National’s 2014 List

July 27th, 2014 at 10:25 am by David Farrar

2014LIST

has released their 2014 Party List. I’ve done my normal calculations to show the approximate level of party vote needed for candidates to get elected. The assumptions are:

  • No change in electorate seats (I actually think there will be some, but for this exercise am assuming the status quo)
  • There is 3% wasted vote

National is currently  averaging 52.5% in the polls. If we assume National gets 49%, then get 63 MPs. The caucus demographics would be:

  • 73% European (46), 16% Maori (10), 6% Asian (4), 5% Pasifika (3)
  • 71% Male (45), 29% Female (18)
  • 2% in 20s, 10% in 30s, 37% in 40s, 41% in 50s, 11% in 60s
  • 38% from Northern Region, 18% CNI, 19% LNI, 17% Cant Westland, 8% Southern

Reasonably good demographic spread. I would like to see the proportion of women higher, but National has only five list only spots, so the challenge is not ranking women in winnable places (which National has done) but having more women win electorate nominations (which are decided purely locally).

Overall on a result of 49% National would have 17 new MPs – 10 electorate MPs and 7 List MPs.

The new List MPs would be Brett Hudson, Paramjit Parmar, Chris Bishop, Nuk Korako, Jono Naylor, Maureen Pugh and Fia Turner. But four of those people could well win their seats also (Hutt South, Port Hills, Palmerston North and West Coast – Tasman).

The placing of Brett Hudson (Ohariu) so highly means that you don’t have to be a clairvoyant to predict that National will endorse Peter Dunne in Ohariu.

Chris Bishop is the highest ranked male new candidate (excepting the strategic seat of Ohariu) which is a great result for him. Chris is one of the top debaters in New Zealand and will be a real asset to National in the House if he gets elected.

So potentially 17 new MPs is an excellent renewal for National.  even if National only gets what the got last time (47.5%) they still get 61 MPs, which is 15 new MPs.

Tags: , ,

78 Responses to “National’s 2014 List”

  1. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    So by Murray McCully being elected, you think no deal with Colin Craig will be done?

    Edit: Hmm. And I notice that you have Wagner being re-elected?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    “I would like to see the proportion of women higher,”

    Why?

    Do women make better MPs?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. duggledog (1,625 comments) says:

    Good to see possibly National’s worst ever decision, Claudette Hauiti, gone from that list. I’ve tried to think of a worse candidate than her in their history but for the life of me I can’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    “I’ve tried to think of a worse candidate than her in their history but for the life of me I can’t.”

    Jim Bolger?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Southern Raider (1,777 comments) says:

    Still some suspect high rankings for people like Coleman, Foss and Adams.

    Although I’m a national supporter we do all live in a very shallow political candidate pool

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    National has only five list only spots

    I count 12 :-)

    [DPF: Heh five on the main list. Those at the bottom are the just in case National gets a really really high result]

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Southern Raider (1,777 comments) says:

    Also not sure how someone being a great debater is why someone should be elected

    . I’d prefer someone who has a focus on innovation and business instead of getting points for arguing some stupid theoretical position in a high school club.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. dime (10,215 comments) says:

    Hekia parata is the 7th best person in national?

    What a crock of shit.

    [DPF: The top 25 are ranked in order of their ministerial rankings]

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    Good to see possibly National’s worst ever decision, Claudette Hauiti, gone from that list. I’ve tried to think of a worse candidate than her in their history but for the life of me I can’t.

    John Connelly.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. mjw (401 comments) says:

    Looking at the broader picture, we are going to have the lowest proportion of female MPs in parliament in some time, and likely the lowest turnout ever. Not very good for our democracy.

    EDIT: If I have added this up right, looking at the effective list, National have 2 out of the top 10 and 5 out of the top 20 as women. So I disagree that they are hampered by the number of effective list spots. They are hampered by their desire to select men.

    [DPF: I note that on current polling Labour will have a lower proportion of women in their caucus than in 2011 – and that is despite their gender quota!.

