National’s 2014 List

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

2014LIST

National 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: , ,

The problems for Labour if they don’t get their party vote up

June 24th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

I blogged yesterday on Labour’s list, showing who comes in at what party vote percentage. Looking at that table, it shows why Labour needs to significantly lift their party vote.

I’ve tweaked the table to use the iPredict seat predictions, as assumptions. This means:

  • If Labour got only 23%, their only List MP would be Deputy Leader David Parker
  • At 23%, only 34% of the caucus would be female
  • They need 26% to retain Andrew Little
  • They need 28% to get Kelvin Davis in. If they are polling below that, then Labour can’t sacrifice him to help Kim DotCom’s party get into Parliament
  • They need 29% to get any Asian MPs
  • They need 30% to get even a single new List MP
  • They need 34% to make their gender target of 45% female

They also have challenges in terms of having a caucus that can excite people to vote for it. The highest ranked new candidate is a policy analyst for the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. I’m sure she is a very capable and talented person for her to have been ranked so high, but Chris Trotter would point out that having your highest ranked new candidate being a policy analyst, won’t really appeal to Waitakere Man.

I touched yesterday that out of a projected caucus of 34 (on average of all public polls), they would have eight Maori MPs, five Pasifika MPs and no Asian MPs. Dong Liu will want his donations back :-)

Also of interest was that five Labour MPs pulled out of list ranking, including Trevor Mallard. Trevor said that he wanted to help Kelvin Davis out, but that is a nonsense statement. Unless Trevor loses Hutt South to Chris Bishop, then whether or not Mallard is on the Labour List will have no impact on whether Kelvin Davis gets in. So either Trevor thinks he may lose to Bishop, or he withdrew from the list for a different reason to what he stated.

Tags: , ,

Labour List 2014

June 23rd, 2014 at 5:14 pm by David Farrar

Labour List 2014

Labour has released its 2014 Party List. The analysis above is my own.

The key assumption is that Labour holds it current electorate seats and also wins the four marginal seats where the incumbent MP from another party is standing down. I’m  not predicting that will happen, just saying that is a reasonable assumption for the list.

So this shows at what level of party vote, each candidate will get elected. At the 23% in the Fairfax poll only David Parker and Jacinda Ardern would make it in.

On the 27.7% Labour currently has on the average of all public polls they would get just seven List MPs, with Kelvin Davis just making it in. Note there have been no polls since the Cunliffe letter and alleged secret donations to Labour were revealed.  On the current average of the polls Labour would lose Raymond Huo and Carol Beaumont.  On the Fairfax 23% they would also lose Sue Moroney, Andrew Little, Maryan Street, Moana Mackey and Kelvin Davis.

Only if Labour get 30% of the vote, will they not be in breach of their rule to have at least 45% of the caucus female. Next time when the quota is 50%, this means male list candidates will be even worse off.

On the average of current polls Labour will be only 41% female, which is less than they are at the moment with no rule!

Very little new talent in a winnable place.  The top placed new candidate is Priyanca Radhakrishnan who would come in at 29%. She is a policy analyst with the Ministry of Women’s Affairs.

So what would Labour’s caucus look like on 27.7% (current public poll average). Their demographics would be:

  • 41% female, 59% male
  • 62% European, 24% Maori, 15% Pacific, 0% Asian
  • 24% in their 30s, 38% in 40s, 32% in 50s, 6% in 60s
  • 32% from Auckland, 12% Christchurch, 21% provincial, 15% rural, 21% Wellington
  • 76% North Island, 24% South Island
  • 88% straight, 9% lesbian, 3% gay
  • 9% entered in 1980s, 15% in 1990s, 12% in 2002 to 2005, 38% in 2008 to 2010, 15% in 2011 to 2013 and only 6% in 2014

The ethnicity is interesting. On current polls their caucus would be massively over-represented with Maori and Pasifika MPs, and under-represented with Europeans and there would be no Asian MPs at all.

Also by location, they will have twice as many Wellingtonians, as our share of the population.

Also one quarter of the caucus will have entered Parliament in the 1980s or 1990s.

Tags: , ,

Green Party list changes

May 27th, 2014 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

greenlist

I thought it would be interesting to look at the Green Party list changes over time.

First the 2014 final list compared to the draft list is interesting. Mojo Mathers was rated much higher by the members than the initial ranking group. And James Shaw (sadly) rated lower. She went from 14 to 9 and Shaw from 10 to 13. Also of interest is David Kennedy shot up from 28 to 19.

Comparing 2014 to 2011, the big movers are Genter up five (deserved), Mathers up five, Clendon down three, Roche down three and Browning down five (deserved).

Looking at trends over time, I note:

  • Hague is locked in as No 3 and is the obvious next male co-leader (which could be a good thing)
  • Hughes continues to rise (deserved)
  • Delahunty and Graham have peaked and now starting to slip down

The Greens will need to get 16% to get their top 20 MPs in. I doubt they will do that – but if Labour vote continues to decline, they could get close. At the lower end of the scale, they could dip slightly below 10% as their supporters often do not turn out to vote as much as other parties. At 9% they’d get around 11 MPs – losing Walker, Roche and Browning.

In other news, Metiria Turei again makes a case for both her and Russell to be Deputy PMs:

Dunedin-based Ms Turei, who retained top spot, said there was ”no reason” two MPs could not share the deputy’s role.

This would enable Dr Russel Norman and Ms Turei’s strengths, the environment and inequality/poverty respectively, to achieve equal billing in the next government, she said.

I suspect Winston may have some views on that!

Tags: ,

The final 2014 Green Party list

May 25th, 2014 at 5:47 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

A shake-up of the Green party list sees older MPs plunge in the rankings.

Second-term MPs Kennedy Graham and Catherine Delahunty slide down the list, leapfrogged by Julie Anne Genter, Mojo Mathers, and Eugenie Sage, all elected in 2011.

Gareth Hughes scales two places into the top five. The biggest loser is agriculture spokesman Steffan Browning, plummeting five places to the 15th spot.

It may see him struggle to return to Parliament if the Greens don’t increase their share of the vote in September’s election. Denise Roche falls two places, overtaken by Wellington Central candidate James Shaw.

Co-leaders Metiria Turei and Russel Norman take out the top two spots. Co-convener Georgina Morrison said there were six new faces in the top 20, with 10 men and women and four Maori.

A draft list was put together by candidates and delegates and issued in March, and then voted on by members. Shaw, Logie, Roche, Delahunty and Hutt South-based Holly Walker were all ranked lower by the rank and file.

Somewhat annoyingly the article doesn’t give actual rankings for candidates, so one can’t tell exactly where everyone is placed. It sounds like the changes from the draft list are relatively minor. Of course even a change of one ranking though can be critical for those on the cusp.

Tags: ,

The Greens provisional list

March 18th, 2014 at 9:48 pm by David Farrar

The Greens provisional list is:

1 Metiria Turei (n/c)
2 Russel Norman (n/c)
3 Kevin Hague (n/c)
4 Eugenie Sage (up 2)
5 Catherine Delahunty (down 1)
6 Gareth Hughes (up 1)
7 Kennedy Graham (down 2)
8 Julie-Anne Genter (up 5)
9 Jan Logie (n/c)
10 James Shaw (up 5)
11 Holly Walker (up 1)
12 David Clendon (down 4)
13 Denise Roche (down 2)
14 Mojo Mathers (n/c)
15 Marama Davidson (new)
16 Steffan Browning (down 6)
17 Barry Coates (new)
18 John Hart (new)
19 Jack McDonald (up 11)
20 Richard Leckinger (down 3)

Readers may recall that I published an unofficial draft list that someone in the Greens passed onto me, claiming it reflecting the thinking of someone in the parliamentary wing. That list was denounced as fake, yet I find it interesting certain similarities.

Here’s what the unofficial list had, and how it compares to his official draft:

  1. Russel Norman 1
  2. Metiria Turei 2
  3. Kevin Hague 3
  4. Eugenie Sage 4
  5. Catherine Delahunty 5
  6. Julie Anne Genter 8
  7. Gareth Hughes 6
  8. Kennedy Graham 7
  9. Denise Roche 13
  10. Jan Logie 9
  11. Marama Davidson 15
  12. Holly Walker 11
  13. Mojo Mathers 14
  14. Aaryn Barlow
  15. James Shaw 10
  16. Steffan Browning 16
  17. David Clendon 12

Certainly not identical, but the unofficial list I was given did correctly pick the top five, that Genter would be prompted to top 8, and that Browning and Clendon would be demoted. That tends to indicate whomever the author was, did have a good understanding of current sentiment in the Greens.

It will be interesting now to see how the final list ranked by the members goes.

Tags: ,

Green Party List Ranking

February 11th, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The Green Party Co-Convenor, Georgina Morrison, has e-mailed an explanation of their list ranking process:

I thought it would be useful to clarify the list selection process used by the Green Party.

 In my view the Green Party has the most democratic list selection process out of the major parties. We are proud of the high level of member involvement.

It is largely members who draft the initial list and then all members subsequently get a direct say on that list. This initial list has not yet been developed, contrary to inferences on your blog.

Let me also be clear that there is no proposed list circulated by “party hierarchy” or leadership, such an action would be seriously frowned upon by members. The list selection process is one that is proudly owned by party members only. There is no parliamentary involvement in it. 

All candidates seeking list ranking attend our election year candidate conference, which is taking place this Friday through Sunday in Auckland.

Each electorate sends delegates to this conference, which has the primary purpose of giving the delegates the opportunity to access the candidates. The number of delegates per electorate is determined by the number of members in the electorate. These delegates then go back to their electorates and discuss their observations of the candidates with branch members. Each delegate takes this feedback and ranks an initial list. There will be 132 delegate spaces at the conference.

In addition each candidate also gets to rank a list. There are 52 candidates.

Finally the key leadership roles in the party get to rank a list too. These positions are our Co-leaders and party convenors and policy convenors. However each person can only rank one list. Thus only the Co-convenors will submit a list as both the Co-leaders and policy Co-convenors are also standing as candidates. That means there will only be two lists from the party leadership.

In total there will be 186 lists submitted. 70 percent of those lists will be from electorates, 28 percent from candidates and two percent from party officials. STV (successive elimination) is the voting method used to determine the initial list that goes out to a members vote.

All members (who have been members for more than six months) are given the chance to rank a list. They are provided with the draft list for an indication of what the branch delegates and branch meetings thought of the candidates. STV (successive elimination) is again used as the voting system. The only influence the initial list has is that it is sent to all the members. Members can ignore it entirely if they wish. The final members list is the list that goes to the candidate selection committee and leadership group and may be subject to minor adjustments for gender, race, age and location. No candidate can move more than two places from where the party members ranked them.

As to the issue of a draft list in circulation, I can only assume that, if the list is genuine, it is nothing more than the individual musings of an individual member. Because we allow all members the opportunity to vote on our list it is not surprising that people are thinking ahead.

However for the list to be purported on your blog as holding some form of official significance is totally false and misleading. Let me be clear, there is never a list prepared by party or parliamentary staff at any point. The candidate conference later this week kicks the list process off and is driven by members the whole way. Your readers would be advised to wait and see what members decide when the list they rank is released later this year.

Regards
Georgina Morrison
Green Party Co-convenor

It’s good to have the process explained in detail, and I agree it is more democratic than the other parties. I have been critical of National’s list ranking processes on several occasions, and think National’s list ranking doesn’t give sufficient weight to regional rankings.

I do note that the leadership group and candidate selection committee (the hierarchy) can “tweak” the list as voted on by members, and even a movement of two places may be the difference between being an MP or not. But I agree overall the Greens have a very good process. However the views of those in Parliament I am sure have great influence on the outcome (as they do in National) and I look forward to seeing (hopefully) both the draft list and the final list.

My thanks to Georgina for the explanation.

Tags: ,

More on the Greens list

February 10th, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

I published last week a draft Green Party list. The Greens said it was an entirely unofficial list, and was not the list that the hierarchy and electorate delegates put together for members to vote on. That is correct, as that list is yet to be drawn up. But in political parties it is not unusual for different factions to start circulating what they see as their desired list.

The source who provided the draft list has elaborated:

I can confirm that the list I gave you the other week came from the parliamentary wing of the party. It reflects internal thinking that the party needs to constantly refresh caucus as this has been done well up to now. Good performance needs to be rewarded and poor performance needs to be dealt with accordingly.

In particular, there is a lot of support for Julie Anne Genter to secure the Transport Minister role amongst parliament and and the wider party. Hence her big jump and high ranking.

Marama Davidson and Aaryn Barlow are seen as up and comers with strong personal backgrounds and were good candidate performers. James Shaw rounds off a solid 1st 15.

David Clendon has been demoted in the list as he is regarded as lazy and lacking cut-through while Steffen Browning is seen as a political liability by his caucus colleagues. Kennedy Graham begins to drop down the rankings and while being a poor performer in opposition it is hoped his previous experience may help in government.

I would be surprised if many in the Greens disagreed with those assessments. What will be interesting is if the draft list out together by the hierarchy is close to the list that was circulating last week. It will not be identical of course, but the key things to look out for is whether Genter shoots up the rankings, and if Browning and Clendon stay in the top 10.

UPDATE: A manager with the parliamentary party has said on the record that the parliamentary leadership and senior staff have not had any involvement with the unofficial list that was sent to me. They can’t rule out that someone at Parliament hasn’t compiled their own wish list, and been pushing it – but they are unaware of any activity like that and do not sanction it. I believe those assurances.

I have no reason however to doubt the source has said anything untrue, and that they did not receive the list from someone in Parliament. I won’t print anything I believe to be untrue. The source has been reliable in the past. Also I do apply my own judgement to a degree and the rankings in the unofficial list do meld with general consensus around the beltway around individual MPs. If for example someone sent me what purports to be an unofficial Green Party list with Browning ranked No 3, I’d laugh out loud as I hit the trash bin.

Tags: ,

Two Greens MPs facing sacking with Green Party List

January 31st, 2014 at 4:44 pm by David Farrar

I’ve been leaked a copy of the draft an unoffical Green Party List. This is the version done by the hierarchy and leadership. The initial draft list is done by the hierarchy and then members then get to vote on this, and tweak it. They often do make some changes, but the bulk of the rankings don’t change much.

  1. Russel Norman (+1 from 2011)
  2. Metiria Turei (-1)
  3. Kevin Hague (nc)
  4. Eugenie Sage (+2)
  5. Catherine Delahunty (-1)
  6. Julie Anne Genter (+7)
  7. Gareth Hughes (nc)
  8. Kennedy Graham (-3)
  9. Denise Roche (+2)
  10. Jan Logie (-1)
  11. Marama Davidson (new)
  12. Holly Walker (nc)
  13. Mojo Mathers (+1)
  14. Aaryn Barlow (+4)
  15. James Shaw (nc)
  16. Steffan Browning (-6)
  17. David Clendon (-9)
  18. Dora Langsbury (+4)
  19. Barry Coates (new)
  20. Sea Rotman (nc)

So the big winner is Julie-Anne Genter who in 2011 was ranked below Holly Walker, but has shot up to 6th place – twice as high as Holly. Genter has been a very hard and effective worker, so no surprise.

Browning and Clendon face demotion to unwinnable places.

Women make up nine of the top 13 of the draft list. Imagine the outcry if it was the other way around!

Davidson looks likely to become an MP, if this list is accepted. Aaryn Barlow may make it in also, which if they got 14 MPs, would make around 30% of their caucus Maori.

It will be interesting to see the final list, and if Clendon and Browning remain in unwinnable spots.

Also interesting to see if the well respected James Shaw gets higher than 15.

UPDATE: Just had clarified that this is not the official draft list out together by the hierarchy. That process begins in around two weeks.

The source who provided this says this is a draft that has circulated internally among some members. The source is reliable as they also provided the official draft list to me last time.

So the list that the hierarchy draws up, is not necessarily this list. The official process has yet to begin. No doubt we will see in time if the official list resembles this unofficial one doing the rounds.

Tags: ,

List Ranking

May 6th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald editorial:

The public can only wonder how somebody like that can get into Parliament.

Nobody elected him. He came in on National’s list in 2008 but could not make it back to Parliament on the list in 2011 even though that election increased National’s proportional representation. The previous year this newspaper revealed he did not have a finance industry qualification claimed in his CV.

Now he is back filling a vacancy left by Speaker Lockwood Smith’s departure. This unfortunately is typical of the list system. People near the bottom of the list come and go without the public noticing or knowing much about them.

It is often claimed that the same could be said of many electorate MPs who are largely unknown outside the electorate. But they are well known within it. Before their election they have faced public meetings, attended local gatherings, made a point of meeting and talking to as many voters as possible.

List MPs may do the same but they do not face the same test. It is hard to believe someone who behaved as Mr Gilmore apparently did would win even a safe National electorate. Word gets around.

The fact he is in Parliament suggests National’s list exceeds its depth of presentable candidates.

Not quite, but it is true that most parties get some quality issues at the lower end of their lists. However this situation is partly of National’s own making.

In 2008, Aaron was ranked No 56 on National’s list, and he was the list person in on their list.

In his first term he didn’t endear himself universally. That’s now because he isn’t without skills – he’s got a good understanding of policy, and is a good debater in the House – but because he does some stupid things.

So in 2011 he was one of two MPs ranked at the bottom of the caucus on the party list, and they were not returned in the general election. Since then however two vacancies have occurred, and hence the two List MPs not re-elected were given opportunities to return.

But while they were ranked at the bottom of the caucus, they were not at the bottom of the list. They were both given places potentially winnable and this is because National has made a “policy” decision at the last three elections to rank existing List MPs above new candidates, except when the new candidates are deemed exceptionally talented or have special appeal.

In 2005 the only candidates ranked above current List MPs were Tim Groser and Chris Finlayson.

In 2008 the only candidates ranked above current List MPs were Steven Joyce, Hekia Parata, Bakshi Singh and Melissa Lee.

In 2011 the only candidates ranked above current List MPs were Jian Yang, Alfred Ngaro and Paul Goldsmith.

When you are in Government with small majorities, I understand the desire to not have incumbent MPs given unwinnable List places. However there is a price to pay when you do protect the caucus.

By this I don’t mean in any way that I believe incumbent MPs should be treated more harshly – far from it. I just think that when it comes to list ranking, MPs and candidates should compete fairly on their qualities as individuals – not dealt with collectively.

There are in fact a number of people lower down National’s List who would make solid MPs – Paul Foster-Bell (who is now there), Claudette Hauiti, Jo Hayes, Leonie Hapeta, Denise Krum, Viv Gurrey, Brett Hudson etc (not an exclusive list).

The problem is not that National won too many seats. The problem is that it protected its existing caucus and ranked them ahead all bar three new candidates. Now again, there are reasons why that can be politically desirable. But there are also reasons it is politically undesirable, as we have seen this week.

Tags: , ,

Green List Quotas

March 27th, 2013 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

The Green Party already have the most prescriptive set of rules for their list ranking. It runs to 44 pages!

As you all know their rules already require one of their co-leaders to have a penis, and one not to have a penis.

With list ranking they already have quotas for everything – at least 40% must be female, at least 10% must be Maori, at least 20% from the Mainland and at least 10% must be under 35.

However this quota purity does not go enough for some Green Party members. Whale has leaked e-mails with a remit calling for:

The Party List at each election shall comprise all odd ranked places filled by one gender, and even numbered places filled by the other gender.

The gender filling odd numbered places at any one election shall fill even numbered places at the following election.  The gender filling odd numbered places at the first election after this remit is adopted shall be determined by a coin toss.”  

Total gender equality. And you work out who is ranked number one by a coin toss so the patriarchy can’t keep oppressing. Just delightful. It seems the motivation is that some activists are upset that Russel Norman keeps getting ranked No 1 and Metiria Turei No 2, despite being nominally equal co-leaders.

Now with the Green Party love for quotas, I’ve decided to help them out. I’ve calculated in Excel the idea demographic composition for each list position for them.

Green List Quotas

 

So their No 1 list place must be a straight female European with black hair. No 2 must be a straight male European with brown hair.

No 4 has to be a straight male Maori with black hair. No 5 a gay female European with black hair.

At No 15, you have a bisexual European female with brown hair. And you even have a ginga quota with No 12 being a straight male European with red hair.

This tables makes it very easy for the Greens with all their quotas. They don’t have to worry about competence, experience, skills. Or they need to do is recruit someone for each list place that meets their demographic quotas. People could apply for a specific list place, such as “I’m a straight blonde female European and would like to be considered for List spot No 9″.

Now you could argue having hair colour as a demographic quota is over the top, but look at the discrimination gingas suffer and the jokes blondes suffer from. Also you could complain people can change their hair colour. Now you could insist on a do the drapes match the curtains test, but in the end it is a human right to be whatever hair colour you feel you are. So if people wish to change hair colour to get a higher list ranking, who are we to doubt the validity of their personal choices?

Now I have not added in the age quota and regional quota their rules also insist on. I may do that in a further version.

Tags: , ,

Who should rank party lists?

March 14th, 2012 at 2:39 pm by David Farrar

In my blog at Stuff, I ask the question who should rank party lists?

Tags: , , ,

National’s 2011 Party List

September 4th, 2011 at 11:30 am by David Farrar
List No Name Effective List 2008 List Change PV Needed
1 John Key Electorate 1 +0
2 Bill English Electorate 2 +0
3 Lockwood Smith 1 12 +9 33.2%
4 Gerry Brownlee Electorate 3 -1
5 Tony Ryall Electorate 6 +1
6 Nick Smith Electorate 5 -1
7 Judith Collins Electorate 7 +0
8 Anne Tolley Electorate 10 +2
9 Chris Finlayson 2 14 +5 34.0%
10 David Carter 3 9 -1 34.8%
11 Murray McCully Electorate 11 +0
12 Tim Groser 4 15 +3 35.6%
13 Steven Joyce 5 16 +3 36.4%
14 Paula Bennett Electorate 41 +27
15 Phil Heatley Electorate 22 +7
16 Jonathan Coleman Electorate 29 +13
17 Kate Wilkinson 6 30 +13 37.2%
18 Hekia Parata 7 36 +18 38.0%
19 Maurice Williamson Electorate 8 -11
20 Nathan Guy Electorate 18 -2
21 Craig Foss Electorate 33 +12
22 Chris Tremain Electorate 31 +9
23 Jo Goodhew Electorate 39 +16
24 Lindsay Tisch Electorate 19 -5
25 Eric Roy Electorate 28 +3
26 Paul Hutchison Electorate 23 -3
27 Shane Ardern Electorate 24 -3
28 Amy Adams Electorate 52 +24
29 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga Electorate 35 +6
30 Simon Bridges Electorate 51 +21
31 Michael Woodhouse 8 49 +18 38.8%
32 Chester Borrows Electorate 32 +0
33 Nikki Kaye Electorate 57 +24
34 Melissa Lee 9 37 +3 39.6%
35 Kanwaljit Bakshi 10 38 +3 40.4%
36 Jian Yang 11 41.2%
37 Alfred Ngaro 12 42.0%
38 Katrina Shanks 13 46 +8 42.8%
39 Paul Goldsmith 14 43.6%
40 Tau Henare 15 26 -14 44.4%
41 Jacqui Dean Electorate 40 -1
42 Nicky Wagner 16 43 +1 45.2%
43 Chris Auchinvole Electorate 42 -1
44 Louise Upston Electorate 53 +9
45 Jonathan Young Electorate 66 +21
46 Jackie Blue 17 45 -1 46.0%
47 Todd McClay Electorate 54 +7
48 Allan Peachey Electorate 34 -14
49 David Bennett Electorate 44 -5
50 Tim Macindoe Electorate 55 +5
51 Cam Calder 18 58 +7 46.8%
52 John Hayes Electorate 50 -2
53 Colin King Electorate 47 -6
54 Aaron Gilmore 19 56 +2 47.6%
55 Jami-Lee Ross Electorate
56 Paul Quinn 20 48 -8 48.4%
57 Paul Foster-Bell 21 49.2%
58 Maggie Barry Electorate
59 Ian McKelvie Electorate
60 Mark Mitchell Electorate
61 Mike Sabin Electorate
62 Scott Simpson Electorate
63 Claudette Hauiti 22 50.0%
64 Jo Hayes 23 50.8%
65 Leonie Hapeta 24 51.6%
66 Sam Collins 25 52.4%
67 Jonathan Fletcher 26 53.2%
68 Heather Tanner 27 54.0%
69 Denise Krum 28 54.8%
70 Carolyn O’Fallon 29 55.6%
71 Viv Gurrey 30 70 -1 56.4%
72 Karen Rolleston 31 57.2%
73 Brett Hudson 32 58.0%
74 Linda Cooper 33 58.8%
75 Karl Varley 34 59.6%

National’s 2011 party list is above. The first column is their list ranking. The third column is what I call the effective list, which takes into account which candidates are likely to win their electorate seats. The assumption is that National will hold all 41 existing seats. In reality of course it is possible it may win some additional seats, or lose a seat. In the absence of public polling data, I go with the status quo.

The fourth column is their rank in 2008, and the fifth column is the change from 2008. These are interesting but you can read too much into them. For example Maurice Williamson has dropped 11, but that is simply because the Ministers are ranked in ministerial order, while in 2008 they were not.

The sixth column is my calculation as to what party vote National needs for that candidate to be elected on the list. It assumes a 4% wasted vote, and is approximate only.

So who are the big moves. The three biggest promotions are:

  1. Paula Bennett +27
  2. Amy Adams+24
  3. Nikki Kaye +24

A big vote of confidence in all three.

The two board only nominees (on top of Joyce and Lockwood) are Alfred Ngaro and Dr Jian Yang. Alfred stood for the Auckland Council last year, chairs the Pacific Health Committee of the Auckland District Health Board and in 2009 was awarded a Sir Peter Blake Emerging Leader Award.

Dr Yang is the associate Dean of the Faculty of Arts, and director of the China Studies Centre for the New Zealand Asia Institute at Auckland University. He is also chair of the Auckland Branch of the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs.

If National wins 48% of the party vote, all current List MPs would be returned to Parliament. If they got 50%, then they would also get Paul Foster-Bell and Claudette Hauiti. At 53% every electorate candidate would get into Parliament – either via their seat or the list.

In terms of caucus diversity, and assuming a 48% party vote, National would have 15 female MPs out of 60, or 25%. A lot better than the old days when you could count the number on one hand, but not as high as it could be. The percentage women would increase to 28% if National gets 52%.

However several women have moved up the list significantly – Paula, Amy and Nikki have all had huge promotions as has Junior Whip Jo Goodhew (and all on merit in my opinion).

In terms of ethnicity, at 48% National would have seven MPs of Maori decent which would be 12% of Caucus. This is equal to the adult Maori population, which is 12% of the country. There would also be two Pacific MPs and three Asian MPs.

In terms of age distribution, 49% of the caucus would be in their 40s or younger and 51% in their 50s or 60s.

The list does not bring in much new blood. There is new blood coming in on the electorate side also, but also not a lot. This is not unusual for the first term in Government. Not many retire after one term. National’s real challenge will be in 2014. To enhance their chance of winning a third term (if they get a second term), they will need to have a significant amount of rejuvenation in both caucus and cabinet.

Tags: , ,

The ACT list

August 28th, 2011 at 3:35 pm by David Farrar

ACT have announced their list. The number 3 spot is blank for now, as the candidate approved for it has yet to make a final decision on availability. They are not a sitting MP and almost inevitably will be female.

The list is below, along with what % of the vote ACT approximately needs to get them into Parliament (assuming Banks wins Epsom).

  1. Don Brash 1.2%
  2. John Boscawen 2.0%
  3. To be confirmed 2.8%
  4. Don Nicolson 3.6%
  5. John Banks
  6. David Seymour 4.4%
  7. Chris Simmons 5.2%
  8. Stephen Whittington 6.0%
  9. Kath McCabe 6.8%
  10. Robyn Stent 7.6%

Nicolson and McCabe are both strong rural voices, and will no doubt target the rural sector and campaign against the ETS. Of course there is no way it will be dumped, unless ACT got a massive proportion of the vote, such as 15%

David and Stephen are both very very bright guys, and first class debaters. I’ve seen Stephen beat many an MP in a debate, and he would be a real force in the debating chamber. Of course ACT would need around 6% to get him in.

Don’t know Chris Simmons really, but he has managed to keep the party organisation intact while the leadership wars occurred, so I guess has proven himself. Robyn Stent has good credentials as the former Health & Disability Commissioner.

The big story is that four of the five current ACT MPs are retiring at the election. One willingly, and three unwillingly. This is very significant, and I think a sign that the party wants an end to the factional infighting of the past.

The other major challenge for ACT is that they need to get in one or more MPs who could become leader after Don, possibly around 2016 or 2017.

This might be the No 3 unnamed candidate, if they agree to stand. Otherwise Nicolson might be a possibility.

The big challenge for ACT is to lift their party vote. On current polls they would get Banks and Brash only. Really at a minimum they need to get 4 MPs and get their No 3 candidate in. Now traditionally they get a better result than the polls have shown, but history is no guarantee of the future.

Tags: ,

ACT list announcement at 3 pm

August 28th, 2011 at 1:58 pm by David Farrar

ACT are announcing their list at 3 pm in Auckland. Act on Campus have set up a live chat facility where they’ll cover the list live. I’ve embedded the facility here so those interested can follow it also.

Tags: ,

O’Connor attacks labour list domination by gays and unionists

April 11th, 2011 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Vernon Small at the Dom Post reports:

A Labour MP says the party’s new list is dominated by “self-serving unionists and a gaggle of gays”.

The party was the target of a bitter broadside from list MP Damien O’Connor, who opted not to go on the list, which he said was dominated by unionists and a gaggle of gays.

A gaggle of gays? Pretty insulting to his caucus colleagues.

Labour leader Phil Goff said he had “scolded” Mr O’Connor about the comments, which the MP had told him about, “although … it will probably help him no end on the Coast. He’s a pretty straight talker and he used West Coast language.”

I wonder what Robertson and Chauvel think of Goff saying that is “west coast language” which will help O’Connor “no end” on the coast.

O’Connor could have made the point that straight white males struggle to get good list rankings, due to the identity politics in Labour, without labelling people as a “gaggle of gays”.

O’Connor said he stood aside because he did not trust the list ranking process. “Frankly, I didn’t trust the system to give a straight-shooter a fair deal … It is dominated by self-serving unionists and a gaggle of gays.” …

“It does not truly represent the rank-and-file members and delivers a list that is not truly representative of those who vote Labour.”

So let us look at the effective list for Labour, and see if the substance of Damien’s comments are accurate. How many non-union straight European males (such as Damien) have list spots? In the top 15 effective spots, there is only one – David Parker. In the top 30 effective spots, there are only two – Parker and Nash.

So Damien has a legitimate gripe, but the way he has gone about expressing it does him little credit.

Tags: , ,

Labour’s List

April 10th, 2011 at 4:50 pm by David Farrar

Labour have released their 2011 party list. I’ve blogged it below, with two extra columns. The second column shows whether they are likely to win their electorate seat or not, and hence where they are on what one calls the effective list. For now the assumption is no electorate seats change hands (except Wigram goes to Labour).

The third column is what approximate level of party vote is needed for Labour for that list candidate to get elected to Parliament. This assumes that there is 5% wasted vote.

Rank and Name Effective Rank Party Vote Needed
1. Phil Goff Mt Roskill
2. Annette King Rongotai
3. David Cunliffe New Lynn
4. David Parker 1 18%
5. Ruth Dyson Port Hills
6. Parekura Horomia Ikaroa-Rawhiti
7. Maryan Street 2 19%
8. Clayton Cosgrove Waimakariri
9. Trevor Mallard Hutt South
10. Sue Moroney 3 20%
11. Charles Chauvel 4 21%
12. Nanaia Mahuta Hauraki-Waikato
13. Jacinda Ardern 5 21%
14. Grant Robertson Wellington Central
15. Andrew Little 6 22%
16. Shane Jones 7 23%
17. Su’a William Sio Mangere
18. Darien Fenton 8 24%
19. Moana Mackey 9 25%
20. Rajen Prasad 10 25%
21. Raymond Huo 11 26%
22. Carol Beaumont 12 27%
23. Kelvin Davis 13 28%
24. Carmel Sepuloni 14 29%
25. Rick Barker 15 29%
26. Deborah Mahuta-Coyle 16 30%
27. Stuart Nash 17 31%
28. Clare Curran Dunedin South
29. Brendon Burns Chch Central
30. Chris Hipkins Rimutaka
31. David Shearer Mt Albert
32. Michael Wood 18 32%
33. Phil Twyford Te Atatu
34. Stephanie (Steve) Chadwick 19 33%
35. Kate Sutton 20 33%
36. Jerome Mika 21 34%
37. Iain Lees-Galloway Palm North
38. Josie Pagani 22 35%
39. Lynette Stewart 23 36%
40. Jordan Carter 24 37%
41. Kris Faafoi Mana
42. Christine Rose 25 37%
43. Glenda Alexander 26 38%
44. Susan Zhu 27 39%
45. Rino Tirikatene 28 40%
46. Sehai Orgad 29 40%
47. Megan Woods Wigram
48. Mea’ole Keil 30 41%
49. David Clark Dunedin North
50. Richard Hills 31 42%
51. Anahila Suisuiki 32 43%
52. Hamish McDouall 33 44%
53. Louis Te Kani 34 44%
54. Tat Loo 35 45%
55. Soraya Peke-Mason 36 46%
56. Julian Blanchard 37 47%
57. Peter Foster 38 48%
58. Pat Newman 39 48%
59. Julia Haydon-Carr 40 49%
60. Michael Bott 41 50%
61. Vivienne Goldsmith 42 51%
62. Nick Bakulich 43 52%
63. Chris Yoo 44 52%
64. Barry Monks 45 53%
65. Hugh Kininmonth 46 54%
66. Jo Kim 47 55%
67. Paula Gillon 48 56%
68. Carol Devoy-Heena 49 56%
69. Ben Clark 50 57%
70. Chao-Fu Wu 51 58%

Some general comments I would make:

  1. Sue Moroney has done very well to be the effective No 3 on the list
  2. Jacinda Ardern’s very high placing suggests Labour are not relying on the outcome of Auckland Central to ensure her return
  3. The bottom ranked list MP is junior whip Steve Chadwick.
  4. Only three new candidates are ranked above Caucus List MPs – Andrew Little at 15, Deborah Mahuta-Coyle at 26 and Michael Wood at 32 – two unionists and a parliamentary staffer.
  5. The latest poll (Roy Morgan) has Labour at 31.5%. If this was the result and the assumptions are correct, then Steve Chadwick would lose her seat, and the only new MPs would be Andrew Little and Deborah Mahuta-Coyle
  6. Ashraf Choudary is not on the list, so is dog tucker. Damien O’Connor also not on the list, but he is standing in a marginal seat, so may return.
  7. Overall Labour have not been as bold as they were in 2008 when they injected many new candidates in ahead of current MPs.  Those ranked from spots 18 to 25 are all current MPs, and they could have put candidates like Kate Sutton, Jordan Carter and Josie Pagani higher into a more winnable spot – all three would do miles better than Rajen Prasad.
  8. It will be interesting to see what National does, and whether they place any new candidates above current caucus members. I hope they do – places should be on merit, not status quo.
Tags: ,

The union wishlist for Labour

March 14th, 2011 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

The Dom Post reported:

A senior Labour Party office holder has accused the party hierarchy of treating Pacific party members merely as campaign workers and voting fodder.

The Labour Party’s Mana Tagata Pasefika chairman Shane Laulu says it is at risk of losing the traditional support of Pacific members if they are not given more prominence.

In a letter addressed to Labour Party official Paul Tolich and John Ryall, the Service and Food Workers Union national secretary, Mr Laulu said he was disappointed at the lack of “Pacific candidates and their overall ranking order”.

Mr Laulu said the Labour Party was in danger of losing the support of the Pacific community because of a fallacy “their vote is a given”.

“I believe Pacific party members have moved beyond being seen as only campaign workers and voting fodder.”

Mr Laulu, who has been a member of the Service and Food Workers Union for the past decade, wrote the letter after unions, including the EPMU, SFWU, dairy workers and meatworkers’ union, published their preferred rankings of Labour candidates.

The letter and list rankings were obtained by The Dominion Post.

The full list of rankings is meant to go online, but I don’t think it has, so I got a copy off the reporter. The unions wishlist is:

  1. Andrew Little – EPMU
  2. Michael Wood – FINSEC
  3. Jerome Mika – EPMU
  4. Deb Mahuta
  5. Brenda Alexander
  6. Mea’ole Keil – SWFU
  7. Josie Pagani – Rangitikei
  8. Jordan Carter
  9. Christine Rose – Rodney
  10. Kate Sutton
  11. Sehai Orgad – Hamilton East
  12. Nicola Vallance
  13. Peter Foster

It will be interesting to see how closely this follows the final list. The unions have a pact that that they are all obliged to vote in the order they have agreed, as a bloc. This gives them considerable strength at the regional list rankings and the national list ranking.

One may wonder how many new MPs will Labour get? Last election they got 43, and generally they have polled below this level. But let’s assume they get 43 MPs again.

Retiring MPs are Pete Hodgson, George Hawkins, Mita Ririnui and Lynne Pillay. So assuming they protect their current MPs, they should get 4 new MPs. However three of these will be electorate MPs in Dunedin North, Manurewa and Wigram. So if Labour get 43 MPs again, they may have just new List MP.

This suggests to me they will need to rank Little above some of the caucus to guarantee him a place.

Tags: ,

Greens list ranking

June 1st, 2010 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Audrey Young reports:

Green Party supporters feel so strongly about how the party list is ranked they have put an ad in today’s Herald before their annual meeting in Christchurch this weekend.

This is pretty extraordinary for members of any party, let alone the Greens who claim they make their decisions by consensus.

If party members are placing advertisements in newspapers, it suggests they are not too enamoured about the party’s internal communications.

Some members want a constitutional change saying that a ballot of members must be taken into account by the executive and they are publicly urging delegates to vote for the remit, Remit 2.

The constitution at present says the party executive ranks the list.

This surprises me, as I always thought the members ranked the list – in fact the Greens often boasted that they did.

According to co-leader Russel Norman, in reality a conference of activists comes up with a draft list which is given out to members with ballot papers.

The ranking is then based almost entirely on the members’ ballot, he said, apart from one or two occasions when it has been altered for gender, ethnic or geographic balance.

But that is still the Executive having the final say, rather than the members. Now there is nothing wrong with that, but it is useful to understand that the members ballot is not final.

ACT have been having a similar debate. They have a board ranking and a member ranking and what they have been debating is do you have the members ranking first and the board ranking last/final; or do the board ranking first and then the members ranking final after that.

He said some members wanted the practice formalised in the constitution.

I have not read the exact change proposed, but you have to wonder why there would be controversy and the need to run public advertisements, if it was as simple as formalising existing practice.

He was not sure whether the wording proposed for the change was the best.

This is code for “I am against this, but don’t wish to say so”

Tags: ,

Sacked for telling the truth

October 16th, 2008 at 8:21 am by David Farrar

Dail Jones was elected President of NZ First on several occassions – he even won on a contested ballot, so obviously has some popular support in NZ First.

But he did a terrible thing this year. He told the truth, and by telling the truth exposed how NZ First had been breaking the electoral laws of this country. This of course means he got demoted by Winston on the party list.

Seven new candidates have all been ranked higher than Jones at No 14.

What is especially shameful, if that they did not even tell Jones to his face – he found out from the party’s website.

It is ironic that WInston pressured other candidates to stand aside to let Dail Jones back into Parliament in 2007.

Jones makes the point:

“If they had followed what I had said in February and disclosed the donation, there would never have been a problem.”

Exactly.

Mr Peters said the demotion was a party decision, and he did not have a vote or any involvement in the low placing.

Of course, and you never knew about the Owen Glenn donation also.

Tags: , , ,

The United Future List

September 7th, 2008 at 4:04 pm by David Farrar

Idiot/Savant has the full United Future list, along with how it has changed from last time. The top ten are:

  1. Peter Dunne
  2. Judy Turner
  3. Denise Krum
  4. Graeme Reeves
  5. Selio Solomon
  6. Murray Smith
  7. Neville Wilson
  8. Frank Owen
  9. Janet Tuck
  10. Karuna Muthu

I don’t know Selio Solomon, but can comment on Denise Krum and Graeme Reeves. Denise is UFNZ Party President and seems quite an able sort. She did quite well appearing for UFNZ for the broadcasting allocations.

Graeme Reeves was National MP for Miramar from 1990 to 1993. He was a good MP then, and would be again today. Plus I always have a soft spot for Graeme as he took the lead in Caucus in the early 1990s in expelling a certain W Peters from the Caucus.

So if the election saw United Future get up to four MPs, I’d have no problem with that – so long as they don’t take votes from the centre-right only.

Tags: , , , , ,

Is this why Wall was placed so low?

September 1st, 2008 at 12:24 pm by David Farrar

A reader reminds me of this SST story:

Wall says she will not actively seek the electorate vote in the Auckland Maori seat of Tamaki Makaurau, held by Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples. Instead she will be seeking the party vote.

Labour Party president Mike Williams said he was “surprised” at Wall’s comments, as it was “absolutely not” party policy to stand aside in electorate contests in favour of the Maori Party. “We’re two ticks everywhere,” he said.

Wall, who enters parliament early next month from Labour’s party list, replacing retiring list MP Ann Hartley, said she would not be going head to head with Sharples over the seat.

“It’s not about me and Pita fighting. I’m going to be there as party vote Labour and talk about the difference between Labour and National.”

That the only thing I can think of to justify giving her an unwinnable place. A pity if it is, because as I said she impressed me the times she has appeared on Back Benches.

Tags: , ,

Stories on Labour’s List

September 1st, 2008 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

The NZ Herald has a positive story on Labour’s list, as does the Dominion Post.

I have to say, the more I think about it, the more Labour have really done a good job with their list. I’ll explain why below. People may find it strange that I praise their list when I will hope people do not vote for them, but I do think it is important that MPs in Parliament are of relatively high quality regardless of party.

Looking at my analysis yesterday, Labour have been smart in several ways.

  1. They have placed six new candidates in high enough spots that even if they only get 31%, they will be in Parliament. This means that if they fall into Opposition the Caucus will not just be the tired faces of the old Government, but will have some fresh talented blood such as Jacinda Ardern.
  2. No MP who sought a list spot got totally shafted – at 42% (they got 41% last time) they get all their List MPs back. This gives Caucus members an incentive to do as well as last time. I don’t think they will get 42% but it is not out of this world.
  3. With the exception of Louisa Wall, the MPs placed towards the bottom of the Caucus are those they can afford to lose – Soper, Heroera, Gallagher, Okeroa, Burton etc.
  4. MPs in marginal electorates have been placed right on the cusp so they have an incentive to maximise the party vote and their electorate vote – Chadwick, Burton, O’Connor, Tizard, Gallagher and Okeroa
  5. New candidates in seats currently held by Labour have all been grouped together and are unlikely to come in on the list (unless Labour gets over 42%), so are basically reliant on working their hearts out to win their seats. There are some risks with this though as candidates such as Grant Robertson will not make it to Parliament at all, if he loses to Stephen Franks.
  6. The occupational diversity of their selections seems to have improved. Yes there are still some unionists and teachers in the new intake, but quite so many as previously. And no I have nothing against unionists and teachers – just that Labour’s current caucus is seriously out of touch because so many current MPs are from those two occupational groups only. I wouldn’t want a National Caucus which is 75% farmers and lawyers either.

The list is a good reminder why one should not under-estimate Clark’s desire to win. She protected the Caucus in 2002 and 2005, but has been resolute enough to cut some adrift this time, and the list looks to be largely merit-based rather than based on factional deals.

It is fascinating that on current polls, National and Labour will both have six Maori MPs. I suspect it has been a very very long time since Labour had no more Maori MPs than National!

Tags: , ,

Wishful Thinking?

August 31st, 2008 at 3:39 pm by David Farrar

Poor Labour Head Office had a rough day with three versions of the list being published, as resorting tables in excel produced some errors.

The first list has Judith Tizard ranked as 1st equal. Either they are very worried about Auckland Central or they are taking being Helen’s helper too literally!

The second list had List MP Lesley Soper at Number 77!! I knew she was unpopular, but my God that was brutal I thought. Luckily for her, it was a typo.

Tags: , ,

The 2008 Labour Party List

August 31st, 2008 at 3:35 pm by David Farrar

Labour has released its 2008 party list, with an optimistic 77 list candidates. They have been quite bold with their rankings, which is good to see.

Labour has 85 candidates in total. 8 are standing for electorates only, 62 are standing for electorate and list and there are a massive 15 list only candidates.

The eight electorate candidates not on the list are in Ilam, Kaikoura, Manukau East, Manurewa, Napier, New Plymouth, Waikato (no candidate selected yet which is bizarre) and Whangarei.  Four of them are MPs – Hawkins, Robertson, Duynhoven and Fairbrother. This means Fairbrother is out of Parliament barring a miracle in Napier.

Labour currently has 31 seats. Polls show them behind in Te Tai Tonga and Ikaroa-Rawhiti. The latest Colmar Brunton Poll (the only one which asks electorate vote) has National at 50% and Labour at 40% on the elctorate vote. On my electoral pendulum this has Labour losing just five seats – Taupo, Rotorua, Otaki, Hamilton West and West Coast-Tasman.

Note this is not a prediction. Thsi is simply applying the gap in the polls on a linear basis to the 2005 majorities on the new boundaries. I happen to think National will pick up more seats than that, but this is the best scenario available on the public polls.

So that leaves Labour with 24 electorate seats. On the time and date weighted average of the public polls, Labour has 36.3% and there is 3.2% wasted vote giving them an effective vote of 37.5%. That would give them 45 MPs – 24 electorate MPs and 21 list MPs.

So who will be in the Labour Caucus? Well remember that Hawkins, Robertson, and Duynhoven are not on the list at all. But let us look at those who are:

On this list there would be several new Labour MPs, if their current polling holds up. They are:

  1. Rajen Prasad, Chief Families Commissioner – in on 22%
  2. Jacinda Ardern, former Clark staffer – very highly respected – in on 25%
  3. Raymond Huo, rumoured to help significantly with funding – in on 26%
  4. Phil Twyford, former Oxfam head – in on 30%
  5. Carol Beaumont – in if wins Maungakiekie or on 31%
  6. Kelvin Davis – Northland school principal – in on 31%
  7. Carmel Sepuloni – young Pacific Islander working at Auckland Uni – in on 35%
  8. Stuart Nash – defeated by Russell Fairbrother but more likely to be an MP – in on 36%
  9. Clare Curran – will win Dunedin South
  10. Grant Robertson – if he wins Wellington Central
  11. Chris Hipkins – if he wins Rimutaka
  12. Iain Lees-Galloway – if he wins Palmerston North
  13. Brendon Burns – if he wins Christchurch Central

13 new MPs would not be bad. In fact you have to congratulate Labour for finally not protecting their incumbent MPs. They should have done it last time, but better late than never. And the new intake are rather more diverse than the normal union/academic background of most of them.

Now which MPs are at risk?

  1. Russell Fairbrother – dog tucker
  2. Lesley Soper – only back in 42% – also dog tucker, and no surprise
  3. Louisa Wall – huge surprise here. She had really impressed me to date. But she has an unwinnable position unless Labour gets 41%
  4. Dave Heroera – out unless they get 40% – no loss.
  5. Martin Gallgher – out unless they get 39% or win Hamilton West
  6. Mahara Okeroa – out unless he can retain Te Tai Tonga or Labour gets 38%
  7. Mark Burton – out unless he holds Taupo (most unlikely on new boundaries) or Labour get 38%
  8. Judith Tizard – out unless she holds Auckland Central or Labour get 37%
  9. Damien O’Connor -out unless he holds West Coast-Tasman or  Labour gets 37%
  10. Rick Barker – – out if Labour drop below 34%
  11. Darien Fenton – out if Labour drop below 34%
  12. Ashraf Choudary – out if Labour drop below 33%
  13. Steve Chadwick – out if she loses Rotorua and Labour drops below 32%

Labour’s current polling would see nine go, but if the latest scandals push them down further, a further four MPs at immediate risk. The real surprise to me is Louisa Wall. She is brand new and had promise.

So what will Labour’s Caucus look like? Well on the current public polling scenario giving them 45 MPs, it would be:

  • Only 8 MPs or 18% from the South Island
  • 38% female, which isn’t bad at all
  • 49% would be aged in their 50s though
  • They would have only six Maori MPs – the same number as National! They would be Horomia, Mahuta, Jones, Ririnui, Mackey, and Davis
  • Four Pacific Island MPs – Laban, Sio, Chauvel and Sepuloni
  • Three Asian MPs – Choudary, Prasad, and Huo

Now again this is just a scenario based on public polls. The electorates won or lost will differ, and that changes things. But overall Labour look to be in pretty good shape even if they drop in the polls – they will get some new talent in, and most of the MPs they risk losing, are losable. I’d be thinking I did a pretty good job if I sat on the Labour List Ranking Committee.

Tags: , ,