Skip to make comment  | Skip to read comments  

NZCPR Guest Forum 
Frank Newman
27 November 2011
Election 2011 - the winners and losers

The votes are in. The winners are grinners, and the losers are out or about to be ousted. While politicians spin the results, the numbers tell the story. So who won? Who lost?  And why?

PARTY VOTE

The party vote election night results are:

The winners and losers when measured by change in party vote from their 2008 result are:

Labour’s loss, Green gain

The collapse of the Labour vote is the headline of this election, down nearly 7% on their 2008 vote - the worst party vote since the first MMP election in 1996 and the lowest since 1928. It’s a major defeat for Labour. It has clearly lost touch with the electorate, and in my view in two ways. It is advocating policies that simply do not connect with the values of mainstream New Zealand. Having a caucus of yesterday people is a major problem. Labour had the opportunity to replenish its ranks while in opposition. It didn’t and has now lost some MPs who were seen as their future talent pool.  If they are to effectively challenge National in 2014, Labour will need to rethink its policies, personnel, and indeed more fundamentally its approach. That is unlikely while the unions remain the dominant faction within the now diminished Labour caucus.

Clearly the Greens gained from the Labour rout. Like National, the Greens have received their highest poll rating since 1996. While Labour returned to old to old style campaigning on the politics of envy, the Greens repositioned their branding closer to the centre with a positive campaign more aligned with modern centre left values. The bottom line is the Greens are smart campaigners – Labour isn’t.   

The decline of ACT and reincarnation of NZ First

The second headline story is the collapse of the ACT vote (-2.58%) and the return of NZ First (+2.74%). It is likely that some of that ACT vote would have gone back to National, some to NZ First and some to the new Conservative Party.

The 1.08% vote for ACT is its worst result since 1996. ACT ran a poor campaign that had little connection with the values that ACT campaigned on in 1996, 1999, and the 2002 elections when it gained 6.1%, 7% and 7% of the vote respectively.

Initially by seizing control of the ACT leadership Don Brash gained traction with the party rising from 2% to about 5% in the polls. His outspoken position of Maori sovereignty seemed to resonate with some, but those gains were lost soon lost. Silence on Maori issues gave the appearance that Brash had been muzzled. Winston Peter’s however advocated strongly on the issue - without attracting the racist label. That is likely to have seen some ACT supporters shift support to NZ First. Remarks about the decriminalisation of marijuana and the cup of tea sideshow simply compounded what was already a poor campaign for ACT.

With the return of NZ First Winston Peters will be Parliament’s most effective critic on Treaty issues. The constitutional review will deliver a platform into the hands of Winston Peters as we head towards the 2014 election.

The Maori shuffle

The Mana Party gained 1% directly at the expense of the Maori Party (-1.04%). The combined vote for the two Maori sovereignty (excluding the Greens) parties remained the same at about 2.3% of the vote. The infighting between the parties has in fact reduced the number of Maori sovereignty MPs from 5 to 4. The Maori vote appears to have split between the rich corporate Maori voting for the Maori Party and poor Maori voting for Mana. Interest will now focus on whether the Maori Party decides to keep the baubles of office and enter into a coalition arrangement with National and risk criticism from Mana and the further erosion of its vote in 2014.

The rise of the Conservative Party

Another headline story of the campaign was the rise of the Conservative Party (+2.76%). Although the vote was wasted as they failed to secure an electorate seat it has shown an opportunity exists for another party to sit on the right side of the political spectrum. It could well be the Conservative Party that has a cup of tea with John Key in 2014.

VOTER TURNOUT

Voter turnout was 74% compared with 80% in 2008. In the seven Maori seats less than half the registered voters actually voted, turnout falling from 64% in 2008 to 49% in 2011.

While politicians are likely to claim voter apathy for the low turnout it is more likely to be a growing disrespect for politicians and for the political process generally that is the cause.

THE POLLSTERS

The politicians were not the only ones being judged on election night. So too were numerous polling companies.

In this election there was a marked difference between the polls. Horizon, for example, predicted National would poll around 33% and the Conservative Party over 5%, while Fairfax had National support at 54%.  

The analysis compared the last published poll figures for the predicted party votes for National, Labour, Greens, NZ First, Maori, Mana, ACT, United Future and Conservative parties. Five polls commonly reported in the media were compared. Of these five, four select the sample of voters randomly. The Horizon sample is “self-selected”.

Also included for comparative purposes is the ipredict “polling” (which is not a polling company as such but a market place where punters place dollar value bets on expected outcomes). 

When comparing the absolute variance between their predicted party vote and the actual vote the results were:

Clearly the standout best predictors were the TVOne Colmar Brunton poll and Ipredict.

The worst performer, and to a very large degree, was Horizon. This is probably explained by their self –selected sampling which creates the opportunity for parties to “gate-crash” and some were openly doing so during the campaign.

So who won? National, the Greens, NZ First, TVOne Colmar Brunton and Ipredict.

Who lost? Labour, ACT, Maori Party, and Horizon.

Skip to top | 

Your Comments:

Your comments will be published on the READERS FORUM. To view >>> 

To comment go to letters to editor >>>

Send to a friend: