It is profoundly disturbing that someone can go through the NZ education system and get to 46 years old, and still be unable to do simple addition, such as 1 + 4 = 9, not 5.

As I pointed out previously, the overhang campaign did not actually see National lose party vote in the three months since it launched. NaNational lost party vote prior to that campaign, but in fact it had an exceptionally good campaign compared to previous MMP elections.

The table below shows the average party vote in the polls three months before an election, the actual result, and the change.

In nine out of the ten previous MMP elections National’s party vote slipped from 1% to 8% in the last three months. In 2026 it stayed constant despite a $500k campaign urging National supporters to not vote National. This is a remarkable result and shows National’s campaign was incredibly effective.

The overhang was not caused by National voters voting tactically on the party vote. It was caused by National over-performing on the electorate vote.

Where there clearly was party vote tactical voting was on the left. Te Pati Maori’s party vote in the seven Maori electorates fell from 30% to 5%!!! The TPM MPs did not even vote for their own party on the party vote.

Overhang was caused by Te Pati Maori. If you don’t like the result, blame them.

This looks at how each party did with advance voting compared to the voting on the day. Two thirds advance voted and one third voted on the day.

National got almost exactly the same proportion in advance votes as E-Day votes. They had the smallest variation.

Labour and Greens did around 3% worse on E-Day as Advance. So it looks like they were better at getting their supporters to vote early but not as good getting them out on the day.

ACT and NZF did around 2% better on E-Day than Advance, so that could be last minute tactical voting?

TOP did 1.5% better on E-Day than Advance, so may have got the last minute undecideds.

Once we know special votes I will add them on also.

The election outcome has me both relieved, and sad. It’s an emotional conflict which I have had a lot of lately (a family member recently died after a long period with Alzheimers).

I am relieved because it is very likely the current Government will continue, and all the reforms of the last three years won’t be rolled back. The area where I am most relieved is education. I can handle a country with higher debt, higher deficit and even higher taxes. But what I can’t handle is a country which tolerates the kids of today being two years behind, achievement wise, the kids of 25 years ago. Nothing despaired me more than Labour saying it will abolish the minimum one hour a day in primary schools for each of reading, writing and maths.

As a person highly motivated by policy, I’m very pleased with the election outcome as the likely policies of the next three years will be far more to my liking than if Labour, Greens and TPM won the election.

But I am incredibly saddened by the loss of some great MPs, especially Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop. I’m sad not because they are a loss to National, to good Government and to Parliament, but also because I regard them as great human beings and good friends. I’ve known them both for around 25 years. We were colleagues together in the early 2000s. I was at Bish’s wedding. They both had the potential to be a future Prime Minister if they had got back in.

The only silver lining is that Jenna and Duncan and their kids will get to see more of them, and they will probably both end up in jobs that pay more, and have far fewer hours.

I’m also sad to see Gerry, Goldie and Melissa go, who I have also known for decades. Gerry especially is such a great guy, and one of National’s most loyal guys (he stood down as Deputy in 2006 to allow Key and English to unite the caucus). Goldie I worked with back in the 1990s, and Melissa I just adore. Also of course sad to lose some of the newer MPs such as Nancy, Carolos and Vanessa.

National got a relatively good result in terms of MPs, because of the strength of the electorate vote. But it should not be complacent and think that losing 9% of the party vote in its first term was acceptable. And that 9% went before the overhang campaign became a thing, not because of it.

The Government came close to being the first one-term Government since 1975 and the first National Government to not get three terms or more.

National has some serious challenges ahead, which I will be writing about in future at length. It needs to elect a new deputy leader. It need to replace Nicola, Bish and Goldie as senior Ministers (if they form Govt again). It needs to ensure there are multiple MPs capable of becoming leader in the future. It needs to work out how it can lift the party vote in future so that there is the possibility of future List MPs. It needs to change how electorate selections are done, as that may be the only pathway to caucus in the future for aspiring MPs.

National also needs to work out, if they get to form Government again, how to drive an agenda that will see more people vote for the Government in 2029, than in 2026.

On the positive side for National, they did get some new MPs – Blair Cameron is a legend for winning Nelson. Emma Chatterton will be an even more amazing MP than she was a staffer. Mahesh increased the seats for the Government by winning Tamaki. And Jess Rowe, Katie Milne Matthew Paul and Lloyd Budd bring some great talent to the caucus.

