Written By:
- Date published:
2:29 pm, February 1st, 2026 - 61 comments
Categories: act, chris hipkins, Christopher Luxon, climate change, election 2026, greens, labour, maori party, national, nz first, political parties, science, te pāti māori, winston peters -
Tags:
We are in election year.
Current polling suggests that Labour is well placed to win and we may witness something that has not happened before, a one term National Government.
It should be noted however that in the 1978 election after Rob Muldoon’s first term Labour gained more votes than National. First Past the Post saved National.
And in 1993, the election before MMP was introduced, Labour and the Alliance achieved 53% of the total vote. Only the vagarities of FPP prevented National from being biffed out.
Over the past year National has, along with Christopher Luxon’s performance, stagnated. If they crash below 30% in the polls expect internal action to be taken.
The Wikipedia weighting of polling results provides this graph showing what has happened since 2023.
It is clear that Labour’s position has improved considerably although the Greens and Te Pāti Māori have seen their support reduce. The Greens must be worried about their prospects while Te Pāti Māori is not viable in its current shape.
Act is down from its 2023 election result of 8.64%.
And NZ First has had a great time and it is well up from its 2023 election result of 6.08% with the latest Taxpayer’s Union putting its support at 11.9%.
Peters is clearly at this stage the kingmaker. Which way will he go?
In the hunt for the Trumpist vote he is clearly outperforming David Seymour. NZ First’s attacks on the concept of climate change, the World Health Organisation, trans rights, puberty blockers, anything “woke” and Peters refusal to criticise Donald Trump in any way has led New Zealand Trumpers who are small in number but significant enough for a minor party to flock to NZ First.
Trump is showing major signs of decline and there must be a real possibility that he will not see the year out as President. This will not slow down Peters however who has made it a feature to not only side with Trump but has also been forging relationships with Nigel Farage’s UK Reform Party. Who would have thought that a mutual contempt for people born outside of their respective countries would be a driver for a supportive relationship?
And as our world faces increasing threats of environmental devastation and international war NZ First has concentrated on the matters it considers important, like who uses women’s bathrooms.
Peters has also been attempting to distance NZ First from the Government which is somewhat strange given how integral to the Government his party has been.
As an example he has recently refused to support National’s Trade deal with India and has effectively accused Luxon of lying about the deal.
From Radio New Zealand:
[NZ First] had concerns around a range of issues, including that National had “offered far greater access” for India to New Zealand’s labour market than Australia or the United Kingdom had to secure their FTAs, and called it “deeply unwise”.
“By creating a new employment visa specifically for Indian citizens, it is likely to generate far greater interest in Indian migration to New Zealand – at a time when we have a very tight labour market,” Peters said in a press release at the time.
Speaking to Herald Now on Wednesday morning, Peters said “the truth wasn’t being told to the public”.
“Go and dissect what it means. It means we could have tens of thousands of people getting here of right and building up employment opportunities in this country for themselves and taking those opportunities away from New Zealanders.”
Luxon rejected that on Wednesday afternoon and Trade Minister Todd McClay said there was nothing in the agreement that said “tens of thousands of people from any country have a right to come to New Zealand, none at all.”
“It gives no right to any Indians to come to New Zealand if they don’t meet their recurrent requirements, the only commitment is 1670 skilled workers we need in the economy.”
But Peter has also been turning the volume up on the anti Labour rhetoric and has previously said that he will not go into coalition with Labour while Chris Hipkins is leader. One can only guess what has caused him to form this conclusion.
But what does Labour do?
Is the party prepared to go into coalition with an unstable meglomaniac whose party has engaged in corruption through the fast track approval process and through trashing our anti smoking policies, has ridiculed our response to climate change and claimed that climate change is a hoax, and who has attacked minorities for kicks?
My preference is for Labour to rule him out. John Key did this and National appeared to benefit from taking this stance.
The tactic would be risky. If National and Act look viable then centrist voters may flock Peters’ way to apply a handbreak. But if Labour looks viable then current NZ First supporters may be willing to give Labour a chance in preference to having Luxon returned as Prime Minister.
Winston Peters, the man who has spent 38 years in Parliament and 17 years in Governments of different sorts, wants people to think of him as an outsider and someone railing against the machine, not someone who is wedded to power.
