Labour Should Attack the Greens

Doing research for my latest Snob's Guide book, I have learned something about Labour that I'd forgotten. They're the biggest victim of MMP. First they were gutted by the Alliance. They got over that but then came the Greens on their own and they've also impacted. Since NZ introduced MMP, the highest percentage of the vote Labour received is 41.26% in 2002. The highest National received is 47.31% in 2011.

Labour has been slowly eroding. This explains their current position, being the only party at the polls in 2017 to receive a large swing to it, yet still having to kowtow to the Greens. Labour should attack the Greens, to reclaim the ground to their political left, and to put them on an even footing with National. If they don't do this, they will be condemned to forever putting together threesomes, and that doesn't work as easily as twosomes. Just saying.

Snob's Guide to New Zealand is now a book, available from Amazon in paperback or kindle

Paperback: www.amazon.com/gp/product/1727804147

Kindle: www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07J9XRCWK

Labour - NZ First Coalition Government

The numbers are in and New Zealand is going to have a new government made up of Labour and NZ First in a formal coalition arrangement with the Greens supporting on confidence and supply. National will be the opposition yet be the largest single bloc of votes with 56 seats in the House of Representatives.

How did this happen? Three things to consider, and please note most pundits have got this completely wrong because, quite simply, they don't know what they're talking about.

The first thing to remember is that both Labour and NZ First campaigned on effecting change. National were seeking a fourth term in office and played an undermining of all others strategy without a support brand of their own to help get them over the line. This was doomed to failure from the start. Simon "Bill" English is a grade A loser as I've said all along. What National needed was National Lite, or Labour Right to help them out, not the largely discredited ACT party.

The second part of the equation lies within NZ First. Contrary to many widely held opinions, NZ First is made up of approximately 60% old-school Labour. At NZ First meetings they can be oft heard using terms like 'what about the workers' or some such. These people joined NZ First as they hate the modern Labour party and its membership of teachers, nurses and social workers. When listening to the modern Labour party all the old-school can hear is flub-flub-flub. So they go to NZ First to join others of like mind then after the meeting head to the Pub to play darts and drink beer. Only about 20% of NZ First are old-Nats, and they are there because the new National party is an undemocratic institution that tells its membership what to think all the time. Policy descends from the top with new-Nats. Then lastly 20% of NZ First are new to politics. They are often Asian, Indians mostly, drawn to NZ First policies of regional development and looking after small businesses.

The NZ First membership is not old either, forget that thinking as National has a much older average age of membership by comparison. Winston Peters would be mindful of his party make-up when deciding who to go with.

Then lastly we have what Labour and National are like to deal with. We have to consider past dealings. National are dishonest in their dealings, they give a lot away up front but then look to undermine and stab their partner in the back. However Labour, while hard to get concessions from, are more likely to honour any arrangement. Compare 1996 with 2005 to see my point from Mr Peters perspective.

It's a no-brainer really and I'm glad I got this right. It's going to be funny seeing Paula Bennett on the AM show with Duncan Garner, no more Princess-waiting-to-be-Queen behaviour from her. That is, if she even shows up again.

NZ General Election 2017: The Numbers

This is how things stack up in the House of Representatives in New Zealand following the final count of the General Election 2017.

National: 56 seats, Labour 46, NZ First 9, Greens 8, ACT 1.

Possible coalitions therefore, in order of likelihood (need 61 seats to form a government). Note that ACT has become irrelevant:

National 56 + NZ First 9 = 65
Labour + Greens + NZ First = 63
Labour + NZ First 55 + Greens on Confidence and Supply = 63
National 56 + NZ First on Confidence and Supply = 65
National + Labour = 102
National + Greens = 64

If we take the top three options as being far more likely than the bottom three, then we can see that National are left stranded. Labour are in the box seat with more options for how they form a government. It is worth mentioning that only Labour increased its share of the vote this time round. Everyone else slipped and this must play on the minds of the leaders during negotiations.

Lesson for NZ from German Federal Election 2017

New Zealand and Germany have the same type of electoral system - mixed member proportional. Both went to the polls over the weekend and both threw up interesting results. For New Zealand it was that the centre/left has spoken and shifted the balance of power. Only Labour grew their vote while all others withered or stood still.

