The week has come to an end, which means Kate Hawkesby and Tim Wilson are back with Mike Hosking to Wrap the Week that Was. 

Campaigning is coming to a close tonight as the Election has finally arrived. With the polls closing tomorrow night, what are their predictions? 

And the complaints about the pens providing in the polling booths continue. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

The week has come to an end, which means Kate Hawkesby and Tim Wilson are back with Mike Hosking to Wrap the Week that Was.&nbsp;
Campaigning is coming to a close tonight as the Election has finally arrived. With the polls closing tomorrow night, what are their predictions?&nbsp;
And the complaints about the pens providing in the polling booths continue.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.

Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.

The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more.

The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show. Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda. The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more. The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion,...

The Mike Hosking Breakfast

Wrapping the Week with Kate Hawkesby and Tim Wilson: Election Night Predictions

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/f8f30a1a-542c-4343-91d1-b4f9015e8b3a/transcript

At the end of each week, Mike Hosking takes you through the big-ticket items and lets you know what he makes of it all. 

 

Labour's campaign: 6/10 

The gangs hurt them, but Hipkins was short, sharp, on message, and by-and-large didn’t put himself in danger. 

 

National's campaign: 6/10 

Spent too much energy pretending Chlöe is a Finance Minister and trying to scare people. When you have a record, defend it. 

 

NZ First's campaign: 5/10 

Too negative, relied too heavily on town halls in a 'I haven't got any new ideas' sort of way. The leader looked old and Michael Laws didn’t help. 

 

The Green's campaign: 5/10 

Chlöe was better than Marama, who's understanding of yields and bond rates should worry us all. Not enough environment and too much envy of success, but the message was clear, even if you didn’t like it, and the polls have helped. 

 

ACT's campaign: 8/10 

Easily the best of the lot. Disciplined, simple, clear, busy, used social well, restrained, almost adult, stayed away from the dirt, and Paul Henry was the stroke of genius no one else thought of. 

 

Opportunity's campaign: 5/10 

Peaked too early and got exposed when the land tax and universal wage turned out not to be a thing and bottom trawling did. Qiulae Wong could have been generated by AI. It's a marketing exercise you would want to refine for next time. 

 

The Māori Party's campaign: Who would know

LISTEN ABOVE FOR MIKE HOSKING'S FULL WEEK IN REVIEW. 

At the end of each week, Mike Hosking takes you through the big-ticket items and lets you know what he makes of it all.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Labour's campaign: 6/10&nbsp;
The gangs hurt them, but Hipkins was short, sharp, on message, and by-and-large didn’t put himself in danger.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
National's campaign: 6/10&nbsp;
Spent too much energy pretending Chlöe is a Finance Minister and trying to scare people. When you have a record, defend it.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
NZ First's campaign: 5/10&nbsp;
Too negative, relied too heavily on town halls in a 'I haven't got any new ideas' sort of way. The leader looked old and Michael Laws didn’t help.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
The Green's campaign: 5/10&nbsp;
Chlöe was better than Marama, who's understanding of yields and bond rates should worry us all. Not enough environment and too much envy of success, but the message was clear, even if you didn’t like it, and the polls have helped.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
ACT's campaign: 8/10&nbsp;
Easily the best of the lot. Disciplined, simple, clear, busy, used social well, restrained, almost adult, stayed away from the dirt, and Paul Henry was the stroke of genius no one else thought of.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Opportunity's campaign: 5/10&nbsp;
Peaked too early and got exposed when the land tax and universal wage turned out not to be a thing and bottom trawling did. Qiulae Wong could have been generated by AI. It's a marketing exercise you would want to refine for next time.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
The Māori Party's campaign: Who would know
LISTEN ABOVE FOR MIKE HOSKING'S FULL WEEK IN REVIEW.&nbsp;

Mark the Week: Ranking the election campaigns

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/d7e4c27b-03ae-492c-b0a7-b4f901621dfa/transcript

Fun fact time – it turns out we really aren't into elections all that much. 

The average turnout since 1982 has been 78%. Last election it was 78%. To me, that is not a great result, given over 90% of us had enrolled. 

Why do we make so much of the enrolment process when we know the chances of those people turning out is next to zero? 

And what happens to all those people who do enrol but don't vote? It's not like they don't have the time, a place, or an opportunity. 

Early voting has become a thing. Once upon a time it was a sign, normally, of a rush, an energy to oust an incumbent. Nowadays it's about making it easy, and you do it while you're shopping. 

They say this year voting is well ahead of last time. What does that mean? Nothing. Because the real test will be how many ultimately turn out at all. And if the number is as per usual, my bet is all bets are off. 

Why? 

Because the polls that show it's a tight race may not apply, because many of the people who answered a poll might not vote. 

