Written By:
- Date published:
6:05 am, January 25th, 2026 - 46 comments
Categories: act, australian politics, election 2026, greens, International, labour, national, national/act government, nz first, uk politics, winston peters -
Tags:
Ten months to go and there is no political party currently countering the sustained rise of New Zealand First.
For the first time in Australia’s history, a minor party has polled higher than one of the other major parties. The combined intended vote for the Coalition is now at a record low of 53%. One Nation is now more popular, and has just 6% to go higher than Labor.
The main causes according to the polls for the rise in the hard right party’s support is crime and immigration anxiety, as well as the cost of living. It also doesn’t help that the National Party has nearly disintegrated and the Liberals are in chaos.
This Australian polling is going in the same direction as in the United Kingdom, where the Reform Party is now leading the polls so high above the Conservatives that several leading Conservative figures have now jumped ship to Reform. Labour, Conservatives, and Greens are all in a band of 6 points below 20%.
The rise of One Nation and Reform has a strong corollary here in the rise of New Zealand First.
New Zealand First is tracking towards its best-ever result in the upcoming 2026 elections.
At 12% and consistently rising over the last 12 months, with a 2023 election starting point of 6.1%, they have doubled and are going higher.
They continue to target small shares of a very broad range of voter segments.
By no stretch of the imagination are New Zealand First as deeply anti-immigration, nativist, and anti-establishment as Reform or One Nation. NZF have policy echoes to those other extremes. There’s no perfect parallel, just a very clear tracking.
New Zealand First’s ideological tone has been getting more confident over 3 terms, with a clear track record across both Labour and National governments. But it is in their operating tactics, dominance in exchanges with the media mainstream or otherwise, and alignment with the leadership of Donald Trump railing against most postwar diplomatic structures, that makes the rise of New Zealand First worth tracking against Reform and One Australia.
We should pay attention here because Australia is the country whose politics most closely resembles our own. Indeed we are increasingly an economic and social subset of Australia in all but our Parliament and in sport.
An important difference with the NZF rise is that they are in power and Reform and One Australia are not. Usually Winston’s party peaks just before the election date and then goes rapidly down afterwards. This time it’s different. NZF are on the rise from a long way back and it’s not stopping. They are heading to be indispensable in any coalition government. In 2023 they received 8 seats with 6.1%. At 12% vote share they would overtake the Greens as the third largest party in Parliament.
On the current track to November they would be near 20%. So we would see lot more of this list of people in Cabinet:
I’ll leave it to others to speculate on why this NZF rise is so consistent, or why it’s tracking other anti-globalist and nativist parties.
The very last thing we should do is scoff at the potential for an NZF 20% result. Jim Anderton leading the Alliance Party had similar charisma and at 18% polling would have changed our politics forever in an MMP context. That’s the scale of what’s at stake here.
The question is whether NZF’s rise can be blunted by the Greens or Labour or National. I don’t count TPM because honestly they are toast.
There are so many re-postures that the Greens or Labour could execute to gain some voters back. They may simply presume that NZF will just continue to eat into conservative voter share as is occurring in the UK and Australia, and ride it out pretending it doesn’t matter. They may decrease policy differences on immigration as PM Starmer has done this year. They may hope that the Trumpian right declines this year and hope that decline tracks to similar parties worldwide, in time to be effective in November 2026. They may find common policy ground and contest as a more united front. They may seek to decrease differences in law and order policies as Albanese is doing.They could change non-charismatic leaders at the last minute as they’ve both done close to the wire.
All very big and very risky bets.
Whatever it is, there is no evident political plan by any party to counter the rise of New Zealand First. The UK and Australian experiences show a high likelihood that NZF’s rise will continue for some time yet.
Unfortunately unlike Australia and the UK, we only have 10 months left to do something.
Anything.
I agree the trend is real and worth taking seriously. But it’s not inevitable, and the answer isn’t panic re-posturing or trying to mirror NZF’s tone.
Populists succeed, here and overseas, when uncertainty reigns: cost-of-living pressures, crime anxiety, institutional distrust, and armed conflict. In that environment, parties with simple, emotionally legible narratives do well. NZF isn’t winning because it has better policy, or even because Winston is uniquely crafty. It’s winning because it is loud, clear, confident, and unburdened by values it won’t abandon to tap into that anxiety.
The international evidence matters. Where centre-left parties have tried to tack right on immigration or law and order (Starmer, US Democrats), they’ve looked weak and unconvincing. Where they’ve been explicit, progressive, and disciplined (Albanese and Carney) they’ve won decisively.
Not by out-populising the right, but by offering a credible, values-anchored alternative that people could actually understand.
Yes, there are risks in any response. But the biggest risk is mistaking frustration for strategy. This isn’t about changing the system, swapping leaders at the last minute, or hoping global trends save us.
It’s about basic political craft.
None of this is inevitable. NZF’s rise can be blunted. But only if Labour and the Greens pare back their language and priorities into a counter-narrative that makes sense at the kitchen table. Fewer messages. Clear trade-offs. Focused on the here and now.
Politics is hard. Winning hearts and minds takes clarity, consistency, and persistence. The worst thing we can do is panic ourselves into a radical and unwinnable strategy 10 months out.
Ardern replaced Little to run Labour 4 months out from the election, and pulled Labour back from the brink, and then into power.
So we just keep gambling on that happening again?
Labour's "more property tax = better health" is as good a tradeoff as you are going to get.
Labour is tracking just fine towards 37-38%.
The massive problem for those of a leftwards persuasion against NZF is the Greens have continued to decline and TPM have the smell of a dumpster fire.
One piece of good news is Kevin Hague as GP chief of staff. The Greens have had a big turn over of staff, really hoping they're hiring in people who can think differently about what is needed. The Newsroom piece is worth a read.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/01/23/green-party-chief-aims-for-no-more-sideshows-this-election-year/
I made Ad aware of that article and the other good one relevant to the Greens: https://thestandard.nz/open-mike-23-01-2026/#comment-2054549.
It was a September election, so 2 not 4 months out.
Hipkins would not go with Farage of Hanson (note spelling) and so he shouldn't go with Peters.
Winston’s support for the USA pulling out of the WHO makes him a fully paid up member of the anti-vax nutters brigade. He is toxic. If that wasn’t bad enough, Shane Jones is even worse.
You really want to bet the country that Labour wouldn't do exactly what it did in 2017?
You are not saying that NZ in 2026 is the same as NZ in 2017? There has been a massive change in those 9 years.
I remain doubtful that Hipkins would rule out NZF. But we will see.
But Winston has ruled out Labour "we're not going there again."
Recently?
At Ratana, this month, he repeated that he would not go with Labour, if Hipkins was leader.
4 days ago: https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/360936411/te-pati-maori-leaves-door-ajar-nz-first-winston-peters-slam-it-shut-ratana
bugger, the Post has found a block to Archive's work around.
Yes, I see that too; when I clicked it about 20 min ago, it opened fine.
Edit: when I google for WP saying something like that in the last week, the Post is a high hit and when I click on it, it opens just fine.
Strangely the anti-vax brigade seen to be ignoring Winston's position and work through the pandemic when he was promoting lock downs and vaccination. When / if they see through Winston's adaptability / two facedness they'll most likely return to the wasted vote, until then the anti-vaxers are an easy couple of % for NZF to hoover up.
We and Canada should be grateful we do not have Murdoch media.
Oz, UK (also Rothermere – Mail onto Telegraph) and USA (also Ellison into CBS) – the Murdoch media influence.
We should keep an eye on the Herald new management set up (remember their winter of discontent play in 2000 in defence of the ECA and their 2008 effort to promote a Labour-NZF government to block a Labour-Green government) and developments like The Platform.
Here the proponents of nationalist sentiment (NZF) have been limited by NACT use of immigration to hold down wage levels.
But of course it is used every 3 years to maximise the NZF coalition talks leverage.
This time NZF is acting in international lockstep with Trump/Putin against the western regime – the one WP claims to be part of. Irony.
Also NZF are straight out of the 2026 political blocks with a dominant set-piece move at Ratana.
The Labour response is to list what NZF enabled from NACT and what would continue with that coalition in a second term.
Thus what a vote for Labour would achieve, all the policies Labour would reverse.
The purpose is to make Winston Peters say, that is why Labour would be a coalition option (albeit with a change of leader).
That entire gambit reminds one of 2017 "new beginning" reprise (Little to Ardern)(Hipkins to Big).
It won't happen if Hipkins and Labour are polling well. Hipkins can say, it would make coalition talks interesting.
Here’s a radical thought.
If Labour were to poll well and end up in pole position to form and lead the next Government and if NZF were kingmaker again, then Peters could gracefully bow out at that stage for the sake of a stable Government and for the sake of the country. He’ll be 81 in November and that might secure his legacy on the highest note possible, as a true and true NZ statesman (not: Leader of NZF), and quite likely the best chance of a suitable semi-retirement position somewhere.
He has said recently that he gets regular support from older international politicians, including Mahathir of Malaysia who was PM into his 80s and is still going as a key influencer into h is 90s.
Peters will not be retiring unless health dictates it.
Another radical thought – Winston staying on, with Winston First on 12%, might result in more bipartisan (Labour+National) legislation, regardless of which party Winston opts for. I'm thinking Labour supporting National to get Luxon's weak FTA with India over the line, and National perhaps supporting fair pay agreements (I must be dreaming) and entrenching Māori seats.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/584820/greens-put-forward-member-s-bill-to-entrench-maori-seats
The increasing support for all of these right-wing populist parties UK, France, Germany, Australia) comes down to "If liberals won't control the borders, fascists will," except that it's more like "If mainstream parties won't control the borders, right-wing populist parties will."
Voters know that both National and Labour support mass immigration (National for the supply of cheap workers and Labour for some delusional 'diversity is strength' bullshit). For some people, that's a big enough issue to swing their vote (Disclaimer: I'm not one of those people, being a Green Party member and voter). The issue isn't as big here yet as it is in Europe, but it will get there.
There has been no discernible change to immigration policy as a result of NZF and their 2017 and 2023 coalition agreements.
Really? I've never heard it put that way.
Labour needs growth to fund its government policies (numbers and not indexing tax thresholds do that). It is sometimes attacked for not catering to business interests enough
Diversity is about who, not numbers. Neither party has determined on who, just about skills and employment.
SPC:
Diversity is about who, not numbers. Neither party has determined on who, just about skills and employment.
The recent trade deal with India includes provisions for Indian student and work visas that could possibly result in increased immigration from India:
Yup.
We do have FTA agreements – earlier the one with China – that include tertiary study access and right to work during study and after study.
We also have mutual agreements that allow right to live and work – usually age limited – unrelated to FTA.
To be fair, these provisions are standard in a free trade agreement, and given the relative size of our economies, we probably didn’t have much choice.
We can have rules-based free trade, or fortress Zealandia. We probably can’t have both.
RP so must we lie back and just get trampled on so the wealthy can have the finer things of life that they deserve?
True, in NZ First's case the anti-immigration rhetoric is about appeal to voters, it's never matched with actual anti-immigration actions when in government. Still, even if its MPs were genuinely interested in taking action, National would never commit to that in a coalition agreement – its donors value the cheap labour way too highly.
National and Labour tried quite hard to stem immigration to something more manageable from 2017-2020.
On the residence end, the residence visa numbers in the NZ Residence Programme (a residence visa target over 2 years) were reduced from 100,000 to 90,000 and SMC points requirements were increased from 100 (if in NZ with a job) or 140 otherwise, to 160 for everyone.
For temporary visas, tertiary student visas were curtailed, median wage thresholds were added for relevant work visa categories, temporary visas for partners of workers were restricted, and the concept of an overall maximum length of stay for lower-skilled work visas was added (the 'stand-down period' – work visa holders in lower-skilled employment had to leave NZ for at least 1 year after 3 years on work visas).
Then we had Covid which saw restricted immigration because of the border closures, and something close to a labour shortage. Business leaders and media reacted to the recruitment difficulties with a massive campaign to increase immigration. National and ACT included more liberal immigration policies in their manifestoes and then implemented them even though the economy cratered and that wasn't necessary.
Something NZ First struggled with in 2017-20 was where to cut immigration – they wanted to reduce visa numbers, but found it hard to actually select categories for reductions e.g. reducing visas for family of citizens/residents aren't palatable and will just annoy the public. A lot of the attempts to reduce immigration fall over when it's time to get into the detail.
Fixed it
Post Covid lockdown.
And Labour (2022-2023) opened things up too much (administration failures) leaving a lot of problems when the economy tightened 2023-2024.
Some of those items I noted came in under National – SMC changes, reduction in the NZRP and the introduction of the stand-down period. Agree that National didn't try as hard to stem the inward flow of migration as Labour/NZ First, but National did reach a point of realising something had to be done, and made some changes (probably begrudgingly).
Were any of National's changes in 2017?
Or were they in 2024-25?
What borders on Stupidity?
Canada and Mexico
Hypothetically, were the NZF leader to meet his age-related demise during the next 10 months- or even announce that he's retiring- what would be the party's chances? NZF has always been the Winston first party, and most people still couldn't name the other MPs.
Without him, does the party still exist?
Winston First would likely become Shane Jones First – NZ's second Jones First party.
Thanks DrowsyMK for that historical point about the (likely) intentions of Jones NZParty and how it actually worked out for him and his phalanx. The dark shadow of the scheming cabal and unknown oligarch-minded types was not so noticeable then as NZ still shone in our eyes.
At 6% I would have said maybe not.
At 12% and rising I'd say of course.
Good post. Lprent did some posts a while back about NZ First and how they were maturing into a mature political force. I can't find them but they were good reading.
This post by Ashley Church popped up on my Facebook feed today. It's coming from the pov of a disintegrating National party that's paralysed by its factional differences and lust for power. Comments are interesting read.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1HJ1NMedoz
This factional splintering of mainstream right leaning parties seems to be an international phenomenon, a victim of their own polarisation tactics?
AC makes no criticism of the economic polices or the move to smaller government capability, it is a social conservatives dissent at NACT liberal social policy (no mention of immigration at all).
Thus advocacy of a vote for more social conservatives in the NACT/NZF coalition.
Same trends as the Curia one, though less pronounced:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/585062/new-rnz-reid-research-poll-brings-boost-for-nz-first-labour
And in this poll, the GP is only .02% behind NZF. That's margin of error stuff.
This is getting very close to the point where National and Luxon can't form a government. Just one seat majority. Getting tricky
Stinger in the breakdown of the right / wrong direction question,