    A pity as there’s one female candidate for Labour I’d like to see elected]

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Longknives (4,956 comments) says:

    “I would like to see the proportion of women higher”
    In the wake of the Claudette Hauiti disgrace (and I’m sorry it was a bloody disgrace!) I think most of us National voters would like to see the party select simply the best candidate for the position (regardless of gender,sexuality, race, colour or creed)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dime (10,215 comments) says:

    Red – why was Bolger so bad? I was 14 when he got in and didn’t give a crap about politics

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. George Patton (352 comments) says:

    Something is seriously wrong with list ranking when Karl Varley is ranked ahead of Christopher Penk. Mark my words, if he becomes an MP, he will make Aaron Gilmore look pedestrian and uncontroversial.

    I don’t know why Linda Cooper is there – she is a first term Auckland Councillor. Is she not grateful for the role she won in late 2013?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    Dime- did you see his recent call (last week I think) for compulsory Maori language in NZ schools?

    To be candid, don’t know too much myself, but have read a bit about him. He apparently back stabbed Ruth Richardson, who was trying to make the National Party live by its small govt principles.

    In my view disastrous PM who started National’s drift to becoming a collection of ineffective rubber stampers of socialist/ progressive policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. mjw (401 comments) says:

    Longknives – I complete agree we need to get rid of gender bias. The problem is, National shows gender bias in favour of men.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    “The problem is, National shows gender bias in favour of men.”

    A wild assertion made in complete absence of any proof or substantiation.

    Divisive and worthless and completely untrue crap.

    IMHO its men of white Anglo Saxon heritage who are subordinated.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. mjw (401 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, to borrow from recent debates in the area, the Nats have a Woman Ban.

    Why? Are women really less capable than men? I would be interested in your explanation for the Woman Ban.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Jack5 (5,279 comments) says:

    Damn! We’re stuck with Finlayson.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    “the Nats have a Woman Ban.”

    A worthless assertion.

    Unless you have firm proof of such a pathetic baseless charge its not worth arguing about.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Reid (16,702 comments) says:

    Hekia parata is the 7th best person in national?

    No of course she isn’t but her husband is Wira Gardiner and he brings in the majority a significant proportion of the Maori vote that comes to National so this is why Key overlooks her utter incompetence time after time after time. Unlike many other by comparison truly competent Ministers like Kate Wilkinson, Parata gets special treatment from Key for this reason and only for this reason. Not that he’s about to admit it.

    Thus demonstrating yet again in my mind anyway that Key, far from being the towering colossus many party sycophants portray him as, actually has feet of clay, just like all the other political whores our Parliament has the misfortune to host.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Michael (913 comments) says:

    Have you broken embargo? I notice no other media have the party list yet. Or are you just quicker off the mark…

    Also, I note that it’s the existing caucus and the new electorate candidates becoming MPs, except for Chris Bishop and Brett Hudson. I would hope to have seen a couple of high profile policy specialists being added to Parliament for National. (like Chris Finlayson and Steven Joyce were in 2008)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Jack5 (5,279 comments) says:

    mjw at 11.00:

    National a woman ban?

    Paula Bennett, Amy Adams…. Great women who didn’t need positive-reverse discrimination to get them into power.

    Is there something wrong with your gender detection system, mjw? Or you just sorry about who you are?

    Labour is a sorry bunch. Sorry they are men, sorry when an electricity company fucks up rather badly (Clark on her knees), sorry some in Labour are heterosexuals, sorry not every MP is a school teacher. Sorry, sorry, sorry fuckers indeed.

    Clark, and now sorry-sorry Cunliffe have respectively started and kept rolling NZ’s current disgusting, gutless, neurotic propensity to apologise profusely and loudly for every slight and slip.

    If only the tough coalminers who founded Labour a century or so ago could see what a wimp festival their party has turned into they would be shouting some choice words, none of which would be “sorry!”.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    “Damn! We’re stuck with Finlayson.”

