Closing gap helping vote for change?

Most polls take an FPP approach to government, assuming the party with the most support will win the election and the right to govern.

Although the party with the most votes has been the one to lead governments in New Zealand since MMP was introduced that is no guarantee that one with less support won’t end up being able to cobble up a majority with several coalition partners.

National is still well ahead of Labour in all polls, but today’s update from iPredict shows potential coalition partner Act faltering in Epsom which is giving a slight boost to the horrifying possibility that we’ll get a Labour/GreenParty/Maori Party/ New Zealand First coalition.

Act’s chances in Epsom have dropped to marginal levels, making it just possible that Phil Goff could be our next Prime Minister, according to this week’s snapshot by New Zealand’s online prediction market, iPredict.  With John Banks hovering at just over 50% chance of winning Epsom, and New Zealand First nearing MMP’s 5% threshold, a Phil Goff-led government isn’t out of the question . . .

Forecast party vote shares are now: National 45.0% (down from 46.0% last week) Labour 29.7% (down from 31.0% last week), the Greens
11.1% (steady), New Zealand First 4.7% (steady), Act 3.6% (up from 3.1% last week),  UnitedFuture 1.9% (up from 1.6% last week), the Maori Party 1.2% (steady),  the Mana Party 1.0% (down from 1.1% last week), the Conservative Party 0.9% (down from 1.0% last week), and the New Citizen Party 0.4% (down from 0.5% last week).

Based on this data, and the electorate results above, Parliament would be as follows: National 58 MPs, Labour 38 MPs, the Greens 14
MPs, Act 5 MPs, the Maori Party 3 MPs, UnitedFuture 2 MPs, and the Mana party just 1 MP.  There would be 121 MPs, requiring a government to have the support of 61 MPs on confidence and supply.  John Key’s National Party would be able to govern with any one of the Greens, Act or Maori Party.

Although Act often does better in elections than polls, the chances of it getting at least 5% are remote and the possibility of Banks not winning Epsom is increasing. If NZ First gets at least 5% and Banks loses Epsom the picture is gloomier:

Under this scenario, Parliament would be as follows: National 57 MPs, Labour 38 MPs, the Greens 14 MPs, New Zealand First 6 MPs,  the Maori Party 3 MPs, UnitedFuture 2 MPs, and the Mana Party just 1 MP. There would be 121 MPs, requiring a government to have the support of 62 MPs on confidence and supply meaning Phil Goff’s Labour Party could govern with the Greens, New Zealand First and the Maori Party, and would not need the Mana Party.

There are only two silver small linings to this gloomy prospect.

The Mana Party wouldn’t have to be part of that coalition and the thought of such a government might help persuade people to vote for a change from MMP in the referendum on the voting system

 

6 Responses to Closing gap helping vote for change?

  1. Surely, given the choice between a Labour/Green/NZF/Maori coalition, and a National/Maori coalition, the choice for the Maori Party wouldn’t be too difficult, given the concessions they could gain as kingmaker.

    Like

  2. homepaddock says:

    James – you’re right but without Act and with NZ First that might not be enough for a National-led coalition.

    Like

  3. robertguyton says:

    Horrifying, Ele?
    There are a growing number of New Zealanders horrified at the thought of another round of a nasty NAct Government.
    Let’s keep these things in perspective!

    Like

  4. jabba says:

    horrifying sounds about right HP. People like our bOb think that NZ will be better off with Goff as PM and the rest of his MPs, the Greens, Winny and possibly Harawira, leading us through these tough times.
    The thing about bOb he is that he is full of jolly sarcasim but never gets into details, too tough aye bOb?

    Like

  5. National/United Future/Maori with the Greens onside with a MOU is far more preferable than the current arrangements, whatever NZ First polls on 26/11.

    Like

  6. Paul Bailey says:

    Whilst I disagree with you analysis you are right in so much as the ‘polls’ (which should also include the media) focus on the electorates far to much. The same could also be said for the leaders as we do not have elected presidents.

    Like

Leave a comment