So how did other parties go? My thoughts.

Labour

Labour did grow its party vote from 2023, but to still be under 30% is a disappointing result for them – especially considering how unhappy the country was (net country direction negative for last two years). They lost four MPs (and I will also miss Deborah Russell, whom I have also known for decades, and is one of the smartest and loveliest people I know) and gained seven new ones. Some of their new MPs such as George Hampton and Rakesh Naidoo have thew potential to be very good MPs.

But a net gain of just two MPs from 34 to 36 is disappointing. They were at 35% in the polls at one stage,. Their small target strategy was a good strategy for 2025, but a disastrous strategy for 2026.

If Labour don’t form Government, then it must be very likely Hipkins will go. The potential replacements are Michael Wood, Carmel Sepuloni, Kieran McAnulty and Barbara Edmonds.

Greens

The Greens have gone from 15 MPs to 16 MPs, and will probably end up with 17. This is a good result, especially when you consider the scandals of the previous years with MPs who shoplifted, who bullied, who exploited immigrant labour etc.

It is unclear how much of their increased vote reflects Labour doping poorly, the Greens doing well, or Māori voters voting tactically for Greens rather than TPM. But regardless they have their largest ever caucus, and the largest caucus in modern NZ history for a third party.

They lost one MP, Mike Davidson, and gained three new ones. Rohan O’Neill-Stevens has considerable local government experience and could do very well, and Tania Waikato will be a force with the Māori vote. Craig Pauling has significant environmental clout (an issue the Greens are meant to focus on sometimes!) as well as local government experience.

Their leadership seems settled, and Tamatha Paul is a potential replacement one day for Marama Davidson.

ACT

In 2012 I wrote that ACT was brain dead on life support and should be euthanised. Thankfully I was wrong. In 2014 and 2017 they remained on life support but David Seymour got them to 10 MPs in 2020, 11 MPs in 2023 and 13 MPs in 2026. It is impressive to be in Government and gain more MPs.

ACT did not lose any incumbent MPs (Mark Cameron left with ill health) and have gained James Christmas, Iain Murray, Paul Henry and NZ’s first Bulgarian MP – Antonia Modkova. They all look great gains. Paul Henry showed a level of discipline and policy knowledge that surprised many and was a star for ACT. He is very serious about making a difference. Christmas could end up Attorney-General. Iain Murray has an amazing record in education and Modkova is one of those huge brain people who is both a computer scientist and a lawyer. ACT’s biggest problem may be working out who doesn’t get to be a Minister.

NZ First

NZ First has been in Government four times. The first three were disasters for them. In 1999 they went from 13% to 4%., In 2008 they went from 6% to 4% and out of Parliament. In 2020 they went from 7% to 3% and out of Parliament. In 2026 though they went from 6% to 10%, and have gained four extra MPs.

Populist and nationalist parties are on a roll globally. But normally they gain strength when in opposition. It is no meant feat to get 50% more MPs while in Government.

Not everything went their way. At one point they were at 14% in the polls and looked viable to get well over 15%. Comments by Nash and Laws were unhelpful, as was Peters’ telling Xu-Nan to go back to China. It is a good result for them compared to 2023, but they will be disappointed they didn’t end up higher. They may lose an MP on specials also.

They have lost Jaime Arbuckle but gained Taine Randell, Alfred Ngaro, Michael Laws, Harete Hipango-Brownlee and Craig Stobo. Randell and Stobo have some serious business acumen and could end up Ministers, giving them more economic credibility. Ngaro has solid ministerial experience, good relationships with National and shores up their conservative base. Laws is one of the most cunning political minds out there, and was a huge factor in Winston’s rise to prominence in the 1980s and 1990s.

The downside is that Laws, Hipango-Brownlee and Stobo alll have the potential to say things which will cause headaches for NZ First. I somewhat pity the party whip!

Worth noting also that 62% of the NZ First caucus is Māori or Pacific Island. So could media and others stop reporting far left activists calling them anti-Māori racists. What they really mean is they just disagree with their views.

Opportunity

A great result. They made it with seven MPs. The first party since ACT to make it into Parliament without an incumbent MP defecting. Q is a smart, warm and a great communicator. Their caucus looks to have significant talent in it. Of course talent elsewhere does not always translate into political talent.

They are sort of the technocratic party. They have a supreme belief that experts have the solutions to everything and all you need to do is leave it to the experts, and leave politics out of it. This is why they are beloved by public servants and academics. Their support comes overwhelmingly comes inner city urban dwellers.

Lees-Galloway deserves huge credit for his role in turning them into a professional party, and if he becomes the parliamentary chief of staff that will be a very smart move.

They do have some potentially difficult times ahead. Their policies (except land tax/UBI) are very similar to the Greens, and to a degree Labour. If all they do is oppose a likely National-led Government, they turn into just another opposition party.

However if they do get to close to the CR parties, their voters (who are very much left) may punish them for it. If the Government does need them to govern, they may be able to claims some wins like saving the Climate Commission, the Paris Agreement, bringing in lobbying reform etc. But would that make up for keeping NZ First in Government?

And if there is a hung Parliament and they force a second election, they would get slaughtered.

None of this should take away from what is a huge victory for them. It just points out that now the even harder part begins.

Te Pāti Māori

TPM will be very pleased with the result for them personally. They kept five out of their six seats despite a disastrous civil war.

They designed and implemented the overhang strategy (which Helen Clark and other left apologists ignore) and it was hugely successful. Their party vote in the Māori seats plummeted to 4% in some seats, while they retained the electorates. Did forbid anyone ever stereotype Māori as dumb. Māori roll voters flocked to the overhang strategy and created a four seat overhang for the left.

However the overhang strategy backfired on the wider left, leaving National with an even larger seven-seat overhang.

It is not implausible that if TPM had never announced a deliberate overhang strategy, that there would now be a left wing Government. So the election result is great for TPM as a political party, but not great for what they wanted to achieve – a left wing government. It was an own goal, that could result in future overhangs cementing the right in power for many elections to come.

So they won the battle, but may have lost the war.

The path to power for Chris Hipkins is incredibly small. At the moment the count is 67 for the Government, 57 for Labour/Greens/TPM and seven for Opportunity so 67 to 64.

There is a decent chance that NZ First could lose a party vote seat to Greens (or Opportunity) on specials. A friend has run some scenarios through Claude, and has calculated the following probabilities.

• No change 34%
• Left +1 19%
• Left +1, Right -1 21%
• Left +1, Left -1 11%
• Left +2, Right -1 9%

So around a 26% chance it goes to 66 to 65, and a 19% chance it is 67 to 65, and 51% chance it stays 67 to 64.

Let’s say it ends up 66 to 65.

Wairarapa is held by 139 seats. Claude estimates that there is a 27% chance it flips on specials. But this is the vital thing. Even if it flips it makes it 65 all, not 65 CR and 66 CL. Why? Because if Labour wins Wairarapa they lose a List MP.

So even if the left gain a party vote MP, and NZF lose a party vote MP, and Labour wins Wairarapa the outcome is not a Labour-led Government. It is a hung Parliament with 65 seats for the CR, 58 for the CL and 7 for Opportunity.

Opportunity can’t put Labour into power in this scenario. Their only choice is to allow National to govern, or to force a second election. And could you imagine the backlash if the party that claimed they are the sensible moderate party who can work with anyone, then forced a second election costing $180 million because actually they’d rather force another election than give National a chance.

So for a Hipkins led Government to occur, they would need to not just have the left gain a seat of NZ First, and Labour win Wairarapa. They would also need to flip Hamilton East, while not losing Mt Roskill and TPM not losing Te Tai Tokerau.

What does Claude say is the chance of that:

• Party vote specials cause left +1, right -1: 21%
• Labour wins Wairarapa: 27%
• Labour wins Hamilton East: 3%
• Labour retains Mt Roskill: 90%
• TPM retains Te Tai Tokerau: 98%

If these are all independent events (they are not), the chance is 0.15%. If you even just look at the most unlikely event of Labour winning Hamilton East the probability is 3%.

So according to Claude, the probability of Hipkins being able to form a Government with Opportunity is between 0.15% and 3%.

The probability of a hung Parliament is higher at around 6%.

So the odds of Luxon remaining Prime Minister are 94% or better I’d say. The chance for Hipkins is at best 3%. I know who I would rather be.

There are provisionally 131 MPs, a record high, in the 55th Parliament of New Zealand. There are 71 electorate MPs and 60 list MPs.

On Patreon, I have done a detailed analysis of the breakdown of not just Parliament as a whole, but for each party. This answers questions like:

• Which party is only 29% male?
• Which party is 58% Māori and Pacific?
• Which party is 43% under 40?
• Which two parties have no MPs from rural or small town NZ?
• Which party has 31% of its MPs Rainbow?
• Who is now the Father of the House? (It’s Chris Hipkins)

So the full data is paywalled, but the toppling summary data is below.

57% of MPs are male and 43% female. This compares to 49% and 51% respectively of the adult population.

The proportion of MPs who are female in recent Parliaments is:

• 2014 31%
• 2017 38%
• 2020 48%
• 2023 44%
• 2026 43%

A massive 35 MPs are Māori, which is 27% of Parliament. This is much much higher than the 15% of the adult population. 8% are Asian compared to 17% of the population., 5% are Pacific vs 7% of the population.

The age breakdown is:

• 20s: 4%
• 30s: 13%
• 40s: 38%
• 50s: 28%
• 60s: 16%
• 70s: 0%
• 80s: 1%

The breakdown by area is:

• Auckland 33%
• Wellington 10%
• Christchurch 10%
• Provincial Cities 24%
• Towns/Rural 24%

77% are in the North Island and 23% in the South Island.

9% of MPs are Rainbow, compared to 4% of the adult population.

Te Pāti Māori announced in August that they did not want party votes. They explicitly said they want to create overhang. Their MPs did not even party vote for TPM. And their strategy worked.

In 2023 they got 3.1%. In 2026 they got 0.6%. That is an 80% reduction in their party vote, or a 2.5 percentage point drop. In July they were polling around 3% in the polls.

If National had not also ended up with overhang, the TPM strategy would have succeeded, Their four seat overhang would have meant the left could easily govern with Opportunity.

Now National did also get an overhang, but this is more due to overperformance on winning electorates, rather than their party vote going to NZ First and ACT during the campaign. The promoters of the overhang strategy were explicitly calling for National voters to abandon National to boost the number of ACT and NZ First seats, while not decreasing the National seats.

National got 29%. Most polls in August and early September had National at 29%. There was no big exodus from National due to the overhang campaign. The exodus occurred a year earlier, due to dissatisfaction.

ACT and NZ First both did better than 2023. They got 11% and 10% respectively. But back in August and early September they were only slightly below that. There may have been some movement due to the overhang campaign, but it was extremely modest, if at all.

What really created the overhang was National over performing in electorates. Some of this will be ACT and NZ First party voters giving National the candidate vote, but this is very normal behaviour (just as Labour asked Green voters to vote for Labour candidates). The overhang campaign succeeded in terms of having people be more tactical with their electorate votes, but did not succeed in terms of driving significant party vote change. Also National candidate quality played a significant role. Blair Cameron was amazing to win Nelson. Dana Kirkpatrick stormed home in East Cape which on paper should have flipped. Greg Fleming kept Maungakiekie, reflecting what a great electorate MP he has been.

So overhang did impact the election outcome, but in very different ways. TPM started the overhang wars, and they succeeded. The counter campaign did not succeed in driving party vote changes, but did have an impact in terms of tactical voting in electorates.

I still favour legislating to get rid of overhang, but that is an issue for another day.

On my Patreon (paywalled) I write:

The Government currently has 67 seats out of 131, so a majority of three. They are in a good position to remain Government, but what could change with the final votes?

I have modelled below what the final result would be, if the special votes follow the same pattern as in 2023. We will look at party vote outcomes, and then possible outcomes in the six most marginal electorates with a majority of under 1,000.

This is based on the same behaviour as 2023. It will of course not be exactly the same. But this is the best modelling we can do, until we know what the actual special votes this time look like.

There are an estimated 399,365 special votes. This is down from 602,488 in 2023. 3.31% were invalid last time so the estimated valid specials are 386,151.

The 2023 data tells us how many percentage points better or worse a party did on specials than election night results. Then by applying that to the 2026 data, we get the following projected final outcome.

The full analysis is behind the paywall at Patreon.

Here are the provisional results vs the final pre-election polls.

