It appears that the chances of New Zealand First being returned to Parliament in this year’s general election are becoming rather slim. Although the party’s just received a fair bit of media attention this weekend because of its conference and Winston Peters’ usual capacity to get headlines, he doesn’t really seem to be coming up with the goods in the way that he used to. Peters has always been a dynamic political campaigning, who shouldn’t easily be written off, but it finally appears that he’s becoming rather lacklustre and tired. Certainly his attempts at differentiating NZ First from the other major and minor parties are looking fairly weak. His latest policy focus seems particularly ineffective. So is there actually a political-electoral space for Peters and his party? Does anyone really want to buy what Winston Peters is selling? This is still a partially open question, and so it’s anyone’s guess as to whether NZ First will be victorious in its quest to return to Parliament this year. The party will obviously need to cross the crucial 5% threshold to do so, and most polls suggest that NZ First is well short of being within striking distance. I was interviewed on the subject last night by TVNZ7 News – which you can watch here – and this blog post elaborates on some of those points made. [Read more below].
There is a lot of talk in the media at the moment about a New Zealand First comeback. This is because some recent opinion polls have indicated that the party has public support in the range of 3-6%, suggesting that the party might make a return to Parliament in the 2011 general election, and thereby be a significant force in deciding whether Labour or National will get to lead the next government. But is there actually a political-electoral space for Peters and his party? Does anyone really want to buy what Winston Peters is selling? This is an open question, and so it’s anyone’s guess as to whether NZ First will be victorious in its quest to return to Parliament next year. The party will obviously need to cross the crucial 5% threshold to do so, but according to iPredict the party is currently predicted to win 5.0% of the party vote in next year’s election, although somewhat paradoxically, the iPredict market also currently says that there is only a 31% chance that Winston Peters will be back in Parliament (see here). This blog post discusses these issues and also reports on the state of New Zealand First with some information from a party insider. [Read more below]
New Zealand First’s electoral death was one of the major outcomes of the 2008 general election, yet we haven’t seen much analysis of why the party failed (although my attempt can be found here). The party itself is rather secretive and normally rather uncooperative with any such investigation by the media or academics. Partly making up for this lacunae is the very useful chapter by Damian Edwards (an ex-Ministerial Advisor to Winston Peters) on the party’s campaign in the new post-election book Key to Victory: The New Zealand General Election of 2008 edited by Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts. We find out that the main causes of NZ First’s loss were the media and the Labour Party. And NZ First’s “save your grandma” campaign wasn’t successful enough to get the party over the 5% threshold. [Read more below]
To what extent does the
left-right political dimension still structure political party competition in
New Zealand politics? Where do the parties sit on that spectrum? What other
political dimensions now underpin our electoral politics? This extensive blog
post presents the findings of a regular survey of New Zealand political
scientists about party ideological conflict that has been carried out for the
three MMP general elections of 1996, 2002, and 2008. Explaining the results,
and drawing on some previous blog posts, it argues that the left-right spectrum
is of declining importance in New Zealand politics, and that ideological
conflict is cohered to a greater degree by post-materialist issues. The major
political parties in New Zealand now all agree on the basic post-Keynesian
economic framework that dominates discourse and policy formation. No party
fundamentally challenges the paradigm shift that occurred with the neoliberal
revolution that occurred from 1984 onwards. All parties now agree, explicitly
or implicitly, that the market is the best mechanism for generating wealth and
distributing good and services. Within this ‘new policy consensus’ there is, of
course, room for some limited discussion of when and where the state should
intervene to correct market failure, but because there is essentially no debate
of any substance around material/economic issues, what might be called
‘postmaterial issues’ now represent the arena for ideological and political
conflict in parliamentary politics. Furthermore, within this post-reform
era political conflict is underpinned by a strong pragmatism rather than
principle. Some explanations are proposed for the rise of the new consensus,
the decline of left-right conflict, and the increasing salience of societal
issues in electoral competition. [Read more below]
Of all the parliamentary parties, New Zealand First’s 2008 election campaign was possibly the most impressive and successful. Obviously the party failed to make it back into Parliament, yet it only just missed out, managing to elevate its public support up from within the ‘margin of error’ of the opinion polls, to 4.1 per cent. The party obtained the fourth highest party vote, and was only denied representation in the new Parliament because of the exclusionary and undemocratic five per cent MMP threshold. New Zealand First actually won a greater proportion of the party vote than both the Act Party and the Maori Party (both of whom were allocated five seats each). Thus, by nearly making it back into Parliament, New Zealand First’s performance belied the projections of most political commentators. I look at the party’s strategy in the section on New Zealand First within my chapter entitled ‘Party Strategy and the 2008 Election’ which is part of the recently published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig). This blog post is the 10th of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book, and it constitutes the original draft section about New Zealand First that I wrote for my chapter. Subsequently this draft was substantially reworked, edited, and condensed for the final book, so please see the published book for the final and ‘authoritative’ version. [Read more below]
Which political parties had the best advertising in the last year’s general election? How come the Greens’ had such good advertising but did relatively poorly? What was wrong with Labour’s advertising? What was right about National’s advertising strategy? Did New Zealand First lose representation because of, or despite of, its election advertising and strategy? Did the Electoral Finance Act properly define and understand what a political advertisement is? Claire Robinson answers these questions in her chapter entitled ‘”Vote for me”’: Political Advertising’, published in Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig of the University of Otago Politics department). This blog post is the fifth of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book (which I also have a chapter in). [Read more below]
Every year the European Journal of Political Research publishes a political date yearbook which gives a review of politics in a number of western countries. I contribute the section on New Zealand to the journal – last year’s publication on New Zealand politics in 2007 can be read here. Below is the first draft of my review of New Zealand politics in 2008. It still requires a bit of abridging and editing, and as always I’m interested in feedback and suggestions, which you can leave in the comments section or email me (edwards.bryceATgmail.com). [Read more below]
Prof Jack Vowles used to be New Zealand’s preeminent political sociologist, but has recently left the University of Auckland for the UK’s University of Exeter. He’s still analyzing New Zealand politics, however, and has written a review of ‘The 2008 General Election in New Zealand’ (to be published in an upcoming edition of Electoral Studies). You can download a PDF of the paper from his website. Vowles’ paper is a good solid descriptive account of last year’s election, but it also contains the following more analytical points. [Read more below].
The question of whether the New Zealand First party has a future is dealt with in a feature story by David Fisher in the latest Herald on Sunday. Entitled ‘Is he still the fairest?’, the story is not online (although the much shorter news version of it is). I was interviewed for the article, so I thought I’d briefly elaborate on my thoughts about the party’s future in a blog post and give further details of the Herald on Sunday feature. I argue that despite losing its parliamentary representation (due to the undemocratic 5% MMP threshold), NZ First actually had a reasonably impressive election campaign, but has no future. [Read more below].
After the 1996 general election, Tau Henare’s position as deputy leader continued to be precarious – in particular because of his terse relationship with Peters. The eventual firing of Henare was not so much an issue of personalities, but one that was representative of the increasing breakdown between the Maori and Pakeha factions. [Read more below]
During its early years New Zealand First had a large number of members resigning, and number of other internal party disputes. In particular, the party organisation continued to be unstable. According to Laugesen, writing in 1997, 'Of NZF's original management committee of seven, only Mr Woolerton and Mr Peters are still members, let alone actively involved in the party' (Laugesen, 31 Aug 1997: p.C2). The dissenting ex-members all left the party. [Read more below]
The existence and potential future of the Maori faction within New Zealand First was obviously one of the more interesting developments in the party during the 1990s. Because NZ First lacked the alignments or institutional ties to powerful social, ethnic or economic forces outside of Parliament, it was relatively easy for the Maori faction to assert some control within the party and build up an effective powerbase. [Read more below]
New Zealand First’s decline inevitably led to a large degree of friction and infighting within the party. The firing of Neil Kirton is one example. Other friction included the resignation of Jenny Bloxham as party vice president after she fell out publicly with party president Doug Woolerton and whip Ron Mark. With such strong factions within the party, it was hardly surprising that there was friction. [Read more below]
