Marginal Seat deals
July 20th, 2011 at 11:00 am by David FarrarAdam Bennett at NZ Herald reports:
National and Act are working on a deal under which Act would not stand candidates in marginal seats, including New Plymouth and Waimakariri, to increase National’s chances of winning them.
This is sensible and not unusual. Off memory most elections there have been some seats where ACT doesn’t stand a candidate to avoid splitting the centre-right electorate vote. One of the nice things about MMP is that you can still contest the party vote, without needing to stand in an electorate.
Act’s new candidate in Epsom – John Banks – said while he was not privy to such discussions, “Waimakariri would have been held by a National Party member of Parliament today if it wasn’t for the Act Party candidate last election”.
“I don’t make those decisions. I’m not on the campaign committee and I’m not on the Act board so I can’t speak with any authority but would it make sense, for instance, to lose the seat of New Plymouth to Andrew Little, a future leader of the Labour party, likely to be the leader of the Labour Party post the election, to lose that seat held by Jonathan Young because we put up an Act candidate?”
Mr Banks indicated Act would consider a more general policy of not standing in marginal seats. “I would not want to dislodge any high-quality National Party MPs from their marginal seats by way of putting up an Act candidate.”
Very sensible stuff from Banskie.
Talking of electorates a source within Labour informs me that nominations for Epsom have not closed yet, but will next week. If someone stands against Parker it will go to a selection meeting. I suspect Epsom Labour Party has few members and few union affiliates in the seat, so my guess is the Head Office wishes would prevail easily. Of course yet to have it confirmed Parker is seeking Epsom.
July 20th, 2011 at 11:22 am
Well, it’s not as if Labour has ever stood a credible candidate in the People’s Republic of Jim, aka the Wigram electorate since MMP was first foistered upon us…
Vote:July 20th, 2011 at 11:30 am
This is just stupid! Its a lose-lose for both National ad ACT.
The Epsom deal will lose National centrist list votes and many will be turned off voting at all. I guess the trade off is ACTs survival, but National loses MPs to keep ACT alive.
ACT not standing in marginal seats though will definitely lose them list votes. And its the list vote that affect your representation NOT electorate votes!
PS Little and Cosgrove will be there come what may.
Vote:July 20th, 2011 at 11:30 am
I’m not sure this is a good idea. Deals like this do not help National nationally, as any gain in a seat is cancelled out on the list (often by the same MP). And it does not look especially good to voters who may feel they are being treated like cattle.
Incidentally, I doubt Young needs any such help to beat Little.
Vote:July 20th, 2011 at 11:31 am
There will be more accusations this is making arrangements to circumvent democracy, but that’s rubbish.
There’s nothing to stop parties working together on any electorate arrangements they want to. Their choice.
Democracy means the voters of each electorate can decide for themselves what candidates they want to support, and what parties they want to support. If the voters of an electorate don’t like the party arrangements they can show that in the ballot.
It will also bring back up claims that John Key will tell Epsom voters how to vote. Key can say what he likes, it’s still free choice for the voters.
Brash can tell electorates how to vote, Harawira can tell electorates how to vote, Peters can tell electorates how to vote, Goff can tell electorates how to vote, hell, I’ll even try that. But it’s all up to the voters.
Vote:July 20th, 2011 at 11:34 am
I agree completely with you Pete George.
Vote:July 20th, 2011 at 11:51 am
Storm in a tea-cup.
Vote:It happened in the last election.
It will happen in the next.
Both sides of the political spectrum do it so what is the problem.
As Pete notes the voters still cast a vote in the way they see fit. That is the basis of democracy.
July 20th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Rimutaka might also have gone to the Nats if Act was not standing.
Vote:July 20th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
This is what I dislike about supporters of MMP like Grant Robertson poo pooing “the stitchup” in Epsom. If you bad mouth MMP because you want change then you are anti-democratic. But if you use MMP to try and maximise the share of seats for you and your coalition parties then you are circumventing democracy. Urgh.
Vote:July 20th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Sensible stuff yes but it shows Act is content to be a sucker-fish going along for a ride on National’s Whale.
If Act are serious about converting their ideas into policy for the shape of the Nation, why oh why don’t they campaign properly, and aim to get 10 to 15 seats in the house?
Act ideas when expounded properly are far less toxic to many died-in-the-wool Labour supporters than what you might think from all the rhetoric you hear around. The only reason they are “The Rich Prick Party” is because they do a piss poor job of disseminating their real message to the public.
/This leftie’s 2 cents.
Vote:July 20th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
RRM
Agreed. ACT are completely obsessed with things that are not big issues for those who would be most responsive to their message of economic rationality.
Vote:July 20th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
It would make sense thinking purely in an FPP environment, but as others have alluded it could hit them in the party vote.
You won’t see the Greens pull out of Waitakere and Auckland Central, even though it would probably hand Labour the win in those seats, and that’s because of the party vote.
If ACT want to be a 5-10% party, they might want to rethink those tactics.
Vote:July 20th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
smttc – describing Grant Robertson as “poo-poooing” is quite accurate IMHO. He is full of shit so what else would you expect. boom boom
Vote:July 20th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Heather Roy is not standing for ACT in Wellington Central in November. Given that Grant Robertson is defending a slim majority of under 2000, and has been an ineffectual local MP and that National are runing a strong candidate in Paul Foster-Bell it will be interesting to see what transpires.
Vote:July 21st, 2011 at 7:49 am
Banks will win Epsom in any event so the concession by National is largely irrelevant. The bigger question is whether ACT can garner enough votes in the list vote to get more than 1 more list member with him. It will be fairly ordinary if you end up with Banks and Brash and no other ACT mp’s. Brash’s performance since ousting Hide has been disappointing. Bleating about Hone is irrelevant as he is going to sit on the fringes with no say whichever way the election goes. We now need to see some clear economic policy from ACT
Vote:July 21st, 2011 at 7:51 am
“This is sensible and not unusual . . . One of the nice things about MMP ….. ”
blah de blah de blah…..
Well thank God that at least National aren’t pandering to Maori radicals. And consider the benefits for us, the humble voter? We get to watch National pandering to ACT’s racist subtexts while they return the favour by ‘acting’ as bullshit deflectors for National.
I think this sort of electoral practice stinks right down to such commonly trotted out patronising BS about:
‘What they do is an internal Party matter.’
Funny how they are completely separate entities – until election time, then the seedy little deals to deny people a voice at the ballot box float steaming to the top of the cess-pit.
Funny how then, MMP suddenly becomes described as having ‘nice things about it.” Arguing that they are all doing it does not make it ok. It indicates endemic electoral corruption and venal horsetrading. What is this? the eighteenth century?
“…. sensible and not unusual” or “….arrogant and oh so predictable.”?
Three cheers for MMP!
Vote: