Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, April 9th, 2026 - 49 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
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 …
Latest IPSOS Polls in Scotland of the 7 May Holyrood elections has The SNP and Greens winning 80 seats for a Scottish Independence Mandate.
The English parties in Scotland are polling at 49 seats. Labour is in 4th place! This is the end of the United Kingdom.
When is Aotearoa/New Zealand going to finally grow a pair and dump the Union Jack and the English Monarch?
What did the monarchy ever do for us?
😁
My guess is that no-one in NZ will initiate dumping the monarch as head of state in the current environment. That's because trying to agree on the constitutional rights and role of Maori in any new republican governing system is so potentially divisive. The only politician that I can see who might be keen on such a dogfight is David Seymour – partly because he's half-mad in my opinion, but also because he thinks he can win it.
Currently, there is a rising tide of populist sentiment against the accommodation with Maori and the meaningful (but not literal) recognition of Treaty obligations that NZ has been committed to since the first treaty settlements in the 1980s-90's. This sentiment of popular resistance to an elite agenda is a bedrock of ACT and NZF support. Unless this reactionary sentiment can be beaten back, it is more likely that the English will replace the monarchy before NZ does. Australia is in a different position because indigenous Australians remain largely irrelevant in their politics.
Simply shifting NZ to Australasian Federation as an independent state, and NZ retaining all of the Treaty of Waitangi, would be one of the simplest ways to keep the Crown and gain in strength as a country.
Australia has a bout 19% with Scottish or Irish heritage, with NZ it's a bit more but similar.
Just 24 years to the Bicentennary.
agree. Dumping the might might appeal, but it's what we replace it with that matters. Big question for NZ and I can't see an appetite for it atm.
I agree with most of this, but I think it’s a mistake to treat the current wave of scepticism towards Māori and Te Tiriti as simply anti-elite or anti-“Wellington” sentiment.
From where I sit, in one of the bluest of blue regions, I see plenty of people in small towns and rural communities pushing back on the story ACT is trying to tell. They may dislike local councils, distrust big government, and have a caricatured view of the average Green or Labour voter.
But they also believe that when you make a deal, you keep it. What else, in the end, measures a person if not their word?
Case in point: my local school board is dominated by farmers. We all know the type: fiscally conservative ACT/National voters. They work hard, go to the pub on Friday, play rugby on Saturday, then head back to the woolshed. We even have an ACT MP as a parent.
It took us all of five minutes to agree we would stay committed to the Treaty principles. Not because it was a regulatory requirement, but because it was simply the right thing to do.
Māori are not some abstract political category to them: they are neighbours, friends, and the kids their kids go to school with.
So yes, there is some of the usual mix of economic anxiety, fear, and plain racism. But that risks flattening what’s really going on. Underneath it is a more fundamental question about identity and values: who we think we are, and what kind of country we want to be.
We’re a young country, and still working out what biculturalism actually means in practice. Those are conversations we haven’t fully had yet. And they’re not going to be comfortable when we do.
Aotearoa New Zealand's National Identity, the role of Maori in that, the role of the new large Asian population and multiculturism are very challenging questions.
An identity will evolve with or without leadership and debate but could be driven by unfriendly sources like SM. For all our sakes I wish we would have that debate sooner.
The timing of ending of the UK, and the identity related decisions that will force on us, is not known but imminent in my view. We can choose, however, to accelerate the debate now.
Thoughtful Res P. We may be young in mind, but old at heart. Time for us to stop practising, discuss with all iwi and hapu, with rolling meetings, fixing on wished for basics, and then what seems possible on a short term basis which may be all we have, and have staged moves starting immediately; no rolling out 20 year plans in grandiose terms.
Have to look at the past and the future at same time. Uncharted waters ahead. We must keep our trust in each other, handshake as well as legally commit to some practical moves with multiple advantages to as many people and needs as poss. Abandon the terminators we have as dying whales on our shores, perhaps Maori would have ideas for what to do with the corps.
Yes, it's a much more variegated phenomenon than I implied.
SNP + Greens govt doesn't automatically mean that Scotland will split from England as far as I can see. This article in The Scottish Review, from March & updated 7 April says it's not clear cut.
Also, apparently the UK Govt has to agree to another referendum:
Netanyahu is still bombing Lebanon since the ceasefire. He knows no bounds and will not be happy until the Middle East is flattened, and left as a smouldering wreck. Can someone pull his head in please ???
