The two Chris's have failed to inspire most voters

Although it’s always tempting to take a line from the late Jim Bolger and say “bugger the pollsters,” it’s hard to ignore them. They do more than observe what might happen in the upcoming election—they influence it.

Political polls are presented as reflections of voter sentiment, yet they also drive it. Most voters are reluctant to back parties that look unlikely to clear the 5% party-vote threshold or win an electorate seat. When media coverage of polls suggests a party has a realistic chance, it can encourage support.

The contest is shaping up poorly for the two main Chrises—Luxon and Hipkins—both of whom are increasingly toxic to their parties’ hopes of dominating the election. This says a great deal about the men themselves and about the caucuses that selected them.Neither National nor Labour has managed to choose a leader with anything approaching the “X” factors voters want in a prime minister: charisma, connection, conviction and communication.

 Luxon is a busted flush. Claims that rolling a first-term prime minister would be unprecedented miss the larger point: this election itself is unprecedented. Never has mainstream media influence been weaker, support for the two major parties lower, or a sitting prime minister so unpopular after a single term. New Zealand has not defeated a one-term prime minister since Walter Nash in 1960 under first-past-the-post, when Labour still won just over 43% of the vote. The parallels are limited.

Luxon’s failures as a convincing, conviction politician are obvious enough in the polls. National voters are drifting to ACT and NZ First in search of something more authentic—whether small government and free enterprise or conservatism with economic nationalism. Neither minor party is perfectly consistent, but Seymour and Peters at least say what they think with little concern for upsetting the bien pensant commentariat. Luxon and Willis sound and look as if they respond to focus groups. The supermarket policy is a case in point. It's desperate stuff.

On the other side sits former prime minister Chris Hipkins, still carrying the baggage of six years of Ardern government. He is unconvincing as someone who will achieve much when his own record is poor: a housing bubble inflated and then burst, sharply higher public spending with little to show for it, an economy fuelled by similar largesse, and a string of virtue-signalling measures paired with intolerance of accountability. The last time Labour recycled a failed prime minister was Mike Moore in 1993; he lost under first-past-the-post when National’s opponents were split between the Alliance and NZ First. Hipkins offers little beyond recycled handouts and criticism of National for failing to fix everything. Outside Labour’s base, few are buying it.

The Greens, having put away their keffiyehs and Palestinian flags, are pushing a full-throated socialist vision of a large, all-embracing state and directing anger at “the rich” in a bid to pull Labour voters. They are also attracting young radical Māori voters who hear Te Pāti Māori’s call to create an overhang by prioritising electorate seats over the party vote (a similar right-wing effort is less likely to succeed but may still cost National a couple of points). The result could be an ethnic-socialist alliance that gives the Greens a larger boost than before. Te Pāti Māori is recovering from recent splits and hopes to hold at least three seats; it usually struggles when National is in power because Labour can campaign simply to change the government.Opportunity’s emergence is partly a reaction to Labour’s lack of inspiration and to the distaste some Green supporters feel for that party’s sharp leftward shift, especially its one-sided stance on Palestine. Though it brands itself centrist, Opportunity’s policy positions are close to Labour’s without the union movement’s dominance. It is the centre-left home for bureaucrats and moderate activists. By emphasising economic fairness and tax reform it is attracting voters who think Labour is offering nothing new. Unhappy swing voters may prefer it to Labour, though what they really expect in return remains unclear.

A four-party government is a real possibility—Labour-Greens-Opportunity-Te Pāti Māori or National-ACT-NZ First-Opportunity—with the former looking more likely.It could still change, though that now seems improbable. Labour could have replaced Hipkins, but it is unclear who would have wanted the job. A new leader would almost certainly lift Labour’s vote, mainly at Opportunity’s and National’s expense, making a three-party arrangement (Labour-Greens with Te Pāti Māori confidence and supply) more plausible. 

National could have replaced Luxon and might have fared better against Labour. If either major party had chosen a leader capable of inspiring people as a fresh prime minister who believes in something beyond keeping the other side out, the picture might look different. Instead both National and Labour appear to take their status for granted, as if their role is simply to exclude the other lot rather than offer a vision.

Vision and conviction are more visible in ACT, the Greens, NZ First, Te Pāti Māori and even Opportunity (saccharine though it is). If neither major party reaches 30% of the party vote, it will be because neither has convinced voters that what it offers is worth the effort.

Notable also is the growing divide among younger voters. Roy Morgan’s latest poll showed women aged 18–49 supporting Labour at 36% and the Greens at 20%, with National on 14.5%, NZ First on 10.5% and ACT on 3.5%. Men in the same age group were almost the reverse: National 34.5%, Labour 18%, Greens 14%, ACT 11.5% and NZ First 4.5%. Apart from NZ First (which draws more young women than men), the pattern is a clear left-right split. Younger men lean towards the government; younger women do not, and they are far more open to left-wing radicalism than young men are to the right.Among those over 50, National leads—more strongly among men than women—and support for smaller parties is roughly even between the sexes. What does this imply for a future divided by politics, philosophy and outlook? 

At the very least it should encourage people, especially those with strong views, to speak to opponents with a measure of respect and to listen. The prevailing trend appears to be the opposite.

Meanwhile, the window for National or Labour to change leaders is almost shut—not impossible, merely improbable. National has made its choice and is sticking with it. Labour’s next generation of leaders seems content to wait for defeat so they can contest the subsequent election with a clearer run.

It is not hard to see why neither party is inspiring voters.

Stupid policy ad nauseum

What MPs do you think could actually run a supermarket as the general manager? I don't mean run into the ground either.

