By Chris Trotter*
“Slip-sliding away” is one of those Paul Simon songs that refuses to leave your head for hours and hours. That it re-entered my head in the tragic circumstances of the Mt. Maunganui landslide made it even more annoying.
Simon’s lyrics make it clear that the slippage metaphor which he uses to anchor his song is about psychological, not physical, shifts. He reminds us that hopes and good intentions are hard to keep in place, and prone to collapsing at exactly the wrong moment.
In the months ahead we shall discover exactly how many of the responsible public authorities’ good intentions somehow never made it to their destination. Maybe this time the fullest measure of official accountability will be exacted. More likely it will, once again, slip away.
Reading the latest polls from New Zealand and Australia makes it clear that landforms are not the only solid things slipping and sliding away. In both countries voters from the right and the left are falling away from their traditional political loyalties and collapsing into the arms of the populists.
For Winston Peters’ NZ First Party to be polling in double-figures nine months out from a general election is remarkable. Historically, at this point in the election cycle, the party has been enormously relieved just to be clearing the 5% MMP threshold. Surges in support for Peters’ party tend to come late rather than early.
The most impressive aspect of NZ First polling just a smidgen under 12% so far out from polling-day is that it was predicted with almost casual confidence more than four months ago. In September 2025, at NZ First’s annual conference in Palmerston North, the party’s backroom boffins were projecting a record tally of votes – something in the vicinity of 20% – by the end of 2025. Those convinced that the political ground in New Zealand was already moving, were anticipating an election-night figure of 25%.
Talk is cheap. What minor party strategist hasn’t button-holed a political writer and whispered stories of as-yet-undetected shifts of seismic proportions in voter sentiment? Shifts that will astonish the nation and shame the pundits on election-night. It is standard operating procedure for parties engaged in the constant struggle to be taken seriously by the mainstream media’s political editors.
Most of the time such predictions are dismissed as professional lies. Most of the time the much-vaunted seismic-shifts remain stubbornly invisible in subsequent rounds of polling. This time, however, the shift, if not yet seismic, is irrefutable. According to the Taxpayers’ Union-Curia Poll archive, support for NZ First increased by 53% (from 7.8% to 11.9%) between August 2025 and January 2026. If it continues growing at the present rate, then by July 2025 NZ First should be looking at 18.2% of the Party Vote.
That would be a seismic shift.
According to Richard Harman, proprietor of the “Politik” website: “Curia pollster David Farrar has analysed the last year of polling as far as NZ First support goes and found that 57% of their supporters voted NZF in 2023, 20% National, 5% Labour and 5% ACT.” Were the party to increase its level of support in line with its most optimistic boffins’ projections, then most of it would be obtained at National’s expense. NZ First would be elevated from adjunct to equal.
What would have to happen for National’s voters to desert the party in the numbers necessary to propel NZ First to 20%-plus in the polls?
To answer that question one has only to look across the Tasman, where the Australian Right is in the process of imploding. The Liberal-National Coalition has fallen apart – largely on account of the Liberal leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley, pressuring the Labour prime minister, Anthony Albanese, into responding to the Bondi Massacre by passing legislation inimical to freedom of expression, and further tightening Australia’s already highly restrictive laws regulating gun ownership.
The most dramatic consequence of Ley’s ideological apostasy has been the sudden surge in voter support for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party. From attracting a Primary Vote of just 6.4% in the general election of May 2025, One Nation is currently polling between 20% and 25%. That is higher than the Liberal Party’s 2025 Primary Vote!
Academic Australian commentators are not impressed by this apparent slide into Pauline’s populist arms. Their take on One Nation is that it is made up of white, poorly-educated male voters over the age of 65 who are unable to reconcile themselves to the ideas and practices of the Twenty-First Century.
But the demographic structure of Australia simply does not uphold this analysis. At 8.5%, the number of Australians who are male and over 65 falls well short of One Nation’s current showing in the polls. Clearly, there are a great deal more than “deplorables” who are prepared to vote for Australia’s most populist electoral option.
The political scientists are on much surer ground when it comes to assessing how closely One Nation’s polling support will match its eventual performance in a general election. Australia’s compulsory voting legislation, coupled with its complicated preferential voting system for the House of Representatives, both tend to produce disappointing election results for outlier parties.
This is not, however, the case in New Zealand. Under its system of mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) a party winning 20% of the Party Vote is entitled to 20% of the seats in the House of Representatives. It is possible that this fact on its own may cause many voters to back away from NZ First as polling day draws near. That said, however, any Party Vote for NZ First that has a 2 in front of it can only signify the sudden and dramatic collapse of a great many of the political truths that formerly anchored the nation.
With the potential for such seismic shifts now evident on both sides of the Tasman, New Zealand prime minister Christopher Luxon’s mission is clear. He must convince the electorate that the 40-year-old experiment in neoliberalism has not failed – as the evidence currently accumulating around the world is indicating – but that it is in fact, and at last, succeeding.
An economic recovery based on the official numbers will not suffice. Most New Zealanders long ago recognised that the official statistics do not reflect their lived experience. The voters will need to see a tangible improvement in their own life, and in the lives of their friends and families, before they reward the National Party with a Party Vote that confirms its position as senior coalition partner. If that tangible improvement is not clearly evident, then Luxon and the Nats are in big trouble.
The key question of the 2026 general election, therefore, is whether or not Winston Peters is prepared to tell the voters that his patience with the 40-year neoliberal experiment is at an end. That the contrast between the still intact nation that preceded “Rogernomics”, and the broken nation of today, can no longer be justified or defended. That the “rules of the game” must be changed – dramatically.
This is what a potentially decisive fraction of the New Zealand electorate has been waiting for someone wielding effective political power to say since the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-09. In 2017, Peters gave Labour the opportunity to make good the damage it had done. It couldn’t (or wouldn’t) accept the challenge.
Assuming Peters (and Hanson for that matter) remains in good health, and that both the Australasian Right and Left continue to reject their respective populists’ radically remedial projects, then the already unstable position of Australia’s and New Zealand’s once dominant political parties will continue to erode.
Those who fail to set course for a post-neoliberal destination, will soon find it impossible to prevent their own political futures from slip-slidin’ away.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
51 Comments
Informative perspective thanks Chris.
What should a NZ, post-neoliberal economy look like?
Critical infrastructure elements returned to state control? (Why should private interests manipulate and rape profits from core infrastructure, most of which was established by tax payers a couple of generations ago?).
Re-establish Ministry of Works (and department of works - a compromise because neolibs assert policy and delivery should not exist within a single government agency)?
Re-establish MAF with it's policy, market access, research and technology transfer capability ( that, in it's day made NZ agriculture the fastest adopter of new technology in the the agricultural world).
In each individual's private life many decisions are made to protect and continue sustaining their private existence, not for profit. An astute extension of that situation should be applied in the management of NZ.
Interesting posits on what post-neoliberal policy would look like - grounded in an historical perspective on NZ public ownership and public service.
But I think no one is thinking enough about how the world has changed since Winston was a young man. What worked then (and I agree, for example, the Ministry of Works was a great apprentice/training ground - something wildly lacking at the moment). Same as the government-owned radio networks - training ground for the private sector.
But what will we need such training in in future - what "works" will become essential? Not those of the past, I suspect. The technicians and turners and fitters of yesteryear are just that - yesteryear. Welcome to the microchip - something that didn't exist back in the old days.
And the infrastructure itself has changed. No need for copper wire anymore - and now fiber-to-the-home might become a thing of the past as satellite transmission improves. And pretty soon my TV will replace my laptop. My son, an apartment leasing agent in the US has already outlined exactly how AI will replace him - he suspects within 5 years - I'm guessing 2-3.
Meanwhile, our freshwater waterways will become more and more choked with noxious weed and the same for our near shore fisheries/aquatic life. Microplastics in our bodies will accumulate to such a degree the diseases associated with it will become as common as asthma/hay fever.
Reticulated services to the home - provided by local government atm - will collapse at an even greater rate than presently. Catch up in terms of the decades of underinvestment won't be possible. Not forgetting, Luxon continues to do "trade deals" to allow for the import of more people. People/neighborhoods will need to become self, or "micro" sufficient. And that goes for road/carriage infrastructure as well.
Someone needs to map out the future for the electorate - and I can guarantee you it won't be NZF :-)!
