In the wake of the provisional election results and the divisions across the country they revealed there has been much talk of the need for more co-operation between parties on long-term issues and the things they agree on.

That approach has been part of the mantra of the Opportunity Party since the outset of its election campaign. It picked up on deepening public sentiment that since the end of the Covid-era “team of five million” conformity, and the difficult economic and social recovery subsequently, our society’s divisions have become more pronounced and obvious than at any time probably since the Great Depression.

In their post-election comments, the leaders of both the National and Labour parties have acknowledged this theme, each promising more cross-party collaboration if they lead the next government. The Opportunity Party has identified education, health and infrastructure as areas ripe for such cross-party co-operation.

Certainly, there is an overwhelming logic for this happening in an area like infrastructure development. The long-term nature of such projects means that they always span the life of many governments and therefore cannot tolerate the stop-start approach depending on who the government is (an approach the Greens still adhere to when it comes to building roads) that has too often been the case in New Zealand’s past. Steps taken by both National and Labour during the last Parliament to ensure durable longer-term bipartisan commitments were welcome progress which should be built on, whoever forms the next government.

Infrastructure development is tangible – its success can be measured by the nature of projects consented, commenced and completed within a given period. But it is not quite so simple when it comes to health and education, although both have equally long-term time frames.

There would certainly be merit in broad bipartisan agreement on the general direction of these sectors over say the next ten years, but the inherently more political nature of both – not to mention the power of the vested interests in each which seem to think their priorities should dominate a government’s programme – makes that far more difficult to achieve in practice. Even if there could be multiparty political agreement, breaking the power of the vested interests who have dominated those sectors for too long is still likely to be a near-impossible challenge.

At the same time, many will remember that when National tried to involve Labour in changes to the school curriculum, Labour’s spokesperson did not even bother to reply to the Education Minister’s invitations and then complained about not being involved. Not even the Opportunity Party’s fuzzy warmth about better and more cross-party collaboration will overcome sheer foolishness and prejudice.

Notwithstanding the logic that parties should work together where they can, parties still should continue to develop and champion their own distinctive key policies in these areas. Greater cross-party co-operation, however desirable, cannot be allowed to become a proxy for lowest common denominator politics where parties become too wary or timid of stating principles or promoting bold policies lest that makes potential cross-party agreement subsequently more difficult to achieve. After all, there is little point in different parties, or ultimately even elections themselves, if there is no contest of ideas and the emphasis is instead on the search at all costs for a bland consensus.

An unintended and certainly unexpected consequence of the “team of five million” conformity encouraged for the best of reasons during Covid19 has been the level of wider social dislocation and intolerance we have seen in recent years. Without relitigating those unprecedented times, we should nevertheless appreciate that the drive for greater cross-party co-operation and wider community consensus should not be at the expense of shutting out those who disagree.

In any case, the biggest winners of greater cross-party collaboration in key areas of policy are unlikely to be long-suffering taxpayers, frustrated at the chops and changes in policy whenever a government changes. The biggest winners are far likely to be the bureaucrats who oversee such policies.

More continuity and certainty sound good, and generally desirable objectives but as Yes, Prime Minister’s Sir Humphrey Appleby cynically but correctly observed “A bipartisan policy is one which neither party really believes in.” In his view, bipartisan agreement often meant avoiding difficult decisions rather than resolving them which simply let public servants continue administering things much as they always have done, to their overall delight. There is more than one true word in this fictional satire.

It is undeniable that a clear message from the 2026 election was that voters are tired of the incessant political sniping that dominated the election campaign and the last few years generally. They want to see greater cross-party co-operation where practicable. As they absorb the election result, every party now needs to take this point on board. But as they do so, in the interests of our wider democracy, they must also be mindful not to surrender completely their individual philosophies or brands.

More consensual politics can and should be achieved by parties spending more time working together where they have common ground, rather than forever hunkering down over their divisions.

But it would be naïve and undesirable for Parliament to become no more than an ongoing Kumbaya session.

It is a truism that this has been an extraordinary election campaign. After all the shouting and the tumult of the last three months, there has been very little movement for either of the blocs in that time. Support for the centre-right has barely shifted, while support for the centre-left has moved upwards by less than 1%. After an early surge, support for the newcomer Opportunity Party has slipped back to where it was three months ago, but it could still prove critical in the formation of the next government.

