Caucus

How can you make sense of competing polls and will overhang seats win the election? How did gangs become a liability for National as well as Labour? And we tour of the Māori electorates with Julian Wilcox.

In a campaign where electorate seats and overhangs may play an unusually significant part in who gets to form the next government, the seven Māori electorates have taken on special importance. They’ve got it all – strategic voting calculations, rebel MPs, a Labour MP standing as an independent, and what RNZ’s deputy political editor Craig McCulloch calls “the least predictable electorate in the whole country”.

Te Pati Māori is doing better than expected across the seats, Māpuna host and political commentator Julian Wilcox says on this week’s episode of RNZ’s politics podcast, Caucus. While the party started this term with six of the seven electorates, its high-profile internal ructions meant two of its MPs walked away and are standing as incumbents under different banners. It’s now actively campaigning for the electorate vote alone, telling its supporters to vote for the Greens or Labour.

[wk_audio]1516477d-2eca-49f8-ab6e-ab235219e615

It’s arguably a way of making reality look like strategy, given how much support TPM lost through its civil wars. But it seems to be paying off, Wilcox says. It’s allowed TPM to push the line that most of the leading candidates from other parties will likely get in on the list. According to the Whakaata Māori polls over recent weeks, Te Pati Māori candidates are leading in four seats, Labour in two, and the Greens in one.

In Hauraki-Waikato, TPM’s Hana Maipi-Clarke looks to be well ahead with 45 percent of the candidate vote. When pushed in the Whakaata Māori electorate debate as to how close she came to leaving the party, she was evasive. “Her lack of an answer gives you an answer,” says Wilcox. “But she's with the party now. A lot of us thought that electorate would be quite tight. Kingi Kiriona is a fantastic, strong candidate. Really, really well known in the community. Got a good ground campaign. But it's not close”.

That’s not to say the in-fighting has been without consequence. The ex-Te Pati Māori MPs in Te Tai Tokerau and Te Tai Tonga – Mariameno Kapa-Kingi and Tākuta Ferris respectively, are both a distant last in in the polls. And in both seats the TPM candidates are also being well beaten. “So it's almost as if voters were punishing both of those candidates for the turmoil that we've seen this term,” says McCulloch…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Are the polls starting to move? Has Christopher Luxon painted himself into a corner or does he still have an opportunity with Opportunity? Who picks up the phone to whom on November 8? And win or lose, who's left from National's front bench?

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The debates this week told us a heap about the state of the nation and the vibe of the campaign. We discuss how Opportunity took its chance, why New Zealand First feels boxed in, and where National and Labour are getting it wrong... and what they're doing right.

ANALYSIS

By Tim Watkin

The Election 2026 campaign so far has failed to catch fire. It’s been a series of promises failing to capture the moment. A flurry of hand grenades that have failed to detonate. An October with no surprise. A trail with no destination. But maybe there’s a reason to celebrate all the same.

On this week’s Caucus podcast, RNZ’s deputy political editor Craig McCulloch said he was relieved he wasn’t in the studio for the NZ Herald Leaders’ Debate because he “might have lost the will to live”. The rehearsed attacks, recycled arguments, and lack of vision arguably sums up the “rinse and repeat” campaign we’ve seen so far.

“Primarily it’s the curse of the economic and global climate. But it’s also a curse of leadership.”

Watching Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon debate the state of the nation, it’s hard not to see two men who lack the political imagination to move the dial. The commentary on their two debates thus far has been pretty scathing.

But, as the Caucus team discuss in this week’s episode, there’s another way to look at these two major party leaders, stuck on 20% approval ratings and leading parties with a combined vote of 56-58 percent, the lowest in the MMP era. Uninspiring, sure. Losing ground to the other parties, undoubtedly. But how about – responsible?

Take a step back and view this election from, say, 2050, and you might have a very different take on these supposedly boring, stale parties sitting in the centre of our political spectrum. Maybe the 2050 voter might be grateful to those who took on the thankless task of holding the centre during this turbulent time in politics.

This is by no means an endorsement of them or a dismissal of the minor parties as radical or extreme. But there’s no doubt we are living in polarising times when democratic norms are fracturing. There are some good reasons for that, including the failure of mainstream parties like National and Labour failing to deliver on their promises. And there are some nutty and conspiratorial reasons…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Major parties try new policies to reconnect with their bases, National re-writes its risk pitch, fiscal frustrations, & what stuck from the first leaders debate.

ANALYSIS

By Tim Watkin

What’s a right-leaning voter to do? The past few weeks have seen debates about strategic voting as polls have consistently placed National below 30 percent and a centre-left bloc, Opportunity permitting, more likely to form a government.

It means voters wanting to give the existing coalition the best chance of remaining in power are wracking their brains on where to cast their ballot. Stick, twist, or return? And, in turn, that means the strategists in National, New Zealand First, and ACT, are trying to figure out not just how to win the “soft centre” but how to steal from each other.

[wk_audio]a6dfa00f-eb36-49ba-8f7d-02a109828beb

As deputy political editor Craig McCulloch says in this week’s Caucus episode, National wants to be fishing for voters who will add to the overall centre-right bloc, especially the undecideds (approximately 11% in the TVNZ-Verian poll and 6% in the RNZ-Reid Research poll) and those who are dallying with Opportunity. They are the most useful and consequential votes to be won.

But with Labour polling as badly as National and New Zealand First and ACT both polling well by their own standards, the party in blue is in a bind. The soft centre will be hard to crack. And at 25.9 percent in the RNZ poll, National is nearing its humiliating 2020 result of 25.6 percent, just without the leadership changes and pandemic.

So, does it behave like a leader of the pack or does it grab the nearest life-raft and go after traditional National voters who have drifted – or strategically shifted – to its coalition partners? ACT, for example, is on nine percent in both the TVNZ and RNZ polls. For a party that got 0.5 percent in 2017 and had its best-ever result of 8.6 percent in 2023, it’s a strong number. But eight weeks out from the last election ACT was on 12 percent. National won back roughly three percent from ACT late in that campaign and has to be wondering how it can do that again. And can it also go after Team Winston?

Its medicines policy, released this week, did just that. It boldly stomped into ACT and New Zealand First territory. Or as Political Editor Jo Moir says in the podcast, “National is, in an election campaign, trying to pull back the narrative”…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The campaigns are launching and it's time to lock into politics New Zealand. Caucus returns to set the scene for Election 2026, discussing why incumbency sucks, strategic voting is controversial, and the minor parties are major players.

ANALYSIS

By Tim Watkin

Polls leading into the campaign proper, which kicked off this week with Parliament rising and the two major parties holding their campaign launches, have been filled with headlines about “kingmakers”. Initially, New Zealand First was given the title, as it has been so many times before. But more recently polls have showed the new kid, Opportunity, holding the balance of power.

But if we take the parties at face value, “kingmaker” is a word that no longer makes sense in 2026. The fluidity of previous election campaigns, when parties would often refuse to say who they might work with until the people had spoken, has been replaced with coalition calcification.

New Zealand First has ruled out a coalition with Labour and Labour has ruled out a coalition with New Zealand First. And they’ve done it with vehemence. Winston Peters has posted his party “won’t do a deal with Labour” because “the left are full of woke self-confessed communists”, while Chris Hipkins has said Labour won’t work with New Zealand First because of its “overt racism”. Clearly, there’s no way back into government for Peters and co without National. The question is whether that changes the way they campaign.

As for Opportunity, they are pitching themselves as “kingmakers” and say they’re happy to work with National or Labour. They’ll talk to the biggest party first, if they make it into parliament after November 7. But the current ‘king’ – Prime Minister Christopher Luxon – isn’t having a bar of it. In July he called them a party with an extreme tax policy. “We don’t want to work with them… they’re as centrist as I am an All Black”. And in case that left any doubt, he has said since “A vote for the Opportunity Party is a vote to put Chris Hipkins, Te Pati Māori, and the Greens into government… we were right to rule them out”.

So, at face value, we don’t have any kingmakers in 2026. The lines have been drawn. Everyone has chosen a side. For the first time under MMP we have two blocs – the current coalition or some combination of Labour, the Greens, Opportunity, and Te Pati Māori. Is this then the most transparent election in MMP history in terms of knowing the shape of the next government?

Except… In the Caucus podcast, which began its run through the 2026 election campaign today, RNZ Political Editor Jo Moir says Luxon’s line is “just nonsense”…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

A mood for change swept National & friends into power, so this season's final Caucus breaks down the numbers, unpacks the swing in Auckland, & looks at the coalition niceties. And the team opens their envelopes to check their predictions.

Election 2023

By Tim Watkin

Watch the video version of the episode here

Analysis - Election 2023 is done but certainly not dusted. Our 54th parliament has been chosen and National will lead a coalition government into the new term. But what has the result told us about the state of New Zealand's politics and the strengths and weaknesses of our political parties?

The Caucus team meets for one last time for this election to make sense of last weekend's results. What really happened in Auckland as it swung blue? Why is Labour on the verge of losing some bastion seats? And just who is Dan Rosewarne anyway?

Julian Wilcox, Tim Watkin, Guyon Espiner and Lisa Owen talk through the big trends of the 2023 elections and what they teach us. They discuss the impact of Covid and where Labour went wrong. How much responsibility lies at Jacinda Ardern's feet and can Chris Hipkins survive this shellacking? They also look at National's rise and how it pales in comparison to Labour's fall. How will Christopher Luxon the Chief Executive handle the move to Christopher Luxon, Prime Minister and where does New Zealand First fit in?

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Wrapping up Election 2023, there's still plenty to play for ahead of election day. We review the highs and lows of Election 2023, unpack National's 'Winston Strategy', consider the missed opportunities and pick the seats to watch.

By Tim Watkin

Watch the video version of the episode here

Analysis - What was National thinking? In Caucus this week, Guyon Espiner, Tim Watkin, Julian Wilcox and Lisa Owen look at National's decision to warn voters of a second election, saying the quiet things out loud and its overall 'Winston strategy'. Why didn't they make a call sooner to wall off New Zealand First and what price changing its position so late in the game? Or will the 'quiet Tory' effect take over in the booth?

Which seats are the ones to watch, especially as polls suggest Labour faces a tidal shift from the 2020 'red wave' that have put as many as half their electorate MPs at risk? Which MPs could be saying haere ra? And can the left bloc claw back ground in the final hours?

In this bumper final episode before the election, we also suggest issues that were under-played this campaign or missing altogether. Why weren't we talking about immigration and infrastructure with record net arrivals of 96,000 in the past year? When will New Zealand have a full-on climate election? What about superannuation and how the centre-right parties line up? And where was the grown-up conversation on co-governance and our democracy?

The team looks back over the campaign - the best and worst lines, the stand-out policies and performers and the winners and losers of Election 2023... so far.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Grumpy voters, crimes against candidates, desperate parties, unsophisticated MMP strategies and the return of John Key. As the campaign peaks, so does the tension.

By Tim Watkin

Watch the video version of the episode here

In Caucus this week, Julian Wilcox, Lisa Owen, Guyon Espiner and Tim Watkin look at the angry mood of the campaign.

Candidates are suffering unacceptable threats from the public. So why are people so fractious? What impact are Covid, co-governance and the cost of living having on voters or are we being influenced by global trends? Parties and their proxies are also starting to lose their cool - name-calling, making up claims, turning mountains into molehills and trying some desperate pleas.

National has turned to John Key to try to persuade voters of the risks of New Zealand First, but the Caucus crew ask which voters they think he can swing. The Opportunities Party's Raf Manji has suggested a deal with National in Ilam. National quickly rejected it, but did National miss a trick months ago when it put all its eggs in the National/ACT basket?

We look back at 2020 and 2017 to gauge New Zealander's history with split-voting and how that might influence this election. And we ask whether we should be worried about threats to the independence of media, the judiciary and Pharmac.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

National's decision to form a government with New Zealand First as "as a last resort" is both a plea and a warning. What might a "cocktail" with ACT and NZF taste like? Could Luxon hold it together? And is NZF a racist party?

By Tim Watkin

Watch the video version of the episode here

This week's Caucus looks at Christopher Luxon's landmark call to open the door to forming a government with New Zealand First and ACT. Predecessors John Key and Simon Bridges had ruled out governing with Winston Peters, saying they didn't trust him.

Former Prime Minister and coalition partner Jenny Shipley said working with Peters could be "a trainwreck". Yet Luxon has chosen another path, based on the "principle" that New Zealand needs a change of government above all else.

Lisa Owen, Guyon Espiner, Julian Wilcox and Tim Watkin discuss the enigma that is Winston Peters, National's options in negotiations, New Zealand First's policies, and what's different this time with New Zealand First. Plus, they examine the week of debates - the Young Leaders, Kaupapa Maori, and Newshub Leaders events. 

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Chris Hipkins needs a new song and dance routine and fast, or he could be doing the limbo and losing the next generation of Labour's leaders.

By Tim Watkin

Watch the video version of the episode here

Analysis - Another poll, another 27 for Labour. It was July the last time one of the reputable TV company polls had Labour's poll percentage starting with a three, so the limbo question is now being asked: how low can you go?

It seems such an unlikely question because this doesn't feel like the kind of election that delivers a 27 percent major party. Usually parties crumble because of internal dissent, a tanking economy or radical reform.

Labour has been cautious in its reforms; many of its supporters say too cautious. The economy's sub-par, but take away the partisan politics and it's pretty clear that's the result of war in Europe, global inflation, China's woes and paying off the costs of a pandemic either major party in government would have accrued. (Before you argue, look at how a National government responded to the global financial crisis and Christchurch earthquakes). Inflation is falling, we were never in a recession, the credit agencies are giving us AAAs, and unemployment has stayed low. What's more, Labour has united behind Chris Hipkins and backed him to run this campaign as he wants. There's none of the back-biting and dysfunction of the Shearer/Cunliffe/Little years.

Yet as we discuss on this week's Caucus podcast, voters this far into the campaign are proving unwilling to take another look at Labour. They've done their Covid time; seen the failings of KiwiBuild, light rail and the rest; tsked at Cabinet ministers behaving badly; wept at the price of kumara and so far been unwilling to reconsider this government.

The right bloc of National and ACT is holding around 47-49 percent. It's tight when it comes to whether they will need New Zealand First to have a majority - a nightmare scenario for any major party trying to govern with less than 40 percent support, as Guyon Espiner says - but it mirrors the results John Key and various ACT leaders delivered through three elections. Things are looking good for the right.

What's perhaps yet under-appreciated is the disaster a 27 percent result would be for Labour and its future. If we assume Labour will hold 30 seats (the assumption being it loses it red wave wins of 2020 and maybe one or two more), then 27 percent and New Zealand First in Parliament would give Labour just four list MPs. …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Multiple polls point to a change of government. Is National passing the sniff test? Do voters really want ACT's 'real change' or a handbrake? We ask what a centre-right government might look like.

By Tim Watkin

Watch the video version of the episode here

Analysis - David Seymour is usually more a talker than a fighter, an ideas man; but he's been flexing his political muscles during this election campaign. Running as high 13 percent in major media polls this year (and even 18 percent in one Roy Morgan), ACT has been threatening to become the most successful minor party ever under MMP. (New Zealand First got 13.3 percent in 1996, in the first MMP election). But with two polls showing ACT slipping to 10 percent, has the mouse roared too much and is Seymour misreading the mood for change?

In this week's Caucus podcast, we look at what the polls are suggesting a change of government may look like. Labour and the Greens are painting the picture of a National-ACT coalition as the most free-market, right-wing government New Zealand has ever seen. If New Zealand First is needed, they predict chaos. And as Guyon Espiner says in the podcast, Luxon's inexperience alongside Peters' and Seymour's belligerence could mean we are back at the polls in no time if the votes require that three-way coalition arrangement.

At this stage, voters don't seem to be concerned. National leader Christopher Luxon has caught up with Labour's Chris Hipkins in the preferred prime minister stakes as National has reached 39 or 40 percent in this week's polls. that suggests that, while New Zealanders may not be taking Luxon to their collective breast, he's passed a certain sniff test. He's not the liability Labour was hoping he'd be. Sure, he repeats lines like a parrot and his tax plan doesn't add up, but he's good enough. And he's working hard not to appear mean and scary. Just this week Luxon said, "I consider myself very much a centrist and I'm very much a pragmatist." So voters don't seem to be afraid of a hard swing to the right as in 1984 or 1990. And most of all, he's not the incumbent government.

Just as the British public voted out Winston Churchill within weeks of VE Day at the end of the Second World War and chose a new government to 'win the peace', so the New Zealand public seem to want to wash their hands of the pandemic government. So long and thanks for all the vax.

That puts the pressure on National to, as Lisa Own puts it, deliver the sunlight. Voters are wanting better times and any new government will be on the clock to deliver, which could be hard in this global economic (and literal) climate…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Should we be worried about the election campaign going negative? Or is the greater worry party leaders who can't get their facts straight?

By Tim Watkin

Watch the video version of the episode here

Analysis - It's been all about the fear and loathing in campaign land this week, with every party accusing another of negativity, lies and the inability to run even the Venezuelan economy.

The oft-forgotten subtitle of Hunter S Thompson's famous book, Fear and Loathing in Law Vegas, is "a savage journey to the heart of the American dream", and if you were to believe National's campaign chair Chris Bishop this week, New Zealand had embarked on its own savage journey into democratic chaos.

"The most negative election campaign in New Zealand history," he declared on day three of the official campaign period, after a Council of Trade Union (CTU) ad that claimed National's Christopher Luxon was "out of touch" and "too much risk".

The Caucus team calls hyperbole on that in this week's podcast. Most campaigns - if not all - go negative at times, and others have been more negative. Lisa Owen points to the 'Dirty Politics' campaign of 2014, Guyon Espiner and Julian Wilcox plump for 2005 when Helen Clark and Don Brash had a clear dislike of each other, while I throw back to 1975 and National's famous 'dancing Cossacks' ad, claiming that Labour's national superannuation scheme was the start on a slippery slope to communism.

Espiner and Wilcox did warn that the negativity Labour, in particular, is engaging in reeks of desperation, and looks like the tactic of a party that knows it's running a distant second. And does it even work to win over voters? They think not.

The risk of all this talk of fear and negativity is that we convince ourselves that our campaign is toxic, turning off voters, undermining public engagement and debate, and talking ourselves into a political funk. That's bad for democracy on every level. Let's take a breath and remember our political debate is a long way from the violence and polarisation we see in so many countries. If the worst we have to endure is a guy hanging over a fence to interrupt a press conference and some mean photos of a party leader, we're not in too bad a shape. Let's not catastrophise…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

National's tax plan is a clever political document but raises questions about "heroic" numbers. We look at how much government spending doesn't change and what's up for grabs in coalition deals. Plus a quick visit to Ilam and Epsom.

