Liam Hehir produced this table which is quite fascinating. It shows that the 2017 results are not a long way removed from the 2008 results, despite nine year of National-led Government.

The changes are:

• National up 0.6%
• Labour up 2%
• Greens down 0.5%
• NZ First up 3.3%
• ACT down 3.2%

Now compare this to the difference after nine years of Labour-led Government, or 1999 to 2008.

• Labour down 4.7%
• Alliance down 6.8%
• Greens up 1.5%
• National up 14.4%
• ACT down 3.3%
• NZ First down 0.2%

National’s vote went up 14% from 1999 to 2008. Labour in 2017 have basically got to just past where they were in 2008.

The polls were pretty accurate for the German elections. The results for votes were:

• CDU/CSU (National) 33.0% (-8.5%)
• SPD (Labour) 20.5% (-5.2%)
• AfD (NZ First) 13.0% (+7.9%)
• FDP (ACT) 10.7% (+5.9%)
• DIE LINKE (Alliance) 9.2% (+0.6%)
• GRUNE (Greens) 8.9% (+0.5%)

Seats are:

• CDU/CSU (National) 246 (-65)
• SPD (Labour) 153 (-40)
• AfD (NZ First) 94 (+94)
• FDP (ACT) 80 (+80)
• DIE LINKE (Alliance) 69 (+5)
• GRUNE (Greens) 67 (+4)

Almost inevitably the Government will be CDU and FDP and GRUNE, or their equivalent of a National, ACT and Greens Government. They will have 393 seats out of 709.

No party wants to govern with the AfD. They don’t even want to sit with them. Same goes for Die Linke.

If the CDU and SDP did another coalition then AfD would become the official opposition party. So SDP has to become the main opposition party and hence FDP and Greens need to join the Government.

In New Zealand the Greens would rather work with NZ First than National! They are very different to German Greens.

The Herald reports:

An Auckland family has fallen victim to a vicious political attack after their house was vandalised with election hate speech.

On Sunday morning Grey Lynn resident Zoe Tietze was getting ready to take her dog for a walk when she stepped outside and saw her home had been tagged.

“We noticed it all over the street and on our house,” she told the Herald.

“We originally had a small hoarding on our house supporting the National Party. The vandals had clearly seen that. It was taken down on Friday afternoon but they still remembered our house and decided they wanted to tag us. “

The attackers, who vandalised the property on Saturday night after the election, wrote “Blood on your hands” on Tietze’s front porch.

The tagging spilled over on to the road where messages “3 more years of poverty and misery” and “National government kills” were spray-painted outside Tietze’s home.

The attack has left the family and nearby residents frightened.

Grumpolie has prepared this chart. Basically it shows the two TV polls were very accurate. The polls of polls and associated forecasts were less accurate. The Curia poll of polls (seperate to any internal polling I do) included the earlier Colmar Brunton polls showing Labour leading so I expected it to be out.

The Listener poll, Horizon poll, Roy Morgan poll and Newsroom polls were massively out. Newsroom was in a different universe. To be fair to them their polls were done earlier in the campaign, but to be blunt Labour were never 15% ahead of National and any poll saying they were had serious problems.

I’ll do an update on this after final results.

Simon Louisson writes at The Standard:

Labour didn’t deserve to win on Saturday because, firstly, because it failed to bring a fully-fleshed tax policy to voters, and, secondly, it never attempted to win the ideological battle over tax.

Missteps over the Capital Gains tax apart, Jacinda Ardern ran an energetic and near flawless campaign and yet Labour still lost heavily.

It is as certain as death, that tax will be front and centre of the next election and voters will be easily scaremongered again, if Labour fails to address tax.

How a major party can spend nine years in opposition and still not have detailed its tax policy, bewilders me. It raises serious questions about the competence of Finance Spokesman Grant Robertson and other senior members of the leadership team.

I understand it was Grant’s bright idea to campaign on seeking a blank cheque for tax policy and Jacinda just went along with it.

National was easily able to scare various sectors of the electorate by raising the prospect of a capital gains tax, inheritance tax, land tax, gift duties, or new higher income tax brackets.

Each of these taxes is perfectly worthy of consideration. But, assuming NZ First supports National to form a government, if Labour wants to stop an action-replay of this election, it must set up its own tax working group early next year and have its position nailed down by the end of 2018. (You can place your bet now that any government dependent on Winston Peter is not going to last until 2020).

Most importantly, whatever, the tax working group decides, Labour must put a categoric cap on how much tax, as a percentage of GDP, it intends to raise, to pre-empt tax-and-spend attacks.

If the working group recommends a CGT, as it most likely will and should, then Labour must give assurance it will maintain the cap irrespective of how much the CGT raises. So if CGT pulls in $500m of revenue by 2025, then income taxes, or the rate of GST, will be commensurately reduced.

This is an excellent idea, and in fact what the Taxpayers’ Union asked Jacinda to commit to. Grant has said this is “quite likely”.

I support broadening the tax base, but not if it increases the total amount of tax being collected by households and businesses. Make it fiscally neutral and you’d have far far far less opposition.