In Germany, the far right has gained ground, actually winning seats this time round. Significantly, Angela Merkel will be Chancellor off a vote of less than 35% for her party. Get the idea Labour? That's right, Jacinda Ardern can be Prime Minister and there is precedent. All Labour need to do is do the deal with its left-of-centre travellers.

New Zealand General Election 2017

The results are in and I was both right and wrong. The public opinion polls were largely correct and the ruling National party got the single biggest share of the vote. But this is where it gets interesting as National are left like an orphan child, they have only one natural coalition partner, the lone ACT party person.

The first rule of politics - learn how to count. On the current result the centre-left has the overall majority. That is the combined total of Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First are the majority, not National and the one ACT party person.

Labour were successful in crushing the Maori party. They also gained ground in Wellington and Christchurch but not significant ground in Auckland. Turnout was down on three years ago and this dampened the result for Labour. Labour need a big turnout to swing a result their way.

This all sets up a few scenarios:

The first is that the 'moral authority' to form a government sits with Labour and its fellow left-of-centre travellers. They need to sit down and hammer out a deal. The structure of any deal could take a number of forms, one could be a Labour/NZ First minority government supported on confidence and supply by the Greens. The Greens could be given the Speaker role to compensate.

Alternatively NZ First or the Greens could prop up a fourth term National government. That would likely prove a very unpopular move, especially when you consider people voted for change. Either of these small parties should think very carefully before committing to helping National.

Far less likely but strategically worth mentioning is a grand coalition between National and Labour. Such a large bloc would have the effect of crushing the smaller parties by crowding the airwaves. But while making strategic sense it won't happen given the enmity between the two.

The next few days will be interesting. NZ First's leader Winston Peters is effectively kingmaker. Will he prop up a tired National or go for change and vigour? My pick is he knows National will only stab him in the back, he'll look ahead and do a deal with Labour.

[Edit to add: Turnout was actually up at 79.8% of all registered voters but the young are under-represented, only about 50% of those 18-24 who were eligible to vote bothered to vote; the young were also more likely to not even register]

New Zealand General Election 2017

Adding to my previous post, the overall result in the General Election may come down to whether South Auckland votes, or not. A lot is being made of the youth vote and their failure to register. But that has always been the case, nothing to see there. No, what will be decisive will be how South Auckland decide. I remember 2005 and the South Auckland vote coming in late for Labour, it got Helen Clark over the line. Up to then it was looking like the Don Brash led National party were going to be forming a government.

Since then John Key rose to lead National and he won the election in 2008. He managed to successfully straddle the middle ground. But he's no longer around and National now come across as entitled, ignorant, arrogant and Mommy-knows-best. My thinking is South Auckland will return to Labour in sufficient numbers to swing it for Labour. Labour may even get the largest share of the vote.

If I'm right, then that means the public opinion polls are very wrong.

Election: Prediction

I'm going to stick my neck out and predict a Labour landslide in this years general election in New Zealand. I went to vote early yesterday and the booths were busy. When people can't wait to vote and good weather leads up to the polling day it usually means Labour win. And there is a buzz, people are talking politics and this hasn't been the case for 20 or so years. National win when there is no debate and everyone is bored, the blue rinse set who are National's core support put their rents up and then sneak down to the polling booth in their Lexus or Audi and don't talk to anyone. Okay, so I'm being prejudiced, but there is truth in what I'm saying. Labour would have to stone cold drop the ball to lose from here.

Polls: National or Labour in Front?

There are conflicting poll results leading up to this years general election in New Zealand. TV1 has Labour in front while TV3 say National has extended its lead in front. They can't both be right. To find what the problem is I'd suggest looking at the sample sizes and methodology behind each poll. My guess is that TV1 is biased toward the large metropolitan areas while TV3 is biased toward the regions. Considering there are far more people living in cities, I'd pay more attention to the TV1 poll results.

Something else to think about, NZ First usually does better on election day. A myriad of reasons for this, including when asked people won't admit to supporting NZ First, or they're older people and always leave the answer-phone on and so can't be polled.