By Tim Watkin

Watch the video version of the episode here

Analysis - National's tax plan released this week was one of the big set pieces left in the Election 2023 campaign, even though the campaign hasn't officially started yet. In the past tax plans have spurred and stalled political momentum, sparked debates about fiscal holes, lost voters and maybe even elections. So though we still have six weeks to go to the election, there was a lot riding on Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis when they talked tax this week. It's the focus of this week's Caucus podcast.

National produced a clever and careful political document. As Julian Wilcox says, they made sure they didn't know the ball on five metres from the try line. That was their first job and they got it done. The narrative crafted was about support for "the squeezed middle", seeking to underline both the caring face of National and its steady hand at the fiscal tiller.

It was a tax plan very much in the modern style of economic managers. This was the National Party of Keith Holyoake and Harry Lake, not the party of Ruth Richardson and Don Brash. National is underlining its softer, centrist credentials, with hardly a hint of reforming zeal. In a week where National leader Christopher Luxon told Morning Report he believes in "better government" rather than smaller government, it was a largely ideological-free document. No trickle-down, no market solutions.

Instead, it was a tax plan for swing voters. As Lisa Owen puts it, National and Labour are crashing into the centre. National won't touch Labour's winter energy payments or fees-free tertiary policy, for example. It will boost the Working For Families in-work tax credit by exactly the same amount as Labour. It carefully designed tax relief so that those on $80,000 a year would get the same dollar amount in their "back pocket: as someone earning 10 times that or more". You could see the delight on Luxon's face when he was able to point that out, nixing Prime Minister Chris Hipkins' favourite line of the past few weeks, that National was a party giving tax cuts to millionaires. That attack line has been silenced…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

ACT endures scrutiny, Shane Jones impersonates Julie Andrews and we recall 1999, while Lacklustre Luxon and Ho Hum Hipkins fail to inspire.

Election 2023

By Tim Watkin

Watch the video version of the episode here

Analysis - A new 1News Verian poll shows it is an uphill battle for the centre-left bloc, while ACT starts to feel the pressure of wanting to be treated like a big party. Does it risk blowing up like a Guy Fawkes night firework?

Chris Hipkins' falling popularity narrows Labour's potential path to victory, while National steps on Pharmac's independence in its rush to make Christopher Luxon appear more caring.

This week's episode of Caucus looks back to parallels between this campaign and the 1999 election, while Shane Jones takes to the hills to sing for Northland.

The 1News Verian Poll put National at 37 percent, Labour at 29 percent, ACT at 13 percent, the Greens at 12 percent, NZ First at 3.7 percent, Te Pāti Māori at 2.6 percent and TOP 0.6 percent.

Guyon Espiner said in order for National to be a credible leader of the next government, it needs to be up in the late 30s and they seemed to be going in that direction.

"It's interesting to me that ACT's vote had held up so well with National clearly on the rise and having some momentum and at that level of 13 percent, they would be the biggest, you know supporting partner in a government we've ever seen other than New Zealand First in '96."

The fact ACT could be a significant player in the next government would encourage people to delve into the party's background to find out more about it, he said.

Lisa Owen said ACT leader David Seymour had been laying the groundwork knowing his party's figures "have been building and holding".

ACT leader David Seymour

"Just looking back at David Seymour's comments over the last few months and he has said ACT should no longer be seen as a small party, and of the partnership with National he said they're going to have to be prepared to share power and be prepared to reverse policies that the Labour Party has put in place."

Owen said the trend in the polls was not Labour's friend, but National's, as a slide to the right had become evident.

Seymour this week created controversy after this comment on scrapping the Ministry of Pacific Peoples: "We'd probably send a guy called Guy Fawkes in there and it would be all over, but we'd probably have to have a more formal approach than that" - Seymour later said it was a joke.

Espiner said it made him wince when he heard the comment…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

With little money in the government's coffers heading into Election 2023, the Caucus podcast looks at how the two main parties plan to use fear, frugality and friendliness to win your vote.

By Tim Watkin

Analysis: Labour's campaign strategy of stinginess has started to take shape, as it rolled out tax and welfare policies this week.

Labour's big reveals - taking the GST off fruit and vegetables and increasing in-work tax credits by $25/week in 2024 - also pulled back the curtain on how it hopes to steal the election from National and ACT. While a big fuss was made of the details of the GST policy in particular - and its rejection by tax and health experts - this week's Caucus podcast discussed the politics behind the policy.

The design flaws have been well traversed and Finance Minister Grant Robertson's discomfort with the policy couldn't be clearer, as was Jacinda Ardern's, David Cunliffe's and David Shearer's in previous iterations of Labour. It's a tortured political manoeuvre for Robertson, who clearly is no fan of the policy. He told the Auckland Business Chamber last March that it would make no sense take the GST off fresh beetroot and leave it on tinned beetroot if you wanted to help low income New Zealanders, yet that's exactly what he's just promised to do.

He has to argue the new Grocery Commissioner will ensure that GST-savings will be passed to the consumer, when reports in Britain have shown the removal of the 5% VAT from period products led to just a 1% cut in prices. You know who also has a Grocery Commissioner (or a Grocery Code Adjudicator)? Britain. As Guyon Espiner mentions in the podcast, it's also a tough sell for Labour as a party that likes to pride itself on backing evidence-based policy, as seen during its pandemic response.

But this is a different Labour Party with a different leader. And Chris Hipkins' Labour is pitching itself as a careful economic manager, a safe pair of hands during a cost of living crisis, a party led by a working-class lad who knows times are tough and is reining in those big-spending lefties in his ranks. It's determined to give National no scope to use its usual 'typical tax and spend Labour' charge. Indeed, this week it looks like Labour is trying to turn the tables on National. It has been proudly stingy with these big announcements that, frankly, weren't that big. …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Get your teeth into the big announcements on climate change, cellphones and teeth. Caucus debates the BlackRock deal, China, free dentalcare affordability and teachers as the "phone police"

Election 2023

By Tim Watkin

Drivers, start your engines. The campaign seemed to get into gear this week with the government making a number of announcements that looked to have at least one eye on the October election. Is this finally going to be a climate election?

Chris Hipkins has now had a week or two in which his Cabinet is the same at the start as at the finish, so he was able to stand in front of a lot microphones talking about the things that he reckons matter to New Zealanders. Front and centre was the $2 billon BlackRock investment fund, to help New Zealand reach the goal of 100 percent renewable energy. He called it a "watershed" in New Zealand's transition away from fossil fuels. But then his predecessor, Jacinda Ardern, said climate change was New Zealand's was having her generation's "nuclear-free moment" back in 2017 and our greenhouse gas emissions are much the same now as they were then. So will it make a difference?

This week's Caucus drills into the deal and what it means. From a climate point of view, it puts the transition away from fossil fuels at the head of the policy pack. The government stressed it was a "world first" and grabbed global attention. Its hope is that it's the sort of thing that makes you proud to be a New Zealander, in contrast to your justice minister being arrested, which most certainly does not.

For NZ Inc it's a PR win for the country's clean, green image, as it is for BlackRock - a big investor in fossil fuels which is looking to build its greentech investments as well. Getting global headlines for a "world first" (eg Bloomberg: "New Zealand Works With BlackRock in Pursuit of 100% Green Power") and having serious people spending serious money here is always a win for the government of the day. But it's only a drop in the bucket of the estimated $42b the we'll need to spend to get to 100 percent or our $210b infrastructure deficit.

It exposed some gaps between the major parties in other areas as well. Labour's partnership with American financiers to build green infrastructure stands out in a week when National's leader Christopher Luxon said he would "absolutely" take money from China's massive Belt and Road Initiative for more roads…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The election is just two months away. 10 weeks. 72 days. Caucus returns looking at what's distinct about this campaign - no kingmaker, missed opportunities, weaker majors and stronger minor parties,

Election 2023

By Tim Watkin

The campaign proper is still weeks away, but the campaign in real terms is already in full swing. So Caucus is back.

What marks out Election 2023 as different so far? The Caucus team - Julian Wilcox, Lisa Owen, Tim Watkin and Guyon Espiner - looks at the lack of a potential kingmaker and the rise of set left and right blocs. Locked blocs, you might say. The minor parties are looking strong, while the latest polls show both major parties struggling in the 30s. It looks something like the first MMP election back in 1996, when the minors had more strength and both major parties lacked dominant charismatic leaders.

They discuss missed opportunities, flank parties and their tactics, plus the resignation of Revenue Minister David Parker, amidst Chris Hipkins' call to reject a wealth or capital gains tax.

New Caucus member Julian Wilcox even quotes Shakespeare, asking if Hipkins chose to tarry when he should have hazarded some policy. While Lisa Owen wonder if us voters are the problem, rather than the leaders. So rather than Shakespeare, she's quoting Seinfeld: 'It's not you, it's me'.

We discuss how the minor parties can cross both Chrises, look at Luxon's lack of appeal and ask if Hipkins is a Rowling or a Fraser.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The crew open their envelopes and reveal their picks, as they make sense of Labour's govern-alone victory, National's much-needed rebuild, the return of te Pati Maori and the Greens' delight in the face of powerlessness

Election 2020

By Tim Watkin

Watch the video version of the episode here

Through the past three years, as grief and crises have hit New Zealand, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has reached out and hugged those who were struggling. In Election 2020, New Zealand hugged her right back, delivering a victory on such a scale it puts her in the box seat for the 2023 election before all the 2020 special votes have even been counted.

In this week's final Caucus podcast, the team agrees the red tide has flowed, in large part as a nationwide thank you to Ardern and the Labour-led government's handling of Covid-19. Labour and the Greens won 57 percent of the vote, the biggest vote for the Left in New Zealand since Norman Kirk's 1972 Labour win, and arguably the highest ever, trumping the first Labour government's 55.8 percent support in 1938.

It's the first time a government gets to govern alone under MMP and gives Labour its most new MPs since 1935. National won the party vote in only four out 64 seats.

Yet tides that flow can also ebb, and Lisa Owen and Scott Campbell warned of the potential for hard choices ahead trying to balance the beliefs of Labour voters, old and new.

On election night Ardern spoke to the cheering party faithful, but directed her comments at swing voters who had switched over to Labour, telling them she would not take their support for granted and her second term administration would govern for all New Zealanders.

"Why were they cheering for that," asks Espiner. While it's a great Obama-esque line, there's "something darker" in that for party stalwarts.

As Owen says, "Hang on a minute, don't you realise what this means for you? This means she's going to be hugging the centre line arguably. She's not going to want to annoy those people she says she's bringing into the nest. What does this mean for the policies that are dear to the heart of the Labour movement and some of those policies that are going to send shivers down the spine of some of those people who voted for them?"

The reason I said at the top that the vote for the Left was only "arguably" the highest ever is because it depends on your definition of Left. Is Ardern's Labour government really very left-wing, or is it mostly a continuation of the centrist governments run by John Key and Helen Clark…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Two days out, we hear surprise calls on wealth taxes and obesity and the Caucus crew debate the seats to watch, highs and lows, winners and losers. And we put our picks in an envelope.

By Tim Watkin

Watch the video version of the episode here

Whenever Sir Edmund Hillary was asked about whether he thought George Mallory might have beat him to the top of Mt Everest in the 1920s, he would point out that part of being a successful mountaineer was making it back down. Sports people are quick to tell you it doesn't matter if you lead for 79 minutes if you're behind when the final whistle blows. The National Party seems to have missed that memo, however. After the first half of the campaign went better than they expected, the wheels have started to fall off. In the past two weeks, Judith Collins has turned into something of a snowball, crashing down the mountain of this campaign.

That's commentary on National's unravelling campaign strategy, not on the National leader's weight. Because who would be mad enough to make weight an issue in the final week of an election campaign, right? Who would insult people for not staying on top of their obesity, when they are trying to win an election? As it turns out, that'd be Judith Collins.

National tried for a big shake-up last week, opting to go negative, go hard and go late, you might say. Collins called Labour's Jacinda Ardern a liar on border testing and attacked the Green Party's proposed 1 percent wealth tax on freehold assets over a million dollars. But as the Caucus crew unpack in this week's podcast, it's backfired.

It felt like a desperate play, as most voters care more about keeping their job through Covid-19 and whether Nana will stay safe than some complex new tax for the 6 percent of richest New Zealanders proposed by a party that may or may not make it back to Parliament. But at first it got the desired result, as Labour said 'heck no' and the Greens said 'hell yes'. Doubt was raised and those middle class voters enamoured of Ardern and New Zealand's Covid response had reason to pause for thought…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The New Zealand First Foundation in court, Judith Collins pays a price on Ponsonby Rd, Jacinda Ardern finds some form & a chance for Te Pati Maori.

Election 2020

By Tim Watkin

Watch the video version of the episode here

National's not having the week Judith Collins would have prayed for.

After a couple of strong debate performances and some solid policy releases, some National MPs were starting to dare to hope that there might be a hint of a shadow of an outside chance for some kind of upset this election. Labour leader Jacinda Ardern was looking flat and two polls shifted things just a smidge to the centre-right. Then Denise Lee sent an email and Collins went for a walk.

As voters have started advance voting in large numbers, they have been reminded that National has been a party divided this past term and a couple of debates don't heal all wounds. In Caucus this week, the consensus was that National at the worst possible time has reminded voters there are real questions about its readiness to govern. And the damage was entirely self-inflicted.

Someone in National leaked an angry email from Maungakiekie MP and the party's Auckland spokeswoman, Denise Lee, criticising Judith Collins' announcement of a review of Auckland Council, 10 years after the super city was created. It was a pretty tepid policy - a review, something much like another 'working party' that National has been loudly critical of this past term - but it was a chance for Collins to kick into Auckland Council. A pretty safe target. Lee, however, hadn't been consulted on the policy and thought that "a shockingly bad example of poor culture". The review plan, she wrote, was "problematic".

She should have felt safe to vent amongst trusted colleagues, but instead one of them forwarded the email to media. As discussed in the podcast, it's not unusual for leaders to make policy on the hoof during a campaign. Collins and Ardern both promised a review of Pharmac off the cuff on the Newshub leaders' debate, for example.

It's especially predictable given Collins took on the job at the last minute, tasked with "saving the furniture", as Mike Moore once put it. Collins took the risk to save her party and deserves the licence to wing it now and then. But the leak is a clear reminder that some in her own caucus don't want her to get too comfortable in the job or boost the party's vote too much. Save the furniture, but don't get too comfortable in the big chair, you might say…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Caucus rates a fired-up leaders' debate as Collins looks to bring voters 'home', while Winston Peters rages as he's 'exonerated'.

By Tim Watkin

Watch the video version of the episode here

You could almost see the basket in Judith Collins' arm during last night's Newshub Leaders' Debate, as she went merrily about her business picking fruit from the voter tree.

Praise farmers and reassure them she won't "beggar" them for a photo op? One apple plucked from the National tree. Tough on law and order? One plucked from the New Zealand First tree. Mention her Christianity and belief in miracles? Pluck from the New Conservatives. Promise to get rid of the gun register? Pluck from ACT.

Pluck, pluck, pluck.

Amidst the hurly-burley of an energetic and fast-paced debate Collins was - to use a phrase popular under the previous National government - very targeted in her approach. The debate for her was a vote harvesting exercise and she managed it with aplomb. She also continued her efforts to introduce herself to voters, talking about her brother-in-law's cancer and her faith. Though there were some clunky moments - calling Ardern "dear" and praising Donald Trump - she looked more Prime Ministerial than ever before.

As Guyon Espiner says on today's Caucus podcast, debates seldom significantly move voters, but Collins' performance in the second televised leaders' debate is likely to have some, on the centre-right at least, pondering a return home to National.

"Judith Collins, with that kind of performance and building on the TV One debate, may have stopped the rot for National and may even have gained a little bit," he says.

It was a performance, Scott Campbell adds, that Simon Bridges or Todd Muller would have struggled to deliver.

Those minor parties - ACT, New Zealand First and the New Conservatives - are probably the biggest losers from last night's debate - apart from "communist" David Attenborough and poor old Feilding, named New Zealand's 'Most Beautiful Town' 16 times, but last night used as an example of the ravages of methamphetamine on small town New Zealand.

Not that Labour leader Jacinda Ardern had a bad night. It was a world apart from her flat, policy wonk performance in the first leaders' debate. Sometimes it seems she's so determined to play nice and be kind that she misses opportunities to point out the differences between her party and her opponent's. But she used her Covid experience effectively and looked more like a woman in charge…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

With eight days, 18 hours, two minutes and 10 seconds until voting starts, party leaders are calling up hit-jobs as they scrap for their political lives. Plus, the debate debacles, ACT's rise and National's steady run of own goals.

By Tim Watkin

Watch the video version of the episode here

As the clock ticks down on this year's election campaign, the guns are coming out. I know, the usual politics cliche is that the gloves are coming off, but in this otherwise subdued campaign we're talking about more than mere body blows. Parties and their leaders are fighting for their political lives.

Election 2020 has felt like a phony war, a bout of shadow boxing as politicians go through the motions, always with half an eye on Covid-19 and the virus sweeping the world. But the election at the end of it all is entirely real and deadly serious, especially for New Zealand First, the Greens and most other minor parties. The language is escalating.

In a typical MMP election, parties are conscious of potential coalition negotiations after election day. For the past couple of elections - as Guyon Espiner reminds us in today's Caucus podcast - National has been hoping to finish off New Zealand First. But it was always an unspoken goal, lest Winston Peters & Co end up as monarch-makers after the election. This year it's all more explicit.

This week Judith Collins said on Newstalk ZB that ACT leader David Seymour has two jobs - to retain Epsom and "get rid of Winston Peters". It was an unusually transparent request for a political hit-job. New Zealand First's Northland candidate Shane Jones was equally direct on Newshub Nation last weekend, saying "I think there are a host of people in Labour who find the Greens more agreeable than myself. Which is why I'm going to do everything I can to ensure the Greens don't survive".

Both parties are in real jeopardy because neither has an electorate seat to keep them in parliament if they don't reach the five percent MMP threshold. While there had been talk about Jones competing in Northland and Chloe Swarbrick having a go in Auckland Central, the only public polls have them both sitting in third place. It's almost certainly five or bust for both parties and there's no love lost as they scrap it out.

In a similar vein, The Opportunities Party and Māori Party must wonder if they can survive another election cycle outside of parliament if they don't somehow reach five percent. That's unlikely for either, but at least the Māori Party have a shot at political survival via Te Tai Hauāuru…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Welcome to the recession, with giant debt, spending and unemployment that make previous campaigns look like Lilliput. How are New Zealand First are trying to recover & does Labour really want to govern alone?

Election 2020

By Tim Watkin

Watch the video version of the episode here

After a week of heavy policy releases where the major parties have clung to the political centre like a limpet to a life raft, we've been reminded - as if we needed it - why we have a life raft in the first place. It's official: Welcome to Recession Day. New Zealand's economy shrunk by 12.2 percent in the June quarter, the second quarter of negative growth in a row.

Yesterday, Treasury laid out its pre-election fiscal update (PREFU), offering its non-partisan predictions for the next four years. As Kiwibank Chief Economist Jarrod Kerr says, "We've never seen anything like this. It was traumatic." Or as Guyon Espiner says on today's Caucus podcast, "Pakaru mai te hāunga te āhuatanga o te ōhanga". The economy is stuffed.

An estimated 280,000 New Zealanders will be unemployed in 2022, government debt will reach 55.3 percent of GDP by 2024 (up from 19 percent last year), when we'll owe a whopping $201 billion. As we discuss on this week's Caucus podcast, these are massively, enormously, giant figures. But in the midst of a global pandemic it can be hard to absorb just how big they are. So let's put it this way; this was a PREFU straight out of Gulliver's Travel, where Lemuel Gulliver is shipwrecked on the shores of Lilliput, a land inhabited by people who are 15cm tall. The numbers are on a Gulliver-esque scale; so much bigger than everything you've seen before. Previous election numbers look Lilliputian by comparison.

Most years this result would be the government's death warrant, but in a sign of the bizarre times, Finance Minister Grant Robertson was able to announce the numbers with a tone of optimism. Treasury and the banks had in May been predicting unemployment at least double the 7.8 percent peak now predicted and economic contraction of 17-18 percent. So Robertson is able to say we're better off than many had feared. He took credit for that while blaming the worsening medium-term predictions on global uncertainty.

It's almost like it's an election campaign…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Labour's tax policy is tentative, but is it also 'right for right now'? And is it negotiable? Judith Collins' policy releases point to less Crusher, more Kinder. Plus, how to mess up TV debates and the Matariki mood.

By Tim Watkin

It was one of the big unanswered questions every political junkie was waiting for. No, not National's Infrastructure Bank. Definitely not a new public holiday. Though we'll come to those. It was Labour's tax policy. How brave would it be? Would Labour dare to promise transformation or would it play it safer?

We got the answer yesterday - a new top tax rate of 39 percent for those earning over $180,000. A promise to try a bit harder on taxing multi-nationals. And that was it. As Guyon Espiner says in today's Caucus podcast, if 'tax is love' then this was a peck on the cheek. An elbow bump at best.

Is this the tax policy Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson dreamed of unveiling through their long years in Opposition? By no means. They believe in a Capital Gains Tax. They would certainly tax harder if they could. But Robertson's argument is that what has largely been described as a timid approach to tax policy is the "right thing to do right now".

And have no doubt, it is timid. In 2014 David Cunliffe's policy was 36 percent on income over $150,000 and in 2011 Phil Goff's 'tax switch' involved an interest free zone and 39 cents over $150,000. Back when Labour last introduced a new top tax rate - under Helen Clark in 1999 - it was 39 cents on incomes over $60,000 (which is around $90,000 in today's money).

Even with the move to a 39 percent top tax rate New Zealand will still have the 12th lowest top tax rate of the 36 countries in the OECD; so staying in the bottom third. Australia's is 47 percent, Canada's 53.5 and Britain's 45. And given it cuts in only at $180,000 - as Robertson endlessly repeats, it only taxes the top two percent of earners - it's at the conservative end of the developed world.

In sum: timid…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Greens leader James Shaw has been under the cosh for his Green School decision, but what's going on behind the scenes and will it cost votes? Social media rears it's sulky head, vaccination lies and debate over 'the single source of truth'. Plus, is Winston Peters in cabinet or not?

By Tim Watkin

It's a rule of the playground, probably even at a Green School. Naughty kids can get away with things good kids can't because, well, people don't expect anything else. They can smoke behind the bike-sheds and just get a glare and a warning. But if the school prefect is caught doing the same thing, there's hell to pay. Expectations and reputations matter, at school and in politics. As James Shaw is being reminded this week.

In this scenario, laid out by Guyon Espiner on today's Caucus election podcast, the ever-suited Shaw is the prefect. The good kid who never makes a fuss and sets an example. That's long been key to the Green Party brand - that they don't get down and dirty like those other kids. Kids like, well, Winston Peters, for example.

Shaw has made Peters a focus of his criticism this year, arguing that the New Zealand First leader has played fast and loose with the government agenda, been an agent of "chaos" in cabinet and seemed to support policies only to u-turn after months of work. Peters, says Shaw, is the school bully and wants rid of him next term.

But that casting was turned on its head this week with news Shaw had not only backed $11.7m of government funding for the Green School, a private school in Taranaki, but told his coalition partners wouldn't sign off on $600m in other infrastructure funding unless the Green School was on the list.

As Espiner says, it's not entirely fair on Shaw. He's usually the halo pupil, but the one time he goes off for that metaphorical smoke behind the bike-shed, he gets caught and hauled over the coals. He gets damned as a pork-barreler for insisting on $11.7m for a private school, while Peters commits $72.5m to the racing industry with far less criticism, 'because that's just Winston'.

Indeed, this week Peters has broken with collective cabinet responsibility to damn his own government's response to Covid-19. Having claimed credit for New Zealand's initial success, yesterday Peters said Labour was responsible for the government's recent failings, despite the fact he sat around the cabinet table, took part in the decision-making and has been no less than Deputy Prime Minister throughout. As Espiner and Scott Campbell point out, past ministers have resigned before criticising cabinet decisions. Yet Peters hasn't been called out. So when exactly is a government minister, not a government minister?…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

As Auckland struggles through a "tricky" extended lockdown, who are the political winners & losers? We debate covid fatigue, who's won from the wage subsidies (hint: not women) and two up-for-grabs electorates - Ōhāriu and Whanganui.

By Tim Watkin

It's been a tricky week for the country, especially the third of all New Zealanders living under lockdown level 3 in Auckland. And it's turned politics on its head. National and ACT trying to outspend Labour. The left-leaning government being criticised for not doing enough for women and its poorest citizens. Listen hard enough and you might even have heard that rarest of things, sympathy for Aucklanders from those who live south of the Bombays.

In Caucus this week, the team aren't convinced Aucklanders deserve too much credit, given the traffic on the road, the minimal mask use and stories of people leaving their neighbourhoods to go hither and yon. The mood in Auckland this week has felt more like despair than resilience, more clinging on than rallying together. And these signs of fatigue will be sure to have been noticed by Cabinet, as it tries to walk the tricky line between public health and the public will.

Jacinda Ardern has been using the word "tricky" a lot this week, as Guyon Espiner says, presumably because it's worked on focus groups. Time again she has described the virus as "tricky", as if it was a person, an opponent. ACT leader David Seymour called out the Prime Minister for blaming the outbreak on the Covid-19 coronavirus, rather than taking responsibility for border failures. National's Health spokesperson Dr Shane Reti in parliament forced Health Minister Chris Hipkins to admit that not everyone in isolation are getting the day three tests, as had been widely believed. While Hipkins argued from a public health point of view that it's the day twelve test that matters and no-one is released without a negative test, Lisa Owen pointed out it's a performance measure. Politically, it's another fail and one that reminds voters of the tests not carried out at the border.

For now, Labour's political immunity to Covid-19 seems to be holding, however. The public are fed up, but the Caucus crew don't see it costing many votes yet. Just as at the 2011 election John Key could point to Wall St and American mortgages as the cause of the Global Financial Crisis and say we are better off than most, Ardern is saying the virus is not the fault of her government and it is handling it better than most…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Parties try to look tough as border policies are rolled out, Labour fails its testing test and what are the implications of delaying the election?

By Tim Watkin

These are testing times for New Zealanders, as Auckland spends two weeks at level three. But news over the past week that the testing at our borders has fallen far short of what the government promised has put Labour on the back foot and opened the door to its opponents.

National and New Zealand First have stepped up with border protection policies that seek to out-tough each other. While Winston Peters said he'd "take every step" to improve our management of Covid-19, Judith Collins played to her "crusher" reputation insisting, "tough times need tough measures".

Both parties are looking to capitalise on Labour's growing reputation for porousness - from people escaping from isolation facilities to a failure to test all workers at the border. While Labour is the face of mismanagement - and it's noticeable the party is trying to keep Jacinda Ardern's face away from the tough questions, with Chris Hipkins and Megan Woods stepping forward to take the flak - the temporary wire fences surrounding quarantine hotels are becoming emblematic of a government still in makeshift mode, having to make up a response as it goes along. Such is the danger of incumbency; ministers this week are looking tired.

New Zealand First, by contrast, is promising to bring in the military to take over quarantine facilities, moving those in isolation to existing military bases at the likes of Ōhakea and Waiouru. They want a new Border Protection Force reporting to one Cabinet minister to lead New Zealand's Covid-19 response. Voters have to decide how credible it is that a party sitting around the Cabinet table can point the finger at "the government".

Winston Peters got his announcement out just ahead of National, which is also promising a new Border Protection Agency and one dedicated minister. National would also require all people travelling to New Zealand (including citizens) to be tested before they board the plane (or boat), mandate contact tracing for frontline border workers, aim to cut test waits to one hour and require rest-home workers to be tested regularly. Both parties are stressing that their plans are long-term and sustainable…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

What impact will the return of Covid in the community have on Election 2020? Plus Gerry Brownlee's conspiracies, Labour's Ardern-astic launch, and Merv & Mellow in Auckland Central.

Election 2020

By Tim Watkin

Campaigns suspended just as they began. Election day in doubt. And - following the 'words beginning with C' theme from last week's Caucus podcast - heated debate over conspiracies and constitutional conventions as Covid returns to the community. This week in politics has been a disaster for Election 2020; you might even call it a cluster%$&!.

The announcement Tuesday evening of four new cases of Covid-19 in the community stopped the election campaign in its tracks. With advance voting due to start in 23 days, the prime minister now faces a tough decision. Delay or stay the course towards September 19? Given parliament wasn't dissolved this week, Jacinda Ardern retains the discretion to change the election day at will. But practically the Electoral Commission will need time to adapt and in the interests of fairness she will need to consult with all parties in parliament.

Politically, it's in Labour's interests to stick with September 19. As Scott Campbell says in the podcast, the longer uncertainty goes on, if transmission spreads, and as the economic damage grows, the riskier it gets for the governing parties and Labour in particular.

For now, Ardern has the daily podium of power, what is effectively a party political broadcast, which gives Labour a distinct advantage over other parties. With uncertainty in the air, voters may be more reluctant than ever to change governments. Incumbency is her friend. For now.

But if community transmission takes a turn for the worse and our largest city stays locked down for a long period, the public mood could quickly change. Either uncertainty over the source of transmission or a source that can be blamed on the government puts at risk Labour's comfortable lead in the polls. As Lisa Owen points out, Labour could employ a 'low target' strategy, waiting it out until election day. Now, there are so many moving parts it doesn't have the control it had a week ago.

While it's National's leader Judith Collins raising questions about Ardern's daily press conferences so close to an election and the advantage they offer, Ardern herself may want to be far from the press galleries searing questions as the days go by.

On that other side of the fence, a delayed election could be a boon for National. Judith Collins has a mountain to climb and the longer she gets to climb it, the better. Moving it to late November, closer to Christmas, will put pressure on vote counting and coalition negotiations. So next year may be better than…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Caucus returns for Election 2020 talking about the state of the parties, Covid debt and problems with our political culture.

By Tim Watkin

Campaigns. Culture. Character. And perhaps most of all, Covid-19. As the House rises today and politicians hit the road to pitch their woo to voters, those issues will be front of mind for the candidates.

They were also where the new season of politics podcast Caucus began today. This year RNZ journalists Guyon Espiner, Lisa Owen and Tim Watkin are joined by former Gallery reporter, political commentator and strategic advisor, Scott Campbell.

Labour heads into campaign season with a huge lead in recent polls, which have the party 20-25 points ahead of National, and widely regarded as a safe pair of hands amidst a global crisis. A party looking to take a transformative path couldn't hope for a bigger or better opportunity; the only time Labour has ever won more than 50 percent of the vote was in 1938, when (like today) a popular Prime Minister was looking for a second term in troubled times. In that case it was Michael Joseph Savage and Labour used its political power to introduce the Social Security Act, complete with free healthcare, benefit extensions and superannuation.

Sure, this is MMP and modern Labour has a larger cast of parties to deal with. But whereas New Zealand First and the Greens combined ended up with nearly 20 percent of the vote in 2017, at this stage of the cycle they are polling at under 10 percent. Often under MMP the vote has shuffled around between parties on the left and right, only crossing the centre line now and then. But recent polls suggest Labour is gobbling up those swing voters at the moment, with one poll of polls having it on 55.6 percent.

This Labour Party, however, has spent recent days signalling we are in the midst of a once-in-a-century pandemic and playing down any talk of once-in-century reforms. "I would flag to voters not to expect to see large scale manifestoes that are a significant departure from what we're doing," Ardern told Morning Report this week. Hardly a Savage-esque response. More in line with Ardern's cautious political instincts.

Espiner pointed out that Labour is looking to govern rather than campaign its way to election day, and as Campbell said, 'why wouldn't they?'. Given National's recent disarray and the minor parties battle with the five percent threshold, Labour's biggest is risk is over-reach and some sort of own-goal…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The election's getting close and that can only mean one thing... Caucus is coming back. Presented by Guyon Espiner, Lisa Owen, Tim Watkin and Scott Campbell.

The election's getting close and that can only mean one thing...

Caucus is back. And this election RNZ journalists Guyon Espiner, Lisa Owen and Tim Watkin are joined by former Gallery reporter turned strategic consultant Scott Campbell. Each Thursday the crew will chew over the big events of Election 2020, debate what it all means and try to make sense of the politics and policy.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

In our 13th Caucus, it's negotiation time. So we look at Winston Peters' post-election posturing, 'constitutional conventions' and what New Zealand First needs from the next three years. Plus, we unpack the election results and what they mean for the parties.

Election 2017

By Tim Watkin

That Winston, he's such an old curmudgeon. A funny old uncle. A bit cheeky, but good for a laugh. That's how most New Zealanders view the New Zealand First leader, who former Prime Minister Jenny Shipley has described as "an 85 percent outstanding leader".

In past episodes of Caucus we've argued that he can put the curmudgeonly personna aside when needed because he takes his constitutional role seriously. Cometh the hour, cometh the statesman. Yet yesterday has given us pause to doubt.

Now, with the serious responsibility of government in his hands, he is throwing his toys.

Caucus this week makes the case - not for the first time - for taking Winston Peters seriously and holding him to account as we would other party leaders. We've always taken him seriously, knowing that in all likelihood we would get to where we are now, with New Zealand First holding the balance of power. Which makes yesterday's petulant press conference all the more concerning.

New Zealanders have a habit of indulging Peters and enjoying the quick-witted, "maverick" pleasure he brings to the often dour business of government, yet just when we should be seeing him at his responsible best, he holds a press conference in which he spends half an hour not even trying to give a straight answer and simply lambasting journalists he has a beef with (and several he doesn't).

At a time when we are negotiating nothing less than the shape of our next government, Peters demands to be taken seriously, while at the same time delivering nothing more or less than farce and falsehoods. At yesterday's press conference he again insisted that he's never used the word bottom-line. That's simply untrue, as you can see here.

You could also note that in July this year, Peters said "My strategy is to tell everybody out there that you won't be talking to NZ First unless you want a referendum on both those issues ". Yet yesterday he told an Australian news programme, "some of the things that, or elements to the environment on which a promise is made have since changed" and the Maori seats referendum could go by-the-by…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

We make the big calls two days from E-Day. What are the scenarios that could lead to forming a government, a last look at the polls & debates, & our highs and lows from the campaign

Election 2017

By Tim Watkin

So it all comes down to this: It's close. While the lack of polls this election means it's hard to pick trends, it looks clear that Labour's Adern-tastic August has hit a September slump. Momentum has stalled. It may have even swung behind National, but on the available data it's impossible to say. Thus, all we can say is that it's close.

That doesn't stop RNZ's own Caucus from taking a hard look at the wide range of scenarios that could yet turn into a government next week. We're no shirkers. and while I say that somewhat flippantly, it actually matters. As we've discussed on previous podcasts, to avoid a disillusioned electorate in a few days time, it's important for the public to understand how their votes might turn into a government.

The possible outcomes are many. Looking at the polls as we know them (including RNZ's Poll of Polls) we could have anything from National effectively governing alone, with ACT and perhaps the Maori Party, as they do now. At the other extreme, we could have a Labour-Greens-Maori Party coalition. Either outcome - and more in-between - are only a few percent apart and within the margins of error.

National at 45 percent or more would almost certainly get to govern; we can assume that even if, after wasted vote is take out of the mix, it didn't need support, it would still join with a party or two. But which ones? ACT, is tied to National. But could the Maori Party stomach a fourth term propping up a National-led government, given so many of its supporters give their other vote to Labour? Te Ururoa Flavell suggests it's possible, while Marama Fox has sent quite different signals.

Back in the early 40s, it gets harder for National, because it doesn't have a loyal friend like the Greens to give it a boost. National at that level would likely depend on New Zealand First, as Winston Peters (despite probing) is giving nothing away in whether he's more likely to prefer Labour or National's direction for the country.

Labour will be hoping its final number "starts with a 4", as some of its leaders have hoped for in the past few terms. If it does, then there's a chance of the Greens and Maori Party being able to get it up to the magic number of 61 seats in parliament. That's a majority in a 121-seat parliament…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Lisa Owen, Tim Watkin and Guyon Espiner discuss the fallout from Labour's sudden tax u-turn, the volatility of polls and the cost and bottom-lines of Winston Peters.

By Tim Watkin

Politicians and u-turns go together like taxi divers and, well, u-turns. But a u-turn 10 days out from election day? On tax? It's a big call Labour has made today on a policy that needn't have been controversial in the first place.

Grant Robertson's announcement this morning that Labour will not introduce any recommendations made by its Tax Working Group until after the 2020 election effectively reinstates the party's policy of just a month ago, before Jacinda Ardern took over the leadership and made her "captain's call" to shake things up on tax. And that's top of the agenda on today's Caucus podcast.

The new promise is intended to take the heat out of National's attacks on the party and its claims - always in the grey lands between fact and fiction - that Labour was planning a suite of new taxes should it lead the next government. Robertson's new favourite word is "certainty", because he hopes that is what it will give voters; the certainty that they can vote Labour without being hit in the pocket.

Let's count them out: Labour has now promised no capital gains tax on the family home and no land tax on the land under the family home. No increase to GST or income tax. The tax changes it will make are to reverse National's tax cuts that are due to come into effect next April, remove negative gearing, extend National's brightline test from two out to five years, eliminate secondary tax, tax irrigation at 1-2 cents per thousand litres, charge a royalty on water bottlers, a regional fuel tax for Auckland and "crackdown" on tax avoidance on multi-nationals.

Labour will now hope to be able to start talking about health and housing again. It will hope that voters who were 'taking a second look' at Labour will be more inclined to like what they see. Whereas National has been contrasting them as risky, compared to Bill English's 'safe pair of hands', Labour strategists will hope they can stand for hope.

But it's a heck of a swing away from Ardern's first big captain's call. Andrew Little had promised voters when he first became leader that the party would not introduce a capital gains tax until it had sought and won a mandate at an election. Now CGTs are nothing radical; New Zealand is one of only two OECD countries not to have one. And Ardern decided the housing crisis was such that she needed to be able to introduce a CGT in Labour's first term if her tax working group so advised…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The panel discuss why both National and Labour seem to be having trouble with their sums, and why it's time to ask the minor parties what they really want.

By Tim Watkin

Financial credibility and leadership. That's what this week's Caucus boils down to, with both National and Labour struggling with the former, but showing a fair bit of the latter. Then there are the minor parties and what coalition combos could look like. But more of that later.

National's incorrect claims that Labour has an "$11.7 billion hole" in its fiscal plan - and its insistence it is right in the face of universal disagreement - has dominated the week, raising the question whether National's reputation for sound economic stewardship has taken a hit. In the finance debate on today's Morning Report, Steven Joyce couldn't name one New Zealander who backed his claims; and as Guyon points out, he wasn't even asking for an economist, it was any New Zealander at all.

Joyce's tactics mimic the National Party playbook from 2011 and 2014, when he raised questions about large fiscal holes in Labour's accounts, but this time the pushback has been strong and credible and National's narrative that they know how to run an economy better than anyone else is now being questioned.

Not that Labour's fiscals aren't without their own problems. Lisa runs through some of the "heroic" numbers that are in Labour's plan and then, of course, there's the land tax question. For nearly 48 hours, confusion reigned as to whether or not Jacinda Ardern had left the door open to a tax on the land under a family home.

Following a Tuesday Morning Report interview in which she seemed to both rule out a land tax on the family home and insist it was on the table for her proposed Tax Working Group, it took until last night for her to definitively say that there would be no tax - capital gains, land, or any variety - on the family home or land.

Yet while the major parties have struggled with economics, the Newshub leaders debate saw some moments of genuine leadership. Bill English took National into new territory, promising to lift 100,000 children out of poverty in the next term. He out-passioned her on the night, but Ardern matched that the next morning.

In the same debate, Ardern spoke out on abortion, committing to taking it out of the Crimes Act and earning loud applause from the studio audience. Lisa says that just a few months ago, she declined an interview request from The Nation on just that topic, saying it was a conscience vote. Now as leader, she's taken a stand. With English opposed to change, it reinforces the old/new perception that Labour is trying to develop…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

It's all about Winston - his Super spin, bottom lines and how he chooses coalition partners. But it's also about the scrap for the family vote and what it's really like behind the scenes at a leaders debate

By Tim Watkin

It's been Winston week, so far. That changes tonight, with the first head-to-head major party leaders debate on TVNZ between Bill English and Jacinda Ardern. But thus far the NZ First leader and his super-charged super payments have been the focus of discussion.

Winston Peters has adeptly turned the story into one about who leaked the information to journalists. That raises privacy concerns that deserve to be addressed and has seen Peters grab the opportunity to ask how his personal information made it into the public domain. At first, he was sure IRD officials were the source of the leak. Next, he was certain it was someone in or around National.

Investigations are under way and even Prime Minister Bill English has worried out loud about officials' use of private information.

As Guyon Espiner says in today's Caucus, there's plenty of irony in this. Peters has built a career on using leaks to his political gain, and National is in something of a glasshouse itself, if it wants to pour scorn on the politicisation of personal information, given its track record recounted in Dirty Politics.

But that all has drawn attention away from the central question of how Peters was overpaid superannuation for so long and whether the man who so often calls for transparency from others, should release his forms so voters can see whether or not his story stacks up.

By and large the public reaction has been sympathetic to Peters and, as Espiner says, he's on the front foot. The bottom line is that all the recent polls still have New Zealand First as 'The Decider' - the party that will decide between a National-led and Labour-led government. Which raises the question of bottom lines…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Lisa, Tim and Guyon discuss how PREFU has changed the campaign, how Dunne's departure may signal a changing of the generations, and how the minor parties want to change the conversation.

By Tim Watkin

Put the clubs down and back away. That's what Labour and National tried to do after the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) was released yesterday.

The first moves by both major parties were defensive. Labour ruled out an increase to the top tax rate, trying to diminish National's attack line that they are the party of taxes, taxes and more taxes. At the same time, National took tax cuts off the table, undermining Labour's attack line that Joyce & Co are willing to starve essential public services, such as health and education.

And yet. And yet. Labour's standing by its decision to set up a tax working group should it become government and take advice from it on how to reform the tax system. Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson claim the current tax system isn't fair, but won't openly campaign on what they think a fair system looks like. While it's widely assumed Labour is inclined towards introducing a Capital Gains Tax (they campaigned on one in 2011 and 2014), Ardern insists she won't make up her mind until she's seen the tax group's recommendations.

Yet as Guyon and Lisa point out in the podcast, she has confirmed that she and Robertson will appoint the members of the group, so can more or less ensure the result she wants.

So National will keep using the 'Let's tax this' club from now until 23 September as they try to convince voters that change is too risky and more of the same is in their interests.

Labour, in its turn, will keep looking to bash National for its lack of commitment to improving public services, that have now been run under the Bill English 'do more with less' mantra for nine years. Notably, while the headlines shouted that Steve Joyce had taken tax cuts off the table as a result of the slightly worse than expected PREFU numbers, the fact is Joyce did actually promise tax cuts yesterday. He just suspended them.

At his press conference, Joyce ruled out tax cuts in this campaign, but added he would look at the possibility of raising tax thresholds as part of another 'families income package' in 2020, should fiscal conditions allow. Then, later in the day, he released a press statement that was much stronger than those initial words. The statement committed National to another package in 2020, essentially on the condition that his government gets to do what it's already promised to do in Budget 2017…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

National starts its fight back as Bill English goes to boot camp, Jacinda Ardern negotiates her first international stoush and Grant Robertson opens the door to a Capital Gains Tax.

By Tim Watkin

It's been an in-between week in New Zealand politics - between the fall of both Andrew Little and Metiria Turei and before the final pre-election fiscal update and the rise of the 'big policies'. But there's still been plenty going on. And a bit of argy-bargy.

Next Wednesday, what's known as the PREFU is released by Treasury. That's the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update, to give it its proper name. Labour won't reveal its big policy - widely picked to involve education - until it knows the state of the nation's books. While they'll have it all ready to go, they need to be seen to be waiting so as to look like responsible managers of the economy. Equally, National has kept its campaign launch back until 27 August - four days after the PREFU - when we expect to see its big policy bid for a fourth term.

But has everyone been in hibernation while we wait? Heck no. Some have even come out of hiding.

While we've seen a lot of reheated policy announced - such as Labour again promising driving lessons for high school students and National re-announcing the $100m for mental health it first announced in Budget 2017 - battle lines have been drawn.

In this week's Caucus podcast, Guyon Espiner says National has kept its powder dry for a week or so after Ardern's rise to the leadership, but has now started to roll out attacks against Labour. First amongst those, #letstaxthis and the well-worn line that Labour is the party of new taxes.

Labour opened the door to that attack, when finance spokesman Grant Robertson revealed that a capital gains tax was back on the table in Labour's first term. In 2015, Andrew Little as leader ruled out significant tax reform in a first term, promising to seek a mandate at the next election. Robertson, then Ardern, said if Labour's tax review suggested a capital gains tax (which politics observers assume it will), they no longer feel the need to seek that mandate before implementing it.

Cue Steven Joyce calling Labour "dodgy on tax" and cries that Ardern will introduce new taxes on water, Auckland transport and now property. Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy even starred in a campaign video as the worried farmer having to find money for water royalties on top of all his other many bills…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

In this week's Caucus, the team discuss the Green Party strategy that may have (inadvertently) saved Labour. Was it OK to put Metiria Turei under such scrutiny? What next for the Greens?

Election 2017

By Tim Watkin

Three weeks ago, Metiria Turei rolled the dice with nothing less at stake than all the gains the Greens had made in recent elections - from a 5-6 percent party to a 10-12 percent party.

Frustration at their inability to get into government and Labour's stumbling performance over the last three years saw the Greens opt for the high-risk high-reward strategy. But was it a naive strategy, and how well was it implemented?

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei resigned as co-leader after weeks of pressure over her admission of lying to Work and Income in the 1990s so her benefit would not be cut.

First, Turei attacked Winston Peters as racist. Then, in the second act on 16 July, she revealed that she had lied to Work and Income about her living circumstances when she was a solo mum in the 1990s. She admitted then that the confession put her own career and the party at risk. It turned out to be a prophetic statement, not that it played out that way at first.

Her revelation, along with Labour's messed-up intern scheme, saw the Greens leap in the polls, and Labour slump.

The Greens were delighted; although taking votes off Labour was doing nothing to change the government, as per the party's mission statement, it was maximising its votes and strengthening its hand.

