A very merry welcome to 2024! I am not done with 2023 just yet. In due time, you’ll get to see my awards, and my review of my 2023 predictions. Right now, though? The most important thing right now is to stomp some standards into the earth before this year’s events begin to unfold. I present to you: my fifteen predictions for 2024, in New Zealand and around the globe!
This year will be portrayed by media and analysis as a “Year of the Voter”, “A Turning Point for Democracy” or a similarly election-related sentiment, even though the outcomes of the elections will not point to a conclusive direction for the world by New Years’ Eve
This is going to be a very important year for the politics of the world. By chance, an astonishing 40% of the world’s population lives in the 40 countries holding elections this year. Many of these countries aren’t actually free, but you’re still looking at billions of people going to the polls. We’ll kick off with a potential illiberal consolidation in Bangladesh later this week. As we’re already seeing calamities unfold in East Asia, the Taiwanese election coming up is bound to inflame regional tensions. The year will march through many other elections (and attempts to suppress voting) in huge countries - Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran, Russia, South Korea, Mexico...the list goes on and on.
However, few trends unite these countries of enormous differences. All in all, there will be great consequences for many individual countries. At the same time, we will be none the wiser as to what it all means for the direction of travel of the world. I will try my best to take note of developments around the world, in what I think will be a relatively quiet year for New Zealand politics, but there’s no doubting that it’s an impossible task: how do you get inside the heads of three billion people?
ACT fades hard into the background
ACT’s identity was clear: they were the most effective use of your vote to oppose Labour and stand for a right-wing New Zealand. Their role is much less obvious in this government. The rise of NZ First means you have another bellicose, anti-woke party. Winston and his crew are much more willing to contravene the government and disrupt Cabinet, sucking away the social conservatives and the populists.
ACT intend to appear like an effective governing partner, and that means, you know, actually focusing on doing stuff. They can issue some press releases to the economically right-wing faithful about how this corporation or that department is making some stupid decision and what they plan to do about it. However, so many of their goals and beliefs align with National. Yes, there are many differences between those parties, but do you think most voters perceive the nuances?
As is the fate of every minor party, ACT are destined to appear as merely part of the National government apparatus. They will slide in the polls and they will come third place of the three parties for media attention. Don’t take my word for it - just look at their coalition agreement. David has voluntarily agreed not to be Deputy PM for the first eighteen months. The plan is plain to see: ACT intend to cede the spotlight for 2024, get shit done, and then, as David takes over the lead, they can separate themselves more clearly from NZ First and trumpet their achievements heading towards the election. They are trading off their present for their future. Who’s to say if it’ll work, but they are bound to take a hit.
The Haley surge will stall and crumple and Trump will sweep every state
Haley would be a strong general election candidate, but she’ll never get there. She will be picked apart over a record of comically frequent flip flopping: she is easy to define as a weathervane. DeSantis and Haley keep ripping at each other. Christie seems weirdly determined to stay in the race. Ramaswamy has become irrelevant and will most likely drop out right after Iowa votes. Trump has a big lead and, even if he gets thrown off the general election ballot, all eyes are on him and he’s offering what most of the party wants.
At the end of the day, if you intend to win this Republican primary, you need one of two things. One, Trump collapses as an option. Maybe he’s jailed and his campaign structure disintegrates - and yet Republican voters still seem determined to choose him no matter the baggage. Or you get some deus ex machina revelations like further Epstein ties - which liberals have been hoping for for years, and if Access Hollywood didn’t do him in I don’t know what will. Or you persuade Trump voters to choose you over him. Most of Nikki Haley’s voters right now are anti-Trump voters. If Ron DeSantis can’t offer more than the man himself can, what does Haley possibly have to show pro-Trump voters? He looks on track to win the election and he embodies the attitudes and policies they desire. No two ways about it - this presidential primary is over.
Labour will face talk of existential failure
The Labour Party does not clearly stand for anything right now. They looked about as incompetent as possible as a government. Their only saving grace is that they remain united, free of infighting. The Greens are energised. TPM swept the Māori electorates. You can forecast with that information that, in 2026, yet more Labour voters will abandon their doomed party for the new main party of the left - the Greens - and that the Māori Party will take the Māori electorates forever.
I don’t believe either of those things will happen. The Greens are left-wing and have not resolved the issues that keep them predominantly as a party for university-educated Pākehā. Labour are centre and more connected to Māori and Pasifika voters and the working class. The Greens have already grown enormously and, positioned as firmly left-wing on every axis, will struggle to take many more voters from them. Labour will probably never fall below 23%.
The Māori Party might become the dominant force in the Māori electorates. However, Labour won’t simply concede them. Labour’s ego and history mean they’ll keep contesting them. Any appearance of the Māori electorates as a permanent fortress for TPM could be dangerous for both the left and te ao Māori in the long run, something Labour likely appreciates. Sooner or later, the Māori Party will have a weaker year - scandals, poor candidates, or an ill-judged governing arrangement - and some electorate voters will look elsewhere. What are your options in those electorates? What new party is going to come in and seriously compete for them? Realistically, the only place to go will be Labour.
The fact that I disagree with this prognostication doesn’t matter. All I need is for a widespread narrative that Labour might be done for as a major party. [As an aside, you may be able to tell that some of these are softballs. You’ll see when it comes time for me to review my 2023 predictions that I need to give myself some easy wins. I’m also attempting to introduce as many complicating factors to my predictions as possible so, even if you can clearly understand the headline, there’s lots to discuss come December.]
Venezuela will invade Guyana
This actually isn’t that complicated, for how bold of a prediction I’m making. Dictators losing their grip love few things more than a nationalistic song-and-dance at the end of a gun. Just because the world’s attention moved on from Venezuela years ago doesn’t mean Maduro has put a stable house back together: the country remains one of the basket cases of the world. He does not have the economic leverage to placate the population or to totally rely on his military rule.
Guyana next door would seem to offer the solution to all of his problems. They found one of the largest crude oil reservoirs in modern history in 2015. Venezuela has long laid claims to the Essequibo region, and the friction has only risen since 2015, so this wouldn’t be coming out of nowhere. Both countries have said they’ll wait for the courts, but that hasn’t worked out for Venezuela in the past. At a stroke, an invasion would justify a war footing, likely give him a swift victory to trumpet, and secure a massive reservoir of oil, a field in which Venezuela has existing skills of extraction and which provides a unique global leverage along with domestic benefits.
Think I’m cooking up a fantasy? Well, have you ever heard of a man called Saddam Hussein? He followed the exact logic laid out above, and he ended Kuwait’s independence within days. Maduro doesn’t even have to do that. He only needs to occupy the contested region. And, sure, Saddam was beaten back, but he tightened his grip on power and held on for another thirteen years after that. The gamble didn’t work, but the risk was not existential.
Then, the USA was spoiling for a war, had a panoply of regional allies, and other partners like the UK were interested in helping. Today, a split West is in a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, the Hamas-Israel War is a global crisis of terrible humanitarian significance, and the Taiwan Straits threaten to produce another round of sabre rattling between the Koreas and the Chinas. I think a cruel, incompetent dictator could well be persuaded to go for it. The wild card to keep your eyes on in all this is: if the border heats up, what will Lula’s Brazil do?
Something dark (e.g corruption, serious misconduct) will emerge or have visible consequences for NZ politics, even if it didn’t happen this year
Grim prediction, I know. There have been weird hints of court name suppressions and the like around the edges of politics, most notably with the Waititi incident. By the nature of this kind of secretive and often legally suppressed information, I have no clue what’s going on and so I can’t elaborate. In general, however, I do not trust political parties, either as organisations to responsibly handle power and resources, or as positive workplace environments full of healthy egos. I’ll take the gamble that we’ll get another Jami-Lee Ross blowup, or some weird Mike Sabin type anti-reveal.
