The top 10 electorates for Labour were:

1. Mangere 71.0%
2. Manukau East 65.7%
3. Ikaroa-Rawhiti 65.5%
4. Hauraki-Waikato 62.6%
5. Tamaki Makaurau 60.0%
6. Te Tai Hauauru 59.1%
7. Waiariki 58.9%
8. Manurewa 58.8%
9. Te Tai Tokerau 58.5%
10. Te Tai Tonga 56.3%

Their top 10 are the seven Maori seats and South Auckland.

The bottom 10:

1. Hunua 22.3%
2. East Coast Bays 23.2%
3. Rodney 23.3%
4. Taranaki-King Country 23.9%
5. Waikato 24.2%
6. Clutha Southland 24.2%
7. Tamaki 24.5%
8. Epsom 24.5%
9. Pakuranga 24.8%
10. Helensville 25.5%

Of the 71 electorates, Labour’s party vote was:

• Over 50%: 11 electorates
• 45% to 50%: 4 electorates
• 40% to 45%: 12 electorates
• 30% to 40%: 25 electorates
• Under 30%: 19 electorates

An interesting article at the Times Higher Education:

The chief science adviser to the prime minister of New Zealand has accused scientists of displaying “hubris” and “arrogance” when they comment on government policy.

Sir Peter Gluckman, who also chairs the International Network for Science Advice to Governments, levelled a series of sharp criticisms at researchers and science organisations during an event in Brussels that debated the role of policy and evidence in a “post-fact” world.

He argued that scientists needed to appreciate that politicians made their decisions based on values as well as scientific evidence.

“Individual scientists, professional and scientific organisations too often exhibit hubris in reflecting on policy implications of science,” Sir Peter told delegates at “EU for facts: evidence for policy in a post-fact world”, held on 26 September.

“This arrogance can become the biggest enemy of science effectively engaging with policy – the policy decisions inevitably involve dimensions beyond science.”

Scientists needed to appreciate that political ideology, financial and diplomatic constraints, and “electoral contracts” also had to be taken into account by politicians, Sir Peter said. “It is important that [scientific] knowledge is provided [to policymakers] in a way that does not usurp the ability of policy process to consider these broader dimensions: otherwise trust in advice can be lost as it becomes perceived as advocacy,” he argued.

We see this in New Zealand a lot. Some scientists become crusading activists. They don’t provide advice – they demand their solution be implemented.

He also said that he avoided using the “somewhat arrogant” term “evidence-based policy”, preferring “evidence-informed” instead.

A much better term.

The top 10 electorates for National were:

1. Hunua 63.0%
2. East Coast Bays 62.9%
3. Pakuranga 61.9%
4. Tamaki 61.7%
5. Botany 61.0%
6. Rodney 59.6%
7. Clutha Southland 59.3%
8. Selwyn 59.1%
9. Waikato 58.7%
10. Epsom 58.6%

Seven of the top 10 are in Auckland.

The bottom 10:

1. Waiariki 4.7%
2. Ikaroa-Rawhiti 4.9%
3. Tamaki Makaurau 6.6%
4. Te Tai Hauauru 6.6%
5. Hauraki-Waikato 7.0%
6. Te Tai Tokerau 7.5%
7. Te Tai Tonga 12.6%
8. Mangere 17.3%
9. Manukau East 22.9%
10. Dunedin North 27.8%

Of the 71 electorates, National’s party vote was:

• Over 50%: 25 electorates
• 45% to 50%: 13 electorates
• 40% to 45%: 11 electorates
• 30% to 40%: 10 electorates
• Under 30%: 12 electorates

There is a very easy way to work out what Winston means, and that is to assume the exact opposite of what he says. We saw this with the Owen Glenn donation when he held up the no sign scores of times, and we then all learnt no meant yes.

So let’s look at recent stories in this light. Stuff reports:

Peters says he’s not favouring either side when it comes to who will form the next government.

This means Winston has already decided who to go with.

“I said I’d go into it with a total open mind, and I’ve asked my caucus and the board to have the same approach… I can honestly tell you I wouldn’t take a guess of what anyone is currently thinking.”

This means he has already decided and is now working to get everyone else to agree with him. That will not be hard.

In July Peters told Newsroom the public would know about NZ First’s decision by “Writ Day”.

“I make this guarantee that whatever decision New Zealand First arrives at post-election, it will be made public by the day the writs are returned, which is within three weeks from polling day,” Peters said.

Which means of course it definitely would not be made public by Writ Day.

Peters said late on Wednesday night that he doubted his caucus would make a final decision by Thursday evening, but he expected they would have an array of options to take to the NZ First board.

This means the caucus will make a decison and the board will ratify it.

“We’re not going to think about offices and positions until we’re happy with the policy,” he said on Wednesday night.

This means they have done nothing all week except think about offices and positions.

Vernon Small writes:

But even he, in common with almost every politician and staffer, clams up whenever the talks themselves are raised. It might be going too far to call it fear, but there is something odd, unsettling and disturbing about the forelock-tugging and unwillingness on the part of Labour, National and the Greens to  .. what? Upset Peters?

Settling aside the ridiculous lack of dignity the process is forcing on the parties, it is also an affront to the public. No-one is saying all the details of the talks should be revealed, but it is hard to see where the harm would be in a daily briefing of the topics discussed and a clear statement of how the final deal will be done and ratified.

 

I suppose it gives you some idea of how beguiling is power – and the baubles and salaries of office – that Labour, National and the Greens are willing to play such a demeaning game.

In an ocean of uncertainty we do know one thing: That the Greens are going to ratify something and require a 75 per cent majority of up to 155 delegates.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand children are being exposed to alcohol every nearly every time they go to the supermarket, sparking a call from from researchers to have it banned from such stores. 

Health researchers want alcohol banned from supermarkets after their study revealed 85 per cent of children were exposed to it in Wellington supermarkets.

The study’s lead researcher from Otago University’s Department of Public Health, Tim Chambers, said the over-exposure of alcohol to children put it on par with everyday products such as bread and milk, causing children to drink it earlier in their lifetime. 

It would be Otago University of course!

So because your kid sees alcohol in a supermarket they will treat it like milk and start drinking it earlier.

He said the study proved previous changes in alcohol advertising laws were not enough and the Government needed to ban it from supermarkets to protect children.

Far better to ban children from supermarkets!

Winston Peters released:

New Zealand First values our board members’ privacy, says New Zealand First Leader Rt Hon Winston Peters.

“They are not politicians but New Zealanders who believe in the party and wish to make a contribution to the decision-making process.

“They give up their valuable spare time to take part in board meetings and attend to other matters, and we are grateful for that.

“By putting their name forward to serve on the board they do not expect to have their privacy invaded and to become public figures. This privacy extends to all party members.

This is a reminder of the chaos to come with whichever party is unlucky enough to get chosen by Winston.

The board of a party is its supreme governing body. It is the equivalent to the officers of an incorporated society or directors of a company. These are all positions that are automatically public.

No other political party hides the identity of its board members.  Most even have them on their website.

According to Winston his board will decide who will be the next Government, yet he thinks there is no need for knowing who they are.

Again this is the chaos and stupidity to come.  And he has form for this. He refused in 2014 to confirm the employer of one of his candidates (Mahesh Bindra). So his veil of secrecy extends to both candidates and his board.

A guest post by David Garrett:

It is relatively well known that the “life” sentence imposed on the vast majority of our  murderers almost never means what it says – but then  it never did. Minimum non parole periods (NPP), a creature of the Sentencing Act 2002, make things a little clearer these days. What is even clearer, from even cursory research,  is that the meaning of “life” has become very different in New Zealand as compared to Australia and Britain. But first a little history.

From 1840 onwards, English common law  became the law of New Zealand. Capital punishment  was first carried out in New Zealand in 1842 –  on a Maori called Maketu who had murdered five Europeans. With one exception, a case of treason, all death sentences pronounced in New Zealand were for murder, the last being in 1957, when a Wanganui farmer called Bolton was hanged  for the murder of his wife by poisoning.

During the first  60 years of  20^th century, before effective abolition in 1961, the application of the death penalty was anything but consistent – which was also  the case in England during the same period. In short, whether the sentence was carried out or commuted depended on your sex – only one woman, baby farmer Minnie Dean, was ever hanged – your place in society, and most importantly the government of the day.

Following the  election of  the first Labour government in 1935 all death sentences were commuted  and replaced with “life”, and in 1941,  the death penalty was abolished by statute and replaced with “Life with hard labour”. After the National Party returned to power in 1949 the death penalty was restored, but its actual application remained  capricious, and largely dependent on who the Attorney General of the day was. Those whose sentences were commuted had them replaced with “life”, but between 1950 and 1961,  there was no statutory definition of that sentence, and it became common practice to consider such prisoners for parole after seven years.

It is important to note that even during what some would call  the “good old days” of the 1950’s and 60’s, a life sentence  very rarely meant the prisoner would die in jail. Even a notorious rapist and murderer such as Stan Reid – whose file was marked “never to be released”– was in fact  released several times, the last in 1985 when, six weeks after his release on compassionate grounds at the age of 83, he tried to rape a nun.

So, following effective abolition in 1961 (the death penalty remained on the books for treason and piracy until final abolition in 1989) the sentence for murder was “life”, without there apparently ever being a statutory definition of what that might mean,  until the passing of the Sentencing Act 2002.  That Act provided for a minimum non parole period for lifers of 10 years, and the following year the Act was amended to provide for a 17 year minimum NPP in cases where at least one of the “aggravating factors” set out in section 104 (1) of the Act was present: examples include murders involving a high level of depravity or cruelty; murders for payment; or where the victim is especially vulnerable, by reason of age or state of health.

In 2010 there was a further refinement added by the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act. This provision, largely overshadowed at the time by the “three strikes” (3S) provisions contained in that Act, provides for the imposition of life without parole (LWOP)  where the murder is a stage two or three offence under the 3S regime, “unless the court is satisfied that, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, it would be manifestly unjust to do so”. Miraculously, on each occasion where murders fitting the criteria for LWOP have come before either the High Court or the Court of Appeal, this so-called “manifestly unjust” proviso has been applied to avoid the imposition of LWOP.

Both in that regard, and with regard to minimum non parole periods for murders falling within s.104 (1) of the Sentencing Act, my research reveals that we are now very much out of step with the jurisdictions we most commonly compare ourselves to, particularly Australia and Britain. Both of those countries have “whole of life tariff” sentences as an option, which are for all practical purposes identical to LWOP as provided for in our Sentencing Act.

In Australia, minimum NPP’s of 25 or 35  years are, if not common, at least not rare, and are imposed for cases of murder which in New Zealand would only warrant a minimum NPP of 20 years or so.  In cases such as R v. McLaughlin, an Australian court would, I have little doubt, either impose LWOP or a minimum NPP of 35 years or more.

Before killing 13 year old Jade Bayliss in Christchurch in November 2011  McLaughlin had served a sentence of 12 years for manslaughter in Australia.  After his New Zealand murder conviction, the Crown sought a sentence of LWOP. The High Court refused, and instead imposed a life sentence with a minimum NPP of 23 years. There was no appeal by the Crown.

Across the Tasman, it would seem that the value of a human life – expressed in years of sentence imposed for taking one – has long been greater than over here.  LWOP has been available in Australia since the abolition of the death penalty in that country in 1973, but its imposition is apparently fairly rare, with only 15 “lifers”  – out of a total of more than 1000 – serving a whole of life sentence in 2016.  As I have noted however, the Aussies readily impose much longer NPP’s for aggravated murder than do our courts.

