- Date published:
6:24 pm, January 30th, 2023 - 78 comments
Categories: act, election 2023, greens, labour, maori party, national, Politics, polls - Tags:
This evening two new political polls have been released both putting Labour ahead of National. ‘
From Radio New Zealand:
Two political polls tonight have Labour regaining lost ground against National, with leader Chris Hipkins more popular than the opposition’s Chris Luxon.
Both are the first poll for their respective organisations since Chris Hipkins took over as Prime Minister after Jacinda Ardern’s shock resignation from the role.
The 1News Kantar poll had Labour up 5 percentage points to 38, with National down one percentage point to 37.
Newshub Reid Research’s poll had Labour up 5.7 percent to 38, ahead of National which lost 4.1 points, dropping to 36.6.
The One News Kantar Poll has Act on 10% and the Greens on 7%.
The Reid Research Poll has the Greens on 8.1% and Act on 10.7%.
It looks like Te Maori Party will be the deciders. Both poll results suggest they will have two seats.
The margin is still really tight and the result is still too close to call.
But this election is not over yet. And there is a lot at stake. Like our future.
I suspect Matthew Hooton may be found in the coming days suspiciously deceased in a basement lecture theatre of the Owen Glenn building – Auckland University's depressingly flash business school. – with a silver spoon sticking out of his back. (Joke)
But seriously – not too much elation, this has to be sustained and increased. The greatest hope lies in the fact that Hipkins' numbers for approval and trust are well ahead of Luxon's.
[lprent: Not a joke, unless you consider that me dropping you from commenting in this this site for the rest of this year is also a ‘joke’. This is your only warning. Read the site policy. ]
Please never joke about violence. Read the site’s Policy to remind yourself of the lenient rules here. Since it is Election Year the Mods will tighten up.
Read my mod note.
Read and acknowledged. Apologies to all.
still a good question.where is hooten, and whats he doing(or not doing) as media advisor to brown?
Hooton’s job is retweeting the Mayor’s tweets, which he probably wrote for him. As a ‘special’ advisor to the Mayor part of his job is to be a ghostwriter and the job of a shadow-master is to stay invisible and behind the curtain which is hard for big egos.
So much for the doom and gloom.
There was never a shift to the Right. There was a shift to "Other". The voters weren't saying "National have the answers, let's help landlords and cut the minimum wage, that's what we need!". They were (are) just generally pissed off with costs and … life.
So Luxon foolishly thought that he could win by saying nothing – being nothing.
I've said before that National will dump him before the election. Sticking with that prediction. Why keep giving free gifts to Labour?
A few generations ago, National was the 'establishment' and occasionally people got tired of them and voted for change, which is when the left got in.
Today's Millenials and whatever other generation names are since then, are gradually becoming the voting majority, as Boomers and, all-too-soon (cos I'm one) the Gen-Xers, will be falling off their twigs and shifting the balance of voter opinion away from greed/wealth as the motivating force of the nation, in favour of more liberal ideals.
For instance, a while back I asked my daughter and her partner what they thought would replace the European cars, boats and baches of my generation and be the things valued and aspired to in their generation(s). The response was more free time and a better work/life balance. I thought they might have said 'sneakers'…
IMHO, we've seen a corresponding change to where the ideals of the left are becoming the 'establishment' and National will now and then get in when swinging voters think we've moved too far left.
Or, in other words, where LL=Liberal Left, CL = Centre-left, CR is Centre-right and RR is rabid right, a few generations ago the voting landscape would have been made up of CL, CR and RR, but I think now more so LL, CL and CR.
Problem is that National just can't get its head out of the sand. It's best chance of truly winning an election would be to develop things like climate change policies, more-equal wealth distribution etc, but develop them in a way that appeals to the conservative component of today's voting majority.
IMHO its best chance of National winning this election (and the last, I think) would have been Simon Bridges, who gave National a CR image. But the boomers who run National couldn't stomach the idea of National as a CR party and so they dumped Bridges. IMHO, they didn't so much lose the election as not position themselves to win it.
Who knows what goes on behind the scenes at National, but if their politicians vie to appeal to the boomer attitudes in the boardroom, National will only win if the left loses its appeal to the CR voters.
So far, Hipkins has met with Simon Bridges and got the ear of Business, which is exactly the right thing to do. The fact that he did it within a week of taking the reins gives me great comfort that someone in their think-tank knows what the left needs to be doing if they want to win again.
New leaders get an initial bounce, even Cunliffe got one. New leaders who make bold moves and excite the public usually sustain that bounce.
If Chris Hipkins can drop the unpopular policies, announce some new ones and be seen as hellbent on focusing on the economy and retaining living standards labour has every chance of winning this year.
The last thing National wants is to fight an election based off their economic policies , because they are deeply unpopular, which is why they keep playing the culture war card cos labours social and cultural policies are deeply unpopular.
If the election is fought purely off economic, living standards, building more houses, then Labour wins.
If the election is fought on culture wars, National wins.
If this is a left v right economic election labour will win. If the left endlessly focus on identity politics the right win.
It's that simple.
The economy and living standards is the top priority of kiwis in all polls. If we focus on that and housing and remove all sticks national can use to distract from that issue, we win.
So how does he drop 3 waters without causing civil war within the Labour caucus?
Especially since the Auckland flood has blatantly pointed out the lack of investment in storm water infrastructure which makes Three Waters look a whole lot better.
Yes Mike, we need to address our water infrastructure shortfalls, everyone is agreed on that. How you address those shortfalls is the issue, Labours' current plan for doing that does not seem to poll very well.
Certain sections of the Labour caucus think the current plan is great and will not be easily deterred from seeing those plans actioned.
What has been notable is that so far Labour has put up the only credible plan to actually upgrade our water infrastructure.
The Local Government NZ and various local body politicians solution is to give more money to them. Of course that is the system that completely screwed up the investment that they should have been making for the last 100 years. History has shown that they don't charge enough for water services to even cover depreciation of assets. They want the central government to bail them out with 30+ billion over the next 20 years.
That simply isn't going to happen. I can't see any prospect of local bodies getting any more competent at running water systems. They need to operate at a much wider scale than just lots of small local electorates so that they can capitalise on capital, hire and retain skills. No to mention to simply plan over decades.
Act wants to bankrupt small local bodies with raising bonds. We don't even have a bond market for raising capital for places like the Kaipara, or even Auckland. We're unlikely to get one or even access to one. That just looks like a way for Act supporters to clip the ticket. It doesn't help with wide planning, long-term planning or even with the retention of skills to do the tasks.
National doesn't appear to have any policy on fixing water systems. At best that vaguely wave in the direction of the LGNZ vague ineffectual and self-serving policies. Apparently National think that just being a useless critic without any ideas of their own is all that is required.
But hey, that describes you as well. Or are you just one of the racists who haven’t read the 3 waters proposals past the first few Maori phrases?
The Auckland situation does nothing of the sort….what it does demonstrate is the mammoth (probably impossible) task of 'building' to mitigate climate change.
Also the (entirely forseeable) consequences of 40 years of infill housing.
Properties which used to be a full section (front garden, house, garage, back garden) – have been almost entirely converted to double dwellings (entire new house on the back garden, front garden converted to parking) – and now to townhouses (entire site full of 8 dwellings, all the site either built over or concreted for parking); or apartments (same total build-over issue).
The downstream (ha!) stormwater issues have been entirely ignored during the planning process. Sites which used to absorb 50% of the water – now have close to 100% run-off.
Not to mention the extensive building of multi-million-dollar McMansions on friable cliff-tops (Auckland's cliffs are anything but solid rock – and regularly 'weather' away); complete with extensive 'landscaping' (aka removal of trees – and the associated roots stabilizing the cliffs, in favour of low-growing plantings, which encourage the soil to absorb more water)
Almost all of the landslides appear to have been associated with relatively new building (or extension) works at the tops of the cliffs.
The storm of century -or two- had much more to do with it
Use Auckland Councils own rain gauges to check the rainfall on Friday in your suburb
The infill housing doesnt help but many suburbs in last 20 years have required infill areas to have retention tanks for roof runoff ( a small orifice slows the outflow). new subdivisions would have stormwater detention ponds again to slow the water runoff.
But again the rainfall estimated to be used in these design methods was far exceeded on friday night buy a massive margin.
Also be aware the stormwater pipes are only designed for around 1 in 20 yr rainfall ( or 5% probability annual occurrence ) not a 1 in 200 yr rainfall quantity
Who would bet another one of this sort within the next 20 years?
Insurers for one:
I agree that there are some roof run-off retention options in very new builds. However, the vast majority of the subdivision and in-fill housing in my suburb (and in many inner-city suburbs) was carried out in the 80s and 90s – so no stormwater mitigation required.
And, that does nothing to address the fact that in the new townhouse developments the whole of the site is now paved – whereas, previously 30-50% was in open ground.
This is Hamilton – but just look at the difference between the intensive subdivision and the old style houses surrounding it.
All of the intensive townhouses being built in the areas around us, no matter whether they are bare bones, or luxury, have darn close to full site coverage of either house or concrete (the developers are, of course, maximizing bang for buck). I have no idea how they are getting around the resource management requirement over site coverage – but they clearly are.
I really question whether this kind of infill housing, townhouses or row housing is suitable for the Auckland climate.
Intensification, the new leaky homes …
Have you ever been to places like Singapore or Samoa or the monsoon countries where this type of weather in the norm rather than the exception?
Clearly you haven't otherwise you'd have noticed the high guttering and storm water systems handling torrential downpours with relative ease. If Samoa can do it, then so can we. In Singapore, about a third of the pedestrian ways have roofs over them along with the massive gutters and storm water systems.
Building for extreme weather isn't exactly hard. It isn't even that expensive to do if you plan for it. It just requires a lot of time, persistent planning, and a forward looking viewpoint.
and resources (labour and materials) which are going to be increasingly less available. Best we get on with transition now.
Also needed is the imagination to see that it can be done with the long view in mind as well as the immediate issues. Hoping that the planners and designers are getting on board with the magnitude of climate and the need to adopt new practices.
Living in the rural South Island, my main reservations about 3 Waters is that I just don't have faith that the bods in Chch will have the vision to design good systems in small localities. If it needs an overarching, centralised management frame, fine, but top down ideas on what is needed sometimes work and sometimes don't. A system that includes local knowledge and design would be ideal.
dont know where you are in the sth, but many small rural councils have not covered themselves in glory .its been the opposite problem,hicktown councils ,contracting shonky operators , and handing them a cheque.also in the nth island. the sewage system, talked into by contractors , needs huge constant maintainance, amazingly done, by same contractors. but hey, its local contractors, so the rort stops at the town boundry. yeah,right.
I think the solution to those problems can be better than just centralising.
woodart, you have been shooting your mouth off here of late,have you any links,proof of your claims that you made in above ?
pretty easy to google> westland council takes council contractor to court.failed sewage scheme.
one,how would i've known to google for that.
As it happens i have…and keep telling yourself that….meanwhile we will continue to fail to maintain the increasing repair rate that climate change (and insurance companies) demands.
So what do you suggest Pat?
What do I suggest?….the first stage is to identify the problem, not stick our collective heads in the sand.
What we are living through has been described as "catabolic collapse", a theory of John Michael Greer.
" The basis of that theory is the uncontroversial fact that human societies routinely build more infrastructure than they can afford to maintain. During periods of prosperity, societies invest available resources in major projects—temples, fortifications, canal or road systems, space programs, or whatever else happens to appeal to the collective imagination of the age. As infrastructure increases in scale and complexity, the costs of maintenance rise to equal and exceed the available economic surplus; the period of prosperity ends in political and economic failure, and infrastructure falls into ruin as its maintenance costs are no longer paid."
….all accentuated/accelerated by climate change.
or for those who wish the video precis
As Lynn pointed out, there are plenty of places that have big rainfall as the norm. He's talking about buildings and drains, Belladonna pointed out the problems with so much built landscape and stupid development. I'll point to the value in designing with nature in mind and how we can mitigate large rainfalls using nature in planning.
Some people were tweeting pointing out the places that did ok in Auckland because of this
I wrote this post about a rural situation and flooding and design. The principles here can be applied in urban settings. The challenge is in the thinking not the implementation, we already know how to do the latter.
Nature has a way of dealing with theses type of things
nice graphic. That concept of slowing or hastening water in the landscape should be taught in school.
My reply to Lynn can be applied to you as well
only if you are talking about upgrading for BAU. Which I am not.
Imagine arguing against winning the war against the Nazis. It can't be done. If you believe it can't be done at best you're not helping, at worst you are blocking our chances. Imagine a town planner with your perspective. Are they likely to make good decisions? I don't think so. Creativity requires a pathway and it's hard to thrive if there's no point.
PM Hipkins and Labour could effectively reset the Three Waters agenda by firstly putting a new Minister in charge, then running a clear and simple PR programme to show the importance of Three Waters and reset the narrative away from the mis and dis information currently promoted through the media. Then by setting out a new timeline ,putting implementation further out and taking the heat out of "doing it now," it can be become less of a hot potato issue for the 2023 election.
which MP for the new Minister? I expect this would create problems for Labour with the Māori caucus.
If co-governance around three waters were explained properly it might even get public support. Water as taonga is surely about protection for future generations. Surely this must resonate with enough people to get it over the line?
My problem with 3 waters is that I am sure that the Government told me (NZ) that our rates would rise without 3 waters.
Legislation passed, then Mahuta decided to introduce a charging regime into the house.
What am I seeing (or not seeing) here?
The results show 52.9 percent – a majority – said they trust Hipkins, while 26.9 percent didn't trust him. For Luxon, only 36.9 percent said they trust him, while 43.8 percent said, no they don't.
Luxon's line last year was basically "my numbers will go up when people get to know me".
So the people got to know him. His numbers have slumped.
That was the most interesting finding of these polls I thought. A stark difference – and trust is an incredibly valuable, hard-won and easily-lost attribute.
I feel trust – if maintained – can be more durable than mere popularity.
Agree that trust is a huge component of any leadership. Chris Hipkins has shown competence carrying three huge Ministries, often dealing with difficult issues, so he is seen as "A safe pair of hands".
I'm sure he will appoint wisely for the Three Waters programme, to diffuse the problems and present a comms presence.
Someone or a team, that is able build consensus. Kiri Allen and Keirin McAnulty would be my choice. Kiri for her Law and Regulations background plus Civil Defence, Keirin with similar Civil Defence and Community liaison skills background.
Both have built community trust, so would respond well to the issues. imo.
The National Party thought it was “In the bag”, but voters have long memories and trust is not there for them. Perhaps their behaviour, sitting on the sidelines taking potshots, and lack of policy development is biting their credibilty.imo.
If I was a Nat party member, I’d be wondering, why the fuck aren’t we 20 points ahead in the polls?
A toxic leader, newbie in charge, failing policies, and we are still neck and neck. Is it our leader, policies, what?
There is going to be some seriously soul searching in National.
There is going to be some seriously soul searching in National.
I think they might be a little short on those particular quasi-religious milk tokens.
Cue the pep talk from The Committments.
It's a terrible dilemma for them (and entirely their own fault). They picked a dud.
Collins self-destructed, had to go. That was the easy decision for National. The hard one was picking her replacement.
There was clear evidence that Ardern and Key had vote-winning qualities in their respective parties, before they were given the job. Ditto, Chris Hipkins.
There was none for Luxon. So do National admit they got it wrong, and cut their losses? Yes. I've got May 2023 in the sweepstake.
who would the nats have to replace luxon? their focus groups would tell them that the nats target of angry white men WONT vote for a woman, so that means willis is #2, and unlikely to rise higher.bishop doesnt have the skills for leadership. who else fits the nat requirements profile, 40-50 yr old white male with business ties(real,or phony,doesnt matter to the rubes), and not repulsive to women.
Obviously Willis. Even if your generalisations are accurate (which is doubtful, because a lot of those "angry white men" were Collins fans).
Those caveman Nats would vote ACT, not Labour. Maybe even Winston. So, still in the Right bloc.
a lot of those collins fans were fans because of her crusher persona. once she actually started pretending to care about people, her street cred vanished.fun fact. a LOT of right wing males crave the strict dominant woman as leader. think thatcher, collins, shipley, pauline hanson.
I think Plan A was Luxon is the new John Key.
I don't think they have a Plan B.
Muller was PlanA. Luxon is their PlanB.
You are forgetting Judith Collins – She was Plan B
So Christopher is Plan (Dah! Dah!) C
Collins was never the new John Key.
The strategy appears to be no policies, negativity, virtue signaling, dog whistling and the ever present dirty politics to sway swinging voters over.
Good luck with that as times have changed as has the demographics since they smiled and waved their way to ousting an incumbent govt 15 years ago.
Both, probably. National are offering policies that many people find repugnant (attacking the minimum wage, tax cuts for the top end of town) – and CEO-types are unpopular with many. Key kept his CEO qualities better hidden than Luxon.
I think National will probably be a bit relieved. A lift would have been expected. But it obviously wasn't the sort of lift that Jacinda got. And a lot of the increase from Labour came from the Greens. As a whole, National hardly dropped.
The biggest problem for Labour is that the runway is probably a bit too long. In fact, I heard some commentators on the radio seriously suggesting that Hipkins should call a snap election to solve this problem. Personally, I think that would cause a lot of other problems, so probably unlikely, especially since Jacinda announced the date when she announced her resignation.
There are tough times coming, and Labour will have to come up with solutions for these with limited tools available, since most of the borrowing and spending has already been borrowed and spent.
And, efforts to boost incomes will likely be seen as inflationary in a time when inflation is the big problem.
Hipkins has said he wants to refocus to bread and butter issues. The problem is, that there probably is enough time for voters to assess whether those methods work or not.
Need to wait to see if it was just a lift or the start of a trend.
Looks like both polls must had polling peeiods that overlapped the trqnsition.
They were taken during Janurary. The weirding month of NZ polling.
It usually takes a month or two for the effect of a political change to be reflected in polls.
The worrying issue for National will be that chippy went from not registering to aimilar prefered PM figured as Luxon.
I did say quite awhile ago that I thought Hipkins was the best choice for leader. I like him, and I come from a right wing perspective. So, I think he will appeal well to centre voters.
Other than for the economy, which could be the defining factor this time, I would rate Labour as likely to win this time around. Afterall, parties are often given three terms before voters get sick of them.
And if Hipkins was able to achieve that by pulling Labour back towards the centre, it probably wouldn’t bother me too much. Because at that point, Labour and National tend to be very similar.
It will be an interesting election, and a lot closer than people think. National has been keeping its cards close to its chest at the moment. So, it will be interesting to see if they can come up with policies that attract voters towards them.
It has been pretty obvious since the middle of last year that it’d be a tight election this year. Lab+Greens vs Nat+Act have been teetering within a few points of each other in the polls post pandemic. All 4 parties have been almost static in macro trends (ie within their own respective margins of error) since May 2022.
Basically we’re back to politics as usual in NZ. None of the 4 major parties are fracturing themselves internally. They have acceptable looking leadership.
So far even Luxon’s obvious political ineptitude is being moderated by Nicola Wills mothering his frequent misspeaks. The problem for National is that I don’t think that Luxon could carry any coherent National policy to the voters without tripping over his on feet. He simply doesn’t think fast enough (definitely not a John Key) and shows no signs of having thought through basic policy positions to the point that he can articulate them to whole population.
The ugly misogynist call of “Cindy” has been muted. Chippy has always been good on his political feet both in front of the media (legs apart being an amusing example), and he knows the political policy and pitfalls backwards.
Act policies are really easy to attack, and if National can’t articulate anything more than simpleton slogans, which is all that they have done last year, then smearing National with Act’s yellow will be pretty simple. If Act remain at 10% levels, then it is increasingly credible to use the vacuum of National’s articulated policy detail to point out taht will also apply in coalition arrangements. National must be worried as hell about that.
The Greens are holding up well. The bickering and positions between the Greens and Labour have largely subsided. The Greens are proving to be useful for both the country and for Labour with their unremitting focus on fixing problems early. So far it looks like having an electorate seat isn’t proving the poisoned chalice that it often is for smaller parties.
I suspect that the election will come down to coalition arrangements with TPM, who look likely to get a electorate again along with a few percent, and NZF, who are looking like a probably prospect for their frequent election day lift again if their polling starts to stick over 3%.
I agree that Luxon doesn't hold a monopoly on charisma by any sense of the imagination. But, I think he is more of a delegator, delegating his weaknesses to the likes of Willis, who is a much better communicator.
But, he definitely needs to improve in that respect himself. For instance, he won't be able to escape his weakness in the leaders debates however, which could be shaping up to be a snore fest. And, as leader, he will still need to be communicating with the media. So, there will be fairly intensive media training I expect.
So far as policy goes, I think National are holding their cards close to their chest at the moment, due to wanting to gain maximum impact, and not wanting Labour to gazump them. So, it will be interesting to see how things change as policy is released.
One issue that Labour will need to deal with in redirecting their focus, is that voters may see the unpopular policies as just shelved rather than terminated.
An obvious attack point for National will be stoking the fear that Labour will bring those unpopular policies back to the table if they are re-elected. Hence, National will likely argue that the only way to be sure that the unpopular policies don't get regurgitated is to vote National.
TMP will obviously favour Labour. NZF seemed to drop a bit in the polls, according the the TV1 poll last night anyway. So, it might be that some of their support shifted back to Labour with Hipkins in charge. So, I am not so sure that NZ First will make the 5% this time around.
Saying "Act policies are really easy to attack, and if National can’t articulate anything more than simpleton slogans…" is interesting.
Aren't Act policies like cutting numbers of state servants, "getting rid of bureaucrats," simpleton slogans?
They might strike with the electorate but what do they actually mean? Get rid of backroom people dealing with pandemics and major climate disasters?
Any chance of Act articulating specifically what their slogans mean? At the moment they have a sizeable pool of MPs presumably working on alternatives as a way of being an effective Opposition.
"…. If Act remain at 10% levels, then it is increasingly credible to use the vacuum of National’s articulated policy detail to point out taht will also apply in coalition arrangements…"
IMHO, much of Luxon's dithering and bumbling on the Maori seats and Maori issues in general is his advisors telling him he shouldn't create any red lines lest he have to make concessions to a racist ACT party – so the need to defer clarity to stay on side with deeply unpopular ACT policies is already hurting National in the polls.
The entire right wing clobbering machine and it’s media eco-system has targeted Ardern since 2017, on the assumption that by attacking Labour's greatest strength and turning it into a weakness they could coast home on an anti-Ardern sentiment in a policy free, culture war dominated, presidential style election campaign. Hipkins appointment as PM has foiled six years of careful PR from the right.
Hipkins may be the perfect "1950s" leader, by which I mean the generation that grew up in the depression with parents who had been through the Great War and who lived through the second world war had an enormous yearning for normalcy, and a politics where they could forget about government with a boring guy in charge. People want middle class relief and no surprises, which is what Hipkins seems to be suggesting he will offer. I detect no enthusiasm for what National is offering – back to the turmoil of the 80s and 90s with austerity, culture war and Ruthenasia 2.0 with tax cuts for the rich. I know this runs counter to the fashionable belief on the left that Labour needs to deliver (deliver what no one ever really says beyond a list of cliches) but Labour didn’t win an absolute majority on a radical reformist agenda – it won on a platform of effective crisis management, administrative competence, approval of Jacinda’s leadership, and an utterly imploding National party.
Wayne Brown's election is turning out to be a huge favour for the left – the electorate is seeing what happens when you let a cynical right wing PR machine exploit a culture war narrativeto drive voting decisions. Let's be honest, clowns like No Buckets Brown or the fundy Taliban ten in National's caucus or wide boy agitators like Ben Thomas and Hooton seek power without responsibility and as the GOP and UK Conservatives should tell us, they are terrible at actual government.
top post sanctuary. brown and british economic policies are two of labours biggest allies. stark proof that tax cuts, and business?men as politicians are bollocks..the nacts are in a bind. for five yrs, they've shamefully ignored(promoted?) misogyny to undermine jacinda,and pushing the white man in a suit line(just cant forget that nat tauranga photo foursome). now nats only vaguely intelligent m.p. that has some electoral appeal is willis. damn!! the nats are disowning hooten, the first p.r. manager in history to go into hiding, and deputy mayor-minder desley simpson being wife of nat pres, doesnt help..poor woman is a fulltime caregiver. luxon will have deleted brown from his list of contacts. hah! I think ,possibly the biggest factor in this yrs political yr will be ongoing natural(and man?made) disasters. labour have enormous capital here. nact base political philosphy is sod you< Im good.. it looks very unappealing when the shit hits the fan.
Interesting to see Brownlee, Nat spin man, vigorously attacking Brown. Not just a neutral stance, but a 'he's not one of us' yell.
yes, brownlie has obviously been woken up and given something to do.its brownlie V brown in the battle of grumpy old white men! hah, you couldnt script it better .
Imo there is a younger, browner (and brown solidarity) streak emerging in electoral politics. Whether what happened in our local FNDC election will be repeated elsewhere might be interesting. Te Pāti Māori want all the electorate seats back according to Debbie Ngarewa–Packer.
A personable young guy, Moko Tepania, ran a campaign into every little settlement, town and bay across the Far North. His main opponent, the incumbent Dep. Mayor Ann Court did not campaign, counting on the 7000 odd Kerikeri votes which as the link shows, she duly got. Kerikeri is the traditional tory stronghold.
Moko is an organiser, turning around an FNDC decision against Māori Wards via then Mayor John Carter’s casting vote with a public campaign, special Council meeting with hundreds outside the Council building in support of him.
It was close, but he won from the front. And a significant takeaway is that a number of Moko’s voters were not Māori…I had his sign on my gate…and for what it is worth TPM will be a significant factor in the 2023 General Election.
yes tiger, I can see tpm winning 3-4-5 seats. if so, I hope those elected m.p.s dont follow sharples and turias example .they, along with dunne, voted for some crappy legislation .killed one party, nearly killed two.
Well that is indeed the challenge woodart. TPM seem to be wobbling around at the moment regarding their position on partners.
I agree that it's entirely possible that we'll see another couple of the Maori seats go to TPM. The problem is, that those seats will be taken off Labour – which currently holds them.
Resulting in a net status-quo for the Left (TPM have been pretty unequivocal that they would support the left, rather than the right).
The caveat, is the candidate selection. Maori seats almost always return the iwi-endorsed candidate. If Labour have a better process for gaining the endorsement – then they'll win the seat. That is changing (Adrian Rurawhe fought off (just) Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, in 2020 – but is going list-only – giving her a clear run in 2023.
But it's not net status quo. Labour's party vote would not be affected, even if they lost every Maori electorate.
A overhang is a distinct possibility, though probably only to 121 which doesn't change the 61 needed.
"Adrian Rurawhe fought off (just) Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, in 2020"
it was 1000 vote lead , which is pretty good , or almost 10% more the Ngarewa Packers 11,100 votes
And way more votes than Tariana Turia got in her last election in 2011
Debbie is great in my opinion, but, it is a difficult history for her party.
Unfortunately, Luxon has got about as much charisma as his old Tory mate Wayne Brown. End of story.
yes,key could fake sincerity. luxon cant even do that. struggles to approach mediocrity. he doesnt even look comfortable in a suit!
Not looking and/or feeling comfortable in a suit would be a relatable plus in my book – not much of a plus, but a plus is a plus – is Luxon’s wardrobe a shambles?
Im not a suit wearer, but realise that they are the uniform of the movers and shakers. luxon, like trump, looks like a bag of spuds in a suit. not a good look when you are doing the leadership shuffle.is his wardrobe a shambles? probably not. two shades of blue, many pairs of flip-flops.
I am no fashion victim, not in the least qualified to criticise others appearances…but Baldrick…really…at least put some bronzer on that massive bonce.