There will be no free trade agreement with India, before or after their election
I’d hope that Modi loses but I very much doubt that he will - three to one odds, let’s say. A new government will have a lot more on its hands to think about than us, and more Modi means more populism that doesn’t align cleanly with or against FTAs. Regardless, Indian policies are extremely protective of their agricultural sector. It doesn’t matter how desperately we want a free trade agreement with them: we are a small country and they do not have to pay much attention to us, so they won’t. Whatever details we can argue, the inclination of the nation will be not to open up to us any time soon with such an agreement.
Also, our negotiating team kinda sucks. I’m confident that Luxon will do great and set the right tone, but he’s got a country to lead: he will travel there, get some photos, and leave. Todd McClay the Mistake-Maker and an underfunded MFAT will be hammering out the details. Shane Jones will probably say something racist about Indians at just the wrong time. I mean, it’s NZ First. Winston will do his job as Foreign Minister, but you think the party unabashedly wants a free trade agreement with the biggest country in the world? Mixed messages will undermine our ability to present a deal too good to reject.
Europe is wracked by a surge in the anti-immigration movement, seriously impacting Labour’s victory in the British election
For a while, you could be mistaken for thinking that, with the abatement of the migrant crisis, European politics would calm down and refocus on other issues. It was not to be. Le Pen’s National Rally is just one of many European parties setting the agenda in large part by railing against mass migration, the cultures of immigrants, and Islam.
In particular, Nigel Farage is plotting a return to British politics as the Tory government is wracked with division over the Rwanda bill. The centrists want to water it down, and the hard right say it’s not firm enough. In this environment, I suspect that Labour will tack to the right, as they have done on so many issues, and take a net negative stance towards immigrants - not hostile, but certainly looking for the law and order vote. I think they’ll still coast to victory on the day, but there’ll be real nerves and vote shifts around the issue, redefining in the coming months how the Conservatives and the new government alike approach immigration.
Precisely two leadership positions of New Zealand’s major political parties (i.e in Parliament) will change
This is calling that, from a range of possible and largely independent outcomes, we will end up with two changes and the rest staying the same. This gets complicated, so let me lay out what I see as the most likely scenario. Luxon is guaranteed to make it through the year, as are Peters and Seymour, as are TPM’s leaders unless Waititi drops something wayyyyy too fringe. I’m not a huge believer that Hipkins will go, and certainly not from a caucus coup unless he comes out far too aggressive at the government. Still, you have to factor that in as a possibility after everything that’s happened. So my most likely combinations are Hipkins + one Green, or two Greens.
I do enjoy speculating about the Green leadership! Mostly because I get to declare their inner workings an unknown unknown. I gave my thoughts both in the 2023 predictions post and the 2023 party pros and cons: the Greens, for the most democratic party, are the most opaque as a result. I can look at National and tell you the wings of their caucus and the leading contenders. I can’t analyse the Green membership in the same way.
I think James going is obvious: he’s done his dash, contributed to climate policy, seen the party through a lot of tough times including some personal humiliations, and now they are gearing up to be an unabashedly oppositional Opposition. With no major bipartisan climate legislation to work on, I can’t see him thinking he has anything more to give or to get out of politics. There’s always just the chance a minority of the membership will veto him anyway, and he may want to dodge that final embarrassment and get ahead of it. Chlöe Swarbrick clearly means a lot for the party’s public appeal and, while she doesn’t seem dead-set on the job, can surely be persuaded around how much she gives to the party.
Saying that Marama will go, however? That may come as a surprise. This is based on two things: one, she has been at the very centre of a swirling hostility for the past few years. That's gotten play on a lot of levels, from weird internet debates about how cis is apparently a slur (dunno what else to say to that) to being hit by a motorcyclist. We never want to normalise the idea that women, Māori or other groups being targeted in politics means that individuals from those groups are bound to drop out for that reason only, but you could see this being a real factor: the safety of her and her family, and a frustration at being dismissed and unable to break through.
Two, I don’t think she’s demonstrated a clear unique value that a replacement wouldn’t have. This isn’t to undermine her - she’s clearly beloved by much of the Greens base - but, as usual, we need to remember that Green MPs who may seem like nobodys to us may be better known to her party base. If she feels like having conversations about moving on, the membership are likely to have somebody in mind to elevate in her stead.
They could go rogue with one of the new lot like Tamatha Paul, or just elevate Teanau Tuiono from number 5. Remember, this is a party that believes in turning over power to the new generation, and in centering tangata whenua. They are clearly tapping into something there at the moment. This is not a party as inclined as others to buy into traditional notions about readiness to lead and experience. There is a plausible pathway here for a total refresh of the Greens, to move on from the limited achievements of the last six years and go on the warpath against the government from Year One.
An active, major political figure dies
The gerontocracy has the nations of the world in its grip. Coupling medical advancements with the consolidation of power, the politicians of many countries have gotten remarkably old. The average age of an American senator is sixty four years old. Mahmoud Abbas is eighty eight years of age. The Pope’s 87; Ali Khamenei is 84. Biden: 81. Trump? 77. Modi’s 73, Putin’s 71…there’s no guarantee that every active, major politician in the world will see 2025. Chuck in other dangers, like a febrile and conspiratorial fringe going strong in many countries as a fertile planting ground for assassins, and the high risk already priced in in some states like Pakistan, you’re rolling the dice a lot of times for all these people and more to make it through the year. (You might think I’m casting my net a bit too wide there, but consider how many countries could see one of their leading lights die and I wouldn’t hear the news.)
Any of Brooke Van Velden, Simeon Brown, Paul Goldsmith, Louise Upston, Todd McClay, Casey Costello or Andrew Bayly prove to be weak points: they face scandals, are deemed incompetent or politically toxic, or even draw nearer to being sacked
This may seem like a lot of names, but a Cabinet can make it through a year with no sackings and only a couple clear weaklings; I’m picking a fraction of the Cabinet. Some of these have just never impressed me (I guess I’m the serial BVV hater now - but consider also that the CTU, which was clearly spoiling for a political fight at the last election, is coming directly into conflict with her specifically), others have had specific markers of failure (Todd McClay and the tax cuts that weren’t to be).
In particular, I’d like to highlight Simeon Brown and Paul Goldsmith. Brown relishes unabashedly embracing National dogma. That puts him at the frontlines of clashes over climate (perhaps the left’s single strongest point in the past six years), and also being attacked from his right and by valence voters over the roads simply not being damn fixed, never mind the quagmires of Wellington and Auckland’s transport systems. Purely on vibes, he looks very young and, unfortunately, I think that plus his energy easily translates into “has a punchable face” in the minds of many.
Paul Goldsmith has never once impressed anybody. He has made some awful boo-boos, like his 2020 fiscal hole. Now he’s in charge of Treaty Negotiations at a time when the Right’s relationship with iwi is at its worst since Don Brash. That’s bound to be a tense dynamic to navigate. The moment he is seen to embrace the current rhetoric or stances of the Right, many Māori involved in confrontations like Waitangi will revile him. If he is perceived as too soft, particularly if unexpected and non-Tribunal issues like another Ihumātao are mistakenly seen as within his purview, NZFirst and ACT will dig in. Either way, the guy doesn’t really have anybody ready to come to his defence.
In a boring rerun, Trump wins
I used to think Trump wasn’t compared to Jimmy Carter enough. Having recently finished Reaganland, I am struck by the similarities of Joe Biden, instead, to Carter. Both rather unexpectedly won their presidential primaries (though Biden’s win was a lot more predictable, and his establishment history is clearly the opposite to Carter’s). Both were elected not on a wave of passion for their candidacies, but to attempt to close the door on an era of malfeasance. Both failed to achieve cut through with the public, or to set a clear direction for their presidency, despite the weakness of their opposing party. Both persistently struggled with tackling the all-consuming issue of inflation. Both staved off primary opposition through their party’s need to rally against threats (though, again, big differences here). Both enter a presidential election expecting the public to be turned off by the lies and obfuscations of their opponent.
Sorry, sunshine. Trump may have a whole host of unexpected thrown up in his face, with the recent spate of ballot removals, but, at the end of the day, it’s hard to picture the Supreme Court throwing the country into chaos and destroying institutional credibility by removing Trump nationwide. Yes, liberals will be displeased, but it’d be a whole new ballgame if you took the option to vote for Trump out of the voters’ hands (and set off a race for other conservatives to get on the ballot). Trump almost won in 2020, after botching a pandemic. January 6th hasn't stuck to him. Biden now has an economic record, and it’s not good. Biden doesn’t want to talk about the economy, Trump doesn’t want to talk about abortion…this is not exactly going to be a clash of the titans. In a year where a lot of light and thunder will mean nothing against the fundamentals, Trump is the favourite to win the election.
NZFirst goes the whole year without a single reprimand from Luxon
This is a pretty easy call. They could, of course, simply manage an under the radar, unproblematic year. More likely is that we see what we always see from NZFirst, which is media-bait caterwauling, pretty undisguised bribe-taking, and racists. As we saw at the end of last year, now they’ve tacked on conspiracy theories, too.
Despite that, their major governing parties do not dare to cross them. NZ First are simply too willing to play with fire, because their voters love that stick-it-to-the-man stuff, or at least Winston thinks they do. Certainly, he does. National cannot risk sacking Winston and bringing the government down, like Jenny Shipley’s brinksmanship in 1998. Knowing he is impotent, Luxon will follow Ardern’s lead and treat all NZ First indiscretions as a matter solely to do with that party, rather than behaviour from ministers not up to the standards set by the Cabinet manual.
Luxon doesn’t grow into role and impress
There can be a tendency to assume that, because somebody wins an election and etches their name into history, they are made of a certain calibre. Even Todd Muller had hopeful biopics written about him the moment he became the leader, and, lo and behold, he was far from ready to be Prime Minister. The reality is that history is full of unexpected circumstances and unlikely outcomes. There is no divine law that points to the best of a good bunch rising to the top of a heap; sometimes you just default to an option, as National did with Luxon as the Mr. Clean, in comparison to Judith Collins and Simon Bridges. (This isn’t the first time - Andrew Little won the Labour leadership because he wasn’t David Cunliffe or Grant Robertson, more than anything else.)
Chris Luxon is reported to be an intelligent man, easy to work with, genial with the public, and possessed of few foibles. Nonetheless, he has done nothing to demonstrate great capability. He made gaffes early in his leadership run, proved to have a persistently low personal approval rating, and ran a campaign beset with policy and presentation issues. I’m not going to do him the justice of the benefit of the doubt - I’ve seen enough that I think it’s likelier than not he was simply in the right place at the right time, and is not a consummate talent like Clark, Key or Ardern.
Across the entire year, what National’s governing agenda is will remain unclear beyond austerity and roads
National and especially ACT have done a fair bit of work on policy, but it’s a bit of a grab bag. They defined themselves more by opposition to the government and being perceived to take a hard line. All of this means that they have lost touch with the more thoughtful parts of the last National-led government, like social investment. More pragmatically, the country remains in the middle of serious economic woes: priority will be placed on balancing the budget, growing the economy, and praying inflation falls. Perhaps in future years they’ll figure out what they’re here to do, or summon the will to challenge some shibboleths. Perhaps not. Either way, this won’t be the year for it.
And that’s my feelings on the year in general, start to finish. A lot is going to happen, but unlike years like 2023, what, exactly, is not really clear. We are merely laying the groundwork for the years to come - this is a transitional year, and its meaning is hard to foresee. But that makes the challenge of trying all the more fun! I encourage everybody to make a couple of their own and see how the year stacks up against them. Always remember,
“You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.”
-LMFAO, 2009
Comments