Among the Australian  lifers who have lengthy minimum NPP’s is one Adrian Bayley, serving life with a minimum NPP of 35 years  for the rape and murder of a  female journalist. To attract an NPP that long in New Zealand you pretty much have to kill multiple times; the high point remains William Bell’s 30 year NPP for the murder of three people at the Panmure RSA in 2001.

The British too are much more ready than our Judges to impose either very long NPP’s or whole of life sentences. British Judges have been able to sentence  their worst murderers to LWOP since 1983, almost 30 years before our parliament saw fit to give New Zealand  Judges that power. The whole-of-life sentence has apparently been imposed in the UK about 100 times since 1983.

So what conclusions can we draw? New Zealand legislators have lagged far behind their British and Australian counterparts in recognizing that some murderers belong in jail for the rest of their natural  lives. Judges in both Britain and Australia are far more ready than ours  to impose either sentences of LWOP or very lengthy NPP’s of 30 or even 40 years. But while our Judges have only had the power to impose LWOP for seven years, compared with thirty years in the UK, and forty years in Australia, they have that power now.

In my view our Judges need to stiffen their resolve and send foul repeat killers like Jeremy McLaughlin, and   Pauesi Brown  (who killed  “good Samaritan” Austin Hemmings in 2010, after serving a sentence for manslaughter in Australia) to LWOP, or at least to  very lengthy NPP’s that ensure that if such vermin  are released at all, it will not be until they are very old men. Was Austin Hemmings’ life really only worth an NPP of 16 years? Not in my book. An NPP of at least twice that would have been appropriate, and that is certainly what Brown would have got if his second killing had been in Australia where he killed the  first time.

Stuff reports:

Green MP Chloe Swarbrick and Nobel peace prize winner Thomas Nash have shown up in support of an arms industry forum blockade at Wellington’s Westpac Stadium.

Nash is not a Nobel prize winner. He once worked for an organisation that won a Nobel peace prize. I once worked for the Red Cross, but that doesn’t make me a Nobel peace prize winner.

Swarbrick told 1News it was important New Zealanders’ continued to hold protests and stand up for their beliefs, in order to create change.

As always there are two sorts of protests.

The first sort are those who don’t break the law, don’t impede people going about their lawful business. They are about free speech and I’m all for them. We saw that in Morrinsville recently.

The second sort is the opposite of free speech. It is when a group of people decide their views are more important than the views of everyone else and they decide to impose their views on the others. So they blockade a conference to try and prevent people from attending. Their intention is not to protest but to disrupt others.

This table shows the percentage of the electorate votes a National MP got compared to the percentage of the party votes their party got. So if they got 45% of the electorate vote and their party got 40% then they are 45%/40% or 112%.

This looks at who outperforms their party vote, and who gets elected despite doing worse than their party vote.

The best performers were:

1. Louise Upston, Taupo 116.6%
2. Nikki Kaye, Auckland Central 115.3%
3. Chris Bishop, Hutt South 114.8%
4. Barbara Kuriger, Taranaki-King Country 114.8%
5. Tim Macindoe, Hamilton West 113.6%
6. David Bennett, Hamilton East 112.2%
7. Amy Adams, Selwyn 112.0%
8. Todd Muller, Bay of Plenty 111.8%
9. Todd McClay, Rotorua 110.4%
10. Nathan Guy, Otaki 109.8%

Those with the lowest electorate vote relative to party vote were:

1. Matt King, Northland 82.6%
2. Alastair Scott, Wairarapa 84.8%
3. Gerry Brownlee, Ilam 88.5%
4. Lawrence Yule, Tukituki 97.6%

Of course in each of these cases there were unusual circumstances. King and Scott were up against NZ First MPs and Brownlee had a City Councillor standing as an Independent. Yule was also up against a high profile repeat candidate from Labour.

The ten best seats for party votes for NZ First were:

1. Whangarei 14.1%
2. Northland 13.2%
3. Coromandel 12.3%
4. Tauranga 11.3%
5. Te Tai Tokerau 11.2%
6. Bay of Plenty 10.8%
7. Rangitikei 10.4%
8. Wairarapa 10.3%
9. Waikato 10.1%
10. Whanganui 10.1%

So the areas of strength for them are Northland, Bay of Plenty and rural North Island.

The ten seats they did worse in are:

1. Wellington Central 2.3%
2. Epsom 3.1%
3. Mt Albert 3.4%
4. Rongotai 3.7%
5. Ohariu 3.7%
6. Ilam 3.8%
7. Auckland Central 3.9%
8. Tamaki 3.9%
9. Mt Roskill 4.4%
10. Botany 4.6%

Their ten worse seats were all in the three main cities.

They got below 5% in 12 seats, between 5% and 10% in 49 seats and over 10% in 10 seats.

The Herald reports:

The Public Service Association is taking the Inland Revenue to the employment court over its plans to use psychometric tests on employees reapplying for their jobs.

The Inland Revenue is planning to cut the number of its staff by around 30 per cent by 2021 as part of its business transformation plans.

Erin Polaczuk, PSA national secretary, said workers, many of whom had been with the IRD for years – were being coerced into taking psychometric tests just so they can reapply to keep their jobs.

“Often these ‘new’ jobs involve the same work the employees have been doing for many years.”

“If you wanted to get a good sense of a person’s skills and abilities, it would be more rational to consider the ample information stored within the department from years of performance reviews and evaluations.”

Polaczuk said the move was offensive to long-serving staff and may breach the both Treaty of Waitangi obligations and the departments compliance with the State Sector and Human Rights Acts.

How is asking employees to take a psychometric test a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi? Seriously?

The top 10 for Greens were:

1. Wellington Central 21.3%
2. Rongotai 17.8%
3. Mt Albert 14.7%
4. Auckland Central 13.9%
5. Dunedin North 13.7%
6. Port Hills 10.3%
7. Christchurch Central 9.8%
8. Ohariu 9.6%
9. Epsom 8.4%
10. West Coast Tasman 8.3%

So eight of their top 10 are in the three main cities.

The bottom 10 were:

1. Manukau East 2.2%
2. Botany 2.4%
3. Manurewa 2.5%
4. Mangere 2.7%
5. Papakura 2.8%
6. Hunua 3.0%
7. Waikato 3.0%
8. Invercargill 3.2%
9. Taupo 3.4%
10. Rangitata 3.5%

Their worst six were in Auckland followed by provincial and rural seats.

In 29 seats they got under 5%. In 36 seats they got 5% to 10% and in six seats they got over 10%.

Few are surprised that Winston has now said there won’t be a decision on Thursday.

What is more surprising is the weirdness of the negotiations on the left. We’re meant to believe that Labour, Greens and NZ First can all work together to support a stable Government yet NZ First is refusing to even be in the same room as the Greens.

Also any deal between Labour and NZ First would need the support of the Greens on confidence and supply which means if he goes with Labour you won’t actually have an agreed deal until the Greens sign off on it. And the Greens caucus can’t do that – it has to go to an SGM with 75% of delegates backing it.

Maybe Winston has just calculated the Greens are powerless and that they have to support whatever deal he does with Labour. And he is right. But they only have to support them on supply and confidence. Every piece of legislation will needs the Greens to agree on.

Select committee membership tends to be proportional to MP numbers. A Labour/NZ First Government will have 55 seats while National/NZ First would have 65 seats.

There are 96 select committee spots over 12 committees. The number of slots per party will be:

• National 45
• Labour 37
• NZ First 7
• Greens 6
• ACT 1

So a Labour/NZ First Government will at best be tied on most select committees and sometimes be in the minority. This would make legislation difficult to progress.

The Herald reports:

A woman has defended a man after he was shamed out of a parents’ room in a Sunshine Coast shopping centre.

According to witness Mikaa Ives the man was trying to change his son’s nappy when another mother walked over to him, accused him of being a “sicko” and ordered him to leave.

“There was a dad in the middle of changing his son’s nappy, already having a difficult time with his son not wanting to be changed,” Mikaa Ives wrote on a local parenting Facebook group page.

The woman allegedly accused the father of “staring at her naked kids” and threatened to call security.

“The lady piped up and started abusing the dad for being in the parents’ room: ‘It’s only for mothers, get out you sicko’, literally saying she would call security and say he was staring at her naked kids if he didn’t leave the room,” Ives said.

“He picked up his son who mind you didn’t even have a clean nappy on yet and went to stand outside the door.

 

“His son was hysterical and he’s just saying ‘its okay mate, we’ll go back in there soon.”

What a terrible woman. I hope karma gets her one day. As the other mother explains, this is a parents room. not a mothers room

Which brings me to a small bugbear of mine. Places that have baby changing facilities only in the women’s restrooms. They obviously don’t realise us Dads do nappy changes also.

If there is no baby changing facility in the men’s restrooms, I’ll sometimes ask for permission to use the facility in the women’s restrooms.

The best facility has a dedicated parent’s room or has the baby change facility in a unisex bathroom such as a paraplegic bathroom.

Having said that you don’t always get to choose where you need to do a nappy change. I’ve had to do one on the floor of a shopping mall and another in a shoe shop!

Stuff reports:

Air New Zealand has begun trialling in-flight wi-fi almost a decade after the service first became available on other aircraft. 

The airline is offering its long-anticipated wi-fi service on one of its long-haul Boeing 777-300 planes, and planning to gauge customer feedback before rolling it out across its international jet fleet. 

“The trial will not only test the technical aspects of the service, it will also gather feedback on pricing options,” Avi Golan, the airline’s chief digital officer, said. 

They should hurry up and get it done. Almost every other major airline is doing this.

Air NZ chief executive Christopher Luxon said last October that the airline wanted to wait until it could offer a high-quality wi-fi service. 

​”Given Air NZ operates some of the longest flights in the world, and in oceanic areas where there has historically been poor quality satellite service, we have patiently worked with partners until comfortable that a service which meets the high expectations of our customers is available.” 

Just don’t charge the earth for it.

The 10 best party votes for TOP were:

1. Wellington Central 5.9%
2. Rongotai 4.6%
3. Ohariu 4.2%
4. Dunedin North 4.1%
5. Te Tai Tonga 3.9%
6. Ilam 3.5%
7. Christchurch Central 3.5%
8. Hutt South 3.5%
9. Port Hills 3.4%
10. Mana 3.4%

So strongest in Wellington.

The 10 worst electorates were:

1. Mangere 0.7%
2. Manukau East 0.7%
3. Manurewa 0.7%
4. Botany 0.8%
5. Papakura 1.2%
6. Pakuranga 1.2%
7. Te Atatu 1.3%
8. Hunua 1.5%
9. New Lynn 1.5%
10. Kelston 1.6%

All the worst seats for TOP were in Auckland. If they want any chance of 5% in 2020, they need to seriously target Auckland.

So who has the largest majorities in Parliament. They are:

1. Amy Adams, Selwyn, 19,639
2. Mark Mitchell, Rodney, 19,561
3. Andrew Bayly, Hunua, 19,443
4. Erica Stanford, East Coast Bays, 16,290
5. Tim van de Molen, Waikato, 15,452
6. Simon O’Connor, Tamaki, 15,402
7. Jacinda Ardern, Mt Albert, 15,264
8. Barbara Kuriger, Taranaki-King Country, 15,259
9. Aupito Tofae Sua William Sio, Mangere, 14,597
10. Simeon Brown, Pakuranga, 14,886

And the smallest majorities are:

1. Adrian Rurawhe, Te Tai Hauauru, 1,039
2. Greg O’Connor, Ohariu, 1,051
3. Matt King, Northland, 1,389
4. Chris Bishop, Hutt South, 1,530
5. Nikki Kaye, Auckland Central, 1,581
6. Harete Hipango, Whanganui, 1,706
7. Tamati Coffey, Waiariki, 1,719
8. Denise Lee, Maungakiekie 2,157
9. Lawrence Yule, Tukituki, 2,813
10. Deborah Russell, New Lynn, 2,825

So of the 10 safest seats eight are National and two are Labour.

Of the 10 most marginal six are National and four are Labour.

I’ve analysed the demographics of the caucuses of the four larger parties. Some interesting observations.

Gender

NZ First and the Greens are the most gender imbalanced. The Greebns are only 25% male and NZ First only 22% female. Next is National at 30% female and the most balance is Labour at 46% female.

National’s 30% female is the highest ever level for them (off memory)

Ethnicity

National has 13% of its caucus with Maori ancestry, 7% Asian and 2% Pasifika. They are under-represented with Pasifika and Asian.

Labour is strongly over-represented with Maori and Pasifika MPs, and under-represented with European and Asian MPs.

The Greens are fairly well balanced except they have no Pasifika MP.

NZ First’s caucus is two thirds Maori.

Note that I do not advocate that a caucus should have the exact same proportions of MPs by ethnicity as the NZ adult population. But neither do I think it is a good thing if a caucus consists of MPs from one gender and ethnicity only. A diverse caucus that is more representative of NZ is a stronger caucus – but it doesn’t have to match exact proportions with some sort of quota.

Age

National now has the oldest caucus while the Greens have the youngest. In fact no Green MP is aged over 50.

Area

National is under-represented in Wellington and provincial New Zealand and over-represented in rural NZ.

Labour and Greens are massively over-represented in Wellington. The Greens have no MPs at all outside the three main cities.

NZ First has highest provincial representation.

Island

National and Labour fairly spot on for North and South Island. Greens and NZ First over-represented in North Island.

Decade entered

Only NZ First had an MP enter in the 1970s.

One Labour MP entered in the 1980s.

No Green MPs entered before 2010.

I find myself extremely relaxed over what decision Winston may make. This wasn’t the case in 1996 when the tension over the decision was huge.

What I have found interesting is that a fair number of National MPs are pretty sanguine over the outcome also. Like me, they would rather National was in Government – but they definitely see downsides also in being chosen by Winston – especially if he demands too high a price.

Obviously I would like to see Bill English remain Prime Minister. I think he’d continue to do a great job, and would manage a government that makes both economic and social progress. A change of Government would see huge backwards steps in areas such as education. I think New Zealand would be worse off if National is not in Government.

But from a selfish point of view, not being chosen by Winston will probably be better for National in the long term, and they may have a golden opportunity to knock out both the Greens and NZ First and send Labour back into a lengthy term of opposition.

What happens if Winston chooses Labour and you have a Government propped up by both Greens and NZ First? A number of things.

A backlash.

For the first time the biggest party isn’t Government. Sure the political scientists and Twitterati will proclaim that is how MMP works. But they are not representative of the population. Never before has there been a change of Government by negotiation, rather than a clear election result. In 1999 and 2008 the Government changed on the night. In 1996 and 2005 when there was a hung Parliament between blocs, the largest party got to govern.  Those who say there will be no backlash don’t understand that not everyone is a political scientist. Many will see the Government as illegitimate. It will be called the coalition of the losers.

Jacinda gets tainted

If Winston doesn’t go with Labour, Jacinda is massively favoured to become Prime Minister in 2020 and could well govern for a lengthy period after that. But if Jacinda becomes PM despite “losing” in 2017, then she will be seen as not having earned the job by some. Her honeymoon will be shortened. She is Prime Minister because Winston chose her, not because she won an election. National wants to find a way to remove the stardust around Jacinda. Well having Winston choose her will do just that.

A strong opposition

Emma Espiner has written on how National will be the Opposition from Hell if Winston goes with Labour. She concludes by telling Jacinda and James that if Winston goes with National, it could be a lot worse. She is right.Go read her article. Emma incidentally is a former Labour staffer so no secret Tory.

Most Governments that enter opposition have lost lots of seats, are dis-spirited, irrelevant, and out of touch with the electorate. It takes a while for the electorate to want to hear from them.

National will have more seats in the House than Labour and Greens combined. They are only 3% away from being able to govern again. So they only need to gain 1% a year. A party entering Opposition with 45% of the vote is very different to one entering with 30% of the vote.

National will be in opposition because Winston went with Labour, not because they had a bad election result. Pretty much every National MP thinks National ran a good campaign, and Bill was a great campaigner. So it won’t be infighting as Labour has done in opposition. It will be a hungry beast that will want to devour the Government.

Most electorate MPs will be in Opposition

As I blogged yesterday it would be a first to have more electorates held by the Opposition. In fact of the 64 general seats National has 41 and Labour 22. That means you will have the local MP railing against the Government in two thirds of the country. That can and will have an impact.

Government infighting

On economic policies there are some common areas between Labour, Greens and NZ First. On other issues there are massive differences. Winston attacks refugees. Greens have a refugee MP. Winston is against the Maori seats and Labour holds them all. Winston is a fan of Donald Trump and Brexit, while Labour and Greens see them as totally bad.

The Government will start off with discipline, but especially in this age of social media, the three parties will end up constantly slighting each other

A provincial/rural backlash

Winston choosing Labour and the Greens (regardless of whether or not Greens get Ministers) will go down like cold sick in much of rural and provincial New Zealand.

Around half the population live in provincial or rural NZ (outside three main cities).

Greens may be toast

If the Greens do get to be part of Government, it may be their last one. No minor party without an electorate seat has survived a term in Government.

Government is about hard choices and compromise. The Greens are not good at compromise.

NZ First may be toast

Winston has a slightly bigger safety margin than the Greens, but also no electorate seat. A provincial/rural backlash will hit him the hardest.

Even if he only gives Labour supply and confidence, he will still be seen as responsible for enabling their policies, their political correctness etc.

Yes he will get some policy gains, but most of them Labour and Greens will claim they were going to do anyway.

It’s the economy stupid

Yes National is leaving behind a pretty good surplus but the spending demands of the three parties is huge. Add to that the fact they have lots of other policies that will all negatively impact the economy and you have a reasonable chance of rising unemployment, higher interest rates and higher inflation.

Also bear in mind that a global economic shock is overdue.

If the economy does go South, National will campaign hard to pin this on Winston choosing Labour and the Greens. And National is seen as vastly more credible on economic issues so attacks from them have more resonance than Grant Robertson complaining about the level of debt under National.

Summary

My head wants Winston to choose National as that is better for New Zealand. It would be a shame to hand over education policies to the teacher unions, industrial relations policies to the labour unions, welfare policy to the unemployed workers union etc.  I especially want the social investment approach to continue as this is what makes the biggest difference in helping the most vulnerable in society.

But my heart wants Winston to go with Labour and Greens as that is better for National. The chance to make Labour a one term Government and knock both NZ First and Greens out of Parliament is enticing. Of course there is no guarantee. A Labour/Greens/NZ First Government might govern for nine years of stability. But National is positioned to be an incredibly strong opposition that could make life hell for the Government. You only get a honeymoon when you win an election. You don’t get one when it is a coalition of the losers.

So the options for National are a fourth term of Government or being an incredibly strong Opposition with a real chance to knock out Labour’s coalition partners and send them into opposition after one term.

It is close to six of one and half a dozen of the other. Either way National wins.

So ultimately does heart triumph over head? For my 2c I hope so.