I’ll be tweeting tomorrow’s debate live, but for a lot of people you might just be starting to tune into the election now, or not have a clear picture of what the headlines have translated into, vis a vis the support for each party. Here’s a brief interview of where each party is polling, what that could turn into on Election Day, and where they go from here. Just two notes first on how I’ll set that out.
The first is that this election has a Schrodinger’s cat: it is very uncertain whether NZFirst will or won’t be in Parliament. This creates two separate projections for how many seats each party would win on current polling. In Universe A, NZFirst are not in Parliament; in Universe B, they are, so seats are redistributed from other parties. Parliament occasionally has a couple overhang seats, but usually has 120. Accordingly, any parties who want to form a government need to have 61 or more seats between them for a majority.
Secondly, I’ll be working with Stuff’s Rolling Poll, which adds up and averages the country's reliable polls of the party vote. Essentially, any individual poll can overestimate or underestimate parties a decent bit - which we call the margin of error - but doing it like this puts us likelier closer to where they actually sit. I don’t know their methodology and NZ’s polling industry is small, so take this with a grain of salt, but I think we all agree on the rough picture of where the parties are at. All figures rounded to 1 d.p.
1st Place - National: 37.4% (last election: 25.6%), which would translate to 49 seats in Universe A or 47 in B
National have been our dominant party for most of our history, and arguably that includes the greater part of the 21st century: they had Labour’s number from around 2007, governed for nine years straight, remained the largest party in Parliament for another 3 and only really ceded control of the narrative and the polls to Labour from 1998-2006 and 2020-2021.
After Winston “stole” the 2017 election from them, they’ve never really stopped thinking they’re naturally destined to resume power, and after the 2020-2021 collapse have put up a reasonably stable but not impressive performance. They are clearly on track to dominate the next government too, but they face two glaring issues.
One, they are in check over the tax plan: left-wing and right-wing economists agree they have a budget hole, and they are refusing to release any modelling that would prove they don’t have a budget hole, presumably because the modelling does has a budget hole. Two, Chris Luxon has done well at gladhanding with people, but his preferred PM ratings remain low, he hasn’t shown any ruthlessness or ability to stand up under serious media scrutiny, and while the expectations game can be overhyped, it’s widely expected that Hipkins will be a more agile and cunning debater than him and more across the numbers.
I think National have strong odds of winning the election (probably 4 in 5 at this point), but they don’t seem to have solutions to either problem and the media will keep bringing them up for the next four weeks. It’s essentially just Objective: Survive at this point - stall and hope you can hold enough votes to win the election before everything collapses.
Accordingly, Luxon, who has been training intensively recently, will have to try put up a performance tomorrow of somebody with a strong enough grasp of policy to be a serious candidate for Prime Minister. He’ll have to manage all that while finally endearing himself to the public (particularly women - polling shows a massive gender gap), and deflecting from attacks over the tax plan.
2nd Place - Labour: 27.5% (last election: 50.0%), which equals 36 seats in A or 34 in B
I have already said much of my piece on Labour: they did a great job on COVID and a masterful one on electioneering in 2020, and have completely lost the plot at both since. Even though moments like the campaign launch show signs of life, the long-awaited collapse has finally arrived. 27.5%, and especially polls showing Labour lower than that, are approaching the terrifying 24-26% band.
Let’s put this into perspective: 25% was seen as a devastating result for National to receive last election (and when a poll first showed National this low, Gerry Brownlee called it a “rogue poll”, a rare and incorrect accusation). This was the polling range which triggered Andrew Little openly speculating about whether his leadership could continue, before falling on his sword mere days later. When David Cunliffe won 25.1% in 2014, it was the third worst result in Labour's history and the first and second worst were in 1919 and 1922. Since the prewar era, Labour has only gotten under 30% of the vote three times: 1996, 2011 and 2014. They have never fallen this low while in government. It is a cataclysm.
When Jacinda resigned in January, I wrote about the three types of leaders: the caretaker who goes down with the ship, the tryout who gets the leadership callback for the next election, and the saviour who delivers the party from defeat. The downfall of Wood and Allan means Hipkins doesn’t need to be a type 2, he’s locked in for a second season anyway, and his actions back up his claims to being a type 3: moves like GST off fresh fruit and veg have sacrificed good policy in the name of political victory.
That desperation, I think, has now revealed itself to be in vain. He should have tried to be a type 1, not so willing to give his ministers chances or Grant Robertson the pocketbook, and focused on guiding the country steadily through the cost of living crisis. Labour was always going to be in trouble going into Opposition, but they took risks and have plunged to new depths because they have revealed themselves to be so desperate and hollow. And Grant really has spent too much money.
That same desperation has informed an obvious reliance from Labour on Luxon giving them chances, particularly in the debates, and it’s why the debates will probably not be instrumental: so much has been said about how Hipkins will smash Luxon that Luxon will do worse on the day, but because it likely won’t be a disaster, the media will hail this as a comeback. It’s hard to see where the governing party go from here, and recent displays of arrogance and frustration show they are not ready for a final course correction; this is National’s election to lose.
3rd Place - Greens: 11.8% (last election: 7.9%) = 16 seats in A or 15 in B
In terms of what I recommend for the next four weeks, I would on paper suggest getting more aggressive and sharp-elbowed about being the only true option on the left. That might not work - it could only dissatisfy left-wing voters and drive them back to Labour, or to sit this election out - but they’ve have a strong claim to the mantle. They might spook some centre voters, but the Greens are positioned clearly on the left and are bound to end up attacked by National and ACT over the next few weeks over the wealth tax and other policies.
The trouble, of course, is that this would be unwise in the long term. Labour will remain a key institution on the left of New Zealand politics, and even if you succeed at growing your party vote, that means driving them below that unholy 24-26% threshold and seriously destabilising the party for years to come. If the Greens want to enter a governing coalition for the first time, they cannot risk destroying Labour and seriously believing that the large majority of everybody who votes for Labour will show up for them in 2026.
They remain best-suited to their amicably agreed upon role as Labour’s conscience. Keep on keeping on, Greens. They’ll be slow and steady in public presentations and at the debates, and it’ll work just fine. It cannot be understated, though: however lowkey they have been for some time, the Greens are in a really weird place that way more people should be picking up on, and I intend to talk about their recent past and long-term future in more depth before election day.
4th Place - ACT: 11.1% (last election: 7.6%) = 15 seats in A or 14 in B
I also plan to discuss ACT at more length another time. My thesis statement on National is that Luxon and the tax plan are the two things that could lose them the election. Labour’s is that it’s far too late for them and they need to reset for the future, the Greens that they are the true “strong and stable, do no harm” party. ACT’s is that they have borderline defied political gravity for a long time: they exploded from minnow status into the third biggest party in the country and had been performing on all cylinders for four years straight.
Unfortunately, organisations run by politicians generally don’t have a sterling record of unblemished performance, and ACT have been the exception to the rule. Letting that many fringe candidates onto your list is a clear error, and ACT have seen their first polling dip in a long time: not particularly significant, nor is it enough to undo how much of a success this year will be for them.
Nor does one mistake predict the presence of more. Instead, it’s more of a signal that ACT lacks a strong autoimmune response to BS or to what is too far for the NZ political scene. My recommendation is the same from my previous article: start telling the public plainly what your economic agenda is, before the left can twist it, and chill out on the social stuff. That might lose them a few more votes in the short term, but they cannot afford a repeat of the betrayal many New Zealanders felt from Rogernomics or Ruthanasia: that not only hurts you in the short term, but creates long term trust issues around your party.
5th Place - NZFirst: 4.9% (last election: 2.6%) = 0 seats in A or 6 in B
Well, they’ve nearly done it. NZFirst are on the cusp, against all the odds, of staging their most impressive comeback to Parliament yet. Recent Gone by Lunchtime episode “Is Chris Luxon the new Paul Newman?” is not only one of their finest episodes of the past few years, it caps off with an excellent discussion of NZFirst that’s far better than anything I could add. Enjoy.
6th Place - Te Pāti Māori: 2.8% (last election: 1.2%) = 4 seats in A or 4 in B
I have very little to say about TPM. I try to direct attention to Māori politics where I can, but at the end of the day they remain a sideshow. Interestingly, they’re probably the party with the most to lose if their side wins and the most to win if their side loses. Labour have a far colder relationship with them than with the Greens and will keep them at arms’ length in any governing arrangement. We’ve seen time and again how that only hurts the minor party in that situation.
Remember that a good chunk of the voters who give one tick to TPM give the other to Labour. I’m unconvinced that TPM policy is designed to be particularly functional, rather than just staking out ideological positions. Waititi in particular has not impressed in interviews and public statements. On the other hand, once they get more MPs in they’ll be able to spread the load of policy portfolios more and have three more years to develop what could actually make it into a coalition agreement.
Such a young MP making it in in particular will doubtless generate press, particularly by finally kicking off a competition between Greens versus TPM on who the “true left” is. And with the new left-wing identity TPM have forged for themselves, they’ll find it as easy as it comes to show they can dig their teeth into the new government more effectively than either Labour and the Greens. All they need to do is bunker down and be ready for opportunities to come.
7th Place - TOP: 14% (last election: 23.4%) = 0 seats in A; 0 seats in B
What’s going on here?! 14%? Well, I’ve had to make a couple of adjustments. We don’t have a clear polling average for TOP nationally, but they fluctuate around 1-2% in the party vote, and like all other parties, would normally be disqualified as they would not be entering Parliament. However, TOP are the only other minor party with a shot in the electorates, and the only one whose electorate results may affect their national standing. (By all means vote TOP if you want them to get an extra MP, but whether they can get any MPs at all depends on the Ilam race.)
Raf Manji won 23.4% in 2017, and TOP didn’t stand a candidate here in 2020, so those are basically your two prior data points. The latest Curia poll from a few weeks ago showed National’s Hamish Campbell at 33%, incumbent Labour MP Sarah Pallett at 15% and Raf at 14%. Since then, the only notable event in the race has been a bit of sniping back and forth between Sarah and Raf.
I write this as somebody who’s swung around pretty strongly to becoming a Raf booster, so, you know, bias and all, but I’m also aware that the truth is the most convincing claim. I really do think that neither of these things are bad for Raf. 33% locked in as a National candidate in Ilam is simply not good enough: this is an electorate that should have a large outright majority for National in any election where they’re not doing disastrously nationwide.
14% is obviously just a start and nothing more, I can’t spin that, but recent events like Auckland Central and now Wellington Central show a pattern of third-party candidates starting off polling a distant third and then drawing close. When you can convince voters it’s a legitimate three way race, they tend to be pretty open to floating, and this is a good year for third parties and a bad one for the majors.
For two thirds of voters to still be floating presents a serious opportunity, and it’s not going to be taken by the Labour candidate, who has not been very visible around the electorate and will do herself no favours either defending an unpopular government’s record, or trying to claim she can have leverage in a government that will be gone in a month’s time.
For that same reason, a spat with Raf probably only benefits him. Besides raising his profile, arguing with Labour clearly demonstrates that TOP are not a natural ally to Labour. TOP is happy to work with any party, but if Raf needs a plurality of voters he needs mostly National voters, and this signals to them that he’s not Labour’s cup-of-tea, wink-and-nudge stooge; he would legitimately be an independent MP for Ilam. Sarah, while I like her, looked a bit sour grapes in the exchange, and I don’t think she’ll be able to turn the university base key to TOP’s success against him. I’ll continue to keep a close eye on this race and, if I’m willing to commit, probably more directly address the “Here’s how Raf can win this” question closer to the day.
In the meantime, Chris and Chris have a debate to catch.
댓글