The year 2009 was a hectic one in New Zealand politics, partly because it was the first year of the new National Party Government’s term in office. At a general election in November of the previous year, National had ousted the Labour Party from its three-term tenure in office and formed a single-party minority government with support agreements with the Act Party, the Maori Party and United Future – all of whom gained ministerial roles outside the cabinet. In this first year, the new administration was both ideologically centrist and highly popular, being challenged only on difficult issues relating to the economic recession, political finance controversies over MPs’ expenses and various race relations questions. The following blog post examines these issues via a ‘Review of New Zealand politics in 2009’ which has just been published as a peer-reviewed journal article in the top political science periodical, the European Journal of Political Research (in the December 2010 edition). As well as looking at how the National Government fared in 2009, it also briefly analyses the main issues in politics (such as the economy, social issues, political finance scandals) and the changes in the other parliamentary political parties. [Read more below]
Jim Anderton’s Progressive party has found that the more active candidates that it fields in elections, the lower its party vote is. That’s one of the lessons given by Anderton’s former spin doctor, John Pagani, in his chapter in the new post-election book Key to Victory: The New Zealand General Election of 2008 edited by Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts. Pagani provides a fairly analytical and detailed account of the Progressive campaign, as well as a very strong criticism of the Electoral Commission’s role in policing the Electoral Finance Act. [Read more below]
Despite common impressions, the Alliance and Progressives have always had a core middle class element to them, and have obtained votes from throughout the class structure. [Read more below]
The rise and fall of the Alliance party (and the continuation of Jim Anderton’s solo party in Parliament) presents some interesting examples of the weak relationships that modern minor political parties have with third parties. [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.