There is no ceasefire between Israel and Hizb'allah.
Iran thinks that's what the ceasefire entails. Since they control the Strait of Hormuz, they have the power to force the ceasefire.
Replying to Bill at 1.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/07/nationalist-wins-uk-celtic-nations-may-elections?
”In four weeks, the shape of British politics is likely to change dramatically. For the first time, nationalists who aspire to break up the UK are expected to be in control of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland simultaneously. “The change will be seismic,” said Angus Robertson, a senior minister in the Scottish government“
To be fair, I’m all for a United Ireland. Whether an independent Scotland and Wales would work for their people is a moot point.
The rise over the past 30 years of English ‘Blood & Soil’ Nationalism and Scottish Civic Nationalism parallels the decline of Britishness.
The Precious Union is under threat from the end of Britishness which was built on Protestantism, The Empire and The Union; shooglie pegs!
England is where the decision to withdraw from Northern Ireland will come from. And the exit will be sudden. And it will not be about ‘consent’. And it will neither be funded nor negotiated.
And Unionists, totally unprepared, will be have the red white & blue carpet pulled from under them overnight. The governing parties in Ireland, FF/FG, are also failing to prepare.
Scotland is going to give John Swinney a strong mandate on 7 May to move Scottish Independence forward. There is litte 'moot' about Scotland thriving away from London rule.
Scotand in a similar size population or larger than Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Slovakia, Ireland, Croatia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Latvia, Estonia, Luxembourg and Malta. No one is questioning their Independence.
There’s something a bit bleak and confusing about the current polls.
You’d think the conditions are there for a pretty clear shift. Cost of living is still biting, public services are stretched to breaking, and there’s a general sense that things aren’t tracking that well. On top of that, Luxon hasn’t exactly been dominating as a political figure.
In most cycles, that combination would translate into a solid lead for the opposition.
Instead, we’re looking at a dead heat at best, and more likely a scenario where the current government just… carries on. Not because there’s a surge of support, but because nothing else is really cutting through either.
That’s the part I find hardest to understand.
How is the coalition even in the conversation???
The coalition is in the conversation because of the vagaries of MMP……..remember the National party were ahead in the 2017 election party vote results but Winston decided to go with Labour………Winston will most likely be the decider of the election result in Nov 7…..unless of course Labour can get over 40% and the Greens beat NZFirst on percentage points…….There will certainly be some strategic electorate/party vote scenarios come Nov 7 however Labour must take a good proportion of votes from National and NZFirst to secure winning the govt benches…..unless of course if Winston and Chippy share an epiphany and decide to work together….which at this point seems totally out the window…..
"How is the coalition even in the conversation???"
Because of the difference between rational political actors accurately observing objective conditions, and vibes. At best, vibes lag behind reality and when they get catalysed by something important, they can change quickly in the direction of reality. At worst, vibes are completely disconnected from real conditions. Sad to say, much political campaigning is about the manufacturing of vibes, in so far as that is possible at all. The rational individual political actor is as big a myth as the rational self-maximising individual of neoclassical economics.
To gain/hold power you need 3 things
1) give them something to be afraid of
2) Give them someone to blame
3) Tell them you'll fix it
Plus there's other things, like having friends imbedded in the media….
I don't think Labour have grasped this sort of stuff. They are trying with the 'making things worse' line, but I don't think that is cutting it.
OMG crap.
That wasn't Labour's strategy in 2017 or 2020, and we won both times.
Labour are the most popular political part in New Zealand and well on track to go better than its 2017 result.
Go look in the mirror and find out how to correct your thinking.
"How is the coalition even in the conversation???"
The reality of NZ politics these days is a large portion of our population really don't give a toss, I work with lots of different people from lots of different backgrounds, ages, education etc and a large group wouldn't be able to name 5 politicians and are fine with that. I feel when I talk to them about it, they just don't think it's worth worrying about as the politicians seem to always be dodging, lying and generally just lining their own pockets and from where I stand, that's getting hard to argue with.
Agree 100% we have a Million apathetic voters who can't be bothered voting and will just accept what they are given from either the Left or the Right.
Then our job is simple: make it worth bothering about.
It isn’t that simple; eligible non-voters who’ve been disengaged from politics may walk straight into the arms of the populists that populate the Coalition.
