By Mona Krewel, Jack Vowles, Matthew Gibbons, Sam Crawley & Thomas Jamieson*
After winning the 2023 election, the National-led coalition government quickly embarked on a wide range of policy changes, often reversing the policies of its Labour predecessor.
A year on, despite continuing economic troubles, the three government parties have remained ahead in the polls – although sometimes only marginally.
The National-Act-NZ First coalition’s continued support suggests voters think it is delivering on its mandate – the promises and outcomes people had in mind when they voted for the coalition parties. Which raises the question, what exactly did people want when they voted in 2023?
The New Zealand Election Study helps us understand why people voted the way they did. After the election, the study surveyed a random sample of people registered to vote, receiving just under 2,000 responses. We use this data to try to understand the new government’s mandate.
Economy and cost of living dominated
When asked to choose who they would prefer to lead the next government, about 48% wanted a National-led coalition, compared with 38% who preferred Labour to lead.
Nearly half of all voters wanted a new government after the election, suggesting this was a “change” election.
The issues that mattered for voters provide insights into why voters wanted change in 2023. The Election Study asks people what the most important issue was for them when voting.
A word cloud (see below) of the most important issues shows two responses stood out: the economy and the cost of living.
However, unlike 2020 – when COVID dominated – in 2023 there was a range of issues people cared about, including health, climate change, and law and order: 73% wanted tougher sentencing laws. National’s strong stance on law and order was therefore also part of its mandate.
Moreover, there are clear differences between the two connected issues of the economy and cost of living.
Voters who said “the economy” was their most important issue tended to feel National was the party best equipped to address this problem. Voters who answered “cost of living” (and other related terms, such as poverty) were more likely to say Labour would be the best party to deal with those problems.
Voters’ economic and financial concerns at the 2023 general election clearly dominated.
Some good news for Labour
While economic issues were front-of-mind for many people, and people wanted change, levels of satisfaction with the previous government’s performance were still surprisingly high.
Some 54% said the Labour government did a “very” or “fairly” good job – strong support for a government dismissed at the election. And 64% of respondents also continued to approve of the previous government’s COVID response, suggesting Labour was still getting credit for its management of the pandemic.
The previous Labour government were therefore not widely considered to be incompetent, as National and its partners perhaps hoped it would be.
Indeed, Labour’s Chris Hipkins was slightly more liked by voters on average than National’s Christopher Luxon (5.3 versus 4.7 out of 10). Hipkins was also seen as a marginally more competent leader than Luxon, overall.
However, the infamous slogan from Bill Clinton’s 1992 US presidential campaign – “it’s the economy, stupid!” – was central in the 2023 election.
Almost 75% of people thought the economy had got worse over the year prior to the election, and two-thirds of voters believed the economy or inflation had affected their voting decision.
The state of the economy and inflation rate were clearly on people’s minds. Economic evaluations mattered more than memories of the COVID crisis, the likeability or perceived competence of party leaders, or long-term views about parties.
A fragile mandate
In the year since the election, inflation has fallen, just as it has in other countries. But unemployment has increased, the economy has moved into recession, and a recent 1News Verian poll showed more voters think New Zealand is in worse shape than better shape since the election.
Nonetheless, the coalition government remained ahead in the polls, despite criticism of many of its policies. The Election Study can also shed light on where some of these criticisms of the government come from.
Only 30% of New Zealanders wanted the restoration of interest deductibility for landlords, whereas 46% wanted landlords to pay tax on this income.
Half of the electorate wanted stronger measures to reduce carbon emissions, while just 23% did not want them. Voters also wanted more health and education expenditure.
Our results suggest the National-led coalition government has a mandate from voters to reduce inflation and to manage the economy towards growth and improved living standards.
Voters also want to see a reduction in crime, and better government services, especially healthcare.
If the coalition fails to deliver on this challenging set of expectations, National and its partners are likely to feel the wrath of voters at New Zealand’s next election – particularly considering people retained relatively favourable attitudes about the outgoing Labour government.
*Mona Krewel, Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington; Jack Vowles, Professor of Political Science, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington; Matthew Gibbons, Researcher, Political Science Programme, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington; Sam Crawley, Teaching Fellow, School of History, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington, and Thomas Jamieson, Lecturer in Political Communication, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
90 Comments
Some of the latest polling has National dipping and its two coalition parties improving and/or holding their ground. That must surely be a positive feature because traditionally the electorate has turned against junior coalition parties pretty damn quickly. This too is the first time NZ has in power a MMP government in its true form. Two junior parties of sizeable representation rather than as previously, one of the traditional major parties with a lackey or two. NZ wanted and got MMP and this coalition has demonstrated during its first year more than enough stability, cooperation and connection as opposed to previous combinations put in power.
Because of Nationals broader unpopularity. If NZ First fails to reach the 5% threshold for a second time, the coalition is done. Something they have never done before.
Still unlikely to happen in 2 years time, but this government is still much more likely than any time in recent history to be a 1-term government. National and Luxon are relatively unpopular when compared to other new governments in their first term in recent times. John Key on his worst day was able to achieve much higher polling.
Unless National can get themselves into the 40's consistently, they are in the dangerzone.
I love it how people that think they know what they are talking but do not understand basic math. I have heard all sorts of idiots proclaim that when all the conservative old people die then we will have lovely left loony governments for ever. The reality is (and this is a proven fact PDK so don't start furiously pasting silly URL to try prove it is not), people become more conservative as they age, and we have an aging population, so the opposite of what the loons say is true. We will have more conservative governments going into the future, not less. But, PDK, I am sure as you age, you will not be one of these people that I am referring to. I suspect you will stay as you are, come hell or highwater.
Hard to discount the role of hundreds of thousands of new eligible voters being continually added before each voting cycle. There was an RNZ survey of ethnic Chinese and Indian voters in NZ that came out prior to the 2023 general election which found these cohorts overwhelmingly support Nat-ACT.
Not surprising at all since Asian migrants are generally more conservative than their Kiwi counterparts of similar age groups with their core values such as religion/traditions, meritocracy, family values, business ownership, tough on crime, etc.
The recent exodus of ~150k mostly working-age Kiwis will also have a strong bearing on election outcomes I suppose.
NZ being one of a handful of countries that allows residents to vote for the central government, with no political understanding, floors belief.
most intelligent countries only allow citizens to vote for central government, and residents can vote for their local council where less damage can be done.
NZ needs to grow up and limit voting for central govt to citizens only. The whole “no taxation without representation” crowd would be against that but in reality, residents of NZ after just 1 year can have a deleterious impact on the future of NZ.
That new residents constantly bring their elderly parents to NZ for free healthcare and eventually, free super, is an absolute burden on NZ society.
It needs to change, but neither National nor Labour will offer it. Any party that does, existing or new, will always lose out as residents will soon outnumber the citizens in terms of voting rights.
Australia is considering allowing NZ-born citizens to vote in their elections. They are clearly not keen on back door nz citizens who declare an “intention” to stay in NZ after being conferred citizenship, only to then scarper to Australia the day after citizenship is granted.
It's not so much that they 'get more conservative'; what happens (faster and faster) is that societal norms move on from those they knew. They hang on to what worked for them, increasingly fail to 'keep up'. Typically, the least-thinking cohort get bypassed first.
And that is clearly the NZF voting base. - old and least-thinking. They are older by average - by personal observation over a couple of decades - than other conservative Party supporters.
I've already aged chronologically - but have not stopped thinking or being active.
@ powderdownkiwi - "They hang on to what worked for them, increasingly fail to 'keep up'."
In 2024 "keeping up" means one believes & actively supports:
Men can be woman, & woman can be men, & both can be both at the exact same time whilst also being neither, that men can get periods, have babies & breast feed, the chemical castrastion & bodily mutilation of children, that basic biology is now outdated, that having female reproductive systems & lady parts does not make you a woman, but carrying a handbag, wearing lipstick & high heels somehow does, that victimology is now the only true clear path to success, that profiting is bad & handouts for your "rich peers" is good, that only white people commit crime or should be punished for it, that businesses should now operate as charities, that men can treat womanhood as some kind of ridiculous costume to parade around in on stage dry humping furniture infront of children, that ending the life of an unborn child is justified, that body mutilation is now self.expression, that teaching children they can be born into the wrong body rather than just letting them be kids, that feelings matter over facts, that it's not facts unless your government has stated it, that if you disagree with government it makes you a crazy conspiracy theorist for Dearing to question the quakery, that there are hundreds of genders & even more being discovered every single day, that you can't question the science even if the science has been proven wrong, that coercion is now science, that you may only do your own research by using approved data from the government, that the government always has your best intentions & never lies to public, that if your white your a nazi & if your black your a victim, that laws should be based on favouring one race over another, that depressed men need a pill not a purpose, that we can change the weather by simply just paying more taxes, that screaming out mis information & conspiracy theorist is a get out of jail free card when you don't have the answers to justify your opposing position, that conformity matters of morality, that free speech is now an act of terroism & war, that a difference in opinion is now hate speech, that anyone who disagrees with government propoganda is a nazi & can be automatically de humanized, that actively supports & premotes seperation segregation & devide of a nation, that eastern countries deserve more of your money & support for their wars before your own country & our problems facing the country...