Over recent weeks there has been much talk of the potential impact of the “overhang” – the situation where a party wins more electorate seats than its share of the party vote would normally entitle it to receive. The strategy was initiated by Te Pāti Māori when it announced it would be seeking the electorate vote only in the six electorates it currently holds, and urging its supporters to give their party votes to either Labour or the Greens in the hope of engineering a change of government.

In recent weeks, as National’s support has stalled, some centre-right strategists have been urging a similar approach, calling on centre-right voters to support National candidates with their electorate vote, while giving their party vote to either ACT or New Zealand First to boost the centre-right’s overall chances of re-election. The strategy is based on the likelihood that National will win the largest number of electorate seats, although it has not been endorsed by National. Nor from recent polling is it clear whether it is having any immediate impact on voter behaviour. Nevertheless, the prospect of a National overhang, contrived or otherwise, is very strong.

What is clear though from the historically low polling figures for both National and Labour is that individual electorate contests are likely to have a more significant impact on the election outcome than in previous elections. And that is where the potential for overhangs assumes greater significance.

So, what will it all mean for the overall election results?

An analysis of the 71 electorate seats suggests up to 41 could be held or won by National; 21 by Labour; 4 by the Green Party; 1 or 2 by ACT; 3 by Te Pāti Māori and one by the former Labour, now Independent, candidate in Tamaki Makarau. Labour could add an additional 13 list seats to its total; the
Green Party could gain 14 list MPs, ACT 13, New Zealand First 12 and the Opportunity Party 8. National would receive no list seats.

Based on latest polling figures, such a result could produce a National overhang of 7 seats (its current potential party vote entitlement is 34 seats), and a Te Pāti Māori overhang of 2 seats (its current party vote entitlement is 1 seat). Should the Independent candidate win Tamaki Makarau, she might also be considered as an overhang. However, given that she is on the ballot paper as a Labour candidate, the Electoral Commission is more likely to count her in the Labour column. If she wins, she could reduce Labour’s list seat entitlement by one.

These overhangs would increase the overall size of Parliament from its normal 120 Members to 129 or even 130 Members. Under this scenario the current centre-right coalition would hold 65 seats and the centre-left (including the Opportunity Party) 64 enough for the centre-right to remain in office, but it would hardly be conducive to a stable government. However, if the Opportunity Party were to talk to National – as the largest party – first and reach a deal with them, the centre-right would have a much more comfortable majority.

Of course, all this is speculation, based on current available information. But since elections always have the capacity to produce surprise results, it would be unwise to rule out other possibilities. The one thing all the pollsters and the politicians have agreed on throughout this election season is that it has been an incredibly tight campaign and that every vote – electorate and party – will count towards the outcome, far more than any of the polling data collected over recent months.

As the campaign draws to its end, there is now little more for voters to do other than cast their votes – assuming they are not one of the more than 1.2 million who have done so already – and await the results.  But, whatever happens, many will be left feeling very uneasy that this election will likely be decided less based on policy options put forward by the various parties than on the capacity for overhangs which the MMP system currently allows.

 

 

“National is now in a fight to save the furniture” screamed Radio New Zealand’s headline following the release of its latest poll this week.

The facts, however, tell a rather different story. We all know that individual opinion polls count for very little. They are but a snapshot in time, and not an indicator of a likely election outcome. And we should all know that the trend of polls over time is a much more reliable informant and indicator of a likely election outcome.

Since the start of this year – across all the polls – National has averaged 30% party vote support. Labour has averaged 32% support; the Green Party 11.3%; New Zealand First 9.5%; ACT 8.2% and Te Pāti Māori 2.5%.

But over the last three months, National’s average party vote support has dropped slightly to 29.1%, and Labour’s has fallen more sharply to 28.3%. Support for the Green Party has risen to 13.3%, mostly at Labour’s expense. New Zealand First and ACT are both up – New Zealand First to 10% and ACT to 9.2%. The Opportunity Party, which burst onto the polling scene around the middle of the year, although down from its peak, has averaged 6.6% support over that time.

At the start of the year, the governing centre-right coalition had an average lead of just under 2% over the centre-left. Today, that lead has increased to just under 3%, although it is potentially not enough to enable it to govern without the support of the Opportunity Party.

The overall picture that emerges is one of very little movement in allegiances throughout the year. Support for the centre-right bloc is marginally higher than it was in January, while support for the centre-left has dropped infinitesimally. In both cases, while there have been support shifts within the blocs, the shift in overall support between the blocs has been less than 1%.

A more telling comparison is with the party vote polling averages of the parties in October 2023, immediately before the last election. Then, National was at 35.2%, nearly 7% higher than its comparable October 2026 average figure. But Labour has improved its position only very slightly over the last three years – its October 2026 average figure was 0.5% above its figure three years earlier.

The Green Party has been doing slightly better – its October 2023 figure was 13.1%, compared with 14.9% today. ACT’s progress has been less dramatic – up from 9.5% in October 2023 to 9.9% today. New Zealand First appears to have been the main beneficiary of the decline in National’s support – its October 2023 average was 6.7%, whereas today it is averaging 10.2%. Support for Te Pāti Māori has more than halved from 2.6% to 1.2% today, although this will be offset to some extent by its deliberate electorate vote only strategy.

Support for the centre-right bloc was averaging 51.4% in October 2023, compared to 43% for the centre-left. Today, the centre-right is averaging just under 3% less than three years ago. In contrast, average support for the centre-left bloc is less than 1% higher than it was in October 2023.

There is a further aspect to these figures. At the election on October 14, 2023, National polled nearly 3% higher than its polling average for the preceding month; Labour, the Green Party, ACT and New Zealand First polled marginally less; while Te Pāti Māori did marginally better. If that pattern is repeated at this year’s election, the centre-right bloc could increase its current lead over the centre-left by nearly 3%, which would likely be enough to enable it to form the next government without requiring the support of the Opportunity Party.

A more conservative and less speculative view would be that all these comparisons show that the overall situation is still extremely close, with every party still having everything to play for over the next week. Despite all the dramas of the last three years, public opinion has moved very little in that time. Overall, things are a long way from Radio New Zealand’s ridiculous attention-seeking headline.

As a public broadcaster, with a hitherto proud reputation for journalistic impartiality and professionalism, it should have followed the old principle of checking a few facts first before displaying its prejudices.

Chris Hipkins must be the luckiest man in politics today.

Not only has he scored a magazine cover story just before the election about his forthcoming wedding, but his record as a senior Minister and then Prime Minister during the last Labour government has been overlooked by the media, and curiously also the National Party, when it comes to assessing his suitability to become Prime Minister again after this election.

When the issue of the $2.75 million his predecessor, Jacinda Ardern, signed off on behalf of the government for the Mongrel Mob was raised, Hipkins glibly brushed it off, saying now it was a mistake and something he was not particularly interested in at the time. 

The only problem with that cursory dismissal is that it was not just Ardern who favoured the gangs. When Hipkins was Prime Minister, his Cabinet considered whether and how the gangs could be used and funded to support the government in its fight against ram raids.

Moreover, Hipkins was a senior Minister for over five years in a variety of key portfolios before he became Prime Minister. He was closely involved in all the major decisions of the Ardern government, so he cannot credibly now shrug them off when they are criticised. As the Covid19 Minister he oversaw the prolonged second Auckland lockdown in late 2021that upended so many peoples’ lives. He was the one who briefly suggested Aucklanders' 2021 summer vacations might have to be staggered and even then, only taken with prior government approval.

Earlier, as Education Minister he was responsible for largely surrendering control of curriculum reform to the teacher unions, something the present government has been struggling to overturn. Even during the first leaders' debate this year he made it clear that "educators" (Labour's new euphemism for the teacher unions) and not parents would still have the final say on how and what children are taught, were Labour to be in office again.

Yet for the last three years, and throughout the current election campaign, both the National Party and the media have inexplicably ignored Hipkins' previous indifferent record. Neither have held him to account for his actions in government, yet previous actions are usually the best guide to future performance.

As the man who would be Prime Minister again the generally amiable Hipkins has still not learned why voters tossed his government so unceremoniously from office barely three years ago. Since then, he has given no hint that he would do things any differently were he to become Prime Minister again. And neither National nor the media seem interested or willing to challenge him on this point.

The media's actions in not highlighting Hipkins' previous failures are unforgivable and smack of outright bias. But more inexplicable is National's failure to hold Hipkins to account. That looks like simple ineptitude. They appear to think that it is too negative to keep reminding people of Labour’s time in office, but that overlooks the fact that voters often have short memories that need to be frequently refreshed.

Good political management is not just doing the job and telling the story, but also frequently contrasting that positively with what has gone before to establish a favourable impression in voters’ minds. By the Prime Minister’s own admission, National’s focus over the last three years has been on governing, which is good, but without the compare-and-contrast aspect of retail politics, that focus exists in a vacuum.

On every indicator except unemployment the country is doing better than it was three years ago but National has failed to sell that contrast, leaving the impression that things are little better than when Labour was in office. But had National kept the blowtorch on Hipkins and Labour, as well as governing, over the last three years, and kept reminding voters of what things had been like under the previous government, it is a reasonable assumption that the polling gap between the two blocs would now be far greater than it is today.

Hipkins knows this full well which is why he has kept his head down since the last election. He must be pinching himself with incredulity and delight that the combination of National's political ineptitude, and a pliant media, has left him largely unscathed. Consequently, even though his party is falling in the polls, thanks to the vagaries of the MMP system he now stands a real chance of emulating Keith Holyoake’s hitherto unique feat in 1960 of returning to office as Prime Minister after three years in Opposition.

As the election campaign has unfolded, with little of the usual drama, Hipkins has been allowed to look increasingly like the modern Teflon man, something National may well end up ruing to its cost after the election.

With just over three weeks till election day I am feeling increasingly politically homeless. None of the parties currently in Parliament, or aspiring to be, entice me to vote for them. Their policies are either too much of a muchness, too dislocated and small focused, or in some cases too downright crazy to attract my support.

Having previously been a member of the Labour Party for 22 years, and a Labour MP for over 10 years, I still have some residual interest in its activities. But any passing thought that I could vote for them again vanished during the first leaders' debate when Chris Hipkins made it clear that the teachers' unions, not parents, would be calling the shots on education policy if he were to lead the next government. It reminded me of one of the reasons why I quit the party all those years ago. The constant fixations of imposing higher taxes and always doing what the unions wanted had become just too much for me.

But National simply seems to have lost the plot altogether. The "brighter future" the party used to stand for has become lost in a sea of short-term checklists and management-speak gibberish that encourages no-one. And Chris Bishop's housing intensification drive smacks more of neo-Stalinism than the property-owning democracy National used to stand for.

The smaller parties look no more than a collection of snappy slogans masquerading as principles. Often, they are just a reflection of their leaders’ eccentricities and prejudices. And novice Quilae Wong’s political naivete is exposed when she talks about whom she will be telephoning after the election. In reality, it will be the other way round – the major parties will be the ones calling her if they need the Opportunity Party’s numbers to form a government.

According to TVNZ’s Vote Compass and other similar devices, no party comes close to what I am looking for. Yet I am determined to vote meaningfully at the election because I strongly believe that utilising the right to vote is the most important guarantor of the future of our democracy. It should not be shed lightly.

I am seeking a party that will promote traditional liberal values and reinvigorate the concept of liberal democracy, without all the accompanying ideological baggage that has dragged it down in recent years. It is a quest easier stated than achieved.

For me, the starting point should be a recognition that community values are the essential building blocks of our society. Everything springs from the various communities that make up our country so decisions affecting them should be made at the level closest to them. That means giving substance to the concept of localism and establishing more equal partnerships between central and local governments in delivering the services that impact directly on people’s lives. National talked about supporting localism in 2023 but has moved in exactly the opposite direction since then.

But governments at whatever level should neither be too dominating nor prescriptive. Their maxim should always be as little government as possible, as much government as necessary. However, that should never become a licence for governments to abdicate their social responsibilities completely the way the ACT Party advocates.

Supporting communities inevitably means upholding the absolute right to freedom of expression, choice, belief, and association however distasteful, extreme, or quirky that might be. We should never again tolerate or trust the type of “podium of truth” approach taken during the pandemic, as that was the antithesis of liberal democracy. The paramount right to free and open expression is far more about equalising communities’ opportunities than pandering to the government’s wishes.

At the same time, however, governments have a vital role in weaving the different strands of our ethnic and cultural communities into a unified national story. That story must both recognise our cultural, social, and economic diversities but also promote the common interest ahead of divisions and demonstrate what it means to be a New Zealander today. Striving for social cohesion, which acknowledges diversity but does not promote division the way New Zealand First and Te Pāti Māori are prone to do, should be a national priority. Governments should actively promote a common citizenship or sense of nationhood – something Norman Kirk frequently described as the unique bond we share by virtue of living on these islands.

Economic policy should be about regenerating opportunity and prosperity and growing an environmentally sustainable economy. It should embrace new, clean technologies and develop meaningful jobs that reflect the needs of a modern, globalised economy, rather than protect old institutions and ways of doing things.

Too often, the current emphasis is on regulating and controlling change, exemplified by the approach of the Green Party, rather than unleashing innovation. Education and training at all levels should therefore be about equipping people with the key educational and vocational skills they will need to function effectively in this modern global environment, rather than protecting the interests of the educators.

Overall, public services should be flexible, effective, and universally available. They ought to be focused especially on meeting needs compassionately. Service delivery should promote innovation and utilise new technologies where appropriate. Modern public services must become less about one-size-fits-all, and protecting the numbers of public servants, or doing things the safe and cautious way they always have been.

By my reckoning, none of the parties contesting this election yet fit this bill. All are either too beholden to the vested interests behind them, or too idealistic or mechanistic in their views to be able to develop a comprehensive and cohesive approach to government along these lines. As a result, whatever government emerges after this election seems set to continue the slide to mediocrity that has bedevilled us for years now.

And my forlorn search for a place to call political home therefore looks likely continue for a while yet.

The first leaders' debate was a dismal affair. Neither leader was persuasive, nor were their responses especially convincing. Both failed to achieve the circuit breaker each was seeking to reinvigorate their currently stalling campaigns. Together, their performances explain why the two major parties are attracting the lowest combined support levels since MMP was introduced thirty years ago.

Despite the contrary views of the panel of allegedly uncommitted voters, there was no clear winner of this dreary occasion. Christopher Luxon failed to demonstrate the empathy expected of modern political leaders. While he recited an impressive array of statistics about the government’s performance over the last three years, he seemed unable to weave them together into a cogent argument about how they were having a real and positive impact on people’s lives.

On the other hand, Chris Hipkins’ faux anger did not sit convincingly with his overall persona and left him looking merely petulant rather than genuinely concerned about the country’s situation today. Nor has he yet seemed to get the message that his government was thrown out at the last election because of its economic management that disrupted so many people’s lives and livelihoods in the wake of the pandemic.

Overall, the pattern of the debate was predictable. There were no dramatic moments, nor new policies announced. Rather, there was simply the turgid repetition of the lines of argument both leaders have pursued so relentlessly for the last three years, and which have turned off so many voters in that time. Nearly two-thirds of voters cast a party vote for either National or Labour in 2023 – but today polls show that, thanks to the efforts of the two Chrises since then, about one fifth of those voters intend to vote for someone else at this year’s election.

It is unlikely the first leaders’ debate will have done anything to arrest that trend.

By contrast, the radio debate between the two main finance spokespeople – National’s Nicola Willis and Labour’s Barbara Edmonds – was more constructive and positive. Although both also stuck to their previously well-rehearsed lines, each managed to inject a measure of personality and connection into the debate, something that had been demonstrably lacking in the more automaton-like performances of Luxon and Hipkins during their debate.

But there are two bigger questions than the respective performances that arise from the two debates so far.

First, was all the hype around them justified? Are the current audiences of Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand still sufficiently large and representative for these debates to have any significant impact on voter opinion? After all, in today’s more dynamic media environment traditional broadcasting outlets are struggling to maintain audience share, and it is doubtful that debates between two staid contenders for the role of Prime Minister will do anything to turn that around.

Second, given that the next government will be a multi-party arrangement of whatever hue, how realistic and useful is it for debates to continue to focus solely on the leaders of the historical two main parties? The choice between Luxon and Hipkins is not a presidential one – the role of Prime Minister today is much than ever before that of chair of the board.

The emphasis should therefore be less on their specific party policies than on their capacity to bring together differing parties to form a cohesive government. Luxon inadvertently confirmed this point during his debate with his admission that while National’s policy was to progressively increase the age of entitlement to New Zealand Superannuation, it was not supported by either of his coalition partners, so, by implication, was unlikely to happen.

Likewise, although the issue of tax was curiously barely mentioned in the debate between Willis and Edmonds, it remains a live issue, especially as the currently high-polling Greens remain determined to push for the imposition of a wealth tax in addition to Labour’s capital gains tax. While Hipkins continues to rule that out, how credible is that, given the strong role the Greens are destined to play in any future Labour-led government?

At the very least, there is an argument for involving the Greens in debate where their proposition and commitment to it can be more thoroughly tested. The artificiality of constraining debates to the presumed major parties is becoming an outdated hangover from the past.

