The Labour Party has overtaken National in recent months and is now the most popular political party in most opinion polls.
A monthly Taxpayers’ Union–Curia released on Monday was the latest to confirm the trend but Labour has been ahead of National in five of the last 10 public polls and tied in a sixth.
National won 38% of voters in the October 2023 election but has rarely polled above 34% since the end of 2024. The party has now dropped to just 32% in our simple polling average.
Meanwhile, Labour has grown its support from just 27% at the election to be consistently polling above 30%. It has reached 33% in our average, one point ahead of National.
The party seems to be losing votes to the Labour opposition and to its unwanted coalition partner New Zealand First — which has climbed to 8.2% from 6% at the election.
NZ First is the only small party winning over voters. The Greens at 10.4%, Act at 8.9%, and Te Pāti Māori at 3.5% have not seen any significant changes relative to their election results.
An election held today would be tight, but the governing Coalition would narrowly retain a one seat majority if the result of our polling average were replicated in a 120 seat Parliament.
However, Te Pāti Māori won six electorates in 2023. If it did so again, that could add extra seats to the house and swing the balance of power towards the opposition parties.
The Taxpayers’ Union–Curia poll found the economy or the cost of living were the top issues for most voters. Other topical subjects—like taxes, Te Tiriti, and housing—were front-of-mind for less than 3% of respondents.
29 Comments
Not really much point thinking about it at the moment. It will all come down to the state of the economy in a years time. I doubt NACTF will get away with blaming the "previous government" after 3 years, they need to have fixed it by then.
Have Labour announced they will run on a broad based CGT yet?
words and actions are two different things. Hard to trust if either would even go through with it if they campaigned on it.
New Zealanders suddenly remember that high unemployment and a stagnant economy isn't as much fun as they thought it would be in October 2023.
Why is it so easy to get voters to vote against their own economic interests?
The Labour government spent too much bla, bla. All those woke public servants bla, bla. Maori are getting more than they deserve bla, bla, bla.
Every time New Zealanders elect a right-wing government I lose respect for the country a little more. My faith in humanity is eroded further.
Every time New Zealanders elect a right-wing government I lose respect for the country a little more.
I don't think there's much difference between the wingnuts and the snowflakes in terms of economic philosophy and strategy. They more or less operate from the same playbook.
Dontcha think?
Yeah but one tells you they're kind.
XD
Your argument would be more compelling if social democracies had demonstrated some semblance of societal improvement over the last few decades. And the Labour government would still be in.
This is a centre right Coalition, not right-wing. Under Labour, core Govt debt climed from $57b to >$175b. We have to cut expenditure just to fund the increase in Crown interest expense.
Yes, there is a large Covid element here - but Labour were in charge and they spent the money. The coalition are doing some stuff I vehemently disagree with, but they are also doing some stuff I agree with (scrapping NCEA).
I don't see enough economic competence in Labour to do what needs to be done. Most of the commentators on Interest have a strong preference for lower house prices, Nat have largely delivered this.
but they are also doing some stuff I agree with (scrapping NCEA).
Things like NCEA have become examples of how how our centre left governments' ambitions to improve things for the better don't have a net tangible benefit, other than "sounding" like a nice idea.
They're not the only ones (Finns for instance deride the same sorts of changes made in their education system), but there's a significant amount of detraction from getting the basics right first.
Although if communism managed a good level of development up until about 1960s era advancement, it'd appear whatever we're doing probably stopped producing a net benefit after about 1985.
I would say Labour's strength is the economy (except for the Covid debt), and National's is crime/education/etc.
National's solution to every economic problem is a tax cut, normally at the worst possible time.
Our economy is principally primary production based, I'd say Labour are not thought of as competent by that cohort.
It's not hard to make the economy feel strong when you run up debt by 200%, I have some sympathy for the Nats in being the adults in trying to address this.
"principally primary production based" - so shouldn't we be doing really well right now?
I think they are doing well and will lead the economic recovery.
It sorta highlights just how much of our internal economy is based on obtaining cheap debt.
That gets spent on imported goods.
Good gravy, it's not rocket maths
I am trying to think of good things that Labour did for the economy beyond borrow too much and spend too much, temporarily creating a false sense of wealth.
They kept it going instead of letting it contract.
Then supposedly you make up for the shortfall later on.
Except we ended up having an actual economic shortfall.
Some would believe if we just kept sealing those shortfall potholes, eventually we'd be prosperous. Following a doctrine that envisaged a 15hr work week by 1930, and couldn't anticipate a global economy.
That was after Covid started. Perhaps the last good thing done by any NZ government was Cullen who paid off loads of debt.
As much as I despise Robbo for pilfering from the COVID fund for pet projects and repeatedly telling the press everything is fine as the economy was overheating around us, the fuels subsidy as a temporary measure did help stem the rate of inflation flowing through from high fuel prices into the economy for the time it was in place. The public transport support via subsidy I was onboard with as it resulted in a good uptick in the youth using public transport and keeping it more affordable for the masses. National scrapping this wasn't the greatest idea as if you are to build a cultural change in views on public transport, it is best done by getting the youth used to it and over time they will grow and continue to do so.
Most of the commentators on Interest have a strong preference for lower house prices, Nat have largely delivered this.
Well, like most people, I have a strong preference for lower house prices if I'm buying; but higher house prices if I'm selling. No altruism.
If you mean to say that people 'prefer' less Ponzi dominance in society and our economy, in my case anyway, you would be correct. However, I think most people believe that the Ponzi is a natural phenomenon, not an artificial construct. I blame that on general lack of curiosity and understanding, not just MSM propaganda.
Most people have decided to live and compete with one another for relatively small, finite amounts of space.
The early adopters end up owning the lions share of the land and resources.
That always results in something akin to a "ponzi".
If you actually want to escape it, it's got nothing to do with banking and money printing.
If you actually want to escape it, it's got nothing to do with banking and money printing.
Which would sound good at your Ashley Church seminar, but I very much doubt the relationships between credit creation, money supply and the Ponzi are discussed at such events.
There's only so small you can slice an inner-city section over generations before something different needs to be done (build up usually). We are reaching that point slowly in larger cities if we wish to prevent urban sprawl and reliance on personal cars as transport.
Yep. Build half a million shoeboxes within 10ks of downtown Auckland, rent won't be a problem.
Which would sound good at your Ashley Church seminar, but I very much doubt the relationships between credit creation, money supply and the Ponzi are discussed at such events.
My comment isn't to juice house prices.
I didn't need to go to a seminar to work out I wouldn't be able to afford to live in the same suburb as my working class grandparents. Because everyone already owned all the houses there, and they're older and earn more money.
This has worked out the same in every city, everywhere, for all time.
Vs a village, where you're the fishmonger and I'm the horse shoe dude, there's plenty of land and we both depend on each other.
Sure. But you missed my point:
1. I want to pay lowest price possible for any asset (incl housing) and sell at the highest possible price.
My self interest differs from:
2.My belief that credit creation weighted towards non-productive purposes is ultimately destructive for the socio-economic health (inflation, booms / busts) of a nation.
Labour increased crown debt by over $100 bil right?
Their plan to repay it was for inflation to make it seem meaningless.
A lot of that debt the National party were agreeing with, or even arguing that Labour didn't go far enough. For example didn't National want to build Covid quarantine centres?
The Robertson spend. I thought it madness then and I think it madness still.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.