The difference for each company vs the results was:

So Curia had an average error of 0.5%, which I am obviously very pleased with.

And whether the error was within the margin of error for a poll of 1,000 people.

These may change with final results, but overall pretty good. One company got 7/7, two got 6/7, two got 5/7 and one got 4/7

The results so far have 67 seats for the Government parties and 64 seats for the others.

National has 42 electorate seats. Those with a small majority are:

• Hamilton East 456
• Wairarapa 139

It is quite possible Wairarapa could flip on the specials votes but not likely Hamilton East would. If Hamilton East flips then you have Govt 66, Others 64.

Now on the party vote, National lost 2 seats on specials at the last election, and 1 seat on the elections before that. However due to overhang, losing seats on the party vote will not drop National’s number of seats. So the Government stays at say 66 (if Wairarapa flips).

The list seats on the provisional vote are:

116 Greens
117 Labour
118 NZ First
119 National
120 Labour

The worst case scenario is National and NZ First both lose a seat. This would take the Government to 65 seats. You would need both those seats to go to Labour and Greens to take the other parties to 66. Only then could Labour form a Government.

So for Labour to form a Government you need the following:

1. National loses Wairarapa
2. NZ First loses a list seat (not happened under MMP so far)
3. Both Labour and Greens gain a list seat
4. Opportunity to fail to negotiate an agreement with National (largest party)
5. Labour negotiates an agreement with Greens, Te Pati Maori and Opportunity, giving them a one seat majority

So it is mathematically possible, but highly improbable. If you end up with 65 seats for each bloc, then Opportunity and National would have to reach an agreement (as Opportunity would be unable to get Labour across the line), or force a second election which the public would hate.

The Free Speech Union released:

Twisted Frequency, a New Year music festival in Golden Bay, has cancelled Israeli DJ Dekel because he has not spoken out against Israel.

The festival says it was told Dekel had been a commander in the Israeli Defence Force and had performed in Israel in recent years. When it heard this, it contacted his management to cancel the booking.

It says it also tried to find evidence about his views, and found nothing “verified and substantial” about his personal beliefs. It went ahead with cancelling him anyway, saying “the fact he hasn’t spoken out against the genocide in Palestine and has continued to perform in Israel is all that is needed”.

The festival says a country of origin alone isn’t a reason to boycott a musician. But without a public statement from Dekel against the “ongoing occupation and genocide”, it would not host him.

The Festival of course has the right to invite or disinvite people, but let’s not pretend this isn’t about the country of origin.

There is a simple comparison one can do. The Government of China has also been accused of committing crimes against Muslims, in this case Uyghurs. Some have also labelled that a genocide.

Has any music or literary festival ever ever gone and told a Chinese artist that they are banned from performing unless they issue a public statement against the treatment of Muslim Uyghurs by the Chinese Government?

Of course not.

Which is how we can safely conclude it is not about what is happening to a group of Muslims. It is about being Jewish or Israeli.

It’s Election Day. Until the polls close at 7 pm don’t make any comments that could be seen as advocating for who people should vote.

I’ll be on the Herald Now broadcast from 7 pm with Ryan Bridge and other panelists, discussing the results at they come in.

The bean counters at the Taxpayers’ Union have done a final update on the extra spending that each party is promising.

So there are two fiscally responsible parties, two fiscally irresponsible parties and three fiscally insane parties. Vote wisely if you don’t want your kids paying off a generation of debt.

The Post reports:

Opportunity looks likely to enter Parliament – and potentially decide who governs.

This has led to questions over how exactly the untested party would actually make the call.

Any coalition deal would be negotiated by the party’s caucus of MPs, but would need to be signed off by its seven-member board.

Opportunity’s constitution says any coalition or confidence and supply deal its MPs negotiate must be approved by 75% of the party’s seven-member board, meaning any two board members effectively hold the power to block any coalition deal if the party acts as kingmaker.

So two people you have never heard of can determine who forms the Government of New Zealand, if Opportunity hold the balance of power.

One of their board members is also one of their largest donors. So they are campaigning against money in politics, yet are giving the guy who donated $220,000 to them a partial veto over who forms the Government of New Zealand, if they get in!

The track record of polls in New Zealand has generally been pretty good. 1993 and 2005 not so good, but most other years pretty reasonable.