And PS - schools/centralised education and (at tertiary level) purchased education? Likely not needed. Teach yourself and your children - AI has made us all qualified researchers as long as we learn to ask the right questions and distinguish between valuable information and "useless noise". Get children together for routine outdoor activities instead of indoor classrooms. Make play more meaningful, more treasured.
And PS -Teach yourself and your children - Get children together for routine outdoor activities instead of indoor classrooms. Make play more meaningful, more treasured.
Unfortunately advise like above only lands on a portion of the population.
As with the demise of Public Works pre-Rogernomics for example, the Ministry of Works was a great apprentice/training ground - something wildly lacking at the moment).
Yesterday I listened to a former Northlander explain about the "lawless north". Since Rogernomics left so many Northlander families without occupations and or employers to hire them hope has been lost for decades and as she explained punishment for crimes like stealing a jetski only lands one in another 6 to 12 month period of home detention. No room in the jails-or will to put them there. Advise like Kate's above does not only fall on deaf ears--it never reaches their ears.
And the problem is that on the whole the country has never had an honest conversation about how to make positive changes and restore life for communities like this to a Pre-Rogernomics level---falls in the too hard basket. Focusing on Education only counts if you value education. Too many of the poorly educated parents don't value it for their children either. For most of the voting populace its out of sight and out of mind.
A good number of nails hit there, fair, square and hard. Nicely handled hammer.
Northland had a massive growth spurt (18%) between 2013 and 2018 census. Fastest growing region in NZ at the time. BOP being second and Waikato 3rd. And more recently, avocado cropping has taken off - a crop well suited to the climate/rainfall there. The Kaipara Harbour is in urgent need of ecological restoration - if NZ government committed to it it would be a huge employment generator. And once restored ecologically, well planned aquaculture industries would thrive.
I'm not sure what pre-Rogernomics Northland looked like - the main industry of note which recently closed down was Marsden Point. I'm assuming we lost a lot of NZR jobs up there, when rail was privatised.
If we legalised cannabis production and distribution - Northland would be a great hub for R&D and manufacture in that industry.
Here are the most up-to-date stats on industry there -
https://tools.summaries.stats.govt.nz/places/rc/northland-region#indust…
So, yes, lots of promise and (I assume) an under-utilised workforce.
Interesting Kate. I think predicated on continuous growth and that technology will make humans redundant.
You indicate a pretty limited list of benefits to NZ Inc from the pre-neoliberal period. And the under investment in maintenance and enhancement of water, electricity, roading, etc greatly accelerated from mid 1980s. Can't all be laid at neoliberal feet. But that ideology did introduce private profit extraction from previously non profit driven national good investment.
I read there is pushback to Trump's proposal to give AI essentially carte blanche.
I contend technical, manual, creative skills (eg fitter, turner, welder, plumber, drain layer, carpentry, mechanic, farmer.....) will become more valued in the future. I worked in Wellington as a handyman for a few years. No shortage of demand for my diverse skills. I expect keeping things running by repairing will be important going forward.
Maybe fibre (a long way from universally accessible in NZ) will become redundant. God help us if it does. NZ will create a whole new set of vulnerabilities for itself because the Musks of this world will have control over the switch that allows/blocks access. Europe is already ramping up digital sovereignty. NZ needs to, too.
Time to mow the lawn now...
I contend technical, manual, creative skills (eg fitter, turner, welder, plumber, drain layer, carpentry, mechanic, farmer.....) will become more valued in the future.
I agree with you there. Indeed I've always felt manual labour has/should have more worth (in monetary terms) than any kind of desk/office work. And this kind of knowledge/skills can be transferred to others without the need for an "institution" (formal education) in between knower and learner.
Academic Australian commentators are not impressed by this apparent slide into Pauline’s populist arms. Their take on One Nation is that it is made up of white, poorly-educated male voters over the age of 65 who are unable to reconcile themselves to the ideas and practices of the Twenty-First Century.
Recently Barnaby Joyce talked about immigration growth rates cannot increase greater than the ability of a nation's ability to provide infrastructure for the increase. Of course that makes complete sense and is an important point missing from more progressive voices who never make it really clear what the intention of immigration is. It's usually boiled down to fluffy ideas about the importance of and need for diversity. The difficult stuff is never properly addressed.
