A very different Parliament
Vernon Small made the point in the Dominion Post yesterday that many of Parliament’s eight political parties could have leadership changes in the next wee while. Mixing Small’s suggestions (where he makes them) with my own guesses (where he doesn’t), the parties going into the 2011 election could look something like this:
Labour: Steve Maharey/Phil Goff
National: John Key/Katherine Rich
Greens: Metiria Turei or Sue Bradford/Russel Norman or Joel Cayford
NZ First: Ron Mark/Brian Donnelly
Maori Party: Tariana Turia/Pita Sharples
United: Moribund
Progressives: Moribund
Act: Moribund
The Maori Party has just been born, so it’s not unreasonable to think it’ll be perhaps the only party without a new leadership team in two elections’ time.
A clearing out of Parliament of the parties that only exist because their leaders have electorate seats will make governing arrangements a whole lot simpler. National and NZ First will be one bloc (though the two parties’ economic policies will remain a sticking point); Labour and the Greens will be another bloc; and the Maori Party will be a floater.
UPDATE: to avoid confusion, I should point out that I didn’t make the Green Party suggestions, those ones were Small’s.
September 30th, 2005 at 9:00 am
Frog, have you forgotten that the Maori Party is in parliament only because of electoral seats? Why do they stay a part of the equation when you “get rid” of ACT with nearly as much party vote, and United Future with 50% more support than the Maori Party?
If you are going to use the 5% threshold as the line in the sand, use it consistently.
September 30th, 2005 at 9:04 am
I don’t think the NZ First leadership would change. The whole party is really just about Winston Peters.. isn’t it?
Also, I don’t like the idea of the Green Party leadership changing; I think Rod and Jeanette are fighting fit. I wouldn’t support a Green party led by Sue Bradford.
September 30th, 2005 at 9:14 am
Gazza: well, Act has one electorate seat, and the Maori Party four. Act is beholden to National voters in Epsom deciding to vote for Hide at every election; the Maori Party is not similarly beholden. It is my opinion that Act would not survive the loss of Rodney Hide, but that the Maori Party would survive the loss of TT/PS.
Exquire: NZ First will have to change its leadership eventually - I’d be *very* surprised if Winston decided to serve more than this term then one more. The question will then become: can NZ First outlast Winston? On that, I’m not sure. As for the Greens: I should make very clear that these names were put forward by Vernon Small, not me.
September 30th, 2005 at 9:23 am
The next three years are going to be very interesting - who would have said three years ago that at the following election ACT would be down to two MPs and that there would be a Maori Party? We live in interesting times….
September 30th, 2005 at 9:24 am
I entirely agree. That’s why making predictions is so perilous
September 30th, 2005 at 10:55 am
With the exception of Sue Bradford, Small’s suggestions for future Green leadership roles are completely uninviting and would be our death-knell.
His Labour suggestions are two boring technocrats with no heart, soul or character. Kiss Labour goodbye if these two take charge.
His National suggestions have a photogenic appeal but brains and compassion in leadership roles remain to be tested. A few years of opposition will prove or disprove their worthiness.
NZ First will implode and send remnants to Labour, National and the Maori Party.
Maori Party is a wild card, but Sharples is likely to mature into one of the best politicians we’ve seen. I don’t see Turia in the picture.
September 30th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
joel cayford and russell norman(!)…you gotta be fucken kidding..is it april ist..?
your female predictions stand up..but russell norman..?……can i just say again….you gotta be fucken kidding….frog..?
(i just read your response and see vernon small suggested norman……shows how much he knows ..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 30th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
Phil: Well, if you saw my response, why did you bother still posting the comment attacking me?
September 30th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
I’d say it’s because the thought of a Norma/Cayford leadership will lead to a mass exodus of Green supporters frog!
September 30th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
i think i wanted it to be noticed ..frog….view it as an exclaimation..it flowed..and read the whole thing..and don’t be such a bloody sensitive luvvie…
(and yeah..just so i can re-emphasise..that reaction was to the idea of norman leading the greens…i mean..how did you write that post with a straight face..?..)
an acknowledgment of me/whoar is certainly a turn-up for the books though…eh frog…
you are very good at promoting rightwing blogs..frog…or is it just sensitivities on your part/in reaction to percieved attacks from whoar..?..that causes you to resoloutly ignore all of the 3,000 + posts i’ve done since february..?..many of them directly related to (supposedly) shared concerns/aspirations..?
but you wouldn’t be so personal and petty…would you frog..?
