Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
Open Mike 07/09/2026
86 comments on “Open Mike 07/09/2026”
Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.
Comments are closed.
RNZ news this morning says a new Curia poll puts the coalition of creeps at 64 seats to the left's 56.
Labour better have some kind of rabbit to pull out of the hat, because they won't sleepwalk to victory!
The thing that stops be shoving my head in a bucket of water is the thought that, if the CoC does get back in, Luxon will be rolled and may overlooked for a knighthood.
Come on Labour, we can't have another 3 years of what we've just had!!
Yes not a great Curia poll for the Left. Farrar, who carries out the poll, is no friend of the Left of course. The numbers are:
Lab 25.9 Gre 13.9 TPM 2.0 =41.8
Nat 29.0 ACT 10.5 NZF 8.4 =47.9
Opp is a wasted vote as they are below the five per cent threshold.
The interesting thing here is that Curia usually has the Greens lower than in other polls, yet here it has them at 14%.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics_election-2026/1278458/coalition-returned-to-government-in-new-poll-as-opportunity-loses-kingmaker-spot
Lab dropped, Greens rose. I think the key thing is OP were below the 5%.
Curia, why I'm sure they're run by a corrupt little right wing troll ain't they???
If you don't believe them, then scroll on by.
It's been notable that Standardistas disbelieve Curia polls when they don't like the result, and believe them when they do.
Pick one….
I'm no fan of Farrar, but AFAIK, he's not corrupt (unless you regard all pollsters and lobbyists as corrupt – and, if so – you're not going to find any polling to believe in).
And, there is no doubt that he's right wing – but his polls are well within the general trends – so it's hardly affecting the work on electorate polling he produces.
Which makes sense, BTW, *no one* wants slanted polling – if you spend all that money to commission it, you want an answer as close to accurate, as possible (otherwise you've wasted your money). If you don't know where you are, you can't know what policies/propaganda is making a difference. This is the base reason that all parties or lobby groups commission polls.
I'd take the Curia polls for the Taxpayers Union, which are regularly released with the associated questions and data about the polling conditions, over the ones produced by Talbot Mills for 'corporate clients' and 'leaked' to the papers. These are much more likely to only have the results that the leaker wants to release, appear.
Reporting on the latest Curia poll
https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/sept26_pollnztughjkuhn?
And the latest Talbot Mills poll for comparison
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/poll-national-down-and-out-of-government-in-new-talbot-mills-poll/XXSSJVLG35GP7C4NZTSALVAPGE/
Na just curia, farrars been lurking in the shadows since key and the woodlouse where doing dirty politics, slippery as a shit house rat,
Replying to my own post…
The only thing I can think is, if the left is in charge of its own destiny, that it is waiting for the PREFU so that the coalition can't manipulate the numbers and call their policies stupid.
But, what's worrying me is that Hipkins said he wasn't going to release any policy until after the Budget. The budget came and went ages ago and still not much in the way of meaningful policy.
Now, we are weeks out from the election and starting to say "maybe Hipkins is waiting for the PREFU", or "Hipkins is a better debater than Luxon so maybe that's his wild-card".
Every day that goes by adds to the risk that people will have made their minds up and adds to the risk that the left doesn't get its policies into people's minds so their hands automatically tick left on the ballot papers.
What if Hipkins doesn’t have a plan? Best case is, he has a plan but it’s getting riskier and riskier.
I am so frustrated with Labour. The party appears listless and afficted with a terminal case of enervation. Hipkins is sleepwalking to disaster with the most complacent and gormless display of Starmerist political ineptitude since the era of Forbes and Coates. Meaningless slogans ("Better Starts Now" FFS – what vacuous focus group dipshitery dreamed up that load of meaningless old bollocks? All it says is "we've tried nothing new and we are totally out of ideas").
Cleaving ever to National is killing Labour, who the hell is Hipkins trying to win over? Everytime National releases a policy Hipkins says "not a bad policy but our version will be better" – I mean, What? The entire policy momentum has been ceded to the government, all Hipkins ever does is offer a prevaricating agreement, waffle some meaningless centrist word salad and curl up into an even tighter foetal position.
Take the Green's supermarket idea. The obvious reply to the accusation of a Soviet style grocery chain is to say you get Soviet responses in a Soviet economy, and talk about the power of monopoly rentier price gouging and how Labour will bring back proper competition and lower the cost of living and in the meantime the Green party idea has some merit. But no, we got a mealy mouthed load of horseshit from Hipkins.
The guy has no vision, no plan and no idea and he is rapidly running out of time. This election, for the first time, I will most likely party vote Green – because at least they are acknowledging a crisis exists, are prepared to talk about it and are proposing some solutions worth discussing. As for my electorate vote in Mt. Albert – Who knows, Helen White is a walking symbol of the modern Labour party, she doesn't deserve my vote at all but I'd rather fry in hell than vote for that TOP woman.
Hard to not agree with all that. If that poll is anywhere near correct the left are in deep trouble.
Yes very hard to not agree with that, The left is in trouble and I don't think Hipkins has a set big enough to turn it around, no bold long term ideas and clearly just is not relatable ( rightly or wrongly) with voters. Also imo a sad reflection on NZ voters, that enough people think, you not what this is all ok at the moment, lets keep this lot in. :/
I often quote the public intellectual Vlad Vexler because IMHO he nails the existential crisis of modern liberal democracy, and the failure of the centre to acknowledge let alone address the systemic criss afflicting late state captialism and the concomitant rise of extremist neoliberal authoritarianism. To my mind, the complete irrelevance of Hipkins to the central political debates of our times is a classic example of the collapse of liberalism and centrist technocratic politics and the sterility of a political class trapped in an intellectual prison it simply cannot conceive a way out of.
Vexler has been gaining wider mainstream purhcase lately, and here he lays out five tips for a way back to relevance the NZ Labour party.
https://politicsuk.substack.com/p/a-crisis-of-trust?r=1mieg1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Let's see how Hipkin's is faring against his five points.
Tip 1: admit the crisis of trust without condescending to citizens. Hipkins has his head firmly planted up his arse on this one.
Tip 2: prioritise democratic consent over technocratic decision-making. Hipkins and Labour represent a technocratic lanyard class that just expects people to trust them. They've got the process of governance arse about face – they expect voters to annoint their decisions, not the other way round.
Tip 3: be sensitive about how you tell citizens that you have decided against them. Hipkins doesn't do this, he just caves to the loudest voices.
Tip 4: treat those who treat you as enemies as opponents, not enemies. Hipkins and Labour certainly do that, infact I'd say he has a surfeit of enthusiasm for acknowledging his opponents.
Tip 5: treat voters as though they contain multitudes within them. Hipkins is paralysed by fear of the undifferentiated lumpenmass.
I think that Hipkins is paralysed over the first point, by his close association with the Ardern government and the Covid period.
He is *not* trusted by a significant sector of society – and he never will be. But, the only solution to this is leadership change, and it's too late in the election cycle for that (despite the shenanigans from National)
I had an … interesting … exchange on FB with a commenter. No doubt surprisingly to many of you (who disbelieve that I'm actually a Centrist) – I was defending Hipkins against some outrageous fact-free claims. But it became increasingly clear that there was no interest in rational debate (or even acknowledging different information) – this was visceral hatred associated with Hipkins and the Covid policies (which clearly had had a negative impact on this person).
Individual polls don't tell us much. Poll of polls does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_New_Zealand_general_election
The problem the left has is that it now needs OP to form government. And we don't know if OP will go with the highest polling major party or with the best policy fit. I would guess the latter because OP are unlikely to make better policy gains with NACTF than with L/G. But we don't know (MSM should ask them).
I don't see OP above 5% as a bad thing, it's still left wing votes that matter and I can easily see a L/G govt with OP and TPM on confidence and supply.
OP on 4.6 is obviously a huge problem in that scenario
Opportunities will go straight to the cross benches, if they get in.
Exactly 2 months to go and the trend towards another National term is pretty clear.
do you mean they would choose that? I've not seen any indication they intend that.
If neither coalitions can form government without OP do you think it's more likely that OP would refuse and force a new election, or would pick a side to offer confidence and supply?
Not for their first preference – Wong has clearly stated that she wants to be in government. It's only if negotiation with both sides fails, that she'd take the cross benches.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/618657/opportunity-party-leader-qiulae-wong-on-the-party-s-surprise-surge-in-a-new-poll
Unless you're suggesting both that TOP will hold the balance of power, and that both parties would rather run a highly risky minority government, than negotiate with Wong.
Stop the panic. It's one poll by a biased pollster. Other polls have the race much closer.
Hipkins is better than Luxon at debating. Hipkins will run a better campaign than Luxon.
That campaign has only just started. But Hipkins needs to come out of the blocks now, not wait for the Prefu FFS. He needs to attack the CoC's useless record now. He needs to attack the lies Luxon is saying. He needs to attack the CoC's nasty racist anti-environment, anti-women, anti-worker pro-Trump policies.
He is being too passive.
You can attack and still have a small-target policy base.
I agree the campaign has only just started. And the election is quite late this year. Fingers crossed Labour have been keeping their powder dry.
I do think that is woefully optimistic. Labour are going to be outspent on the campaign trail.
As we have seen that outspending will contain lies, half truths and misinformation.
Labour needed to start the campaign a year ago with neat concise sentences that would have time to take root in the publics memory.
The other failing is a lack of obvious principles from Hipkins. Couple that with any Covid resentment and it's a long steep uphill climb to getting elected.
This small target, don't interrupt your enemy tactic ain't working.
The most optimistic of us didn’t imagine Luxon/Peters/Seymour would be this shit but they are and Labour still can’t gain ground.
I think this polling reflects three lines of attack by National.
Relentless messaging for nearly three years about how labour 'wreaked' the economy.
Constant repetition of the 'tax and spend' mantra
And more recently the '8 taxes' lie
The power of propaganda. Very damaging, and labour has to attack from here in.
let’s just give up then and spend the rest of the election moaning about how bad Labour are as if this is FPP.
With both the centre parties polling poorly it seems they are blighted with the same malaise, ie clinging to neo liberalism as it fails us.
or maybe this is MMP in action. Why the obsession with big parties?
It's less an obsession with the big parties more an obsession with neo liberalism and hopefully it being near the end of it's time.
The big parties come in because the ideology is right across their port folios. The smaller parties either reject it (Greens, TPM) or are at the extreme of it. ACT.
Apart from the obvious race to the finish between left and right, Labour needs to get ahead of National.
The unknown is whether TOP gets above 5%. If they do, National has said it won't work with TOP and that would ordinarily send TOP to talk to Labour first.
But, if TOP gets, say, 4.9% and sucks 4.9% out of the vote but doesn't get in, then their share magnifies the gap between other parties. National gets bigger by 4.9% and so does Labour.
So, that needs to work in favour of Labour and it can only do that if Labour is even a pinch ahead of National on election day.
The most recent Roy Morgan poll actually has a greater split between Labour and National. The significant difference is that TOP is higher in RM than in Curia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_New_Zealand_general_election
I don't know if this is TOP shooting their bolt early (and people having a chance to review and find holes in their policies). Or it's a rogue poll – and they will be comfortably over the 5% threshold.
The debates? It's not 2005, the majority of voters are now gen y and gen z, noone under 40 watches broadcast tv, we all consume new media, the only people watching TV debates and news is elderly boomers and middle fast approaching retirement gen x'ers, appealing to either of those groups totally alienates parties from gen y and z.
gen y and gen z are both more educated on current affairs than older generations at the same time as being totally unreachable by traditional news sources.
The debates are irrelevant. Noone labour needs to see them, will be watching them.
This is where people's views start cementing in place and just as predicted, Labour was only beating National in the polls all year because Labour was invisible while Luxon was center stage, and is just an unlikable figure that people liked the idea of a generic labour govt more than one left by Luxon.
Now the elections heating up and Hipkins is everywhere everyone remembers they hated him and made their minds up about him three years ago and while labour is offering nothing, national atleast on paper are offering policies on home loans kiwi saver, social media bans, and absolutely annihilating labour with dishonest ads about taxes (which nearly sunk Ardern in 2017, if these smears nearly sunk Ardern who was running Labours best campaign in decades, hipkins is toast ) while Hipkins offers nothing.
People tuned Hipkins out in the middle of 2023, many forgot he was leader and just parked their vote their temporarily, but the moment Hipkins started popping up in everyone's newsfeeds, labours polls started to tank.
They still have that rule that the leader can step down and be elected by caucus without a primary, despite Winston's meltdown, Luxon nearly getting rolled and being the weakest leader in mmp history on racism and pissing off small business and migrants, labour is STILL going down in the polls.
It's the message AND the messenger.
If labour goes down in the next tvnz and rnz polls after everything, Hipkins should do a little and put mcanulty in place, clearly leadership contests don't upset voters.
Ardern wasn't special she was just a better communicator than little, just like mcanulty.
Otherwise, we're totally fubar with Hipkins, this should be an easy election, the economy, job market, housing market, national unity govt unity all in the toilet… But labour are running the same exact campaign as 2023 with the same leader up against the same opponent expecting a different result
hard to argue against that except I will say the debates are on social media as well 😉
I'm also not convinced that voting falls into generational pools to the extent you are saying. And how many of those people are voting Green or OP anyway?
Wong has said that she'd negotiate with the largest party first (not sure if she meant the largest bloc, or individual party)
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/618657/opportunity-party-leader-qiulae-wong-on-the-party-s-surprise-surge-in-a-new-poll
Of course, assuming that they get over the 5% threshold.
thanks, that's very clear. Doesn't mean they will form govt with whoever is the largest, but worth paying attention to.
Also ironic given this election is a small party election in large part thanks to OP. So not traditional.
Correct Labour thinks they can Sleep Walk to Victory. NZ needs a radical Transformation with Progressive Policies.
I think you are wrong Ngungukai – Jane Kelsey might have an explanation as to why.
Yes, Sanctuary – Better Starts Now to me just means more neoliberalism but with a smile!
As you say, sleepwalking to oblivion!
And the sooner die-hard Labour voters realise that and switch both their party and electorate votes to Greens, the better for the whole country!
The Greens can now throw literally anything at the public wall and their dial isn't moving.
Greens have been on a steady increase since February this year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_New_Zealand_general_election#Graphical_summary
Calm down, team. It’s one Curia poll, two months out from the election.
It tells us nothing particularly alarming, other than that both Labour and National are bleeding votes to smaller parties. Labour is losing some support to a very strong Green vote; National is losing support to ACT and NZ First. Under MMP, that distribution matters at least as much as the headline Labour–National numbers.
If anything, National falling towards 30% while ACT and NZ First grow only strengthens the argument that a vote for National is increasingly a vote to make David Seymour the real Prime Minister.
The actual danger for the left in those numbers is the wasted vote around Opportunity. If 4–5% of the vote disappears below the threshold, that could materially affect the parliamentary arithmetic.
Is Labour’s policy platform and campaign strategy electrifying the soul? No.
Could it be sharper, bolder and give people a clearer idea of what the next Labour government is actually for? Absolutely.
But the overall strategic environment still looks reasonably positive. National has to defend nearly three years in government and explain what another term will actually deliver. The broader left is competitive, the Greens are polling strongly, and there are still two months of campaigning to go.
There’s an enormous amount of daylight between “I wish Labour was campaigning better” and “Labour is sleepwalking towards electoral oblivion because it has failed to transcend neoliberalism.”
Calm the fuck down.
Because replacing Hipkins two months out from an election is not the answer. Blowing up the leadership in the middle of a competitive campaign because you didn’t like one Curia poll would be a considerably better way of creating an electoral crisis than anything Labour is currently doing.
Let Luxon be the only leader in this election that does not have the full support of his own party.
People aren't interested in "calm the fuck down" they are interested in what the fuck are you going to do about our increasingly shit lives and Labour 2 months out from an election are saying, not much different from those guys over there. I think that is why Labour are failing to gain any ground and Hipkins has to take some blame for that.
I don't disagree with the first half of that.
People absolutely want to know what Labour is going to do to materially improve their lives, and I've already said I think Labour needs to make that proposition sharper, bolder and much easier to understand. Hipkins is the leader, so of course he bears responsibility for the campaign.
Where I disagree is the jump from that to "Labour are failing" or "they're not much different from National."
A CGT and free GP visits alone are fairly substantial points of difference, and we're still two months out from the election with more policy to come. You can absolutely argue that Labour should be offering more. I probably would. But "I want more from Labour" isn't evidence that its current strategy is failing.
And I'm not sure "Labour isn't gaining ground" is even the right metric under MMP. If Labour loses votes to the Greens while National loses votes to ACT and NZ First, the important question is what happens to the blocs and ultimately the parliamentary arithmetic.
None of this is my answer to people whose lives are getting worse. It's my answer to the suggestion that one Curia poll means Labour should panic and replace its leader two months before an election.
Those are two very different things.
All very reasonable. Another area where Labour is underwhelming is growing the centre/centre left/ left vote.
The missing million.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics_election-2026/1145441/collecting-the-votes-of-the-discontented
I agree that Hipkins should not be replaced in a caucus coup, which is not going to happen anyway and so there's no point hoping for it.
I very much doubt that he will "do a Little". The time for that was long ago, when Hipkins should have taken responsibility for a dismal defeat in 2023. But he didn't.
So the leader issue is effectively a non-starter.
But potential Labour voters (I'm one) are fully entitled to be thoroughly frustrated at the overall party strategy. That is NOT a response to one poll, because it's been evident for many months.
Luxon is the greatest gift that any opposition leader could ask for. Swing voters are looking for something – anything – that offers hope. Vision. Purpose.
If Labour cannot see that small target ultra-caution is a losing strategy, then they are going to find out in November. Much better to realize it now.
No one who knows Winston Peters believes that for one minute. If there is going to be a non-National PM, or an eminence grise, it will be Peters, not Seymour. 🙂
The question is, if National have created so much misery in the last 2.5 years – why the heck isn't Labour attracting those disaffected voters?
Because they are not. Nor are the Greens. They appear to be going to more radical parties ACT, NZF and TOP – rather than to the 'traditional' left of centre party.
[NB: radical in different ways]
And, for Labour, that has to be a significant worry.
Just look at what is happening internationally….
No, I don't think that replacing Hipkins is the immediate answer. It was the answer 18 months ago – and will probably be the answer again after the election.
The issue isn't one Curia poll. The issue is that Labour and National have been virtually indistinguishable in the polls for over a year. At a time when the government is (deservedly) unpopular. But Labour isn't seen as a realistic alternative. Why not?
My somewhat tongue-in-cheek theory is still that National is being saved by the fact that nobody takes Luxon particularly seriously as Prime Minister.
That creates a strangely convenient dynamic. National can launder a fair bit of the government's miserable record through ACT and NZ First: well, Seymour made us do this; Peters made us do that/, while disgruntled National voters can move to ACT or NZ First without actually voting to change the government.
But I wonder if there's something broader going on here too.