But the dice hasn't stopped rolling. Labour's slump prompted a leadership spill and ushered in the Jacinda Effect. Worse for the Greens, Turei's story of having to lie to support her child was found to have new fish hooks - such as that she had, in a fit of youthful hijinks, committed what could be called electoral fraud.

Then it became clear some Green MPs - Kennedy Graham and Dave Clendon - didn't like Turei's refusal to condemn other beneficiaries today for doing what she did herself in the past. The stench of disunity was coming off the party, and new polls yesterday and today showed the party's support plummet back into single digits, while Labour roared into the mid-30s - the minimum of where they need to be to lead a new government.

Inadvertently, ironically, and at the cost of her own political career and her party's reputation for taking the high moral ground, Turei has breathed new life into Labour and done more to change the government than she probably dared hope. It's just not happened the way she would have wanted to…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

It's all about Jacinda. Labour's late leadership change has turned Election 17 on its head. But can Labour seize the moment and how will other parties respond?

Election 2017

By Tim Watkin

What had been looking like a campaign that was being driven by the minor parties, has now pivoted back to focus on the two majors. Jacinda Ardern has created a spurt of - to use her words - "relentless positivity" that has put the phone back on the hook for Labour. Or as Guyon Espiner puts it, has brought them back into coverage.

Voters who had given up on Labour, because they didn't have the look of government and success about them, will give them another look. While the fundamental policy platform won't change - and Labour's weaknesses aren't suddenly magicked away - they will be seeing the party through a new lens.

As Lisa Owen points out, Andrew Little had kept Labour's poll numbers around 30 percent until quite recently, but the party's dive in fortunes since the interns fiasco and Metiria Turei's confession that she lied to Work & Income looked impossible to turn around without a radical change. And so Little fell on his sword.

Guyon says this could be "a moment" for Labour and expects an immediate and significant bump in the polls. It was a moment in part created by her exchange with Mark Richardson on the AM Show, where she showed courage under fire and a certainty that has been lacking from Labour for some years.

As a woman who has herself been asked if she's "forgotten to have children", Lisa says the question about whether Ardern is planning a family was completely out of line. But it shows National how NOT to approach Ardern. While I argue the fact she would be New Zealand's youngest ever Prime Minister (and the country's youngest leader since Edward Stafford in 1855) means questions about her age are acceptable, Guyon reckons that could be a positive, not a weakness. National have lost control of the ball for now and will have to get smarter.

Ardern's "relentless positivity" is in stark contrast to solid and sensible Bill English and it's hard to imagine the relentlessly positive response to her leadership in the first 48 hours won't help Labour regain some ground. …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Guyon Espiner, Lisa Owen and Tim Watkin discuss Bill English's Epsom and Ohariu urges, whether the Greens are losing control, the link between New Zealand First's vote and immigration, plus the Perry incomes report.

Election 2017

By Tim Watkin

This time there's no cup of tea and little intrigue. Bill English has simply and directly told National Party supporters to give their electorate vote to United Future in Ohariu and to ACT in Epsom. Even though he seemed to almost forget the name of Peter Dunne's party, the message was clear. More of the same, please.

National is running this 'pre-campaign' campaign very quietly, letting the minor parties make the running and headlines, trying to look above it all and, well, governmental. Its goal will be to minimise its almost inevitable loss of vote at the end of a third term and to defy the nine year rule (that says it's almost impossible for New Zealand governments to win a fourth term) by making as little fuss as possible.

One of the potential road bumps along that path was announcing what have often been called its "dirty deals" with coalition partners. But yesterday, simply standing in the lobby at parliament, English frankly said he'd like to keep governing with the same parties that have been part of the National-led government since 2008: ACT, United Future and the Maori Party.

To help that long, he said, National Party supporters should back another party, in their electorate vote. In previous years that has opened the party to ridicule. It seems dodgy for a party not to back itself and endorse its own MPs wherever possible. If they aren't trying to maximise their own vote, there must be something up.

And of course there is. They are gaming the system, trying to add what could be a couple of crucial bolt on parties to create a majority in parliament and keep Winston Peters out of government. Again. The code word here is: stability. English, perhaps with worrying echoes of Theresa May, is pushing a message of 'strong and stable' government and this announcement was consistent with that.

There was no media event at a cafe, no joint statement with United Future's Peter Dunne or ACT's David Seymour. It was all played down. But let's not pretend, this could be significant. A couple of seats bolted onto National (Dunne and Seymour have both ruled out Labour) could yet be crucial, depending on results…

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Labour's fiscals, Winston's growing spending tab, who wants the Māori seats, what a Green Party voter looks like and whether it's OK for Metiria Turei to have deceived WINZ (oh, and the Greens' actual family policy!).

Election 2017

By Tim Watkin

Labour and National are doubling down on the budgetary hands they have dealt themselves after the release of Labour's fiscal plan this week. The gap between the two isn't huge - both are promising to spend some of the surplus on families while committing to debt levels that are low by international standards. But you wouldn't know it from the rhetoric.

If you listened to Labour, you would believe the heartless National government is letting social services rot. Its fiscals this week promised $8 billion more in health, $4 billion more in education and $5 billion more in its family package, over four years. By "more", they mean on top of National's promised spending in Budget 2017. Its rationale? That services have been ground down and need to be refreshed.

National says that will mean more borrowing and it's typical of Labour 'tax and spend'.

It reckons people would rather have some of that money in their own pocket, some (but significantly less) spent on those services, and more fiscal discipline, where money is not spent at all.

National warns of a rainy day and wants Crown debt down below 20 percent of GDP. Labour's happy to let it stay a couple of percent higher. In fours years National wants debt at 18 percent of GDP and falling, while Labour wants it at 20 percent. The difference is around $7 billion in borrowing.

But for context, either of those debt levels is conservative by international standards. Australia's government debt is almost double that; Britain, America and Canada's are 3-4 times those numbers. So there's not much between the two parties.New Zealand First, on the other hand, has a growing shopping list of policies, including a referendum on the Māori seats. But we don't know what they think they'll cost and in the case of the referendum, the party even had some wobbles over whether all its MPs are on board with what Winston wants. Is it time to take New Zealand First more seriously?

At the same time, the Greens have this week stepped out on their own with a family package that outbids even Labour. The Greens want to increase main benefits by 20 percent, increase the minimum wage significantly and cut sanctions on beneficiaries. …

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

We talk about Barry Coates being "nuanced when he should have been unequivocal" on coalition agreements, as well as the battle over National and Labour's families packages.

Election 2017

By Tim Watkin

In today's episode, Green MP Barry Coates' ill-considered suggestion that the Greens might prefer a second election to a Labour-New Zealand First coalition, which could keep his party on the sidelines, pushed coalition politics to the top of the hosts' agenda.

Coates is the Greens' newest MP, having entered Parliament on the list in October last year when Kevin Hague resigned. He told Newshub this week that Labour and New Zealand First could not take Green Party support for granted if they tried to keep them out of any coalition talks.

Picking up on comments by Greens co-leader Metiria Turei at the weekend, he said a Labour-New Zealand First government would be unacceptable to the Greens, then went even further, suggesting that if numbers allowed, they could force another election.

Greens co-leader James Shaw promptly shot down Coates' comments, telling Morning Report Coates was wrong and he was "essentially being nuanced when he should have been unequivocal and I have spoken to him about it".

So, after Turei's accusations that New Zealand First practised "racist and divisive" politics, what are the Greens up to?

Meanwhile, with the release of Labour's families package this week, we now have the big two parties fighting for the family vote. The promise of a baby bonus and winter fuel payments stood out, but the package also faced accusations of being over-complex.

So who has the edge? What do voters get from each? And what do their positions reveal about the parties' wider strategies?

Finally, National allocated its $1 billion infrastructure fund this week. Did it all go to plan? That's this week's Caucus.

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

The team discuss who's making nice with whom, the return of Shane Jones, a Greens apology, Todd Barclay implications and Māori Party-Labour fisticuffs.

Election 2017

By Tim Watkin

Watch the video version of the episode here

Why is New Zealand First assumed to be the king maker? Is everyone a bit over-excited about the second coming of Shane Jones? And can the party mobilise the regions to push their vote ahead of the Greens?

On the weekend, Jones made soothing noises towards the Greens, at odds with what NZ First leader Winston Peters typically says about them. Is that significant? The Greens have said publicly they can work with New Zealand First - and it's expected they will say more at their election year conference this coming weekend - but could Winston do a deal that involves them?

Shane Jones announcing he is standing for New Zealand First in Whangarei.

This week on Morning Report, Labour Party leader Andrew Little reached out to Jones, calling him "a friend of Labour". But there are questions as to whether Jones' any more friendly with Labour that he would be with National.

Then there's Green Party co-leader James Shaw's apology for his party's immigration policy. Last year he floated the idea of keeping it at about 1 percent of the overall population as a way to manage it without the peaks and troughs, but met with resistance from immigrant advocates. He said last weekend he was "mortified" by the reaction and walked back that policy. But is that apology a sign of strength or does it further muddy the waters? 

How has Prime Minister Bill English rallied from the Todd Barclay debacle and what's the opening opposition parties see in how he handled that? And then there's the roiling spat between Labour and the Māori Party. This week the Māori Party announced a partnership with One Pacific and president Tukoroirangi Morgan said Māori were sick of being "oppressed" by people like Andrew Little. Could those parties ever work together?

Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details