He is anything but. He is a dangerous careerist who will scratch racist itches and deny science to maximise his chances.
Labour should rule out going into coalition with him.
A risk worth taking IMO. NZF are toxic to progressive policies and have broken promises which all need highlighting as well as Peters standing by while Willis trashed the ferries.
Peters/Jones is exactly what's NOT required in the next government. I'd vote for that.
Just this morning I was thinking I could live with Lab & NZFirst coalition with Greens abstaining on confidence & Supply. The pros would be a lot of emphasis on housing and regional development. But then I thought there's no way Matua Shane is ever gonna stand on a stage announcing an oil & gas ban… so my thinking only lasted about three blocks. I think it's probably the second most likely election outcome… unless Labour win all/most Maori seats, & pick up party votes from TPM, NZF and some Nats switch or stay home.
Voters want hope and community, but are ill served by a ''quiet' media, who seldom ask Winston Peters penetrating questions, and when our Public Broadcaster did they had their funding slashed, further he is on record as threatening Jack Tame, who pushed back by asking 'Are you threatening me for doing my job?' Winson then changed tack. A smart bully.
Winston reads the trends and has a weather vane for survival, pivoting when it suits hm. Note, he is a weather vane, not a king maker. His followers call him that. More and more he scratching the surface of topics for the latent feelings. What is a woman? What does theTrade Deal with India mean for immigration?
What he isn't asking is why 73000 New Zealanders began to emigrate out of here!! He is part of that failure to povide work here in NewZealand, but cunningly he searches for a political itch. He is a constant magnet for those with a social or political itch to scratch.
Each Election he finds themes to stir emotions. This election it is Trumpism.
Labour does not need to change or woo Winston.
Labour has to put up a series of well thought out actions and positions which people can see as viable for a better future. Promising better work and living conditions, fairer systems and giving people a voice through Public Broadcasting would be a beginning.
Winston will fight dirty, and that will reveal him, as he ages he becomes more cranky and acerbic, even sour and sardonic, but seldom upliftng.
He is very all about Winston, his dignity, his position, and his importance.
It [Winston’s silly tiresome games] doesn’t seem to be a deal-breaker for NZ First voters.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/585155/voters-split-on-who-labour-should-rule-out-as-governing-options
MS is right.
Labour must rule NZ1 out. Unless NZ1 dumps Winnie and Shane.
About as likely as Labour dumping Chippie.
Not sure Chris Hipkins will rule out working with NZF/Peters. He'll be happy to let NZF/Peters do that kind of tub thumping instead.
But should he?
There's a bizzare concept among some self-described lefties that progressive politics should be listening to and appeasing racist, transphobic, environment skeptic NZF/soft National undecideds in the vain hope of eeking out a few extra votes. Do that and you betray progressive politics, although I suspect that's what the self-described lefties desire all along.
There's also the idea that the boldness of sticking by your principles and standing up for progressive values wins further support than you would have had previously. It creates momentum and a movement which didn't exist before. See Jacinda Ardern.
Even though Chris Hipkins (or his team) have dabbled with the boldness of the Zohran Mamdani campaign, I imagine he will pursue the small target strategy so effectively used by Albanese and Starmer.
It’s a little tangential to the OP, but Noel MacManus of the Spinoff identified two important factors.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/28-01-2026/has-labour-learned-the-wrong-lessons-from-zohran-mamdani
The money quote from Andrew Epstein isn't mentioned in that oddly missing the point Spinoff piece.
Andrew Epstein said "The style is downstream from the substance. Unless you have a message and an agenda that is directly relevant to peoples lives it is not going to work."
Labour appears to think it can mimick the style of Mamdani without any substance. The public will see that bullshit for what it is – flim flammery by an timid party led by a guy who inspires nobody.
If Hipkins can't make at least as good a deal with Winston as Ardern did in 20117, he will be in Opposition again. And should immediately resign.
Winston will be in power no matter which coalition. He is political power incarnate, and because Winston has a clear memory of what Hipkins is really like up close, loathes him.
We all need to stop the presumed Labour-led presumption until Labour is in the mid 40s.