The post-1996 coalition combination of National and New Zealand First was always going to be a fraught affair due to the very different ideological and personality factors of the two parties. Because NZ First based its credibility on its promise that it would get rid of National, much of that credibility was immediately lost after they signed up to the National Party. That immediately alienated a huge number of supporters. But the party’s hold on supporters was irretrievably ended by the seemingly endless troubles and scandals that occurred in the first 18 months in government; ‘the Tuku Morgan affair, the Henare swagger, the McDonald shopping trip, the Banks dustup, the Bloxham resignation, the "neutered Treasury poodle" epithets, the 3 percent poll ratings, the Winebox and Cushing debacles’ (Laws, 16 Dec 1997: p.6). [Read more below]
As the Treasurer in the National-NZ First coalition government, Winston Peters dubbed himself ‘The Peoples’ Treasurer’. Virtually all commentators, however, preferred the title of ‘The Treasury Poodle’. There is no doubt that, upon becoming part of the government, New Zealand First had to accept further elements of the new economic orthodoxy. While of course compromises have to be made in any coalition, ‘Peters in his role as Treasurer has not just compromised, he has become an enthusiastic convert to the National economic world view' (Laugesen, 15 Feb 1998: p.F1-2). Peters' role as Treasurer underlined NZ
First’s further shifts to the right in economic ideology. His
decision to take this portfolio was also a serious error for the party [Read more below]
The 1996 election result gave New Zealand First the balance of power and therefore the choice between putting Labour or National into office. On 10 December, after protracted negotiations with both parties, Peters informed the country that NZ First had chosen National. The gamble to go with National was based upon policy concessions, leadership ambition, and protecting the NZ First brand. But because the party had been so adamant about their refusal to work with National after the election, the decision to then go with National damaged both the party and the electoral system. It also confirmed that the basic ideological flavour of the NZ First was indeed
conservative and not – as commentators and voters had perceived it to
be – left-of-centre. Moreover it indicated that the party was not founded upon a coherent and
stable philosophy. [Read more below]
The 1996 election was relatively successful for New Zealand First. But this was despite a myriad of internal problems occurring, including discontent and factious rivalries inside the party, a malfunctioning parliamentary unit, controversy over the creation of the party list, and a relatively uncoordinated campaign strategy. [Read more below]
NZ First was advantaged in the 1996 general election by the political culture shift occurring where, as Michael Laws has put it, 'The petty demands of television have also obliged political parties to abandon any attempt at rational and constructive policy debate, and to engage instead in "presidential-style" campaigns centred on the party leader' (Laws, 1998: p.345). This suited a party which was clearly arranged around its charismatic leader and mainly populist campaigns.
The New Zealand First party organisation continued to be directed from its parliamentary offices. Therefore for those close to the party it had little appearance of a democratic mass party. Instead it was more akin to a disorganized fiefdom for its leader. [Read more below]
Prior to New Zealand First moving right-wards in its economic policy during 1996, it also began to give more emphasis to the more socially conservative or right-wing policies and stances it held. In particular, Winston Peters revitalised NZ First’s electoral prospects in early 1996 by opening up a debate about immigration with his views that the number of immigrants to New Zealand needed to be further restricted. [Read more below]
Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s Winston Peters had positioned himself as a staunch opponent of free-market economic reform. Then during the 1993-96 parliamentary term there were signs that he was shifting in his position. It became very obvious that New Zealand First's economic policy proposed only minor changes to government economic policy. This was in sharp contrast with the impression that Peters had previously given, that the economic reforms of the last 12 years have been totally wrong and that they therefore required to be substantially overturned. [Read more below]
Upon becoming a New Zealand First MP, Michael Laws became Winston Peters’ chief adviser, reorganising the Parliamentary office, and generally managing events and the party direction. Laws grew to hold a status as “the man behind Peters”. Party insiders made claims much like those made by Labour Party insiders about the influence of Margaret Pope over David Lange and about Heather Simpson’s influence over her boss Helen Clark. [Read more below]
As the party system fragmented during the parliamentary term of 1993-96, NZ First recruited a further three MPs: Michael Laws and Peter McCardle from National, and Jack Elder from Labour. NZ First was not necessarily the first choice of a new political home for any of the three defectors. Before swapping to NZ First they had all shown an interest in the then impending development of a new centre party involving Mike Moore. [Read more below]
The election result in 1993 was largely a defeat for the party – as it came a distant fourth in the contest and did not breakout of single figures in their voting percentage. Election defeats generally bring about re-evaluations of party direction and thus the possibility of substantial policy and identity transformations. After 1993 this was true for NZ First, and Peters seemed to be struggling for direction. [Read more below]
The most notable outcome of the 1993 general election for NZ First was the election of Tau Henare in the seat of Northern Maori. Henare had initially sought to stand for the Alliance in the seat – as he had become involved in politics through Alliance constituency party Mana Motuhake - but failed to be considered for the nomination over Matt Rata. Henare thus stood instead for NZ First. Being the great grandson of a former Reform party MP for the electorate Taurekareka (Tau) Henare (and also a nephew of Sir James Henare), Tau Henare hence had highly respected Maori surname and thus a very strong chance of winning the seat, no matter which party he represented. [Read more below]
After a brief honeymoon following its launch in 1993, NZ First failed to fulfill the widespread expectations that it was going to be a major player in the party system. In its first electoral venture it performed relatively poorly. [Read more below]
While the leftwing label put that was put on many of NZ First’s early economic positions is debatable, the party’s positioning on many other issues has clearly been very socially conservative. For example, NZ First’s early positions on social issues, such as immigration, race-relations and gender relations, clearly cast it as a conservative party – in the tradition of Muldoon. [Read more below]
It’s becoming increasingly problematic to try to squeeze New Zealand’s political parties into an ideological left-right analytical framework, and this is especially the case with NZ First. Right from the launch of NZ First, most political commentators and voters mistook the party’s disgruntlement with the new political order as indicating the essentially leftwing nature of NZ First. Its basic economic framework – greater social spending, government intervention and economic nationalism – appeared to align the party with Labour and the Alliance, while its Maori candidates tended to be very ‘pro-treaty’, which is a political position that is usually thought of as being leftwing. The leftwing nature of many of NZ First’s early ‘leftwing’ economic positions are very debatable, but essentially the new party was economically centrist [Read more below]
Peters and his supporters had done little to establish any sort of organisation prior to the public launch of NZ First and it was some time before any elections were held for the position of party office bearers. In the meantime, Peters appointed a management committee to oversee the administration of the Party until such time as elections could be held. This six-person interim committee basically ran the party and selected all the candidates for the 1993 general election (Hames, 1995: p.194). [Read more below]
The fact that NZ First was born in a hurry had important ramifications for the subsequent development of the party. In a matter of months, a party organisation had to be formed, policy developed, candidates selected and a general election fought. These formidable tasks were only ever partially achieved. The start-up was generally viewed as having been botched-up, as everything before and after the launch seemed to be mishandled. [Read more below]
After leaving the National Party it was entirely inevitable that Peters would establish his own political party. For some time there appeared to be a chance that he would join the Alliance. In December 1991, Peters was approached by the Alliance to join their coalition. Significantly, the approach came with the offer of the leadership of the Alliance. [Read more below]
The National Party’s 1990 general election campaign and manifesto essentially represented a hybrid between the Winston Peters and Ruth Richardson factions. At the same time that the party promised some sort of continuation of Rogernomics-style economic management, it also posed reassuringly as the party of stability and integrity with policies such as its promise to halve unemployment by 1993. Therefore, while Peters’ own economic ideology was now clearly out of step with that of the leadership, it was not necessarily inconsistent with the party’s election campaign. [Read more below]