Yet the electorate must realise that NZF is founded and has survived purely on the political capability and endurance of one man, Winston Peters. The electorate must realise too that that feature is in its sunset and then ask how can it possibly work without having that one identity present. If the coalition is returned that factor will then surely play out over the next three years. National is presently suffering from being principally held accountable for not having sufficiently redressed the dreadful state of affairs existing post the 2023 election. As well their leader is no great salesman of what they have accomplished. However while he is not that convincing as a leader he is though not entirely unconvincing as a safe pair of hands and that may emerge as quality the electorate heeds during the next term and the highly uncertain international situations that NZ will need to recognise and address.
Consider that NZFs rise is not simply to mitigate CTs neoliberalism strawman but is from people motivated also to ensure that Labour/Greens/TPM will have nowhere to leverage radical left political policies. The lessons of 2020-23 being well remembered.
Ah but too many forget the election of 2017 where Winston himself gave the keys to Labour. Humans have short memories.
If Labour had Jacinda V2 in the wings you might have a point. True WP has often changed with the wind but the repeated rejection of a Hipkins led Labour makes that vow irreversible unless WP wants to destroy all remnants of his credibility and career.
That's not the actual point I was making about Winstons support / handbrake: the 2017 govt policy was constrained by NZF, in 2020 his absence enabled the 6th Labour govts unbridled agenda
I publicly supported Winstons 2017 decision as being a legitimate under MMP, there's no law requiring the largest party to be in govt if minor parties can form a govt.
The slide to populist leaders is caused essentially by the overt and covert corruption of incumbent politicians who repeatedly fail to deliver on their promises and rapidly forget that they work for and represent the people of the nation, and should therefore be accountable to them. Winnies ongoing popularity is essentially rooted in the fact that he has persistently called out the major parties for their failings. Although the 'baubles of office' episode did expose his own weakness. These days it seems he is more often just an irascible old man.
But the real concern that CT raises is one that has often been discussed in the threads on this site. That is the lack of a vision from the political parties and a plan to implement it.
COVID and much of what has happened since has repeatedly, to me at least, raised the need for a vision and plan to build national resilience and increased independence on outsiders. But it largely seems our politicians remain mostly oblivious to it. The only part I have heard come close to identifying the need is NZF.
need for a vision and plan to build national resilience and increased independence on outsiders.
Hard sell to voters. You're effectively adding an insurance cost on the cost of living, substituting imports for domestic goods to insulate against future problems. Most voters already expect more than what they have.
And then there's the question of what we can actually produce indigenously - when NZ "made" more stuff, much of it was imported kits we screwed together.
I don't believe it is that hard Pa1nter. But this is more about understanding how money actually works in our economy and how best to use that to the benefit on NZ and it's people, not foreign banks or corporations. A big part of this could be completely reworking the tax structure to support business development and employment here. To provide for ourselves what we can, keep the technology developed here, here and build the businesses to use that to their, and our, benefit. Just because we're small doesn't mean it can't be done. It's more about how we go about it.
In the end it comes down to vision, a strategy and the political will to implement it. It doesn't have to threaten existing trade agreements, but I suspect there are a few that are not in our favour and should be revisited.
I don't believe it is that hard Pa1nter
And yet your argument is just full of vagueries like having a vision and giving tax breaks. If it wasn't that hard, developed economies the world over wouldn't have bled production to places with much cheaper labour.
There's a huge chasm to cross when overseas labour can be had for 1/10th the cost.
The only historical way manufacturing returns to a country priced out of the market, is for that economy to near collapse and the cost of labour to plummet.
The only historical way manufacturing returns to a country priced out of the market, is for that economy to near collapse and the cost of labour to plummet.
Coincidentally, I was at a family lunch yesterday where another Other said with confidence that manufacturing was returning to the USA. I thought that sounded like a Fox "news" headline as I've not seen any credible news stories on the subject. Said Other is not a fan of Trump/GOP but is a fan of Elon Musk (I don't get that either). I don't consider that manufacturing is actually returning to the USA, for the same reason (and others) as Pa1nter has pointed out.
I should point out that by "manufacturing" I'm not considering trinkets for tourist traps, or people knocking stuff together in their garage to sell at the local craft market.
Not so sure about that to be honest.
Modern advanced manufacturing is heavy on the robotics and automation overseen by a small number of well compensated engineers. When that's the model, it's hard to justify it being all offshore. No reason that couldn't happen in the USA. And of course tariffs can be utilised. Doing so reduces aggregate economic output and raises costs, but if you're doing it for geopolitical reasons rather than economic... perhaps it makes sense
Things that are labour intensive - sure that'll stay offshore.
Modern advanced manufacturing is heavy on the robotics and automation overseen by a small number of well compensated engineers
Generally what occurs is you have a facility like that, and skilled production workers get replaced with low paid line operators, with the well paid engineers keeping the machines ticking. It's not very common to have completely automated production - even Tesla worked out they still needed humans to augment their state of the art robotic workers.
Added into that is all the ancillary costs for a business that get affected by labour cost, think transport, power, maintenance, etc.
Cheaper labour is only part of the problem....think tax breaks, subsidies and corruption.
There are (and were) mechanisms to control those incentives that we have forgotten.
Cheaper labour is only part of the problem....think tax breaks, subsidies and corruption.
There's a raft of added expense to operate business in developed nations that places like China don't have:
- employment relations costs, like sick pay, holiday pay, maternity leave, etc
- environment and resource management costs
- social welfare costs requiring higher taxation
Not to mention developed nations have infrastructure that is of various ages and capabilities. Somewhere like Japan or later China got to do a relatively clean slate build out of all their infrastructure, so have more efficient transport, telecommunications and power infrastructure. Very difficult for a developed nation to totally renew all their infrastructure, especially when their costs to do so make them relatively expensive compared to developing nations.
You're correct about Japan & Chinese infrastructure - notwithstanding the billions Yuan wasted on these projects over recent decades.
However any scale Chinese manufacturing (especially multinationals) have many of those staff / social costs. However the Unions & Management are occasionally very cosy with local govt officials.
I have often thought that taxing capital, profit and consumption alone ought to be the way to go. Let folks enjoy ALL the fruits of their labour. The poorest amongst us are those the most disadvantaged by the current system of taxation.
And you are right - a return to manufacturing is not our future.
To Kate and Pa1nter; so how do we keep people employed? Doing what? We already have manufacturing industries that work. Remaking the tax system to support companies to employ people is an approach. If we are to import all we need, there has to be the means to pay for it. How do we support our population? We cannot afford to have high numbers on benefits.
Building from small beginnings will take time, but if we never start, we'll never get there.
Remaking the tax system to support companies to employ people is an approach.
Our tax system already does this (indirectly) via Working for Families and childcare subsidies.
The services sector is already roughly 50% of our employment sector. Manufacturing less than 25% and dropping. And of course, the private sector will manufacture things where it is profitable to do so. High tech manufacture in niche industries where the products have a high value is the way forward.
Alongside continued innovation and expansion of our ag, tech and tourism sectors.
And, I'd like to see wide expansion of our conservation sector. We've got to get on top of weeds (both land and aquatic), wilding pines, and pests. Conservation ought to be separated out from services for statistical purposes so that we can keep an eye on it more accurately. It has the potential to employ thousands more if we just committed as a nation. I've always been in favour of a Conservation Corps, much along the lines of voluntary military service - fully government funded and targeted at youth employment.
There is no lack of work that needs doing in New Zealand - that's for sure.
Even if the current (4th) industrial revolution we are going through gives us the tools to support cost-effective re localisation of making real things that manages risk and gives us greater resilience?
Indeed....but then we can see why the political class dont provide for the masses....and it is a widespread problem.
I don't vote NZF but I adhere to the sentiment that New Zealand comes first.
Meaning we need to do hard work on achieving that. So. Real tax on the tax avoiders Meta, Facebook etc. The list is long. And the big finger to their enablers Singapore, Ireland etc.
And citizens first. In welfare in particular. Automatic deporting for crime. Land ownership.
Call it populist if you like. But it still would get my vote.
Is self entitlement taking over collective responsibility?
Reading comments above, my take is that the winner of the coming election will be the party that has a message of continuing the comfortable lifestyles of voters. This seems a lot like ignoring the early diagnosis of melanoma hoping it will all just go away.
I read an article on Stuff this morning about trusts and the ability to protect assets/wealth when the inevitably of old age with it's inherent challenges often requiring the last period in a care facility. The gist being how can I protect my wealth and get the state to pay for my residential care.
To me this mindset is forked (I wanted to use a different word....but that would be offensive). We live, we die. I'm 71, so not bagging boomers per se. If one has accumulated significant wealth, one should be required to apply that wealth to care at end of life. Not shovel that cost onto taxpayers.
You didn't provide the link to your quoted article however it's not as straightforward to avoid via trusts as you imply Dementia risk: Do family trusts really protect your assets if you need expensive care? | Stuff
Depends how long you have been playing the game and how much you can afford to pay for the service.
The state pays for your care if you get diagnosed under 65 and when you turn 65 you must self-fund from there. Many will offload wealth into companies to avoid this or gift to family etc to reduce wealth and allow state funded care. The entitlement mentality is rife.
I know the point i was trying to make but probably communicated it poorly....
There's crap loads of finger pointing about agriculture externalising environmental impacts. Yet it seems it is pretty common for the general public to externalise the costs of getting old and frail.
A number of commentators like to use the word vision. There was once a German politician, I think a chancellor who once responded when asked about his vision for Germany to the effect "if you have a vision go and see a doctor" Also visions and hallucinations are not far apart.
Most of us have ongoing conversations in our head.
With no one.
But do they reply?
Not in my case. Likely they realise that they have already lost the argument. Poor sods.
You've beaten them to submission, you win.
ACT, Nats and Labour are major gift givers to NZF. NZF also falls down on their rhetoric of what they say and actually do. The Nats outsmarted them and took a leaf out of Labours book by establishing a committee/working group to examine the issue of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in various Acts. The relevant Acts, about 18 or so were mentioned by P Goldsmith, Minister of Justice in Nov24. Little or nothing has occurred since then and NZF have not been crowing about them achieving anything about it either. It's typical of WP to say what annoys people, eg immigration but fails to do anything about it. He does enjoy the baubles of office and I feel he has been a good foreign minister relative to Mahout.
a good foreign minister relative to Mahout.
that is a very low bar, but agree, he is good at it
Do you think the rise of outsider politics (rather than populism) has something to do with the rise of a professional political class who are perceived as out of touch, self-serving, hostage to academia and the public service, and short on ability?
And by outsider, I mean people who have done things other than work inside big, highly political organisations, and have at least the window dressing of a service ideal.
I think you might be over simplifying it. The reasons people get into politics are many and varied. Helen Clark claimed to be a socialist, sitting to the left of centre, but she never experienced deprivation and accordingly could never have understood what it means to people at all levels. The lower socio-economic classes, and that includes most middle classes, are at many levels disenfranchised. That disenfranchisement increases the lower down you get because it becomes more difficult to escape the poverty trap. Having a job doesn't help if that job is minimum wage. A lot of our systems are not design to lift people, but rather to keep them down. That needs to change.
That condescending attitude was well exposed by Billy Connolly, an interview in his later years, where he was asked that it must feel good now when he had come from nothing to which he corrected no, he had come from something. ANd then of course there is Orwell, something like - it’s not so much that socialists love the poor, it’s their hatred of the rich that drives them.
Not sure it is a good example Foxy. But many politicians lay claim to representing people who have little to no voice, but then deliver bugger all for that constituency. Scrutiny generally reveals that the only person they represent is themselves.
Their hatred of the rich looks more like jealousy for what they have. Michael Cullen's infamous comment "Rich Pricks" is a point in context when he clearly did not understand that compared to most Kiwis he was a rich prick and he clearly demonstrated that he wasn't prepared to do anything that would put more money in the hands of the lower socio-economic classes.
Helen Clark is a very good example of the career politician, distanced from the people she claimed to represent.
But I'd argue that's become the norm and the broad-based Labour Party in particular has become very hard to recognise as a working person's representative.
which is their root cause of issues, many on the right side of left politics hate the woke gender politics of the greens.
Sadly for Chris Trotter he may not live to see Labour in power again
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.