Forming a government

Published: September 13, 2005

by frog

While I believe that Labour will get more votes than National (though, only on the balance of very even probabilities, and please don’t quote me on it), the two-horse race isn’t all-important in determining the election result. Whatever some in United and NZ First might be saying, there is no presumption – constitutional or otherwise – that the single party with the most votes has the first dibs on forming the next government.

Other countries do have “formal investiture rules” which set out methodically the process by which a government is formed after a proportional representation election. Usually, these rules involve the Head of State inviting the leader of the party with the most seats to try and form a government. Only if that person fails to form a government does the leader of the second-largest party get a go.

Now, that’s not the case in New Zealand. We don’t have a formalised process for post-election negotiations. Our election results should be interpreted by comparing how many seats that Labour and National “sides” have locked in, how many are up for grabs, and whether either “side” has a majority. Remember back to 1996. National won around 6% more of the party vote than Labour, yet it was interpreted as a Labour victory. Why? Because the media assumed – wrongly, it turns out – that Labour would have the numbers in Parliament to govern. On Saturday night, we should take a similar approach. The vital question won’t be: Who out of Labour and National has more votes? It will be: Who out of Labour and National has more seats pledged to them?

Indeed, the key to Helen Clark and Don Brash forming the next government is their ability to convince the Governor General that they have the confidence of the majority of MPs in Parliament. Dame Silvia, in this regard, will be guided by what party leaders say after the election.

So, it’s possible that from Sunday morning onwards, the race will be on between Clark and Brash to get the adequate numbers collected and locked-in. If we take party leaders at their word, Labour can count on the Greens, the Maori Party and the Progressives, National can count on Act, while United and NZ First are up for grabs.

There are two ways the post-election period could unfold. One is that Labour or National will have enough “locked-in” seats without needing the two “centrist” parties and so the result will be clear on election night. The other is that neither side will have the numbers without UF and NZF, and so the bidding will begin.

And we shouldn’t assume that United and/or NZ First will eventually fall to the side that includes the party with the most votes. They’re both saying they’ll negotiate in the first instance with the largest party, but if it became clear that the second-largest party had the best shot at forming a government, then they could quickly switch horses mid-stream.

Explained in these terms, National’s failure to come to terms with MMP remains a huge impediment to it winning this election. On our current polling figures, the Labour-led side has 64 seats, while the National-led side has 49, with the nine of United and NZ First up for grabs. So, on current polling, the election is Labour’s. National will need a significant boost if it’s to get itself in the coalition-making frame.

frog says

Published in Campaign by frog on Tue, September 13th, 2005   

Tags:

More posts by frog | more about frog