2023 Election live blog

Which I will attempt to update throughout the night, depending on my whims and whether the night seems worth talking about.

This election will be lubricated with Glenglassaugh Revival single Malt.  Never encountered it before and it seems to be a bit of a new thing, though with some sort of pedigree.  I imagine it will taste like whisky.

7.00 I am predicting / guessing the raw numbers will look like:

National   35%

Labour     32%

Greens     14%

ACT         9%

NZ First   6%

TPM         3%

Wasted     2%

Obviously I have National very low and the Greens very high.

That would represent a disaster for National as they have failed to see of a rudderless Labour Party without any vision and with a poor track record beyond their COVID response.  Luxon looked so awkward in the last leader's debate I suspect some will have had last minute qualms.  Would it mean a National government?  That would depend - agonisingly - on inscrutable factors.  Possibly, but hopefully not.  Because a rudderless Labour Party without any vision and with a poor track record will be better than Luxon style National seasoned with David Seymour.

There will be weeks of Winston seeing what he can milk out of the situation.  He wants those baubles, but he also wants to puncture David Seymour.  Keeping ACT sidelined - like he did with the Greens in 2017 - will be a goal.

7.05 Will our next PM be called Chris, Chris ... or Winston? 

7.06 Crikey.  Simon Bridges and Meteria Turei.  Why can't TVNZ get some better politicians to talk?

7.07 The Glenglassaugh is disappointing.  Prickly and astringent, something of nail polish remover in the nose and the mouth.

7.08 Turei describes the Greens as an old party.  Are they now part of the establishment?  Should we be looking for a replacement on the democratic left?

7.12 Shit balls those early votes.  BUT that will (probably) change.  Remember 2005  where National started well ahead and Labour clawed them back.

7.15 Is this Labour's 2001?

7.18 It would be hilarious if - after all his hard work and my earlier comments about him driving David Seymour into the wilderness - he ended up there himself, unneeded and uncalled for ...

7.35 14% in and not much change in the vote share.  NACT are hovering at 50%.  If they start to fall, even slightly, Winston emerges, like some dark monster from the primordial depths ...

7.38 Shane Jones might get back to parliament.  This is getting worse ...

7.40 Jessica Mutch McKay smile beatifically after realising Winston Peters "might not be needed" ... a lot of journalists might be cackling with glee at the thought of his frustration.

7.41 Almost 20% counted and no sense that the numbers are going to move much.  I suspect Labour will be lucky to scrape over 30%.

7.45 As it become more likely National and Act will be able to govern alone, I would like to announce I was right in my prediction - the polls were indeed wrong.  Just the opposite way to how I thought they would err.

8.00 Chris Luxon's kids are better at talking to the media than he is.  I want them to run the country, not him.

8.02 I would like to apologise to New Zealand for giving two ticks to Labour.  I should have remembered I never manage to vote for the winning party.  I note the Greens have done better than they have in the elections where I have voted for them.

8.06 This doesn't feel as gutting to me as the 2019 election in Britain did.  First, as a Scot, I have a visceral response to British politics  I just don't get for NZ politics.  Also, in 2019 I genuinely thought the polls were going to blunder again, in Labour's favour.  I had already accepted National would be the biggest party and the only question would be whether they would be able to govern with ACT or would be forced to negotiate with Winston Peters.  But it is still pretty grim ...

8.17 Will Labour actually get enough MPs to hold a leadership election?

8.23 It looks likely that TPM will win most / all of the Maori electorates and create an overhang in parliament.  This might have the curious effect of denying NACT an outright magority and force them into some sort of seedy arrangement with Winston ... Which would be fun to watch but would probably reinforce the right's desire to get rid of these electorates.

8.26 Searching for any silver linings at all on this grim night,  I was thinking that at least none of the bizarre fringe parties manage to get a toehold.  Then I remember Winston is back ...

8.34 Melissa Lee look likely to take Mount Albert for National.  Given it is Helen Clark and Jacinda Ardern's former seat, does this make her the next leader of the Labour Party?

8.36 David Cunliffe suddenly appears on TVNZ, following Bridges and Turei.  Are they doing some sort of Pokemon style Gotta Get 'Em All with failed former leaders?

8.51 Worth noting that at this stage most of the votes being reported are still advance votes.  Any slight late rally by Labour won't be getting picked up yet.  I don't think it will make much of a difference, but this was always going to be an election decided at the margins.  As on-the-day votes start to get counted, we may still see some shift in the numbers, and that NACT majority start to look questionable.  Could Labour still recover to 30%?  Will NACT stumble?  Will Winston be thrown a lifeline?

9.03 Grant Robertson on TVNZ, looking very chipper, like he is anticipating a promotion.  Third time lucky, eh, Grant?  Based on the current prediction Labour will get 33 MPs, he only needs to persuade 16 of them to vote for him to make it happen.  He’s only 51 – which I no longer consider old – and has plenty of experience and energy. I suspect he’d get it simply because in the aftermath of this walloping no one who makes it back into parliament else will want the gig.

9.14 Labour SURGE to 25.75%!  

9.32 Another micro surge - Labour creep up to 26.03% in the advance votes, dragging the overall tally to 25.95% ... It is strange the advance vote is leading the on-the-day tally.  Did Labour manage to repel voters as the campaign wore on?

9.38 And again, advance votes SURGE to 26.12%; on-the-day creeps up to 25.96%!

9.43 I remember the 2002 election and how for a brief moment the pundits were talking about how National were poised to be the largest party and a 'Grand coalition of the right' might govern New Zealand.  Then it all collapsed to an appalling night for National.  Obviously that is not going to happen tonight but I am intrigued by how National are wavering on the edge of needing a three way coalition to govern, in spite of being up against a tired two term government that has nothing to offer but broken promises, failed pledges and the vague memory of how they maybe once saved the nation from the Covids.

9.55 NACT are only just over 50% now, and then there is the overhang to be negotiated.  I suspect they are going to wake up to a hangover tomorrow and the realisation they might have to give Winston that call.  And he will not be in a mood for compromise.

10.06 NACT dip under 50%.

10.18 David Seymour is speaking, trying to look pleased with the idea of watching Winston eating his lunch tomorrow, and every day for the next three years.

10.24 A curious moment of crossover is about to occur, as Labour's On The Day vote starts to lead the Advance vote.  So now we will see how much difference Angry Chris made.  Of course, we're talking dire numbers here - 26.26% ...

10.27 Jake Tame suddenly looking nervous as he realises everything he's said for the last three hours has been wrong.

10.38 Nat's under 40%.  Act on 9.19% and looking likely to fall off slightly.  In the immortal last words of infamous Scottish cannibal murderer Sawney Bean, "This isn't over!  It will never be over!"

11.05 The Labour SURGE is surging very slowly.  About 0.7% over two hours.  I am beginning to wonder if the South Auckland electorates are going to deliver the boost I anticipated ...

11.12 Still, there are some positives here.  ACT are stalled at 9%, for all David Seymour's antics.  This represents the apex of ACT's power.  They will be dangerous, because they will always be hovering about on the right, always threatening to put National into power.  But they are limited.  No matter how much they try to disguise their economic Darwinist delirium and category error individualism with gurning and twerking, they will never have the influence they seemed to threaten.  So the question is how can we push them into the dustbin of history and make them properly, finally irrelevant?

11.20 I must confess.  For three years (more or less) I have been saying that Christopher Luxon can not possibly be Prime Minister of New Zealand.  I based this on the fact he is bald and bald people are intrinsically off putting.  I speak here as a bald person so I am allowed.  I am willing to confess that - unless "a most amazing miracle" (Ibsen) occurs - I may have been wrong on this.  He seems to be talking about something on TV just now.

11.40 NACT trending towards 48%.  Special votes, overhangs and wasted votes will screw up all calculations for now.  I think National should have put in Labour in 2020 performance.  They fell slightly short, and may live to rue it.

11.41 Jessica Mutch-McKay on Winston Peters making pleasant overtures in his speech earlier in the evening: "In a tone I wasn't expecting from him" i.e. pleasant and conciliatory.  Don't worry, Jess.  Winston is acting nice until he know s what the situation is, then he will tear them to pieces.

12.23  I think I am still awake, though very, very far removed from sober.  TV1 has followed its election coverage with a mockumentary about the spread of Covid in Britain and the Johnson government's flailing incompetence.  Which suggests someone responsible for programing is very astute indeed.

1.08 I know all you lightweights are asleep but the Nats are on 39.99% and ACT might be about to drop below 9%. The NZ film Panthers is on TV1. Feels kinda subversive.

Not surprising

Apparently "centre-right" National will undo all the "tax hikes" that were "imposed" by Labour since 2017:

On Sunday Luxon is giving a “state of the nation” address in Auckland, and it is understood that he will use the speech to announce that National will repeal every extra tax hike or effective tax increases the Government has imposed since Labour came to office in late 2017.

Luxon is expected to also use the speech to outline how the National Party’s centre-right principles can guide New Zealand through a post-Covid world.

What's offensive isn't the disingenuous nature of the implication Labour has raised taxed extravagantly - as opposed to trying to move tax levels back to within (distant) sight of sustainable levels.  It isn't even the signaling of a return to welfare bashing and attacks on state spending (except where roads are concerned.)  That's same old national, doing what National does.

Its the indication the media are buying into this narrative, accepting National's framing of the debate - it is a "centre-right" party and tax increases are "hikes" that were "imposed."

It suggests the media are looking to boost Luxon (why, God, why?) and try to make a fight of next year's election.

Subliminal campaigning?

Spotted on Stuff:

Says it all, really.

The diagnosis isn't good, Judith

Watching National's Health spokesman, Dr Shane Reti, on TVNZ yesterday morning was instructive:

In four minutes, he managed to undermine both his leader and deputy leader - refusing to twist th knife Collins had attempted to plant in Labour, by acknowledging the government was doing "the best they can" and they were confronted with a "hard problem" and referencing a "productive" meeting with Health Minister Chris Hipkins.

This moderate - dare I say commendably mature attitude? - distances him from Collins' complaint about the government withholding information from National and Brownlee's conspiratioral mutterings and indicates a fissure between three of the four most important people in the putative National government just weeks out from the election.

If the chap you've got lined up to be Health minister is quietly signalling he doesn't agree with the leader - in the middle of a pandemic - it doesn't give voters many reasons to be enthusiastic for you.

Covid is kinda of a big deal in 2020 and National have blown their chance to actually make the government look shakey on it by being even shakier themselves.

With the polls suggesting National will struggle to reach the 35% threshold Collins has indicated represents 'victory' in her curiously inverted world, perhaps Reti is looking beyond the election, aware that he has a future – either in in politics, academe or medicine – and Collins and Brownlee do not?

He seems to represent a less dangerous future for National and - given there will occasionally have to be National governments - that needs to be encouraged.  All the more reason for centrists inclined to (sometimes) support National to vote AGAINST the party this year - to crush the Collins leadership and drive her faction (promoted by Cameron Slater and his allies through dirty tricks and blackmail, as outlined in Dirty Politics) out of the party.

Hopey-changey stuff

First of all, people are talking about a 'vote for change' based on the combination of Labour, Greens and New Zealand First.

‘Change’ was not a candidate on the voting paper I saw.

People voted for parties. Those parties need to sort out a coalition / governing arrangement.

Realistically, National are in the stronger position. Winston dislikes the Greens and Labour would have to divide the baubles of office between themselves, NZ 1st and the Greens.

People trying to convince themselves that Lab-Green-NZ 1st is just around the corner are setting themselves up for disappointment. Another one. Gluttons for punishment.

Second, let's be honest about Labour's success.  The Labour-Green bloc is sitting at 41.5%.  This represents a very modest improvement on its performance on 2011 and 2008 (putting aside the disaster of 2014).  Jacindamania didn't really happen, unless something very odd is lurking in the special votes.

Where did Labour's support come from?  Mostly from the Greens and New Zealand 1st, and probably an increase in turnout amongst Labour voters, certainly compared to 2014 ... but it was hardly the tsunami that was needed.

Ardern has, however, done very well.  She deserves the chance to give it a proper go.  The muddled message on tax was damaging.  Her performance in the debates was not as good as her fans think - she resorted to shouting "Who agrees with you?" at Bill English when the tax issue came up, when English was clearly talking about the zero growth in key areas, not Joyce's mythical hole.  It played well with Labour supporters - sock it to him, Jacinda! - but to everyone else it made it look like she was trying to drown the debate on an issue she didn't want to talk about, which, in fairness, she probably was.

There has to be a bit of honest self-examination on the left.

Labour has to look at it why - after nine years of pretty rubbish National government - they are still struggling.  This is not a fundamentally leftwing country that occasionally loses its marbles and votes for National.  It's a right wing country with a bit of a social conscience.  I'm worried that the radicals will start the usual chant that Labour was not bold enough, and would have won if it had been more left wing.  Those are the sort of people who think 2014's disaster was down to 'the media.'  Like I said before, gluttons for punishment.

The Greens have to face up to a very long process of rebuilding.  The demise of the Maori Party and Mana might open up an interesting opportunity for them, particularly if Marama Davidson is confirmed as co-leader.  Will they remain on the left, as the radical wing of the Labour Party or (bearing in mind how Labour has treated them in the past, particularly in 2005) adopt a more centrist position?  The idea is poisonous to a lot of Green voters - but some of them are really Labour voters who want to push Labour left.

I think the Greens supporting National will be too much this time.  But James Shaw is on my radio right now, talking about how Bill English is welcome to call him - perhaps a hint of where Shaw see the Greens in the future.  Their job isn't to deliver disgruntled Labour voters to Labour; their job is to protect the environment.  They can't do that at all from the opposition benches.  They can do something in government.

The 2017 election thread

Pre-Election Witterings (written before polls closed, but not posted until after 7pm)  I gave Ian Lees-Galloway my constituency vote, and my party vote to the Greens.  I wanted to deny National the great city of Palmerston North, and make sure the Greens got into parliament.

As for who forms the government ... I am not feeling optimistic.  Others may have been carried away by Jacindamania, but I have remained dourly unimpressed.

Almost.  It was hard, as the polls seemed to surge ever upwards ... But I felt it would be a struggle for Labour to take the lead, and retain it. The collapse of the Greens and the waning of Winston Peters helped ... But Labour have not made decisive inroads into National's support.

43% seems to be the magic number, allowing a government to be formed with just one significant other.  For Labour, it will (probably) mean they can form a coalition with the Greens (lots of caveats apply) and, perhaps, the Maori Party, and freeze New Zealand first out.  That would be my ideal result.  For National, 43% would mean they can call out to Winston, and their ACT tail-ender.

Unfortunately I think National are more likely to breach 43%.

The other day I predicted Nats on 43% and Labour on 39%.  Banging those figures into the elections calculator gives the following parliament:

• ACT New Zealand - 1 seat
• Greens - 9 seats
• Labour - 47 seats
• Māori Party - 1 seat
• National - 52 seats
• NZ 1st  - 10 seats

Which looks unpleasantly like a National-NZ 1st-ACT coalition government.  I don't think Winston will have a bar of a coalition with the Greens.  He will probably go with the largest party and the simplest (and most flattering for him) arrangement.  That probably means National.

Diligent lurgee watchers will note I've abandoned my hopes of Hone Harawira and Mana staging a comeback in Te Tai Tokerau.  If he does pull it off it may create an overhang; but given Labour's churlish attitude towards Mana, it probably doesn't make things easier for them.

7.03 Listening to coverage with John Campbell.

7.06 Lprent (who told me off for advocating eating the rich, earlier in the day) has an election thread on The Standard.  I imagine it will be a bit livelier than this one.  But mine is best.

7.09 1.8% counted!

7.10 2% counted!  I can't keep up!  Alas, my prediction is very on-the-nose thus far.  I remember 2005, where Labour started well behind and slowly dragged it back, eventually crossing over in the final few votes.  Subsequent elections have been far more static, with the initial figures hardly changing.  I hope for the former, expect the latter.

7.14 I can't hear him, but I can see Mike Hosking.  And Michelle Boag.  This may be more than I can endure.  Time to break out the whisky.

7.20 If my prediction and the early results hold, the left will have to take a long honest look at itself.  This is the National Party shaping up for a forth term, and retain its vote share inspite of losing John Key.  Blunty, they have to acknowledge that this is not a leftwing country that has inexplicably voted for National for a decade; it is a rightwing country that occasionally does the decent thing.  Labour and the wider left will have to reconsider what it stands for.  This isn't how I want things to be, but it is how I think they are.

7.24 Blaming New Zealanders for rejecting Labour - if they have - is to miss the point.  If you can't win against a government that's been hanging about like a bad smell for 9 years, then you have to ask some pretty fundamental questions of yourself and your strategy.

7.26 Winston Peters tells John Campbell he'll only talk once the results are in.  Then shut up, you grisly revenant.

7.29 David Parker is picking up votes in Epsom, inspite of exhortations to the left to vote for National's Paul Goldsmith. My guess is it is ACT supporters getting confused because the Nats were voting Seymour, and the left were voting for Goldsmith.

7.31 Aotearoa Legalise Cannibas on 0.2%.  ACT on 0.4%.  Time to get rid of those absurd fringe parties that no-one really cares about.

7.36 12% counted and - hideously - National are surpassing my prediction.  Currently on 46.5%.  If that is maintained, they'll barely have lost ground from 2014.

7.47 National SLUMP to 46%, with 17% of the vote counted.  Labour SOAR to 36.5%  And Jacinda Ardern is burying Melissa Lee.  Good.

7.56 Stuart Nash ahead in Napier.  I hope he is not entertaining any notion of a leadership challenge.  Ardern has earned a full stint.

7.59 National creep up again, to   46.2%, with 20% counted.  Labour slip a bit to 36.3%.

8.00 I am disappointed.  I hadn't expected Labour to beat National, but it looks like their support has waned in the final days.  Unfortunately, it looks like New Zealand have selected the known Devil over the swanky new one.  Frustratingly, in spite of running against a corrupt, tired and dull government that has more than outstayed its welcome, Labour have failed to do anything more than capture the Green votes lost after Turei's moment of madness.  Still time for things to change, but it's hard to see Labour and Greens putting on 6%.

8.10 there's only one thing for it!  Deploy sentimental 80s soul-lite!

8.12 I'm glad I can only see Mike Hosking.  I don't think I could bear his smugness if I could hear it.

8.17 It looks like David Seymour has got Epsom, so unfortunately ACT will survive yet again.  Frustratingly, David Parker won well over 1300 votes; Seymour's current majority is just over 900 votes.  If the lefties had voted tactically they might have been able to make 2017 the final ACT (see what I did there?)

8.22 Labour still slipping ... now on 36.1% with 25% counted.  National steady on 46.2%.  If Labour drop too far 36%, my earlier warning to Stuart Nash might not be enough.  The whiff of power does strange things to people.

8.25 TOP must be finished.  Gareth Morgan won't have the patience to spend years trying to build up a real party. So, United Future gone, the Maori Party gone, Mana gone, TOP never got there ... Why does ACT have to survive this Massacre of the Minor Parties?

20.32 Labour SLIDE to 36% dead, with 28% counted.

20.38  Labour back up to 36.1%.  Put the leadership bid on ice, Stuart!

8.44 Hone Harawira 1800 votes behind Kelvin Davis.  Mana are finished.

8.48 And now it's National on 46.4% versus Labour in 35.9%, with 31% counted.  This is like 2005 in reverse - the gap is widening as the night wears on.  Basically Labour have cannibalised the Greens.  The actual balance between the right and left blocks hasn't changed.

I'm going to say it - Jacindamania was an illusion.

8.59 Said it before, but it bear repeating - Jeremy Corbyn had two years to get himself dug in and a highly ffective campaigning organisation effectively under his control. Jacinda Ardern only had the useless Labour Party.

9.00 So, a dreadful hour.  Labour slipping and National slowly moving upwards with 41% counted.  The Greens looking safe, thank goodness.  But the other minor parties seem to have been annihilated.  Apart from ACT, which seems to be as unkillable as Michael Myers.

9.18  The whisky is starting to kick in.  I'm numb.

9.25 We've got 57% of the vote counted.  National are still going up, now on 46.7% and 58 seats, with Labour down to 35.5%.  I thought I was being a miserable pessimistic Grinch, predicting 43/39.

9.39 We've got 66% of the vote counted.  National now 46.6% and Labour still 35.5%.  Greens stuck on 5.9%.  Really disappointing result, to be honest.

So it looks like National will need NZ 1st, as all their other options have been annihilated. They are welcome to him. Everything Winston touches turns to excrement. It would almost guarantee a Labour-Green victory in 2020. Whereas a Lab-Green-NZ 1st coalition would see Bill “Third Time Lucky” English installed as PM in 2020, with a majority of about 120.

9.57 Labour creep back up, a whole tenth of a percent.  But there isn't going to be a late surge liek there was in 2005.  Not with 78% of the vote counted.  National 46.5%, and Labour 35.6% .  The Greens slip a bit more, to 5.8%.

10.00 Another hour of scour.  Virtually no change in the relative position of the parties.  Everything seems to be pretty much locked in.  This may be the final posting from lefthandpalm, for tonight.

Bugger

Still, the Greens look safe. That's SOMETHING.

And if NZ First don't get back in (assuming Winston loses Northland and they slip 0.1% more ... Well, I'll try very hard to lament the undemocratic wasted vote while punching the air and and dancing like a jalopy.

IF (big if) the poll is realised on Saturday and we end up with English & Co back in charge again, then Labour have to think pretty hard about why it happened. Putting it down to the greed / stupidity of the electorate isn’t going to help.

Labour have to think why (if) they opted for National. After all, last week the voters were smart and engaged because the Colmar Brunton poll showed them supporting Labour.

Prediction

There's nothing stupider on the internet than putting down your thoughts in an indisputable form.  So that, of course is what I am going to do:


NAT – 42%
LAB – 39%
NZF – 8%
GRE – 6%
TOP – 2%
MAO – 1.5% (With electorate win(s))
MAN – 0.5% (With electorate win)
ACT – 0.5% (With electorate win)
UNF – 0.5%

Sadly, I don't see Labour riding Jacindamania to victory.  National are banging the TAX-FEAR drum very loudly and it will have its usual effect.  A combination of unforgivable unpreparedness on Labour's part, Ardern's gutsy but naive 'Captain's call' on tax, and some bloodyminded mischief from the Greens will probably see Blundering Bill home.

The Greens will (hopefully) avoid the chop.  I'll do my own little bit for them, though resentfully, for any party that is as tactically incompetent as they have been probably deserves oblivion; but I'll sullenly and resentfully give them my party vote because the environment is more important than them or me.

My wild card is Te Tai Tokerau.  I'm going to say Hone Harawira will surprise everyone by reclaiming the seat.  I've got no evidence to support this whatsoever, and I merely proffer the idea in the spirit of mischief.  Davis has been busy doing other things (like confusing everyone over Labour's tax policy) and may not have given his narrow majority enough TLC to fend off Mana, without the Maori Party splitting the vote.

Stray Thoughts on Jacinda Ardern, Jacindamania, Jeremy Corbyn and Other Matters

So, John Armstrong has a column in the New Zealand Herald, encouragingly titled, "How Jacinda's cunning plan fell apart."

In it, the Wise One pontificates on how Jacinda Ardern's strategy (whatever it might be) is coming unravelled, as she faces attacks on tax and is being exposed as being lamentably conservative:

Once again, Labour has been tripped up over tax policy. The only difference this time is that the major Opposition party has been even more helpful by having a whole range of new taxes in its manifesto.

The tax was the early product of Ardern's Brave New World - a world where she intends demonstrating Labour can make the hard decisions.

It took precious little time for Labour to back off the idea as fast as decency allowed. "Let's do this" became "Let's not do that".

Much of Ardern's amazing rapport with voters has sprung from her being something of a female version of John Key - approachable, open, down to earth, not judgmental, and arrogance-free.

But there is one major difference between them. She has insisted any government she runs will listen and then act. It will lead, not follow.

Of particular note has been her declaration that she will not shy away from tackling the "big generational issues".

When it comes to such issues, they do not come any bigger or more vexed than the fairness of the country's tax system and the affordability of current state-funded pension entitlements. With regard to the latter, she has gone Awol.

She has adopted John Key's pledge to resign as prime minister were the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation to be raised under her watch. Likewise were there to be any reduction in current entitlements enjoyed by those who qualify for the state pension.

For someone portraying themselves as giving voice to younger voters, such a stance is an absolute cop-out. It is little short of betrayal.

While I don’t think it is fair to say her plan has fallen apart, I think the charges that Labour have shown themselves to be tactically naive (who would have though National would attack us on tax-and-spend?! We never saw it coming!) and that Ardern is a Clintonesque triangulator rather than a wild-eyed radical is fair enough.

That’s not a bad thing, by the way – a combination of popularity and populism, with a dash of slight left-of-right-of-centre politics is probably a feasible victory strategy.

It isn't Corbynism - no matter how her admirers and detractors try to portray her as a sort of Antipodean Jeremy Corbyn, sans beard.  Nor could it be.  Corbyn had two years and a very effective organisation (Momentum) at his disposal. Jacinda Ardern has nothing but being Jacinda Ardern.

While I'm no starry-eyed admirer of Ardern - she's not radical enough for me in the crucial areas - she’s already managed to do a lot more than I anticipated. I thought her sudden elevation might get Labour to the right side of 30%, not 40%.

Though that in itself is a worry, as the sudden surge of support can run out just as quickly. Assuming, for the moment, that Labour don’t get to form a government, and Ardern retains the leadership - which she has more than earned the right to do - she probably won’t have the same aura of newness, energy and excitement as she does now, and find it harder to reproduce the effect.

Though Labour might have sorted out their tax policy by then …

Apolling Propaganda

So, there have been a couple of polls, apparently.

One - by Reid research - was pleasing for National.  Another - by Colmar Brunton - pleasured Labour.

Over on The Standard, the former was met with howls of despair and derision. Reid Research, apparently, were fully paid up members of the Illuminati-Space Lizard conspiracy. Stephen Joyce personally wrote in the numbers. Or something like that.

The second poll was give a much warmer reception. Indeed, I think some commentators on The Standard would have married the poll, so entranced were they by its appeal. Someone, writing under the anonymous NOTICES AND FEATURES nom-de-plume, rushed out a marriage proposal glowing endorsement. It proved, apparently, that, "The 3 News poll was a rogue."

Whoa, whoa, whoa!  It does no such thing!

The claim that a Colmar Brunto shows a Reid Research poll to have been completely inaccurate is not correct and whoever is writing under the NOTICES AND FEATURES byline should be ashamed of themselves. I suspect they know they are doing a Bad Thing but decided to put it out there anyway for purposes of propaganda.

Comparing the findings of a Colmar Brunton poll and a Reid Research poll does not show one is accurate and one inaccurate. Even comparing several CB polls to the RR poll does not invalidate it. It merely shows that the two companies have different sampling methods and / or process the data differently and obtain different results.

The only things that would show RR’s poll to be a rogue would be further RR polls that show significantly different results; or the election result itself.

You’ll recall that in Britain, Survation was mocked when its polls showed Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party closing in on May’s Conservatives. Other companies showed the Conservatives well ahead. It turned out that Survation was correct and they called the result more accurately than the other companies, by considerable margins. You do not know which polling company has the right formula (or the least wrong, more like) until the real votes are counted. Until then, you can only regard the forecasts with bemused curiosity or phlegmatic disdain.

Do not dismiss the latest RR poll until it is invalidated by further RR polls. The alternative is psephological madness.

You do not get fundamental political changes in a fortnight

Sorry to be both repetitivie and continue Grinchy, but I feel the all consuming urge to rain, Harvey-like, on Labour's parade.  Yes, it is jolly exciting to have Labour actually ahead of National in the polls - without having to include the Greens and New Zealand First to get there - but let's be sensible for a moment, amid the euphoria.

One poll in twelve years?

That doesn't indicate a profound political shift.  People aren't suddenly casting aside their convictions of the last more-than-a-decade, discovering the joys of socialism capitalism-with-a-bit-of-social-conscience.  If it was about policy, people would have been flocking to Andrew Little's (very, very light) red banner.  They didn't exactly flock.

Ardern is waving the same very, very light red banner.  But now the people are flocking.

For a lot of the electorate, Jacinda Ardern is a new shiny object and they are naturally excited by this new toy.  But otherwise, the 'phenomenon' will be a sort of adult fidget spinner – must-have object of fascination for six weeks, then completely forgotten about.

I suppose the question is, will the fad last up to election day? And are we cynical enough to celebrate an election that is won on ephemeral froth, not policy?

I suspect we are.

'Jacindamania' (ugh!) is personality driven stuff - Ardern's youth and vitality contrasting with the drier, more ... senior ... asspect of English and Little.  A lot of it is media driven hype. But the media will bend whatever way they think the wind is blowing. They are no longer the fourth estate, they are just PR and revenue source for their owners.  Right now, Ardern is hot news and click-worthy.

If she actually becomes threatening to the people that own the media and control wealth, she'll suddenly receive a lot less positive coverage.  So she will become a prisoner of her own success - not able to follow whatever radical instincts she may harbour because her success depends - like Tony Blair - on media image.

Grumbles

Over on the Standard, the generally level headed Anthony Robins has rather let the most recent Colmar Brunton go to his head, bravely declaring that we're in a "new political world" (see what I did there?).

At risk of sounding like the perennially Grinchy culturally dislocated Scotsman I am, I have to disagree. It’s the same vacuous, image driven world that it was before. If anything, it’s worse than before.

It’s a sad testament to how shallow our political culture is that replacing a few dour blokes with a sparklier younger leader(1) gives you an almost overnight 20 point boost. It shows us how facile most of people's political decision making is. There isn't much to distinguish Ardern's Labour party, politically and policy wise, from Little's, or Cunliffe's, or Shearer's, of Goff's. They are all run of the mill social-democratic parties offering a fairly insipid bunch of policies so as not to frighten the horses.

The implications of the 'Ardern effect' are a bit troubling to anyone who takes politics too seriously and doesn't want to see it descend into a vapid popularity contest where YOUTH and ENERGY and so on are all that matters. The dramatic improvement in Labour's position under Ardern suggests that policy and ideology and even any sort of strategy beyond having an attractive front of shop is pointless.

Now, it is likely at this moment someone, somewhere is thinking, "Ah, but Jeremy Corbyn ...".  I don't think the comparison to Jeremy Corbyn really holds up.  First of all, Corbyn had been in position much longer and had, effectively, his own campaigning organisation, the much maligned but frighteningly effective Momentum.

Second (or is it third) he had a clear set of policies in his equally derided manifesto - policies which turned out to be as effective in engaging voters as Momentum.  The most dangerous words in leftwing election campaigns are 'poorly defined tax and spending plans'; Ardern and her deputy can't even articulate a consistent message on tax.  What policy Labour has announced is characterised by timidity, not courage.

Also, Corbyn probably benefited from his outsider and underdog status.  He didn't look or behave like a member of the political elite, and his status as a hate-object to Labour and the tabloids probably benefited him as much as it harmed him.  Ardern lacks thirty years of recalitrance and rebellion before she can hope to attain Corbyn's slightly barmy appeal.  She probably also needs to be in Britain for it to really work, as well.

Finally, a word of warning.  The media are not and never will be our friends.  What comes up must come down. The media will have hatchets ready. Expect “Has Ardern’s Bubble Burst?” and “Polls Drop As Voters Face Choice” headlines at the first dip in the polls. The media are more interested in a good knifing than they are in soothing the agitated sensibilities of leftwingers, so the moment they sense it might be worthwhile turning on Ardern, they will. Right now it suits the narrative to talk her up, but that will not last. The story is the story.

1 - My original post on The Standard read "a sparkly young thing," which lead to an entertaining diversion about my patronising, toad-like qualities. I like toads, for what it is worth.

Winnie the Sinnie

So, apparently, Winston Peters has been in a spot of bother this week - either a hapless wronged soul or a fiendish bauble grabber who wanted a bigger slice of superannuation.

Over on The Standard, the redoubtable swordfish - anyone who names themselves after a Tom Waits album is alright with me - brought an analysis posted on Politik NZ to my attention.  Apparently, some Dark Forces within National have spotted that if the Greens fail to make the 5% threshold, and Gareth Morgan's TOP take a couple of percent, the combined wasted vote will mean National will manage to govern alone, or with minimal help from the Usual Suspects.

Also fuelling National's strategy is polling it has which shows the Greens on around three per cent and Gareth Morgan’s Opportunities Party on two per cent.

That was reinforced yesterday with a One News Comar Brunton poll showing the Greens on 3.6% in Whangarei.

The strategy then is clear; to try and boost National's vote --- thought to be in the mid-40s – by two per cent or so, and then to rely on a high wasted vote from the Greens, TOP plus ACT to reduce the percentage it needs to get half the seats in Parliament.

Last election the so-called wasted vote was 7.15%; that meant that to get half the seats in Parliament a party needed to get 46.4% of all the votes.

National got 47% and got 60 seats but because there was a one seat “overhang” caused by Peter Dunne it didn’t quite have a majority.

From here, it follow logically, that  smearing Winston Peters is a political power play.  He isn't needed as a coalition partner, and if NZ First can be beaten down a few points, with some of that support switching to National, Bill's yer uncle.

It's an attractively Cunning Plan, but I think National would have to be a bit daft to try that strategy, to be honest. It relies on the Greens not getting into parliament, alienates a significant potential partner and relies on Boring Bill managing to be more appealing to voters than John Key, and on Ardern not having much of an impact.

Of course, this is New Zealand politics we’re talking about, which seems to be going through one of its mad phases, so who knows?

Death by triangulation

So, apparently there is an election on!

And Donald Trump is president!

And Jeremy Corbyn was not utterly demolished by Theresa May back home in Blighty!

Gosh, what lols you scamps get up to while I'm not looking.

I will try to get myself back into the habit of posting slightly less irregularly.  For the moment, I'm shamelessly going to copy posts I've made over at the Standard, because 'm too lazy to think how to say the same thing in different ways.

So, paid parental leave.  National have announced a policy - 22 weeks of it!  How generous of them!  How bountiful!  Of course, just last year Bill English grinched Sue Moroney's bill to extend it to 26 weeks, which has resulted in a lot of hissing and booing, pantomine style, from the denezins of the left.  How dare these National tykes make off with good Labour policy!

This is at least the third time National and Labour have announced similarish policies - Dunedin Hospital, Doctor's visits, and now paid parental leave.  Labour's offer have generally been more generous (though I'm inclined to favour National's free doctor's visits for children, rather than Labour's more general but not total reduction).

Problem is, a lot of people will look at what the parties are offering and think, “We’d like to do something … But maybe Labour’s idea is too much.” People (unless they are directly affected by in something) like to appear generous, but not too generous.

So complaining that it is a Labour policy, just not as good, is beside the point. National is giving voters reasons to vote National, without feeling too bad about themselves.

I fear Labour face death by a thousand trianglations.

Further rambling on Northland

So, it looks like Peters has this in the bag.  And even more importantly, it looks like ACT will get less than a hundred votes.  Now THAT is worth celebrating.

The triumph of Winston Peters, on the other hand, is not worth celebrating. I won’t be toasting a Peters’ victory. A Labour, Mana or Green victory, yes. But not one that is just going to extend John Key’s reign.

If people seriously think he won't immediately start working out an accommodation with Key, they are fools. Winston is winning it for Winston. He wants to be Minister of something or other. Why do the left never, ever learn from history? This is the farce to the prior tragedy!

Look, I know there is a desperate need on the left to see the words “National defeated” in any context. But this result will change nothing and – given the comparative ease with which Peters has managed it – it raises some troubling questions about Labour’s utter inability to challenge Key.

Sorry to spoil the party, but it isn’t our party. It is the party of Winston Peters, a self serving right wing demagogue. Nothing for progressives to celebrate here. You don’t think it is just a bit sad that we’re reduced to getting all excited about Winston Peters doing the job we’ve been totally incapable of doing?

Without, it must be noted, disturbing a hair of his perfectly coiffured head.

There has been some slightly odd talk of how Labour's 'strategy' has worked, as if setting Winston on Key was part of some grand plan.

What strategy?

The one that involved showing that Key and National are beatable, except by Labour?

I don't see this as a vistory-by-proxy for Labour or progressive politics. I think this is a long term disaster. It changes nothing, other than forcing Key and Peters to get used to working together, making it even less likely NZ First will look Labour’s way in 2017. And if we’re going to be stuck on 30% then, we’ll need the simpering glances of every coquette we can get.

But the likelihood is that, in 2017, our new Bestie will spurn our advances. Mr Key is no fool. He will doubtless recognise Peters – not Labour or the Greens – as the real danger and ensure he is stuffed full of baubles before the end of the week.

A message from the North

The Northland by-election count is under way.

Looks like Winston Peters is going to coast home.  He is already 1,500 votes ahead.

If he does win, I suspect the left will collectively go into a fresh fit of insanity.  You can almost understand.  Any sort of victory over John Key and National has been a long time coming.  Helen Clark couldn't do it.  Phil Goff couldn't do it.  David Shearer didn't get the chance to do it.  David Cunliffe couldn't do it.  Andrew Little, while coming across as affable and competent, hasn't thus far shown much sign of doing it.

Who else, then, but Winston, could do it?

But let's not get over-excited.  Yes, a Peters victory will see the National led government lose its majority.  But that is all.  The only difference is that Winston Peters will now be part of that government.

Don't, for a moment, delude yourself into thinking that Peters is one of us or that he will use his new power to bring the government down.  He isn't interested in that.  He wants to be the government.  He wants those baubles, and John Key will happily hand them out to him.

The message from Northland is not a warning to John Key that his time is up; it is really a bitter dispatch for Labour - If Peters can do this with noting but a twinkle in his eye and good hair, why the Hell have Labour found National so impervious?

Media malice

There has been a lot of talk, over on the Standard and elsewhere, about media bias.  The election was lost because of it.  Cunliffe's leadership ruined because of it.  The Scottish independence referendum lost because of it.  The media are to blame for climate change.  And so on.

The last two may actually have some slight merit.  I commented a few times on the hysterical reaction of the Mail to the possibility of Scotland leaving the union.  If anything though, that showed how powerless the media actually are as opinion shapers.  Inspite of their relentless pro-union coverage, polls narrowed, and unionist panic increased.  In the end, I doubt the Mail's hysteria made a difference.  The final result was what had been predicted in almost every poll - a win for the union camp.

That's an example of genuine, palpable media bias.  But what about the claims of media bias distorting politics in New Zealand?  Are our media really just opinion trumpeters for National and Act?

Yes, ultimately, the mainstream media is in the hands of the capitalist class - of course it is, as it is a means of making money - you wouldn't expect them just to leave something like that just lying around for the proles to get their hands on, do you - but that does not mean that tere is a strong or persistent bias against Labour or in favour of National or Act.  Bluntly, there isn't really enough difference between the National and Labour for it to be worth while running a deliberate campaign to undermine Labour.

There's something similar and more visceral going on here.

The media likes one thing - winners and losers.

Yeah, I know, that's two things.  No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

The media love to celebrate a winner, but even more, they love to put the boot into a loser.  Labour, unfortunately, has been looking like a loser for almost a decade, now.  It's hard not to, when you've churned through a grab back of leaders and the party is polling 30% and National is on 50% (remember those heady days when 30% seemed low!?).  That's why I've always eschewed talk of grant multi-party coalitions.  We live in an MMP environment, but most people don't think MMP.

IF Labour managed to drag the party to the right side of 30% ... (Dare I say the right side of 35%?) and managed to stop the continual factionalism and squabbling, and had a leader with the sort of vim and energy of Norman Kirk, or the grim technocratic authority of Clark, the media would be much more positive towards Labour.  National, of course, has had someone who has looked like a winner since 2006, which is a bit of an advantage for them

Consider how the Greens were treated in the election.  They had a fairly easy time of it.  This wasn't because of Norman's comment about working with National, but because the Greens were seen as a party on the upswing ... so the media - being little more than nasty bullies - didn't put the boot in.  Or contrast the treatment of Don Brash - the media had a field day with him, once they decided he was a rightwing zealot (worse) and a fumbling loser, not the plain speaking champion of middle New Zealand.

Ultimately, the mainstream media exist to sell advertising to people.  As long as they perceive people as being more inclined towards the right, they will pander towards that.  Labour needs to makes itself important and interesting again.  Then the media will be ready to make nice.

What now?

By the time I post this, I suspect David Cunliffe will no longer be the leader of the Labour Party.  He's on his way into a conference with the party's governing council, and he's called a press conference for afterwards.  Those are not great omens.

As I said on election night, I'm indifferent to whether Cunliffe, or Robertson, or Shearer, or Old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh is the leader.  I don't particularly like Cunliffe and I think he comes over as arrogant and (unlike most people) I think he did badly in the debates, waving his hands about and trying to shout over Key and being poorly prepared for blindly obvious attacks.

But when the talent pool is as small as Labour's is, you can't really go about changing your leader every five minutes.  It's  a measure of how few options Labour have that some people are seriously talking about bringing back David Shearer for another shot.  One wonders, what are thinking?  One wonders, what dead animal will he present to parliament this time?

People seem to be fixated on the importance of the leader.  Cunliffe's advocates seemed to think - I remember the conversations on The Standard - that his elevation to the top job would see the party surge to above 40%.  Quite seriously.

I don't blame Cunliffe for the debacle on Saturday night.  It would be beyond the ability of even the most profoundly useless leader - and Cunliffe is/was not profoundly useless - to accomplish that feat, and in just eleven months.

Labour were up against a dreadful political perfect storm - incumbency, a growing economy (though watch this space), the miasma of Dirty Politics which prevented the party getting their own campaign underway, and the profoundly difficult issue that they were massively behind in the polls.  Floating voters obey the laws of gravity.  They will tend to be drawn towards the greater mass.  I'm no mathematician, but I think 45% is bigger than 25%.  And their own overwhelming, systematic incompetence.  Let that never be forgotten.  Like who thought it was a good idea to announce the New Zealand Inc policy - which was interesting and important - on the same day as Dotcom's Big Reveal?

If there is one issue that should always be front and centre of every single Labour campaign it is education.  I'm trying to think of times when it was mentioned in the campaign.  I'm struggling.  I'm sure it was but ... Not exactly with feeling.  It is one issue that the left own and on which National is eternally vulnerable - charter schools!  Novopay!  Classes of over 40!  Branding children losers at 6!  And it is the Great Issue that unites left and centre - because everyone, pretty much, sends their kids to school, or employs people that have been through school.

Now we have an ACT associate minister of education, who will likely be used to front for every hideous policy National want to inflict on New Zealand.  He won't mind the opprobrium heaped on him - he's safe in Epsom, where people are hardly likely to oppose charter schools or bulk funding or support teachers' unions.  It's looking grim for the rest of us, however.  While mouthing sweet nothings over child poverty, Key's government will push through changes that will gut the education system and reinforce the pattern of inter-generational poverty, failure and despair that has blighted New Zealand since the 80s.

I don't care if David Cunliffe is still Labour leader in half an hour's time.  Because it doesn't matter who is.  Until the party sorts out it's prodigious crap mountain, whoever leads it is never going to be Prime Minster.

Election 2014!! The live, rolling, increasingly intoxicated Post From Hell

7.00 - Drinking red (naturally) wine.  A 2011 Mt hector Pinot Noir.  Very nice it is too - likely the last nice thing I may experience for the next couple of hours.  We're doomed, I tell you, doomed!  And if we're not doomed, we may be in even bigger trouble.  Imagine if the person who scheduled the NZ Inc. announcement for the same day as Dotcom's Big Disappointment gets a hand on the levers of power ...

So I am NOT anticipating a good night.  I expect John Key's corrupt, incompetent government to be returned for another three years.  This prospect is, of course, terrible.  The only thing worse might be if it includes ACT.

Still, every cloud has a silver lining.  The next few months should see the slow motion destruction of John Key's reputation and his government's exposure as a bunch of miserable, self-serving conniving liars as Dirty Politics continues to corrode.  By 2017, even the most vindictive lefties and stalwart Tories will be desperate to see National put out of its misery.

So let's get on with it ..

7.01 - Nothing too bad so far.  Other than Mike Hosking.  Which is quite bad enough, really.

7.04 - Will this be a 2005 election, where Labour start miles behind and slowly fights its way back, or like 2008 and and 2011, where Labour starts behind and stays behind?

If it is like the last two, we can put the myth of the mighty Labour vote in South Auckland to bed once and for all - whatever happened in 2005 must have been a once-off.

7.05 - Mike Hosking officially says something stupid, wondering if Labour 'might' increase their share of the vote from 19% of early votes.  took him just five minutes.  Which is probably an improvement.

7.10  Early numbers show the Nats on 50.9% with 3.5% counted ... Are they about to dip under 50%? that's a pretty quick falling away.  A percent off for every percent counted.  Long may it continue!

7.13 - Nats on 50%, falling fast.  Dare I say they will end up on 40%?

7.16 - A majority of the 7.2% of votes counted reject John Key!  There is hope for the nation!

7.19 - The conservatives are hovering about 4.6%.  In the interests of democracy, I'd rather the they got 5.1% rather than 4.9%.  I hate to see votes wasted, even when they are for ridiculous parties.  I'd much prefer to see then get no votes at all, of course.

7.23 - If this is going to be a 2005 election, then National could be in trouble.  In 2005, Labour started very far behind (just like tonight) and dragged it back at 1% per 10% counted.  If that happens tonight, then Labour will be comfortably above 30%.  Of course, that didn't happen in 2008 and 2011, so the odds are it won't happen ...

7.24 - Mike Hosking must have almost choked on that grudging praise for Cunliffe - "A better opponent" than anticipated!  Piss off, Mike!

7.29 - National on 48.6, so falling away nicely.  But where is it going?  Labour seem stuck on 23.5%.

19.31 - 431 people in Epsom have voted for Christine Ranking (thus far)?  Oh dear.

19.37 - Mike Hosking is a national embarrassment.

19.42 - Has everyone stopped counting?  We've been stuck about 15% for yonks.

19.50 - Just piss off, Mike Hosking, with your inane right-wing, biased unprofessional bleating.

19.56 - Ahahahahahaha.  One of Hosking's studio commentators just tried to mention Nick Hager.  Hosking immediately tried to cut him off and then terminated the conversation.  What a dick.

20.04 - Count, New Zealand!

20.08 - Percentage counted is starting to move again.  18.2% in.  Unfortunately, National are still stubbornly above 48%.  Have they not read the script?

20.10 - Greens are in ‘Desperate trouble’ according to Hosking. I think I might be complaining, tomorrow, when the hangover clears.  They've actually just topped 10%, so building nicely.

20.17 - Insanely, National's vote is going UP as more votes are counted.  Only very marginally, from about 48.4% to 48.5% - but it is still abhorrent and wrong and entirely at odds with the Laws of Electoral Physics.

20.20 - Labour might FINALLY be about to trip over 24%.  EDIT - That was based on TV1 figures.  But the official Election Results website still has them stuck below what TV1 is showing.

20.27 - According to the Election results website, National's share of the vote is climbing.  It's now at 48.57.  This is MADNESS!!

20.28 - 48.71%.

20.29 - 48.75%

20.32 - 48.81% ... Then 48.79% ... THE TIDE HAS TURNED!!

20.33 - Unfortunately, Labour are also going backwards.  23.70%.

20.34 - National 48.83.  Damn it, I said THE TIDE HAS TURNED!!  Listen to me, New Zealand.

20.35 - National collapse to 48.75%.  Mwahahahahaha!  The rout commences!  I'm going to stop doing this now ...

20.40 - So, a quarter of the votes have been counted.  National are sitting on 48%.  Labour are mired on 23.5%.  The Greens and NZ First are both about 9-10%.  Mana will get 2 MPs on current figures.  Ditto Maori.  Obviously, that's good news for one party but not for the other.  Singletons for ACT and UF.

I'm prediciting the Labour and the Greens may get another 3%.  But hopes (or fears) of a grand coalition of the left are looking very faint.

20.43 - And no sooner do I post that than National's share of the vote goes up and Labour's goes down ... 48.84% versus 23.75%.  The horror!  The horror!

20.49  - National hit 49% of the party vote. (And then immediately drop back to 48.96% .. I feel like I'm being toyed with!)

20.51 - Michelle Boag sounds sane compared to Mike Hosking.

20.52 - National plummet to 48.90%!!  They are being driven from the field in total disorder!!

21.00 - We have a third of the vote in now.  National are still riding very high at 48.9% of the vote.  Labour are sinking, slowly.  And everything else is as it was 20 minutes ago, when we had a fifth in.  Once we get up to half way, I think we may see a bit of movement in the left vote.  Upwards movement, I mean.  But by that point, the amount of vote left to effect a change with will be very, very small.

21.04 - Colin Craig doesn't like "the system" - presumably he means MMP.  Does he actually believe he would be doing better under First Past The Post?

21.06 - Internet Mana have just vanished from the Election Results website 'Sets' column.  Davis must be sneaking ahead.  I think Harawira will get there in the end, but it is carnage out there.  Carnage.

21.10 - National only getting 62 seats, down from 62 a moment ago.  Unfortunately, that's at least 10 too many.  Labour finally creep up to 31 seats.  31.

21.12 - Election Results website has half the results in.  Nothing has changed.  National still just under 49%.  Labour just under 24%.  Yes, you read that right.  Twenty four per cent.  Greens and NZ First both under 10%.  Conservatives and IMP heading to the dustbin of history.

21.16 - It's 2011 all over again.  Only with (thus far) less voting for the left.

21.18 - 55.9% counted and Labour mustering up some courage and edging up to the big bad 24% mark ...

21.22 - Whatever the final result in Te Tai Tokerau, I did say that linking up with Kim Dotcom was a very bad idea.  I'm rather sad that I'm being proven right.

21.24 - National currently able to govern alone, assuming the Conservatives don't enjoy a late surge.

21.25 - Labour teeters on the edge at 23.96% of the vote!  Come on!  You can do it!

21.26 - 24%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Next goal!  Matching Phil Goff's 27.48%!!

21.27 - 24.02%!  The Long March has started!  Onwards to victory!

21.30  - Labour negatively surge to 23.95%  A cunning flanking move that will leave National nonplussed!

21.36 - On a more serious note, Labour seem to have moved decisively across the 24% boundary.  Yay!!  Almost 1 in 4 voting New Zealanders was not totally repelled by Labour!!  And National are sinking like a very light, floaty stone, all the way down to 48.67%!  This is massive and John Key really must resign.  Right now.

21.36 - Some (comparatively) serious movement with the Labour numbers now.  24.19%.  Cunliffe might just get enough to hang on.

21.42 - National now definitely trending downwards.  Labour moving upwards.  Too little, too late, with 75% counted.  How could the left have screwed this up so badly?

21.54 - greens building, slowly.  They need to get to 12%, or 13% for respectabilty.  I think they will make it, because once the conservative wasted vote is taken out, they'll have a bigger share of the leftovers, and specials and so on.

22.07 - Well, at least we can discard the comforting myth of the 'big urban centres coming in late.'  Guess what?  Whoever swung it for Labour late in the day in 2005 isn't there any more.  If they were, they'd have shown up tonight.  They've managed to do worse than in 2011 and they had almost everything going in their favour.  And.  They.  Blew.  It.

22.14 - If ... IF ... Hone survives in Te Tai Tokerau ... Perhaps he'll realise the link up with the Internet Party was utterly stupid.  He could have done it by himself.  Perhaps - just perhaps - he might have brought another MP with him.  He could have looked to being the main party of the Maori seats.  But.  He.  Also.  Blew.  It.

22.26 - So, should David Cunliffe resign?  I don't care.  This isn't about Cunliffe.  If every single vote that was lost between 2011 and 2014 was lost because of Cunliffe, it was hardly important.  There is a deeper issue here than who fronts at PMQs.  Cunliffe is perfectly adequate (as Shearer was perfectly adequate, and Goff was perfectly adequate)  but he is leading a party that is intent on self destruction.

Arguing with the leftier left for the last three years over on the Standard, I've become unhappily convinced there is a curious self destructive urge on the left.  They are so possessed by hatred of the middleclasses that they have lost sight of the real enemy.

Please, just accept, that middle classes are people too, and Social Democrats are as viable members of the Labour party as Socialists. Stop fighting them. Look where it has got you. 24%. Outstanding.

YOU CAN NOT WIN WITH OUT THE CENTRE.

There are enough sane, decent, middle class, who can be united with the working class to win every election. They are not the enem.

Remember the 99% vs the 1%?

22.35 - Laila Harre gets to oversee the destruction of another party.  Three hours ago I had respect for her.  Now she's successfully destroyed two leftwing parties.

22.38 - On a more positive note, ACT have only 0.68% of the vote.  Over 99% of New Zealanders are not insane.

22.42 - Labour make a late surge to 24.5%!!!  It ain't over until the fat lady sings!

22.46 - OMG!! I'd completely forgotten about the contest in Palmerston North, between Iain Lees Galloway and Jono Naylor.  It turns out that - against the odds - I've managed to be on the winning side in at least one election in 2014.  Normal service will be resumed shortly, I'm sure ... Lees-Galloway won, comfortably, and given the current state of theparty must be wondering if he might be in charge in 2017.  It isn't a ery broad, or deep, talent pool.

22.49 - Cunliffe stayed put for ages.  He must have been watching the percentages to see if he could survive.  What was his 'hang on' figure??????????????????????  Surely not 24.5%??

23.03 Obviously, it was 24.5%.

23.10 - National currently on 61 seats, but that's including (I think) the conservatives in the equation and not including special votes.  They might still get pushed down below 50% ... It is a measure of how disappointing this night has been that the idea of National being denied the chance to govern alone feels like a victory.

23.19 - Judith Collins retuned with a majority of almost 5000.  The icing on tonight's cake of shit.

23.37 - Bloody Hell.  Keys forcing me to crack open the scotch.

23.44 - Actually, with more time to consider the strategic situation, the return of Collins to the front bench is the best outcome we can hope for … Should make 2017 a walk in the (red) park.

23.47 - As if the night could not get any worse, I've jsut realised Mike Hosking has been proven right all down the line.  Disaster for Labour.  Disaster for Mana.  Disaster for the Greens.  Triumph for Hosking.

23.50 - Mana polled 5 times as much as United Future.  The Conservatives polled EIGHTEEN times more than United Future.  guess which party gets an MP?

Prediction

Following my discovery that other people are allowed to vote in this election thing that is going on - and here I was thinking all the fuss was about me and my vote and nothing else - I have decided the rest of you should vote in the following way:

• Nat 43%
• Labour 27.5%
• Greens 13%
• NZF 7% 
• Con 4%
• IMP 2% and holding Te Tai Tokerau
• Maori 1.5% but holding two Maori seats 
• ACT, UF <1 but="" each="" electorates="" holding="" li="">

Which, if it comes to pass, will give us:

• National 54
• Labour 34
• Greens 16
• NZ First 9
• Mana 3
• Maori 2
• ACT 1
• UF 1

Which gives the Labour Green bloc 50 MPs, and the National-ACT bloc 55.

So it comes down, preditably, to Which way NZ First will jump.  I would assume he would go with National as the largest party - but Winston has been making sufficient noises to make me wonder if he would sooner play the role of constructive opposition, allowing him to make a lot of noise and exert influence while not being embroiled in what I suspect will be a massively unpopular government.

Obviously, the exclusion of the Conservative Party will be significant.  If they do manage to scrape in at 5%, that changes everything, utterly.  Even though I dislike everything about them, from Colin Craig' silly alliterative name to their policies, I would actually prefer them to do that - I don't like wasted votes.  Ideally, the 5% threshold should go.  If New Zealanders want to vote for silly parties, then they can have a silly parliament.  In the meantime, I don't like the idea of people's views being excluded, even if I disagree with them, because of a stupid rule.

UF and Maori Party are also up for grabs, I think - they might tend to National but I think they could support a Labour lead goverment.  And if Mana can't be partof a Labour lead government - a very short sighted decision by Cunliffe - they can perhaps still play a positive role through confidence and supply arrangements - a position they might enjoy as much as Peters would.

You notice I don't mention the Internet Party.  If Harre makes it into parliament, I wouldn't be surprised if the Internet Party simple dissolves itself into Mana.  Dotcom will not find it useful for his continued efforts to avoid justice.

So, sadly, it looks like tomorrow will result in a period of anarchy, possibly leading to the Zombie Apocalypse.