iPredict Update
April 5th, 2011 at 4:00 pm by David FarrarAn interesting update from iPredict:
John Key would remain Prime Minister and be able to govern alone even if both the Act and UnitedFuture parties failed to be returned to Parliament at the next General Election, this week’s snapshot from New Zealand’s prediction market, iPredict, and associated analysis suggests. If Act and UnitedFuture were returned to Parliament, as the market continues to forecast they will be, Mr Key would be able to govern with the support of Act or the Maori Party.
This is an unusual scenario, for normally the wisdom is National does better with allies. It all depends on how much vote National gets. This week the market is at 46.5% for National (up 1%), 3.6% for ACT and 1.7% for United Future.
On those results National gets 59 seats, ACT 5 and United Future 2. You need 62 seats to govern, so National could govern with ACT.
However if Rodney does not win Epsom, then that is wasted vote and National goes to 62 seats, meaning it can govern alone. And if Peter Dunne does not win Ohariu, National would go to 63 seats.
In order, there are five levels of vote National can achieve:
- Enough to govern alone regardless of what other parties makes it. This would generally need at least 49% of the vote.
- Enough to govern alone if there is significant wasted vote – ie parties such as NZF, ACT and UFNZ don’t qualify, and their vote is effectively redistributed. This is what happens if National gets around 46% to 49%.
- Can only govern with support of ACT and/or United Future. Based on iPredict, this is around the 43% to 46% range if both parties win seats.
- Will be reliant on a deal with Maori Party to govern. This comes into play between 40% and 43% if ACT and United make it, and between 43% to 46% if those two parties don’t make it.
- Unable to form a CR Government under any circumstance – if National gets below 40% and ACT/UFNZ make it or if National gets below around 43% and no ACT/UFNZ
So if National gets over 49% or below 40% then the presence of ACT and UFNZ make no difference. Between 40% and 46% the presence of UFNZ makes it more likely that National can form a Government. But between around 46% and 49%, National is better able to govern alone if ACT and UFNZ don’t make it.
This is one reason why I don’t think people should judge what may happen in a seat until the final weeks of the campaign. Only at that stage can you look at the party vote, and make decisions on how useful a particular outocme in a seat might be.
Related posts:
- iPredict election stocks
- iPredict Election Update #36
- iPredict Election Update #37
- iPredict Election Update #39
April 5th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
What about the wasted winston and hopefully green party support? maybe even the wasted John Hatfield support
Vote:April 5th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
I cannot see ACT and UF getting between 7% and 10% of the party vote. So in the first scenario under 4 I wonder whether the MP may be relevant to National forming a government over a broader percentage band of National party vote (say 40% to 47%).
Vote:April 5th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Agree with your analysis, and the last part. But stretch it beyond just this election. If National are sitting on 48% and someone thinks “OK, I won’t vote for Rodney in Epsom, that gives National sole charge”, then I’d say that was a poor decision. Next election, National may need ACT, and really there’s no downside in voting for them – they don’t ever deny National confidence and supply.
If ACT are on 3.5% (equivalent of 4 seats), and Rodney gets in, the CR get 4 seats. If Rodney doesn’t get in, National get 2, and Labour/CL get 2 (roughly speaking). I’d rather the CR had 4.
Vote:April 5th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
“John Key would remain Prime Minister and be able to govern alone even if both the Act and UnitedFuture parties failed to be returned to Parliament at the next General Election” This is assuming NZ1st doesn’t make it. If NZ1st does, then (based on ipredict stocks at 27 march) National will have to work with 1 or 2 of ACT, UF, MP. (even if ACT and UF fail and MP only wins 3 seats)
Vote:April 5th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
It will be interesting to see how the polls go through to November.
There could be a bit of electorate resistance to giving National total control, but the alternatives are looking very weak at the moment. That WP/NZF is being considered as a serious possibility is incredible, it has to be due to poor alternatives.
Bugger the diddly little fringe party tryhards from the right and left and a pensioner party, where is the push for a strong independent party that doesn’t give a toss about arbitrary alignment?
Vote:April 5th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
If we had a halfway competent centre party, they’d hold the balance of power every election. That is what the Maori Party are trying to set up, and what the Greens have discarded by being mad lefties instead of proper environmentalists. Whoever manages to carve out that perpetual centre party position will get most of their policy agenda implemented every single election. That’s also what Hone misses when he wants to create a hard left Maori Party – the fact that a hard left party is always irrelevant and never gets their agenda implemented. Which is why the Maori Party were last cab off the rank, and why the Greens have never been in a coalition with Labour.
Vote:April 5th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Isn’t this the real reason behind the corporate media attacks on Darren Hughes / Phil Goff / Judith Tizard?
To undermine the main political party which has stated opposition to asset sales – Labour?
“John Key would remain Prime Minister and be able to govern alone even if both the Act and UnitedFuture parties failed to be returned to Parliament at the next General Election”
The Botany by-election arguably proved how unpopular asset sales are.
FYI – I attended the Public Meeting last night, at the old Waitakere City Council building, called by Labour on opposing asset sales.
The meeting was packed – but there was no NZ Herald reporter.
.
There is a lot of interest in the upcoming march/ rally for ‘Social Justice’ on 1 May 2011, which will be opposing privatisation and asset sales.
The Labour Party seemed united and focused to me – but as someone who was actually there, what would I know?
Penny Bright
waterpressure .wordpress.com
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
April 5th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Penny: Obviously I travel in different circles to you. I very much doubt that there is a co-ordinated corporate media attack on Darren, Phil and Judith purely so that asset sales can go through. I presume your logic is that the corporate media are in league with the rest of the evil capitalist corporate world, and they are collectively planning to manipulate NZ so as to make immense profits from the sale of assets.
Have you considered:
1. How much money could actually be made from a partial ownership of an asset that is still majority owned by the government
2. How much it would be costing this evil capitalist cabal to run the campaign you are suggesting
3. What, therefore, their expected profit would be
4. Why, if they were capable of doing this in NZ with the required level of secrecy, they would be doing this in NZ, instead of trying some country that actually has a reasonable amount of money – say USA or Australia or UK?
In short, are you’re sure you’re living in reality, and not just some looney tune who’s off the deep end? I certainly know which it looks like from where I’m sitting.
Vote:April 5th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
Key should slit Rodneys throat in Epsom and go for 50%. The sooner Act are discarded and we get a proper party to the right of National the better.
Vote:April 5th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
It is extremely unlikely under MMP that one party will secure enough votes to govern alone. This is borne out in other countries who have used MMP system far longer than NZ has.
The most likely scenario is that the current gap in the polls will narrow, which is what usually happens the closer we get to an election (no matter how weak the opposition may appear) and National will “encourage” Epsom voters to re-elect Hide, just to make sure they make it over the line. Dunne will win his seat. Hopefully that is enough and the Nats don’t have to do a deal with Maori, though Key will (he is a good solidrategic thinker).
Key will also have one eye on 2014 election. Governments over time become less and less popular and to win a third term is very tough. He will want to keep ACT on life support and keep Maori sweet to ensure he has a solid insurance policy going forward. He will be hoping ACT pull themselves together in the second term, and 3-5 seats from them is pretty handy as things tighten up by 2014. Maori will always be there, so he will keep them happy and onboard for the long-haul.
In summary it would be very foolish of National to cast ACT loose, and whilst I may not agree with everything Key has done, from a political perspective, he is a very shrewd operator and someone who is prepared to play the long game.
Vote:April 5th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Pongo, National have never and will never get 50%.
Vote:April 5th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Viking 2, never say never – 1951 National 54% of the popular vote
Vote:April 5th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
National will need ACT or an ACT equivalent to govern in the medium to long term. It’s almost impossible to imagine that they can maintain the 61-63 seats they need to govern entirely on their own. Even if they pull it off in 2011 they certainly won’t in 2014.
If ACT were to go then there would need to be a new right wing party to replace them to enable National to continue to govern post-2014.
Such are the realities of MMP.