    He’s really the Maori Party’s insider/ infiltrator.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    Put Criss the Maori apologist up in a seat not on the list.
    and watch him lose

    The Maori appeasement minister should be representing us in negotiations not the Maori tribes as he has a record for doing…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. mjw (401 comments) says:

    Jack5 – look at the claims about Labour having a ban. That wasn’t saying there would be absolutely no men. So fair’s fair, on the same basis there is extremely strong evidence of a Woman Ban in National. There are only.

    3 out of the top 10
    6 out of the top 20
    2 out of the top 10 effective list
    5 out of the top 20 effective list
    Likely less than 30% in caucus overall.

    Sure, you don’t have to be male to get ahead in National. But boy does it ever help. You couldn’t get much clearer evidence of discrimination in favour of men. It’s a Woman Ban.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    “If only the tough coalminers who founded Labour a century or so ago”

    Persona non grata today to be sure.

    Today’s pansy progressive Labour would stop all coal mining tomorrow if they could.

    (Actually, not all that different to changes in National when you think about it.)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Jack5 (5,279 comments) says:

    mjw:

    WHoops! You’ve just converted me to Labour!

    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!
    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    “You couldn’t get much clearer evidence of discrimination in favour of men.”

    Rubbish.

    This still remains a weak and unsupported assertion.

    You have not supplied one skerrick of evidence of discrimation, or that it is the reason for the status you highlight.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Longknives (4,449 comments) says:
    July 27th, 2014 at 10:37 am

    As much as I am reluctant to admit it, it appears you might (cough cough choke) be right.

    A study undertaken last year on the gender differences in party choice, based on the 2011 General Election, indicates, that unlike other post-modern societies, where women are more likely than men to vote for the left-wing parties, in New Zealand there is very little difference between genders. Clearly women are not bothered by the gender of the party lists – or it they are, not enough to let it affect the way they vote.

    The only noteable difference was with NZ First – for some reason, men were more likely than women to vote for NZ1. Of course there are all sorts of limitations to research that concentrates solely on one general election – but it would appear, generally kiwis don’t care whether their politicians are wearing frilly knickers or jocks. :-)

    (Gender and party choice at the 2011 NZ General Election – Hilde Coffe, 2013)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Jack5 (5,279 comments) says:

    Re mjw at 11.25:

    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!
    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!
    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!
    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!
    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!
    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!
    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!
    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!
    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!
    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!
    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!
    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!
    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!
    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!
    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!
    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. wiseowl (978 comments) says:

    michael @11.19.
    You are joking aren’t you.
    Finlayson ‘a high profile policy specialist’

    That’ s a great Tui ad.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. mjw (401 comments) says:

    Redbaiter – it is simple logic. Either National discriminates against Women (hence the Woman Ban) or Women are less capable than men. I reject the second explanation. Or is there another possible explanation? Bear in mind that discrimination need not be a conscious policy, but tends to occur in all sorts of small and systemic ways, each of which might be claimed to be unimportant, but which add up altogether to a Woman Ban.

    Riddle me this: How NEW national MPs are likely to women? Answer – hardly any, because of the Woman Ban.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Jack5 (5,279 comments) says:

    mjw at 11.33

    What assumptions you make: that every woman and every man wants to be in Parliament, giving a good base for numerical analysis. That every middling, heterosexual, everyday citizen has the same propensity to want to be on a political platform as those who perceive themselves as being in some or other “disadvantaged” minority.

    Mjw, yours is a sorry attempt to divert attention from Labour’s quota system which, with its neurotic sorry-sorry-sorry syndrome has put it on a steeper slope to extinction.

    Sorry I had to say that. Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!

    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!

    Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!Sorry!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Redbaiter (10,428 comments) says:

    MJW- you are saying that a perceived dearth of women is proof of discrimation but in fact there are many reasons (logical) that would explain this situation. I repeat. Unless you have clear and indisputable evidence of discrimination your charge is a completely worthless and unnecessary smear upon men and women.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. mjw (401 comments) says:

    Just added it up: Only 3 out of 13 likely new National MPS are women. What more evidence could you need? It’s a self-sustaining boys club.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Liberty (277 comments) says:

    Red – why was Bolger so bad? I was 14 when he got in and didn’t give a crap about politics

    National were given a big opportunity to get NZ out of the socialist cesspit.
    Ist day in the job he reneged on the vile surtax.
    Second term He had a cup of tea and ditched Richardson. And got into bed with the pinkos
    with there RMA etc
    In the third term Bolger capitulated to Peters and it was all down hill.
    Labour won the 1999 election by default.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Jack5 (5,279 comments) says:

    Mjw at 11.40 says National is a self-sustaining boys club.

    Really? Boys’ club?

    What party was that bloke from who was in the scandal that involved a harassed boy running down a road?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. big bruv (14,220 comments) says:

    Lindsay Tisch ranked at 26!…..really?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. mjw (401 comments) says:

    Jack5 – Eh? What’s that got to do with National’s woman ban?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Fisiani (1,052 comments) says:

    Lewis Holden in Rimutaka is an excellent candidate who will get into parliament if National get 51.2% That would exceed the record result on 47% in 2011 but must be the goal.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. calendar girl (1,259 comments) says:

    “73% European (46), 16% Maori (10), 6% Asian (4), 5% Pasifika (3)”

    The contrived PC term ‘Pasifika’ appears again, as though it is now a routine part of our language.

    The people being referred to are Pacific Islanders, i.e. persons of Polynesian, Micronesian or Melanesian descent.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    @mjw: are you saying that you really cannot think of any other reason why there would be fewer women in politics than men than discrimination? Nothing to do with the working arrangements, the nature of the job, or the behaviour that our Westminster system rewards. None of those at all would have any influence on the proportion of men v’s women?

    As compared to the Labour party, so far as I can see National has no formal policy that discourages women (and I suspect they have an informal policy that strongly encourages them). Labour, as I recall, were planning to have a formal policy that discriminated against men. Is it really the case that you can’t see the difference between those two things?

    Or are you just the troll you appear to be?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. holysheet (470 comments) says:

    MJW said

    Just added it up: Only 3 out of 13 likely new National MPS are women. What more evidence could you need? It’s a self-sustaining boys club.

    How do you know there were any more women candidates than this to choose from?
    If women do not put themselves forward for candidate selection, then how is it the fault of national that they have the majority of men as their candidates?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Southern Raider (1,777 comments) says:

    MJW it’s more likely all the competent right wing women are too busy running successful businesses and chairing large corporate boards.

    Wheres left wing women have no options apart from politics

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. mjw (401 comments) says:

    I think the idea that the National party simply sits back and arbitrates expressions of interest in ludicrous. Of course they choose to recruit, to encourage and to develop people. The interesting thing is who they choose to recruit, encourage and develop.

    And PaulL – there are two problems with your argument. The first is that under this list the proportion of female National MPs could well reduce. The second is that there are many countries with more female lawmakers than New Zealand. Those with 33% or more female include Andorra, Angola, Austria, Belgium, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Grenada, Iceland, Macedonia, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicauragua, Norway, Rwanda, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Tanzania, Timor-Leste, Uganda, see http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SG.GEN.PARL.ZS

    There was a time when New Zealand led in opportunities for women. Now, on this metric, we rank 30th in the world. It is shameful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Reid (16,702 comments) says:

    There was a time when New Zealand led in opportunities for women. Now, on this metric, we rank 30th in the world. It is shameful.

    What I find shameful is living in the same country with people who are so incredibly thick they haven’t even worked out the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

    I suspect most of these people are the very same ones who took three whole elections – nine years – to get their obtuse heads around the fact that under MMP you get two votes instead of just the one.

    For this issue is on the same appallingly dumb level as that one.

    What I want are the very best people in the job. That process should disregard a person’s sex as completely and utterly irrelevant. Liarbore is once again making a strategic error in adopting a quota. A politician’s worth is NOT assessed by looking at the number of people who support them, it’s assessed by looking at their ability to get the job done. If martians were good at politics then personally I’d be in favour of electing them instead of the humans. Only idiots think political success is derived from popularity. This is probably why Liarbore supporters are so heavily in favour of their idiotic strategy.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. PaulP (156 comments) says:

    LOL the reporters (repeaters) can’t even repeat things correctly.

    They have taken DPFs analysis of what caucus might look like with electorate and list MPs and written it that it is the composition of the list – muppets! They can’t even read a post correctly before cutting and pasting it into their piece.

    http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10316222/Winners-and-losers-on-National-Party-list

    At least they acknowledged the source and that is an improvement.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Colville (2,318 comments) says:

    I drove thru three electorates this morning and all three Nat candidates are white middle aged men.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. wiseowl (978 comments) says:

    Colville.
    Good.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Warren Murray (316 comments) says:

    Thanks DF for the analysis. Good to see you still sitting on the fence (or in denial) about the results for Christchurch central, Waimak and Napier.

    Can you (or anyone else) tell me how National compiles its list? Given how proud you are of National’s truly democratic candidate selection process for constituencies, would it be so hard for the members to have some involvement in setting the list too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Manolo (14,169 comments) says:

    I wish my good friend Brett Hudson the best of luck in his attempt to become a MP.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. David Farrar (1,437 comments) says:

    Because I do polling, I generally will never state a clear view on what seats may change hands, as people will assume I am revealing internal polling. So I always use an assumption of the status quo, or use the iPredict forecasts. That way there is ni headline about Nat pollster picks x seat to be lost or won.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Jack5 (5,279 comments) says:

    The Leftist troll, mjw, at 12.14 lists a series of countries which he says have a higher proportion of female MPs than NZ does.

    He includes Senegal. Consider this from Wikipedia on women’s rights in Senegal:

    Women in Senegal face a number of disparities in their social status. Women have high rates of illiteracy. They make up less than 10% of the formal labour force. Female genital mutilation is a persistent practise in some rural areas, despite being outlawed by the constitution of 2001. Women’s legal rights are blunted by such practises as polygymy marriages, and Islamic law involving property ownership.

    So Labour wants to emulate Senegal, does it mjw?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. CharlieBrown (1,054 comments) says:

    16% Maori, so why do National keep maori seats?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. George Patton (352 comments) says:

    Is Mjw none other than Michael Wood, the Labour Epsom candidate? If so, it is fascinating he is engaging in online debates on a National centric blog instead of actually talking to voters. Maybe he needs to find a vote winning issue like the rise of penis lollies.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. mjw (401 comments) says:

    George – no I’m not Michael Wood, sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    If we assume National gets 49%, then get 63 MPs.

    I’m not sure this is right. Isn’t 49% with a 3% wasted vote basically equal to 50.5% with no wasted vote, which will get you 61 seats in a 120 seat House? Of course, you may have done the full Sante Lague calculation and come up with this result (in which case, kudos to you!), but given that system’s tendency to reward smaller parties, it seems an odd outcome. Alternatively, are you positing some very large overhang (such as the Maori Party winning 3 seats with 1% of the vote)?

    … even if National only gets what the [sic] got last time (47.5%) they still get 61 MPs, which is 15 new MPs.

    And I’m almost certain this is wrong, assuming a 3% wasted vote. In 2011, there was a 3.45% wasted vote, and National got 59 MPs. So where do the extra two MPs magically come from with an even smaller wasted vote?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    AG, can you explain how wasted votes make any difference if they are equally distributed? I can see how they may benefit the right if they are not equally distributed as more on the left are likely to stuff up their ballot.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    I note McCully is standing in ECB. So it looks like I will make a few dollars on ipredict.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Simon Lyall (60 comments) says:

    Looks like around place 30 is where it goes from B-team to C-team. You have a bunch of Ethnic MPs to represent the various groups and then you are into the electorate MPs who they are hoping will resign. I assume there is some rule against ranking the current caucus members below some of the newbies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Max S (23 comments) says:

    Shame they didn’t decide to dump Maurice Williamson and give Jamie White a free run in Pakuranga.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    @Chuck,

    AG, can you explain how wasted votes make any difference if they are equally distributed? I can see how they may benefit the right if they are not equally distributed as more on the left are likely to stuff up their ballot.

    “Wasted” votes mean votes for parties that don’t make the threshold (as opposed to spoiled ballots). They make a difference because seats are distributed on the basis of each qualifying parties share of votes cast for parties that qualify – votes for parties that don’t qualify (get over the threshold) are tossed out. So qualifying parties get more seats than their share of the actual vote would have given them … which isn’t a left or a right thing (and I don’t think I said it was?).

    If you’re meaning my “given [sainte lague’s] tendency to reward smaller parties” comment, it’s math, so I don’t really get it. But it’s acknowledged that the way this formula allocates list seats slightly (only slightly) favours smaller over large parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    AG, thanks for the reply. It was the terminology that got me. I do not consider any vote wasted even under MMP. It sends a message.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    I’m not sure this is right. Isn’t 49% with a 3% wasted vote basically equal to 50.5% with no wasted vote, which will get you 61 seats in a 120 seat House? Of course, you may have done the full Sante Lague calculation and come up with this result (in which case, kudos to you!)

    I very much assume that DPF did a full Sainte-Laguë calculation. There’s no other way to sensibly do it!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. stuarts-burgers (88 comments) says:

    “Good to see possibly National’s worst ever decision, Claudette Hauiti, gone from that list. I’ve tried to think of a worse candidate than her in their history but for the life of me I can’t.”

    Gilbert Miles Mt Roskill 1990 ??

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. gump (1,684 comments) says:

    @Calendar Girl

    “The contrived PC term ‘Pasifika’ appears again, as though it is now a routine part of our language.”

    “The people being referred to are Pacific Islanders, i.e. persons of Polynesian, Micronesian or Melanesian descent.”

    ————————

    New Zealand is considered to be a part of Polynesia from a geographical perspective, and the Maori people are considered to be Polynesian by anthropologists.

    The Pacific Islands and Pacific Islanders are the groups that consist of the lands and native peoples from Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia.

    Sometimes it can be useful to have discussions about the Pacific region that excludes New Zealand and its native people. The word Pasifika is used in those situations.

    It’s not a contrived word. It has no equivalent in the English language.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    I very much assume that DPF did a full Sainte-Laguë calculation. There’s no other way to sensibly do it!

    OK. In which case, we need a lot of other assumptions thrown into the mix – Labour and the The Greens party vote? NZ First’s party vote (as we’re assuming it made it into Parliament, as the “wasted” vote was only 3%)? Internet-Mana’s (see NZ First assumption)? Were Act and UF’s seats overhangs? Did the Maori Party keep all three seats, and if so, how many were overhangs?

    Point being – 63 seats on 49% with only 3% “wasted” vote looks like it’s taking a very-best-case scenario!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    Were Act and UF’s seats overhangs?

    How would that make a difference to the amount of support National needs for particular MPs to get in?

    There will be slight differences in the result that you’d get with different support levels for Labour and the Greens, but not a great deal.

    The size of the wasted vote makes a difference, but the support other parties divide between themselves (in ways that don’t affect the wasted vote) will only make differences on the margins. But feel free to posit some alternatives that fit within DPF’s examples that show how important these assumptions are. My educated guess is that it will change the support needed for any particular candidate to get in by perhaps 0.1%-0.2%. Simeon Brown getting elected with 49.9% instead of 49.7% support isn’t particularly important in this analysis – you still get the flavour of the marginal effect of a vote for National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    How would that make a difference to the amount of support National needs for particular MPs to get in?

    Because their 2 “overhang” seats would be “extra” to the 120 distributed amongst the other qualifying parties. Who gets them? If they aren’t overhang, then there’s 118 available to distribute to the other parties. Who loses then?

    But I guess this is my basic point. DPF’s analysis shows that even if National’s share of the vote doesn’t budge at all from 2011, it still picks up 2 more seats even though his assumption is that there is a lower “wasted” vote in 2014 than 2011. That analysis then flows into his calculation for the number of seats National will win with 49% of the qualifying. So feel free to posit some way in which this can happen, indicating what assumptions have been made along the way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. edhunter (554 comments) says:

    I know the horse has bolted but what would it have taken to keep Tony Ryall in parliament? Deputy PM? Assurance he was next cab off the rank when JK stands down? While I’m all for regeneration it’s really only the dead wood you want to remove not timber in it’s prime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    DPF’s analysis shows that even if National’s share of the vote doesn’t budge at all from 2011, it still picks up 2 more seats even though his assumption is that there is a lower “wasted” vote in 2014 than 2011.