In light of the defeat of New Zealand First at the recent general election, the following blog post series focuses on the history of the party. Little academic research has been published on the Winston Peters phenomenon, despite the fact that he and his party have been central to parliamentary politics in New Zealand since the 1980s. This series – which focuses on the early history of the party – attempts to help fill this gap. This first post concentrates on the origins of the New Zealand First party, which can be traced back to the Muldoonist milieu in the National Party of the early-to-mid 1980s – both in personnel (the “Rob’s Mob” party members and the centrist MP Winston Peters) and ideology (economic and populist nationalism). This milieu was more characterised by its adherence to the ideology and political style of Muldoon than it was typical of the National Party tradition. [Read more below]
It might seem a bit odd to have a blog post about issues in NZ politics in 2007. But every year the European Journal of Political Research publishes a yearbook looking at what’s happened in the previous year in politics of 20+ western democracies. For the past decade or so, this has been written by Jack Vowles, but this year I’ve given it a go because Prof Vowles is no longer in the country. And the latest Political Data Yearbook (Volume 47, Issue 7-8, 2008) has just been published. You can read this in university libraries, and some universities will have online access to it here. But for those that can’t, below is the text that I submitted to the yearbook. Although it pertains to last year, hopefully what I’ve written is actually a useful context for understanding the current election campaign. The extensive analysis includes discussion of all the major issues from an action-packed policy year involving the ‘anti-smacking’ law, the Electoral Finance Act, extensions and enhancements to KiwiSaver and Working for Families, the terrorism raids, scandals about Air NZ in the middle east, employment and politicisation in the public service, and the charging of Labour MP Phillip Field with corruption and bribery. There was also the rise of John Key and the attempted revitalization of Labour. I argue that although it appears contradictory, political consensus and conflict increased in tandem during 2007. [Read more below]
In light of the recent exposé of New Zealand First’s dodgy donations from wealthy businesspeople, it’s worth taking an in depth look at the party’s financial history. Such an examination highlights the many dubious and unusual elements of the party’s operations, the extent to which New Zealand First is merely a fiefdom for its leader, the high secrecy involved, but also the extent to which the party is actually largely reliant on parliamentary funding for its existence. [Read an early draft below]
The number of New Zealand First party members is especially difficult to ascertain. The high secrecy of the organisation is such that all internal party information is kept as close to the leadership as possible. Early in the party’s life NZ First claimed to have more than 10,000 members, and Winston Peters often claimed the party was the second biggest in NZ. However, as former NZ First MP and adviser Michael Laws explained, ‘Like many of Winston’s claims this one also exceeded the straitjacket of actuality’. [Read more below]
The dust has now settled on the Owen Glenn political finance scandal, which means it’s probably an appropriate time to make some observations and conclusions about Glenn and his involvement with political parties in New Zealand. Future posts will show how this political finance scandal illustrates that the Labour Party is every bit as much of a corporate-sponsored party as National is, and that Labour is hypocritical and self-serving when it comes to the issue of political finance and regulation. This post is the first of five about ‘Glenngate’. This first post attempts to provide a summary of what actually occurred. [Read more below]
Like every other party in Parliament, New Zealand First is currently speeding up it's attempts to moderate its policies and make itself less politically distinctive. The latest examples involve asian immigration, free trade deals, and acceptance of the 'baubles of office'. Where once leader Winston Peters was well known for his opposition to Asian immigration and refugees, he now takes part in building better ties between Asians and New Zealanders. For example last week he helped launch Asian Magazine, which is aimed at making a stand against racism in NZ. As the Herald points out, this is a long way from when Peters complained 'We have now reached the point where you can wander down Queen Street in Auckland and wonder if you are still in New Zealand or some other country'. [Read more below]
Helen Clark and Foreign Minister Winston Peters have quickly sought to distance the government from the criticisms that Duty Minister Jim Anderton has made of the US role in Iraq. Anderton's comments were relatively mild and probably in line with majority opinion, and so it's informative to see Clark and Peters' reactions. Even though Anderton had been specifically asked to make a comment as Duty Minister during the holiday period, Helen Clark later said that he was speaking on behalf of his own party rather than the Government. Peters went further to say his comments were 'ill-informed and regrettable'. This is clearly a government that is divided on the issue, but led by those determined not to have the US criticised for Iraq.
UPDATE: The Dominion Post reports that there has been a Groundswell of support for Iraq comments with 80% of survey respondents agreeing that Iraq was becoming another Vietnam.