My money is still on a Labour/NZ First coalition. Labour on 40% plus NZ First's 9%, = 49% and with lost or wasted votes a majority in parliament. This MMP is a stupid system foisted on us by the Greens way back in the day, it's brilliant that same system is going to dump on them. Ha ha you bunch of naysayers.

The Rise of Labour and the NZ General Election 2017

Never underestimate NZ Prime Minister Simon "Bill" English's ability to clutch defeat from the jaws of victory. I have no idea how competent the Labour leader Jacinda Ardern is, but voters can see she's at least human. By comparison Bill English you know is just lying every time he speaks. Now I realise both are lying most of the time, but English comes across as particularly disingenuous. It looks like Labour are romping to victory. A week, as they say, is a long time in politics.

The Greens Demise

It's about time the Greens got their comeuppance. These professional naysayers and avoiders of all responsibility have plunged in recent polls. On current trends they'll be out of the Nee Zealand Parliament all together. It turns out their support base was mostly Labour voters and now Labour has a viable leader, traditional Labour support is flocking back, abandoning the Greens in so doing.

Labour Party Antics

Today could see a new leader for the New Zealand Labour Party just weeks out from a General Election. While that may seem amusing I wouldn't be so quick to write them off just yet. Consider all the surprising election results we've seen the last couple of years. Then we have Greens co-leader Metiria Turei admitting to benefit fraud and actually rising in the polls. Of course the thought has occurred to me that she did no such thing and is simply politicking.

Prime Ministers Make Moves

As if acting in concert the Prime Ministers of three Commonwealth countries have made moves designed to ensure re-election.

The most significant is the UK's Theresa May calling of a snap General Election. A brave move and we'll soon see if it pays off. No doubt May is hoping for an affirmation of her Brexit negotiations and 'hard' exit. I think she'll get it. Whether UKIP can build will be also of interest. The Tories are after their share of the vote.

A side bar is which way Scotland will go. Will they vote SNP or Labour? The debate over Scottish independence I'm ambivalent about, have they not checked out New Zealand? Technically part of Australia, it goes its own way, with its own currency, but on trade and immigration has a flexible relationship with Aussie. There is no reason why Scotland couldn't do a similar thing with England and the rest of the UK. The world does not come to an end, trust me, NZ has been doing its own thing for over 170 years.

Talking of downunder, the PM's of Australia and NZ must have been talking on the phone, as they've both introduced immigration reforms at about the same time. They're both thinking of the electorate. NZ PM Simon English has been even more cynical in also raising pay rates for women working in the care industry. It's an election year bribe, if the National Party wins, they'll take the pay increase away with tax hikes next year, maybe putting GST up.

Labour Panic

The Prime Minister of New Zealand is an ineffectual buffoon living in his own delusional world of make-believe. He cannot organise a piss-up in a brewery, so what does the main opposition party do? They throw one of their better campaigners overboard that's what.

Annette King was an effective deputy and well liked. More importantly she was good at keeping on message and she had no ambitions for the top job. Labour leader Andrew Little is a somewhat grey man and Annette King's more down to earth style was a useful counterpoint. Most Labour voters still identify with the type of person Ms King was, than they do the book-worm nerd that Andrew Little is. You can imagine King on the loading dock reading the riot act to the union membership but not Little. He'd get laughed at, Little by name, Little by nature.

King, at 69 was likely considered too long in the tooth. Big mistake that as she would be needed in any future coalition negotiations if Labour was to find itself in position to form a government.

Instead what we have is the almost certain elevation of Jacinda Ardern to the position of deputy to Little. Another lightweight standing alongside.

The line-up looks like this:

For National it's Bill English (ineffectual) and Paula Bennett (Westie) vs Labour's Andrew Little (lightweight) and Jacinda Ardern (even more lightweight).

So it's National to be re-elected in September then, unless another party rises to challenge the status quo and becomes King maker.

>>Link Thingie<<

Tail Wagging the Dog Law

The problem with MMP (Mixed Member Proportional), the voting system currently used by New Zealand, is parties with a smaller proportion of the vote have their power magnified. That's because the larger parties need them in coalition in order to form a government. I call this the tail wagging the dog.

My solution: scrap the current five percent threshold but all parties receiving less than 11% of the vote achieve observer status only. They can participate in select committees, debates, individually be appointed as Minister, but cannot vote in the House of Representatives.

This would have the effect of allowing the majority to rule. By majority I mean the party with the most votes, in particular most votes amongst all those parties receiving the bulk of electoral support.

The exception would be if any member of parliament had been directly elected to an electorate seat. But then only those members so elected could vote. If their party received less than 11%, then list members could not vote. This would give Maori representatives more say, as they tend to win Maori seats but do not get widespread support across the country as a whole.

The rationale behind my thinking is that MMP has failed to deliver the solution to the problem it was intended to address. That was that New Zealand was always led by a minority government. In a first past the post type system, the winner with a one vote majority takes the election even though the combined votes of all the opponents may total more than the total of votes for the winner.

Instead what happened is New Zealand is still led by minority governments, that is, governments that receive less than 50% of the vote. This occurs because there are wasted votes, that is votes cast for parties that do not get over the five percent threshold; those votes are effectively thrown away (the votes are redistributed so that all seats are taken up, but the point I'm making is the voter's choice is not exercised in the way the individual voter intended).

So a party with 45% of the vote, along with a motley crew of small-timers, the total vote for which is still less than 50%, governs. And here's the rub, those small parties get a much greater say than is appropriate for their small stature. For instance they routinely receive ministerial portfolios. They are bribed in other words.

And here's where NZ is heading: imagine in the future, a situation with Labour sitting on 25% of the vote, National 20%; but four far right and assorted environmental fringe parties, each with 10%, forming a coalition to govern with 40% collectively (the balance being discarded as cast for parties that don't make the cut). The ultimate tail wag.  Unless the die-hard enemies, Labour and National, formed a grand coalition (hard to imagine that one), then NZ would be governed by an unstable brew.

What New Zealand did in introducing MMP was to put the country at risk of this type of instability or injustice; where the two largest voter blocs representing the simple majority could be ignored.

My solution allows for inclusiveness but with limits, and acknowledges that the parties receiving the largest voter support must be the ones to make the decisions. What do you think? You are welcome to discuss this over at the forum

http://dailyopinion.boardhost.com/index.php

2016 Year of Upsets

What next? Will 2017 be anything like 2016?

Whether talking sports or politics, 2016 saw one upset after another. From Leicester City winning the English Premier League through to the Cubs winning the World Series. Brexit and then Donald Trump beating Hillary Clinton. Any one of these things in a normal year and we'd be surprised but they all came at once, plus more. Make up your own list, it's been an exceptional year.

But in little old New Zealand while it may wish it, the type of electoral system the country now uses will almost certainly guarantee the same old tired faces stick around. New Zealand adopted German-style MMP in the mid 1990's. It was meant to build consensus government, where parties would form coalitions and work together. NZ was told it would be a stable form of government. Out with the old, where first past the post often led to the government receiving fewer popular votes than the combined opposition.

How has it panned out for little New Zealand? Minority governments are still not uncommon and it receives the worst of all worlds. Politicians who lose their seat now get back into Parliament off their party list. You can't get rid of them. This system may have been appropriate for Germany, where extreme left and right has held sway, but middle of the road New Zealand gets stuck with aged mediocrity that seem to be wedded to the job. Voters are left trusting the parties to refresh their party lists.

Then you have parties like the Greens who are professional naysayers and cannot win a seat. They get enough party votes to have representatives in Parliament, all coming in off the party list. They offer nothing constructive.

What New Zealand ends up with is indecision or weak-kneed legislation like the anti-smacking law. NZ was promised no parent who smacked their child would be criminalised, but that's exactly what has happened. It's outrageous.

With this loose limbed, liberal, middle ground seeking, never face issues head on approach, NZ still continues to slide. Renewal at the top isn't possible, and that's because of MMP.

****

Description of MMP: http://www.elections.org.nz/voting-system/mmp-voting-system