March 24, 2026 • 24 mins
It’s a trying time for the Government, with fuel prices and the Iran War affecting just about every Kiwi.
It’s something the Opposition knows all too well, handling a crisis not of their making, with Covid.
But, how are politicians of all stripes handling the pressure?
How is the public feeling about their performance?
And, how much weight should we put on polls anyway? Are they nonsense? Or, are we only told to ignore them when a party’s doing poorly?
Today on The Front Page, lawyer and political commentator, Liam Hehir, is with us to talk politics, polls, and policy.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Editor/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Jane Yee
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Kiota.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. It's a
trying time for the government, with fuel prices and the
Iran War affecting just about every keyw It's something the
opposition knows all too well, handling a crisis not of
(00:26):
their own making with COVID. But how are politicians of
all stripes handling the pressure? How is the public feeling
about their performance? And how much weight should we put
on polls anyway? Are they all nonsense or are we
told to only ignore them? What a party's doing poorly?
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Today?
Speaker 2 (00:46):
On the Front Page, lawyer and political commentator Liam Hare
is with us to talk politics, polls and policy. So
Liam National slipped further behind Labor in the latest ron
z Read Research poll. They're at thirty point eight percent
and that, granted, not as bad as the twenty eight
(01:06):
point four percent the other week that we saw.
Speaker 4 (01:08):
What do you make of this?
Speaker 5 (01:10):
Well, well, no one pole matters too much, you know,
the poles will bounce around of it. It's the direction
of travel that that really matters. It's the overall trajectory
and that's not good. So a poll that has them
just about thirty percent is not a whole lot better
than a pole that has them just below thirty percent.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
If the direction of travel is bad, and the direction
of travel is not good for National at.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
The moment, well, Luxein's are also recorded as lowest personal
approval rating yet that's at seventeen point three percent. It's
this weakest result since becoming national leader.
Speaker 4 (01:43):
Actually in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 5 (01:45):
Should he be worried, he should be worried about losing
the election.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
I don't think he needs to be worried about.
Speaker 5 (01:50):
Losing the National Party leadership, not this close to the election,
not when there isn't a already made Jacindra Adurn waiting
in the wings to step in and take over. But
leadership often correlates very strongly with overall party performance. Not
always there can be a divergence, but as all of
(02:13):
a piece. Really, nothing succeeds like success, nothing fixes problems
like winning in the same time.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
When things go wrong, they tend to go wrong all
at once.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Yeah, well, I do think about former national leaders have
rated much worse you've got Judith Collins, twenty twenty, Simon
Bridges twenty nineteen granted they were both in opposition then,
but you know, at what ratings should he at least
start to get a bit worried about someone coming in
and rolling in.
Speaker 5 (02:41):
I don't think he needs to be too worried about
the preferred prime minister ratings as such at all, as
long as there's no one who's really making Sucainey grounds
right behind him. I've never put a lot of store
in preferred prime minister ratings to begin with. It's actually
I think that the right track wrong track polling result
for the country, how people feel the country is going
(03:02):
as a whole, that matters a lot more. And actually
that hasn't been great either. So in the research poll
for orian Z Nashville had it was a pretty bad
result for the country overall, with more people thinking of
the country is on the wrong track and the right track.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
I think that's the one you're actually got to be
more worried about.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
Well, when parties look good in polls, they talk about them.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
When they look bad, they go it's far too early.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
You shouldn't look at poles where you know the old
poles are different.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
I mean, where do you sit on them?
Speaker 5 (03:31):
The poles are at tool right I think that you know,
you can deinitely discern patterns from them, and historically from
about this time, the poles are really useful for sort
of setting the basic expectations.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
About what the electioneer is going to be like.
Speaker 5 (03:49):
So it's not that common to have dramatic pole movements
from here on out unless there are dramatic events that occur.
So we basically have the setting of what the election
is going to look like. And it's kind of new
territory for National in a lot of ways. So I
remember in two thousand and eight it felt like every
time there was a bad poll, Hallo Clark was coming
(04:11):
out and saying, I think there might be a rogue,
but you know, we mostly have ten rogue polls in
a row. They're not rogues. That's the pattern. And so
what the pattern we have now is that we have
an extremely close election in terms of a left.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Block and a right block which are fairly well defined.
Speaker 5 (04:29):
But as part of that pattern, National is behind Labor.
So you might remember that in twenty and seventeen there
was a lot of talk about the idea of it
being politically unacceptable for the largest party not to innform
the government.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
The idea was that National came.
Speaker 5 (04:45):
First in terms of a relative majority of the party
vote and the seats, but the Labor, the coalition Labor
sit together with Winston Peters, you know, it had more
seats of parliament, so it became the government. And there
was a lot of outcry that, especially from National voters,
and the term coalition of losers was thrown around a lot.
(05:05):
And I can tell you something, you will not be
hearing that from National this time around, you know. So,
I think we are in an unusual position.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
We're National.
Speaker 5 (05:13):
It does you know, Like I don't mean to suggest
by any means that National is definitely going to lose
the election.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
I don't think that's not certain at all.
Speaker 5 (05:25):
But there's a real possibility that National might be re elected,
but only as the second largest party in parliament. That's
a really uncomfortable position for the party.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Yeah, well, they do rely a lot on the Act
and New Zealand First voter base.
Speaker 4 (05:37):
How are those parties.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
Doing they're holding up?
Speaker 5 (05:41):
I mean, there's a there's a good argument I think
that Act in New Zealand First are like the parasite
that's killing the host.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Right.
Speaker 5 (05:49):
So normally and once you have your first term over
and done with. There's normally a couple of things that
are in play. First of all, the main opposition party
is in disarray, sciplined, that's had leadership directions. It doesn't
look like an alternative government. Secondly, the support parties have
tended to be on pretty good behavior for the last
(06:10):
two and a half years because they want to prove
that they can given and they lose their distinctiveness. So
what you tend to have is a collapse of the
wings and the center on the other side, and the
incumbent government normally gets a big premium, it gets a
big boost, which is why the first reelection has normally
been a bit of a gimmei in New Zealand politics,
(06:30):
and all the record breaking party votes have tended to
have come in that first reelection sort of a thing.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
This time, this is the first time this hasn't happened,
and part.
Speaker 5 (06:40):
Of the reason is that New Zealand First and Act
have been very clever or they have worked out that
the way to survive in government as a small party
is to push the limit of collegiality, to make themselves
look different all the time, to maintain their sort of
bad boy sort of status.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Within the government and both parties.
Speaker 5 (07:03):
Have done that and as a result, they're both unusually strong.
It's the first time for Zealand that we've had a
genuine coalition looking for reelection where the minor parties have
really increased in strength, and a lot of that's come
to the detriment of the National Party. Giving an example
of how that's happened, right, So it's definitely the case
(07:24):
that National has struggled to retain that centrist votes over
things like the.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
Treaty Principal's Bill.
Speaker 5 (07:33):
Right, So, the Treaty Principle's Bill, Core Act Promise completely
doomed legislation. It was never going to pass in a
million years because National didn't support it. And yet because
Act insisted on it, insisted on having the argument, insisted
on it being high profile, National had to watch what
it said. It had to be diplomatic in a way
the Act didn't. They couldn't really criticize the bill and
(07:57):
it lost a whole lot of centrist voters as a result,
while At got to look good for its own base.
And I think that's what's happened. What's happened is that
the minor parties have figured out how to survive and
a lot of that expenses come to come from National.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Right, and they figured out how to survive and also
dodged the whole coalition of chaos situation that we were
promised as well, because that's not really happened, let's be honest.
Speaker 5 (08:22):
Yeah, well they haven't. The way I would say it
is they have. They have. They haven't been afraid to
mark their territory and to push back at National I
think that they've kind of embraced the chaos. I think
this is the most incoherent government that we've ever had
because you've had you've got three coalition parties, not confidence
(08:44):
and supply, full coalition parties which buck each other and
criticize each other as much as you know, not quite
as much as parties do in opposition, but to a
to a great extent. The downs well, you know the
thing that Labor might be enjoying that, and I'm sure
that they are at the moment, but I think the
(09:04):
problem is with the template being set, Labour is not
going to get in on its own. Labour is going
to have the Greens and to Party Malory they are
supporting it if it gets in, and to Party Moldy
and the Greens we'll have learned the same lesson. So
I think this is the new normal in New Zealand politics.
We are going to have coalitions which don't mind criticizing
each other, and which the small parties will prosper at
(09:27):
the expense.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
Of the large ones.
Speaker 6 (09:35):
Simply, the commitment that I've made to New Zealander is
that we will respond to this crisis in a way
that doesn't put more pressure on inflation, because we know
that that will worsen price increases across the economy for
everyone and potentially increase the duration of these price increases.
We saw that after COVID inflation stayed out of control
(09:55):
for thirty three months in a row and reached into
generational highs. Because as I've said, we are living in
a more fragile world, international borrowing costs are rising, they
are not decreasing, and New Zealand is already coming very
close to its debt limits.
Speaker 4 (10:13):
Well, let's get onto the current fuel crisis.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
I can't help but notice actually that Nicola Willis has
fronted a lot of the public media regarding the fuel crisis.
Luxeon was even over in the Pacific the other week
Nicola Willis was fronting it alone. You've got Shane Jones
brought in as well to be kind of like a
voice of reason, which is something that Shane Jones. You know,
it's surprising. Do you reckon that's all intentional? Do you
(10:38):
think do people like Nicola Moore?
Speaker 5 (10:40):
Well, I don't think that Crystal Luxon went to the Pacific,
you know, to avoid having a front it.
Speaker 4 (10:46):
I mean, well he could have.
Speaker 5 (10:47):
He could have called it off though, right, Yeah, I
mean these foreign trips organize a long time in advance.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
I'm sure that he I'm sure that he was relieved
not having it to front it.
Speaker 5 (10:57):
Yeah, but you know, Nicola after luxaid. Nichola Willis is
after all the finance minister. It would normally fall to
any any deputy to be the one to give the
bad news. Right, It's not normally the case that the
leader likes to give the bad news. That's true and
all aspects of human endeavors. That's why it was always
(11:18):
the deputy principle who you got sent to when you
were naughty at skill, instead of the principle. Right, it's
the same sort of dynamics.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
It's an on one situation for the government. Though. That's
the problem. This is this fuel.
Speaker 5 (11:32):
The fuel prices are the serious danger for the government,
and the reason is that it doesn't It has no
control over the situation. The situation has been caused by
a war that the government didn't choose. But also, the
government can't really criticize the decision to initiate that war,
because if they do, then not only might we have
(11:53):
high fuel prices, but we might get on the radar
or someone who's pretty happy about slapping tariffs on trade partners.
So you know, we can't criticize the we can't criticize
the war. We can't criticize the decisions that lead to
the war, but we have to eat the consequences of that.
And the government therefore is just fronting things without the
(12:15):
ability to blame other parties and without really any solution
to the problem.
Speaker 4 (12:20):
What do you make of Labor?
Speaker 2 (12:22):
I mean, I know that labor went through the COVID
crisis and that was no fault of their own either,
But does the government have a leg to stand on
when it says we don't have any control over the
war in the Middle East? Now, given all the grief.
Speaker 5 (12:37):
It's a completely different type of crisis. So the COVID,
the COVID crisis was an ability for a government to
showcase action, to lay out a plan to get people
to rally behind it. And whether it's true or not
nineteen to think is not so true. There was a
sense of national pride about the idea that we were
winning the pandemic compared to other country. So that.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
Was what really turbocharged labor to a historical victory.
Speaker 5 (13:06):
The correct comparison is to the broader inflationary pressures of
twenty twenty three, something that labor did contribute to greatly
but didn't fully cause. Labor didn't cause that ship to
get stuck sideways in the service canal right, But the inflation,
whether or and fl inflation, was happening around the world,
and there was always an easy ability to appoint to
(13:28):
the fact that there were global pressures causing inflation. The
voters didn't care. The voters don't care about that excuses
for inflation. Inflation is the incumbent killer, and labor was crucified.
It was the first MMP government not to win a
third term, largely because of those costs of living pressures
you know, and you know I should disclose By the way,
(13:50):
I'm a National Party supporter.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
I'm on the center, right. You know, we might now face.
Speaker 5 (13:55):
The first MMP government not to be re elected again
because of cost of living and inflation and those.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
Types of things, and so.
Speaker 5 (14:05):
It is a very dangerous spot for national being and
no one stands to gain more from those pressures being relieved.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
The crystal reluxan Is there anything that the government can
do in order to combat the cost of living without
chucking a whole bunch of money into the economy and
creating an inflationary bonfire and just fueling it.
Speaker 4 (14:29):
With cash grabs and things. I mean, that's not the
way to do it. So how will the votere be happy?
Speaker 3 (14:36):
Here's very little.
Speaker 5 (14:36):
I mean, for part of being a grown up is
just accepting that sometimes there are such things as no
one situations, situations that have to be endured rather than
rather than there's no clever, instant way out of it.
You know, it wasn't like the Labor government didn't try
to escape the inflationary trap in twenty twenty three. The
(14:57):
problem is is that the solutions that you offer, help
that you offer is temporary, but it's also quickly consumed
by events all right, So if the government makes fifty
dollars more available and waiting.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
For families, you know, for a period, well.
Speaker 5 (15:11):
Okay, that might help cover you know, a couple of
weeks worth of fuel increases, but pretty soon that's been
eaten up and people still feel miserable. You know, there's
not a lot that you can actually do because people
tend to assimilate the baseline support into their default expectation
and they don't become happy all of a sudden just
because they are suffering.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
A little bit less than they're otherwise.
Speaker 5 (15:34):
Well, if the government wants to take the initiative, it's
going to take the initiative by driving a wedge between
voters and labor on issues.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
Other to do other than to do with the economy.
Speaker 5 (15:44):
So Christina Luxen, I think, is someone who has always
put great store a personal store. And he said this
that he doesn't like negative campaigning. He doesn't like to
campaign in a negative way about his opponents. I think
that freight a little bit in his first term as
Bridan like, I think you started to see a bit
of a creeping in of taking a more critical approach.
(16:05):
But the one thing that National does have is that
the opposite coalition is potentially very unpopular too.
Speaker 3 (16:13):
And it's not so much Labor voters.
Speaker 5 (16:15):
Can see Christopher Pipkins as a potential prime minister because
he's done the job before. He's already cleared that hurdle.
But what you do have is you have a Labor
Party that is going to be very reliant on Party
Malory to form a coalition government. Tabarti Maldi has had
a dream run from the news media in the last
sort of four or five years where it staked out
(16:38):
political positions which are completely toxic to the general population.
But for whatever reason, they sort of had a lot
of kid sort of kid glove treatment from the media
on it, and they've been pushing an open door and
become bolder and bolder. And so if national wants to say, right, look,
you know, you might be a bit grumpy about the economy,
but this is the alternative alternatives. You have a government
(17:00):
that is made up of of of of these extremist
views having a seat around the table. And then then
at least puts Christopher Hopkins on the back foot to
to to to annoy his own base by trying to
marginalize to Party Moldy or to look unconvincing to the
(17:21):
voters by refusing to distance himself from those views. That
that is how National often played the difference between Labor
and the Green Parties and elections gone by. I think
the Green Party has been around long enough then it's
it's got.
Speaker 3 (17:38):
A strong enough brand.
Speaker 5 (17:39):
It's sort of people are usedful enough that you can't
demonize or use the Greens in that way. But you
certainly can with to Party Moldy. I think, and and
and there's no question that Labored is the same for
for Act. But I'm not sure that National really has
the stomach to sort of campaign in that way.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
Well, that's what I was going to say.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
What's the likelihood of Crew for coming out here and
calling to party Maori extremists?
