It's not control, but it is connection with the democratic process.
If you really believe you can't influence other voters, then I say, you're not trying hard enough!
Get out there, Incognito; make your voice heard!
Hang on – you're an opinionated mod on The Standard…
I’m not cynical when I say that I personally see little point in trying to influence others as such; it’s another mug’s game, in my opinion. To me, it feels like an end, a destination – I’m much more interested in the means, the process, the journey/path. Perhaps that’s why I give the perception of lacking ambition and goals and to an extent, that’s justified – sometimes, it bothers me.
As I replied, recently (https://thestandard.nz/open-mike-08-07-2026/#comment-2066741):
Most people react to such statement with disbelief, which says more about them than about me.
If someone was convinced by a comment here, you'd wonder at their gullibility…
Maybe we can hope that we've, through our comments, added a little weight, an ounce here, gram there, to the story. There's always the tale of the straw and the camel's fragile back to give us commenters hope!
I enjoy meeting fellow travellers along my path – they don’t have be like-minded in the sense of agreeing with me, being sincere & honest is enough – and the comradery & conviviality are ignored by many as if they have never experienced it. I do miss it, from time to time.
I’ll keep commenting (and moderating) here because hope springs eternal and it might be good for my own development too.
Are you referring to a time when comradery/camaraderie and conviviality were a feature of TS? Can you tell us/me more about that?
Nope, not referring to TS. The TS ‘management team’ is a tight bunch but spread out over NZ. I don’t know any of the regulars, personally.
Good on you Incognito – TS is probably the best people's blog in this country. TDB has gone raving-tech shape-shifting AI loony. You represent what we need for future society, some tolerance, some sense of humour, some scepticism, demand for detail about ideas, and generally the combination of kindly and practical as a basis. Words are powerful, the pen is mightier than the sword (don't know about that), and wariness plus willingness to listen carefully is what we need. No absolute trust, and no following one line just because 'our' sort always did, with a refusal to recognise when 'if it ain't broke, then don't fix it' has come to its end as a meaningful backstop.
And follow along with Audrey Hepburn, to add some glamour: 'Show Me' – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WbRyU8uuNk
The great intellectual and strategic planner (job to job flitterbug bored with cruising seeks an on land sinecure) Paul Henry says … (who cares).
He wants people to party vote ACT to sustain a National led government that he has little respect for.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2026/07/15/no-john-key-paul-henry-says-luxon-not-being-genuine-nz-in-malaise/
Paul doesn't need the job, he's sorted.
He's just in it for shits'n'giggles and whatever it is he's been offered by ACT money-men.
Paul Henry just a good 'ole boy looking for his past glory? What will he turn up? Would he remember this old music hall song Mary Ellen* done over by a group of youngsters with some shits'n'giggles. Now they are the age of whom we should be thinking about, making a decent future for them not just passing the time like an ole' dustman.**
Youngsters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MayZAYp2Ao8 Sing along?
Lyrics: https://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/t/turnedupmaryellenatthechurch.html
Henry would know the joke lines about the old dustman from Lonnie Donnergan's playlist: