Post by Crash Post by Rich80105
Two articles which show that there are a few bright spots and lessons
for the National Party that at least some of them understand. They are
unlikely to win in 2023 (although they should win back some who turned
to ACT this year), but by 2026, if they learn the lessons of the 2020
results, there may be hope for them, as by that time, there will be
very few of the current National MPs left in the house
The first article hangs an idea around the experiences of Denise Lee
and hangs out a theory that Lee is in the anti-Collins camp. This is
far from certain - just because Lee justifiably takes exception to
Collins making policy on Auckland Council without consulting Lee (as
National's Local Government spokesperson) does not mean that Lee is
I agree, but the article is speculating that appearing to be may have
influenced votes in her electorate.
Post by Crash
The situation in New Plymouth says more about Labour's candidate (Glen
Bennett) taking a seat where Andrew Little twice failed, the second
with a worse result than the first.
This election was clearly won by Ardern and Labour. While it is clear
this was a rejection for National policies, there is no real basis to
accurately project how much was a policy issue and how much was a
Collins personality issue.
Thre were some quite different but plausible explanations given in the
article; the second article barely mentions the Collins personality
Post by Crash
Going forward, the main story is that Labour need to be seen to
delivering measurable progress against what they said they would do.
National need to either identify the failure to deliver or identify
better alternatives to the path Labour is forging. Who leads National
in Parliament is important, but secondary.
I agree - the second article ended:
"More likely, Labour was just seen as a more stable and capable force
than National. In particular, local government has put a lot of effort
into sketching out a plan for the just transition in Taranaki, but
some were concerned National might scrap that. That level of
uncertainty could be worse for business even if the eventual approach
was more business-friendly - particularly when many in the region
recognise that a transition will have to happen eventually.
Starting that transition sooner gives more time for it to go smoothly.
Otherwise you risk engaging in the same disruptive behaviour as the
surprise ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration.
"I think a vote for Labour was a vote for stability, which is actually
a very conservative way of voting. There were worries that National
would send different disruptive signals to the market and then it was
seen that Labour's done well, we want stability and we also want the
work that we've done, to try to position our region to be successful
into the future, to continue."
Young, too, admitted that National hadn't done enough to offer a
compelling alternative to Labour.
"A huge factor in all of this has been the very poor display of
cohesion that the National Party has shown over the last year," he
"That, I think, contributed to the fact that we did not present
ourselves to be an alternative government. I don't blame anybody if
they didn't have confidence in National, because National didn't prove
themselves to be credible." "
Both articles are taking a measured and broader view of the election
results; the media have been inclined to see all elections as a
comsetition between the leaders, and I do not think this result is
that simple. Safety and stability mean different things to different
people; the economic response to Covid may have been just as important
or in many case more important than the health response for example.