How Labour use MMP like Oracle would to win 2014

1. Wise counsel. Time to shift from the failed Shearer/Pagani strategy of ignoring the 800k disengaged voters, and act tactically to remove this terrible government, and that means collaborating with the Greens just as you outlined.

2. I’m a GP supporter and totally believe that where a GP candidate will lose Labour a seat, we should not have one.

   • This goes both ways though. In seats where a Green with a strong local profile has a better chance of unseating a National incumbent than the Labour candidate, Labour should be the one tactically withdrawing their candidate.

     Having seen Chauvel in action when I ran in Ohariu in 2008, I too would love to see him back to face down Dunney in 2014. However, I think there needs to be at least one candidate from a smaller, radical party who can take Dunne to task for his pathetic self-serving actions over the GCSB etc, while Chauvel takes the moral high ground and focuses on what he can offer the electorate as a local MP.

3. The other thing Oracle did was to make the NZ team (and the NZ media) believe they had it in the bag, hanging back and playing it cool/dumb/out to lunch, cricket, U.N.security council speed-dating etc while the favorites blew all their energy. MMP’s a no-brainer, getting the lost voters back to consciousness is going to be a big task and pooler bunfight’s on to that strategy:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/business/the-mental-strain-of-making-do-with-less.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
   Meanwhile, D.C. will have to go into lockdown and get someone to test his sandwiches- not kidding- and takeout coffee from now on, as they’re considering closing down MP’s cafes and restaurants.
   “Paranoia is the greatest form of self preservation'” William S.Burroughs

   • totally agree with the paranoia bit. DC will have to watch his back and not watch TV. and it’s only paranoia if it’s not true.

4. About time someone said this.

5. there’ds really not much point in co-operation between the Greens and Labour in electorates, because both parties are safely above the 5% threshold, so the total number of seats in Parliament they get is determined entirely by party votes anyway. (Ohariu is an exception to this, because there’s a chance of getting Peter Dunne and his ‘party’ out of parliament)

   I agree with your other points, about showing they can work together, and standing aside to help Mana win some more electorates.

   I also think engaging those 800000 non-voters has got to be a big part of defeating National.

   • You missed the point entirely Caroline. Its not about getting above 5%, its about ensuring electorates remain in left hands. As bomber has already pointed out (which you would have seen had you read the post) marginal electorate seats like Ohariu, Auckland Central would have stayed with Labour had the greens not stood a candidate.

     What then in the case of Christchurch Central? Had the greens not stood a candidate there, Nicky Wagner would not be their useless electorate MP

     • James, I did read the post.

       In the post, Martyn said that such tactical voting would help a Labour/Green coalition to win. It would not, because the number of seats each party was entitled to would not change. The Greens and Labour would probably both get more electorates, but because they both get over the 5% threshold to be eligible for list seats, they would both lose one list seat for each additional elecotrate seat they won, meaning no extra seats in total and no greater chance of forming a government.

       winning more electorate seats has a little bit of value, because electorate MPs do get more secretarial support than list MPs, but because it does not increase the parties’ combined representation in parliament, it is no help to winning elections.

       • Winning electoral seats from one man bands helps the left. Proportionality increases with party votes so list seats would not be greatly affected.

         • I think Caroline is correct about the vital importance of getting through to and inspiring the 800,000 who were MIA in 2011. Bradbury has correctly identified these voters as being mostly left wing, because if they were centre, centre right, or right wing, then they would have voted National, ACT, NZF, or even UF.
           However, I do think that making deals over electorates has a part to play in showing that the left is a well-integrated coalition which is serious about governing and able to dispel the concern, as Bradbury has articulated above, that “if they can’t work together for the best interests of the Country before the elections, how can they do it afterwards?” He is right, the coalition is already a de facto reality. Why start the relationship after the election and try to balance governing with getting used to respecting and negotiating one another’s boundaries? That’s a recipe for a mess.

           Do we want to win, or what?

         • yep. Electorate co-operation is useful where it stops John Banks or Peter Dunne from winning, because they don’t have list seat entitlements to make up the difference. The other context where it would be helpful is in helping Mana to win some more electorates.

           • I think that kind of co-operation does a disservice to voters. They deserve a full slate of candidates to choose from. The argument could be made in Ōhariu or Epsom, because the Right already do it themselves.

             But in the Māori electorates I think it would certainly backfire. My experience has been that Māori appreciate diverse choice, and often determine their party vote based on whether that party has a local representative standing and the strength of that representative. Also, the Māori electorates themselves are very diverse, so a blanket “let’s all help Mana win seats” would certainly backfire in some seats.

             Mana are strong in Te Tai Tokerau, Waiariki and Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. In all three seats it’s because of the strength and popularity of Mana’s candidates there, and to a lesser extent the demographics.

             But for example in Te Tai Tonga, Mana trailed far behind Labour, Māori Party and the Greens.

             I see Labour’s chances of helping Mana in the Māori seats as somewhere very near 0%. Shane Jones (or Cunliffe for that matter) would never allow it. They have made it clear that they want all seven seats back.

             • I think that voters want a change of Government and want to see political parties on the left work together before the election so they can prove that they can work together after the election.

               I think you are being purposely negative of this strategy as it may damage your own to political aspirations inside the Greens within Maoridom. I would argue changing the Government trumps petty political egos.

               As for your last paragraph, I have to admit I am going to enjoy reminding you of this post before the next election.

               • My comments didn’t have anything to do with ego. The comments about Labour were based on their own comments and the unlikelihood of them collaborating with a small party like Mana. Theres no doubt that I have aspirations for the Greens in the Maori seats, but if Labour stood aside for Mana, that would only help the Greens so I can assure that didn’t have anything to do with my comments. Your right that voters want unity and to get rid of the Government, but not at the expense of healthy democratic contest. I think you are proving that you are the one who uses viciousness, not Green supporters. “Petty political ego”, was that really nessecary?

                 • Kia ora Jack

                   My focus is on getting this Government out and putting a progressive one in, your position within the Greens and your attempt to green the Maori electorates wouldn’t be aided by the strategy I am proposing and that’s why I see your criticisms in the realm of petty personal political egos.

                   Kindest of regards

               • Hey Martyn,
                 It’s a shame that you’ve chosen to personalise Jack’s comment rather than engaging with his argument.
                 How come when you propose Labour and Mana collaborate to remove choice for Maori voters it is because “voters want to see parties on the left work together” but when National do it in Ohariu or Epsom it is some kind of dodgy travesty against democracy. I think voters on both sides dissaprove of this kind of gaming and if Labour (who currently get around half or more of the Maori party vote) decided not to stand candidates in the Maori seats this would be a huge disrespect to the voters of those electorates.
                 I know you are a big supporter of Mana and that’s great. But at the end of the day Mana hold Te Tai Tokerau as a pretty safe seat – this exempts them from the 5% threshold. They don’t need the largest party in the Maori seats to do them a deal in other seats in order to get a second MP in parliament. They need to get more than arund 1.8% of the party vote. If getting 1.8% of the party vote is to big a hurdle for a party that bills itself as a grassroots popular movement then perhaps that is the real issue and not which candidates are standing in which electorates.

           • Caroline is correct! These are the only situations where MMP can be played to influence the result of an election.

             Stopping National from winning any other electorate is only cosmetic, but I would certainly be happy not to see Paula Bennett’s smirking Waitakere office face on my way to work each day.

6. You really don’t get it. Here’s Key’s quote from yesterday:

   morally I think a lot of New Zealanders would think the biggest party should [govern]

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9206023/Labour-surges-in-latest-poll

   Over at Whale they are already running the line that “a government not led by the largest party will be illegitimate”. Can you spell “Νικόλαος Γ. Μιχαλολιάκος” or “Killah P”? Because the “Whale Army” sure as fuck can – they’re getting ready to relitigate the next election in the streets.

   • They will talk their usual quota of horseshit, but if National can’t present the Governor General with credible numbers, he is obliged to offer the opposition a chance to submit theirs. That’s why Don Brash refused to concede for so long after the ’05 election – had Helen handled Winston badly, Don could have snatched the prize. Of course the Whale and his sycophants will do everything they can to minimise this precedent, but a precedent it is, and one set by National.

   • John Key worrying about morality in itself is amusing however its utterly irrelevant. As Bomber points out its the win that counts lets worry about the majority of actual people looking for a change rather than those that vote for an individual party.

   • I don’t think most of the Blubber Army could actually find their way from their keyboards to the street. If they do, we know how to answer their racist hate speech anyway. It wouldn’t take much before they’d be running back home to the welcoming arms of their blow up Crusher Collins dolls.

7. A grand coalition of Greens, Labour and Mana? Many Labour supporters would have a problem with Green policies, few non- Mana supporters trust a Harewira; the Greens would push hard for dominance, and it would take a political genius to hold it all together, let alone persuade the public to vote for such a mix.

   • Actually all it takes is for us all to ask if it’d really be worse sharing power than sitting in opposition for 3 more years. The Greens have worked way to hard to establish their credibility to blow it trying to do too much too soon. They saw how it worked out for the Alliance.

   • Who is “Harewira” and the question is not about Labour trusting the Mana leadership it’s wether labour can be trusted to not breach the Treaty of Waitangi as in the last foreshore fiasco. I believe Mana should stay away from any coalition with Labour because they are the problem they broke away from their core values of socialism in 1984. It’s not the same party Mickey Savage made if alive today he would join Mana. Aunty Helen the daughter of a national party president moved labour so far right it’s no longer left.

8. And as for tactics – Labour is set to fuck itself by trying to recapture the Maori seats. Electorate MPs whose party gets zero party votes are basically free: if all the Maori seats went MANA – while all the Maori seat party votes go to Labour, that’s seven free seats for the left. Which is no doubt why the Whale Army call MMP the Maorimander – but with Labour set to win most of those seats, that on its own pretty much guarantees another couple of terms for the Nats.

   Other than that: if even half Labour voter split their party vote Green, then’d be a Labour/Green government – unless National & ACT pulled the same trick.

   • Taken to it’s logical conclusion Labour could run a party vote campaign, withdraw all their electorate candidates and replace them with a list of ‘independents’ running under a ‘Labore Party’ banner. Suddenly this opens up 72 ‘free’ electorates and delivers a massive landslide victory to the left (at least until National do exactly the same thing).

     The strategy you are describing is called Implicit Collusion or Decoy Lists. It is the most obvious way to abuse the MMP model – it has been used by such bastions of democracy and electoral stability as Albania, Italy, Lesotho and Venezuela:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation#Implicit_collusion

     The outcome is pretty much always the same, widespread frustration amongst the voting public and a reform of the voting system to stop the abuses. In New Zealand the most likely reforms of the voting system would either be a shift back to FPP which would hugely benefit National or a shift to a proper list only proportional representation system which would benefit Labour, National and the Greens at the expense of Mana and the Maori Party.

     Those who believe that distorting MMP will benefit Maori should be careful what they wish for…

9. Wasn’t there some sort of arrangement between Labour and The Greens in 1999 so that Jeanette Fitzimmons won Coromandel and the GP was able to support Labour forming the government?

   • GP didn’t suppory labour and from memory there was no c&s arrangement either as Labours coalition partner was alliance. Helen and Jeanette worked together in order to stop Sandra Coney? from winning Coromandel. It has been done before, and should be done again but too many party strategists (read Mallard) keep thinking of how to win an election under FPP. I’d put my money on making Galloway the campaign manager for next year. That man knows how to work it!

     • IIRC Helen Clark dropped hints that Labour voters should give their candidate votes to Jeanette Fitzsimons in Coromandel in 1999, just without any official agreement. Likewise, in 2011, Gareth Hughes dropped hints that Green supporters in Ohariu should give their candidate votes to Charles Chauvel rather than to him.

       After the election there was a confidence and supply agreement in which the Greens supported Labour on confidence and supply, but not in return for any ministerial portfolios.

   • Labour did all it could to stop Jeanette Fitzsimons winning Coromandel, so she had to beat National, Labour, and the Alliance which was also ferociously anti-her. The Alliance was sulking because the Greens had just left the Alliance. The Left is hopeless when it comes to working together to defeat a candidate of the Right. They are too busy competing against each other.

10. “Every mainstream media Pundit keeps calling for Cunliffe to start Green bashing to win Green Party votes”

    Mainstream media is a dog – chowing down on it’s own regurgitations.

11. Myself and my friends have been pushing use the Tactical vote….

    On facebook one GP supporter disagreed with this and I soon slapped her down by saying Party vote sure worked for your party

    It is adamant we need to utilize this strategy in ’14..
    If we dont we stand the good chance of losing……

    We need a list of all seats in which to employ this tactic

    Then get it out in amongst the LEFT supporters…..

    Expect the NActs to repeat this strategy for Wanksy and the hairpiece

12. The problem with a party not standing in an electorate is that it makes local campaigning (via “meet the candidates” meetings and the like) harder to do.

    Remember the Greens have never actively campaigned for an electorate seat outside of Coromandel. They stand in electorates to purely help their party vote share as it is.

    • You could stand a candidate and withdraw them at the 11th hour, or have them campaign for the party vote but explicitly endorse another party’s candidate. However, to be honest, the underlying idea of Bomber’s strategy advice here in more FPP than I’m comfortable with. The world isn’t nearly divided into ‘left’ and ‘right’ (see the Political Compass for a more nuanced view), and there are some policies on which the Greens are more aligned with National’s philosophy than Labour’s.

      I’d rather see each party campaign on their particularly palette of policies and solutions, and let the voters decide which party most closely approximates their complex of political views, rather than lowering ourselves to NatACT style manipulation of the results. Mind you for that to really work, we’d have to get rid of the 5% threshold which gives an unfair advantage to established parties…

13. I have a problem with “cup of tea” deals. They are patronising and anti-democratic. If the Greens were hovering below the threshold or if they were (like JK’s friends on the Right) a one trick pony, needing a specific electorate seat to be a presence in the next parliament then the party supporters (of both parties) may have to have a long think about this, but as it is the list rankings are the best way to make sure any key people are retained and actually getting out there with a message and some talented people is the best way to give people a reason to vote Left (indeeed, to vote at all).

    BTW, it might seem like a small thing to you, mate, but I (a vegan) get enough shit thrown at me by close-minded conservatives for my moral/political/environmental beliefs (& yes, veganism is an expression of all of these) – I don’t appreciate it when I come to sites like this. A bit of an irony when you are discussing the need to unify and seek commonalities while allowing for differences, don’t you think?

    Practise what you preach.

    • While such nose holding is admirable, my focus is more on removing this Government and the damage they are causing. Petty political egos are fine in opposition, very unhelpful when in Government and removing one of the most popular PMs in recent history is going to require far more strategic talent than ‘just go out there with the best people and win’ types of naivety.

      If the only thing you took from this very widely read post was a personal slight at my hilarious comment regarding the viciousness of green Party supporters, then I thank you for helping illustrate the point I was making.

      Cheers

14. Needing to engage:

    1. the 800,000 who did not vote. Motivate them to vote and the Nats will be consigned to Opposition benches for a decade.

    2. Tenants of state housing. Remind them of Nat’s threat to evict them from their homes.

    3. Welfare recipients. How much more victimisation is tolerated before they fight back. The Vote is always more effective than an axe through an electorate office window.

    As for Key and Whale’s assertion that the largest party should govern – they need to be prodded with a big pointy stick and reminded that this is MMP and not FPP. Such arrogance…

    I’m waiting for Key to suggest we do away with elections altogether…

15. Of course, none of these silly deals would be needed at all if we would take two steps to make our parliament more democratic and our elections fairer:
    1) Remove the 5% threshold. If you get enough party votes for a seat, you should get in. None of this whole elections swinging on whether someone gets 4.5% or 5.1% nonsense.
    Yes, this will let crazies or gimmick parties in from time to time. But people fairly choose these parties – and voters anyway are inclined to ditch parties that don’t do their job properly, as evidenced by certain formerly substantial parties now polling 1% or less. A crazies or gimmick party has to perform (from the point of view of its voters) to get re-elected.

    2) Introduce preferential voting in electorates. This gets rid of ludicrous situations involving cups of tea and allows minor party voters to safely vote their candidate as preference 1 and have fall-back options.

    • That’s lovely, but seeing as none of what you suggest can be adopted within 13months to the next election, let’s stick with tactics that are implementable.

16. […] Green’s Emerald Stormtroopers wouldn’t be happy and that would be a […]

17. […] While Dunne’s attack on the Green Party is ridiculous, his criticism does carry a grain of truth in it. As I have previously posted… […]

Comments are closed.