Speaker 4 (18:03):
You know, I don't. I can't see that happening.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
It's hard to see it happening. And in some ways
it's not really clear if he could do it.
Speaker 5 (18:14):
You know, voters have Politicians have to be authentic, They
have to be authentic to themselves.
Speaker 4 (18:19):
Is he authentic enough?
Speaker 3 (18:21):
Listen? He is? He actually is?
Speaker 5 (18:23):
He is.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
I think that he is who he is the business talk.
Speaker 5 (18:29):
That is his background, and that's what comes through and
if he tries to be something other than what he is,
it's not going to work.
Speaker 3 (18:38):
That's where Yeah. But the problem is is that and is.
Speaker 5 (18:41):
That that's probably a very good prime minister for growth times.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
That's a prime minister.
Speaker 5 (18:46):
You know that that kind of persona probably does a
lot better I when sailing is a lot smoother than
it does when things are difficult, because you know when
things if you're a CEO type, then you know when
things are going strong. The CEO type manifests itself as
sort of competence capability guy knows what he's doing when
(19:09):
times are going bad, That ceo.
Speaker 3 (19:11):
Sort of archetype.
Speaker 5 (19:13):
It reminds people of the of the person who laid
off their dad, and and that is I think the danger.
But look, you have to play the cards you dealt with,
you know, you just you have to and don't try
to be someone who're not. You've just got to go
to the strength that you have, and you have to
perhaps look to elevate those members of your team who
(19:34):
can be more that more negative politicians, the more negative
soul of campaigning, they might have to take a more
prominent role.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
You can appreciate people would have liked to see more
help from the government, but the truth is labor got
the government's credit card. They maxed it out, and now
we're in a very tough position. We can't do much
more because they do too much more during COVID. What
we are assuring is that we do not needlessly add
to inflation and interest rates without of control spending. We
(20:09):
saw that for years.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
People are still paying for it.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
One of the reasons that we went into this in
a challenging situation is because of the last response to
a crisis that was totally overblown.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
And just quickly, just lastly, I don't know if you
saw this, but would you spend ten thousand dollars to
sit next to the prime minister at a fundraising dinner?
Speaker 4 (20:33):
Did you see it?
Speaker 2 (20:34):
So basically this is the this is the invite. It's
been making the rounds online. It's basically Mari and Pugh.
It seems to be I mean, she posted it.
Speaker 4 (20:43):
Now she's deleted it. We don't know whether it was
it was an accident or not.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Basically, this fundraising dinner tables started around five thousand dollars.
You can sit with the cabinet minister or a National
Party president for eight thousand dollars, and you considered a
table with Christopher Luxen and myself for ten thousand dollars.
People have been saying that this is very much selling access.
If you've got the money, you get closer to power.
But then others say, well, this is just your regular
(21:07):
fundraising event.
Speaker 4 (21:08):
What do you make of it?
Speaker 3 (21:09):
There is absoutely nothing new about it.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
In effect, it's just us poor people don't know about
this event.
Speaker 5 (21:17):
Take you five seconds to google that the exact same
sort of fundraiser happened just under our doing a grant Robinson,
you know, we look, Look, I have paid money to
go to events where I'm gonna pay ten thousand dollars.
I've paid money to go to events with politicians from
(21:38):
both sides, all right, from both Labor and national and
national Labor and National party governments.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
It's it's very much. I suppose a.
Speaker 4 (21:49):
Donation, Yeah, what do you get out of it?
Speaker 5 (21:53):
Well, you know it's a donation, right, It's a way
of donating money, isn't it. I suppose Yeah, if the
prime minister involved has a huge amount of celebrity power,
and it's the type of thing that you might like
to brag about then you get to get that. I'm
not quite sure that the market rate for the celebrity
(22:15):
power of Crystal Luxon is quite eight ten thousand dollars though.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
We won't be seeing pictures on LinkedIn with Chris Luxon
having having your beef bullet, you know, meat balls.
Speaker 4 (22:26):
I don't know what do they serve at those things?
Speaker 3 (22:29):
Yeah, but there is.
Speaker 5 (22:30):
A broader I think there's a much there's a broader
question right about about about how we fund the political
parties and how we manage.
Speaker 4 (22:39):
It or even accessibility as well.
Speaker 7 (22:41):
Yeah, but that is that's how political parties have always
been funded. Now, I've written in the past about different
ways to handle this, and I think that a better
regime would be some sort of would be an enforced anonymity.
Speaker 3 (22:56):
It should become impossible to donate to a political party
in a way the political party can trace your donation.
And there are ways that you can do that.
Speaker 5 (23:04):
And the way that it would work, Look, you could
the way that it would work for something like this
is that you pay for the cost of your meal,
right that's and then you make a donation on top
of that, and there's no way of the political party
knowing what the donation was or wasn't, But that look
that that that that that takes a fundamental rethink of
(23:27):
the of the whole lictoral system. But the reality is
that this taxpayers are going to sump up for the
amount of money that parties need to exist, and.
Speaker 3 (23:35):
Then then there's no alternative.
Speaker 5 (23:38):
Party is just going to have to go to where
the money is to get the money to exist.
Speaker 4 (23:42):
Thanks for joining us, Liam.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
Oh my absolute pleasure anytime.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzid Herald dot co dot nz. The Front Page
is hosted and by me Chelsea Daniels Caine. Dicky is
our studio operator, Richard Martin, our producer and editor, and
our executive producer.