It really is that simple, even if it’s not easy.
The right doesn’t have a monopoly on populist messaging, on appealing to shared national values, or on where the Overton window sits.
If disengaged voters are up for grabs, then they’re up for grabs for everyone. The question isn’t whether they’ll be mobilised: it’s who shows up with a story worth mobilising them for.
And that’s fundamentally a communications problem, not a policy one.
Fair reply.
The Right has the means, motive, and opportunity and the Left has a motive, less of an opportunity, and not the same means by a long shot (cf. party donations) – the playing field is not level. In addition, not only in NZ but everywhere else, the Right has better populist skills, IMO.
Labour, at least, is recruiting for a massive door-knocking campaign, AFAIK. I think this could be effective but the door-knockers will need something to present other than a photo of Chris Hipkins, e.g., a short list of key policies and possibly even a pledge-card. Policies are a key part of communication and they should be clear, concise, and consistent to pique enough of people’s short attention span, make a personal connection at an emotional level (vibe), and to leave a positive association and hopefully restore some trust – the trick isn’t to persuade voters, at a rational level, then & there.
The Left will be up against a populist RW propaganda campaign, especially in social media, as it has been for years. With AI in the mix, I’m not sure how this going to play out, but I’m not feeling terribly optimistic.
I agree that that will work on people who are still looking for a "story" but I think you are failing to see that lots of people just don't give a shit about politics, full stop.
I'm not saying this is what I align with as I don't but lots of people I interact with do and showing up with some policies on a piece of paper or doing something on social media or any other way you can think of isn't changing that fact.
I think that disinterest (aka don’t give a toss/shit) only partly explains why about a million eligible voters don’t vote at all and I think that there’s variety of reasons. For example:
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/09/03/nz-first-wouldnt-have-returned-to-parliament-without-labour-voters/
They might not care about the game of politics at the moment.
But they definitely care about their jobs. Their kids. Their families. Their neighbourhood. And the nagging fact that they feel worse off than they did four years ago.
That’s the level you have to meet them on: everyday life, not abstract policy.
The job is to show them that politics has something to say about those things — and that is what makes it worth caring about. Voters don’t turn out for arguments about marginal tax rates; you have to speak to something deeper.
So yes, we can churn out policy and doorknock all year. But the real change happens in those break room and family dinner conversations, grounded in people’s actual day-to-day experience.
A bit of a straw man argument.
Sure, and that means that you’ll have to have something for people to think & talk about, e.g., policies, and to find a way to break into those semi-public/private conversations. The alternatives are a strong focus on the leader and his/her brand, which could turn into a popular personality contest, a focus on the party’s values & principles, which could turn into broad-brush sloganeering, or focus on nothing in particular and leave the voters floundering & guessing. We can discuss the merits or demerits of each of those strategies, but it seems to me that Labour has chosen the most robust one albeit that it’s a work in progress.
Communicating policy doesn’t necessarily mean forcing people to read PDFs of 10+ pages with technocratic jargon, fully-costed budgets, and many other details – this is fodder for the few who’re interested in it and have the bandwidth to dig into it deeper – but could be a short description/title that grabs attention (headline) and conveys are clear message/intention. This should be backed up by clear, concise, and consistent messaging in media interviews and, dare I say it, further supported by bloggers, for example, to spread the buzz/message.
Yes, and it should be a lesson to Hipkins given what happened last time. Trouble is that Labour hasn't got the balls to stand for something, not at the moment anyway, and probably not while Hipkins is leader. Sad really, when the government appears weak and vulnerable.
In most cycles, that combination would translate into a solid lead for the opposition. …
How is the coalition even in the conversation???
Because Labour MPs made the decision to keep a defeated Prime Minister. None has ever come back to win the next election since 1960.
There's a good case to be made for Hipkins as a reasonable leader of the opposition. He is competent, doesn't put "foot in mouth" very often, and manages not to offend. Or inspire.
But he spends much of his time looking back not forwards, responding to media Qs about his own record, defending his previous positions (Covid, CGT, etc). Opposition leaders love to say "that was the past, that's old, I'm new" (Key, Ardern, Luxon). Hipkins can't do that, and the public wouldn't buy it if he did.
So the 2026 election will be National going on about the previous government, and Hipkins defending it. Every time he says "We will do XYZ" he will immediately be asked "So why didn't you do XYZ?".
