The Spinoff states:

We’ve asked people who worked on the major parties’ campaigns to write about their experiences and observations after election 2017. First up: Jenna Raeburn, a PR consultant who worked on the National campaign, detailing life on the big blue bus.

A good idea. Raeburn writes:

If you live in the centre of a big city you could be forgiven for thinking the Jacinda effect was real.

In the universities, the rallies, the huge crowds, and your Facebook feed, the mood for change was palpable. Something Very Big was going on and we all knew it.  

But in the rest of the country an entirely different election was playing out. The Jacinda effect did not reach South and West Auckland, and it certainly never showed up in regional New Zealand.

I was on the National Party campaign bus from 27 August to 22 September. We travelled more than 8000 kilometres and worked dawn til dusk in every corner of the country. We visited 52 electorates. There would hardly be a stretch of SH1 or SH2 north of Christchurch that we didn’t touch.

From the front seat of the bus, and on the street in every small town, it was obvious two parallel games were being played: one in the cities and one in the regions.

A tale of two halves.

Meanwhile, Labour was also failing its traditional voter base of migrants and workers. As it turned out, they couldn’t win the election with young people, women, urban liberals and students alone. They needed middle New Zealand and middle New Zealand did not turn up for them.

Labour did far better than in 2011 and 2014 but was in fact only 2% higher than the 34% they lost on in 2008.

Make no mistake about it, Labour gave up on regional New Zealand during this campaign, with the exception of one or two standout candidates (Kiri Allen and Jo Luxton come to mind, along with Labour’s only regional stalwarts, Damien O’Connor and Stuart Nash). Their talk of water taxes, bringing farming into the ETS, and unclear positions on capital gains and land taxes went down like a bucket of warm sick in rural communities. It was only a matter of time before the provinces began to rebel.

Labour could have won if they had handled tax better.

Labour either didn’t have enough people on the ground to pick up on this before it was too late, or (worse) they deliberately cast rural New Zealand aside in the hope they could win enough votes in the big cities to make up for it.

But their disdain for the provinces affected them in the cities too. New Zealanders know where their food comes from. They also know what keeps the economy ticking along. The rural disquiet, while dismissed by Labour’s base, got swing voters questioning whether Labour really knew what they were doing with the economy at all. 

Yep an extra $6 billion or so costs on the rural sector affects everyone.

Along with the regions, South and West Auckland saved the National Party. If you don’t believe me, look at Gwynn Compton’s very good analysis of the seats where National increased its share of the party vote: Māngere, Te Atatu, Manurewa, New Lynn, Manukau East… There is no escaping it. The Labour Party, despite its resurgence, despite the Jacinda Effect, lost votes in its core territory.

Their vote was up overall in those areas, but by far less than elsewhere and did actually go backwards in a couple of seats.

The one thing these electorates have in common is their very large migrant populations.

In the regions as well, the biggest crowds who turned up to campaign were groups of new migrants and first-generation New Zealanders. I challenge anyone to go back in time 10 years and find a crowd of 100+ Sikh migrants waving signs for the National Party in Te Puke. It just wouldn’t happen. But it’s happening today.

National has painstakingly built relationships with ethnic communities. The Party is a broad church and anyone who still stereotypes National as a group of white septuagenarians hasn’t been paying attention.  

Yep. At Sky City on election night there were more non-white faces than white faces.

The biggest problem with the Jacinda effect was that it never made it past the doors.

By this I mean Labour held fewer, larger, planned events surrounded by crowds of adoring supporters. These were advertised in advance, which means it’s the people who already like you that are most likely to show up.

These events made great TV and certainly created the impression of a resurgent and popular Labour Party. But their reach into communities of undecided voters was low.

I noted previously how few events Labour did that weren’t party rallies or campuses.

Bill English’s strength is in personal interactions. He listens, cares, takes the time and wins people over. While Jacinda was speaking to crowds of four or five hundred, Bill was picking them off one by one in provincial cafes.

Neither style of campaigning is wrong. Both were suited to their respective leaders and the goals of their parties. But ultimately I’m sure it meant Bill had more authentic interactions with individual, undecided voters than Jacinda did.

I think everyone agrees Bill had a great campaign.

But by September 15, I was standing on the side of the road in Lower Hutt waving National Party signs with a group of volunteers. We must have seen 300 guys in high vis driving vans or trucks – truckies, tradies, migrants, workers. Fully 295 of them were honking and waving and calling out in support.

After that I was confident National would win. Labour still hasn’t figured out a way to win back the Waitakere Man. In fact, they have gone backwards. In addition to losing migrants, this is the reason they have lost party votes in South and West Auckland. Even in the liberal central city suburbs, I strongly suspect Labour has picked up votes from women but not from men.

There is indeed a big gender split.

How can Labour retain the green, urban liberal vote in the big cities but woo back those truckies and tradies in rural New Zealand?

New caucus members like Greg O’Connor and Willie Jackson, along with their new intake of regional MPs, may have the answer. Labour sure as hell won’t be the largest party in Parliament until they figure it out.

Smart people in Labour will consider Jenna’s points. Others will just think a 10% bump was great and no need for change.

The Herald reports:

So the Greens await their fate, hinged to Labour largely because of their belief they are and will always be part of the principled left bloc. 
Where Labour goes, the Greens believe they have to follow. 

And this is a major flaw, I think. 

The Greens should be a swing party. In fact, in an ideal world James Shaw would be in coalition talks right now with Bill English, selling his party as a better coalition option then New Zealand First. Less volatile, less prickly, more predictable, more stable, younger, fresher, more reflective of the issues that are central to the concerns of the work force. 

And yet again, people have raised this question with me since the election. Why, they want to know, isn’t there a blue-green option in this country? Well, why indeed?

Once the dust settles on Election 2017, the Greens should rethink their strategy and rethink how they can best effect change. There is a very real appetite for a blue-green ideology in New Zealand – and James Shaw is the man to lead that change as the sole leader of the party.

Things look grim for the Greens with their current strategy. If Winston does pick Labour, then he’ll shut the Greens out. And then after that will be a period of National-led Governments for a while so the Greens probably won’t have a shot at being in Government until 2026 or so.

The Greens don’t have to be all things to all people. Campaign on two or three key environmental policies, and the same number of social policies too.

And that’s what you take into your coalition talks with either the left or the right. Work with either.

But just get into government and implement some change. That’s a far better option than positioning the Greens as a major party with a million bottom lines. If they maintain that approach, they’ll stay out of government forever.

Yep.

The Washington Post reports:

Tom Price, President Trump’s embattled health and human services secretary, resigned Friday amid sharp criticism of his extensive use of taxpayer-funded charter flights, the White House said.

The announcement came shortly after Trump told reporters he considered Price a “fine man” but that he “didn’t like the optics” and planned to make a decision by the end of the day.

“I’m not happy, I can tell you that. I’m not happy,” Trump said as prepared to leave the White House en route to his private golf club in Bedminster, N.J.

In a statement, the White House said Trump would designate Don J. Wright as acting secretary. Wright currently serves as the deputy assistant secretary for health and director of the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Price submitted a four-paragraph resignation letter to the White House in which he said he regretted “that the recent events have created a distraction” from the administration’s objectives. “Success on these issues is more important than any one person,” he continued.

I wonder if there will be any Cabinet members or senior White House staff left by 2020?

Stuff reports:

After ripping the Hutt South seat from Labour’s grasp for the first time since the electorate was established more than 20 years ago, National’s Chris Bishop put the monumental swing down to a change of mood among Wainuiomata voters.

“A wise old head told me if you ever want to win Hutt South, you have to win Wainuiomata,” Bishop declared following his election-night victory.

Only, Bishop didn’t.

Voting booth figures show Labour’s Ginny Andersen comfortably outshone Bishop in the seven Wainuiomata locations on election day, winning six to Bishop’s one.

In total, Andersen collected 3445 votes, compared with Bishop’s 2141.

Yes Andersen won more votes in Wainuiomata, but Bishop closed the gap considerably compared to 2014.

In 2014 Bishop got 26% of Wainui votes and Mallard 61%.

In 2017 Bishop got 36% of Wainui votes and Andersen 57%.

So the gap went from 35% to 21%. Bishop picked up an extra 10% of the vote in Wainuiomata because he had an office there and campaigned there. It isn’t about winning the booths (that is nice) but about getting extra votes.

How did he do it?

Through good old-fashioned campaigning, the man known by some locals as the “Mr Everywhere Man” entrenched himself in the community, never missing an opportunity to raise, or maintain, his profile.

Bishop is also the subject of a fan-led Facebook meme page, where he is referred to by Hutt Valley teenagers who created it as “The Bish”.

The Bish is The Man!

The general feeling is that Bishop’s intensive campaigning won him the seat, and the man himself was in no doubt his relentless presence in the electorate played a large role.

“People appreciate that I’m very active and physical in the community and I put the effort in, that I work hard. And I want to keep doing that.”

It is more than just hard work thought. It is also being effective Bish made things happen. He set up awards. He lobbied the Council. He did more as a List MP than most Electorate MPs do.

Mallard vacated his electorate seat in July last year to chase his dream of being Speaker of the House, opening the way for Andersen.

He did not vacate his seat to become Speaker. There is no connection between the two. He vacated the seat because he thought he would lose to Bishop, and the result shows he would have.

But ultimately, it was Bishop’s extensive campaigning, which began in 2014, that got him across the line.

Andersen was confirmed as the Labour candidate in October last year, and began campaigning fulltime in April.

With Bishop having already laid a significant amount of groundwork, Andersen had some distance to make up.

“The answer is he’s been campaigning for four years,” Andersen said when asked what the difference was.

“It was always going to be a big job. We knew that and we gave it everything.

“I’m proud we did as well as we did with the time that we had.”

He wasn’t campaigning for four years. He was being a highly effective MP. There is a difference. Also he lived in the electorate.

Ken Laban, Greater Wellington regional councillor for Lower Hutt, agreed there was no great secret behind the Hutt South swing; it simply came down to Bishop “out-campaigning” Andersen.

“Chris was born and raised in Hutt South, lives in Petone, he’s been the list MP for the last three years,” Laban said.

“He’s had three years of community visits, getting in front of community issues, physically attending events, and, to be fair, he’s been absolutely outstanding in that role.

“On top of that, he had the prime minister out at Wainuiomata High School, out at the Hutt South electorate on a fortnightly to monthly basis for the last couple of years.

“He thoroughly deserves that win, because he’s worked so hard.”

Andersen, in contrast, was from outside the electorate and had only eight months to campaign, he said.

The lesson her is to work hard. Campaigning in this sense doesn’t mean writing angry press releases every day. It means getting out there and doing stuff.

Bishop’s achievements could not be understated, given he was up against a “lifetime of Labour dominance”, Laban said.

“I think his win is arguably the greatest achievement of any of the MPs that got elected.

“I can’t think of any that have overcome the adversity that he had to overcome.”

To win what was a solid Labour seat when your party has been in office for nine years is exceptional. The majorities in Hutt South over time have been:

• 1996: 2,456
• 1999: 8,885
• 2002: 7,771
• 2005: 5,740
• 2008: 4,086
• 2011: 4,825
• 2014: 709

So from 1999 to 2011 Mallard held it with majorities from 4,000 to almost 9,000. And in 2014 Bishop knocked it down to 700 and then won it in 2017. A great achievement.

Andersen, who has entered Parliament ranked 28 on the Labour party list, has vowed to be back again in 2020.

“I’ll be doing exactly what Chris did to Trevor – campaigning for the next three years.

“I’ve got the electorate office and I get resourced and I get paid. And I get to be able to compete on an even footing.”

The interesting thing is that in his three years as a List MP, Bishop never attacked Mallard. Bishop promoted himself as a good MP, but never attacked the incumbent (this was not reciprocated).

Stuff reports:

Even if ships are happily heading into Whangarei instead of Auckland, there’s still the question of how the goods get to their final destination, from there.

About 70 per cent of what goes into Auckland’s ports stays within the region.

“That stuff will have to come back to Auckland, anyway,” Young said.

“So all you’ve done is add to the cost of it by sending it to Northport.”

At the moment, it is impossible for containers to be transported by rail from Northport to Auckland. What rail line there is is constrained by the fact that its tunnels are not big enough to accommodate containers.

KiwiRail has estimated the cost of getting Northland’s rail network operating to the same standard as other regions as up to $1 billion, and improving the rail link for freight through Auckland at another $2b to $3b.

I’m in favour of moving the Port if it can be done affordably. But $4 billion just to allow freight to move by rail from Whangarei is mad.

That means, at least for the meantime, there would be a big increase in truck traffic on roads that are not among the country’s finest.

Chris Carr, of transport firm Carr and Haslam, estimated that if cars were shipped to Whangarei instead of Auckland, there would have to be a car carrier running between Auckland and Whangarei every two-and-a-half minutes, all day, every day.

So that is 576 extra massive trucks a day on that road.

Stuff reports:

Wellington’s mayor is pulling the plug on the city’s 22-year-old Guy Fawkes festival in favour of the Māori New Year festival, Matariki. 

Mayor Justin Lester said Matariki ought to be a cornerstone celebration, rather than the long-running November tradition, which marked the anniversary of an attempt to blow up British parliament more than 400 years ago.

Score one for the political correctness police. Bye bye to a wonderful 400 year old tradition.

No problem at all with celebrating Matariki, but who says it has to be either/or. Having fireworks for Guy Fawkes is a wonderful tradition that the Mayor is unilaterally killing.

Lester said he had canvassed councillors and had strong support, however councillor Iona Pannett​ said she did not agree.

The move would be risky because people may gather in public parks with their own fireworks, she said. 

She supported celebrating Matariki – but not at the expense of Guy Fawkes and would like to see fireworks at both events.

“It’s been a long part of our history and despite what it represents, we live in a multicultural environment and it’s about celebrating traditions.”

In a rare move I agree 100% with Iona.

Guy Williams is a comedian. He thought it would be funny to mock John Armstrong for his appearance. Why? Presumably because John dares to write columns that sometimes criticise Labour and Greens. Incidentally he wrotes heaps of columns criticising National also.

Now it is widely known John as Parkinson’s Disease, a long-term degenerative disorder. He’s had it for over 20 years yet kept up full-time journalism during that time. Finally it forced him to retire last year. but since then he has still managed to write occasional columns for One News and The Herald.

Now Williams has now said his tweet was not about his disease. That is probably true. But that still means he was mocking his appearance – again because John has written things he doesn’t like. He says it was because the photo didn’t look like other photos of John. Yeah that is because he has decided to use an up to date photo which reflects who he is today.

Now Guy of course is not just a comedian. He is an active campaigner for Labour and the Greens. In fact he was the MC for the combined Labor/Green State of the National launch earlier this year. Yet to hear a single word from any of their MPs about the behaviour of their MC.

In response to my inadvertently insensitive tweet, I’ve donated $100 to Parkinson’s New Zealand. Sorry, I stuffed up. pic.twitter.com/r0RXn4I6fZ

— Guy Williams (@guywilliamsguy) September 29, 2017

Williams is now in damage control and donating money to Parkinson’s New Zealand. But that isn’t the real issue. Even if John didn’t have Parkinson’s, why did Williams think it was appropriate or funny to mock his appearance?

Stuff reports:

The biggest block to a Labour-NZ First coalition could be removed, with Winston Peters hinting at a backdown on a Māori seat referendum.

In an interview with Australia’s Sky News on Wednesday, NZ First’s Winston Peters said the Māori Party had been “smashed” in the election.

Asked by Sky News whether Labour’s non-negotiable stance on a referendum could affect his promise, Peters said he initially wanted the people to decide. 

“It was written up as Peters’ opposed – he’s going to abolish the Māori seats – that’s not true. I said let’s have a referendum and let the people decide, and apparently some people don’t like democracy,” he said.

“The Māori Party itself are a race-based, origin of race party who got smashed in this election and it’s gone. 

“So some of the elements on which the promise was made have just changed, that’s all I can say.”

Hobson’s Choice endorsed Winston due to his non negotiable stance of a Maori seats referendum. Didn’t even survive a week after the election!

Here’s what he said in July:

“My strategy is to tell everybody out there that you won’t be talking to NZ First unless you want a referendum on both those issues at the mid-term mark of this election.”

Opponents of a deal between National and Greens say that the Greens membership would never countenance such a deal.

I say why not put that assumption to the test.

Imagine what would happen if the Greens sat down with both NZ First and National and negotiated the best deal they could get.

Then they could take both deals out to their wider membership and ask them to vote on which deal they prefer. They don’t even have to recommend one over the other – just let the members decide.

So what would happen? Well for a start NZ First would have to actually agree to give the Greens some substantive concessions to match National. At the moment they see the Greens as irrelevant and powerless as they have pledged to support Labour no matter how bad the deal. So NZ First won’t even meet or negotiate with the Greens.

If the Greens announced they will also negotiate with National (ie do the same as NZ First), and let their members decide it would absolutely change the dynamic of the negotiations. And there would be no backlash from members as they would get to decide.

The worst case scenario is they get a much enhanced deal with NZ First.

But as unlikely as it is that the members would prefer a deal with National, if the policy and ministerial concessions were so superior to what was on offer from NZ First – well they might.

James Shaw and a few others are trying to claim that 2017 was a vote for change as opposition parties got more votes than government parties.

This shows an ignorance of MMP, and regardless any new coalition is a change anyway.

Take the 2005 elections. From 2002 to 2005 the Government was Labour and Progressive and United Future supported by Greens. In 2005 those four parties got 60 seats and the opposition parties of National, NZ First, ACT and Maori got 61 seats.

Clark of course did a deal with Winston Peters despite the fact he had been campaigning against her Government for the previous three years.

So those who claim 2017 was a vote for change should argue that 2005 was also a vote for change and that the right outcome was for a National, NZ First, ACT and Maori Party Government as they were the four opposition parties that “won” the election.

Whale Oil has a copy of the paper that Auckland Council is considering with regards to establishing a Maori ward.

This is not a decision the Council should take by itself. It should put the matter to a vote with the next local body elections.

If they wanted to win the vote, what they should propose is that the Independent Maori Statutory Board is replaced with a Maori ward. The latter is at least democratic. The former is not.

UPDATE: The Council has voted not to consult the public on the matter as they are worried the public would make the “wrong” decision. They voted in favour of establishing a Maori Ward, but only if the Government changes the law so they don’t lose one existing seat. Typical – more worried about keeping their own seats.

I can’t see any chance of National changing the law to increase the size of the Auckland Council.

I’ve had a look through the Greens policies. Here’s what I reckon they could get National to agree to in exchange for merely abstaining on supply and confidence.

1. $1 billion over ten years for cycleways
2. A levy on nitrate pollution
3. A South Taranaki Whale Sanctuary
4. A levy on plastic bags
5. Accelerated timetable for rail to Auckland Airport
6. Doubling the funding for DOC
7. $65 million a year more for predator-free NZ
8. Stricter water quality standards to increase the number of water bodies rated excellent from 42% to 70%.
9. A commitment to double the reduction of children in poverty from 50,000 to 100,000
10. Double the reduction target for greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 from 11% to 22%

A smart Green Party could probably get all that out of National in return for a simple abstain on supply and confidence. It would be more than they have achieved in the last 18 years. But of course they’d rather deal with NZ First than National despite the fact they have no negotiating leverage with them.

NBR reports:

Stuff reports:

Wayne Doyle is considered by many to be a pillar of his community – a former bad boy who’s trying to turn lives around through his boxing gym.

To police, Doyle is the boss of a feared organisation that is making millions from drug dealing and other crime.

That dichotomy will be at the heart of a civil case in the High Court at Auckland, where Doyle – president of the Head Hunters east chapter – will essentially have to prove that $6m or so of cash and assets restrained by police under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act was lawfully obtained. …

Police brought the action after a two-year joint operation involving the Serious Fraud Office, Inland Revenue and the Ministry of Social Development – the latter because Doyle is a beneficiary.

Taxpayers are paying a benefit to a man who has six million dollars of assets. Disgusting.

Winston did a 20+ minute press conference which had one item of substance (he is waiting for special votes) and 20 minutes of attacking the media.

Get ready for three years of this!

I blogged yesterday on how Fairfax had a story on Lynlie Beazley.  It trumpeted her as the “face of poverty” in New Zealand. It ran a story entirely sympathetic to her claiming she had to survive on just $22 a week for food, and portraying this as all the fault of the Government.

My original blog was critical of Fairfax for not providing any information on her claimed income and expenses so it could be scrutinised. But this is the least of their failings.

It then transpires that Beazley had 32 convictions including aggravated robbery. This changes entirely the picture the original article was portraying which was 100% sympathetic to her.

But it gets even worse than that for Fairfax. They failed to spend even 60 seconds searching her name with the Tenancy Tribunal. If they had they would have found:

• 3 Oct 2016 – tenancy terminated for non-payment of rent
• 22 Feb 2017 – tenancy terminated for non-payment of rent and cleaning costs of over $1,000

Now both tenancies were with Vision West Community Trust. It exists to end homelessness, and so would only be evicting someone if no other resort.

Now note how generous the Government is. Despite her trashing her house with Vision West Community Trust, she was put into a Housing NZ home. She gets a huge subsidy from the taxpayer so her rent is only 25% of her benefit or $59 a week. Yes only $59 a week yet she claims this is so high she can’t afford more than $22 a week on food.

Decisions have consequences. If you trash your home, you get evicted, If you commit aggravated robbery you find it hard to get a job.  Despite all this we’re providing a house for her to live in for just $59 a week.

The Herald reports:

The man who’s often been referred to as the most powerful non-elected politician in the country is quitting.

Wayne Eagleson has been Sir John Key and Bill English’s chief of staff for 12 years, but says it’s time to look at other options.

Mr Eagleson will stay around until the new Government is formed, which is expected to be around mid-October.

Eagleson formally told Bill English last week he planned to resign after the election but insiders say it has been known by the Ninth Floor for several months that he planned to go, no matter what the election result.

He will stay on for the next few week to assist with coalition talks planned between National and New Zealand First.

Eagleson was a former deputy chief of staff to Jim Bolger, and after some experience in public relations in the private sector returned to Parliament to become chief of staff to Don Brash in Opposition.

He stayed on to become Key’s chief of staff in Opposition and then in Government.

Most people in New Zealand (outside the beltway) have never heard of Wayne Eagleson, and that is a sign of his success. We have seen Chiefs of Staff who have become household names such as Peta Credlin in Australia and Heather Simpson in New Zealand. When you become the story you are less effective.

It’s a hugely challenging role. You need a relationship so strong with the Prime Minister that if you speak to someone, they will understand you are speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister. If that relationship is not strong, then people will work around the Chief of Staff. No one ever worked around Wayne.

But being a pitbull guardian of the PM doesn’t work either. Credlin was that. Ministers resented her for that. No Minister resented Wayne. In fact I don’t know anyone in politics with a bad word to say about him.  He had that rare mix of authority and approachability.

Wayne will be a big loss to the Government. But it is no surprise after 12 years he is keen for a more normal job.

Stuff reports:

The last time there was fresh produce on the table was more than two years ago.

After covering her basic expenses, Lynlie Beazley survives on just $22 per week and sometimes she sleeps on an empty stomach. 

The west Auckland resident described herself as the “face of poverty” in the country. 

“I don’t know how I live each day.”

Beazley said she would not be able to survive without food parcels from The Salvation Army.

She is one of a growing number of people knocking on the charity’s door for help. 

Her weekly benefit was about $236, but she only had $22 after rent, expenses, and hire purchase payments.    

Beazley, a Housing NZ tenant, said this was enough for two bottles of milk, three loaves of bread and a tray of eggs.

It is frustrating that media continue to do pimping poverty stories yet fail to provide information that allows readers to form any independent conclusions.

Ms Beazley appears to be on a Jobseeker benefit. We are not given any information on how long she has been on it, and has she tried to gain work. It is possible she has a disability or sickness and can’t work but again we don’t know. And a Supported Living benefit would be higher than that.

Here’s what we do know:

• Benefit $236
• Rent $59
• Food $22
• Other expenses $155

She does not have a car and walks so the other expenses are not transport. There is reference to hire purchase and a $1,000 loan but repayments on that would be just $20 a week or so to pay back over a year.

Again we don’t have enough information to reach any independent conclusions. To me it seems out of whack to spend $155 on other expenses and $22 on food. Electricity would not be that high. Now there could well be a very good reason why her non food expenses are so high but again the reporter has not told us enough.

UPDATE: It turns out Ms Beazley has 32 criminal convictions – information the original story failed to include. Even more of a fail for the media.

Julian Lee at Stuff writes:

This year’s election spelled the lowest representation for minor parties in Parliament since MMP was introduced in 1996. The Māori and United Future parties were eliminated and New Zealand’s typically most prominent third party, the Greens, barely crossed the 5 per cent threshold.

Three minor parties have made it to Parliament this year – the lowest number yet. There have been five or six minor parties in Parliament since MMP began in 1996.

This year’s election saw 17 minor party MPs in Parliament – the same number as 1996, when the public was still unsure how the system worked.

Compare that to the 2002 election, when six minor parties took out 41 seats in Parliament, a third of the total number of seats.

Actually there were more than 17 in 1996. The number of MPs from “minor” parties has been:

• 1996 – 39
• 1999 – 32
• 2002 – 41
• 2005 – 23
• 2008 – 21
• 2011 – 28
• 2014 – 29
• 2017 – 17

As for the two remaining minor parties, there is no guarantee the Greens will survive the next election given this year’s result, nor is there any guarantee NZ First’s Winston Peters will contest the next election at age 75.

This leaves the potential for a 2020 election without minor parties. A 2020 Parliament of National and Labour.

If NZ First does decide to install a Labour – NZ First Government supported by the Greens, then there has to be a decent chance both NZ First and the Greens could get wiped out in 2020.

Look at what happened to the Alliance after one term in Government. The pressures of having to actually compromise in order to govern tore the party apart.

And as previously blogged 19 of the top 20 seats for NZ First are National held seats and there would be a considerable backlash against them for putting Labour and Greens into power.

So a real upside of NZ First deciding to go with Labour and the Greens, is that both NZ First and Greens could end up being wiped out in 2020.

The Herald reports:

Former Rotorua doctor Dr Lance O’Sullivan has announced he will stand for the Maori Party in the 2020 election – a move which has both surprised and excited co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell.

The 2014 New Zealander of the Year made the announcement during a hui in Rotorua on Sunday afternoon, receiving applause and cheers of support.

He told the crowd he had resisted moving into the political arena but could not resist any longer.

His plans were also relayed in Tauranga when the travelling hui was held at the Te Puna Rugby Club later in the day, with the same support. He was part of a group, which included Maori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell and Mana Party leader Hone Harawira, discussing the future of Maori politics.

 “I made a commitment to stand for the Maori Party in 2020,” Dr O’Sullivan said in Tauranga.

It was not yet confirmed whether Dr O’Sullivan would stand in an electorate or stand as a list member.

This suggests the Maori Party is dead but not buried. Dr O’Sullivan would be a very popular candidate for them.