Speaker 4 (24:08):
Is Jane Ye.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Follow the Front Page on the iheartapp or wherever you
get your podcasts, and join us next time for another
look beyond the headlines.
Kiota.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. It's a
trying time for the government, with fuel prices and the
Iran War affecting just about every keyw It's something the
opposition knows all too well, handling a crisis not of
(00:26):
their own making with COVID. But how are politicians of
all stripes handling the pressure? How is the public feeling
about their performance? And how much weight should we put
on polls anyway? Are they all nonsense or are we
told to only ignore them? What a party's doing poorly?
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Today?
Speaker 2 (00:46):
On the Front Page, lawyer and political commentator Liam Hare
is with us to talk politics, polls and policy. So
Liam National slipped further behind Labor in the latest ron
z Read Research poll. They're at thirty point eight percent
and that, granted, not as bad as the twenty eight
(01:06):
point four percent the other week that we saw.
Speaker 4 (01:08):
What do you make of this?
Speaker 5 (01:10):
Well, well, no one pole matters too much, you know,
the poles will bounce around of it. It's the direction
of travel that that really matters. It's the overall trajectory
and that's not good. So a poll that has them
just about thirty percent is not a whole lot better
than a pole that has them just below thirty percent.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
If the direction of travel is bad, and the direction
of travel is not good for National at.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
The moment, well, Luxein's are also recorded as lowest personal
approval rating yet that's at seventeen point three percent. It's
this weakest result since becoming national leader.
Speaker 4 (01:43):
Actually in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 5 (01:45):
Should he be worried, he should be worried about losing
the election.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
I don't think he needs to be worried about.
Speaker 5 (01:50):
Losing the National Party leadership, not this close to the election,
not when there isn't a already made Jacindra Adurn waiting
in the wings to step in and take over. But
leadership often correlates very strongly with overall party performance. Not
always there can be a divergence, but as all of
(02:13):
a piece. Really, nothing succeeds like success, nothing fixes problems
like winning in the same time.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
When things go wrong, they tend to go wrong all
at once.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Yeah, well, I do think about former national leaders have
rated much worse you've got Judith Collins, twenty twenty, Simon
Bridges twenty nineteen granted they were both in opposition then,
but you know, at what ratings should he at least
start to get a bit worried about someone coming in
and rolling in.
Speaker 5 (02:41):
I don't think he needs to be too worried about
the preferred prime minister ratings as such at all, as
long as there's no one who's really making Sucainey grounds
right behind him. I've never put a lot of store
in preferred prime minister ratings to begin with. It's actually
I think that the right track wrong track polling result
for the country, how people feel the country is going
(03:02):
as a whole, that matters a lot more. And actually
that hasn't been great either. So in the research poll
for orian Z Nashville had it was a pretty bad
result for the country overall, with more people thinking of
the country is on the wrong track and the right track.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
I think that's the one you're actually got to be
more worried about.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
Well, when parties look good in polls, they talk about them.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
When they look bad, they go it's far too early.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
You shouldn't look at poles where you know the old
poles are different.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
I mean, where do you sit on them?
Speaker 5 (03:31):
The poles are at tool right I think that you know,
you can deinitely discern patterns from them, and historically from
about this time, the poles are really useful for sort
of setting the basic expectations.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
About what the electioneer is going to be like.
Speaker 5 (03:49):
So it's not that common to have dramatic pole movements
from here on out unless there are dramatic events that occur.
So we basically have the setting of what the election
is going to look like. And it's kind of new
territory for National in a lot of ways. So I
remember in two thousand and eight it felt like every
time there was a bad poll, Hallo Clark was coming
(04:11):
out and saying, I think there might be a rogue,
but you know, we mostly have ten rogue polls in
a row. They're not rogues. That's the pattern. And so
what the pattern we have now is that we have
an extremely close election in terms of a left.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Block and a right block which are fairly well defined.
Speaker 5 (04:29):
But as part of that pattern, National is behind Labor.
So you might remember that in twenty and seventeen there
was a lot of talk about the idea of it
being politically unacceptable for the largest party not to innform
the government.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
The idea was that National came.
Speaker 5 (04:45):
First in terms of a relative majority of the party
vote and the seats, but the Labor, the coalition Labor
sit together with Winston Peters, you know, it had more
seats of parliament, so it became the government. And there
was a lot of outcry that, especially from National voters,
and the term coalition of losers was thrown around a lot.
(05:05):
And I can tell you something, you will not be
hearing that from National this time around, you know. So,
I think we are in an unusual position.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
We're National.
Speaker 5 (05:13):
It does you know, Like I don't mean to suggest
by any means that National is definitely going to lose
the election.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
I don't think that's not certain at all.
Speaker 5 (05:25):
But there's a real possibility that National might be re elected,
but only as the second largest party in parliament. That's
a really uncomfortable position for the party.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Yeah, well, they do rely a lot on the Act
and New Zealand First voter base.
Speaker 4 (05:37):
How are those parties.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
Doing they're holding up?
Speaker 5 (05:41):
I mean, there's a there's a good argument I think
that Act in New Zealand First are like the parasite
that's killing the host.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Right.