Just to name a few. If you gave up reading that list half way through I dont blame you in the slightest.
When this insane ideaology & quakery is considered "keeping up", Id rather stay behind with a little common sense, than to be seen as "trendy" because I agree with all social norms to fit in so I dont become a social outcast. After all, how dare you question the quakery with your basic common sense.
I say no thanks to the quakery, to "keeping up", Im quite happy to be "left behind" & left alone with my common sense instead, & Im not alone on this either. And no, im not old, Im under 35yo. You dont have to be old to believe in good old fashion common sense. And that is clearly the left voting base - who support such quakery & insane ideaology, & as you put "least thinking". You dont need to be old to be a conservative, you just need to have a little basic common sense, but as they say common sense isnt common practise.
proven when and where, and for what generation? was this proof taken in context with another proof, "higher educated people tend towards progressivism", when in todays world it is easier than ever to continue education into middle and late age. I was an idealist conservative in my youth but then I grew up.
..and conversely many young people start out progressive lapping up the free money not understanding where exactly it comes from. When they grow up and find out, they change their perspective.....and as the comment above clearly points out, many of our immigrants are quite conversative also. So the conservative side benefits from aging of the existing population, poorer people leaving, and move conservative people migrating to NZ.
@ powderdownkiwi - "But wealth is generational - the old have it, the young are forced rentiers - and the physical pie is shrinking."
Of course wealth is generational, the older generation have had much longer to accumulate theirs, & so rightly expected have more wealth than younger generations. It's always been that way.
But just because wealth is generational does not mean you can't be young and wealthy, or strive towards it. For an old guy you make a lot of emotive assumptions. You seem to believe all the young are basically forced renters for life, all the old are wealth hoarders who all own 20+ property portfolios, that the left is "progressive" & the right are full of oldies who's basic common sense is now outdated. Do you honestly believe this quakery or have you just been trained to parrot political buzzwords and statements because your TV told you to?
It’s worth reflecting on life before the industrial revolution however. Wealth was dictated primarily by bloodline/royalty, or by how much of a necessary resource you could own, sell, trade or accumulate voa conquest. PDK has firm views on energy, and although he repeats it vehemently, he has a point when you take a few steps back.
@ Interesting - PDKs point is a rather pessimistic assumption at best. His only point is you cant beat the odds so why bother trying unless your born from wealth.
We don't live in the industrial revolution time. There are far more ways to make money now than in the industrial revolution time, so there is no excuse.We have to learn to do the very best that we can, with what we have, in the here & now. Not reminisce about what it was like in the industrial revolution & whether it was easier or not. It's irrelevant. Deal with the here & now. So it's tough to get ahead, what are you going to do about it? Not what do you want your landlord to do about it, not what do you want your boss to do about it, not what do you want your "rich" peers to do about it, but you.
What PDKs point is conveniantly lacking of course is personal financial accountability. Too easy to scapegoat to everyone else. PDKs point takes the typical victimology stance & assumes that one must have to be born into wealth in today's world in order to prosper financially. PDK takes this victim mentality further by assuming that most youth of today rent for life, & that is somehow the older generations fault. PDK also assumes that one must be old to be a landlord or to share conswrvative views as well.
What kind of expectation is this setting the youth of today? If you essentially say the odds will ever be against you & its everyone elses fault, how does that motivate any youth towards personal achievement & growth? It doesnt. It breeds entitlement & laziness, which weve seen a massive increase of over the last decade. It sets a blanket excuse of dont bother even trying to do anything with your life. What a down buzz! Wheres the personal accountability? No wonder home ownership rates are declining when the doomers are setting this sort of example of dont even bother to try, its just easier to complaim about it instead. There has never been a headline "Tenant achieves home ownership through perservence of serial complaints".
It's this victim mentality that it's always someone else's fault that stands in one's way to success that is the real root of the problem. It comes hand in hand with entitlement, expecting that in order to get ahead financially, this lands on other individuals to sacrafice their finances for the greater good of yours. My friends that still have this mentality all still rent. My go getter friends who took personal accountability all own. Some of us own multiple properties, others of us own multiple stocks & different cryptos. All of us are under 35yo, so again, PDKs assumption of todays youth is at best obscured & selective.
PDKs assumptions are incorrect & grossely over exaggerating out of a combination of both envy & regret. A desperate cry from someone who missed out, whilst trumpeting "dont listen to the fear mongerers telling you youll miss out". Uses emotive political buzzwords like "spruikers" showing that others financial success triggers PDK. I would've expected a better example be set from an old timer. In an ideal world where everyone pays with unlimited smiles & kindness mantras this would fly, but this is this real world, & there's only two options at the end of the day: get busy figuring out how to build your own empire or get busy helping to build someone else's.
Exactly. I think they say, “Do, or do not, there is no try”. Many on here are serial moaners (like PDK) and the world has passed them by. PDK proclaims that actually he is getting smarter and everyone is set in their ways and is falling behind. I don’t think it could be further from the truth. As you say succeeding does not come easily, there are many barriers, so it is hard work, but highly possible with the right mindset (an entitlement or gloom based mentality is totally incompatible with this, as we have seen).
It's programmed behaviour. In the past many just voted their parents way because that was the only "informed" source in the household. Now it's programmed by political and media propaganda. Requires much more critical thinking by voters.
And in current reality there is no difference between the two - two sides of the same coin, 2 wings of the same bird.
In 2020 the Greens were not in Govt - it was a Labour and NZ First coalition, so centre-Left not extreme Left. Most voters probably thought they were voting for more of the same. How things look now though is that TPM and Greens will be required for Labour to take Govt, as NZ First wont be proffering up their votes. Which means a vote for Labour is a vote for the Greens and TPM in Govt.
Indeed. I very much doubt that I would have been commenting as above, re the stability etc of the current coalition if it had instead comprised of Labour/Greens/TPM. In fact, would suggest I would not have been alone in decrying what was the exact opposite, taking place. The potential of that set of circumstances is not going to resolve in two years. If anything, the makeup looks likely to become even more fractious, for example the yet to be completed investigation of the election day operation of a Maori seat that Labour may contend it shouldn’t have lost. Additionally it was plainly obvious that the 6th Labour Government was being held to ransom by a very aggressive and subjective Maori caucus within. There was obviously then a prospect of that worsening by combination with TPM and like elements in the Greens if Labour secured a third term. The electorate got wind of that and voted accordingly.
"If NZ First fails to reach 5% it will be because their voters have returned to National or ACT"
Or, possibly those who would have preferred any government other than NACT, voted Winnie to throw a spanner in the works for the potato coalition. I considered it, and my wife acted on it. I'm sure others did also.
ACT have occasionally polled high teens in recent years. However every time they do, Seymour has a rush of blood to the head & puts his foot in his mouth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_New_Zealan…
@ morphyoss - Question is who else do we replace them with? Labour is even less popular. It's not that Luxon or National were popular, it's quite simply just that they were more popular than Labour, and in a country that votes only those two in each election, that's all that counts. We need to change that as it shows that the country would rather prefer neither of the large political parties governing, as both have proven over decades to be ineffective, & our country is tired of the two old ineffective options. It's counterproductive.
It's a fair point. If the greens were more centrist, they would probably get more wins for themselves and the environment.
That being said, we have options. MMP gives us that, if we choose not to take them, then yes, we'll always be stuck with the two dinosaurs. But that's on us I guess.
I somewhat agree. But then you're accepting that in the years you're not influencing the government you're happy for the environment to suffer. Like now for example with this crazy decisions this government is making.
Having a centrist handbrake on all that right now would be great.
@ morphyoss - What MMP does not give us at the ballot box though is a break down of each political party, what they stand for, what their ideologies are, and what they would do if elected.