"Telling" and "doing" are clearly two different things. Motivation is your key. 

That's why historically conservative and older voters are to be trusted more on turnout. The younger you are, the less likely you are to enrol and/or vote. You can answer a poll and tell us your problem, but it doesn't mean you will do anything about it. 

In the 1980s and 1990s turnout was always in the mid-80's. By the turn of the century, it's in the 70s. The exception is 2020, because of Covid. 

We are less interested in democracy. 

In 2011 turnout was 74%, the lowest since the 1880's. We should be ashamed of ourselves. 

It is why the Greens don't vote as well as they poll. 

My sense is that in 2026 turnout will be low. There has been a lack of energy, a lack of fizz, a lack of spark. 

You either want the current lot, or you don't. 

The policies are worth little, if anything. 

There have been no firebrand issues. The candidates are vanilla. These are not historic times. 

A low turnout favours the incumbents. 

What you think might happen and what does happen, as history shows, could well be two entirely different things. 

Fun fact time – it turns out we really aren't into elections all that much.&nbsp;
The average turnout since 1982 has been 78%. Last election it was 78%. To me, that is not a great result, given over 90% of us had enrolled.&nbsp;
Why do we make so much of the enrolment process when we know the chances of those people turning out is next to zero?&nbsp;
And what happens to all those people who do enrol but don't vote? It's not like they don't have the time, a place, or an opportunity.&nbsp;
Early voting has become a thing. Once upon a time it was a sign, normally, of a rush, an energy to oust an incumbent. Nowadays it's about making it easy, and you do it while you're shopping.&nbsp;
They say this year voting is well ahead of last time. What does that mean? Nothing. Because the real test will be how many ultimately turn out at all. And if the number is as per usual, my bet is all bets are off.&nbsp;
Why?&nbsp;
Because the polls that show it's a tight race may not apply, because many of the people who answered a poll might not vote.&nbsp;
"Telling" and "doing" are clearly two different things. Motivation is your key.&nbsp;
That's why historically conservative and older voters are to be trusted more on turnout. The younger you are, the less likely you are to enrol and/or vote. You can answer a poll and tell us your problem, but it doesn't mean you will do anything about it.&nbsp;
In the 1980s and 1990s turnout was always in the mid-80's. By the turn of the century, it's in the 70s. The exception is 2020, because of Covid.&nbsp;
We are less interested in democracy.&nbsp;
In 2011 turnout was 74%, the lowest since the 1880's. We should be ashamed of ourselves.&nbsp;
It is why the Greens don't vote as well as they poll.&nbsp;
My sense is that in 2026 turnout will be low. There has been a lack of energy, a lack of fizz, a lack of spark.&nbsp;
You either want the current lot, or you don't.&nbsp;
The policies are worth little, if anything.&nbsp;
There have been no firebrand issues. The candidates are vanilla. These are not historic times.&nbsp;
A low turnout favours the incumbents.&nbsp;
What you think might happen and what does happen, as history shows, could well be two entirely different things.&nbsp;

Mike's Minute: I think 2026 turnout will be low, which is our norm

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/122cd237-a08c-4160-8c91-b4f90160316c/transcript

The balance of power in the US has shifted in the wake of the Midterm elections. 

The Democrats have won 54 Senate seats to the Republican's 44, and have 240 House of Representative seats, against 147.  

It means they'll control both in the new year. 

US Correspondent Richard Arnold told Mike Hosking it's a whole new map, as so many historical shifts have taken place. 

He says since the 1960s, Republicans have relied on a 'Southern Strategy', appealing to white conservatives in what once was the Deep South, and after civil rights reforms, they based their strategy around Texas. 

Arnold says that strategy is gone now, with James Talarico winning the seat – the first Democrat in the seat since 1988. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

The balance of power in the US has shifted in the wake of the Midterm elections.&nbsp;
The Democrats have won 54 Senate seats to the Republican's 44, and have 240 House of Representative seats, against 147. &nbsp;
It means they'll control both in the new year.&nbsp;
US Correspondent Richard Arnold told Mike Hosking it's a whole new map, as so many historical shifts have taken place.&nbsp;
He says since the 1960s, Republicans have relied on a 'Southern Strategy', appealing to white conservatives in what once was the Deep South, and after civil rights reforms, they based their strategy around Texas.&nbsp;
Arnold says that strategy is gone now, with James Talarico winning the seat – the first Democrat in the seat since 1988.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Richard Arnold: US Correspondent on the US Midterm results, what comes next

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/982b6194-0ca7-4540-a9fd-b4f9015d4ed5/transcript

Wrapping the Week with Kate Hawkesby and Tim Wilson: Election Night Predictions

In 1 playlist(s)

The Mike Hosking Breakfast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips