Five reasons why National won and Labour lost
1. Leadership and leader’s charisma
National had a clear advantage over Labour on this point. The party’s campaign was built around the leader, John Key, who has consistently been voted the most popular Prime Minister of all time. His face appeared in all party promotions and there was no ambiguity about who the leader was. He also had the advantage of the incumbency factor, having been the most recent Prime Minister.
Labour never quite got its leadership act together. Following its defeat in 2008, Helen Clark’s handover of her leadership and exit were hasty and poorly handled in the media. It was as if Phil Goff became the leader purely by default. The party leadership remained invisible for much of the past three years. It is only in the run up to the election that Goff came into himself, though he seemed to be alone – not supported by too many from his own party. He rarely appeared in the party’s visual promotions. Despite 30 years in parliament he needed media training. While it did help project him better, it was a case of too little too late.
The Labour Party risks repeating the same mistake in handling its leadership changeover this time as well.
2. The incumbency factor
New Zealanders rarely boot out a party after only one three-year term. Two terms is generally the norm. National had the advantage of being in power for only the past three years. The leader’s popularity was an added bonus. The country has rarely been faced with as many challenges, all coming together, as it has in the past three years (global financial crisis, Christchurch earthquakes, Pike River disaster) and the general perception has been that the Key government has handled the situation well. The mood was to obviously give it a proper chance this time around.
Labour’s parliamentary performance has been lacklustre and it has hardly done anything against the last Key government’s policies to fire the imagination of the people. It did little to quell the growing perception of contradictions within its own rank and file. It had three years to reorganise and rebuild, bring in new blood, weed out the deadwood and present a rejigged Labour Party for the 21st century – which it failed to do and its senior leaders, fiercely competing for the top job after Goff steps down next week, are doing so so only now.
3. Programmes and manifestoes
National clearly projected its priority: the economy. It was not afraid to present tough options to the people – political parties rarely do that before an election. It talked about a sell down of the government’s minority stake in state owned enterprises – a veritable holy cow in New Zealand. Some 78% of the people were said to be against it. Yet, many of them voted National in. National also talked of less government, potentially meaning culling of public sector jobs – another highly popular measure before an election. It also was not afraid to talk about rationalising the welfare system. In short, it was prepared to do everything it could to reduce the debt mountain.
Labour’s plan was the opposite – borrow more in the short term. It did not seem that the economy was seriously on its agenda. It dwelled on more populist measures – the kind of things some political parties do ahead of elections in India. Instead of explaining its own plans and selling them to the people, the party spent all its time and energy in opposing National’s “mixed ownership model” for SOEs. It failed to come up with anything substantial in a positive way – its focus was largely negative, criticising National’s manifesto, especially toward the end of the campaign. It failed to capitalise on its early, successful attention-catching ideas like increasing the superannuation age to 67 and introducing a capital gains tax.
4. The campaign
National leveraged its leadership charisma, incumbency factor and the wide perception among people that it was somehow better qualified and equipped to deal with the economy to deliver its messages effectively. The fact that it was unafraid to talk of changes to the ownership of SOEs, the welfare system and several other potentially unpopular measures showed strength and resolve, which people obviously bought by the bushel, going by the election results. National came across as the more informed party with a better grip on what is happening and what needs to be done in all the leadership debates than Labour.
Labour’s campaign was fuzzy from the start. Its economic proposals did not seem rooted in reality – something exemplified by its leader’s inability to come up with a credible reply to the famous question popped to him by his rival, “Show me the money”, during a debate. In the final days, Labour showed its extreme desperation by plain and simple scaremongering. It dropped leaflets to expectant mothers that under National they would not live to see their child’s first birthday. No matter how loyal one may be to Labour, one can’t escape the insult to one’s common sense and intelligence that such tactics deliver. That last campaign signaled that the party had lost all hope and was going for broke.
5. Voting patterns and turnout
The quirks of the MMP system made everybody in the Epsom constituency vote “tactically”. Determined not to let ACT win, Labour supporters voted for National and National’s voted for ACT. But National voters heeded the advice following the notorious teacup incident and voted ACT in droves – to ensure support for National in parliament. Labour’s ploy to keep ACT out added to its long list of failures.
Undoubtedly, Labour lost its vote in great numbers to the Green Party, which has come into itself in this election – it is no longer a small party but a medium one and ominously snapping at Labour’s heels. If it keeps the momentum, as it is likely to do under its intelligent and smart dual leadership, it will be a serious magnet for younger, well-informed Labour voters.
The turnout in last month’s election was the lowest ever in New Zealand. It is suspected that significant numbers of traditional Labour supporters did what they did in 2008 – simply stayed away. Both parties had little to inspire youngsters to vote. Add to that the anti-establishment fervour stoked by the worldwide “occupy” movement and you have what happened on polling day – masses of youngsters stayed away, many despite having registered.
1. Leadership and leader’s charisma
National had a clear advantage over Labour on this point. The party’s campaign was built around the leader, John Key, who has consistently been voted the most popular Prime Minister of all time. His face appeared in all party promotions and there was no...
1. Leadership and leader’s charisma
National had a clear advantage over Labour on this point. The party’s campaign was built around the leader, John Key, who has consistently been voted the most popular Prime Minister of all time. His face appeared in all party promotions and there was no ambiguity about who the leader was. He also had the advantage of the incumbency factor, having been the most recent Prime Minister.
Labour never quite got its leadership act together. Following its defeat in 2008, Helen Clark’s handover of her leadership and exit were hasty and poorly handled in the media. It was as if Phil Goff became the leader purely by default. The party leadership remained invisible for much of the past three years. It is only in the run up to the election that Goff came into himself, though he seemed to be alone – not supported by too many from his own party. He rarely appeared in the party’s visual promotions. Despite 30 years in parliament he needed media training. While it did help project him better, it was a case of too little too late.
The Labour Party risks repeating the same mistake in handling its leadership changeover this time as well.
2. The incumbency factor
New Zealanders rarely boot out a party after only one three-year term. Two terms is generally the norm. National had the advantage of being in power for only the past three years. The leader’s popularity was an added bonus. The country has rarely been faced with as many challenges, all coming together, as it has in the past three years (global financial crisis, Christchurch earthquakes, Pike River disaster) and the general perception has been that the Key government has handled the situation well. The mood was to obviously give it a proper chance this time around.
Labour’s parliamentary performance has been lacklustre and it has hardly done anything against the last Key government’s policies to fire the imagination of the people. It did little to quell the growing perception of contradictions within its own rank and file. It had three years to reorganise and rebuild, bring in new blood, weed out the deadwood and present a rejigged Labour Party for the 21st century – which it failed to do and its senior leaders, fiercely competing for the top job after Goff steps down next week, are doing so so only now.
3. Programmes and manifestoes
National clearly projected its priority: the economy. It was not afraid to present tough options to the people – political parties rarely do that before an election. It talked about a sell down of the government’s minority stake in state owned enterprises – a veritable holy cow in New Zealand. Some 78% of the people were said to be against it. Yet, many of them voted National in. National also talked of less government, potentially meaning culling of public sector jobs – another highly popular measure before an election. It also was not afraid to talk about rationalising the welfare system. In short, it was prepared to do everything it could to reduce the debt mountain.
Labour’s plan was the opposite – borrow more in the short term. It did not seem that the economy was seriously on its agenda. It dwelled on more populist measures – the kind of things some political parties do ahead of elections in India. Instead of explaining its own plans and selling them to the people, the party spent all its time and energy in opposing National’s “mixed ownership model” for SOEs. It failed to come up with anything substantial in a positive way – its focus was largely negative, criticising National’s manifesto, especially toward the end of the campaign. It failed to capitalise on its early, successful attention-catching ideas like increasing the superannuation age to 67 and introducing a capital gains tax.
4. The campaign
National leveraged its leadership charisma, incumbency factor and the wide perception among people that it was somehow better qualified and equipped to deal with the economy to deliver its messages effectively. The fact that it was unafraid to talk of changes to the ownership of SOEs, the welfare system and several other potentially unpopular measures showed strength and resolve, which people obviously bought by the bushel, going by the election results. National came across as the more informed party with a better grip on what is happening and what needs to be done in all the leadership debates than Labour.
Labour’s campaign was fuzzy from the start. Its economic proposals did not seem rooted in reality – something exemplified by its leader’s inability to come up with a credible reply to the famous question popped to him by his rival, “Show me the money”, during a debate. In the final days, Labour showed its extreme desperation by plain and simple scaremongering. It dropped leaflets to expectant mothers that under National they would not live to see their child’s first birthday. No matter how loyal one may be to Labour, one can’t escape the insult to one’s common sense and intelligence that such tactics deliver. That last campaign signaled that the party had lost all hope and was going for broke.
5. Voting patterns and turnout
The quirks of the MMP system made everybody in the Epsom constituency vote “tactically”. Determined not to let ACT win, Labour supporters voted for National and National’s voted for ACT. But National voters heeded the advice following the notorious teacup incident and voted ACT in droves – to ensure support for National in parliament. Labour’s ploy to keep ACT out added to its long list of failures.
Undoubtedly, Labour lost its vote in great numbers to the Green Party, which has come into itself in this election – it is no longer a small party but a medium one and ominously snapping at Labour’s heels. If it keeps the momentum, as it is likely to do under its intelligent and smart dual leadership, it will be a serious magnet for younger, well-informed Labour voters.
The turnout in last month’s election was the lowest ever in New Zealand. It is suspected that significant numbers of traditional Labour supporters did what they did in 2008 – simply stayed away. Both parties had little to inspire youngsters to vote. Add to that the anti-establishment fervour stoked by the worldwide “occupy” movement and you have what happened on polling day – masses of youngsters stayed away, many despite having registered.
Leave a Comment