Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, January 23rd, 2026 - 28 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 …
https://time.com/7353478/davos-climate-leadership-end-fossil-fuel-era/
Are any of the coc's at davos . I bet they get seated at the kiddies table while the adults discuss serious matters.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360928682/price-inflation-rises-31-above-reserve-banks-target-range
Who's the woeful finance minister going to blame now?
This was expected.
The new RBG will soon be saying something an election year PM does not like.
The same thing is happening in the USA, inflation holding up near 3% and POTUS wanting rates cuts.
Labour should cite the 2023 pre-election RB forecasts, that inflation would fall under 3% in 2025. NACTNZF did not realise that, they did not meet the expectations.
Embarrassing.
Can we now state that although inflation could theoretically be triggered by uncontrolled government spending, in most real-world cases it is not – nor is it triggered by wage-spice spirals, though it may be exacerbated by wage-price spirals after the fact?
Rather, it is mostly caused by the flow-on effects of someone in the network of supply chains increasing markups because they have the pricing power to do so, and because they are looking to take a larger share of collectively created wealth than they previously enjoyed?
And that if these statements are true, the government's approach to reducing inflation has either been completely wrong-headed, or a ruse where it used the excuse of inflation to impose austerity on the bottom 80% of the population?
Ha ha, it was on the news.
She's taking credit for running a tight ship and blaming the inflation on natural causes.
In case anyone missed the poll yesterday, we start the year off as follows:
Labour 34.4%
National 31.5%
NZFirst 11.9%
Greens 7.7%
ACT 7.0%
Maori Party 3%
Since it's a Curia poll I'll only cite the aggregate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_New_Zealand_general_election
The 2026 direction of travel is clear: Labour and NZFirst have real momentum. That's a very uneasy potential combination.
NZFirst heading for 15% and Labour heading for 35% is regrettably afoot.
Weirdly the Maori Party have come out today and said they can work with Winston. That is a shocking admission before an election.
It is going to be very hard to defeat this coalition government when there isn't a viable alternative coalition.
Is there any way for the Greens to arrest their sustained slide?
288 days to go still until Election Day.
Coincidentally, two articles appeared in Newsroom (both still behind priority-access for subscribers).
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/01/23/record-numbers-of-offshore-new-zealanders-could-hold-key-to-the-next-govt/
Kevin Hague was recently appointed as Green Party chief of staff. In an interview with Newsroom, he cites a few factors that needed addressing, one of which is communication.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/01/23/green-party-chief-aims-for-no-more-sideshows-this-election-year/
Even a biased person wouldn’t argue with those statements, would they?
So we're starting off about the result of 2017. That worked.
Difficult decision for National, open warfare with NZ First to take away their options and hope hit doesn't blow up in their faces?
Open warfare would be great – NAct can’t govern (for the sorted) without the support of a resurgent Winston First (11.9%). Winnie for PM (9.7% support)!
No I'm starting off the year about the impending result of 2026.
An NZF+National+Act coalition with NZF on 15% is a coalition agreement for Winston as PM for half the term at least. That would make for a very stern political culture.
there's no precedent for the smaller party to have the PM role. Maybe if there was one party close in MP numbers to the highest party.
"there's no precedent for the smaller party to have the PM role"
There is at least one precedent for this.
Between 1932 and 1935 the Government was a coalition of the Reform Party, with 28 seats, and the United Party with 19 seats and a few independents.
The Prime Minister was George Forbes who was from the United Party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24th_New_Zealand_Parliament
that was interesting thanks.
Can't quite get the details, but looks like the 23rd government was a coalition of two right wing parties who had equal numbers of MPs. Forbes was the Prime Minister.
Quite a different situation to now, but I will amend my claim to say under MMP
You will almost certainly know more about it now than I do.
I only knew about him because he happened to have he same full name, George William Forbes, as one of my Grandfathers. He wasn't my grandfather but the coincidence caused me to look him up when I found out about it years ago and I remembered from that that he had been a minority PM.
You can probably say that your qualification on size is true and that 19 is pretty close to 28.
I didn't know, I just read some wikipedia articles.
The previous government was 27/27, and the PM from that government because PM in the next one despite having lower numbers. I don't know why, would like to know why, along with the electoral system and conventions of the day.
My point was there were circumstances that don't exist today, and I can't see any rational reason for Peters being PM if NZF are on 15% and Labour are on 35%. I don't think 19 and 28 are close either.
Forbes remained Prime Minister after the 1931 election even though the Reform Party held more seats, because the United–Reform coalition prioritised stability during the Great Depression and the exclusion of Labour from government.
Reform leader Gordon Coates (himself Prime Minister from 1925 to 1928) accepted Forbes’s continuation as Prime Minister in exchange for the Finance portfolio and a pretty much free hand to dictate fiscal and economic policy.
The coalition calculated that maintaining the government was critical to preventing a rapidly rising (and dangerously socialisy) Labour Party from taking the treasury benches. In the context of the time, they were genuinely concerned about Labour spearheading some kind of communist takeover.
The arrangement suited Reform just fine. They got a veto over policy, and left a weak and increasingly unpopular PM in place to wear all of the political risk.
In a lot of ways, it foreshadows both the current coalition and the pound of flesh Winston Peters extracted from Bolger in 1996.
cheers. Was it FPP?
I can put the comment in a much shorter version. It goes
"I can't see any rational reason for Peters being PM"
However I will admit that I am a bit biased and it doesn't any real connection to the debate.
I only mentioned the precedent because I happened to know of it for a totally unrelated reason, not because something that happened nearly 100 years ago is relevant today..
Yes, it was FPP
A very good Stuff commentary on how potentially destructive the Fast-track legislation will be appears at https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360927629/ian-taylor-dear-chris-bishop-not-kind-future-we-should-fast-track
The author makes the point that a mining company is seeking the right dig for gold, with the risk its activities will trash our environment and leave a massive toxic waste dump that will be a pollution risk for all time. In return NZ gets a few mining jobs for the locals and some royalties.
That sort of one-sided xchange is hugely damaging to NZ's interests and makes no sense, unless you are a politician.
We now see clearly the reality that it is indeed the US that takes the leading role in the US/Israeli genocide in Palestine. Netanyahu, against his instincts , has been corralled into accepting the inevitability of the BoP with his acceptance of a seat. Of course, there is no Palestinian seat and no mention of Gaza in the BoP charter.
This demonstrates that Israel is left to its own devices only so long as it follows US imperitives and in the case of Iran, will be expected to be the pawn that draws fire away from the US by leading any attack.
This article takes the reverse opinion to the last one I posted in that rather than functioning merely as a Trump enrichment vehicle, the author clearly believes that the BoP will become an alternative to the UN if it can secure at least one major European country to it.
<
p style=”text-align:justify”>https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/the-architect-of-gaza-s-destruction-joins-the–board-of-peac
Trump has uninvited Mark Carney to his Board of Peace:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2026/jan/22/donald-trump-greenland-tariffs-ice-democrats-funding-bill-us-politics-live-news-updates
Carney will be distraught – Not.
Once (or when?) Luxon declines the kind and generous offer, Nicola Willis can claim that she saved the NZ taxpayers ca. NZ$1.7 billion (US$1 billion).
Peters at Ratana underscoring that he won't work with Hipkins or TPM.
Tough gig politics in 2026.
2. A 4-way coalition would be unworkable so he wouldn't have to work with TPM. They may be a rounding error in this poll, given the infighting.
Peters likes working with new Labour leaders, established ones like Clark managed him.
So glad Peters won't work with Hipkins.
Now we just need Labour 35 Greens 12 and TPM winning all the Maori seats and it's sorted.