Overall, given both current media dynamics and today’s rapidly changing political landscape, it is increasingly difficult to see the continuing worth or relevance of the current pattern of debates in the traditional media, focusing on the key spokespeople of National and Labour only. The days of the old political duopoly are rapidly fading, and the current crop of their leaders makes even the entertainment value of their old-style debates dubious at best.

 

This week’s Taxpayers Union/Curia poll attracted far more attention than a single poll should. This was principally because it recorded support for Labour now being below what it was at the time of its defeat at the last election. However, at their best, polls are but a snapshot in time, with the long-term trends they disclose being far more significant than the individual result. So, it would be unwise to treat this Taxpayers Union/Curia poll, or any other single poll for that matter, in isolation from the wider context.

The significance of the Taxpayers Union/Curia poll is that it confirms a trend that has been apparent since about April – and that is bad news for Labour. Across all the polls since then, support for Labour has been in steady decline, while support for National has risen ever so slightly. The main beneficiary of the fall in Labour’s support appears to have been the Green Party, and more latterly, the Opportunity Party.

Given that the fall-off in support for Labour has been clear from all the public (and presumably Labour’s private) polling for nearly six months, Labour leader Chris Hipkins’ response that he was just getting into campaign stride was more than a little surprising, to say the least. There are, after all, just over eight weeks until the election. Advance voting begins in six weeks, and just over 45% of voters voted early at the 2023 election. So, the time for Hipkins to hit the decks running is rapidly running out.

It is becoming all too reminiscent of Labour’s unsuccessful and lack-lustre 2023 campaign. As the incumbent government at the time, Labour was fighting an essentially defensive campaign, both regarding its record since 2017, and, like today, strong attacks from National and its allies about hidden tax agendas. Labour’s current floundering in the wake of National’s somewhat inaccurate nine new taxes campaign has a strong sense of déjà vu about it. Compounding Labour’s difficulties then was Hipkins’ being laid low with Covid19 in the latter stages of the campaign.

Although Hipkins must shoulder the primary responsibility for Labour’s current shortcomings, he is not solely to blame. The bigger problem is the wider public perception that the Labour Caucus lacks talent. While there are likely capable people in the lower ranks of the Caucus, they are not being publicly promoted. Except for finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds, the senior ranks of potential Ministers still look too much like the tired, poor performers that were thrown out in 2023.

Indeed, the probable main reason Hipkins has survived the current Parliamentary term as party leader is the lack of a credible alternative. Edmonds has consistently said she does not want the job, while the other often mentioned contender, Kieran McAnulty, is simply too rough and ready and deliberately provincial to be likely to appeal to the middle-class urban voters Labour needs to attract to get across the electoral line.

In any case, as National came to realise with Christopher Luxon’s leadership, it is simply too late in the electoral cycle to change leaders. Some have drawn parallels to 2017 when Andrew Little stood down in favour of Jacinda Ardern just over seven weeks before the election. But this is not 2017 and there is no Ardern standing in Labour’s wings today.

Therefore, the obvious deficiencies in Labour’s Caucus notwithstanding, the party’s fate at the coming election will all come down to Hipkins’ performance over the next few weeks. He has been promising a strong campaign with exciting new policies for some time now, but to date there has been little evidence of it.

First, Labour was waiting for this year’s Budget numbers to be released before making firm policy commitments. That came and went in late May, with little response form Labour. Now Labour says it is waiting for the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) due to be released on 29 September before making final commitments.

But time is running out for Hipkins and Labour. Labour keeps promising that “Better Starts Now” but not just yet. The more it says good things are coming the more suspicious and weary voters get that when opened Labour’s policy cupboard eventually opened, it will be largely bare.

What should be of greater concern to Labour is that elections are rarely decided on the spur of the moment. The trend line from all the polls has been clear for some time now. Not only has Labour’s support been falling for some months, but the centre-right bloc’s lead over the centre-left has been steady and slightly increasing since early this year. The advent of the Opportunity Party has only slightly dented these trends. So, the electoral die may well therefore have been cast.

When all the hype is stripped away, and the facts are confronted, Hipkins still faces a mighty uphill battle. His plaintive defence at a meeting with his own constituents this week in what was remarkably his first public campaign meeting that he is “just getting warmed up” simply smacks of too little, far too late. After nearly three years of apparent inaction in Opposition, the odds are firming against him that he can turn Labour’s campaign into a winning one.