If ever there is an election where the polls are more likely to diverge from the results, it has to be this one. And this is because there are so many competing tactical voting campaigns out there, and with significant interest in them. This means more people are confused about how to vote to get the outcome they want, and that polls even a week out from the election may differ quite a bit from the final result. That is on top of the normal issues from the sampling margins of error and non-sampling errors.

We currently have:

• National Party voters being told by one former leader that the best way to help National is not to vote for them, and being told by another former leader to two tick National.
• Left voters being told to vote Opportunity to ensure they make 5%
• Left voters being told not to vote Opportunity because they may go with National
• ACT voters being told to give their electorate votes to National to help with overhang seats, except in Epsom and Tamaki where they should vote ACT candidates
• Te Pāti Māori voters being told not to give their party votes to TPM, to the extent that even TPM MPs are not voting for their own party!
• Green voters being told by Labour activists they must give their electorate votes to Labour candidates to stop overhang
• Uncertainty over whether a vote for Opportunity will be “wasted” or not

There has never been an election campaign where tactical issues has been so much to the fore. I think there will be people voting on Saturday who know what outcome they want, but will only decide at the booth how to vote to achieve that.

The size and time weighted average of the public polls has the following

Government

• National 28.1%, 34 seats
• ACT 10.2%, 12 seats
• NZ First 10.1%, 12 seats
• Govt total 48.4%, 58 seats

Opposition

• Labour 28.8%, 35 seats
• Greens 14.8%, 18 seats
• Te Pāti Māori 1.2%, 1 seat
• Opposition Total 44.7%, 54 seats

Opportunity 6.2%, 8 seats

The seat projections are on party vote only. No assumptions are made on overhang.

I’ve been on a what’s app group for National Party volunteers in my local electorate. I’ve been insanely busy with scores of polls, parenting and speaking engagements so have only twice had time to do some pamphlet delivering.

But what has been refreshing and even inspiring to me is seeing these dozens of volunteers, who age from 20 to 70s, every day putting their hands up saying they can door knock here, deliver here, turn up for mobile hoardings etc etc. The candidate and his family are also spending all their time trying to get people to two tick National.

Now my local electorate is not a marginal seat. It is a very red seat, so short of divine intervention the candidate and the volunteers know they are not going to win the seat.

But that doesn’t deter them. Because they believe in their party, they believe in the political system, they have values and beliefs about what is good for New Zealand, and they are willing to give up hundreds of hours in trying to make New Zealand a better place.

This is not something unique to National. All parties have volunteers who put in numerous hours because they believe in their party. They do not have any expectations of being MPs, being on boards or in any way benefiting from their efforts.

We often think of politics as about MPs, candidates, donors, lobby groups, media etc. But for me I like to think it is about volunteers. The ones who day after day get up early because they believe in politics and believe in New Zealand.

Simeon Brown points out:

The Green Party has confirmed National’s warnings about its wealth tax, with Chloe Swarbrick accidentally admitting the party wants to lower the $10 million threshold once the tax is in place, National’s Campaign Chair Simeon Brown says.

“In an interview last night on The Kaka, Chloe Swarbrick said ‘winning the argument is critical’, explaining that the Greens had chosen a $10 million threshold to avoid ‘mass moral panic’ about the wealth tax hitting family homes.

“She then let the real plan slip – ‘if we implement it, and we demonstrate to people that it works then hopefully there is also the continuing arguments to obviously lower the threshold.’

“There you have it. Ten million dollars is where the Greens want to start, not where they intend to stop.

Chloe accidentally spoke the truth, and revealed their plan. They don’t just want to tax the assets of the very wealthy, they want to eventually come for anyone who manages to save well during their lifetime.

I received the following e-mail from Candace Owens:

I hope you will actually report on the dropping of my case and also correct your previous inaccurate info on what they sued me for (it was not for saying Brigette was a man)

https://youtube.com/post/UgkxsjkxGaLUCqG4QU-lnli7m5k-14Y6zeQT?si=O8xrLViWsxyhoTOz

I don’t agree with the framing of what was decided. Politico reports:

A Delaware state judge ruled Tuesday that French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, may not sue far-right commentator Candace Owens personally for defamation — but they may continue their case against the podcaster’s businesses.

It certainly is a useful win for Owens that she is personally not liable, but the substantive case will proceed against her business.