Vote:April 5th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
freedom101: I’d argue that if ACT went, and no other right wing party was created, most of the ACT voters would flow to National (arguably 90%+ of them). In that sense, there isn’t a need for a right wing party.
Conversely, there is space for a right wing party. National, in order to win, needs to stay near the centre. That always leaves room on the right for another party, and that space will logically be filled. I note also that the media kind of force anyone that is right wing-ish into a box, and over time they have to start to live up to that box in order to be successful.
ACT were not formed as a right wing party, they were formed as a party with very left wing ideals, and a very right wing methodology of getting there. The media cannot deal with that concept, so have labeled them from the start as a right wing party. Over time, given that media view, they have to start acting that way or they get nowhere.
Vote:April 5th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Key will romp in if today’s performance is anything to go by. Cunliffe worked himself into a froth of righteous oratory and demanded the resignation of Bill English. Upshot? Key said it looked like a leadership bid to him. Goff scuttled away from the media after demanding the resignation of the whole government. Key said, anytime. He’s set his date but if Goff wants it earlier…
Vote:He trounced the two of them and made them look like the clowns they are.
Brilliant.
April 5th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
@BeaB – that may be so, but a minimum of 35% of the NZ electorate will vote Labour at this years election. The performance of the Greens will therefore be critical, and they appear vulnerable right now. It’s frightening enough that they attract anything between 8-10% at the best of times, so all this adds up to say 45-48%, then its game on.
NZ is instintively a socialist country with its nanny state and massive welfare system, and the fact is National never romp home.
At the end of the day, everyone is most concerned about the economy, and that ain’t about to get any better in the foreseeable future.
Nationals strength is that Labour are so weak, are poorly led, but most of all they have become a centre or centre-left party, which is forcing Labour to adopt more extreme left-wing policies, which is not going to win them the election. It’s very much like UK’s Labour party moving to the centre, which made it difficult for the Tories to gain any traction for years. Clinton did the same in America. Key is doing the same now, but has had to bring National to centre-left simply because NZ is a left-leaning country by nature. For example, ACT is portrayed as a right-wing party, whereas they are in actual fact comparatively in the centre by international standards.
A good example with policy is the ETS or the increase in GST, where Labour cannot effectively criticise these policies as a party that implemented GST in the first place, and who supposedly favours greener policies.
Vote:April 5th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Gwilly: a number of poor bits of analysis.
1. Minimum 35% will vote Labour. That’s not what the polls say
2. 8-10% Greens. They’ve never attracted that much in an election
3. 35% + 8-10% = 43-45%, not 45%-48%
4. If National moves to the centre, that doesn’t force Labour to move left. They can just stay in the centre, and force National to move right again. In short, Labour are moving left because they are lefties, not because of anything National is doing
5. NZ is not a left wing country. We’ve just had a left wing govt for 9 years, and it takes time to shift the centre. After 3 terms of National, people will be saying NZ is a right wing country. Remember that Labour never unpicked the key reforms from Rogernomics – most on the left would claim NZ is still a right wing country. It all depends on where you’re standing when you claim it
The fundamental problem with Labour is that they don’t accept they lost because they’d run out of ideas, lost touch with NZers, and generally worn out their welcome. They think it was just an accident. So they have tried to continue to be a govt in waiting, which means no large change. What they needed to do was turn over the bulk of their senior leadership, and pick someone who could grow over 2 terms so as to get to a point where they’ve reconnected. Their failure to do that this term means they’ve now put it off for 2 more terms, and they’ve gifted National a free ride to 3 terms, with a chance at 4. I’m OK with that, although by then the National govt will be looking rather tired, venal and out of touch. And in turn they’ll be out of power for a while unless they’re smart enough to revitalise.
Vote:April 5th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
My reply to PaulL:
I have researched and can provide the evidence of the corporate media campaign waged in the NZ Herald against Winston Peters and NZ First, from 12 July 2008 – 5 November 2008.
ie: It has been done before.
In the politically critical three months before the 2008 NZ general election, complaints were made to both the Police and Serious Fraud Office about NZ First, by ACT Party Leader Rodney Hide.
Were these complaints ‘politically motivated’?
