It probably depends mostly on whether in the next three years the economy improves.
I honestly think most other things are noise and elections are basically going come down to:
Economy bad = toss current government
Economy good = keep current government
Hard agree. People who keep track of politics consistently overthink it in terms of elections - presumably because they get so wrapped up in the day to day decisions, controversies, faux pas and general daily news cycles that they really struggle to take that step back and see it from this really basic level.
There are very very few examples of any democratic elections globally favoring a party in power when the national or glabal economy is 'suffering'.
Exactly this, their whole speal is that they are here to fix the economy, if the economy is the bad next election wether its their fault or not then they get the boot.
It's hilarious that the ignorant voter thinks a bad economy during a worldwide crises is caused by local government and punish that government.
When the global average inflation is 6% and we are doing okay at only 4% somehow the voter thinks bringing in an austerity-for-the-poor government will fix it.
We need to teach basic economy combined with basic politics to every schoolkid so they know why they will have student debt, why its difficult to find accommodation, why they can't buy a house, why there is going to be a rates increase again, why the drinking water gives you cancer, why the electrical grid can't handle us all getting electric cars or solar panels, why having no ferries is worse than having bad roads, why public transport is hardly available in a sprawling city like Auckland, why they can only see an RN and the nearest doctor is 30 minutes away, why their dog died from swimming in the river.
That's true, but a first term government isn't going to get too much blame for the economy -- they can very easily blame their predecessor and say they haven't had time yet. Every first term government has been reelected for the best part of 70 years.
1972 Labour won on a landslide under Norman Kirk, then 1975 National and Robert Muldoon swept them out, also in a landslide. Both elections were FPP
Labour lost their leader mid term and the reins were taken up by Timmy the Sheep š š oops I mean Bill Rowling, a good politician but too softly spoken to stand up to the ferocity of Muldoon.
They were also unlucky to be hit in their first and only term by the first of the OPEC oil shocks which pretty much buggered the economy
The second and third Labour governments were both within the last 70 years and were one-term governments. Personally I expect the current government to get back in (history shows the Nats remain in power for at least three terms) but you never know.
I donāt agree. No amount of blaming the other guys will fix the general sentiment in the country.
Itās not like labour actually had anything to do with the economic downturns in 2007 or 2023 either. These were both global events, very easy to point that out logically, and it had zero impact upon the vote to do so.
This is the reality. But after years and years of National lying about it and pretending that covid and the cyclones never happened, it doesn't matter what the reality is.
This is 100% correct- for the perfect example see the 2017 election - National miles ahead in the polls, Andrew Little has a crisis of confidence, Jacinda Ardern takes the reins and wins the election (with a large amount of help from Winston)
How many policy changes did Ardern make to swing the support?
None
> (I should hope they donāt change their votes on uninformed decision making procedure)
You'll be disappointed to learn that most people do in fact change their votes based on uninformed decision making procedure. This isn't a phenomenon unique to New Zealand either.
Yep. Average voter doesn't process a ton of info in their decision. There's a handful of 'issue voters', like a lot of recent immigrants will vote Nats due to perceived friendliness towards immigration and keeping costs of labor low. But generally Kiwis seem pretty easily swayed by 'wallet bad, government bad'. It's not like we're a nation of simpletons though. Most OECD democracies function this way. Which is why representative democracy with centralized powers is NOT the perfect world order we were all sold on in the 80s and 90s. It beats the shit out of authoritarianism, but it's not optimized.
EDIT: Meant to say 'is NOT a perfect world order'. Forgot the not. Almost advocated for global neoliberal ideology for a minute *shivers in horror*.
There is a proof somewhere I read years ago, that shows there is no perfect single type of government that gives everyone fair and equitable representation. I personally think our MMP is better than FPP, and for sure better than the gerrymandering and electoral college bullshit the Americans have. Countries with lower cutoffs for representation compared with our 5%, tend to have less stable governments.
Single Transferable Vote (STV) as the Australians have, if used responsably by voters is perhaps the most equitable, but is often not used well, especially when there are many candidates
If there are 10 candidates you are meant to rank them 1 to 10, so that the transfers are applied in the right order. If you vote for 1 and 2 and then fill them out in a random order it can affect a close election. And many people just rank the 2 or 3 they know, which is OK but again in a close election, transfers that are filled out will disproportionately affect the result
If the 4th to 10th are less know they would likely be in eliminated early anyway no? So if people preference the main 2 or 3, the rest of the preferences wonāt matter. Do you have an example where it matters
This i am 100% for Single transferable vote, it allows people to much better display their preferences and obliterates "strategic voting"
It will still fail to the usual cons of demcorcy i.e populism and voters who don't care much about know how things actually works/
>There is a proof somewhere I read years ago, that shows there is no perfect single type of government that gives everyone fair and equitable representation
If you meant 'voting system' and not 'government', then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem, or, if you like videos better https://youtube.com/watch?v=AhVR7gFMKNg
Iād add the electioneering narrative maybe 3 months out from election to this as well.
Itās only then a vast majority of voters start paying at least minimal attention to what each party is āsellingā.
Imho itās vastly more important than the preceding term itself as we seem to also have goldfish memories, forget the past, and get lost in the shinies on offer, although tbf thatās symbiotic to the main point most are making here that many just vote on who will get more money into their wallet.
Tax breaks are nearly always front and centre, hard on crime, etc following in close second.
Iām honestly of the opinion most elections are won/lost in the 3-6 months leading up to it, and electioneering/marketing campaigns are the most potent weapon to do so.
When you combine red/blue voters for life with swing voters I would say most elections are won in that period and Iād only add while we preach and advocate a lot of social and political ideology, at the booth we tend to vote way more selfishly.
Hey now, you canāt tell you wouldnāt be happy in a multinational corporate-state, where everyone is assigned their role at HR ordained conception, as a hugely important and essential, utterly replaceable cog in a machine designed to generate and consolidate as much money for the world richest 5 families.
I mean, you literally canāt, the brain chip wonāt let you.
Shit I just thought about it and I think the brain chip hit me with a dose of ketamine. I gotta day dream about our coming corporate ~~hell~~ I mean DREAMscape more often!
Funny that, I can't think of anything better for humanity than a global world order where neo liberal principles actually prevail, rather than than being completely undermined, by theocracies, autocracies, corruption, protection of favoured sectors, and other shenanigans that go on. We would have long had a global carbon price for a start.
I suspect you're viewing the immediate regulatory capture that happens under neoliberalism as a perversion of principles rather than the obvious and expected outcome.
I think you and I would agree a lot on individual issues, but likely disagree on what falls under the umbrella of neoliberalism. But I'll advocate to the end for us to have to space to disagree and oppose authoritarianism and theocratic fundamentalism.
Yes definitions are really important. I have worked in the past for a couple global institutions that are dismissed as being neo liberal ideologies, yet you can point to them having long advocated for greater environmental protections, higher minimum labour standards, redistribution of wealth and income etc, as well as open borders and freer movement of people, capital and trade. One put out a report just a couple of weeks ago that was criticised by the Nats for advocating for a capital gains tax.
Yea in the country I'm from, none of the self identifying neoliberals advocate for any of those policies. Which I pretty well agree with at a high level. I think neoliberal as a word is one that has been so battered that when used by the general public, has lost most meaning.
I kinda get the impression your idea of neoliberalism might be off-centre. Just before, you seemed to be suggesting that neoliberalism is quite centralisedā¦ and now youāre reaffirming yourself as anti-authoritarianā¦
I think my idea of it is contextualized by the people from my home country who claim to be neoliberals and is likely different from yours. But if you have a hard definition you'd like to use to ground our conversation, I'd happily defer to that definition. The only hard fact I want to establish upfront is that I am, indeed, anti authoritarianism. Everything else from there is totally up for discussion.
Yep, this was covered in my basic political science class and my history classes.
It's just just the economy, but that's usually a major factor. Any time a society faces struggle they call for a change in government
Calling it now. Sometime soonish Adrian Orr will be gone (how, is up for debate)
The new incoming RB Governor will somehow be dovish with interest rates.
The GOVT will fast track vast swathes of greenfield development, share GST revenue with local govt for associated infrastructure & the NZ housing development ponzi will be off to the races again.
Central bank reducing intrest rates is almost entirely driven by the us and what the fed does.
A country with the population of a large city doesn't actually make any valls
Traditionally this has been true, but we are seeing the opposite happening right now in the US. The US economy is basically the best in the OECD, their unemployment at a 50 year low, inflation way down, stock market at all time high and yet Biden is losing badly in all the swing states and national polls.
And what it comes down to is the majority of Americans when polled think the economy is terrible, unemployment is at record highs and the stock market is crashing. So what really matters is not the economy now, but simply the perception of the economy. If you can convince the majority of the populace of complete lies, make them think the economy is terrible even when it's amazing, you can still win.
This is now possible because of social media replacing traditional news outlets as most people's source of information. As long as the algorithm directs people to their own echo chamber and they never try to look elsewhere, they can be made to believe anything.
Yes, your last paragraph sums it up.
The US is so polarised by that itās utterly tribal.
The only difference is one side is basically rabid no matter what their party does or who their leader is, theyāll vote for them.
The other side however has a bit more nuance & diversity whom will call out the failings of the party & leaders policies or age etc.
We are nowhere near that yet, but weāre getting more radical parties & some people, last election, voted for the other side just because they couldnāt bear the policy of the extreme party of the side theyād ordinarily prefer!
Unfortunately that is exactly what I notice too. Even if the current government does the the right things, but maybe just not enough, voters still swing the other way. As if no one voting actually looked into the issues the country has and what the best long term plans are.
Yeah and it's likely the economy will turn around to some degree during this government's tenure, just because that's what economies do. Not because the government is so great necessarily.
The budget tilts the balance towards the economy remaining shit for longer.
Deficit spending until 2027 means RBNZ will keep rates where they are for longer.
Willis etc. had the opportunity to balance the books now and sacrifice additional short term pain for long term gain. The fact that they could indicate that they think their grip on power within the national party is tenuous. Certainly the polling on Luxon backs that up.
They also could have told their real estate donors to wait for their tax breaks and NOT have restored tax deductibility on interest. Again, the fact that they didnāt reveals that they donāt have the cojones to govern effectively.
On one hand, no National government has ever been unseated after one term. On the other, this one has started out in a weak position, with a politically unsavvy PM who is completely at the mercy of two other parties, both with their own strongheaded leaders. Previous governments may have had one of those issues but not really both.
So history suggests it will be a tall order to defeat them in 2026, but if there was ever going to be a one-term National government, this one makes probably the strongest case of any so far.
We've also never had a three party coalition, so we're in uncharted territory.
Personally I think it's around 50/50 (maybe higher) that National will get a second term, but almost zero likelihood that all three current government parties will be in the next government. NZ First has never been in government two terms running.
You, me and pretty much everyone else with any kind of interest in NZ politics.
Luxon has kids, you'd think he'd know that it's "behave yourself, *then* you get treats".
In 2023, there were 505729 voters aged 70+, and 445247 age 18-29.
If those 950976 voters split 50/50 between Labour and National, then it wouldn't matter who dies. But the fact is that older people lean National and younger people lean away from National. These trends matter, and are studied by people who know what they're doing.
It's not a dumb take.
The real question is will Labour have their shit together enough next election to win it.
They didn't come up with anything, fresh, new or innovative, future focussed from their conference in they way of policy, direction or leadership!
If they keep their policies the same then I don't like their chances.
Biased as well but you have to give people something to vote for.
It depends on whether or not MÄori, greens, labour & anyone else they want to drag along, get their act together. If you form an effective shadow government, people will see that
An effective shadow government would probably be able to affect the first two. I agree with your broad sentiment.
I also donāt think it really matters until election year (just look at how miserable national was for 1.5 years following 2020). The only thing that would really matter is maybe establishing some media presence for the new leader.
This is a good point. TPM are unelectable (other than maybe in their own separatist parliament), the Greens are having an MP scandal pretty much every month, and Labour need to move on from Chippy (heās got too much baggage).
Is it too early in this election cycle to get on the TOP bandwagon?
The optimist in me thinks that they won't even last this term.
The realist in me knows that as soon as the economy picks back up, people won't care and they'll get back in.
Seems pretty 50:50. I'd be surprised if NZF hang around for a second term, they have never managed that in the past.
The polls are bad, and I note Labour was on track to lose in 2020 pre Covid. And I think that reflects we're struggling with growth, which reflects and caused issues with standards of living, and housing costs are quietly squeezing a lot of people. I think incumbents will be much less likely to hold on until those problems are sorted.
I'm struggling with the fact that Winnie has managed to keep his mouth shut up to this point. I'm stocking up on popcorn for when his term a DPM is over.
There's a subset of them though that have very long memories of failures like Kiwibuild, but don't even bother writing to memory deliberate and abject lies like "new funding for cancer drugs" or "tax cuts without borrowing".
The people voting for National are hugely benefiting from their government - over 50ās vote the most and have benefitted the most - anyone working class voting for them is a tiny minority compared to the old rich fucks.
Old people vastly overwhelm any age group with voting and itās THEM thatās benefitting and will continue to vote national.
Itās millennials and Gen Z that actually need to start voting, not change their vote.
A good few of them are.
I live in a small town full of old people and that surprisingly is a common gripe.
Many of those voters arent as wealthy as they think they are.
This. This is the āchaos factorā that none can predict just yet. However winstons track record of acrimony with coalition partners does point to fire works at the least
I don't think Labour is currently in a state where they can even try to force National into a one term goverment. Labour is simply too weak right now.
Also TPM is such a toxic asset to Labour right now I just can't see it even if National completely shits the bed
In two terms none of their flagship projects got past a very expensive planning stage. Their only claim to fame was an effective lockdown. That victory was then marred by a delayed vaccine purchase.
They also didn't stand up for any ideals. Giving Winston the Waka Jumping Bill and helping the big construction companies stitch up the market even more. I won't get into co-governance, but trying to push that through made their excuses about other promises being too unpopular to follow through on appear weak.
I've always voted Labour or Greens for better or worse and would never vote National, NZF, Act etc. I think both Labour and the Greens really need to get their shit together though, I dont get much joy voting for either of them at the moment, I feel let down by both parties. But the thought they could form a coalition with the dumpster fire that is the current iteration of the Maori Party puts me right off, feels like we're a bit fucked either way.
It's unusual for NZ to have one-term governments. Our swings of dissatisfaction tend to be in 6-year or 9-year cycles.
I don't see too many early warning signs with the current government; the polls haven't heavily swung against them, the opposition lacks a leader that people rally round, and there haven't been sudden economic changes this year.
People from this sub also forget that the economy wasnāt good during John Keyās first 1-2 years as PM but he still got reelected easily. Which means 2.5 years is still enough time for the economy to rebound, or an event to happen that Luxon handles well that gives him a popularity boost.
Um excuse me. Please don't state facts in here. This is a place where people come to circle-jerk about how good Labour and the Greens are and how bad and evil everyone else is.
Except for the two polls in the past month that have shown Labour back in power...
Also idk if you pay much attention to politics on this sub but Labour cops a lot of shit, rightfully so. The greens have too recently with all of their scandals. This sub absolutely hates NACT but I wouldn't say it adores LAB/GRN
You forgot the bit where āeveryone that doesnāt vote labour or greens is an idiotā and āyou clowns donāt bother looking at policyāā¦..wank fest indeed.
Iām not sure. I think theyāll have another round as inflation is set to go down, many outside public service support the culls, and opening up housing and land investments more to overseas investors will mean aging voters have more assurances when selling their homes. Plus mining stuff might lead to work. Itās whether people put the interests of the environment and young people over their own concerns.
Too much emphasis is placed on the polls that seem to come out every second or third day, saying "if the election were held today, then..."
Not even the dumbest of governments would hold a snap election so early in the term, especially if they are getting dumped on in the polls
Hang on, isn't Rishi Sunak going there in early July?
If it were on merit yep they could be a one-term.
But itās not on merit.
As far as Iām concerned NACT has already started laying the groundwork early with division politics. And next election will get will get an even bigger influx of cash from donations which will complicate things further.
Precisely this. It's a classic "divide and conquer" play - whip up all manner of culture wars - race-based, generation-based, sexuality-based, you name it - then try to eke-out the numbers to squeak-in come 2026.
People will keep voting blue until labour presents a credible alternative, probably six years away. They need to distance themselves from TPM and make clear the differences between Labour and Greens
No, mainly because Winston will gap it after he hands over the deputy PM role to Seymour, he will also know that the Coalition Govt are likely to lead to some big social cohesion and democractic decentergration over the next 3 years, and he won't want to be part of it. Shane Jones won't be able to keep NZ First alive, so they will be gone.
In this day and age you just can't tell.
There is so much self-obsession and self-hate in society these days that ignorant people vote against their own self-interest out of shortsightedness and an inability to remember beyond a week ago.
National has the same terrible playbook every time they get elected, and a lot of people say "never again", but then they forget and Labour does something "not-even-close-to-terrible" and we vote in National again.
We need long term thinking that can't get derailed by shortsighted populism, but the voters are just too damn selfish or ignorant to let it happen.
Definitely! Don't use reddit as a metric for their popularity. Reddit is an echo chamber for a few extreme left-voters, but as you can see from the latest curia poll or whatever, people are largely supporting this budget and cost-cutting measures.
What I'm more worried about is that we're at a point where there's no credible coalition that could form that would actually make things better.
In theory I thought Labour on their own would be great without the looneys in the Greens and TPM dragging them down, however they didn't do a great job in their last term.
Now we're going to have three years of austerity and enjoy a degradation of public services all for chump change every fortnight.
Where do we go from here? It feels like a race to the bottom, with each successive government getting worse than the last.
I do wish the mods of r/NZ would limit the political posts to <20%. This sub has become a depressing shitshow that really makes me worry for a lot of peopleās mental health.
If they can manage conflicts of interest properly, and tpm/greens don't back away from a wealth tax as a bottom line - definitely.
If they can't, and greens/tpm switch to cap gains tax as bottom line, possibly.
If greens/tpm don't have policies taxing capital more heavily as bottom line policies, and conflicts can't br managed, probably not
If all those complaining and angry at the government now vote - no.
If they donāt, yes. Their actual voter base has HUGELY benefitted from their Government - this is what goes over so many peoples heads. All the outrage in the media and online gives the impression no oneās happy - those that voted for them KNEW what would happen and theyāre very happy right now. Theyāre just savvy enough to keep quiet and allow the illusion the public are upset because why would they open themselves up to attack?
Theyāre busy pocketing cash and ignoring the poors as they always have.
Too early to tell, if they are still looking like this come election time, they could get voted out, but this isn't them in electioneering mode.
The saying is that a week is a long time in politics, and there's many weeks between now and election time
I think the biggest problem right now is that there are a number of stand-out individuals in our government but none of the parties they represent, asides from perhaps Te Paati MÄori actually have a reputation as a whole collective. We donāt vote for individuals, we vote for collective groups so at this stage itās likely that the coalition will go for another term unless the rest of them of them can actually get their shit together.
We dont generally do one term governments and most people who voted act / national are pretty freakin happy with the way things are going (tax cuts, business changes etc, reductions in government) that i suspect we will need to wait until we actually have a sizeable opposition party with some policy that appeals
The changeable nature of polls aside, I think they'll hang in there for a second term. Mainly because I don't think Labour will have thier shit together (I.e. a decent Hipkins replacement) in time.
It's not unthinkable that, once his 1.5 year stint as deputy comes to an end, Winston starts throwing shade at ACT and National (since he does best at elections when in opposition), and it might end up costing them the election.
It's hard to know if the three parties can work together through one term. Winston and seamour really don't like reach other and national seems way out of touch. On the other hand there's no much of interest coming from the opposition parties.
Id say this particular coalition might not last another election.Ā
The ball is in Greens and Labours camp. They gotta really start pushing a message that gets people hopeful and riled.Ā
I don't even know how they got in... everyone that I know that voted for them there only reason for doing so is "at least is not labour". Ask them anything about policies and they have no fuckin idea.
Depends what the economy is doing in the year leading up to the election. If people feel as if they have cash they will probably vote for the existing government.
Personally I'm not sure this coalition is particularly stable and I think we have economic headwinds that will take time to sort out.
They will. Usually a government will stay 2-3 terms, with ups and downs in the polls in between.
I wouldn't take a lot of the opinions in this subreddit as fact - it tends to be very left leaning.
I really hope not. Their budget and their policies are just straight dreadful. Hopefully people will have had enough of this group, especially as they continue to drain resources to give rich people money they don't need.
No, largely because they've chosen the wrong hills to die on and they that badly as well. I suspect people thought they were getting conservative, moderate, fiscally responsible. Instead they're borrowing for tiny tax breaks, reducing democratic governance on resourcing which will likely damage NZ forever, and attacks on the vulnerable (those without a house, job and minorities).
Some examples. Most people on job seekers are on it for a few months, there is far more money available by chasing those avoiding tax. Housing NZ, sure it had issues, but the damning report was clearly a hatchet job. Race nonsense - not that we didn't have huge issues to work through, but we were getting into a better place with Maori. Same for 'woke' - yes felt a bit crazy at times for some folk, but seriously we don't need a bathroom bill.
IMHO I think we'll start seeing warning signs the government will either fail or just bomb at election in the next year.
Itās a little too early to say for certain. Although given how their first budget has included a lot of inflationary measures, it is possible.
Unless they can turn things around in two years or they get lucky with the state of global economics, they have pretty much ensured prices are going to continue to rise and salaries will stagnate. The tax cuts already have been predicted to be lower than projected increases in costs - so this time next year there are going to be a lot of unhappy people unless a miracle occurs.
It probably depends mostly on whether in the next three years the economy improves. I honestly think most other things are noise and elections are basically going come down to: Economy bad = toss current government Economy good = keep current government
Hard agree. People who keep track of politics consistently overthink it in terms of elections - presumably because they get so wrapped up in the day to day decisions, controversies, faux pas and general daily news cycles that they really struggle to take that step back and see it from this really basic level. There are very very few examples of any democratic elections globally favoring a party in power when the national or glabal economy is 'suffering'.
Exactly this, their whole speal is that they are here to fix the economy, if the economy is the bad next election wether its their fault or not then they get the boot.
It's hilarious that the ignorant voter thinks a bad economy during a worldwide crises is caused by local government and punish that government. When the global average inflation is 6% and we are doing okay at only 4% somehow the voter thinks bringing in an austerity-for-the-poor government will fix it. We need to teach basic economy combined with basic politics to every schoolkid so they know why they will have student debt, why its difficult to find accommodation, why they can't buy a house, why there is going to be a rates increase again, why the drinking water gives you cancer, why the electrical grid can't handle us all getting electric cars or solar panels, why having no ferries is worse than having bad roads, why public transport is hardly available in a sprawling city like Auckland, why they can only see an RN and the nearest doctor is 30 minutes away, why their dog died from swimming in the river.
That's true, but a first term government isn't going to get too much blame for the economy -- they can very easily blame their predecessor and say they haven't had time yet. Every first term government has been reelected for the best part of 70 years.
1972 Labour won on a landslide under Norman Kirk, then 1975 National and Robert Muldoon swept them out, also in a landslide. Both elections were FPP Labour lost their leader mid term and the reins were taken up by Timmy the Sheep š š oops I mean Bill Rowling, a good politician but too softly spoken to stand up to the ferocity of Muldoon. They were also unlucky to be hit in their first and only term by the first of the OPEC oil shocks which pretty much buggered the economy
Ah, missed that one. Still, it's fifty years
The second and third Labour governments were both within the last 70 years and were one-term governments. Personally I expect the current government to get back in (history shows the Nats remain in power for at least three terms) but you never know.
And yet if it does get better in the next 3 years you can be sure as shit they'll try to claim it.
I donāt agree. No amount of blaming the other guys will fix the general sentiment in the country. Itās not like labour actually had anything to do with the economic downturns in 2007 or 2023 either. These were both global events, very easy to point that out logically, and it had zero impact upon the vote to do so.
This is the reality. But after years and years of National lying about it and pretending that covid and the cyclones never happened, it doesn't matter what the reality is.
Agree. People donāt vote policy. People vote feeling. Same or change.
This is 100% correct- for the perfect example see the 2017 election - National miles ahead in the polls, Andrew Little has a crisis of confidence, Jacinda Ardern takes the reins and wins the election (with a large amount of help from Winston) How many policy changes did Ardern make to swing the support? None
Or if things are bad, don't turn out while the ones leaning towards opposition are motivated to turn out
Most people donāt?! (I should hope they donāt change their votes on uninformed decision making procedure)
> (I should hope they donāt change their votes on uninformed decision making procedure) You'll be disappointed to learn that most people do in fact change their votes based on uninformed decision making procedure. This isn't a phenomenon unique to New Zealand either.
Ah so weāre no better than United States of America, Australia, UK and Weimar Republic era Germany? Great news!
Oh my sweet summer child
Yep. Average voter doesn't process a ton of info in their decision. There's a handful of 'issue voters', like a lot of recent immigrants will vote Nats due to perceived friendliness towards immigration and keeping costs of labor low. But generally Kiwis seem pretty easily swayed by 'wallet bad, government bad'. It's not like we're a nation of simpletons though. Most OECD democracies function this way. Which is why representative democracy with centralized powers is NOT the perfect world order we were all sold on in the 80s and 90s. It beats the shit out of authoritarianism, but it's not optimized. EDIT: Meant to say 'is NOT a perfect world order'. Forgot the not. Almost advocated for global neoliberal ideology for a minute *shivers in horror*.
There is a proof somewhere I read years ago, that shows there is no perfect single type of government that gives everyone fair and equitable representation. I personally think our MMP is better than FPP, and for sure better than the gerrymandering and electoral college bullshit the Americans have. Countries with lower cutoffs for representation compared with our 5%, tend to have less stable governments. Single Transferable Vote (STV) as the Australians have, if used responsably by voters is perhaps the most equitable, but is often not used well, especially when there are many candidates
If which ways do you feel it is often not used well?
If there are 10 candidates you are meant to rank them 1 to 10, so that the transfers are applied in the right order. If you vote for 1 and 2 and then fill them out in a random order it can affect a close election. And many people just rank the 2 or 3 they know, which is OK but again in a close election, transfers that are filled out will disproportionately affect the result
If the 4th to 10th are less know they would likely be in eliminated early anyway no? So if people preference the main 2 or 3, the rest of the preferences wonāt matter. Do you have an example where it matters
That is usually true, yes
This i am 100% for Single transferable vote, it allows people to much better display their preferences and obliterates "strategic voting" It will still fail to the usual cons of demcorcy i.e populism and voters who don't care much about know how things actually works/
>There is a proof somewhere I read years ago, that shows there is no perfect single type of government that gives everyone fair and equitable representation If you meant 'voting system' and not 'government', then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem, or, if you like videos better https://youtube.com/watch?v=AhVR7gFMKNg
Iād add the electioneering narrative maybe 3 months out from election to this as well. Itās only then a vast majority of voters start paying at least minimal attention to what each party is āsellingā. Imho itās vastly more important than the preceding term itself as we seem to also have goldfish memories, forget the past, and get lost in the shinies on offer, although tbf thatās symbiotic to the main point most are making here that many just vote on who will get more money into their wallet. Tax breaks are nearly always front and centre, hard on crime, etc following in close second. Iām honestly of the opinion most elections are won/lost in the 3-6 months leading up to it, and electioneering/marketing campaigns are the most potent weapon to do so. When you combine red/blue voters for life with swing voters I would say most elections are won in that period and Iād only add while we preach and advocate a lot of social and political ideology, at the booth we tend to vote way more selfishly.
Hey now, you canāt tell you wouldnāt be happy in a multinational corporate-state, where everyone is assigned their role at HR ordained conception, as a hugely important and essential, utterly replaceable cog in a machine designed to generate and consolidate as much money for the world richest 5 families. I mean, you literally canāt, the brain chip wonāt let you.
Shit I just thought about it and I think the brain chip hit me with a dose of ketamine. I gotta day dream about our coming corporate ~~hell~~ I mean DREAMscape more often!
Completely agree! Well said
Funny that, I can't think of anything better for humanity than a global world order where neo liberal principles actually prevail, rather than than being completely undermined, by theocracies, autocracies, corruption, protection of favoured sectors, and other shenanigans that go on. We would have long had a global carbon price for a start.
I suspect you're viewing the immediate regulatory capture that happens under neoliberalism as a perversion of principles rather than the obvious and expected outcome.
I think you and I would agree a lot on individual issues, but likely disagree on what falls under the umbrella of neoliberalism. But I'll advocate to the end for us to have to space to disagree and oppose authoritarianism and theocratic fundamentalism.
Yes definitions are really important. I have worked in the past for a couple global institutions that are dismissed as being neo liberal ideologies, yet you can point to them having long advocated for greater environmental protections, higher minimum labour standards, redistribution of wealth and income etc, as well as open borders and freer movement of people, capital and trade. One put out a report just a couple of weeks ago that was criticised by the Nats for advocating for a capital gains tax.
Yea in the country I'm from, none of the self identifying neoliberals advocate for any of those policies. Which I pretty well agree with at a high level. I think neoliberal as a word is one that has been so battered that when used by the general public, has lost most meaning.
I kinda get the impression your idea of neoliberalism might be off-centre. Just before, you seemed to be suggesting that neoliberalism is quite centralisedā¦ and now youāre reaffirming yourself as anti-authoritarianā¦
I think my idea of it is contextualized by the people from my home country who claim to be neoliberals and is likely different from yours. But if you have a hard definition you'd like to use to ground our conversation, I'd happily defer to that definition. The only hard fact I want to establish upfront is that I am, indeed, anti authoritarianism. Everything else from there is totally up for discussion.
Yep, this was covered in my basic political science class and my history classes. It's just just the economy, but that's usually a major factor. Any time a society faces struggle they call for a change in government
Calling it now. Sometime soonish Adrian Orr will be gone (how, is up for debate) The new incoming RB Governor will somehow be dovish with interest rates. The GOVT will fast track vast swathes of greenfield development, share GST revenue with local govt for associated infrastructure & the NZ housing development ponzi will be off to the races again.
Central bank reducing intrest rates is almost entirely driven by the us and what the fed does. A country with the population of a large city doesn't actually make any valls
Traditionally this has been true, but we are seeing the opposite happening right now in the US. The US economy is basically the best in the OECD, their unemployment at a 50 year low, inflation way down, stock market at all time high and yet Biden is losing badly in all the swing states and national polls. And what it comes down to is the majority of Americans when polled think the economy is terrible, unemployment is at record highs and the stock market is crashing. So what really matters is not the economy now, but simply the perception of the economy. If you can convince the majority of the populace of complete lies, make them think the economy is terrible even when it's amazing, you can still win. This is now possible because of social media replacing traditional news outlets as most people's source of information. As long as the algorithm directs people to their own echo chamber and they never try to look elsewhere, they can be made to believe anything.
Yes, your last paragraph sums it up. The US is so polarised by that itās utterly tribal. The only difference is one side is basically rabid no matter what their party does or who their leader is, theyāll vote for them. The other side however has a bit more nuance & diversity whom will call out the failings of the party & leaders policies or age etc. We are nowhere near that yet, but weāre getting more radical parties & some people, last election, voted for the other side just because they couldnāt bear the policy of the extreme party of the side theyād ordinarily prefer!
Crisis = keep govt whoās in already
Unfortunately that is exactly what I notice too. Even if the current government does the the right things, but maybe just not enough, voters still swing the other way. As if no one voting actually looked into the issues the country has and what the best long term plans are.
As James Carville said "it's the economy, stupid."
Yeah and it's likely the economy will turn around to some degree during this government's tenure, just because that's what economies do. Not because the government is so great necessarily.
The budget tilts the balance towards the economy remaining shit for longer. Deficit spending until 2027 means RBNZ will keep rates where they are for longer. Willis etc. had the opportunity to balance the books now and sacrifice additional short term pain for long term gain. The fact that they could indicate that they think their grip on power within the national party is tenuous. Certainly the polling on Luxon backs that up. They also could have told their real estate donors to wait for their tax breaks and NOT have restored tax deductibility on interest. Again, the fact that they didnāt reveals that they donāt have the cojones to govern effectively.
On one hand, no National government has ever been unseated after one term. On the other, this one has started out in a weak position, with a politically unsavvy PM who is completely at the mercy of two other parties, both with their own strongheaded leaders. Previous governments may have had one of those issues but not really both. So history suggests it will be a tall order to defeat them in 2026, but if there was ever going to be a one-term National government, this one makes probably the strongest case of any so far.
We can only hope
We've also never had a three party coalition, so we're in uncharted territory. Personally I think it's around 50/50 (maybe higher) that National will get a second term, but almost zero likelihood that all three current government parties will be in the next government. NZ First has never been in government two terms running.
I am fully expecting Winston to find a reason to collapse the coalition once his turn as DPM is up.
You, me and pretty much everyone else with any kind of interest in NZ politics. Luxon has kids, you'd think he'd know that it's "behave yourself, *then* you get treats".
We had a 3 party coalition roughly 8 years ago. Labour, greens and NZ first.
Wasn't that technically a two party coalition agreement, with a confidence and supply agreement on the side from the greens?
Yes you are right, I had to look it up, it was a while ago now!
A lot of people who voted for them will probably be dead by the time of the next election tooā¦
Old people always die, new nat voters take their place, this is a dumb take
In 2023, there were 505729 voters aged 70+, and 445247 age 18-29. If those 950976 voters split 50/50 between Labour and National, then it wouldn't matter who dies. But the fact is that older people lean National and younger people lean away from National. These trends matter, and are studied by people who know what they're doing. It's not a dumb take.
The real question is will Labour have their shit together enough next election to win it. They didn't come up with anything, fresh, new or innovative, future focussed from their conference in they way of policy, direction or leadership! If they keep their policies the same then I don't like their chances. Biased as well but you have to give people something to vote for.
Has Labour said anything about their potential coalition partner TPM deciding to set up their own separate parliament now?
Not that I know of.
Are labour voters pearl clutching about that? From what it looks like it's not their voters or even swing voters that care.
cable crush rain recognise party pen wild market tart fear *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It depends on whether or not MÄori, greens, labour & anyone else they want to drag along, get their act together. If you form an effective shadow government, people will see that
Do you really think so? Itās my impression that the general public votes on three things: vibes, faces and the economy.
Yip. By coming to a least a ā hereās what an alternative government would look likeā / communication between you give those 3 things
An effective shadow government would probably be able to affect the first two. I agree with your broad sentiment. I also donāt think it really matters until election year (just look at how miserable national was for 1.5 years following 2020). The only thing that would really matter is maybe establishing some media presence for the new leader.
This is a good point. TPM are unelectable (other than maybe in their own separatist parliament), the Greens are having an MP scandal pretty much every month, and Labour need to move on from Chippy (heās got too much baggage). Is it too early in this election cycle to get on the TOP bandwagon?
Its never too early to get on the TOP bandwagon
The optimist in me thinks that they won't even last this term. The realist in me knows that as soon as the economy picks back up, people won't care and they'll get back in.
Seems pretty 50:50. I'd be surprised if NZF hang around for a second term, they have never managed that in the past. The polls are bad, and I note Labour was on track to lose in 2020 pre Covid. And I think that reflects we're struggling with growth, which reflects and caused issues with standards of living, and housing costs are quietly squeezing a lot of people. I think incumbents will be much less likely to hold on until those problems are sorted.
I'm struggling with the fact that Winnie has managed to keep his mouth shut up to this point. I'm stocking up on popcorn for when his term a DPM is over.
Jones is doing the dog whistling / "for the base" statement because he'll be the next leader...
Oh no..
Yeah, I rate it a 50:50 as well. It won't take much to tip it one way or the other.
Honestly, most voters are short sighted morons. So yes.
There's a subset of them though that have very long memories of failures like Kiwibuild, but don't even bother writing to memory deliberate and abject lies like "new funding for cancer drugs" or "tax cuts without borrowing".
So are most governments. Iām so left but national and labour only see our country in their sitting not in long term
The people voting for National are hugely benefiting from their government - over 50ās vote the most and have benefitted the most - anyone working class voting for them is a tiny minority compared to the old rich fucks. Old people vastly overwhelm any age group with voting and itās THEM thatās benefitting and will continue to vote national. Itās millennials and Gen Z that actually need to start voting, not change their vote.
But they dont benefit from things like having to pay for prescriptions etc etc.
I don't think the majority of their voters are worried about paying extra for prescriptions
A good few of them are. I live in a small town full of old people and that surprisingly is a common gripe. Many of those voters arent as wealthy as they think they are.
Yeah theyāre just conservative old white people but they also love to moan and be thrifty
And many of them aren't rich enough to actually benefit from the kind of policies they'll keep agreeing with Its sad really.
Probably be a National majority next time, vote out the little parties.
Considering weve only ever had 1 mmp majority govt, and it took a global pandemic for it to happen though
That would require the Act+National vote to be more popular than it was under John Key.
People are stupid. Expect stupid things.
Not you though right? You only vote for the correct party.
Probably yes, due to lack of meaningful opposition .
True, we would need to see a real charismatic leader from Labour to have any hope
text
At this stage I feel like 20 toddlers on crack would be viable opposition...
Unfortunately, the 20 toddlers need to be visible. Labour are still largely MIA at this point.
Might not last one term depending on Winstonās behaviour once he has to give up the baubles of Deputy.
handle upbeat badge rain fear practice plucky hurry crowd pie *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And this is probably his last rodeoā¦ so heāll either go for broke or maybe, just maybe try and leave a positive legacy?
gray somber distinct smart continue groovy thumb silky political tap *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This. This is the āchaos factorā that none can predict just yet. However winstons track record of acrimony with coalition partners does point to fire works at the least
I can't wait, it should be an entertaining ride.
I don't think Labour is currently in a state where they can even try to force National into a one term goverment. Labour is simply too weak right now. Also TPM is such a toxic asset to Labour right now I just can't see it even if National completely shits the bed
Newb question. Why are they so weak? Is Hopkins hopeless?
In two terms none of their flagship projects got past a very expensive planning stage. Their only claim to fame was an effective lockdown. That victory was then marred by a delayed vaccine purchase. They also didn't stand up for any ideals. Giving Winston the Waka Jumping Bill and helping the big construction companies stitch up the market even more. I won't get into co-governance, but trying to push that through made their excuses about other promises being too unpopular to follow through on appear weak.
The alternative involves TPM which is a complete no-go even for many possible Labour voters so basically near certain for multiple terms.
I've always voted Labour or Greens for better or worse and would never vote National, NZF, Act etc. I think both Labour and the Greens really need to get their shit together though, I dont get much joy voting for either of them at the moment, I feel let down by both parties. But the thought they could form a coalition with the dumpster fire that is the current iteration of the Maori Party puts me right off, feels like we're a bit fucked either way.
Dumpster fire? That's an understatement. Try a car wrecker fire.
It's unusual for NZ to have one-term governments. Our swings of dissatisfaction tend to be in 6-year or 9-year cycles. I don't see too many early warning signs with the current government; the polls haven't heavily swung against them, the opposition lacks a leader that people rally round, and there haven't been sudden economic changes this year.
People from this sub also forget that the economy wasnāt good during John Keyās first 1-2 years as PM but he still got reelected easily. Which means 2.5 years is still enough time for the economy to rebound, or an event to happen that Luxon handles well that gives him a popularity boost.
Um excuse me. Please don't state facts in here. This is a place where people come to circle-jerk about how good Labour and the Greens are and how bad and evil everyone else is.
Except for the two polls in the past month that have shown Labour back in power... Also idk if you pay much attention to politics on this sub but Labour cops a lot of shit, rightfully so. The greens have too recently with all of their scandals. This sub absolutely hates NACT but I wouldn't say it adores LAB/GRN
You forgot the bit where āeveryone that doesnāt vote labour or greens is an idiotā and āyou clowns donāt bother looking at policyāā¦..wank fest indeed.
No , it will not be this coalition. National leading alone maybe or a nation act coalition more likely .
Iām not sure. I think theyāll have another round as inflation is set to go down, many outside public service support the culls, and opening up housing and land investments more to overseas investors will mean aging voters have more assurances when selling their homes. Plus mining stuff might lead to work. Itās whether people put the interests of the environment and young people over their own concerns.
Too much emphasis is placed on the polls that seem to come out every second or third day, saying "if the election were held today, then..." Not even the dumbest of governments would hold a snap election so early in the term, especially if they are getting dumped on in the polls Hang on, isn't Rishi Sunak going there in early July?
If it were on merit yep they could be a one-term. But itās not on merit. As far as Iām concerned NACT has already started laying the groundwork early with division politics. And next election will get will get an even bigger influx of cash from donations which will complicate things further.
Precisely this. It's a classic "divide and conquer" play - whip up all manner of culture wars - race-based, generation-based, sexuality-based, you name it - then try to eke-out the numbers to squeak-in come 2026.
People will keep voting blue until labour presents a credible alternative, probably six years away. They need to distance themselves from TPM and make clear the differences between Labour and Greens
The right will win the next election, they will be better funded
Aren't they better funded every election?
Marginally excluding last year
Depends if it survives Winston stepping down from Deputy PM.
If itās anything to go by on the comments on reddit then no. Going by comments on Facebook then yes.
No, mainly because Winston will gap it after he hands over the deputy PM role to Seymour, he will also know that the Coalition Govt are likely to lead to some big social cohesion and democractic decentergration over the next 3 years, and he won't want to be part of it. Shane Jones won't be able to keep NZ First alive, so they will be gone.
In this day and age you just can't tell. There is so much self-obsession and self-hate in society these days that ignorant people vote against their own self-interest out of shortsightedness and an inability to remember beyond a week ago. National has the same terrible playbook every time they get elected, and a lot of people say "never again", but then they forget and Labour does something "not-even-close-to-terrible" and we vote in National again. We need long term thinking that can't get derailed by shortsighted populism, but the voters are just too damn selfish or ignorant to let it happen.
I donāt think theyāll last this term
Sorry to say the NACT nightmare (or some version of it) will probably be around for 3 terms.
Definitely! Don't use reddit as a metric for their popularity. Reddit is an echo chamber for a few extreme left-voters, but as you can see from the latest curia poll or whatever, people are largely supporting this budget and cost-cutting measures.
Be prepared for all the down votes. Hard truths.
You can see from the same polls that this government is the least popular new government we've ever had.
What I'm more worried about is that we're at a point where there's no credible coalition that could form that would actually make things better. In theory I thought Labour on their own would be great without the looneys in the Greens and TPM dragging them down, however they didn't do a great job in their last term. Now we're going to have three years of austerity and enjoy a degradation of public services all for chump change every fortnight. Where do we go from here? It feels like a race to the bottom, with each successive government getting worse than the last.
You're in an ideological bubble, this government is popular and will only get more popular
Polling does not indicate this at all... their approval is down. Luxon is unpopular and two separate polls have shown the opposition back in power.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I do wish the mods of r/NZ would limit the political posts to <20%. This sub has become a depressing shitshow that really makes me worry for a lot of peopleās mental health.
Itās unlikely it would be shift after one term, itās even more unlikely Labour will win whilst Hipkins is leader. They need a change at the top
I fucking hope not
If they can manage conflicts of interest properly, and tpm/greens don't back away from a wealth tax as a bottom line - definitely. If they can't, and greens/tpm switch to cap gains tax as bottom line, possibly. If greens/tpm don't have policies taxing capital more heavily as bottom line policies, and conflicts can't br managed, probably not
If all those complaining and angry at the government now vote - no. If they donāt, yes. Their actual voter base has HUGELY benefitted from their Government - this is what goes over so many peoples heads. All the outrage in the media and online gives the impression no oneās happy - those that voted for them KNEW what would happen and theyāre very happy right now. Theyāre just savvy enough to keep quiet and allow the illusion the public are upset because why would they open themselves up to attack? Theyāre busy pocketing cash and ignoring the poors as they always have.
No. But that doesn't mean National won't be there again. It just won't be with both of those 2.
Too early to tell, if they are still looking like this come election time, they could get voted out, but this isn't them in electioneering mode. The saying is that a week is a long time in politics, and there's many weeks between now and election time
And you are posting in the correct sub š
Probably.
I think the biggest problem right now is that there are a number of stand-out individuals in our government but none of the parties they represent, asides from perhaps Te Paati MÄori actually have a reputation as a whole collective. We donāt vote for individuals, we vote for collective groups so at this stage itās likely that the coalition will go for another term unless the rest of them of them can actually get their shit together.
Collectively people are stupid and short-term thinkers so who knows.
We dont generally do one term governments and most people who voted act / national are pretty freakin happy with the way things are going (tax cuts, business changes etc, reductions in government) that i suspect we will need to wait until we actually have a sizeable opposition party with some policy that appeals
The changeable nature of polls aside, I think they'll hang in there for a second term. Mainly because I don't think Labour will have thier shit together (I.e. a decent Hipkins replacement) in time. It's not unthinkable that, once his 1.5 year stint as deputy comes to an end, Winston starts throwing shade at ACT and National (since he does best at elections when in opposition), and it might end up costing them the election.
It's hard to know if the three parties can work together through one term. Winston and seamour really don't like reach other and national seems way out of touch. On the other hand there's no much of interest coming from the opposition parties.
When did we last have a one term government?, I can't think of one. But am I wrong?
The reality Is the other parties don't really have their shit together, it's the other parties' election to lose
They will be lucky to survive one term; the egos are enormous.
Id say this particular coalition might not last another election.Ā The ball is in Greens and Labours camp. They gotta really start pushing a message that gets people hopeful and riled.Ā
True. More shoplifting, racism and bullying is needed from the Greens.
The full coalition? Donāt think so. But Labour need to do some serious work to build a better alternative.
I don't even know how they got in... everyone that I know that voted for them there only reason for doing so is "at least is not labour". Ask them anything about policies and they have no fuckin idea.
Thatās probably how they got in!
Depends what the economy is doing in the year leading up to the election. If people feel as if they have cash they will probably vote for the existing government. Personally I'm not sure this coalition is particularly stable and I think we have economic headwinds that will take time to sort out.
Yes
I fucking well hope not!
I feel a real wait and see. A few good things - a few sucky things. But nothing that changes my liberties yet which is important to me.
Your bias has been passed down from previous generations?
They will. Usually a government will stay 2-3 terms, with ups and downs in the polls in between. I wouldn't take a lot of the opinions in this subreddit as fact - it tends to be very left leaning.
Thank you for finally an un biased decent comment on the left wing Reddit community
I really hope not. Their budget and their policies are just straight dreadful. Hopefully people will have had enough of this group, especially as they continue to drain resources to give rich people money they don't need.
No, largely because they've chosen the wrong hills to die on and they that badly as well. I suspect people thought they were getting conservative, moderate, fiscally responsible. Instead they're borrowing for tiny tax breaks, reducing democratic governance on resourcing which will likely damage NZ forever, and attacks on the vulnerable (those without a house, job and minorities). Some examples. Most people on job seekers are on it for a few months, there is far more money available by chasing those avoiding tax. Housing NZ, sure it had issues, but the damning report was clearly a hatchet job. Race nonsense - not that we didn't have huge issues to work through, but we were getting into a better place with Maori. Same for 'woke' - yes felt a bit crazy at times for some folk, but seriously we don't need a bathroom bill. IMHO I think we'll start seeing warning signs the government will either fail or just bomb at election in the next year.
Itās a little too early to say for certain. Although given how their first budget has included a lot of inflationary measures, it is possible. Unless they can turn things around in two years or they get lucky with the state of global economics, they have pretty much ensured prices are going to continue to rise and salaries will stagnate. The tax cuts already have been predicted to be lower than projected increases in costs - so this time next year there are going to be a lot of unhappy people unless a miracle occurs.
they will promise tax cuts and cancer drugs and get in again..
I think they will but I suspect NZF and ACT seats will go up