Speaker 5 (05:49):
So normally and once you have your first term over
and done with. There's normally a couple of things that
are in play. First of all, the main opposition party
is in disarray, sciplined, that's had leadership directions. It doesn't
look like an alternative government. Secondly, the support parties have
tended to be on pretty good behavior for the last
(06:10):
two and a half years because they want to prove
that they can given and they lose their distinctiveness. So
what you tend to have is a collapse of the
wings and the center on the other side, and the
incumbent government normally gets a big premium, it gets a
big boost, which is why the first reelection has normally
been a bit of a gimmei in New Zealand politics,
(06:30):
and all the record breaking party votes have tended to
have come in that first reelection sort of a thing.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
This time, this is the first time this hasn't happened,
and part.
Speaker 5 (06:40):
Of the reason is that New Zealand First and Act
have been very clever or they have worked out that
the way to survive in government as a small party
is to push the limit of collegiality, to make themselves
look different all the time, to maintain their sort of
bad boy sort of status.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Within the government and both parties.
Speaker 5 (07:03):
Have done that and as a result, they're both unusually strong.
It's the first time for Zealand that we've had a
genuine coalition looking for reelection where the minor parties have
really increased in strength, and a lot of that's come
to the detriment of the National Party. Giving an example
of how that's happened, right, So it's definitely the case
(07:24):
that National has struggled to retain that centrist votes over
things like the.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
Treaty Principal's Bill.
Speaker 5 (07:33):
Right, So, the Treaty Principle's Bill, Core Act Promise completely
doomed legislation. It was never going to pass in a
million years because National didn't support it. And yet because
Act insisted on it, insisted on having the argument, insisted
on it being high profile, National had to watch what
it said. It had to be diplomatic in a way
the Act didn't. They couldn't really criticize the bill and
(07:57):
it lost a whole lot of centrist voters as a result,
while At got to look good for its own base.
And I think that's what's happened. What's happened is that
the minor parties have figured out how to survive and
a lot of that expenses come to come from National.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Right, and they figured out how to survive and also
dodged the whole coalition of chaos situation that we were
promised as well, because that's not really happened, let's be honest.
Speaker 5 (08:22):
Yeah, well they haven't. The way I would say it
is they have. They have. They haven't been afraid to
mark their territory and to push back at National I
think that they've kind of embraced the chaos. I think
this is the most incoherent government that we've ever had
because you've had you've got three coalition parties, not confidence
(08:44):
and supply, full coalition parties which buck each other and
criticize each other as much as you know, not quite
as much as parties do in opposition, but to a
to a great extent. The downs well, you know the
thing that Labor might be enjoying that, and I'm sure
that they are at the moment, but I think the
(09:04):
problem is with the template being set, Labour is not
going to get in on its own. Labour is going
to have the Greens and to Party Malory they are
supporting it if it gets in, and to Party Moldy
and the Greens we'll have learned the same lesson. So
I think this is the new normal in New Zealand politics.
We are going to have coalitions which don't mind criticizing
each other, and which the small parties will prosper at
(09:27):
the expense.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
Of the large ones.
Speaker 6 (09:35):
Simply, the commitment that I've made to New Zealander is
that we will respond to this crisis in a way
that doesn't put more pressure on inflation, because we know
that that will worsen price increases across the economy for
everyone and potentially increase the duration of these price increases.
We saw that after COVID inflation stayed out of control
(09:55):
for thirty three months in a row and reached into
generational highs. Because as I've said, we are living in
a more fragile world, international borrowing costs are rising, they
are not decreasing, and New Zealand is already coming very
close to its debt limits.
Speaker 4 (10:13):
Well, let's get onto the current fuel crisis.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
I can't help but notice actually that Nicola Willis has
fronted a lot of the public media regarding the fuel crisis.
Luxeon was even over in the Pacific the other week
Nicola Willis was fronting it alone. You've got Shane Jones
brought in as well to be kind of like a
voice of reason, which is something that Shane Jones. You know,
it's surprising. Do you reckon that's all intentional? Do you
(10:38):
think do people like Nicola Moore?
Speaker 5 (10:40):
Well, I don't think that Crystal Luxon went to the Pacific,
you know, to avoid having a front it.
Speaker 4 (10:46):
I mean, well he could have.
Speaker 5 (10:47):
He could have called it off though, right, Yeah, I
mean these foreign trips organize a long time in advance.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
I'm sure that he I'm sure that he was relieved
not having it to front it.
Speaker 5 (10:57):
Yeah, but you know, Nicola after luxaid. Nichola Willis is
after all the finance minister. It would normally fall to
any any deputy to be the one to give the
bad news. Right, It's not normally the case that the
leader likes to give the bad news. That's true and
all aspects of human endeavors. That's why it was always
(11:18):
the deputy principle who you got sent to when you
were naughty at skill, instead of the principle. Right, it's
the same sort of dynamics.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
It's an on one situation for the government. Though. That's
the problem. This is this fuel.
Speaker 5 (11:32):
The fuel prices are the serious danger for the government,
and the reason is that it doesn't It has no
control over the situation. The situation has been caused by
a war that the government didn't choose. But also, the
government can't really criticize the decision to initiate that war,
because if they do, then not only might we have
(11:53):
high fuel prices, but we might get on the radar
or someone who's pretty happy about slapping tariffs on trade partners.
So you know, we can't criticize the we can't criticize
the war. We can't criticize the decisions that lead to
the war, but we have to eat the consequences of that.
And the government therefore is just fronting things without the
(12:15):
ability to blame other parties and without really any solution
to the problem.
Speaker 4 (12:20):
What do you make of Labor?
Speaker 2 (12:22):
I mean, I know that labor went through the COVID
crisis and that was no fault of their own either,
But does the government have a leg to stand on
when it says we don't have any control over the
war in the Middle East? Now, given all the grief.
Speaker 5 (12:37):
It's a completely different type of crisis. So the COVID,
the COVID crisis was an ability for a government to
showcase action, to lay out a plan to get people
to rally behind it. And whether it's true or not
nineteen to think is not so true. There was a
sense of national pride about the idea that we were
winning the pandemic compared to other country. So that.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
Was what really turbocharged labor to a historical victory.
Speaker 5 (13:06):
The correct comparison is to the broader inflationary pressures of
twenty twenty three, something that labor did contribute to greatly
but didn't fully cause. Labor didn't cause that ship to
get stuck sideways in the service canal right, But the inflation,
whether or and fl inflation, was happening around the world,
and there was always an easy ability to appoint to
(13:28):
the fact that there were global pressures causing inflation. The
voters didn't care. The voters don't care about that excuses
for inflation. Inflation is the incumbent killer, and labor was crucified.
It was the first MMP government not to win a
third term, largely because of those costs of living pressures
you know, and you know I should disclose By the way,
(13:50):
I'm a National Party supporter.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
I'm on the center, right. You know, we might now face.
Speaker 5 (13:55):
The first MMP government not to be re elected again
because of cost of living and inflation and those.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
Types of things, and so.
Speaker 5 (14:05):
It is a very dangerous spot for national being and
no one stands to gain more from those pressures being relieved.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
The crystal reluxan Is there anything that the government can
do in order to combat the cost of living without
chucking a whole bunch of money into the economy and
creating an inflationary bonfire and just fueling it.
Speaker 4 (14:29):
With cash grabs and things. I mean, that's not the
way to do it. So how will the votere be happy?
Speaker 3 (14:36):
Here's very little.
Speaker 5 (14:36):
I mean, for part of being a grown up is
just accepting that sometimes there are such things as no
one situations, situations that have to be endured rather than
rather than there's no clever, instant way out of it.
You know, it wasn't like the Labor government didn't try
to escape the inflationary trap in twenty twenty three. The
(14:57):
problem is is that the solutions that you offer, help
that you offer is temporary, but it's also quickly consumed
by events all right, So if the government makes fifty
dollars more available and waiting.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
For families, you know, for a period, well.
Speaker 5 (15:11):
Okay, that might help cover you know, a couple of
weeks worth of fuel increases, but pretty soon that's been
eaten up and people still feel miserable. You know, there's
not a lot that you can actually do because people
tend to assimilate the baseline support into their default expectation
and they don't become happy all of a sudden just
because they are suffering.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
A little bit less than they're otherwise.
Speaker 5 (15:34):
Well, if the government wants to take the initiative, it's
going to take the initiative by driving a wedge between
voters and labor on issues.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
Other to do other than to do with the economy.
Speaker 5 (15:44):
So Christina Luxen, I think, is someone who has always
put great store a personal store. And he said this
that he doesn't like negative campaigning. He doesn't like to
campaign in a negative way about his opponents. I think
that freight a little bit in his first term as
Bridan like, I think you started to see a bit
of a creeping in of taking a more critical approach.
(16:05):
But the one thing that National does have is that
the opposite coalition is potentially very unpopular too.
Speaker 3 (16:13):
And it's not so much Labor voters.
Speaker 5 (16:15):
Can see Christopher Pipkins as a potential prime minister because
he's done the job before. He's already cleared that hurdle.
But what you do have is you have a Labor
Party that is going to be very reliant on Party
Malory to form a coalition government. Tabarti Maldi has had
a dream run from the news media in the last
sort of four or five years where it staked out
(16:38):
political positions which are completely toxic to the general population.
But for whatever reason, they sort of had a lot
of kid sort of kid glove treatment from the media
on it, and they've been pushing an open door and
become bolder and bolder. And so if national wants to say, right, look,
you know, you might be a bit grumpy about the economy,
but this is the alternative alternatives. You have a government
(17:00):
that is made up of of of of these extremist
views having a seat around the table. And then then
at least puts Christopher Hopkins on the back foot to
to to to annoy his own base by trying to
marginalize to Party Moldy or to look unconvincing to the
(17:21):
voters by refusing to distance himself from those views. That
that is how National often played the difference between Labor
and the Green Parties and elections gone by. I think
the Green Party has been around long enough then it's
it's got.
Speaker 3 (17:38):
A strong enough brand.
Speaker 5 (17:39):
It's sort of people are usedful enough that you can't
demonize or use the Greens in that way. But you
certainly can with to Party Moldy. I think, and and
and there's no question that Labored is the same for
for Act. But I'm not sure that National really has
the stomach to sort of campaign in that way.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
Well, that's what I was going to say.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
What's the likelihood of Crew for coming out here and
calling to party Maori extremists?
Speaker 4 (18:03):
You know, I don't. I can't see that happening.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
It's hard to see it happening. And in some ways
it's not really clear if he could do it.
Speaker 5 (18:14):
You know, voters have Politicians have to be authentic, They
have to be authentic to themselves.
Speaker 4 (18:19):
Is he authentic enough?
Speaker 3 (18:21):
Listen? He is? He actually is?
Speaker 5 (18:23):
He is.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
I think that he is who he is the business talk.
Speaker 5 (18:29):
That is his background, and that's what comes through and
if he tries to be something other than what he is,
it's not going to work.
Speaker 3 (18:38):
That's where Yeah. But the problem is is that and is.
Speaker 5 (18:41):
That that's probably a very good prime minister for growth times.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
That's a prime minister.
Speaker 5 (18:46):
You know that that kind of persona probably does a
lot better I when sailing is a lot smoother than
it does when things are difficult, because you know when
things if you're a CEO type, then you know when
things are going strong. The CEO type manifests itself as
sort of competence capability guy knows what he's doing when
(19:09):
times are going bad, That ceo.
Speaker 3 (19:11):
Sort of archetype.
Speaker 5 (19:13):
It reminds people of the of the person who laid
off their dad, and and that is I think the danger.
But look, you have to play the cards you dealt with,
you know, you just you have to and don't try
to be someone who're not. You've just got to go
to the strength that you have, and you have to
perhaps look to elevate those members of your team who
(19:34):
can be more that more negative politicians, the more negative
soul of campaigning, they might have to take a more
prominent role.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
You can appreciate people would have liked to see more
help from the government, but the truth is labor got
the government's credit card. They maxed it out, and now
we're in a very tough position. We can't do much
more because they do too much more during COVID. What
we are assuring is that we do not needlessly add
to inflation and interest rates without of control spending. We
(20:09):
saw that for years.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
People are still paying for it.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
One of the reasons that we went into this in
a challenging situation is because of the last response to
a crisis that was totally overblown.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
And just quickly, just lastly, I don't know if you
saw this, but would you spend ten thousand dollars to
sit next to the prime minister at a fundraising dinner?
Speaker 4 (20:33):
Did you see it?
Speaker 2 (20:34):
So basically this is the this is the invite. It's
been making the rounds online. It's basically Mari and Pugh.
It seems to be I mean, she posted it.
Speaker 4 (20:43):
Now she's deleted it. We don't know whether it was
it was an accident or not.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Basically, this fundraising dinner tables started around five thousand dollars.
You can sit with the cabinet minister or a National
Party president for eight thousand dollars, and you considered a
table with Christopher Luxen and myself for ten thousand dollars.
People have been saying that this is very much selling access.
If you've got the money, you get closer to power.
But then others say, well, this is just your regular
(21:07):
fundraising event.
Speaker 4 (21:08):
What do you make of it?
Speaker 3 (21:09):
There is absoutely nothing new about it.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
In effect, it's just us poor people don't know about
this event.
Speaker 5 (21:17):
Take you five seconds to google that the exact same
sort of fundraiser happened just under our doing a grant Robinson,
you know, we look, Look, I have paid money to
go to events where I'm gonna pay ten thousand dollars.
I've paid money to go to events with politicians from
(21:38):
both sides, all right, from both Labor and national and
national Labor and National party governments.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
It's it's very much. I suppose a.
Speaker 4 (21:49):
Donation, Yeah, what do you get out of it?
Speaker 5 (21:53):
Well, you know it's a donation, right, It's a way
of donating money, isn't it. I suppose Yeah, if the
prime minister involved has a huge amount of celebrity power,
and it's the type of thing that you might like
to brag about then you get to get that. I'm
not quite sure that the market rate for the celebrity
(22:15):
power of Crystal Luxon is quite eight ten thousand dollars though.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
We won't be seeing pictures on LinkedIn with Chris Luxon
having having your beef bullet, you know, meat balls.
Speaker 4 (22:26):
I don't know what do they serve at those things?
Speaker 3 (22:29):
Yeah, but there is.
Speaker 5 (22:30):
A broader I think there's a much there's a broader
question right about about about how we fund the political
parties and how we manage.
Speaker 4 (22:39):
It or even accessibility as well.
Speaker 7 (22:41):
Yeah, but that is that's how political parties have always
been funded. Now, I've written in the past about different
ways to handle this, and I think that a better
regime would be some sort of would be an enforced anonymity.
Speaker 3 (22:56):
It should become impossible to donate to a political party
in a way the political party can trace your donation.
And there are ways that you can do that.
Speaker 5 (23:04):
And the way that it would work, Look, you could
the way that it would work for something like this
is that you pay for the cost of your meal,
right that's and then you make a donation on top
of that, and there's no way of the political party
knowing what the donation was or wasn't, But that look
that that that that that takes a fundamental rethink of
(23:27):
the of the whole lictoral system. But the reality is
that this taxpayers are going to sump up for the
amount of money that parties need to exist, and.
Speaker 3 (23:35):
Then then there's no alternative.
Speaker 5 (23:38):
Party is just going to have to go to where
the money is to get the money to exist.
Speaker 4 (23:42):
Thanks for joining us, Liam.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
Oh my absolute pleasure anytime.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzid Herald dot co dot nz. The Front Page
is hosted and by me Chelsea Daniels Caine. Dicky is
our studio operator, Richard Martin, our producer and editor, and
our executive producer.
Speaker 4 (24:08):
Is Jane Ye.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Follow the Front Page on the iheartapp or wherever you
get your podcasts, and join us next time for another
look beyond the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com