    No, it doesn’t. National got 47.3% and 59 seats. 47.3% here and they get 60 according to DPF :-)

    Because their 2 “overhang” seats would be “extra” to the 120 distributed amongst the other qualifying parties. Who gets them? If they aren’t overhang, then there’s 118 available to distribute to the other parties. Who loses then?

    Who loses them? Whoever lost the votes to them in order that they stopped being overhangs. Those votes came from somewhere, and we’re stipulating for this scenario that it isn’t National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. badmac (136 comments) says:

    If I were a betting man I’d bet on NZ first getting about 4.5% and so wasting their vote.
    I’d also wager Conservatives getting 3% and also being wasted.
    Then I’d cross my fingers and have Mana not get a seat and so wasting their 1% and the purchased vote from the internet party of 1.5%. So that would mean a wasted vote could be as high as 10%. Therefore nationals 47% (much more likely than 49.9%) would scale to 52.2%.

    Second point why doesn’t Colin Craig do a deal with Peter Dunne just like Mana/IP and use his $3m to ensure Dunne makes it and their coalition gets in and gets 4-5 MPs, breaks up after 6 weeks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    No, it doesn’t. National got 47.3% and 59 seats. 47.3% here and they get 60 according to DPF :-)

    47.3% and they get 61 according to DPF (42 electorates and 19 list).

    Who loses them? Whoever lost the votes to them in order that they stopped being overhangs.

    I think we’re starting to talk at cross-purposes. So I’ll stop.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. GL (60 comments) says:

    AG – agree with you DPF has (mildly) fucked up his maths here. But Edgeler is right – overhangs don’t impact on the party vote required to get a certain seat number. The relevant factor when looking at PV required to get a certain number of seats is the amount of wasted vote. DPF has “assumed” 3% wasted vote, but I think you would need double that wasted vote to get the numbers he gets.

    Graeme Edgeler – AG is right, DPF suggests 47.3% will get you 61 seats which doesn’t make sense given that the wasted vote in 2011 election was 3.37% (more than the 3% DPF is assuming in his example). Try it out for yourself, you won’t be able to get National getting 61 seats at 47.3% unless wasted vote goes up higher than 5% – http://www.elections.org.nz/voting-system/mmp-voting-system/mmp-seat-allocation-calculator.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    But Edgeler is right – overhangs don’t impact on the party vote required to get a certain seat number.

    Yes, they can. Go to that seat allocator and enter random party vote/electorate seat values for parties … but have ACT at 0.2% and 1 electorate seat, while the Conservatives are at 3% and no electorate seats. Take a note of the allocation of list seats for all the parties. Then go back and leave everything the same, except change ACT to 1.2% and 1 electorate, while the Conservatives change to 2% and no electorate seats. Then compare the allocation of list seats for the parties on this scenario.

    See the difference?

    True that 10% of the party vote always gets you at least 10% of the list seats. But, depending on overhangs (and wasted vote, of course), it might get you even more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. GL (60 comments) says:

    AG – in your example the wasted vote went from 3% to 2%. “Wasted vote” is the vote that goes to parties that do not either win an electorate seat or win 5%. The percentage vote that goes to ACT in this situation is not wasted, only the percentage vote that goes to the Conservatives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    GL,

    Yes … that precise thought came to me just now as I was brushing my teeth! Got fixated on the fact that there had to be “extra” seats that someone else got advantage of and looked at this the wrong way round. So … I was wrong.

    In the words of David Cunliffe – sorry!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. lolitasbrother (774 comments) says:

    My opinion is that NZ Nat will soon promote NZ Conservative to East Coast.
    Like do you want to win or lose drongos.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote