Written By:
- Date published:
6:01 am, September 20th, 2023 - 15 comments
Categories: act, campaigning, chris hipkins, Christopher Luxon, economy, election 2023, elections, First Past the Post, greens, inequality, labour, leadership, Long Read, maori party, MMP, national, national/act government, nz first -
Tags: act, chris hipkins, Christopher luxon, green party, Labour Party, maori party, national party, NZ General Election 2023
Originally posted on Nick Kelly’s blog
From the outside, the New Zealand 2023 General Election seems both lacklustre and slightly strange. The Labour Government, having won a huge majority in 2020 is now fighting for its political life. Yet National, the main centre-right opposition party is still on average polling significantly worse now than they were when it lost power in 2017.
I have recently returned from a month-long visit to New Zealand, after four and a half-years absence due to the coronavirus pandemic. As a Kiwi who lived and breathed NZ politics until moving to the UK in 2017, and now having had time away to reflect, I will share my insights into what is happening.
This next series of blogs will look both at the politics leading up to this year’s general election and at what I have observed in terms of attitudes in New Zealand society.
This first blog will look at some historical trends and observations, assessing what this might tell us about the upcoming election.
The last time a Party in power changed leader and went on to win a General Election was in the 1940s. The First NZ Labour Government led by Michael Joseph Savage died in 1939 and Peter Fraser took over as leader. Labour went on to win the 1943 election, which had been postponed two years due to the Second World War. Had this election been held when it was due in 1941, in all likelihood Labour would have lost power.
Since then, every time a party in government has changed leader in New Zealand, it has lost power. It happened to National in 1957 and again in 1972, then to Labour in 1975 and 1990, and to National in 1999 and 2017. In all these cases, other factors were of course in play, but there is a clear trend.
This is very different in other democracies. In neighbouring Australia, mid-term ‘leadership spills’ are commonplace with the Australian Labor Party and the Liberals.
The resignation of Jacinda Ardern in January and Chris Hipkins taking over the leadership initially saw Labour’s polling improve. But much has happened since then. If Labour does lose on 14 October, the change of leader may not be the deciding factor. But if they win, it would end an 80-year trend.
2. The Government may not be popular, but nor is the opposition – Historical perspective
There is no sugarcoating it. Labour has lost a lot of support since 2020. If some recent polls are to be believed, nearly one in two people who voted Labour in 2020 plan not to do so again on 14 October 2023.
But for the opposition National Party, polling numbers have been very mixed. While some recent polls give National a comfortable lead, some still have National polling as low as 31%. For context, when National lost power in 2017 it received 44% of the vote. Support for National remains significantly lower than at almost any point when it was in Government from 2008 to 2017 under the leadership of John Key and in the final year Bill English.
When it comes to preferred leader polling, National’s Christopher Luxon’s numbers are terrible. While there have been some recent polls giving him a slight boost, over the last 18 months his numbers have been generally poor and trailing Chris Hipkins even when Labour’s numbers have gone south. It is telling that National’s campaign material often features Christopher Luxon and Opposition Finance Spokesperson Nicola Willis, who is widely seen as a stronger performer.
For National, support for their Party or their leader is not where it was before coming to power in 2008 under John Key, in 1990 under Jim Bolger, 1975 under Muldoon, 1960 under Holyoake or 1949 under Holland. In all the above cases, while support for the Labour Government had fallen, the National Party and its leader had a much stronger level of support than at present.
National insiders have dreaded the upcoming party leader debates, especially after recent poor performances by Luxon. Historically, these debates have swayed undecided voters. There are real fears that National could take a poll hit of up to 5% if Luxon does not perform. It is unclear whether the first debate last night did much to assure his team, let alone the country, that he is up to the job.
At the time of writing, National are the favourites to win next month. If this comes to pass, it would be as part of a difficult coalition with the economically right ACT Party and the socially conservative and increasingly populist NZ First Party. As we will explore further, this combination is likely to be quite unstable and may scare many voters.
3. Historically, when Labour loses power, it spends a minimum of three terms in opposition.
Another trend in New Zealand politics has been that every time the National Party has won power from Labour, they stay in government for a minimum of three terms (four terms in the case of the Holyoak government of 1960-1972). If this trend holds, a Labour loss in October would mean being in opposition until 2032 or later. Psychologically this will be challenging for those in the Labour campaign, knowing this loss could see Labour in the wilderness for the next decade.
On current polling, National will probably scrape in. It is difficult to see on current polling numbers and Luxon’s poor performance as a leader how National could win the next three elections. National, if polling goes south in government may decide to change leaders after the election. But as outlined in point 1, this is a highly risky strategy in New Zealand politics.
Opposition finance spokesperson Nicola Willis is viewed as a likely successor. Some believed she may attempt to emulate Jacinda Ardern, taking over the leadership weeks out from the election. Given they are ahead in most polls, this would be a risky gamble. Also, her opposition to the government cutting the $5 surcharge on prescriptions in the recent budget shows that her hard-right economic views are out of step with the mood of the country.
4. Losing an election is not the end of the road for a leader
Whilst changing leaders in Government tends to spell electoral doom (see point 1), it is possible for leaders to come back after losing power. In 1957 Keith Holyoake took over as National Party leader and PM, only to lose power in the general election weeks later. It was a narrow defeat and Holyoake stayed on as National Party leader. Three years later in 1960, National won the election and Holyoake returned as Prime Minister. He also went on to win the subsequent three elections in 1963, 1966 and 1969 making him National’s most successful Prime Minister. National then lost in 1972 after Holyoake was replaced by Jack Marshall (see point 1).
The only Labour Leader who came close to this was Mike Moore, who in 1990 took over as Labour Leader and PM only to lose the general election weeks later. Moore stayed on, and in 1993 though not increasing Labour’s overall vote significantly, increased Labour’s number of seats from 28 to 45 in New Zealand’s final First Past the Post election. However, Labour did not win in 1993, and Moore was replaced by Helen Clark as leader shortly afterwards.
Based on the above, if Labour loses next month Chris Hipkins could potentially come back in 2026. That assumes he and Labour are able to defy point 3. However, if Labour drop below 30% as some polls currently suggest they might, the opportunity for such a comeback is unlikely.
5. The decline of both Labour and National
One should not make too much of single polls, especially this close to an election. But there have been a number of polls in 2023 showing both Labour and National polling below 35%. One recent poll had the combined Labour and National polling at 55%. Contrast that to the 2020 election where Labour and National together won 75% of the vote.
New Zealand has had proportional representation since 1996. Minor parties have played a significant role in MMP elections. It could be that after a generation of proportional representation, more voters are comfortable voting for these minor parties. Of the five parties currently in parliament, all have at some point served in government as has NZ First who currently do not have MPs but may do again after 14 October.
But this could also signify a greater trend away from the two parties that have dominated NZ politics since 1935. In France, the parties that have dominated politics since the end of the Second World War, in recent elections have been overtaken by President Macron’s centrist party and Le Pen’s far-right party respectively. This is in part explained by the French electoral system where there is a run-off vote between the two highest polling from the first round of voting a month earlier. But few can deny, that a major trend has been a move away from the old party’s and their style of politics. It is certainly not impossible that in the next five to ten years, New Zealand will have a Prime Minister who is from one of the current minor parties rather than Labour or National.
6. The first poll of the year predicts the election result
Another trend or tradition in New Zealand politics has been to look at the first poll, or group of polls, at the start of the year and this fairly accurately predicts who is likely to win. As the Wikipedia list of 2023 NZ polls illustrates, the polling for January 2023 was a real mixed bag with numbers being very close. Chris Hipkins took over from Jacinda Ardern in mid-January giving Labour a poll boost.
If the first polls are an indication of what will happen, it is likely to be a very close election where we do not know the results on election night. Instead overseas and special votes a fortnight later, along with prolonged coalition negotiations before the outcome is known. This is not unusual in New Zealand politics.
In recent weeks, some polls have shown Labour dipping below 30%. If Labour cannot increase its support, they are highly unlikely to be in government. Unless of course, Luxon performs so poorly that he too pulls National’s numbers below 30% as well.
7. Voters do not reward instability
This one is more common sense than a trend. If people are struggling they look to the government to lead them through a crisis. If the government is found wanting, it will be punished by voters. In my blog post in May 2022 on inflation, I argued that governments around the world were being punished for high inflation, when often they had little to no control over the drivers of it. However, governments are measured on their response, and they do have control over that. As an upcoming blog post will address, the response in New Zealand has been good overall but certainly, there was room for improvement.
Since March there have been four high-profile Ministerial resignations. Of these, two resulted in the MPs concerned leaving parliament, one saw the Minister quit Labour and joining another party and the other was a minor indiscretion, but not acted on in a timely or proper manner. At a time when people are doing it tough, having Ministers fall below the standards expected of them by the public is harmful to a government. For example, Stuart Nash was one of Labour’s high flyers, so his attempts to influence police procedures and release confidential information from cabinet meetings to two of his donors is harmful to Labour.
But then National had their own scandals with new MP Sam Uffindell having to be suspended from caucus not after winning the Tauranga byelection in 2022. There are also signs of division within National with former Minister Michael Woodhouse being given a low ranking on the party list. Again, in terms of unity, National are doing little better than Labour.
8. Increasing numbers of swing voters, in New Zealand and globally
This one is less of a historical trend and is certainly not limited to New Zealand. But it is a significant one, which still is not well understood.
There is this view that politics is won in “the centre” – that group of moderate, usually middle-class, voters who swing between the centre-left and the centre-right. This has always been an overly simplistic understanding of politics, but in 2023 it is very wide of the mark.
Firstly turnout counts. Unlike Australia, there is nothing legally forcing people to vote in New Zealand. In recent UK byelections, ex-Tory voters staying home has been a significant factor in Conservatives losing seats. In the US, many former Democratic Party voters stayed home in 2016, helping Trump win Rust-belt states. In New Zealand, a significant feature of Jacinda Ardern’s victory in 2017 was not National voters switching to Labour, but people voting Labour who had never voted before. There is some evidence that higher voter turnout favours the left, though this too is fairly simplistic.
One of the mistaken views I have heard from both Labour and National (or Conservative in the UK) strategists is that when pitching to ‘the centre’ their base will have nowhere else to go. The party base always has places to go. Minor parties are always an option, as is not voting. The issue is that trying to position your party to the centre and ignoring your base and your principles ultimately impresses no one. Voters reward authenticity, especially in an era of fake news and disinformation.
The size of the swing vote in elections is growing. In the UK the so-called redwall swinging Tory in 2019, or Canterbury and Kensington swinging to Labour in 2017, are both examples of this. In the US the working-class rustbelt states of traditionally Democrat voters got Trump elected, and in 2020 traditional Republican stronghold states such as Georgia and Arizona helped vote him out.
There are similar trends in NZ elections. The massive swing to Labour in 2020 and the now large swing against it in recent polls illustrates just how volatile the modern voter can be. In an era where old ideologies hold far less currency, the idea of the lifelong loyal Labour/National voter is outdated. Anecdotally from my recent visit to NZ, I spoke to former National voters planning to vote Green, former Labour members planning to vote National, and former ACT Party members now undecided voters. Whilst most were younger (under 45), older voters I spoke to were also now seriously questioning their lifelong allegiances. None were typical centrist swing voters likely to be captured by Bill Clinton-era style triangulation. In reality, people want politics to be better, and would happily look across the political spectrum for answers.
National may win in 2023. But given how far and how quickly voters now swing, National cannot count on Point 3 remaining a trend in the future. Even less so with their current leadership lineup.
Labour and National both have strategies to chase the mythical centrist swinger vote. Meanwhile, 45% of voters are now looking elsewhere, and this number could easily grow.
What can we conclude from these trends?
Mark Twain once said, “History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme.”
The rhyme of New Zealand politics is that leadership really matters, arguably too much so. The media often focus on this rather than policy, leading to style rather than substance being reported on.
In 2023, a strong moderately conservative leader would do very well. Yet National are running a first-term MP who describes “New Zealand workers as bottom feeders.”
Neither Labour nor National are performing strongly overall. There are some polls showing the centre-right in a strong position, but inevitably they follow this up with a policy announcement or media interview which then loses them support.
Labour still has an outside chance with the Maori Party and the Greens to form a coalition government, but only just. They need to demonstrate what they stand for and what they intend to do for the next three years to get the country through the current economic crisis.
If both National and Labour are polling below 35%, both will be heavily reliant on coalition partners to govern. For Labour, anything below 30% is fatal. For National, being complacent when still polling in the mid-30s could see them fall at the last hurdle.
There are a lot more fringe elements contesting the elections this year, particularly on the right. God-fearing citizens may have thought that dreadlocked cannabis imbibing Nandor Tanzos of the Greens was a threat to society a couple of decades ago but compared with the nutjobs vying for office this time, Nandor looks positively normal and harmless.
I tend to agree that the election will not likely be won in the centre because I think the NZ electorate is too small for a rigidly-centre political party to maintain a political force for long. Many have tried – like Peter Dunne's United – and it may work for a short time but there simply isn't enough votes to maintain it in NZ. It works in Germany because the population and henceforth the electorate, is so much bigger.
I think this election will spring a few surprises.
This will not surprise anyone, a good reason for low numbers in the 'purple' vote would be the failing of the neo-liberal regime both parties adhere to.
With a cigarette paper between them, the other parties offer a more attractive proposition for voters. Either that or not engaging with the process at all.
Plenty to think about there thanks Nick. So not done and dusted for shifty Luxon yet.
A long time ago the Christian Right attempted entry into Government but as a Party they failed. The members said at that time that they couldn't do it as a party so they would infiltrate established parties and bring influence that way. There are several of them succeeding now including I suppose Luxon.
An error in the following paragraph:
Marshall took over from Holyoake and lost the 1972 election to Kirk.
Also I corrected Boldger to Bolger
Thank you Iprent
Thank you for that correction Anne. Agreed. Further evidence that changing leader is fatal for governments in New Zealand
Good blog post but the 80 year trend of changing leaders mid term was ended in 2017.
Bill English became the first such leader to win the most votes since 1943, had it not been a proportional election he would have won 2017 in a dramatic landslide victory.
Unlike all the other cases, the public didn't turn against the new leader, National actually got more votes in 2017 than it did in 2008, Bill English won the plurality and came 4 seats away from a majority.
2017 is definitely an election for the ages because the winner of the plurality lost only because of negotiations not because of a drop in public support.
Had National won 2017 it likely would have won 2020 due to crisises favouring incumbents (now there's a scary thought, 15 years of national)
I don't think national or Labour will govern for 9 years again any time soon, I think in the modern age with our leaders so much in our face we'll get sick of them quickly , I think 1-2 terms is going to be the new norm for the left and the right.
My worry is that Labour will learn all the wrong lessons for their defeat and think they lost because they were either too left wing or did too much, the reality is they have been big standard centre and haven't delivered enough and focused on things noone outside of Wellington gives a damn about while wasting the unprecedented electoral trust the nation gave it.
Labour well and truly deserves a thrashing. I hope it can hold on but … it's doubtful .
Labour was on a death spiral for 9 years prior to Jacinda Ardern and after having a majority govt and achieving next to nothing, I think once in opposition that death spiral will only accelerate, because never again can they say "we'd do this if only we had more seats".
I do expect a non labour non National pm to emerge in the next ten years (I also fully expect labour and national to form a coalition to stop whoever than pm is)
I presume you're looking at leadership ? Rather like the same "death spiral" that National has been since 2017.
Bill English -> Simon Bridges -> Judith Collins -> Todd Muller -> Chris Luxon within 6 years jardly reeks of stability.
At the end of it, they're putting up a first term MP as their leader with a second term MP as electorate. Neither with ministerial experience.
Mind you, it is possible to see why. The lineup of ministerial experience in their candidate list is limited. Most it was somewhat lackadaisical or flawed.
Consider how many times Judith Collins got demoted by John Key.
Paul Goldsmith, Louis Upston, Mark Mitchell, Todd McLay, and of course Gerry Brownlee have been ministers in the Key governments. None of them are worth much. At least 3 of them I'd count as outright incompetent.
Agree. Seems to me that the only value or vision Labour has is "we aren't National", which isn't a lot to run on. It has been decades since they represented the interests of working and poorer New Zealand.
!!! Surly none of them are that dozy,
There fucked because they over promised and under delivered, and shit ministerial discipline,
Thank you Corey,
Re Bill English, in 2017 the combined Labour/Green vote was ahead of the National Party vote (just). Regarding key policy, NZ First aligned much more with Labour and the Greens than National.
The ACT Party was on 1% and had one MP in 2017 so as significant then as they appear to be six years later.
Had National won in 2017 I am not so sure they would have done well in 2020. It's unlikely they would have been as proactive at the start of the pandemic, judging by their response to the crisis in opposition. But we can only speculate on scenarios that never came to pass. Eg if Al Gore won the 2000 election, would the 2003 Iraq invasion have happened? It's fantasy football for politics lol.
Whatever the result the lessons about triangulating to the centre and alienating the base need to be properly assessed. The 1990s how to win Elections play book is out of date.
Who wants to be the bearer of bad news? not me when it comes down to it…but here goes anyway…
–Rogernomics, 39 years, flogging the people’s assets to private capital, roll over main party Parliamentary consensus on contracting out, PPPs, fifth columnist public service…
–Ruthanasisa, 33 years–Union busting Employment Contracts Act, Mother of all “Bennie Bashing” Budgets, Market rents for public housing…
–Collaborationist NZCTU when the working class needs a fighting class left central organisation…
I am of the “work with and struggle against” philosophy regarding NZ Labour, but they really dropped the proverbial this year with David Parker handing his portfolio back. The neo Blairists just do not have the political class understanding or commitment to stick it to the man.
"Since then, every time a party in government has changed leader in New Zealand, it has lost power."
Or, is it that when a party's security of tenure at the next election looks shaky, one way to try to revive its image by changing leader and sometimes that's not enough?
I always consider National and Act as the same thing. MPs from each party would easily fit in the other. That is after all why we call the Nact.
So when you look at their combined vote in the past 5 elections it is remarkedly consistent. With the exception of the covid election in 2020 they have hardly budged.
2008 48.58%
2011 48.38%
2014 47.73%
2017 44.95%
2020 33.17%
2023 48.1% (curia poll of polls)
To me this shows it is very difficult to pull that solid 47% from the right.