Like you I admire Peters's political acumen. But I can't stand his world views. Or those of Matua Shane. The two of them have done more damage to our politics than anyone else since Muldoon.
They are Muldoon. Same politics, same demographic.
Target that, and the consequences of that sort of politics. There's plenty of examples of how Muldoon's politics damaged New Zealand to highlight the folly of NZ First. Could start with Think Big which Jones seems to have reincarnated then have a pick over National's opposition to Labour's 1975 Superannuation Scheme and the methods used to scupper it.
I don't think that demographic cares much – "apres nous le deluge" sums up their attitude.
+1
Or we could actually take some political risk and stand for something meaningful.
The assumption that Winston Peters must be in government is the trap. Treating him as inevitable just centres him and concedes the frame.
People don’t want centrist mumblefuckery. They want clarity. Saying “NZ First has a place in New Zealand politics, but not in our government” is a line voters can understand.
The lesson from Zohran Mamdani isn’t tactics or charisma or policy. It’s about sticking to a simple, digestible core theme, communicating it relentlessly, and refusing to compromise on values.
If Labour can’t win without pretending it’ll govern with anyone, it doesn't deserve to form a government.
That's all very well, as a theory.
But the reality is that for the last election and the 2017 one before that (ignoring the 2020 as entirely un-repeatable) – Peters has indeed been in the Kingmaker role. Neither the left nor the right could form a government without him.
Unless you are positing a grand alliance of Labour and National – that is going to be the reality in 2026, as well.
Labour *can't* win without governing with someone. That's the reality of MMP.
And ruling out X party – limits your coalition options.
Claiming that "People don’t want centrist mumblefuckery." ignores the reality that centrist voters decide governments.
If you see a Zohran Mamdani in NZ politics – you should point them out now.
The closest I can see is Swarbrick – who certainly has the passion, relentless communication, and refusal to compromise – but the GP is stuck with an early-teens-at-best vote total.
At no point did I say there’s a Zohran Mamdani in New Zealand politics. My point was the opposite: you can’t copy-paste what worked in New York City into a completely different electoral system and media environment and expect it to translate.
And yes, Labour can’t govern alone most of the time (2020 notwithstanding). But “can’t govern without someone” is not the same as “should be willing to govern with anyone.”
If a party goes to voters saying “we’ll govern with whoever,” all it's doing is advertising that it has no principles or red lines. Coalition building is unavoidable; coalition ambiguity is a choice. And, as I suggested, one that primarily benefits Winston Peters.
It’s not just morally wrong: it’s also poor political strategy.
As for centrism: sure, you don’t win by sneering at middle voters. But differentiation still matters. Why vote for Labour if you get roughly the same thing by voting for National? This isn’t about abandoning the political center. It’s about being legible.
Because the median voter doesn't care for policy. They care about clarity.
I think that you'll find that Centrist voters absolutely *do* care about policy.
Which is why you'll see both Labour and National explicitly ruling out some of the more extreme policy positions of the further right or left parties.
Not frightening the horses has a long history of being an effective political position.
And, yes, clarity matters. But it matters most in providing a coherent policy narrative to the electorate. The 'story', rather than the nuts and bolts of policy.
If (and it does seem likely) Peters holds the balance of power in November this year – would you really rather that his only option was to form a coalition with National?
As long as Hipkins remains leader and that administrative class apparachik Edmonds – who sounds like she hasn't had an original thought in her life and certainly doesn't appear to be any better at articulating an alternative to neoliberalism and captured government than the last useless great female hope Deborah Russell – – remains finance spokesman I think Labour are basically have no path to power.
As an aside, I am still hopping mad about that fact that Russell lost New Lynn, a Labour stronghold! Who could have predicted what happens when you parachute a carpetbagging middle class white academic into a worksing class seat? ANd to add insult to injury, a electorally useless technocrat like Russell can simply smoothly transition onto the list – how the hell can you get rid of people like that?
Labour must know that the numbers don't stack up, and they appear so complacent and cowardly they don't deserve the chance anyway and don't seem to really want it until the corporate media anoint muggins turn in the Beehive for their flavour of our single transferable centrist parties.
I think that Labour shouldn’t go down the path of ruling in or out possible future allies, at least not yet. Instead, it should focus on its policies and with a clear and consistent (professional and disciplined) message to voters, and not wasting time, oxygen, and bandwidth on silly games and most-popular (or sardonic) personality contests. If desired, a policy can be non-negotiable to make it clear [to voters and future partners] where the party draws the line.
I don’t think this is an either/or. But I do think the sequencing matters, and this gets it backwards.
The electorate doesn’t experience politics primarily as policy. They experience it as vibes. Policy only matters insofar as it signals values, intent, and direction.
Nobody is motivated by bracket inflation or a 5% tweak to marginal tax rates on their own. People care because those things speak to fairness, dignity, and whether the system is rigged. And that happens well before they read the manifesto – if they ever do.
Leaving the door open to Peters isn’t neutral. It sends an implied message: we don’t really know what we stand for yet. Or worse: everything is negotiable. That undercuts even the best policy platform, because voters don’t trust that it will survive election night.
You’re right that Labour shouldn’t waste time on personality games. But ambiguity about coalition partners isn’t abstaining from the game. It’s letting someone else control it.
If Labour wants to radiate discipline and professionalism, the strongest signal it can send is clarity. Clear lines about what is and isn’t acceptable. Clear values that policy then flows from.
You can absolutely say “we’ll work with anyone who supports our programme.” But only if voters already believe you have a programme worth supporting.
I think you and I are closer in agreement than it might appear.
Clearly communicating policy (by the Party) to create a vibe, e.g., on hip-pocket issues, are not at all the same as reading (by the voters) an Election Manifesto or even Policy.
I’m getting mixed messages here. Don’t play the game, rule out Winston, i.e., play along with Winston, or else Winston controls the game!?
More that pretending we're not playing by not ruling him out simply allows him to control the game.
He's only relevant if he can viably move between Labour and National. Remove that, and he's just another angry old man yelling about trans people and kids these days.
This really comes down to a simple strategic reality.
NZF has already publicly ruled out supporting a Labour government led by Chris Hipkins. So when Labour leaves the door “open,” it isn’t being pragmatic. It’s indulging a fiction.
That fiction benefits only one person: Winston Peters.
Keeping him in play makes Labour look weak and evasive, while allowing NZF to exploit an ambiguity that does not exist. Winston gets to posture as a kingmaker while having already picked a side. That’s asymmetric warfare, and Labour is losing it by default.
Worse, ambiguity keeps Peters politically oxygenated. His entire brand depends on relevance, leverage, and the constant suggestion that everything still hinges on him. The fastest way to puncture that is not to negotiate, flatter, or hedge, but to rule him out. Clearly and early.
Doing so also strands him politically with a weakened National Party and a historically unpopular ACT Party. Yes, David Seymour is currently the darling of the right: but the rest of the electorate actively dislikes him. That association is a liability, not an asset.
So no more cosplay as an anti-establishment outsider.
No more pretending he’s some reluctant conscience of Parliament.
Just ownership of the bloc he props up.
And let’s be honest about the substance. NZ First isn’t just “difficult” or “transactional.” It’s a party that denies climate science, indulges culture-war grievance, attacks minorities for sport, and treats governing as a vehicle for personal relevance. Labour gains nothing, either morally or electorally, by pretending that’s compatible with its project.
Yes, ruling Peters out is risky. But not doing so is worse. It signals weakness, rewards bad-faith politics, and tells voters Labour’s values are negotiable.
If Peters has already slammed the door, we shouldn’t keep standing in the hallway pretending it’s still open.
I’ve previously argued for at least the possibility of treating NZ First as a lesser evil. That argument was contingent, not sentimental. The contingencies have change. And so the strategy must change with them.
Agreed. Rule them out, point to their broken promise, participation in the economic vandalism etc etc and let the electorate decide
Basically, we need to tie them as closely as possible to Luxon and Seymour. A vote for NZF is really just a vote for National.
Then make it part of a strategy. The issue isn't Peters (although I agree with your assessment about the damage done to NZ politics). It's that so many people feel their need for security can be met by RW populism. The pressure of the polycrisis is only going to increase. Will the left organise and present a viable alternative?
If Labour rule out Peters and then don't get to be in government in Nov, what then? What's the longer term plan?