Those of us who are desperate to see the coalition removed do not want to re-fight previous elections. But thanks to Labour's decision, we're stuck with that narrative. The opposition would be miles ahead if we weren't.
That's the best analysis I have read to be honest.
And you are 100% correct. Hipkins is going to spend the year defending the previous government rather than promoting a new way
I think that’s a bit unfair on Chris Hipkins. He’s not responsible for the coalition’s political strategy, and realistically any alternative Labour leader would be open to the same attacks. They all served as ministers in the last government.
The real issue is that National is still running against a strawman version of Jacinda Ardern rather than governing in the present. That only works if the opposition accepts the premise and spends its time defending the past.
The opportunity for Labour isn’t to pretend the last government didn’t happen, but to refuse to relitigate it and force the conversation onto what this government is actually doing (or not) now.
Which is actually arguably easier to do with Hipkins than with any alternative.
And if the polling is showing anything, it’s that those attack lines aren’t landing while diesel is pushing $4 a litre. That points to a communications problem, not a leadership one: one you wouldn’t necessarily want to reset too early in an election year.
Your comment contains much common sense, which can be deceiving.
Assuming that the Labour Party is aware of that, and why wouldn’t they, what might their reasoning & thought process be? This is rhetorical; we could waste endless threads here on speculation and venting.
I’d argue that a major reason that Labour lost badly in 2023 was because of a Covid-hangover. So, let’s look at some facts. NZ has done quite well to get through the pandemic and the Covid-19 Inquiry said as much. Labour has been doing well in the polls and so has Hipkins in the preferred PM stakes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_New_Zealand_general_election
So far, Labour has followed a strategy of small target and they told us to wait till June or so for more policies. Given the Iran war, this turned out to be a prescient decision.
Whether Hipkins will be a weakness dragging down the chances of a new government after 7 Nov or whether he can turn those perceived weaknesses into strengths remains to be seen – he’s not a political chameleon like Winston Peters who can bat away just about anything that he doesn’t like or agree with, but I don’t want Hipkins to be like that. Anyway, Labour must have made a calculated decision to do what they’re doing – the only poll that really matters is on 7 Nov.
Not speculation and venting, simply answering the question. I've given the reason why Labour aren't doing better (which is not calling for Hipkins' head now, that decision to keep him was taken and we have to live with it).
Several comments here saying Labour/Hipkins are doing well in the polls, so I'll just reply here. Yes, they're doing OK compared to Luxon.
This is the easiest job any opposition has had in modern history. A staggeringly incompetent, spineless, blustering buffoon is pretending he is the PM.
When free gifts fall into your lap every time Luxon opens his mouth, how could anyone fail to pick them up?
There is no comparison with Labour leaders against Key/English.
My comment about ‘speculation and venting’ wasn’t specifically addressed to you; it followed my rhetorical question and why I don’t see much point in ging down that rabbit hole.
Indeed, there seems to be no end to Luxon’s poor communication skills, but I’d argue that if Labour/Hipkins would pick up on each and every one of them, they would have full-time job just doing that; the opportunity cost would be immense. I think they’re wiser/smarter than that and remain focussed on the essentials and not distracted by noise (and/or playing the man too much).
Whilst this might be true, it’s also irrelevant, IMO. The two main (legacy) parties competing with each other are Labour and National and their respective leaders are Hipkins and Luxon, although I’m not convinced that Luxon will last until 7 Nov.
Luxon's open-mouth-empty-brain is amply compensated-for by the Nat machine and its appendages so "picking up" each vacuous utterance and attempting to make hay from it would be a waste of time. Hipkins is managing very well, in my opinion; he's holding the space while the unreality of the CoC reveals itself and there's still plenty of time for the good folk of New Zealand to form a suitable view in time to vote.
And that's really the only thing that matters going into November.
Hipkins isn’t running against the perfect Labour leader. Or even Key or English.
He’s running against an empty suit masquerading as a Prime Minister, a deeply weird, conspiracy-adjacent version of Winston Peters, and David Seymour. Who is… well… David Seymour.
In that context, being boring, normal, orthodox, and vaguely competent isn’t a weakness. It’s an advantage.
What do you want the man to do? Walk on water?
At this point, all you’re really doing is complaining that Chris Hipkins sucks because he's not doing everything you want him to do.
And when others point out that a significant chunk of voters don’t see it that way, the argument shifts to saying the electorate is wrong. Or that if he does win, it somehow won’t be “real.”
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. “Chris Hipkins sucks because he’s not doing everything you want him to do.” What?
Maybe you could now re-read what I actually said.
But I won't invent your lines, I'll just quote them:
And that's really the only thing that matters going into November. …
He’s running against an empty suit masquerading as a Prime Minister.
If you really believe that Luxon is locked in to be Hipkins' opponent in November, that's fine. I firmly believe that he won't be.
So what happens if Labour wake up one morning and discover their greatest asset has gone. Proclaiming "But … but Hipkins is better than Luxon!" will then be worth precisely nothing.
Bold to assume Luxon is the centre of gravity for the election.
Even if National Party rolled him tomorrow, they’d be hoping for a repeat of the Jacinda Ardern effect without the context that made it work. That wasn’t just a leadership swap you can replicate on demand: it was timing, zeitgeist, and a candidate who could actually carry it.
More importantly, the underlying proposition to voters doesn’t change. The coalition is still the coalition. A vote for National is still a vote for David Seymour and Winston Peters having real influence over the direction of government.
Even with a new leader, in any plausible scenario, National still needs both of them to govern. That dependency doesn’t disappear with a leadership change. The maths stays the maths.
That’s the argument Labour should make, and it doesn’t depend on who the National leader is.
Well it would be great to do another beat-down on Hipkins, actually all you have to do is read the polls to see you are just wrong.
Labour got 36.9% in 2017, and got to win government.
Labour are very close to 36% already and on course to get to 39%.
What isn't improving is the Maori Party who are effectively dead, and the Greens who aren't matching the rise of New Zealand First.
The rise of NZF is at the expense of the Nats and ACT.
NZF is nowhere near the Greens on the political spectrum so the comparison is spurious.
A usually pretty reliable writer puts up a strange report. He says that the "rescue" of the downed pilot in Iran was actually a raid by USA on a nuclear depot. USA says they had to blow up some planes because they got "stuck" in the mud. Iran says No. They shot down the attackers including 2X Hercules, 1 strike Eagle, two helicopters plus others.
True? Would like to see some confirmation from somewhere else reliable.
Replying to Bill at 3.1
The likelihood of England pulling out of Northern Ireland before a winning referendum must be small. The political fallout would be huge.
I agree about Scotland. They are perfectly capable of looking after themselves.
Wales, not so sure. They don’t have the infrastructure that Scotland has built up over the years. Their judiciary being one example. Also could they be financially independent?
Would Farage paint on the side of a big red bus
– Give Ulster to Eire and save $1bn a month — ?
Yes he would…- (I know every bit of that slogan in incorrect but so was the one Johnson painted on a big red bus….and he got Brexit).
Even if the polls weren't strongly in favour of Unity in Ireland the simple fact of London calling for them would be a message to Unionists that they are not wanted.
If Scotland breaks with England, Northern Ireland Unionists will have lost a huge part of their connections with the Eastern Island.
Wales has a long way to go before separation is on the table. Northern Ireland is already in the EU arrivals lounge. Scotland is about to enter the UK departure lounge.
" They are perfectly capable of looking after themselves".
Do you really think so? At the moment they get very generous support to keep them going. They get about 10% more money per head than do people in England. They also have some very large banks. They are too big to be backed by Scotland alone and would almost certainly up-sticks and move their head offices south of the border.
The English Government wouldn't back them via the Bank of England if they decided to remain as Scotland based would they?
They have much of the British gas and oil production but that is running down.
I think that the populace would do what they did in 2014. In a referendum they would vote no.
The Bank of Scotland was rolled into Lloyds Group a long time ago and is only a brass plate in Edinburgh.
Royal Bank of Scotland was rolled into Nat West Group a long time ago and only is a brass plate in Edinburgh.
I'm glad you highlighted this. Indiginuous Scottish Banks and a Scottish Stock Exchange will grow in an Independet Scotland inside the EU. After a transition period with a Scottish currency Scotland will join the Euro Zone like Ireland.
There are massive gas fields in the Shetland Basin (google it) coming online faster I suspect due to the Straits of Hormuz events.
The vote in Scotland went narrowly Yes after Labour/Tories made a 'Vow' which was disavowed the day after the vote. Gordon Brown is a very disliked person in Scotland as a result. The people will not be fooled a second time.