Brilliant Frank, it reads like a tightly woven thriller. I cannot wait to get to the final chapter. Drinks are on me if youβre right. πΎπ·π₯π₯πΈπΉπ»
Thanks, James. If I'm right, it'll be a cheap 'shout' - I've mostly given up drinking booze since age 26. My usual these days is a lemon/lime/bitters (with soda, not lemonade). Maybe a glass of Brown Bros Riesling if I'm really celebrating.
But yes, it's going to be an interesting next few months. I still have my money on Peters pulling the plus before the next scheduled election. This will be the stuff of a political drama! (Think the Australian "The Dismissal" about the ill-fated Whitlam government.)
But his Party's polling is at 6.1% and that's uncomfortably close to the 5% 'Threshold of Doom'. If I were him, I'd be keeping a wary eye on that poll movement. If he thought he was being smeared and dragged down by Seymour's shenanigans, it might motivate him to press The Big Red Button; "go nuclear', and force the coalition to collapse.
He'd probably come up with some weasely excuse that "it was for the good of the country".
True enough Frank. I think the disaster brewing is Seymour bleeding out Luxon. If ACT pulls 1 - 2% of Nationalβs voters - plausible - and National drops a touch more, then it doesnβt matter what Winnie does, itβs game over. Government is toast. Personally, I think there is also some potential risk for detritus from Trumpβs coup attempt to smother Luxon and Seymour, just as it did with Dutton. Early days, but the genuine cruelty displayed by Luxon and Seymour isnβt going to go unpunished and their behaviour in my opinion verges on being Trump Liteβ¦ish or Trump Lite adjacent. Theyβre a nasty couple of pricks.
Divisive bills, austerity, cruelty, broken promises, Jack-in-a-box surprises, the use of urgency, treaty, pay equity, ferry debacles, health underfunding, and serial lying combined with gormless leadership isnβt a recipe for winning a second term. The economy is the wildcard and that could provide a fillip or completely wipe them off the map. Luxonβs popularity is a problem in plain sight too, but dealing with that issue is fraught. Great, that becomes a baked-in systems flaw and will eventually work against National.
Peters, a nasty flip-flopping, race baiting, political overstayer, and enemy of DEI and integrity, is camping out under-the-radar. I donβt think heβll go early, but I would be delighted - absolutely delighted - if he hits the ejection button early. Itβs plausible. 6.1% isnβt an comfortable space in the current political environment.
The fallout from the Regulatory Standards Bill may be enough to trigger Peters. Tie that in with Nash apparently ready to declare a run for NZ First and Peters already making overtures to Labour (No coalition with Chippy). Could well see him agreeing to a confidence a d supply to give Nash time to get embedded as heir apparent, and NZ First time to regain credibility as a centrist party who moderates the excesses of both left (Greens, TPM) and right (Act).
Plus this latest favourability poll on Stuff, today, reinforces indications that we are headed for a one-term government and Luxon's short career will end in tatters.
Thanks, 'Tui. Love your work as well; excellent analysis. We used to have commentators writing regular columns in our newspapers. The notable likes of Brian Easton, Gordon Campbell (who still produces insighful commentary at https://werewolf.co.nz/), et al.
I haven't read Brian but have read Gordon's work and think it's brilliant. It reminds me to go have a look again. Thank you and very nice to chat here.
"Now waiting for the Natioal marginal seat MPs to back Bishop who can read the writing on the wall too"
Excellent point, Winston. I hadn't thought of that!
I'll look up marginal National seats for my next blogpost. Whilst Party Votes remain the most critical factor in MMP elections, there's a measure of 'ego' involved in winning an actual electorate. Plus, it's makes for an interesting political barometer.
Bishop is a scary dude with a history of being a tobacco lobbyist. Main thing is for National's poll numbers to tank. Then an election. Then what? Labour? More of the same.
Let's hope the Greens and Te PΔti MΔori can "prompt" Labour to do the right thing in steering Aotearoa New Zealand back on a progressive track, Kate!
Yes. But I feel that the Greens and Labour when it boils down are in thrall to big donors and moving the Overton window to the right to capture more of the National βcentre groundβ.
If I were Luxon I would boot Seymour into touch and continue with a minority government. Seymour would effectively be emasculated from any undeserved power he has hitherto grabbed. The RSB could be immediately ditched and the country would see that Luxon has grown a pair and will not stand for such extremism. However.... Luxon IS an extremist himself, albiet one with absolutely no idea of what is unfolding about him, so it will be business as usual until either Peters pulls another publicity prank to establish himself as the moderating voice of reason, we all get to vote early and both Seymour and Peters are consigned to the dustbin of historical excrement and we all get to live happily ever after. A tall order I know, but one I am clutching hold of
Whilst I don't think Landlord Luxon has the political nous to comprehend that Seymour is taking him for a ride, the PM's colleagues and Party strategists will probably notice and try to wake him up to reality. National's slow-mo free-fall in Polls would be a wake-up for anyone except the thickest-brained muppet.
If Luxon doesn't take steps, and National's polling drops under, say, 28%, then his MPs will be firing up the BBQs over summer for "cordial chats"...
"Peters pulls another publicity prank to establish himself as the moderating voice of reason..."
Some silver lining to these cloudy timesβ¦ Iβm still worried by the % of the public that believe the spin (repeated by media). No need to point out that the latest poll is from Atlas aligned Curia, so the truth will be even worse!
Two of the last three polls were bad news for this coalition, Keith. Curia being one of the two.
I wonder if National Party strategists will be asking themselves why they're throwing their donors' cash at a continual stream of depressingly bad news (for National)?
"It took nine years in the political wilderness and thorough repudiation of Rogernomics for the Labour Party to be trusted again by voters". This is too generous by far. What it took was for National to co-opt, extend and enshrine in law the economic policies of the Lange-Douglas government so that Labour could then position itself marginally to the progressive side of National by dealing with social justice as a cultural, rather than an economic issue- a strategy that it has followed to this very day. This was enabled by the economics of Neoliberalism being financially expansive at the time, notwithstanding it hit the buffer-stops in 2008 and 17 years later no-one has seen fit to reverse the train to the point in 1984 where it took the wrong turn into the dead-end.
I wouldn't want Labour to believe they could win too easily- that would just make for an extension of their Neolib-lite road-to-nowhere.The Greens seem to have some idea of a restitution, but still within the existing framework. A priority must be the undoing of the legal straightjacket that government is forced to operate under- that raft of laws created in the 80's and 90's- Geoff Bertram's "Iron Cage"- that enforces a false- and Neolib-serving- view of the operations of government finance as 'just like a household'.
The present Coalition has demonstrated a penchant for "smash-em-up" reactionary radicalism that is wildly popular notwithstanding it has resulted in crashing the economy. From the perspective of my small Central North Island home-town a lot of credit was given (by a certain white-identifying, less educated, middle-age and older demographic) to the Right in the lead up to the last election because they were going to "deal to the bloody Maori's (meaning the elite ones- this town is 40% Maori and everyone gets on just fine) and all those queer cunts" (except 'our' Richard, who's a good bugger).
Labour needs to ease up on the 'be kind' rhetoric and engage in some good old-fashioned class-war tub-thumping to match the Right's blow-for-blow. This will be difficult to pull off with sincerity because they are now a middle-class liberal party with minimal if any vestiges of working-class grit. For the slightly more cerebral minded, there are a number of ideas in progressive economics that can be reduced to pithy one-liners suitable for the political stage, such as "the government's overdraft is the money in YOUR bank-account" that might draw people into starting the journey to better understanding of how government is an essential part of, rather than antagonistic to, their wellbeing.
Oh god, not more of this rubbish. I can remember when Labour lost Dunedin North in 1975, before "neoliberalism " was even thought of! Labour keeps evolving, just as social democracy keeps evolving worldwide. It's many decades since "cloth-cap" Labour was the party of class war. It really is overdue for the hard-Left in Aotearoa to catch up with the 1990s, at least. ( Some of us worked it out in the 1970s....)
Curbing the power of the billionaires is in the best interests of 99% of the population, after all. You don't need to be a Marxist to figure that out!
Sadly, National-Act-NZFascist will be serving up "more of this rubbish" before voters send them packing. The next election may be sooner than we anticipate, the closer NZF gets to the 5% Threshold of Doom.
As for the "cloth cap" reference, I think we're way past that in fashion styles of the Left. These days, it can be anything from Goth to Gaultier.
The "rubbish" I was referring to was from Kevin Mayes.
We are way overdue to distinguish between so-called "neoliberalism" as proposed by ACT and Atlas, compared to the policies of Clark, Cullen and their successors.
Longing for class war, as if it was a sort of golden age, is totally pathetic.
Instead of looking back to the 1930ss and 1940s, we desperately need to plan for the future, in which we save what we can.
With end-stage capitalism making planet Earth less habitable with each passing year, I'd suggest "planning for the future to save what we can" is problematic.
Not without a radical change to our behaviours.
So debating semantics like "class warfare" puts us on the Titanic, arguing what names to christen the lifeboats as the ship sinks.
Dealing with wealth-hoarders (billionaire oligarchs) is part of the problem.
winston ...you assume a lot!! bishop can read??my hope is that the fags and whiskey that muldoons bum boy peters has consumed by the bucketload over many years finally catches up with him and nzf(maggot lite) fades from sight.. not a praying woman but 'll gladly start
lol. There really should be some legal requirement that any article in the media on polling is required to put the margin for error in the first paragraph.
Itβs +\-3.1%. The irony is that thereβs often huge gsps between the different polling companies.
Anyone making predictions off the back of what are tiny movements is a complete fool.
What Iβm saying is itβs ridiculous to draw any projections regarding the next election from tiny movements in polls by differing organisations which vary hugely from each other.
Disenchantment with governments is pretty much the norm across the democratic world.
Thereβs no evidence Labour have said or done anything which would inspire people to be excited about them forming the next government.
Outside of just electoral polling thereβs plenty of evidence that a significant number of people are disturbed by the thought of TPM MPs in government. Not because theyβre anti MΔori or racists, but because TPM comes across as incompetent buffoons more interested in inflammatory statements than governing.
Thereβs a good chance this will prove toxic for Labour and with recent comments you can see Hipkins recognises this.
Whilst anything is possible with Winston (except bringing down the government, any suggesting that is nuts) it does seem weβre moving towards clear blocks of the left & right.
Itβs way too early to know but if I was a getting man I pick us getting the same government with have now, re-elected either no real enthusiasm.
Your take seems more drive by what want to happen than any evidence of what will.
Compare the most three recent polls with Election Night results (further down the chart). The slow dismantling of National's support is clear.
As for your remarks about Te PΔti MΔori, I reject your views, which are clearly made through a PΔkehΔ lens.
Furthermore, TPM are not in government, they're an Opposition party. Their role is to represent their constituents, just as Act represents their constituents, the corporate sector and the interests of the 1%.
Iβm not arguing the government are popular, Iβm saying thereβs nothing there to suggest Labour are either & thereβs anything to suggest any enthusiasm for a Labour lead government. Labour arenβt popular either.
What you accept or reject about TPM is utterly irrelevant. My point is there is evidence in issue polling that a significant number of people find them ridiculous. (For the record every single party in parliament have MΔori MPs, the ones for the other parties donβt after years in the house routinely find their questions ruled out of order, donβt appear to not understand how the constitution works. This has not been an issue with MΔori MPs in the past, itβs not been an issue with TPM MPs in the past. Simply talking about a βpakeha lensβ is meaningless word salad). This is a problem for Labour. Right now they canβt form a government without TPM. If that fact stops some people voting Labour, itβs a problem for them. Youβre starting to get a sense Hipkins understands this.
Your take is entirely derived from what you want to happen and what you think should happen, not any sober analysis of what may happen.
Labour have only received more votes than National once since 2005 & that was obviously on the middle of Covid.
Brilliant Frank, it reads like a tightly woven thriller. I cannot wait to get to the final chapter. Drinks are on me if youβre right. πΎπ·π₯π₯πΈπΉπ»
Thanks, James. If I'm right, it'll be a cheap 'shout' - I've mostly given up drinking booze since age 26. My usual these days is a lemon/lime/bitters (with soda, not lemonade). Maybe a glass of Brown Bros Riesling if I'm really celebrating.
But yes, it's going to be an interesting next few months. I still have my money on Peters pulling the plus before the next scheduled election. This will be the stuff of a political drama! (Think the Australian "The Dismissal" about the ill-fated Whitlam government.)
Interesting, his polling is improving right where he is. Why would he blow up the coalition Frank?
Yep, his personal polling is up. No doubt there.
But his Party's polling is at 6.1% and that's uncomfortably close to the 5% 'Threshold of Doom'. If I were him, I'd be keeping a wary eye on that poll movement. If he thought he was being smeared and dragged down by Seymour's shenanigans, it might motivate him to press The Big Red Button; "go nuclear', and force the coalition to collapse.
He'd probably come up with some weasely excuse that "it was for the good of the country".
True enough Frank. I think the disaster brewing is Seymour bleeding out Luxon. If ACT pulls 1 - 2% of Nationalβs voters - plausible - and National drops a touch more, then it doesnβt matter what Winnie does, itβs game over. Government is toast. Personally, I think there is also some potential risk for detritus from Trumpβs coup attempt to smother Luxon and Seymour, just as it did with Dutton. Early days, but the genuine cruelty displayed by Luxon and Seymour isnβt going to go unpunished and their behaviour in my opinion verges on being Trump Liteβ¦ish or Trump Lite adjacent. Theyβre a nasty couple of pricks.
Divisive bills, austerity, cruelty, broken promises, Jack-in-a-box surprises, the use of urgency, treaty, pay equity, ferry debacles, health underfunding, and serial lying combined with gormless leadership isnβt a recipe for winning a second term. The economy is the wildcard and that could provide a fillip or completely wipe them off the map. Luxonβs popularity is a problem in plain sight too, but dealing with that issue is fraught. Great, that becomes a baked-in systems flaw and will eventually work against National.
Peters, a nasty flip-flopping, race baiting, political overstayer, and enemy of DEI and integrity, is camping out under-the-radar. I donβt think heβll go early, but I would be delighted - absolutely delighted - if he hits the ejection button early. Itβs plausible. 6.1% isnβt an comfortable space in the current political environment.
Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets.
The fallout from the Regulatory Standards Bill may be enough to trigger Peters. Tie that in with Nash apparently ready to declare a run for NZ First and Peters already making overtures to Labour (No coalition with Chippy). Could well see him agreeing to a confidence a d supply to give Nash time to get embedded as heir apparent, and NZ First time to regain credibility as a centrist party who moderates the excesses of both left (Greens, TPM) and right (Act).
And another poll from Ipsos continues the bad news for National...
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/564615/labour-moves-ahead-of-national-on-controlling-cost-of-living-ipsos-poll-finds
Indeed, Trudi.
Plus this latest favourability poll on Stuff, today, reinforces indications that we are headed for a one-term government and Luxon's short career will end in tatters.
Ref: https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360729230/jacinda-ardern-remains-most-popular-politician-luxon-slumps-new-poll
That cartoon is great, as is the analysis
Thanks, 'Tui. Love your work as well; excellent analysis. We used to have commentators writing regular columns in our newspapers. The notable likes of Brian Easton, Gordon Campbell (who still produces insighful commentary at https://werewolf.co.nz/), et al.
I haven't read Brian but have read Gordon's work and think it's brilliant. It reminds me to go have a look again. Thank you and very nice to chat here.
Good analysis this. Now waiting for the National marginal seat MPs to back Bishop who can read the writing on the wall too
"Now waiting for the Natioal marginal seat MPs to back Bishop who can read the writing on the wall too"
Excellent point, Winston. I hadn't thought of that!
I'll look up marginal National seats for my next blogpost. Whilst Party Votes remain the most critical factor in MMP elections, there's a measure of 'ego' involved in winning an actual electorate. Plus, it's makes for an interesting political barometer.
Bishop is a scary dude with a history of being a tobacco lobbyist. Main thing is for National's poll numbers to tank. Then an election. Then what? Labour? More of the same.
Let's hope the Greens and Te PΔti MΔori can "prompt" Labour to do the right thing in steering Aotearoa New Zealand back on a progressive track, Kate!
Yes. But I feel that the Greens and Labour when it boils down are in thrall to big donors and moving the Overton window to the right to capture more of the National βcentre groundβ.
We need a change I think.
Frank by name and Frank by nature - love your work, Frank,!
LOL, thanks, Judith!
If I were Luxon I would boot Seymour into touch and continue with a minority government. Seymour would effectively be emasculated from any undeserved power he has hitherto grabbed. The RSB could be immediately ditched and the country would see that Luxon has grown a pair and will not stand for such extremism. However.... Luxon IS an extremist himself, albiet one with absolutely no idea of what is unfolding about him, so it will be business as usual until either Peters pulls another publicity prank to establish himself as the moderating voice of reason, we all get to vote early and both Seymour and Peters are consigned to the dustbin of historical excrement and we all get to live happily ever after. A tall order I know, but one I am clutching hold of
Whilst I don't think Landlord Luxon has the political nous to comprehend that Seymour is taking him for a ride, the PM's colleagues and Party strategists will probably notice and try to wake him up to reality. National's slow-mo free-fall in Polls would be a wake-up for anyone except the thickest-brained muppet.
If Luxon doesn't take steps, and National's polling drops under, say, 28%, then his MPs will be firing up the BBQs over summer for "cordial chats"...
"Peters pulls another publicity prank to establish himself as the moderating voice of reason..."
He did it in August 1998, tearing up the Coalition agreement with National when Jenny Shipley sacked him. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_First#Coalition_with_National:_1996%E2%80%931998 )
Peters didn't appreciate that, even though it tore his Parliamentary Party in half.
I think we're in for a rocky next 18 months...
Luxon growing a pair will be the day
Some silver lining to these cloudy timesβ¦ Iβm still worried by the % of the public that believe the spin (repeated by media). No need to point out that the latest poll is from Atlas aligned Curia, so the truth will be even worse!
Two of the last three polls were bad news for this coalition, Keith. Curia being one of the two.
I wonder if National Party strategists will be asking themselves why they're throwing their donors' cash at a continual stream of depressingly bad news (for National)?
I suspect immediate βbenefitsβ for donors are more important than being popular, until the next election is imminent
And you'd be correct, Keith!
What a great start to the day Frank and I sincerely hope that these predictions come true. Aotearoa deserves for this to be the case.
Big mention goes to me wife, Dee, who stayed up a little later than usual to proofread my scribbles. Bless her!
As always, it's in the hands of voters and I suspect they will have had a stomach-full of this government by the time the next election rolls around.
The ferries debacle will be a quietly ticking 'time bomb' for Finance Minister Nikki NoBoats Willis.
I propose a βNo CEOβs Day!β Celebration
"It took nine years in the political wilderness and thorough repudiation of Rogernomics for the Labour Party to be trusted again by voters". This is too generous by far. What it took was for National to co-opt, extend and enshrine in law the economic policies of the Lange-Douglas government so that Labour could then position itself marginally to the progressive side of National by dealing with social justice as a cultural, rather than an economic issue- a strategy that it has followed to this very day. This was enabled by the economics of Neoliberalism being financially expansive at the time, notwithstanding it hit the buffer-stops in 2008 and 17 years later no-one has seen fit to reverse the train to the point in 1984 where it took the wrong turn into the dead-end.
I wouldn't want Labour to believe they could win too easily- that would just make for an extension of their Neolib-lite road-to-nowhere.The Greens seem to have some idea of a restitution, but still within the existing framework. A priority must be the undoing of the legal straightjacket that government is forced to operate under- that raft of laws created in the 80's and 90's- Geoff Bertram's "Iron Cage"- that enforces a false- and Neolib-serving- view of the operations of government finance as 'just like a household'.
The present Coalition has demonstrated a penchant for "smash-em-up" reactionary radicalism that is wildly popular notwithstanding it has resulted in crashing the economy. From the perspective of my small Central North Island home-town a lot of credit was given (by a certain white-identifying, less educated, middle-age and older demographic) to the Right in the lead up to the last election because they were going to "deal to the bloody Maori's (meaning the elite ones- this town is 40% Maori and everyone gets on just fine) and all those queer cunts" (except 'our' Richard, who's a good bugger).
Labour needs to ease up on the 'be kind' rhetoric and engage in some good old-fashioned class-war tub-thumping to match the Right's blow-for-blow. This will be difficult to pull off with sincerity because they are now a middle-class liberal party with minimal if any vestiges of working-class grit. For the slightly more cerebral minded, there are a number of ideas in progressive economics that can be reduced to pithy one-liners suitable for the political stage, such as "the government's overdraft is the money in YOUR bank-account" that might draw people into starting the journey to better understanding of how government is an essential part of, rather than antagonistic to, their wellbeing.
My hope is this all comes to pass...
Oh god, not more of this rubbish. I can remember when Labour lost Dunedin North in 1975, before "neoliberalism " was even thought of! Labour keeps evolving, just as social democracy keeps evolving worldwide. It's many decades since "cloth-cap" Labour was the party of class war. It really is overdue for the hard-Left in Aotearoa to catch up with the 1990s, at least. ( Some of us worked it out in the 1970s....)
Curbing the power of the billionaires is in the best interests of 99% of the population, after all. You don't need to be a Marxist to figure that out!
Sadly, National-Act-NZFascist will be serving up "more of this rubbish" before voters send them packing. The next election may be sooner than we anticipate, the closer NZF gets to the 5% Threshold of Doom.
As for the "cloth cap" reference, I think we're way past that in fashion styles of the Left. These days, it can be anything from Goth to Gaultier.
Well, I did not make myself clear...
The "rubbish" I was referring to was from Kevin Mayes.
We are way overdue to distinguish between so-called "neoliberalism" as proposed by ACT and Atlas, compared to the policies of Clark, Cullen and their successors.
Longing for class war, as if it was a sort of golden age, is totally pathetic.
Instead of looking back to the 1930ss and 1940s, we desperately need to plan for the future, in which we save what we can.
With end-stage capitalism making planet Earth less habitable with each passing year, I'd suggest "planning for the future to save what we can" is problematic.
Not without a radical change to our behaviours.
So debating semantics like "class warfare" puts us on the Titanic, arguing what names to christen the lifeboats as the ship sinks.
Dealing with wealth-hoarders (billionaire oligarchs) is part of the problem.
Precisely. It's a huge problem and probably can only be solved by de facto world government. Not gonna happen? Yep, not likely.
What I think is pointless is berating Labour and Greens as neoliberals, as if that is the problem!
winston ...you assume a lot!! bishop can read??my hope is that the fags and whiskey that muldoons bum boy peters has consumed by the bucketload over many years finally catches up with him and nzf(maggot lite) fades from sight.. not a praying woman but 'll gladly start
You and me both!
lol. There really should be some legal requirement that any article in the media on polling is required to put the margin for error in the first paragraph.
Itβs +\-3.1%. The irony is that thereβs often huge gsps between the different polling companies.
Anyone making predictions off the back of what are tiny movements is a complete fool.
If it were just one poll,taken in isolation, you'd have a point.
But when it's an accumulation of polls, showing a clear trend (see Related Blogposts), that's a clear indication that public sentiment is changing.
Only a fool would ignore an obvious trend. Or a government oblivious and out of touch.
Not my point.
What Iβm saying is itβs ridiculous to draw any projections regarding the next election from tiny movements in polls by differing organisations which vary hugely from each other.
Disenchantment with governments is pretty much the norm across the democratic world.
Thereβs no evidence Labour have said or done anything which would inspire people to be excited about them forming the next government.
Outside of just electoral polling thereβs plenty of evidence that a significant number of people are disturbed by the thought of TPM MPs in government. Not because theyβre anti MΔori or racists, but because TPM comes across as incompetent buffoons more interested in inflammatory statements than governing.
Thereβs a good chance this will prove toxic for Labour and with recent comments you can see Hipkins recognises this.
Whilst anything is possible with Winston (except bringing down the government, any suggesting that is nuts) it does seem weβre moving towards clear blocks of the left & right.
Itβs way too early to know but if I was a getting man I pick us getting the same government with have now, re-elected either no real enthusiasm.
Your take seems more drive by what want to happen than any evidence of what will.
This may assist you: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_New_Zealand_general_election#Table_of_polls
Compare the most three recent polls with Election Night results (further down the chart). The slow dismantling of National's support is clear.
As for your remarks about Te PΔti MΔori, I reject your views, which are clearly made through a PΔkehΔ lens.
Furthermore, TPM are not in government, they're an Opposition party. Their role is to represent their constituents, just as Act represents their constituents, the corporate sector and the interests of the 1%.
Iβm not arguing the government are popular, Iβm saying thereβs nothing there to suggest Labour are either & thereβs anything to suggest any enthusiasm for a Labour lead government. Labour arenβt popular either.
What you accept or reject about TPM is utterly irrelevant. My point is there is evidence in issue polling that a significant number of people find them ridiculous. (For the record every single party in parliament have MΔori MPs, the ones for the other parties donβt after years in the house routinely find their questions ruled out of order, donβt appear to not understand how the constitution works. This has not been an issue with MΔori MPs in the past, itβs not been an issue with TPM MPs in the past. Simply talking about a βpakeha lensβ is meaningless word salad). This is a problem for Labour. Right now they canβt form a government without TPM. If that fact stops some people voting Labour, itβs a problem for them. Youβre starting to get a sense Hipkins understands this.
Your take is entirely derived from what you want to happen and what you think should happen, not any sober analysis of what may happen.
Labour have only received more votes than National once since 2005 & that was obviously on the middle of Covid.