This should be a bare basic minimum requirement to be advised of before voting, that the general public have a chance to both see & compare - that all political parties require to be upfront with what they stand for and wish to implement or see implemented. That way the general public can make a much more.informed.voting decision.
We should also have a full breakdown of a current governments last election promises, & include the outcome of whether they failed to deliver or delivered or have in progress policies and election promises. This should be on full display at the ballot box as well, that way again we can see how current government is tracking, keeps them accountable, and we can hold them accountable & consider voting in someone else if we believe they have been ineffective. Right now all we have is tit for tat back & forth.
Instead, what we have, is a popularity contest, far from the informed voting decision. Most people vote based on popularity, and recognition through media exposure, rather than effectiveness to govern & voting for a political party that best aligns with one's worldly outlook. Media take huge advantage of this. Countless people come election time you hear "I'm voting for them as they seem nice", or "I'm not voting for them because I don't know anything about them".
tbh, I'm not sure reading a novel at the polling booth is a great way to encourage people to vote. By the time they get there they have usually made up their mind.
It's a nice dream, but in practice impossible. Such as the price of democracy.
People have all sorts of reasons for voting for who they want to vote for. Good political operators should be able to cut through the noise.
Not sure what elections bring to NZ.
Rottening health sector, worsening education outcomes, shortening local energy supplies, lacking key infrastructures, more and more inward looking mentality, growing debts and costs of living, shrinking living area per person?
The political system is actually making NZ worse.
A lot of the points you mentioned aren't really a result of this government or the previous one, rather global factors beyond NZ's control.
However, you do need to spend money to make money, and that is something that Luxon should understand considering his background.
He probably does - but the posit is incorrect.
For a short few decades, there was enough surplus energy going into the system, and it was new enough not to be troubled by entropy.
Neiter are now true - and money is key-stoke-conjured debt; which is no measure of anything.
Put another way; economics, as taught, is a fib.
powerdownkiwi: "Put another way; economics, as taught, is a fib."
Murray, might I inquire as to where you studied economics? To what level? And how long ago?
The reason why I ask is that I did my first few Economics papers some 40 odd years ago and the finite nature of our environment and its resources, and what could be sucked from it, was drilled into us BIG TIME !!! And from a quick review of the course content, that is still the case.
Yes - you come across as someone thus taught.
I give you the nonsense peddled by Dr Coleman recently hereabouts, or by Eric Frykberg in a recent Listener assertion re Kiwisaver - or Danyl McLachlan (several recent).
How did your lecturers suggest we merge all our keystroke-issued debt with a rapidly-being-depleted planet? Increasing inflation? Debt jubilee? Economists - and the vast majority of those teaching it (I have a whole bookshelf of their offerings) still peddle economic growth ad infinitum.
The mavericks - Steve Keen, Kenneth Boulding, JKG (the best is Soddy from 1926), Tverberg, are sidelined, ignored.
I came at knowledge as a generalist, with physics a natural starting-point; history a second. Realised that we were in trouble post 2005, realised the accounting system - which I'd assumed knew what they were doing - was failing to account, and by 2007/8 was starting to research economics for myself. I do 2-3 hours of reading a day, all non-fiction, and I'm nudging 70 - one accumulates a fair amount, particularly having started from an un-siloed start.
I repeat the question - how did your lecturers propose we traverse the Limits to Growth? So far, from all your posts, I haven't heard.
The Australian Covid Inquiry report is out. And it should be noted that the Inquiry was limited to the Federal response and not the crap that the State Premiers like Dan Andrews did in addition.
"Scandalous Covid betrayal of trust, pandemic inquiry report finds
Draconian Covid-19 measures were not justified after the initial wave of the pandemic and fuelled an erosion in trust in governments and mental health damage to children, a landmark inquiry has found."
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/australia-covid-inquiry-report-…
People who think Labour did a great job during the pandemic are completely out of touch. Sadly, NZ will have to wait years for Ardern's tyranny to be judged.
The Labour Party provided a more competent Covid-19 response than what the National Part was offering.
And 64% of respondents also continued to approve of the previous government’s COVID response, suggesting Labour was still getting credit for its management of the pandemic.
The National Party Covid-19 policy in 2020 was a straight up homage to Victoria under Dan Andrews. The National Party was highly critical of Ardern's Labour government for not being strict enough and were even talking about things like detainment camps for sufferers.
100% the National Party by in large would have done the same thing if they were still in power, maybe just a bit slower to act like the tories were in UK. In what would have been PM Bill English's decision, he would have acted along with the best health advice at the time. You're dreaming if you believe anything else. Winston would have been there too, just as he was for Labour. (it's funny how people forget Winston was part of the cabinet that made all those decisions).
National in opposition under Bridges and then Collins was also largely supportive of the measures and offered no alternate vision that was acceptable to kiwis who voted accordingly in 2020. I actually forgot about their detention facility proposal. That was wild.
K.W.'s amnesia for all of this just says more about K.W than anything else.
Concur. The statements made by K.W. are not consistent with the facts.
A National led coalition would have likely fared worse as I remember National and ACT changing their position every other week from we must raise the drawbridge and lock sick people up to open the borders NOW.
Labour has followed a science based, consistent and patient approach but has botched some details where it mattered, like actually making sure that sick people STAY in quarantine.
@ Baywatch - "Nationals response would be similar to Torys...probably fast track lane for their mates with PP gear to boot."
Like the 316 foreign entertainers, including 64 DJs, that were fast-tracked through MIQ in 2021 thanks to Labour, while they told everyone else in the country to stay locked inside for monthss on end, forcing businesses to close up? Taxpayers have spent $1.2 billion on MIQ. Thats $660 for every household in the country, that we've essentially forked out for as a country to help your political parties "mates out". Nationals "mates" are business men, Labours mates Re DJs - during a global pandemic. I know who's mates I'd call upon during our financial recession. I hope your local DJ is good with his money!
But Nationals response would be similar? Not even close. Pot callimg the kettle black if ever I heard it. Labours decieved voterbase are persistent in keeping the excuses for Labours failures going with desperate attempts to distract with "Oh but National would have...". Try again.
I made no comment on what National would have done, or whether it would have been better. I said that Labour made the same bad decisions that the Australians did, and which have now been determined by expert panels and the courts to be illegal, immoral, unscientific, and in the words of the Aussies, "scandalous".
Its not about who would have done what, its about judging those that did it on what the outcomes were. All those "saved" from covid (the 84 year olds with 3 comorbidities) all went on to die anyway - because they were elderly and had comorbidities. We sacrificed the children and the livelihoods of others so that a bunch of geriatrics could eke out a few more months of life in their rest homes.
And generations of New Zealanders will now struggle to pay back the $160 Billion of debt that we now carry ($100B of which was spent on completely useless Covid rubbish)
Who are we repaying that debt to? My taxes certainly haven't gone up to repay that debt, so who is actually struggling to repay it?
Would that $160b of "debt" not over time just be absorbed into standard monetary supply? As a sovereign currency issuing nation we have that choice. Maybe some of that $160b of debt is sitting idle in many of Interest.co reader's bank accounts, should we give it back?
Happy to be corrected, just my usual thought experiment rambling.
This debt has increased from $80b in 2015 to about $200b today. $20b was added to the pile in the last 12 months for some reason?
Interest revenue today is $7.1b and interest expense is $10.3b. In 2017 it was $2.7b & $4.1b respectively. So taxpayers are paying an extra $1.8b today compared with 2017.
Re health (though can be applied across the board)....
"He was critical of Te Whatu Ora bureaucrats who had "no skin in the game" and squeeze health professionals, relying on their commitment to patients to continue working under any conditions.
Successive governments, Te Whatu Ora and the Ministry of Health were all to blame, Boddington said."
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/532291/health-system-relies-on-doc…
More than enough blame to go around, and no sign from any of the named entities that anything will be done differently.
The ideology - and Labour suffered from it for a longish period - of neoliberal economics said competition was good and things run as businesses were better.
It was a convenient story for a few, who benefitted from it. But not for the wider community, which didn't.
Woodhouse was implicit in the degradation, a small man who came from the private-health sector; public clearly suffered during his involvement.
I thought most voters were simply voting Labour out, so yes a "change" of government. As for why, most of them were misinformed by the media and politicians, blaming the government for economic issues caused by the RBNZ and a raft of "investment" decisions.
Most voters wouldn't have a clue what "the economy" is.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.