There was an age in New Zealand when there was not something called Supermarket Policy, because, by and large, mature capitalist liberal democracies don't need a command and control approach to a sector that typically does attract a wide range of entrants.

Not anymore.  Elections are a silly season, and silly it is.

I don't expect much from the Greens around sane economics, because it is a party antithetical to capitalism, which is suspicious of all of the elements of markets. Whether it be prices (how these are reached is a mystery), profits (too high, of course), salaries (too low, of course), choices of goods (lots are disapproved of, some are supported but mysteriously something stops them being sold) or customers (who generally don't know what's good for them or "the planet"), the Greens find the idea that millions of people buy and sell goods and services without public servants and politicians "regulating" them, to be terrifying. So, of course, they want their Kiwimart.  If it were December 1989 and the Greens had been dropped into the recently liberated German Democratic Republic, they probably wouldn't have privatised a thing. 

I expect better from the National Party, after all, you'd think it would have learned from its past.  Well you'd think that if you thought that being a member of the National Party was about being committed to principles such as "Promoting a competitive market economy and providing rewards for achievement and hard work". However, in reality, most of the party's history since the late 1950s has been about winning and holding onto power, which is largely has done. The results have been fairly woeful.  

It held power for twelve years from 1960 to 1972 doing virtually nothing to prepare the country for the inevitable exit of the UK from its role as the primary buyer of all of the average unprocessed primary produce that could be exported. Nothing.  The Muldoon years were an exercise in vote bribes with National Superannuation, a gamble of billions on energy self-sufficiency and then performing like an ostrich, with bureaucratic control of prices, wages and interest rates. The Richardson years were an exception (and the RMA was an exception then too), and even the Birch years until 1999 saw some glacial reform, at least in the right direction. However, little was achieved in the Key/English years.

Now, after nearly three years. Christopher Luxon, possibly the least popular National Party Prime Minister in history, is desperate as is his brainfarting Finance Minister and Deputy, Nicola Willis, in dreaming up the supermarket policy. It is not a policy to achieve anything other than re-election. It is, no doubt, carefully been tested among "swing voters" who have been groomed to think, in no small part by Nicola Willis, that New Zealand has a particularly egregiously predatory supermarket sector which is reaping enormous profits off of "hard-working New Zealanders" (though quite how it doesn't target lazy bludging New Zealanders is a mystery, but the Greens and Opportunity tout for their votes). 

Let's be very clear here, as Damien Grant says in Stuff, there isn't much of a problem in regards to supermarket profits, certainly not enough to justify trying to split the largest chain, of largely franchise holders, into two groups. 

"We know from published accounts these profits do not exist other than in the bureaucratic imagination. Woolworths, an Australian company with close to a third of the NZ market, wrote down the value of its Kiwi holdings by $1.6 billion in 2024 on the back of rising cost of sales and weak profitability, just $108 million before taxes and interest on a whopping $8 billion in revenue."

Super-profitable businesses don't write down the value of their businesses, and such sectors do seem to attract new entrants. Note that Nicola Willis's bizarre attempt to generate international interest in entering a market that was - already open - through a Request for Information from prospective entrants, was an abject failure. There are steps that could be taken to enable more competition to emerge, largely from scrapping the ability of local government to use the RMA to control competition , but replacement of the RMA has been slowed for reasons that are far from clear. My suspicion is that both local government and the bureaucracy aren't keen on it so much, but it falls to Luxon and Willis that they haven't advanced what ought to have been the most significant reform of their government. 

It's worth noting that not a single developed country has ever forced the split of a supermarket chain. None. That includes countries smaller than New Zealand's population, geography and economy. What that tells you is that it is an intervention that probably is worth being cautious about, at best, but it also tells you that a party that is ostensibly about business, encouraging investment (especially from overseas) and free markets, that touts this nonsense is simply pandering to a narrative that it is too incompetent to confront - that is that too many NZers think supermarkets are ripping them off.

It is rare for Labour to follow the National Party on policy, it is usually the other way around, but it is a worthy footnote to see Christopher Hipkins propose an even more stupid policy on supermarkets - separating retail and wholesale arms. This actually makes Chloe Swarbrick's state supermarket chain idea seem reasonable.

No other developed country has forced such a change, and it makes little sense from the point of economies of scale, ensuring reliability of supply chains or placing competitive pressure on wholesale prices.  It's as if Labour looked at the electricity reforms of the 1990s (under National) which separated generating/retail, distribution and national grid functions by force (mostly of state/local quango monopoly entities) and of telecommunications (separating Telecom into Spark and Chorus) and think it is exactly the same. Supermarkets are not vertically integrated natural monopoly network industries, but Labour is jumping on the gravy train of making them scapegoats for the quasi-Marxist hate of grocery prices.

I expect a little better from Labour, I hoped for a lot better from National, but both are absolutely braindead. 

If you think ANY of these three policies will save you money, I should sell you a bridge, and you should think again. Yes there are problems, and these are mostly the result of local government making it difficult, expensive or impossible to get approval to build new supermarkets or open them in existing premises.  However, the Marxists in the Greens, Labour and National think their clunking fists can take other people's property and re-organise a sector absolutely none of them could manage effectively (though you think Luxon ought to know better!), and save you money.

The Greens of course know no better. Labour thinks it might know something, but what's particularly gruesome is that it is obvious many National MPs know this is nonsense and they can't stand up because they are stuck with Mr. Unprincipled, Unconvincing and Unpopular as leader, who is peddling snakeoil to trick you into thinking he is looking out for you.

Don't give any of that lot a chance (of course, you might grant your Electorate Vote to an MP or candidate who candidly tells you that he or she thinks all of this is nonsense, if you can find them).