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.

We all know that it is the total number of seats that determines the Government under MMP. But that doesn’t mean who holds electorates is unimportant. Holding an electorate seat gives a party and its MP profile and status in their area. They are the official electorate MP. They often have columns in the local newspaper. They have offices. They get more resources than List MPs. They get invited to many many more functions.

So under the eight MMP elections, how have National and Labour done in terms of electorate seats.

• 1996 – National 30, Labour 26
• 1999 – National 22, Labour 41
• 2002 – National 21, Labour 45
• 2005 – National 31, Labour 31
• 2008 – National 41, Labour 21
• 2011 – National 42, Labour 22
• 2014 – National 41, Labour 27
• 2017 – National 41, Labour 29

In terms of the general seats only, National has basically double the number of general seats than Labour – 41 to 22. So if NZ First does pick Labour then two thirds of the country will live in an area represented by an opposition MP. That doesn’t mean the Government is in anyway illegitimate – but it does mean if National is in opposition they will have a very strong electoral base to attack the Government from.

In 1999 National had only 22 seats and in 2008 Labour had just 21 seats. To some degree the phone was off the hook for them. But a National led opposition (if it occurs) in 2017 will have a very strong base to attack from.

I’d be very nervous if I was a minor party about to go into Government. The history of minor parties in Government under MMP has been brutal. Here’s what has happened.

• 1996 to 1999, NZ First lost 9.1% or two thirds of its support
• 1999 to 2002, Alliance lost 6.0% or four fifths of its support
• 2002 to 2005, United Future lost 4.0% or three fifths of its support
• 2005 to 2008, NZ First lost 1.6% or a quarter of its support
• 2008 to 2011, ACT lost 2.6% or two thirds of its support

Also the Maori Party has been wiped out.

No minor party in Government has yet survived it, without an electorate seat.

Neither NZ First nor Greens have an electorate seat. No matter who forms the next Government, the prognosis for any minor party in it isn’t great.

Supporting a Government with confidence and supply has not been so lethal though. It is taking up Ministerial roles that does it.

Now we have a final result we can look at how the public pollsters did. UMR are not included as their full results have not been published but Jacinda Ardern said the day before the election that “Labour is within one point of National in its internal polling”.

I am only looking at how the pollsters did with the four parties that got over 5% as they are the results that matter.

Reid Research were the closest. Their average discrepancy was just 0.7%.

Next closest was Colmar Brunton with an average of 1.4%. Their NZ First result was significantly out.

The next three were all around the same – Roy Morgan, Bauer and Horizon with an average of 2.7% to 2.9% out. Roy Morgan had National 4.4% too low. Horizon 5.95 too low and Bauer 6.6% too low.

Finally the Newsroom/SSI poll which was just an embarrassment. They had National 14.4% too low.

Another calculation I have done is how did the polls do in predicting the gap between the major CR and CL parties or the gap between National and Labour/Greens combined. This is important as it shows who is best positioned to form Government or be the stronger position.

National ended up 1.2% ahead of Labour and Greens combined. Colmar Brunton were very close with a 1.0% gap and Reid Research a 1.4% gap.

Horizon had Labour/Greens ahead by 7.4% so out by 8.6%.  Roy Morgan had L/G ahead by 8.5%, Bauer by 10% and Newsroom/SSI by 21%.

So again the two TV polls were very useful in informing the public as to likely outcomes. The other three were not that useful and one is best not referred to again.

Claire Robinson writes:

Saturday’s final election results were, contrary to how they were received by some, a real blow for Labour. They didn’t pick up the number of special votes they hoped for.

They picked up one seat, as did the Greens. But this was no youthquake.

Ardern is arguing the results show a massive swing against National as National failed to get 50% of the votes or seats. Robinson points out:

In reality there has not been one election since MMP was introduced in 1996 where the ‘winning’ major party got over 50% of the party vote (see table below), and with only 36.9% of the party vote, it’s difficult for Labour to argue that they have more of a ‘mandate’ to form the next government than National on 44.4% in 2017. Moreover, at 44.4%, National’s party vote is greater than Labour’s Party Vote in 1999, 2002 and 2005 – three elections where Labour was more than happy to overlook the fact they didn’t have a majority yet still claim they had the ‘mandate’ to lead the next government.

Exactly. National’s vote is still higher than Labour’s vote has even been. And it is in a different league to when Governments have been clearly defeated such as 1999 and 2008. Then National got 30% and Labour got 34%.

Here’s an interesting thing to look at. If a Government has gone three terms, how many seats has it lost at the end of the third term to the beginning of the first. Here’s what they are:

1. National 1960 to 1969 from 46 to 45 = loss of 1
2. National 2008 to 2017 from 58 to 56 = loss of 2
3. Labour 1999 to 2008 from  49 to 43 = loss of 6
4. National 1949 to 1957 from 46 to 39 = loss of 7
5. Labour 1935 to 1946 from 53 to 45 = loss of 8
6. National 1975 to 1984 from 55 to 37 = loss of 18
7. National 1990 to 1999 from 67/97 to 39/120 = loss of 28

So National lost only two seats in nine years – a feat only bettered by National in 1969 when they got a 4th term.

Here’s another way to look at things. Here’s the percentage vote National and Labour have got under every MMP election.

1. 2011 National 47.3%
2. 2014 National 47.0%
3. 2008 National 44.9%
4. 2017 National 44.5%
5. 2002 Labour 41.3%
6. 2005 Labour 41.1%
7. 2005 National 39.1%
8. 1999 Labour 38.7%
9. 2017 Labour 36.9%
10. 2008 Labour 34.0%
11. 1996 National 33.9%
12. 1999 National 30.5%
13. 1996 Labour 28.2%
14. 2011 Labour 27.5%
15. 2014 Labour 25.1%
16. 2002 National 20.9%

Now of course it is MMP so governments are formed by who can get a majority of the seats. This is not about that. This is just about debunking that this was a bad result for National and a good result for Labour and represents some major vote against National.

The 120 MPs of the 52nd New Zealand Parliament are listed above. The demographic analysis follows:

The Herald reports:

Police intelligence documents have revealed aggravated robberies of shops have more than doubled in the past two years, with cigarettes being targeted by thieves almost 500 times in a little over a year – quadrupling previous estimates.

Offenders wielding guns, knives and hammers in search of “gold bars” of tobacco have left shopkeepers “constantly living in fear” and resorting to fighting back with their own weapons.

A previously unreleased Police intelligence report from September last year found there were at least 490 burglaries and robberies in which cigarettes were targeted in a 13 month period – more than one a day, and more than four times the estimate the Herald made after analysing media reports of burglaries.

This is a big lesson in unintended consequences. Excise tax on tobacco has been in the past an effective tool in reducing smoking rates. But at a certain level the price becomes so high that it incentivises the black market, and boy has it done that. 500 robberies in just over a year.

This massive increase in robberies is a direct consequence of the excise tax increases. It shows that further increases are not (sadly) viable unless you want to hand over tobacco sales to the gangs.

Just as prohibition of alcohol failed in America, likewise so will taxing tobacco so hugely in New Zealand.

This is not arguing against the excise tax having been an effective tool at certain levels. Just that the higher it goes, the worse the unintended consequences.

It’s sort of like the minimum wage. Stick it up 50c an hour and there is little impact on employment. Stick it up $10 an hour and you’d have a huge impact on employment. Policies that work well at one level, can backfire at others.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Council’s salary scandal has widened with fresh revelations executive pay at one council body blew out by 89 per cent in two years when wage inflation is running below 2 per cent a year.

Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (Ateed) has defended the increase in executive salaries from $1.096m to $2.07m between the 2015 and 2017 financial years.

An Ateed spokesman said two new general manager roles largely account for the increase in salaries between 2015 and 2017. Another reason was “staff at Ateed moving through salary bands over time”.

They must be pretty huge salary bands!

The salary revelations are becoming a huge issue for Mayor Phil Goff, who vowed to cut fat at council when elected a year ago.

Last night, Goff declined to comment on the 89 per cent executive pay rise at Ateed and framed his concerns in general terms.

You’re the effing Mayor. Stop passing the buck.

The changes in executive salaries over two years has been:

1. ATEED +89%
2. Auckland Council +25%
3. Auckland Transport +22%
4. ACIL -7.5%
5. Regional Facilities -17%
6. Watercare -20%

The table above shows the final and provisional counts and hence the specials. As you can see National did 10% worse in specials than ordinary votes, Labour did 7% better and Greens around 2.5% better. NZ First do 2% worse while TOP was 1.4% better.