Coming from the leader of a rival political party – ACT’s Rodney Hide – how can they be described as anything else?
(Not being mean here Rodney – just stating the facts
No charges were laid, there were no convictions in Court, and eventually both the Serious Fraud Office and NZ Police found no offence had been committed and there was no case to answer.
But politically – the damage had been done.
Arguably the continual barrage of ‘MAN ON THE MOON’ headlines over ALLEGATIONS of possible fraudulent and/or criminal behaviour, in the three months before the election, had the desired effect on enough of the voting public to ‘put them off’ voting for NZ First / Winston Peters.
NZ First failed to make the 5% party vote threshold, and those big business CEOs who didn’t want Winston Peters to be part of either a Labour or National Government – got their way.
This is how it was done.
KEY DATES:
4 September 2008: Rodney Hide makes a complaint about NZ First to the NZ Police.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0809/S00096.htm
Thursday, 4 September 2008, 3:32 pm
Press Release: New Zealand First Party
Media Release
4 September 2008
Police Complaint “Grandstanding”
New Zealand First Leader Rt Hon Winston Peters has described Rodney Hide’s complaint to police today as obsessive, compulsive, grandstanding behaviour.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
5 Nov 2008 … Police have found no offence was committed when Winston Peters’ NZ … Police inquiry clears NZ First. By Claire Trevett and Patrick Gower …
Police inquiry clears NZ First
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Police have found no offence was committed when Winston Peters’ NZ First party failed to declare an $80,000 donation as required by law.
The decision ends the open official inquiries into the NZ First donations controversy. …”
(ie: TWO months before the 2008 election – Winston Peters and NZ First have this Police complaint hanging over their heads – 3 days before the election (8 November 2008) – the Police clear NZ First.)
________________________________________________________________________________
30 July 2008: ACT leader Rodney Hide asks the Serious Fraud Office to investigate issues raised by The Dominion Post and other media over NZ First party funding.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/556418
NZ First questions remain unanswered
- Dominion Post and NZPA
ACT leader Rodney Hide has asked the Serious Fraud Office to investigate issues raised by The Dominion Post and other media over NZ First party funding.
________________________________________________________________________________________
10 October 2008: A Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation into New Zealand First clears the party of fraud.
SFO finds no proof of NZ First fraud
Published: 4:56PM Friday October 10, 2008 Source: NZPA
A Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation into New Zealand First has cleared the party of fraud, but party leader Winston Peters isn’t going to get his ministerial portfolios back before the election.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Fran O’Sullivan : Meurant allegations require scrutiny
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
All the chief executives I subsequently canvassed in a mini-survey last week told me they didn’t want either Clark or Key to have Peters in their governments………..
IS THIS REAL REASON BEHIND THE CORPORATE MEDIA CAMPAIGN (PARTICULARLY IN THE NZ HERALD)
TO ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT WINSTON PETERS AND NZ FIRST?
Because the majority of big business CEOs didn’t want Winston Peters in either a Labour or National Government?
Is this how ‘democracy’ works in ‘clean, green’ New Zealand, ‘perceived’ to be the least corrupt country in the world?
The public get the Government the majority of big business want us to have – through corporate media manipulation?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
SUGGEST THAT YOU LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WHICH, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, PROVES CORPORATE MEDIA (PARTICULARLY NZ HERALD) MANIPULATION OF THE 2008 NZ GENERAL ELECTION – AND THINK FOR YOURSELVES!
“Evidence of corporate media campaign (mainly NZ Herald) to discredit Winston Peters and NZ First prior to the 2008 election.”
3 April 2011 post on http://waterpressure.wordpress.com
Penny Bright
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 6:28 am
As iPredict keep on predicting that Peter Dunne won’t win Ohariu, perhaps it would like to predict who his replacement would be….
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 8:31 am
Sorry Penny, Winston Peters pooed in his own nest on that one, let’s not try to say it’s the media’s fault – they will follow scandal and this was scandal.
While the police weren’t able to fine “evidence” that would stand up in court, we are talking about the same system that said the entire Kahui family is apparently innocent of any wrongdoing.