September 30th, 2005 at 7:32 pm
Hey Phil, part of the problem is that it is difficult for people to find the gems in among all the 3000+ posts. Now if you had a monthly archive thing like frogs …
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/09/
oh and another thing why it is difficult to use/read whoar is the font - on a PC the font is difficult to read, for example every time you mention clark, it looks like dark !!
September 30th, 2005 at 7:39 pm
Once again Frog you seem to show a rather disturbing glee at the prospect of “a clearing out of Parliament”.
As you said, this most likely means that we will end up with two blocs…so tell me please how this makes MMP superior to FPP? Coming from a Frog who was complaining about the media thinking of the election as a Nat/Lab two party race, I find your comment rather disingenuous.
What if voters decided that voting for ‘hanger-on’ party in the two blocs was a waste of time?
Secondly, talking about making “governing arrangements a whole lot simpler”
is pretty disturbing too.
September 30th, 2005 at 8:15 pm
stuey..i am a total luddite..that is how it was set up for me..so that’s how it is..i am too scared to try and change anything..cos i’ll fuck it up…sure as..
at the moment i am wrestling with trying to set up an audio-blog facility..i’ve got the headphones/mic..and the material/skills to present..(it’s a start..)
of course..if you were to offer your skills to give us a bit of a tweak…that would be much appreciated…and would earn you undying gratitude which would/could manifest for a long time….
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 30th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
and he’d give you lots of “…” as well. Bonus!
September 30th, 2005 at 10:48 pm
Once Brash has gone, ACT will probably bounce back over 5%. National had one shot at killing the beast, and blew it (underestimating the intelligence of their own electorate! Smart move by the people of Epsom, defending their class interests.)
Logically, National will shift back towards the centre on economics at least, and this will open up a boulevard for ACT.
September 30th, 2005 at 10:49 pm
NZFirst will survive Winston, in one form or other.
It fulfills a structural need in NZ politics : a home for unfocused malcontents. It’s the modern Social Credit.
October 6th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
NZF: I highly doubt NZFirst will survive. A similar party may emerge, but it won’t be NZFirst: that party has so much authority concentrated into Peters that it’d fall on its feet: besides, even with Peters, it may be dead before then. He’s lost the safety net of Tauranga, and being involved with Labour in the third term could push him below 5%.
Progressives: I think Jim won’t bother with the 2008 elections. He’ll be 70 by then and 73 by the time the term ends, which is getting a bit old. Plus, with National likely in a position to win that election, he wouldn’t be seeing Cabinet for a while… if National had say, three terms, he’d find himself without another opportunity until the age of 79… getting far too old there.
United Future: This party can survive for as long as Peter Dunne wants to I expect, it’s just that after the 2008 election, he’ll got back to 1996-2002 levels with him being solo.
Greens: Now we get the parties based less upon the leader’s persoanlity. Without an electorate seat and a relatively small margin, plus the death-knell that coalition parties seem to get, could see you falling into political oblivion. However, if Labour vomits out votes like National did in 2002, you may catch enough of it to survive. That or people’s moods stay the same for 3 years, but I doubt it.
ACT: In 2008 I’m quite confidant they can get back in. A likely National victory could propel them as well, with the percieved safety of an electorate seat (perhaps National may not really bother contesting it as well). In 2011 it could be anywhere, dead like the Alliance was after a first term, the same as 2008, maybe more, it’s hard to tell.
Maori: If the Maori seats stay, they will certainly stay (though it’s possible that they could end up having only the co-leader’s seats if their support diminishes). Without them, they’ll struggle, but could possibly find another way out.
National: If Brash wins the next election, he’ll probably stay for no longer than a single term. He’ll do enough to satisfy him, then pass it along to someone like John Key. Hmm… it’s possible that they could be the first party to get a million votes (I don’t see Labour doing that next time, but an increasing population and potentially voter turnout next election could give this).
Labour: They’ll have a tough time without Helen. Being a leader for 12 years atm + however long she stays on for has sort of Winstoned her, removing that from the equation could cause them to lose considerable support, especially if the successor was lackluster.
New Parties?: Parties will be dying in the next election or two, so the void left by them will probably need to be filled. They’ll come from existing parties: the last time (and only time since Social Credit I think) that a party managed to get into power with no MPs in the previous term was ACT, but that still had former MPs. Usually these parties will be splinters from the major two. At this point I’m not sure what it could be about, but I feel there will be at least one new party represented after the 2008 elections.