I think that there might (still?) be considerable goodwill towards Labour among current NZ First supporters given that 50% of NZF votes in 2023 came from Labour.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/09/03/nz-first-wouldnt-have-returned-to-parliament-without-labour-voters/
If neither Labour nor National can win an outright majority they should form a coalition (in the interest of middle NZ) and snuff His Winstonness out for good. Well past time. Minority parties in their present manifestations doing more harm than good.
The complacency in this thread is frightening. Labour stalwarts appear to lazily think that Labour will always remain one of the two main parties. The Dutch Labour Party vote collapsed from 27% two decades ago to less than 6% in the 2021 Dutch elections, the last they contested as unitary party. This pattern has been repeated across any number of centrist social democratic/Labour parties in Europe. Just sitting around expecting the NZ First voteto collapse when Winston dies is risky – and complacent – as hell.
Lets use the India FTA as an example of the dangers facing Labour. Using a super-majority – basically the grand alliance of the hated technocratic neoliberal centrist alliance yearned for by the above poster – would be an electorally catastrophic move by Labour in an era when distrust in democratic institutions and popular anger at technocratic elites is at an all time high. It would inform voters that under Labour, it's just business as usual for all the corruption, grift and cronyism that hides behind our single transferable centrist party.
NZ First is riding a populist wave and the India FTA is really, really unpopular outside the captured political and media elites. The general public time and time again on any and every SM comments section you care to peruse heavily and negatively zeros in on the immigration component of the FTA.
The entire rotten edifice of our paid for and owned corporate governance class is really, really missing the racist backlash out there at the prospect of increased Indian migration that Peters is going to ride all the way to – I predict – 18%+ this election. The coporate MSM won't even fucking talk about the popular backlash against Indian immigration unless they can be dragged (kicking and screaming accusations of racism all the way) to the topic. The two main parties will engage in classic centrist refusal to even acknowledge there is a problem and Peters (who at least is a politician) will wipe the floor with wildly unpopular Luxon and the merely meh Hipkins. If NZ First lifts it vote to anything north of 18% then Labour could easily be relegated to third place.
But we all know Labour will vote with National to get the deal over the line. They'll waffle on about the national interest, and being the grown ups in the room, and they'll get rewarded with warm pats on the head from our right wing pundit class and rentier capitalists. In short, they'll carry on playing a game to rules nobody else follows and Hipkins will play our very own Chuck Schumer, reading harsh condemnations that nobody can be bothered to hear.
If Labour understood – truly understood – the existenial crisis of trust facing our democratic institutions and the power of our technocratic elites it would torpedo the India FTA. Just say it is a bad deal agreed to by a spineless Luxon so desperate to cling to power he'll sell the country out. That’ll whip 2-3% away from Winston and open the path to power as well in coalition with NZ First.
Oh and come out with some sort of decisive, meaty policies to win Auckland working class voters – how about offering a first fifty dollars free PT a week during working days between 6.30am and 7pm?
Labour are in last chance saloon with voters and scarily, they seem to not understand the danger.
I get the anxiety behind this, and I agree complacency is dangerous. History is littered with political parties that collapsed very quickly: even major ones.
But I’m not convinced the Dutch example maps cleanly onto NZ. Dutch politics is far more fragmented and fluid; voters there shift more readily because the system normalises a wider range of viable options.
NZ’s party system is comparatively sticky.
Where I do agree is that Labour has a real credibility problem and often looks strategically directionless. But I don’t see that as “technocratic elites” hijacking democracy. I see a party that’s cautious, reactive, and frequently unable to say what it’s for in plain language.
On the India FTA: you’re right that immigration is the flashpoint for a lot of commenters. The risk for everyone is that it turns into a culture-war proxy issue, and then NZ First thrives.
But I’m not persuaded Labour voting for/against it is a magic lever that wins back voters from NZF.
If Labour wants working-class Auckland back, it needs visible, material wins people can actually feel in their daily lives. Not grand narratives about elites. The FTA is basically a nothingburger story for most voters, and in the grand scheme of things it’s an OK-ish deal we can probably live with.
Could it be better? Sure. But it’s not the hill Labour lives or dies on.
Also, some of the major electorates that Labour wants to win back in Auckland (Mt Roskill, New Lynn) – have heavy populations of immigrants.
Labour coming out with what looks like an anti-immigrant strategy, would wave goodbye to their hopes of recovering these.
Hard to disagree with most of that. We only have to look at Pauline Hanson across the ditch, or Farage/Reform, to see where we could end up.
I don't like the rule in rule out game. What it does is undermine the whole purpose of MMP, where VOTERS decide and then coalitions are formed. The master of abusing this is Winston. Winston is playing his predictable game right now ; years 1 and 2 coalesce and take the baubles – such as being deputy PM as well as foreign minister. Year 3 start to undermine the coalition saying he never agreed with this or that, or openly opposing something, or bringing out the anti immigration drum again and all the other "woke" things his followers believe are evil. His party is a flea on the back of our system. That flea carries appalling people like Shane Jones and Casey Costello who have been given enormous power to appease their donors. I dunno ; it makes me start to think that MMP isn't working for us when we have a charlatan old bloke who so successfully manipulates it. I am not sure I could stand another round of will he won't he and the red telephone or the blue telephone. Some are even suggesting he could be Prime Minister!
This. Peters monkey wrenched MMP. Not because he's a centrist, but because he's powermonger and MMP's flaw is small % centrist parties can hold the balance of power. If he were ethical, it wouldn't happen, if the flaw didn't exist it wouldn't happen. Peters will eventually be gone, but we should look at the flaw and see what can be done.
Would you still see it as being a flaw if we used the same logic to discuss the Green Party? Or the ACT party for that matter?
Why should any small percentage party have any influence? If they should, and I personally think they do, then we have the result that MMP was set up to supply.
I don't see that it is a flaw at all. It is precisely what MMP was meant to supply.
It doesn't matter whether it is a left, fight or centrist party. To allow them influence on the Government was what MMP was intended to provide.
I didn't say anything about influence.
It's nuts right? Why don't we just say no ffs. He's a bully, stand up to him. Talking about him being PM is buying into the bullyiing.
Darien I believe that you are deeply Labour and principled. MMP was an attempt at fixing a principled opening to parties with different views to the two main ones, who sort of shouldered others out of the way including Maori being less visible.
It seemed wise by protecting against the loony lot by having a 5% threshhold, though the one electoral seat carrying multiple others was a weak point, and should have been set at only one extra despite the vote count.
But politics plays games for advantage within the rules, even outside of them by changing the rules as presently is happening. Belief in good MMP is 20th century thinking. It is an indoor sport which has played for decades in NZ, for very little gain for the average Kiwi.
We need a new set of politicians breaking step from the present march. Politics is the art of the possible or a saying like that. We are in a death spiral for people all over the world; first they came for the animals, then the rest of us hopeful, and slipshod types voting for self-advancement.
Don't take my words too hardly, my time as an old person has largely gone to reading history and how powers have treated ordinary people – and how OP treat each other. We have a shitty side to us; an ability to personally suffer, rise above it, and then ignore all the others left behind in the cold. We skip off like children to our own enjoyments or obsessions.
But we won't get what we want in the next election. But we could well get better if we make change in a reasoned manner, resignedly. Those both thoughtful and practical must choose the best from the mixed bin in the Op-shop, for that is our pool of resource. But we do need to keep surveillance on what present meretricious political so and sos have in mind to advance themselves. Because it isn't we they have in mind – not the people's good, not our requirements and needs that they are striving for. And that's how it has been for some time so don't act surprised. God loves a tryer so the saying goes, and I call on him/her please to look on us kindly.
Well, yes, that's the problem with democracy: the self-interested, shallow, easily swayed, short-term thinkers have the same vote as the rest of us.
Labour doesn't do anything about NZ1 just yet.
It's easy to say Labour won't do deals with NZ1, but we know National wouldn't do the same thing.
I can't remember whether I read it or noticed it, but Winston seems to have the party policy of trying to do a deal with the party that scores the most votes. He wants to give the impression of paying respect to voters' preferences.
Having seen the difficulty of a 3-way coalition, a 4-way coalition seems to me to be a step too far to contemplate, so during the campaign time Labour needs the choice (arguably a Hobson's Choice) of going with TPM or NZ1.
This not only applies to the next term of office, but also the people who sit on the white line (potentially NZ1 supporters) need to see that a Labour government doesn't necessarily have to include TPM.
Further, one of National's scaremongering bleats during the campaign will be "Vote Labour, Get TPM".
So, let's play the long game, and not get too complacent about our current chances of forming a new government. Personally, I'd prefer a left-wing government that has to struggle with its coalition partner than another 3 years of what we've got – plus asset sales.
What does Labour do about Winston?
What about dusting off some old principals, reflect on its name and history and come up with a policy portfolio that puts workers and the poor front and centre.
Reject Luxon's desperate
ego triptrade deal, as it further erodes workers standing as a start.We need to be precise with our spelling of some important words. Have to educate ourselves so as not to put principals or principles in the wrong place. This is where holes in our education show up for sure. Another is the common error of diary instead of dairy.
Yep, victim of a combo of auto correct and typing on a phone.
The headmaster wants to be friendly hence principal.
The problems with our systems might explain a number of apparent errors. I don't know how you people cope with all the tech. I need help quite often.
"What about dusting off some old principals,".
It seems quite appropriate to me. Winston is certainly the principal figure in NZ1, he definitely qualifies as old, and he was dusted off and returned to Parliament in the 2023 election.
Whether the New Zealand public was sensible when they reincarnated him is debatable of course.
There is no "New Zealand public" in MMP politics in NZ.
The NZF voters dusted him off and reincarnated him. Presumably they see a benefit (based on this increasing numbers in the political polls)
One slight problem with the theory:
Peters has ruled out going into coalition with Labour while Hipkins is leader.
However, from what I have seen, what Peters says and what Peters actually does don't always align. So, I guess there is a chance he might find a reason to change his mind. But, assuming he sticks by what he says, then, it seems unlikely that NZ First would go with Labour.
Peters says all sorts of shit, to motivatate his memory challenged supporters to vote for him.
Actually achieving it, is optional!
I don’t suppose anyone has suggested a grand coalition?
We’ve never had one so we instinctively recoil.
However, if there were enough non-negotiables, such as pay equity, employment rights, repealing Seymour’s junket ministrie, climate change acknowledged and acted upon…
Perhaps it would appeal to Luxon as it seems closer to the image he projected as Air NZ chief and would mean he could give a salute to Winston. Certainly it flushes out if ACT has been a stalking horse.
Until grand coalitions become feasible options Winston (and Seymour) has an advantage every time.
RMA, housing, modern slavery and others are things that need bi-partisan work anyway.
It may sound like madness, but look at the coalition now,
Labour would need to get more votes to get the whip hand, and some things would be unable to progress, even with smaller party support. But Inthink it’s an idea whose time may have come.
A grand coalition would have broad electoral support. It just takes someone to hold their nose, and get the ball rolling.
As is stands in NZ, a grand coalition is a centrist’s wet dream: a juvenile fantasy with messy consequences.
Well, who does Chippy go with? Likewise that Nats have to prove their no Treaty Principles and no wholesale copy paste of lobby groups into law alleged change of focus.
It would be a test of political skill. Much in the way that James Shaw was effective. It wouldn’t require each measure to voted for by both members of the GC.
It would also be a test of National. Trumpism or something for New Zealand? It’s clear that countries that suck up to Trump can’t guarantee any outcome for their sacrifices.
A grand coalition probably wouldn’t last, but it would shake up the political map.
For me the anti-science and anti-education aspects of some international politics and this coalition are terrible for us. And the targeting of minority groups as politics is abhorrent. We’ve shoveled money into 100% Pure, only for it to be 100% Jonesy will do a steaming dump in your shoe and throw his rubbish out the window.
If the Nats continue to peddle the same crap at least they’re forced to be draw lines. No to this climate measure. No to reinforcing that. Yes to ocean poo. Yes to lumber potentially wiping out people, houses and businesses without any responsibility by those creating the situation.
Not every round of MMP elections has to be bigotry ball if the 55-65% of the country decide that they don’t want that to happen.
They tougher fights become pay equity, rolling back ACT’s workplace legislation and so on which would be anathema to most Nats.
This makes no sense at so many levels. But you can talk us through it, if you wish, e.g., how would it change the make-up of Parliament, why would voters endorse it and vote for it again (in 2029?), how would it help build trust, etc?
There are already many very good and considered recommendations to improve things and even ‘shake up the political map’ a little, e.g., lowering the party-vote threshold to 3.5%.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/regulatory-stewardship/regulatory-systems/constitutional/democratic-structures-and-processes/
If the NZLP actually stood for something other than the managerial class and of more of the same weak incrementalism and grew a spine then they could achieve with public goodwill a major lift in their party support. On that basis we could have a truly progressive Labour /Green coalition government with the numbers and keep Peters and Jones sitting in opposition with no authority or relevance. The Greens of course need a wake up call before they disappear into the 4% territory.
New Zealand left failure of nerve.
"New Zealand’s left, by contrast, has become overly dependent on parliamentary parties that no longer behave like left organisations. Labour has spent decades shifting toward managerial centrism, and the Greens—despite pockets of genuine radicalism—have struggled to articulate a confident, class-rooted alternative. The result is a political vacuum. In an election year, the left should be shaping the narrative around inequality, housing, climate, and public services. Instead, it is reacting to the agenda set by the right and the political centre. The Greens, in particular, have failed to capitalise on widespread public frustration with the cost of living, corporate profiteering, and the erosion of public infrastructure. With the notable exception of co-leader Chloe Swarbrick, Green MP's might speak to symptoms but rarely name the system "
https://nzagainstthecurrent.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-new-zealand-left-failure-of-nerve.html
Footnote.
Unless Labour take charge of the initiative when it comes to TPM then the MSM on behalf of the government will make every interview , announcement , and question time about TPM as demonstrated at Waitangi. Any message will be lost in the smoke and fire of TPM.
Straw man argument.
Labour wants to win back all Māori seats.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/585778/labour-leader-chris-hipkins-sets-sights-on-maori-seats
It was also in the interview at Waitangi that you referred to (see https://thestandard.nz/game-on-labour-and-the-greens-speak-to-media-from-waitangi/).
I watched the interview and the first number of questions were related to TMP.
The point I was making is that a strategy is needed to shut down quickly the endless questions about TMP in a way that distances Labour and the Greens from TMP. By giving it oxygen only damages the public perception that the only alternative government has to include TMP and the risk of stability in a future government. A point that the COC will hit home with every chance they get.
The Straw Man argument you make sends the message I am being unreasonable or I am oversimplifying my point of view.
My point remains.
Without becoming rude, the interviewees consistently, patiently, and respectfully repeated the same answers about TPM yet the reporters kept hounding them with the same questions that had already been answered: TPM is in turmoil and needs to sort itself out and Labour will be contesting all Māori seats (as well as compete with the Greens for votes).
A straw man is a straw man.
Sense in 19 and 19.1 Mat. I feel that we are into a routine before elections. And with 20th century inclined practices. You pointed out how Labour leans towards the managerial class, who are the least likely to make a stir about the diminishing state of our living, though we are on a slippery slope. The pretensions and complacence of the middle class in my family are very clear to me. I am not sure what to do myself, but bang on about learning how to make decisions after examining things clearly, not in hope as one relative who voted for Winston because he did something about transport and the Gold Card once.
We are like children and giving us all the vote because we are adults and supposedly alive and mature has proven to be a mistake. We need to earn the vote by learning how our country runs, and get a simple diploma from understanding the basics correctly, also what fairness and respect for each other should be shown, and that socialism isn't everyone getting the same, and that there should be opportunities to get on, and for those who slip along the way, a system where they can do some useful work that would back up a living wage, also of course older people whould put in about 5 hours work weekly at a chosen task so supporting the strength of the country that supports them. Has anyone thought how some people can be on super for near a third of their life? 0-30 youth, 30-60 middle-age, 60-90 happy hour or hospital clinic attendee – hips, heart, eyes etc. Don't I know it!
Hi Mat, thanks for the NoRightTurn link. It's an interesting contrast, the US and NZ left.
There's a couple of sentences that describe how I feel but way better articulated.
"New Zealand’s left often behaves as if politics is a polite policy seminar. Without conflict, there is no movement. Without movement, there is no momentum. And without momentum, election years become exercises in defensive positioning rather than opportunities for transformation." (my italics)