Is anyone seriously suggesting that Winston Peters is a stand-up honest politician who has sadly been portrayed badly by the evil media?
Personally I was thrilled to see NZ First not get in, and I think many would share my sentiment. It’s not just the donations thing – does anyone remember 2 elections back where Winston Lorded over the country with the power to decide who will govern? All of a sudden our entire election process was trivialised into one man – Peters – deciding who will lead the country and ultimately going with Labour who would offer more pieces of silver. Jeez, if he didn’t enjoy it so much I might have some sympathy but seriously, why do we want NZ First back in government again?
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 9:02 am
Penny, if that’s your evidence, then you clearly don’t understand what evidence looks like. Basic problems with your “evidence” are:
Vote:1. All it shows is that media publicised allegations of fraud against Winston. No evidence of a corporate conspiracy. The most likely explanation is that it was news.
2. It doesn’t show any evidence Rodney was in on it. The media are pretty unremittingly negative about ACT, so unlikely you’d say they were in cahoots with ACT
3. Don’t see where that has anything to do with asset sales
4. You don’t seriously believe that Winston didn’t get that donation, do you? Are you really that crazy?
April 6th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
@PaulL
Vote:1. The polls might not say that, but usually they tighten up closer to election time, but I probably have over cooked it by a few percentage points. I hope the current polls are right!
2. You are correct (thank god)
4. If National occupy the centre ground, Labour can only go one way, and that is left.
5. I can’t agree with you here, National is now a centre, some would argue centre-left party. i.e. the only right-wing policy of note is 3 strikes and that is an ACT policy. Increased spending, borrowing, higher taxes (GST) and ETS does not sound very right-wing to me. Even on asset sales its only partial, not full privatisation. The simple fact is they can’t make any radical changes because they will be voted out under MMP. Visit Hong Kong or Singapore and you will see how far to the left we are.
April 10th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
PaulL and Gwilly – you obviously need to READ the FACTS a little more carefully:
KEY DATES:
4 September 2008: Rodney Hide makes a complaint about NZ First to the NZ Police.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0809/S00096.htm
Thursday, 4 September 2008, 3:32 pm
Press Release: New Zealand First Party
Media Release
4 September 2008
Police Complaint “Grandstanding”
New Zealand First Leader Rt Hon Winston Peters has described Rodney Hide’s complaint to police today as obsessive, compulsive, grandstanding behaviour.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
5 Nov 2008 … Police have found no offence was committed when Winston Peters’ NZ … Police inquiry clears NZ First. By Claire Trevett and Patrick Gower …
Police inquiry clears NZ First
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Police have found no offence was committed when Winston Peters’ NZ First party failed to declare an $80,000 donation as required by law.
The decision ends the open official inquiries into the NZ First donations controversy. …”
(ie: TWO months before the 2008 election – Winston Peters and NZ First have this Police complaint hanging over their heads – 3 days before the election (8 November 2008) – the Police clear NZ First.)
________________________________________________________________________________
30 July 2008: ACT leader Rodney Hide asks the Serious Fraud Office to investigate issues raised by The Dominion Post and other media over NZ First party funding.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/556418
NZ First questions remain unanswered
- Dominion Post and NZPA
ACT leader Rodney Hide has asked the Serious Fraud Office to investigate issues raised by The Dominion Post and other media over NZ First party funding.
________________________________________________________________________________________
10 October 2008: A Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation into New Zealand First clears the party of fraud.
SFO finds no proof of NZ First fraud
Published: 4:56PM Friday October 10, 2008 Source: NZPA
A Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation into New Zealand First has cleared the party of fraud, but party leader Winston Peters isn’t going to get his ministerial portfolios back before the election.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
It was ACT Leader Rodney Hide who made the complaints to both the NZ Police and SFO about NZ First.
How can that NOT be seen as ‘politically motivated’ when he is the leader of a rival political party?
Nothing personal – but FACTS are FACTS.
(sorry that they don’t concur with your ‘world outlook’?
Penny Bright
Vote:http://waterpressure.wordpress.com