And Labour has already committed to keeping spending to under 30% of GDP. So just commit to keeping taxation to say 32% of GDP and you leave room for debt repayment and contributing to the NZ Super Fund.

Using the commitment not to go beyond the set ratio will allow Labour to allay attacks that it will tax anything that moves.

Yep.

Far more important, however, is the need for Labour to win the ideological debate – that taxes help to build societies. This debate has to be tackled front-on and from the day parliament reconvenes. It cannot be left to an election campaign, where there are inevitable distractions.

Until Labour wins hearts and minds that taxes are the mechanism for creating a fairer, caring and better working society, it will always be on the back foot.

Few people object to paying some tax. We all see the benefits of it. But that is not the same as wanting to pay more and more tax over time. We prefer extra tax revenue to be generated due to a growing economy – not by increasing taxes on those growing it.

Stuff reports:

National may have had a shot at getting Winston Peters onside before the election – but blew it.

Its aggressive campaign to unseat Peters in Northland is causing some in NZ First to agitate for an Epsom style deal on the table in its negotiations with Labour and National.

That is seen as the best chance of preserving the party’s future if Peters, 72, steps down at the next election.

An electoral accommodation would mean National or Labour endorsing a NZ First candidate in a seat seen as winnable by the minor party. It is not clear which seat, or the extent to which Peters is backing such a deal.

But there would be good reason for Peters’ wider caucus to seek a deal like that in negotiations with either National or Labour because they know the party has little chance otherwise of surviving without Peters.

Losing Northland has been a blow to Peters, and if he does want to retire an electorate safety net is useful. If NZ First had got 15% then you’d be confident Shane Jones would keep them over 5%. But at 7.5% (may drop on specials) they have a small comfort margin.

But what seats could NZ First win if a major party did not stand and endorsed him? Presumably one where their party vote is higher. So what general seats did NZ First do best in, and which party holds them?

1. Whangarei 14.5%, N
2. Northland 13.6%, N
3. Coromandel 12.4%, N
4. Tauranga 11.8%, N
5. Bay of Plenty 11.2%, N
6. Rangitikei 10.5%, N
7. Wairarapa 10.5%, N
8. Waikato 10.3%, N
9. Whanganui 10.2%, N
10. Rotorua 10.2%, N
11. East Coast 10.1%, N
12. West Coast-Tasman 9.6%, L

So all 11 seats where NZ First got over 10% are National held seats.

In fact 22 of the best 23 seats for NZ First are National held seats.

This will also make it very interesting for them if they decide to support a Labour-led Government. I’m not sure all those provincial and rural voters that voted NZ First will be keen on the inevitable political correctness and anti-agriculture policies that will eventuate from such a Government. I’d say there would be a huge backlash.

This is why I’m quite keen to have Winston go with Labour and Greens. It will be sad for the country, but good for National in the long term as they’d ride a wave of discontent in 2020 and only need to pick up two more seats to govern.

The decision NZ First has to make is not just between National and Labour/Greens but also what type of arrangement to have. Here’s some of the possibilities.

1. Minority Government. No formal agreement with NZ First. They abstain or vote in favour of supply and confidence at first, but may pull the plug at any stage if they think the Government is doing a bad job. The Government would need to negotiate with them on every vote. We basically had this between 1993 and 1996.
2. Supply and confidence. Government agrees to a number of NZ First policies in exchange for an agreement NZ First will vote in favour of the Government on confidence and supply motions. Had this from 2002 to 2005.
3. Supply and confidence with benefits. Government agrees to a number of NZ First policies and one of more NZ First MPs become Ministers outside Cabinet in exchange for an agreement NZ First will vote in favour of the Government on confidence and supply motions. Had this from 2005 to 2008.
4. Coalition. NZ First get several seats inside Cabinet and the coalition partners agree to a joint set of policies they will implement. Had this from 1996 to 1998.

Minority Government is unlikely as it means no stability for the Government. But having said that parties can walk away from agreements anyway, so the difference may not be huge. Only National could form a minority Government if NZ First abstained.

A supply and confidence agreement could be done with National or Labour. If NZ First doesn’t take up Ministerial positions, hard to see they would let the Greens do so. So it would be be a National Government with or a Labour Government. Labour would also need a supply and confidence agreement with the Greens which would have to be compatible with the NZ First one.

A supply and confidence agreement with benefits could be done with both NZ First and Greens with Labour. So Labour get 20 Ministers inside Cabinet and NZ First and the Greens each get three Ministers outside. Or Peters could shut the Greens out so they only do confidence and supply and no Ministers. On the National side it would be a simple National Ministers inside Cabinet and one or more NZ First Ministers outside Cabinet.

Finally the full coalition. You’d expect based on their vote share NZ First could take 3 or 4 Cabinet seats and maybe even 1 or 2 outside. So Peters, Jones, Mark and Martin could be inside Cabinet. A full coalition on the left could include the Greens who would also get say three Ministers inside Cabinet. So Labour might only get 13 or 14 slots inside Cabinet.

You could get a combination. Labour could do a full coalition with NZ First and a confidence and supply with benefits with the Greens. So NZ First Ministers inside Cabinet and Green Ministers outside Cabinet. Or Winston could lock Greens out entirely so Greens just get some policy wins and no portfolios. They have little leverage.

So it is not just about which side Winston goes for, but what sort of Government does he want. And if he goes with Labour, what role for the Greens?

Phil Quin writes:

In most cases, Labour’s vote outside the main urban centres returned to, even surpassing, 2008 tallies.  In its birthplace of West Coast Tasman, for instance, the party went from 23 percent under Cunliffe to 37 percent yesterday.  In the Wairarapa, Labour’s vote also surged by double digits, only about half of which can be attributed to the decline of the Green vote.   …

Labour lost in Auckland, performing worst of all in seats with a high number of migrants.  

Contrast New Lynn with Nelson, for example, to get the idea. Labour’s party vote actually declined by 500 votes between 2014 and 2017 in the West Auckland seat. This is despite the Greens tally dropping by 1700 — a factor, in New Lynn and across the city, that masked the severity of Labour’s problems. 

In the nearby seat of Te Atatu, Labour’s party vote inched ahead but only by claiming roughly half the discarded Green pile.

The local MP, Phil Twyford, Labour’s campaign chair and architect of the Chinese surnames stunt, even managed to shave a few hundred off from his majority — a rare but dubious achievement for an opposition frontbencher up against a minister in a third-term government.  

Opposition MPs should not be having majorities go down when up against a Government seeking a 4th term.

In the absence of exit polling, we need to make some educated guesses about what explains the chasm between Labour’s relatively strong showing in places like Nelson, and the meagre gains in Auckland. 

National’s strength among recent immigrants has emerged as a key advantage that, bedded down, could spell long term trouble for Labour. More than one in three New Lynn residents identifies as Asian, and about the same proportion of Te Atatu’s voters were born outside New Zealand.

If yesterday is any guide, National is building a beachhead around these vibrant and growing ethnic communities no less formidable than those Labour historically achieved with Pasifika and South Asian migrants.  

Of course, National’s courting of Asian New Zealanders was aided in no small part by Labour’s unwise decision to make enemies of them.  

If there was any doubt that Twyford’s surname gambit caused long-term damage to Labour’s brand among New Zealand’s fastest growing ethnic minority, surely last night’s results remove it. In seat after seat, the correlation between a high Asian population and a strong National Party showing is undeniable.

Thanks Phil, we owe you.

Do you recall the huge outcry from the left when Judith Collins made a reference to double bunking that could be construed as joking about male rape. And also the huge outcry when John Key had a radio station make a comment about soap in the shower while he was on the show.

Well if someone said something ten times worse than that, such as stating they hoped that all those on the left who didn’t vote for Jacinda be f***ed with a barbed wire d**do (asterisks are not because I am prudish but because Google sends me nasty letters when I have swear words on KB), then surely this would be front page news as it gets condemned by everyone?

All you smart cunt lefties who went Green or TOP? Fuck you with a barbed wired dildo.

— Jeremy Elwood (@JeremyElwood) September 23, 2017

Now I’m not offended in any way by what Jeremy wrote. And not just because I am not a leftie who voted Greens. I think it just reflects more on him than his intended target (disloyal lefties).

What I am highlighting is the double standard. If someone of high profile on the right had tweeted that, they would be on every news bulletin, Rape Crisis would be angrily denouncing their insensitivity towards rape etc etc. But as he is a media darling, who is “in” with all the journalists they don’t even give it a mention. In fact his weekly column with Stuff will of course be unaffected. Fairfax will have no problem with a columnist who wishes a barbed wire d**do on those who voted the wrong way, just as the Herald has no problem with columnists who say they want to break the legs of people they disagree with. So long as you are on the left, you have immunity from consequence.

Regardless of what Winston decides, 2017 was a great election night for National, as was 2008, 2011 and 2014. That makes four in a row, which is probably not something I’ll see again in my lifetime – certainly not such unequivocal great results.

For a National supporter, prior to 2008, the last decent election night was 1990. 18 years without a decent result.

• 1993 was technically a win but National blew the biggest majority in history and only held on with a deal for the Speaker’s seat
• 1996 was a loss that only was redeemed by good coalition negotiations. National only got 34%.
• 1999 was a change of Government
• 2002 was the biggest loss ever
• 2005 was a loss, made bitter by the fact it could have been a victory

So after one decent election night in 18 years, it’s hard to believe National has had four great ones in a row.

• 2008 – stormed into Government (on 45%) and a National-ACT Government clearly elected on the night. 58 seats.
• 2011 – increased party vote by 2% and 59 seats. Labour dropped to historic low. A clear National-ACT-United Government elected on the night.
• 2014 – despite the best efforts of Dotcom and Hager National storms home with 60 MPs (was 61 on the night), Labour drops to an ever lower low.
• 2017 – National gets 46% and 58 MPs in seeking a 4th term, the same as their first term. Stunning result. And picks up two electorate seats, only losing one.