Maybe what we're seeing isn't really a swing against the Coalition of Chaos at all. It's a swing against the status quo, and against the politics that produced it.
"The government is useless, therefore voters will look for an alternative" is generally a decent theory of electoral strategy. But voting intention and political identity are much messier than that. If people are frustrated not simply with National, but with housing, living costs, declining public services and a political system that doesn't seem capable of materially improving their lives, there's no particular reason that frustration has to flow neatly to Labour.
In that environment ACT, NZ First and TOP can all present themselves, in radically different ways, as alternatives to the political status quo. Labour has a harder job because, despite being in opposition, it's still one of the two parties most associated with that status quo.
So yes, I think Labour should be asking why it isn't the obvious beneficiary of a deeply unpopular government. That's a real question.
But I'm not sure the answer is necessarily that voters have looked at Labour and rejected it as an alternative. The more interesting possibility is that we're looking at an electorate increasingly dissatisfied with the whole political settlement, and expressing that dissatisfaction in several different directions.
And there are still two months to go, Labour and National are basically tied, and this latest round of polling is noisy as hell. Labour may ultimately turn out to be basically, incredibly unspectacularly, OK.
Ha. What a thing to hope for!
My concern is that, *if* Labour do manage to squeak through (and the polls are far too close to call) – and cobble together a coalition (with or without TOP) – then what?
Because, we've seen the Hipkins and the Labour of today are too cautious to make bold policy statements and promises – AND have ruled out bold policy shifts from both the GP and TOP (no new taxes).
Either they have to shift to meet their coalition partners (and we saw how well that went with the 2020-23 Labour government enacting policies they hadn't campaigned on); or they'll muddle along, reversing the most egregious current government policies – but not making much of a difference to the intractable issues that people are facing.
And then we have 2029. Where there is a much greater level of pissed-off-ness from people negatively affected by the problems which haven't been resolved; and much more likely to vote for radical alternatives.
I really don't think that unspectacularly OK is enough to cut the mustard.
I think that's a much stronger criticism of Labour than simply asking why they aren't polling better.
I can construct a perfectly plausible electoral argument for what they're doing now.
It goes something like their most available voters probably being soft Nats: people increasingly uncomfortable with this government, but who have also spent six years hearing that Labour and the Greens are economically reckless and dangerous. Hipkins is actually quite useful for that task. Whatever else you think of him, it's difficult to imagine him secretly plotting the communist revolution.
But winning an election and having a programme for government are two different problems.
And this is where I think your 2029 point bites.
If my broader theory is right, and what we're seeing isn't simply an anti-government swing but growing dissatisfaction with the status quo and the politics that produced it, then winning in 2026 only to restore the pre-2023 status quo could be particularly dangerous.
I don't think that means Labour necessarily needs to campaign on the most radical programme available to it. Not every Labour campaign is aimed at people like us, and reassuring soft National voters that changing the government is safe may be exactly what it needs to do right now.
But how you provide that reassurance matters. "We're competent people who can make substantial change without blowing everything up" is quite different from "don't worry, we won't change very much."
That's the bit I'm still uncertain about.
Maybe Labour has more ambition than it's currently showing. Maybe coalition negotiations create room for some of it. Maybe Hipkins genuinely thinks a more incremental programme is sufficient. Or maybe they've misread the political moment entirely.
Nobody really knows yet.
But yes: if Labour wins by presenting itself as the safest custodian of a status quo people increasingly hate, then spends three years failing to materially improve the things they're angry about, 2029 could be considerably uglier.
Winning 2026 matters. But it only buys you the opportunity to answer the question that actually matters: what are you going to do with it?
I think the primary drag is from Chris Hipkins:
– Hipkins 16% as Preferred PM, (whereas Labour still in high-20s)
– PM Luxon on 21% (National in mid-20s)
They likely remember what Hipkins was like as PM last time round.
Way too late to change it, and this is what we've got.
I guess all I'm saying is that there absolutely is a world where Hipkins as leader, and the strategy Labour has opted for, makes sense.
And the data we have so far doesn't conclusively demonstrate that it doesn't.
Maybe Hipkins really is a drag. Maybe the cautious strategy has put a ceiling on them. But I don't think a handful of polls, two months out from an election, gives us enough evidence to confidently distinguish that from all the other plausible explanations.
We can have opinions about the strategy. I'm just wary of writing Labour's obituary just yet.
But it's not a handful of polls. It's every poll since 2023.
Luxon has gone down a long way, Hipkins has not gone up.
So it's as conclusive as it gets.
(Again, I'm not suggesting he should be rolled now. But the evidence that Hipkins is an obstacle to Labour regaining the swing voters is undeniable).
I'm still arguing that slagging off Labour, or saying they're dead in the water, will undermine voter confidence. Who wants to vote for a someone whose own side says is a loser? Do lefties actually want to win the election or just moan about it?
Critique is one thing, defeatism and slagging off is another.
Really? I can’t even remember what I had for dinner 2 days ago. Hipkins was PM for 10 months when a lot was going on and it was election year too.
Two interesting points RP.
In the small circles I move in the sentiment 'a pox on all your (political) houses' seems to be alive. So it bears out your view about the whole of the system being looked at with dissatisfaction. Not sure if this or how this will translate into people voting or not voting and who they vote for.
What has been at the forefront of my current dismay is the sad happening at Waikato Hopsital and then that leads on to the mess that neo-lib thinking has left the bigger 'govt departments' such as health, education, transport, housing in….in descending order. Surely NZ has given this poxy (neo-lib) political system a fair run, devised by a NZer, a thinker and who in my view should have known better (Graham Scott) it has run its course. We still have vestiges lurking.
Govt departments cost money to run, no-one likes to see waste or unfocussed spending but how about a message/thought that says "govt depts have a role, we will resource them so they can run efficiently and effectively and we won't do stuff that others do better.'
Let's face it some of our Govt depts are big because they need to be big to do the big tasks we ask of them. Some of our departments look after our citizens who fall through the cracks of private enterprise eg health, housing.
So taking RP's point do we urge people to get out and vote for a name/party rather than 'what's it is it for me?' Do we urge people to get out and vote and note that many may just vote the current lot back in out of torpor.
I live in Wellington City. I'm looking at the mess we are in that Labour councillors and others are trying to rein in, no thanks to one of the 'most worst' as I used to say as a kid, former mayors, Tory Whanau.
I hope a new Labour Govt will not be faced with this kind of 'most worst' residue & can work to get stuff done in the first year, this current govt has been successful in this strategy.
Undoing stuff (ie political ping-pong) is enervating and I am sure most politicians would rather be enacting policies that point the way or aid efficiency.
The point is that we have seen penny-pinching in health take a father from his family. In badly resourced govt departments penny pinching will have other different impacts.
This is mainly low level grumbling…..If Res Publica's thoughts and mine are widespread then strategists are going to have their work cut out for them.
Yeah, I think that's the interesting question.
And I think your point about government departments gets towards what the answer might be. We've spent decades talking about the state primarily as a cost to be minimised, rather than a capability we collectively need. Health costs money. Education costs money. Infrastructure costs money. Having enough skilled people sitting around to deal with things when they go wrong costs money too.
That doesn't mean accepting waste or assuming government should do everything. It means being much clearer about what we actually expect the state to do, and then giving it the capability to do those things properly.
Maybe that's part of the distinction I'm trying to make with Labour. I can understand a cautious campaign designed to reassure people that changing government isn't dangerous.
What I'd be much more worried about is winning that argument and then governing as though restoring the pre-2023 status quo is enough.
If the dissatisfaction really does run deeper than this particular government, I don't think it will be.
I've written my ideas about why Labour can't say, promise much. But it appears that we are in a stalemate, and further than stale; mouldy or cracked depending on the substance being surveyed.
My idea is a doozy. This is serious. Use the concentration of interest on the election to run a parallel Citizens Emergency Recovery Group referendum. It would have a message that you should still vote to keep the travesty of a government going. But also one should also join with a local Group in your area, or even if you don't want to vote, put your name down for the Group.
We are all SNAFU at the moment but on here and as I get around my area I find good people who recognise we must do better. Politics is broken and we can't go back so no use in trying for better laws etc as we once actually achieved somewhat. The predatory just use their time in power to screw them up or wipe them.
There was a storm last nigh and it broke a plant pot of mine – no worries, but a tiny example of the broken system and country and the huge problems that are amassing. There will be more, there seems no commitment to the nation by government, even those leftish can be distracted from the main needs.
Citizens Emergency Recovery Group, it might be the breakthrough with those who are still able to think as real people, and work and share with real people who want a life and a real integrated community, cherish our society and indeed, each other. Basic however, it will require some effort, and won't communicate through Facebook which is becoming a monopoly communication demand with government and many others. What would be good is to apply for a phone, as well as your cellphone. No political people need to join or grandfather this, and regular discussions some formal at a cafe, watering-spot, would be held. We must know each other, have local Circles self-sufficient in skills and resources, who keep in touch and co-ordinate with others. They will not have drugs and heavy drinkers as part of it, they are dreamers and dependents, and would use up essential time and energy. A few within each Circle would organise some care and assistance for them so they could help themselves.
We would continue to support government, this is no sovereign distraction. As Jesus advised: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Matthew 22:21 We might or not, be religious, but we will look at present outcomes and let after death be a new adventure. We don't know how long life will be but if we can be there for each other, and not just through religion but individuals working in a spirit of collaboration, we can still have some good times and get some laughs. The answer to our future destiny, is being kind and practical with each other while we are alive.
And it may prevent a descent into yet another one of the world's avoidable disasters or disgraces. I think I will advertise a cafe meeting to discuss for a start. I can't do so for a fortnight but I'll advise outcome. Anyone else who thinks okay please suggest things, and if contacts others please advise their outcomes. Cheers all.
Good lord. Survivalism 101. Join your bunker today.
If you can't say anything reasonable and wise don't bother Belladonna. I don't need your comments brand of ascetic acid.
Not long ago, you did the same to me for using AI.
When you say something reasonable and wise, I'll respond in kind.
Talking of a "walking symbol of the modern Labour party". I was unimpressed with Labour's Jan Luxton on yesterday's Q&A. She refused to answer most questions on the grounds that Labour had not revealed its rural/ farming policies. Not surprisingly her noisy bully boy opponents had a field day.
She sat there like a stunned mullet while National and Act crucified Labour with the latest refrain "tax, tax, tax. and more taxes". She never fired back until the end of the programme by which time it was too late. I venture to suggest the taxes game the Nats are playing is working and this poll would seem to confirm as much.
In politics you fight fire with fire. Get in first for once Labour! Every public discourse by every Labour MP should include the words "lies, lies, lies and more damned lies" with the addition of some humorous sarcasm along the lines "what's this week’s new tax National? We need to know so we can include it in our manifesto….
Get some cojones Labour and make mincemeat of NAct instead of letting them do it to Labour.
Or just release their policy – so they have something to talk to…..
I guess the equivalent of "frying in hell" would be another three years of the current government.
Just thinking – is it time for Chippy to do an Andrew Little – for the sake of the country?
not saying no, but some differences between 2017 and now.
Labour got lucky: Ardern was a once in a generation leader. Who is waiting in the wings now?
The Greens vote tanked from the Turei fallout, with a lot of people shifting to Labour. Greens atm are strong.
There was no pressure on Labour votes from OP in 2017.
Labour formed govt in 2017 with NZF, and Greens on C/S arrangement plus some ministers outside of govt. Can you imagine that scenario now?
In 2017 Little stepped down because they were tanking in the polls and Nat were strong. But Nat is weak atm, and the polls are close.
ACT only got one seat in 2017. Atm ACT and NZF are guaranteed quite a number of seats.
and so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_Zealand_general_election
If we leave aside the Curia poll today, Lab and Nat are both declining but Labour is still ahead of Nat. This is an election of the small parties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_New_Zealand_general_election#Graphical_summary
Kieran McAnulty
Amen.
Who is the chair of the election campaign y'all are busy chewing Hipkins out for executing.
My beef about Hipkins is his apparent lack of principles, witness the Captains Call last (unsuccessful) election.
Yes the campaign tactic looks flawed and McAnulty will share some of that blame but no doubt with a committee.
The campaign chair doesn't decide the campaign strategy or the policies the party will be campaigning on. I hope it isn't what they're planning right now but it does look like Labour's strategy is again about sleepwalking its way into government. Hipkins' marriage to neo-liberal economics is still very much alive and is why he needs to be replaced. It just so happens the only person around who's capable of taking on the job is also Labour's campaign chair.
https://www.labour.org.nz/party_info
McAnulty is the campaign chair.
The most recent poll, apart from Curia is Roy Morgan. Which has National in an even greater lead over Labour. The difference is the TOP polling (comfortably over 5% in RM, below in Curia)
I'm still more interested in the trend.
I agree. However, two polls in a row (from different pollsters) is more significant in the possibility of a new trend.
Obligatory.
https://www.kneecaplyrics.com/songs/guilty-conscience-lyrics-english
New Zealand First used a Kneecap song in one of its social media videos despite party leader Winston Peters saying the Irish group were “low IQ weasels”.
Last week, Peters posted on social media in response to an interview Kneecap gave to Stuff, in which they said they agreed with Green MP Tamatha Paul, who said the English language was a “bastard language”.
[…]
In response, Peters called Kneecap “low IQ weasels who have no idea about history” and that the group helped promote “woke cultural madness”.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/361029981/nz-first-used-kneecap-song-social-video-despite-winston-peters-calling-them-low-iq-weasels
…And they are touring Aotearoa.
Early Feb, Auckland and Wellys.
Checking out the state election for Saxony-Anhalt in Germany. Where the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland – far right party) have a commanding lead – and within a whisker of taking over. With 48%, they have more than doubled their party vote in 5 years.
All of the other parties would have to combine in a grand coalition to prevent this. Which is inherently unstable, and only requires one disaffected party to jump ship to fail (AfD are 3 seats short of an outright majority)
While it's 'only' a state election, not a national one – straws show the way the wind is blowing. And you can't argue that it's the result of apathy – since this has been one of the highest participation elections – at a record high of 76.5%
The issues of immigration, jobs and cost of living – are exactly the same ones we have here (and in Australia, for that matter).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/sep/06/saxony-anhalt-germany-afd-exit-poll-ulrich-siegmund
Merely the latest in the long-running series "If liberal politicians won't enforce the country's borders, voters will turn to illiberal politicians to do it." Mainstream parties throughout Europe are pinning a lot on voters caring more about the right-wing parties' less-savoury policies than they do about immigration, but they're really starting to push their luck. It's moronic – they could have headed this off any time over the last 30 years just by tightening up immigration and asylum laws, but apparently that's too much to ask.
Nah, the actual underlying process is "the world is changing, and not for the better, I'm white, and not getting on, therefore it's an issue of skin colour".
The German state where rhe afd won only has 9% foreign-born population, low compared with other states. Like 2024 with Trump, Musk has funded heaps of political advertising. Perception is everything.
In the last year, nationally, they've gone from 22% to 28% in the polls – and the largest party.
You can't comfort yourself with beliefs that this is just a white enclave.
German election polls 2026| Statista https://share.google/EHdpYdgJkdiPO8w6l
I half remembered a book I read on German history about the banality of evil. It gave a % of population that triggered a racist reaction or rejection of a group once it reached a certain point. AI came up with a writer Hannah Arendt who AI postulated saying as follows. The figure was 10%. Not high, but enough.
" The "10%" Foreign Density Observation (The Trigger of Hostility)
Arendt discusses a sociological observation regarding how pre-war societies reacted to incoming minority or refugee populations. She details that in certain Western and Central European countries, a local population could comfortably absorb or tolerate a minority population up to a certain density—often generalized in historical sociological texts as around 10%. Once a minority or "foreign" demographic exceeded that threshold in a specific region, it frequently triggered a localized xenophobic or "racist reaction" from the native populace, which the Nazis later exploited for their propaganda."
Further, Arendt argued that great evils in history are often committed not by sadistic monsters, but by ordinary, unthinking bureaucrats who simply follow orders and conform to the system without questioning it.
Arendt discussed the failure of educated people to be tolerant. Higher education and intellectual capacity do not automatically guarantee moral courage, empathy, or tolerance. Historically and socially, highly educated individuals and societies have frequently rationalized, engineered, or participated in systemic intolerance and atrocities.
So the voting masses follow…….
do you ever talk with people who have moved from centre or centre left to hard right?
It's difficult to know what you mean by 'hard right' in NZ.
But, if you mean populist and/or nationalist policies. I've met several people who were previously core Labour demographic (working class, unionized, etc). I can't guarantee that they voted Labour – but I wouldn't have been surprised. But who are now fervent NZF supporters. I would characterize all of them as damaged by the Covid lock downs- and the resulting division of NZ society. They have neither forgiven, nor forgotten.
I've also met a number of recent converts to TOP. It's difficult to characterize them as previously Left – since many were floating voters, or apolitical. [As a side-note, it will be interesting to see if TOP mobilize previously non-voters]
This idea that many voters are just bigots who are easily duped by right-wing propaganda is exactly why the AFD is growing and the mainstream parties are shrinking. Politicians and commentators throughout Europe have been peddling it for 30 years now and a lot of people are so sick of those clowns lying to them that they're willing to vote for anyone who sounds like they'll actually address the problems.
Has anyone asked what I believe is a legitimate ques… Should Lab/Chip rule out TPM? Cos TPM have effectively ruled out Lab & Nat by saying the Tiriti separate house/side hustle thingy effectively replacing the GG's seal on Bills with a Tribunal seal on Bills. I think Lab are going to pick up 3 or 4 Maori electorates, and if they rule out TPM they could get 1 or 2 more making team Willie the main man. Huhana & Tania are looking ok to win TTT & Waiariki if it's a 3-way split. Labour should go HARD for two ticks in Maori electorates.
Only if Labour are terminally stupid.
The greatest effect that TPM can have on the election and Parliament is by engineering an overhang. With TMP taking all the electorate seats – and encouraging their voters to vote Green or Labour party vote.
This would result in 7 additional seats (over an above 'normal' parliament size) – and all open to coalition with the left, rather than the right. Even if they sit on the cross-benches with confidence and supply, Labour can count on them, and National can't.
Why would Labour piss them off?
Now look at the alternative. If Labour go 'two ticks red' in the Maori electorates – the best they can hope for is that the party vote and the electorate vote cancel out. So they win the electorate seats – but get no new list MPs. Resulting in a standard size 120 seat parliament – and a much higher risk of losing to a right coalition.
TPM may hope that they can leverage something of their policy in negotiations (very little chance, I'd believe) – but are much more likely to accept minor concessions. Or (and I think this is more likely), choose to sit on the cross-benches as a kind of protest vote – but offer confidence and supply to a left-coalition.
I don't think this is as difficult an issue as it might first seem.
Unlike NZ1 and ACT, TPM is a "single-issue" party. Depending on their polling outcome, they could easily be content with Minister or Associate Minister of Maori Affairs and Treaty Settlements or similar titles, with an easier coalition of Labour/Green to do other things.