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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

When the National Party published its candidate list on Sunday a greater ethnic diversity was immediately apparent. Six Maori, three Asians and a Pacific Islander have been placed high enough on the list to get into Parliament if National polls as well as it expects.

I am guilty of this myself, but I amused how Asians are all lumped together, when in fact in winnable places are a Chinese, a Korean and an Indian Sikh. All quite different races and cultures. But hey as I said, I do it myself sometimes.

Samoan Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, Korean-born Melissa Lee and Indian Kanwal Bakshi can probably count on joining Pansy Wong, too long National’s solitary representative of immigrant communities.Indeed, she has been almost a solitary Asian voice in Parliament, for Labour has supplied only the Pakistani Ashraf Choudhary, who has been practically silent, and the smaller parties have offered no seats to non-Maori minorities.

Is Choudary still an MP? My goodness.

National’s list, incidentally, still looks light on women; only four rank in the top 24, from which a cabinet would be likely to be drawn.

There is still some way to go. It looks like women will comprise 26% to 28% of National’s caucus, much the same as is currently the case. This is more than double the international average for female parliamentary representation. The problem is not so much where women are placed on the list, but that not enough stand to be a candidate. I may touch on this at some later stage.

As for the top 24, it would be very foolish to assume that the top 24 are automatically the Ministerial pool.

Though only one Maori, Georgina te Heuheu, ranks in the top 24, three more, Tau Henare, Hekia Parata and Paula Bennett, are in positions for an almost certain return to Parliament and two others, Rugby Union director Paul Quinn and Tauranga prosecutor Simon Bridges, will make it if National wins 60 seats. Six of 60 would be an advance on the present three of 48.

It is possible that after the election National will have more Maori MPs than Labour.

Now the nominal list by itself is only a partial picture. One has to look at the “Effective List” to work out who may come in when. The Effective List is the likely List MPs, after taking account of those who will win their electorate seats.

Now let us assume the 29 candidates who already are Electorate MPs will retain their seats. Let us also assume Amy Adams will win Selwyn (replaces Rakaia which is ultra safe National) and Simon Bridges will win Selwyn Tauranga (based on Colmar Brunton poll).

Which other candidates may win their seats? Well there are no public polls in those seats, but I did calculate an electoral pendulum back in May which calculates what seats would fall on a standard swing. The swing never is standard of course, so these are not predictions – just an assumption on the best public data there is. The One News Colmar Brunton is the only poll which asks how people will vote on the electorate vote, and in July it had a gap between National and Labour of 15%. Now on the electoral pendulum this would see the following seats picked up:

1. Taupo (Louise Upston)
2. Rotorua (Todd McClay)
3. Otaki (Nathan Guy)
4. Hamilton West (Tim Macindoe)
5. West Coast-Tasman (Chris Auchinvole)
6. Palmerston North (Malcolm Plimmer)
7. Auckland Central (Nikki Kaye)
8. New Plymouth (Jonathan Young)

So assuming National wins 39 electorate seats, you then ask how many seats National would win overall based on its party vote. Now we do not know what vote National will get, but let us go off the date and time weighted average of recent polls at curiablog which has National at 50.9%. One also then needs to work out what National’s share of the effective vote is, eliminating the parties that fail to qualify for representation. At present the minnows get 1.1% and NZ First 4.4% which means 5.5% is wasted. National’s effective vote is 50.9%/(100% – 5.5%) = 53.9%. This would get National 64 MPs in total and on the assumptions above 39 electorate MPs, and 25 list MPs.

Now NZ First is close to 5% and if they make it, that will have an effect, so in the table below I’ll do two columns. The first showing what percentage of the party vote is needed for a candidate to come in off the list if NZ First do not make it (and wasted vote is 5.5%) and if NZ First do make it (and wasted vote is say 1% as it was in 2005).

Now once again this is not a prediction. This is a scenario based on publicly available polls. I am not saying National will win 65 seats, nor am I predicting what electorate National will win. I am reflecting the current public poll data.

Now let us look at some of the individual winners, before we look at the overall possible Caucus.

Caucus are all in the top 50, which will be pleasing to them. Unless National drops below 43% (if NZ First do not make it) or 45% (if NZ First do make it), all MPs will be returned.

Of the 2005 intake, the top ranked are Chris Finlayson and Tim Groser who are ranked 14 and 15, which is no 2 and no 3 on the effective list. Next is Tau Henare at 26 (7), Jonathan Coleman  29 and Kate Wilkinson at 30 (8).

Of the new candidates, Steven Joyce is in a league of his own at no 16 (4). Then four new candidates are placed in the 30s, above some MPs and guaranteed of entry so long as National polls as well as last time. They are Sam Lotu-Iiga, Hekia Parata, Melissa Lee and Kanwal JS Bakshi.

After the top 50, you have seven mainly relatively young candidates in Simon Bridges, Amy Adams, Louise Upston, Todd McClay, Tim Macindoe, Aaron Gilmore and Nikki Kaye. On the standaed pendulum, most of them will win their seats and not need the list place.

After them making up the 50s is Cam Calder, Conway Powell and Stephen Franks, all in winnable places. In fact few positions are not winnable on current polls (which is why six extra list only candidates were added onto the bottom of the list as an insurance policy in case National got more than 67 MPs. The Fairfax poll yesterday would have it receive 70 MPs. Roy Morgan however would have only 58 MPs.

So what does the next National caucus look like? Well on the current public polls average, it would be a caucus of 65 with:

• 17 female MPs (26%)
• 13 MPs under 40 (20%)
• 7 Maori MPs (11%)
• 1 Pacific MP
• 3 Asian MPs

What if things tighten up? What would it be if NZ First do make it, and National gets say 47%? That would be a caucus of 57 with:

• 17 female MPs (29%)
• 11 MPs under 40 (19%)
• 6 Maori MPs (10%)
• 1 Pacific MP
• 3 Asian MPs

Under either scenario it will be a relatively diverse caucus, with a lot of new talent coming through.

Those pondering whether to cast a Green Party vote can pore over the details and the rankings, weighing the merits of those at the top of the list against what other, smaller list-based parties have to offer.

They should be aware they are wasting their time.

The appointment of Green Party co-leader Russel Norman as an MP shows that, when push comes to shove, the Greens will put party needs above voter preference and shuffle the deck to deliver the MPs the party wants rather than delivering the ones on the list the public voted for.

This is the key issue. It is nothing personal about Russel who I am sure will become an MP anyway later this year. It is about whether or not you respect the list put up at an election.

Those who argue that what the Greens are doing is not wrong, should consider the logical ultimate outcome of that argument. If List MPs are there purely as creatures of the party – to be elected and retired at whim, then why even have a public list before the election? Just tell the party they have X MPs, and they can appoint whomever they want as MPs at any time.

Putting Dr Norman into Parliament this late in the electoral cycle will not see him contribute hugely to the work of Parliament. What it will do is give him a platform from which to expound his views, and access to the resources, such as taxpayer-funded air travel, that give MPs a massive advantage in campaigning nationwide.

Indeed. This is being done not to further the work of Parliament, but to allow greater use of taxpayer resources for their election campaign.

I blogged a couple of weeks ago that the Greens were trying to do two things – both of which work sit badly with me. The first is having MPs resign before for their term in Parliament is up, purely for tactical partisan reasons. You rejuvenate a party at elections, not between them.

The second is changing the order of the list post election. The Greens put a lot of stress on the fact their members rank the list, yet they have ignored the will of their members who ranked the 2005 party list – the only one which the public have had a chance to vote on with their party vote.

There is no way one can stop an MP resigning early, but one could have a simple law change to remove the ability for a list candidate to refuse to become an MP. They could still be elected and then resign, but that extra step might stop them from doing private deals to change the effective order of a list post-election.

There are rumours that some Labour MPs worried about losing their seats may announce they will go list only.

This could help explain why Labour has delayed its list ranking. Labour has a dilemma. If they give high list rankings to incumbent MPs, then they face having almost no new MPs enter Parliament.

Incidentally my list of candidates still has no names for Waikato and Tamaki for Labour. Anyone know if candidates have been named?  National is now just awaiting a Tauranga selection plus both major parties can do list only nominations.

The most widely disliked aspects of MMP are undoubtedly the lack of accountability of list MPs and the manipulation of party lists. The attempted elevation of Green Party co-leader Russel Norman to Parliament did nothing to improve that situation. This was to be achieved by Nandor Tanczos, a sitting MP, and Catherine Delahunty and Mike Ward, who were ahead of Dr Norman on the Greens’ party list, standing aside. The ranking of candidates, as voted upon at the last election, would have been set aside and Dr Norman would have attained the status and election-campaign advantages that come with being an MP.

It comes down to the fundamental issue that some parties see List MPs as serving the party only, not the wider public who voted for them.

Mr Ward’s opposition has stopped him in his tracks. Similarly shelved should be the notion that party lists can be manipulated to satisfy any whim.

One way to stop it would be to get rid of the ability for a candidate to refuse to take up their spot if they are the next List candidate. Sure they could still resign but parties would be far less likely to try and manipulate the system if a candidate they want out of the way had to be declared elected, sworn in as an MP, and then resign.

There would be significant advantages to the Greens to having Russel, who was only No 10 last time, be in Parliament this year so he could campaign around the country funded by the taxpayer, as other MPs are.

For this to happen, they needed three things. Nandor to agree to resign. Catherine Delahunty to agree to refuse to be an MP, and for Mike Ward to refuse to be an MP.

Mike has refused, as he should. Incidentially Ward was ranked dismally low by the party hierarchy in their initial list ranking for 2008 and massively promoted by rank and file members. But his 2008 list ranking is not important – his 2005 one is.

There were two things which the Greens were trying to do, which sit badly with me. I’ll take them one by one.

1 – MPs resigning before the election

Labour is more guilty than the Greens here, but the idea of a party list is not to shuffle MPs off half way through a parliamentary term at whim. MPs are elected by the NZ public to serve three years and in all but exceptional cases they should. Steve Maharey becoming a VC is a worthy exception (yes I know he was not List but same principle). And Bolger becoming Ambassador is another. And few would fault a Party Leader from departing the scene once they are no longer leader. But these are rare exceptional circumstances.

Generally the public have the right to expect that the MPs they elect by voting for a Party and that party’s list, are going to represent the public throughout the term of Parliament. No wonder there is resentment against MMP when List MPs are treated purely as creatures of the party.

Labour since the election has dispatched Jim Sutton (No 11 on list, No 4 on effective list), Di Yates, Ann Hartley, and Georgina Beyer.

2 – Changing the order of the list post-election

Pressuring candidates to stand aside for someone more lowly ranked to become an MP is also anti-democratic and flys in the face of the public making an informed choice by voting for a party with an expectation of who will be MPs.

The Green Party members ranked Mike Ward No 8  and Russel Norman No 10 last election. People voted for the Green Party on the basis. Yes I know very few voters would now the exact details of the list, but that is not a reason to ignore its importance. If you argue who is on the list does not matter, then why not allow parties to have blank lists and let them appoint who they want at any time to be an MP for them.

For that is what the Greens, and to a degree Labour, have tried to do.  Have the party rather than the public determine who becomes an MP.