Again this is highly unusual. Normally election nights will be less clear cut. I doubt we’ll see such a run again.

If I had to rank the four in order, they would be:

1. 2008 – winning Government, Nikki Kaye won Auckland Central and NZ First knocked out of Parliament
2. 2014 – won a majority on the night, stunning everyone.
3. 2017 – despite Jacindamania, a 10% gap over Labour and 58 MPs
4. 2011 – increased vote for National, but NZ First made it back

Now people may wonder if 2017 will become a dampener, if NZ First does decide to go with a Labour-Green-NZ First Government. And my answer is not really.

Look I’d prefer National to form the Government as I think Bill English is a great Prime Minister and would achieve a lot in another three years. But you have to go into opposition at some stage, and if Winston thinks his provincial and rural supporters wanted Labour and Greens in Government then he can deal with that. National with 56 to 58 MPs would be an incredibly strong opposition.

So while I have a preference for Bill remaining Prime Minister, I wouldn’t lose a lot of sleep if Winston goes with Labour.  In fact from a blogging point of view, it would be a lot more fun. Be a bit of disaster for the country though.

Many interesting electorate battles. Few seats actually change hands though. National won two seats off Labour and NZ First and Labour won three seats off National, United Future and the Maori Party. The rest were status quo. But still some interesting results.

• Auckland Central. Nikki Kaye did incredibly well to increase her majority to 1,519 after almost the smallest majority in the country in 2011 and 2014. She’s now won the formerly safe Labour seat four times. The collapse of the Greens made it dangerous for her as most of their support then goes to Labour, but her hard work paid off.
• Christchurch Central. A good win by Duncan Webb. Nicky Wagner did so well to win it in 2011 and retain it in 2014 but the traditionally safe Labour seat returned home for two reasons. One was a general trend away from National in Christchurch, but the other was Webb was a strong candidate for Labour with a pre-existing high profile. Will be one of their stronger new MPs.
• Hutt South. An amazing and deserved result by Chris Bishop gaining a majority of over 2,000. Winning a formerly safe Labour seat is an achievement in itself. To do it in your third going for fourth term of Government is pretty unheard of. This is the election when the Government should only be losing seats. I’ve blogged before about Chris’ amazing work ethic but also sheer effectiveness. He makes things happen. National should make Chris responsible for training all new MPs about how to be a good Electorate MP, even if they are a List MP. Labour threw everything they had at Chris, and even concluded their Jacinda campaign there but he came through. So delighted. And the result shows why Trevor Mallard bailed on the seat – he knew he would lose to Chris also.
• Maungakiekie. A seat Labour may have won. A traditional swing seat, partially in South Auckland. The Labour candidate was one of their stars so Denise Lee did very well in holding the seat with a 2,000 or so majority.
• Nelson. Nick Smith has a reasonable majority of 4,010 but got a much smaller percentage of the electorate vote. He got 15,000 voters, the Labour candidate 11,000 and Greens 8,000. They could have beaten him if they had co-operated.
• New Lynn. This should not be a marginal seat. This is a safe Labour seat that they have held since 1963. Their majority is only 1,886 now. So what happened? Both Labour and National had strong candidates (Deborah Russell and Paulo Garcia), so it wasn’t that. I think we are seeing the impact of Labour’s Chinese surnames fiasco. Labour is losing its grip with both working class Westies and new immigrants.
• Northland. Great effort by Matt King in winning this off Winston Peters despite the huge profile Peters has, and all the massive bribes he was promising. King won party because he campaigned well, partly because Winston is not as popular as he thinks and partly because Labour’s revival took votes off Peters. I had thought for a couple of months that King was likely to win and went out of my way not to say anything publicly so it would be a nice surprise on the night. Winston has now been kicked out of three seats – Hunua, Tauranga and Northland.
• Ohariu. No surprise that Greg O’Connor won this seat. I like Greg. He is a good guy. I think he’ll be miserable as a Labour Party backbencher, but I hope for his sake I’m wrong. What is impressive is that Brett Hudson got within 700 votes of Greg despite having only four weeks to campaign. If Peter Dunne had decided a month earlier to step down, this could have gone to the wire.
• Te Atatu. Again this is a previously safe West Auckland seat for Labour held by them since 1978 (except 1990 to 1993). And despite the high profile Phil Twyford being the Labour MP, his majority shrank to 2,055. Why? Well his own fault – his disastrous Chinese surnames fiasco. Twyford may have alienated a generation of immigrants from Labour.
• Tukituki. Labour’s Anna Lorck stood in 2014, ran a three year campaign for the seat and had a high profile with a weekly column and her PR business. With Craig Foss retiring she had a very good chance against Lawrence Yule – the popular Mayor, who did have the water issue to contend with. So a good result for Lawrence to hold on with a 2,757 majority.
• Wairarapa. This should be a safe National seat but there was concern Labour’s Kieran McAnulty could win it. Kieran is a popular local who had stood before. National’s Alastair Scott faced criticism for not living within the electorate and you also had Ron Mark as a wildcard factor. So a good result for Alastair to hold on with 2,746 majority but if Kieran stands again in 2020, it will be a battle.
• Whanganui. Another seat Labour may have won as the popular Chester Borrows was retiring. A good result by Harete Hipanago to hold off Steph Lewis by 1,841. Another that will be close in 2020.
• Whangarei. Despite the hype, not even close. A margin of over 10,000 for Shane Reti and Shane Jones continues his streak of never ever winning a seat.  NZ First must be worried about Shane’s ability to keep NZ First in Parliament if he does become leader.
• Waiariki. A resounding win for Tamati Coffey in beating the popular Te Ururoa Flavell by 1,300 votes. Coffey obviously ran a strong campaign, and was assisted by the much increased vote for Labour across the board due to Jacinda becoming leader.

I’ve done an initial analysis of the demographics of the 52st New Zealand Parliament. This is based on provisional results.

Gender

• 74 (-8) Males, 62% (-6%)
• 46 (+7) Females, 38% (+6%)

A big increase in the number of female MPs, mainly due to Labour.

Ethnicity

• 81 (-2) European, 68% (-1%)
• 26 (nc) Maori, 22% (+1%)
• 7 (nc) Pacific, 6% (nc)
• 6 (+1) Asian, 5% (+1%)

Compared to their share of the adult population, Maori MPs are over represented by 9%, Pacific MPs are dead on, and Asian MPs under represented by 6%.

Age

• 2 (nc) 20s, 2% (nc)
• 23 (+3) 30s, 20% (+3%)
• 38 (-7)  40s, 32% (-5%)
• 43 (nc) 50s, 36% (nc)
• 11 (+1) 60s, 9% (+1%)
• 2 (+2) 70s, 12 (+2%)

Area

• 39 (+3) Auckland, 33% (+3%)
• 16 (-1) Wellington, 13% (-1%)
• 10 (-4) Christchurch, 8% (-4%)
• 24 (-1) Provincial Cities, 20% (-1%)
• 31 (+2) Rural, 26% (+2%)

Islands

• 93 (+2) North Island, 78% (+3%)
• 27 (-2) South Island, 22% (-3%)

Sexuality

• 113 (-1%) “Straight”, 94% (nc)
• 3 Gay (-1%), 3% (nc)
• 4 Lesbian (nc), 3% (nc)

Year Entered

• Before 2000 10, 8%
• 2000 – 2007 9, 8%
• 2008 – 2014 67, 56%
• 2015+ 34, 28%

What are the challenges ahead for each party?

National

Assuming they get to form a Government, how do you set it up to be Winston proof, ie so he has an incentive to be a constructive player.

Rejuvenation. National needs to bring at least three or four backbenchers into the ministry to keep the rejuvenation going. They also may need to make room for NZ First ministers. So several Ministers may have to step aside. But there are three vacancies, being the positions held by the Maori Party, United Future and ACT (Peters won’t let Seymour be in Government).

Labour

Learn from their mistakes in the campaign. Mend relations with the rural community. Work out how to keep Jacinda positive (which the public like) but also how to be an effective opposition leader in the House. Keep an eye on some of their new backbench MPs as success (13 more MPs) often brings challenges – National found this out in 1990.

NZ First

Work out how not to get wiped out in 2020. They have lost their safety net of an electorate seat so it is essential they stay above the 5% threshold. Instability in Government could see them punished next time.

Also if Winston does want to retire this term, how do you do a succession that keeps them in Parliament? Both Peters and Jones failed in their electorate bids and can Jones keep NZ First over 5%? If they had got 15% in this election (which was very possible pre-Jacinda) then you would be confident Jones could keep them to at least 8% or 9%. But they only got 7.5% so even a 3% drop from Peters to Jones could kill them. So maybe Peters has to stand again in 2020 when he will be 75.

Greens

Stop trying to claim losing half your caucus is a victory. Yes you survived but your brand got trashed by the Metiria fiasco. Need to change the brand from pro welfare fraud to pro-environment.

Key challenge ahead is whom they elect as female co-leader. If it is Julie Anne Genter it signals they will be more green than red. If it is Marama Davidson, then they will remain locked 100% to Labour and of marginal influence. I understand Davidson is favoured at this stage, but the poor result might make them reconsider.

10. I didnt see anyone on English’s campaign greeting him with anything like that. He’s a bad egg. Fuck him. I didnt like him one bit.

— Steve Braunias (@SteveBraunias) September 22, 2017

14. My phone died! Got home and so final midnight tweet is: gee I hope Labour wins and fuck you National. Fingers X’d!

— Steve Braunias (@SteveBraunias) September 22, 2017

These tweets are from Steve Braunias, a staff writer for the NZ Herald.

I should say I think Braunias is an excellent writer and his “secret diaries” columns are often hilarious. Love his Lincoln Road food writings also.

What I object to is that the Herald editorial team assigned Braunias to cover the election. They sent him on the campaign trail to cover both Ardern and English. By his own tweets he hates Bill English and National, and says English is a bad egg. That is not someone who should be covering the campaign for the NZ Herald, let alone sent by the Herald to profile each leader.

To some degree all four major parties are winners from the election.

National got an extraordinary result of 57 MPs and is highly likely to form the first fourth term Government since 1969. At worst they will be an incredibly strong opposition only four MPs away from victory in 2020.

Labour grew their vote by 12%, got 13 new MPs and are finally a credible Opposition with an excellent chance to win in 2020.

NZ First did lose Northland but hold the balance of power and will be able to leverage considerable policy wins and possibly quite a few baubles also.

The Greens survive. They did lose half their caucus, but they were not wiped out – which two weeks ago was very possible.

The Maori Party got wiped out, which is sad for Flavell and Fox and their supporters. Both very decent well motivated people.

ACT retained Epsom but will probably be blocked from Government by Winston, so will have more independence.

Based on election night results the 120 MPs of the 52nd New Zealand Parliament are:

National

1. Auckland Central: Nikki Kaye
2. Bay of Plenty: Todd Muller
3. Botany: Jami-Lee Ross
4. Clutha Southland: Hamish Walker
5. Coromandel: Scott Simpson
6. East Coast: Anne Tolley
7. East Coast Bays: Erica Stanford
8. Hamilton East: David Bennett
9. Hamilton West: Tim Macindoe
10. Helensville: Chris Penk
11. Hunua: Andrew Bayly
12. Hutt South: Chris Bishop
13. Ilam: Gerry Brownlee
14. Invercargill: Sarah Dowie
15. Kaikoura: Stuart Smith
16. Maungakiekie: Denise Lee
17. Nelson: Nick Smith
18. New Plymouth: Jonathan Young
19. North Shore: Maggie Barry
20. Northcote: Jonathan Coleman
21. Northland: Matt King
22. Otaki: Nathan Guy
23. Pakuranga: Simeon Brown
24. Papakura: Judith Collins
25. Rangitata: Andrew Falloon
26. Rangitikei: Ian McKelvie
27. Rodney: Mark Mitchell
28. Rotorua: Todd McClay
29. Selwyn: Amy Adams
30. Tamaki: Simon O’Connor
31. Taranaki-King Country: Barbara Kuriger
32. Taupo: Louise Upston
33. Tauranga: Simon Bridges
34. Tukituki : Lawrence Yule
35. Waikato: Tim van de Molen
36. Waimakariri: Matthew Doocey
37. Wairarapa: Alastair Scott
38. Upper Harbour: Paula Bennett
39. Waitaki: Jacqui Dean
40. Whanganui: Harete Hipango
41. Whangarei: Shane Reti
42. Bill English
43. David Carter
44. Steven Joyce
45. Chris  Finlayson
46. Michael Woodhouse
47. Paul Goldsmith
48. Nicky Wagner
49. Alfred Ngaro
50. Brett Hudson
51. Melissa Lee
52. Kanwal JK Bakshi
53. Jian Yang
54. Paramjit Parmar
55. Jo Hayes
56. Nuk Korako
57. Maureen Pugh
58. Nicola Willis

Labour

1. Christchurch Central: Duncan Webb
2. Christchurch East: Poto Williams
3. Dunedin North: David Clark
4. Dunedin South: Clare Curran
5. Hauraki-Waikato: Nanaia Mahuta
6. Ikaroa-Rawhiti: Meka Whaitiri
7. Kelston: Carmel Sepuloni
8. Mana: Kris Faafoi
9. Mangere: Su’a William Sio
10. Manukau East: Jenny Salesa
11. Manurewa: Louisa Wall
12. Mt Albert: Jacinda Ardern
13. Mt Roskill: Michael Wood
14. Napier: Stuart Nash
15. New Lynn: Deborah Russell
16. Ohariu: Greg O’Connor
17. Palmerston North: Iain Lees-Galloway
18. Port Hills: Ruth Dyson
19. Rimutaka: Chris Hipkins
20. Rongotai: Paul Eagle
21. Tamaki Makaurau: Peene Henare
22. Te Atatu: Phil Twyford
23. Te Tai Hauauru: Adrian Rurawhe
24. Te Tai Tokerau: Kelvin Davis
25. Te Tai Tonga: Rino Tirakatene
26. Waiariki: Tamati Coffey
27. Wellington Central: Grant Robertson
28. West Coast Tasman: Damien O’Connor
29. Wigram : Megan Woods
30. Andrew Little
31. David Parker
32. Priyanca Radhakrishan
33. Raymond Huo
34. Jan Tinetti
35. Willow-Jean Prime
36. Kiri Allan
37. Willie Jackson
38. Virginia Andersen
39. Jo Luxton
40. Liz Craig
41. Marja Lubeck
42. Trevor Mallard
43. Jamie Strange
44. Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki
45. Kieran McAnulty

Greens

1. James Shaw
2. Marama Davidson
3. Julie Anne Genter
4. Eugenie Sage
5. Gareth Hughes
6. Jan Logie
7. Chloe Swarbrick

NZ First

1. Winston Peters
2. Ron Mark
3. Tracey Martin
4. Fletcher Tabuteau
5. Darroch Ball
6. Clayton Mitchell
7. Mark Patterson
8. Shane Jones
9. Jenny Marcroft

ACT

1. Epsom: David Seymour

Voting has closed, results are due and comments are now allowed! Will try and update this post with major news.

1922 – 8% counted has it Nat 45.7%, Lab 36.9%, NZF 7.3%, Greens 6%.Early days though.

1931 – seems clear at this stage that National will be the largest party but not get a majority so NZ First likely to hold balance of power. Both NZ First and Greens look safe to clear 5%.

2027 – National still 10% ahead. Maori Party looks like it may get wiped out.

2112 – National now gaining more ground but may be smaller rural booths. Seat projection now Nat 59, Lab 44, NZF 9, Green 7, ACT 1

Do not comment on the election until 7 pm. This includes who you voted for, who you think people should vote form, who you want to win etc etc. You can comment on turnout and queues.

There will be a dedicated results thread at 7 pm.

As advance voting ends today and the official election day is now just hours away, it is worth reflecting on how lucky we are with the choices we have in New Zealand.

Our choice of Prime Minister is Bill English or Jacinda Ardern. They’re both good people, and both have extraordinary talent (in different ways). Jacinda has revitalised Labour and taken it from the low 20s to the high 30s or even low 40s. An amazing impact. As I predicted in 2012, she will be Prime Minister of New Zealand one day – it is a matter of whether it is in a few weeks (once Winston decides) or a few years.

Bill English has had an extraordinary campaign. It has invigorated him and he has been commanding. The party is every bit as united behind him as it was under John Key. He looks very likely to lead National to a result in the mid 40s in their 4th election. No other party in MMP has got more than 41% in their 1st, 2nd or 3rd term, let alone a potential 4th. Labour in 2008 dropped to 34% and National in 1999 to 30%. Regardless of what Winston decides (if the decision is his), National is strong.

As I said both Jacinda and Bill are good people who care deeply for the country and improving outcomes for New Zealanders. We can forget that in the heat of a campaign. But it is a positive choice to have compared to many other countries. Recent choices have been:

• US – Trump or Clinton. Aaargh. Shoot me now.
• UK – Corbyn the commie or the Maybot!
• Australia – Turnbull or Shorten whom are both massively unpopular

Here’s the net approval ratings of the 10 heads of governments and oppositions in the Anglosphere:

1. Jacinda Ardern +40%
2. Bill English +39%
3. Justin Trudeau +11%
4. Michael Scheer +3%
5. Jeremy Corby -1%
6. Donald Trump -16%
7. Malcolm Turnbull -20%
8. Bill Shorten -20%
9. Nancy Pelosi -20%
10. Theresa May -25%

Again we are lucky to have such a good choice to make. Most other countries would love to have this choice.

So congratulations to both Bill and Jacinda, and good luck to whichever one of them is Prime Minister.

Some other kudos I want to hand out:

• Sir John Key – immaculate timing bowing out on top. He left National in a strong position and it is polling well despite his departure. He’s delighted with how well Bill has done, and there’s no one suggesting National would have fared better if he had stayed on. In fact if John had stayed on to attempt a 4th term, I think the vitriol would have been immense as the number of people with Key Derangement Syndrome is so high. It would have all been about stopping Key.
• Steven Joyce and Jo de Joux. This is their 5th campaign together. I doubt anyone who has not run a campaign understands the pressures of being a campaign manager. They never lost their nerve and kept National strong despite the media hype over Jacindamania. National got 45% when elected in 2008 and they are polling around that level in 2017. Simply amazing.
• Andrew Kirton – Labour looks to have finally got a focused and effective general manager who is trusted by all factions. Is secure in his role.
• James Shaw – has recovered from a horrendous month which would have crushed many as he looked like a political prisoner being forced to read out North Korean propoganda. He had to back his co-leader 110%, and see the party drop almost 10% in the polls. He’s stayed sane and thanks mainly to him looks like the Greens will survive.
• Gareth Morgan and Sean Plunket – thanks for constantly outraging the perputally outraged on Twitter. You’ve made life much more fun.
• Nicola Willis – a fantastic campaign in Wellington Central. I’ve never seen so many blue hoardings in this seat, and you’ve been everywhere. You’ll be a great MP and presence for National in Wellington if you make it in on the List.
• Matthew Hooton for being attacked online even more than Mike Hosking
• Jordan and the team at the Taxpayers Union for their great work in reminding people about who funds all the spending promises
• Metiria Turei for fighting to the last on what she believes. I strongly disagree with her, but one can seperate the person from the politician. Those who know and have worked for Metiria say she is a great boss and great fun person. Even though it is self inflicted, has been a hard campaign for her personally and I hope she does well outside politics.
• Patrick Gower for his extraordinary use of language in the call of duty. Patrick can make a milkshake sounds exciting and devastating
• Andrew Little for doing the right thing and putting his party ahead of personal ambition. Not many of his predecessors would have done the same.

Democracy shouldn’t be a privilege, but it effectively is for many people. If you haven’t already voted, make sure you do so tomorrow. The people are never wrong, even when they are!

Wayne Mapp writes at Pundit:

Why has the swing back happened?

In my view there are three reasons. First, Labour announced way too many taxes in the first week of the campaign. Second, National raised real questions about the robustness of Labour’s proposed three year budget. Third, Jacinda Ardern has backtracked on too many things, raising questions about whether she is yet ready for the top job. 

Taking them in turn:

In the first week Labour announced: a tax on water at an undetermined level; a tax on petrol, at least in Auckland; a higher cost ETS; and potential for an ill-defined capital gains tax; along with a possibility of land taxes and wealth taxes. While each have their own justifications, the welter of them raised the traditional spectre of Labour being the “tax and spend” party. It also played into a subtext of voter suspicion. That Labour thinks economic growth is on auto-pilot, and nothing they do will affect it. Many voters, especially those who have voted National in the past, know that is probably not true.

Yeah I don’t think Labour accept that the more you tax an economy, the bigger the impact it has on economic growth.

The second issue has been fraught with controversy. Steven Joyce, strongly supported by Bill English, has said there is a $11 billion hole in Labour’s budget. That it was not believable that Labour could have no new spending in 2019 and 2020, except in health and education. The $11 billion is National’s assessment of what Labour would actually spend. Basically it is $3.5 billion per year. How does that make $11 billion?

Because the $3.5 billion spent in 2019 is base-lined into the 2020 budget and then the 2020 budget gets another $3.5 billion.  So it is $3.5 billion in 2019, and $7 billion in 2020 representing the $3.5 billion base-lined from 2019 plus $3.5 billion new spending in 2020.

This analysis was very credible to me, having been involved in many budget debates. National’s strategy has been to talk directly to the voters on this issue and to ignore the views of the pundits and media commentators. The strategy is built on the implicit understanding that many voters naturally see Labour as a tax and spend party.

The media made the mistake of taking this as a binary issue of right vs wrong and proclaiming one side the “winner”. The truth is more nuanced that the media portrayed it.

The third issue has been very difficult for Jacinda Ardern. It seems perfectly plausible to listen to voter feedback and respond accordingly. So deferring a CGT, among other things, would have seemed a very reasonable thing to do. But it also has a risk. Do voters actually want their leaders to reverse strongly held stances (captain’s calls) so readily? It seems to me voters also expect their leaders to be certain on things, to ride through adverse feedback. That part of leadership is providing a sure and steady course, especially on issues central to the philosophy of a political party.

There is an art to it. John Key got a lot of support by reversing mining in National Parks. But he also knew what he should not back down on. At no time did he listen to the criticism on asset sales, a central issue for National during the 2011 election campaign. Surely CGT is as least as important for Labour?

The problem is the decision was a unilateral Captain’s Call by her, and so the backdown was associated with her also.

Irrigation NZ writes:

Dear Jacinda

We note you were in the Waikato yesterday, trying to reassure farmers that Labour is not anti-farming. However during your media briefing you demonstrated how poorly informed Labour’s farming policies are.

To the camera you stated, ‘there are only 12,000 farms in NZ and the vast majority won’t be affected – we’ll only be impacting upon 2,000.’ https://www.tvnz.co.nz/…/jacinda-ardern-in-waikato-soothe-f…

Unfortunately there’s almost 5 times more farms in NZ than this (58,000) and over 10,500 of these have a consent to take water for irrigation… so you may need to reassess the impacts of your water tax?

Only out by an order of 5!

The water tax will cost the average irrigated family farm (220 ha) between $24,000 and $29,000 per year ($110 – $130 per ha). This will impact greatly on farm viability, particularly for sheep and beef, arable and vegetable farmers (43% of the irrigated area).

Dairy farmers will be okay as they have reasonable profit margins (for now) but beef and sheep farmers are already struggling.

Canterbury and Otago account for over 72% of water allocated for irrigation, Hawke’s Bay, Marlborough and the Wairarapa account for 14% and all other regions combined make-up the remaining 14%. However, these 5 regions have the most swimmable rivers (> 92% in each region). The least swimmable rivers are in Auckland – 62% graded as poor, Northland and Waikato (over 40% graded poor). 

Blaming poor water quality on irrigation is just nasty scapegoating. Making irrigators in rural New Zealand pay for the problems of urban pollution in Auckland is grossly unfair.

The two largest irrigation regions have water quality and abstraction limits in place. Canterbury has the Land and Water Regional Plan which requires all irrigating farmers to gain a land use consent to farm – this is in addition to their water take consent. Otago has Plan Change 6A, an effects based plan that requires any water leaving a property to meet strict water quality limits – again in addition to their water take consent.

So the water tax will do nothing for water quality but simply punish farmers for using water, regardless of the water quality in their area.