12.40am. If the election had been single-member first-past-the-post on current boundaries, the result would have been National 41 seats, Labour 21, Maori 5, minor parties 3. Make that preferential, and give Labour 75 per cent of Greens preferences and split the others evenly, and there’s little change: National 40, Labour 22, Maori 5, minor parties 3.
10.55pm. Regarding that ninth Green Party seat, Antony Green writes: “Unlike Australia, they do not count special (absent, postal etc) votes progressively, but as a lump in about 12 days time. It will be two weeks before they do the final allocation of seats.” Strong Green performance on special votes has been a notable feature of past elections.
10.45pm. Green Party leader Jeanette Fitzsimons addressing supporters. Haven’t mentioned them much because the result has left them marginalised. The party has gained two seats, from six to eight, although Fitzsimons is holding out for an ninth. Not bad, but less than the polls had indicated.
10.38pm. Labour and NZ First principals venting about the media, in time-honoured fashion.
10.33pm. Peter Dunne confirmed in his speech 10 minutes ago that he would back a National government, and there’s no doubt left that that’s what we’ll be seeing.
10.28pm. However, Labour has taken the lead in Christchurch Central, where they trailed earlier after winning by 23.7 per cent in 2005 – though I can’t speak for redistribution effects.
10.20pm. Nikki Kaye has won for National in Auckland Central, in what seems to be the biggest electorate seat boilover. Labour won by 9.3 per cent in 2005, presumably on different boundaries.
10.14pm. Remember that when Elections NZ says 90 per cent counted, they mean 90 per cent of booths counted. The ones outstanding are presumably big ones, mostly in Auckland. So the current 45.6-33.6 gap might narrow a little further than you’d think.
10.01pm. Peter Dunne home and hosed in Ohariu, Maori seats now definitely 5-2. Only question is how things are looking beyond 61 seats. National still slowly losing ground, but will win at least 58 seats, ACT NZ looking very good for five, maybe only four if they’re unlucky. No question that we’ll be seeing a National-ACT NZ government.
9.48pm. Antony: “The best estimate I see for the new Parliament is 58 National, 5 ACT plus Peter Dunne – Right with 64, then 44 Labor, 8 Green, Jim Anderton, giving the Left 53, plus 5 Maori. 122 seat Parliament.” Third on the ACT NZ list is Roger Douglas, Treasurer in David Lange’s Labour government in the 1980s famed for his free-market reforms, who could well be back in cabinet.
9.45pm. National vote edges down enough to cost them a seat, so make that National 59 and ACT NZ 5.
9.37pm. We’re likely looking at an overhang of two, so 61 will be a majority with an independent Speaker. Current figures suggest National 60 and ACT NZ five, although the former are fading a little.
9.33pm. Little change in Te Tai Tonga with a big advance in the vote, so the Maori seats are firming up as five Maori Party and two Labour Party, with a very remote possibility that Labour might yet make that 4-3 with Te Tai Tonga.
9.30pm. Big advance in the Ohariu count, but the vote has changed very little, so Peter Dunne should be home.
9.28pm. National Party down to 46.7 per cent with 56 per cent counted, so the prospect of majority government is diminishing.
9.21pm. Antony sticking with his 45-35 prediction.
9.20pm. New Zealand First surely gone now, fading to 4.3 per cent with 47.4 counted.
9.19pm. Labour beginning to gain a little on the National Party as the southern Auckland vote comes in.
9.18pm. Maori seats. Labour home in Ikaroa-Rawhiti; probably done enough in Hauraki-Waikato; only slightly behind in Te Tai Tonga 44.2 to 41.8 per cent, but with 60.3 counted the Maori Party candidate is probably home. Other four seats held by the Maori Party.
9.15pm. Local observers excited the National candidate is ahead in Auckland Central, and in the hunt in Christchurch Central.
9.13pm. Silly woman on Radio New Zealand complaining that UNZF and Progressive Party are in parliament with a small share of the national vote. Of all the criticisms to make of MMP …
9.11pm. Peter Dunne back down from 33.2 to 32.6 per cent in Ohariu with 26.1 per cent. Still likely to win with Labour second on 29.7 per cent, though worth keeping an eye on. It’s probably only his own seat that’s at stake: party’s national vote is 0.9 per cent, whereas they would need at least 1.5 per cent for a second seat (more if NZ First makes the threshold).
9.04pm. National vote count up to 34 per cent, and the National vote still a strong 47.8 per cent. However, ACT NZ is looking at five seats and far the most likely result is a National-ACT coalition. Antony Green discusses talk of Peter Dunne being made Speaker.
8.58pm. Count in Ohariu up to 19.6, Peter Dunne gains a bit of ground from 32.1 to 33.2.
8.54pm. Antony: “Really looking like National 45%, Labour 35% at this stage. National plus ACT still looking at just reaching a majority.”
8.53pm. Commentators on 3News expect NZ First to lose ground when special votes are admitted.
8.51pm. Assuming NZ First don’t pull a rabbit out of the hat, it’s looking like the vote for excluded parties will be 6.5 per cent, meaning the National Party will need a bit under 47 per cent to get a majority.
8.50pm. Labour looking increasingly safe in the Maori seat of Ikaroa-Rawhiti, leading 51.3 to 41.6 with 28.2 reporting.
8.44pm. Antony confirms that the booth votes should even up the vote in the terms I suggested earlier, to about 45-35 in favour of the National Party. Booths currently coming in are very small ones. City booths later on should see Labour and the Green Party go up (from 31.3 and 6.3 at present, to the National Party’s 48.7).
8.43pm. Jim Anderton has opened up a handy lead in Wigram, 42.4 per cent to 32.4 per cent National.
8.42pm. 15.2 per cent of booths in from Ohariu, and Peter Dunne has faded a little further to 32.1 per cent, against 29.2 per cent Labour and 28.3 per cent National.
8.35pm. Maori Party still looking good in Te Tai Tonga, leaving two of the seven in doubt but favouring Labour.
8.29pm. Labour still looking good in the Maori seat of Ikaroa-Rawhiti: leading 49.7 to 43.7 with 12.9 counted (that’s 12.9 per cent of booths, not votes).
8.27pm. No great change in Ohariu with count up from 4.3 to 8.7 per cent.
8.21pm. Commentator on Radio NZ makes the point that the higher NZ First gets without crossing the threshold, the lower the vote the National Party needs for an absolute majority. At present the NZ First is almost exactly where the National Party would want it – 4.5 per cent.
8.17pm. Count in Ohariu up from 4.3 per cent to 6.5 per cent, and Peter Dunne is up from 33.2 per cent
8.15pm. Much as we saw in ACT, we appear to be in a lull between the entry of “advance” votes and booth votes in significant numbers.
8.10pm. Peter Dunne of United Future NZ is down on raw figures from 45.9 per cent to 33.2 per cent in Ohariu with 4.3 per cent counted. He may have suffered from the redistribution which changed the name of his seat from Ohariu-Belmont. At the moment it’s a tight three-horse race: Dunne 1197, National 1032, Labour 1001.
8.03pm. Antony: “The advance votes tell us National will win. But did the gap between National and Labor tighten at the end of the campaign? If it did, then it might be closer. Will Labor plus the Greens come close to National plus ACT? It doesn’t look like Peter Dunne or Jim Anderton will do anyhting other than elect themselves.”
7.58pm. No change in Maori seats: the Maori Party leads in five, but trails slightly in Ikaroa-Räwhiti and Hauraki-Waikato.
7.50pm. Antony on the advance vote: “in 2005, Labor rose from 36.8% to 41.1% at the end of the count, National from 43.5% to 39.1%, Green 4.8% to 5.3%, NZ First 6.1% to 5.7%, United NZ 3.0% to 2.7%, Maori 1.6% to 2.1%.” Does that mean the current raw figures of National 49, Labour 31.5, Green 6, NZF 4.5 should be adjusted to National 44.5, Labour 36, Green 6.5 and NZF 4?
7.48pm. Winston Peters now getting thrashed in Tauranga, and NZ First national vote has faded a little to 4.6 per cent with 4.6 per counted.
7.45pm. ACT NZ on 3.3 per cent so far, and I imagine would go higher with big Auckland booths, compared with 1.5 per cent (two seats) in 2005.
7.41pm. TVNZ projecting a slight National Party majority with 63 seats out of 123, the remainder going 40 Labour, 8 Greens, 6 Maori, 4 ACT New Zealand, one each for Progressive and United Future New Zealand. Even if the National Party is reined in a little from here, they could surely rely on backing from ACT NZ.
7.34pm. Antony (hell, just read his blog): “Models are looking better for Labor than the raw vote, but still not enough to prevent a change of government.”
7.30pm. Antony reckons we’re in for “quite a wait” to see if the National Party wins a majority – but if those are the stakes, it seems there’s very little prospect of any kind of Labour government being formed.
7.28pm. However, Labour leads 730-632 in Ikaroa-Räwhiti. Maori leads of varying sizes in the other five.
7.26pm. Antony projects five of seven Maori seats going to the Maori Party, but the first one I’ve looked at is the one reckoned Labour’s best chance of hanging on (Hauraki-Waikato), and Labour’s lead is only 490-475.
7.24pm. Antony Green reports: “Early models are matching votes up in line with current percentages, which would point to a National majority government.”
7.19pm. Very early results provide hope for NZ First: they’re bobbing around the threshold mark, and Winston Peters leads in Tauranga 236 votes to 224.
7.18pm. National vote with 3 per cent counted: National 49, Labour 32, Green 6 per cent, NZ First 4.5 per cent.
7.17pm. Jim Anderton comfortably ahead in Wigram with 2 of 64 booths reporting.
7.15pm. Peter Dunne only slightly ahead in Ohariu, with 2 of 46 booths reporting.
7.12pm. Antony Green says the “first advance votes” are in line with the polls: National high 40s, Labour mid-to-high 30s, Greens 7 per cent, NZ First 3.8 per cent.
7.10pm. It doesn’t look like they’re providing booth-level figures for tonight’s count either, which pretty much leaves us completely in the dark. In 2005 the early count looked diabolical for Labour to the untrained eye, but that was because rural booths were coming in early. If any media outlets are making the effort to match booth results, I would be pleased if someone could bring it to my attention.
7.02pm. Curses to the NZ Electoral Commission, which claims to have CSV files of booth-level results from 2005 on its site – but all the links are broken. Let’s hope it gets a lot better from here.
7.00pm. A quick guide for beginners. New Zealand has a proportional representation electoral system, which normally means the non-local observer need look no further than the national vote. However, mixed-member proportional brings the complication that minor parties must clear one of two hurdles to win seats proportional to their vote share: either they must win 5 per cent of the national vote, or win at least one constituency seat. The minor parties in play are:
- The Green Party, who current polling suggests are sure to clear 5 per cent. Notwithstanding party leader Jeanette Fitzsimons’ win in Coromandel in 1999, they will probably need to.
- New Zealand First, closely associated with its troubled leader Winston Peters and presumably in big trouble. Peters lost his constituency seat of Tuaranga in 2005, but his party scored 5.7 per cent of the national vote despite a 4.7 per cent swing. In spite of everything, Peters might have some hope of recovering Tauranga with the retirement of one-term National Party MP Bob Clarkson.
- The Maori Party, believed likely to capture most of the seven dedicated Maori electorates (it currently has four), potentially causing a significant overhang (see below).
- ACT New Zealand, the free-market party led by Rodney Hide, who retained his seat of Epsom in 2005 with 42.3 per cent of the vote against the National Party’s 33.7 per cent.
- United Future New Zealand, led by Peter Dunne, who is very likely to be re-elected in his seat of Ohariu.
- Progressive Party, led by veteran Jim Anderton who polled 46.6 per cent in his seat of Wigram in 2005.
In normal circumstances, the parliament will consist of 63 general electorates, seven Maori electorates and 50 list seats. However, these numbers can be increased in the event of an overhang, which occurs if a party wins more constituency seats than it would normally get from its share of the national vote. This is almost certain to be true of the Maori Party, which might win as many as seven seats despite having a national vote of between 2 and 3 per cent according to the polls. The Progressive Party constituency seat is also likely to be won from a negligible national vote that wouldn’t account for a seat. Taken together, that could lead to an overhang of between two and five seats, for a total of up to 125 seats rather than 120. As such, attention here will be focused on the national vote; Tauranga, Epsom, Ohariu and Wigram; and the Maori electorates.
6.10pm (NZ time). Welcome to my live coverage of the New Zealand election count. I’m getting in early here to advertise the fact that I’m doing this – polls in New Zealand do not in fact close until 7pm.
lol
[ I do like the way NZ gets its election night over so early 🙂 ]
I’m watching the sun rise out of my window, and I’d have to agree with you there. Next time round I just hope there’s some decent TV-type stuff… I want to see the Kiwi version of what the ABC has. 😛
A few minutes ago, ABC News (Perth) said the new parliament will have 121 seats, so only one overhang seat. What does that mean? The Maori party got more % vote / less electorates than expected? Peter Dunne or Jim Anderton managed to justify their one seat? Or maybe the ABC just got it wrong…
Israeli politics are vastly complicated because of (a) PR with a low threshold (b) religious and ethnic divisions in the Jewish community cutting across the standard left-right divide, and (c) a 20% Arab minority whose representatives generally don’t take part in government formation. You have several ultra-orthodox parties, both Sephardic and Ashkenzi, you have a Russian party, you have several minor leftist parties. It’s a wonder they ever form a government at all.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO lol
She’s gone!
Helen Clarke resigning as leader.
NOOOOOO!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
The sun rises out of your window? At last, the mystery of the sunrise is solved!
Clark standing down as Labour leader.
I’d be saying yes. It’s about time.
15 years is a long time.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
[I have seen a lot of people say a lot of stupid things at this blog, and no doubt I’ve said some myself. ]
This is correct! McCain would win Michigan; McCain is like Winston Churchill come immediately to mind.
[But your assertion last night that the Christian doctrine of the soul can be scientifically disproved]
I never wrote or intended to imply this. I simply demonstrated that there is a much more LIKELY explanation for human behavior based on the last 30 years of scientific inquiry, which now means there is no good reason to believe it. I apologise for assuming that you had the intellectual capacity to see that clear distinction. Please stick to history; science just isn’t your thing.
[“Goff is a strong advocate of putting ethical issues before national interests.”
I see dark horizons for Mr Goff and Labour.]
N.Z. Labour has a history of doing this, not letting U.S. nuclear subs dock for example.
[you have several minor leftist parties. It’s a wonder they ever form a government at all.]
Isn’t the current election simply the result of an unresolved deadlock?
I have a horrible feeling Netanyahu will win.
Yeah, it appears that the Israeli Greens may be on track to win their first seats, if their polling is correct.
In other news, Helen Clark has resigned as Labour leader.
Man New Zealanders have a huge chip on their shoulder.
They keep comparing it to the US election.
[Man New Zealanders have a huge chip on their shoulder.
They keep comparing it to the US election.]
But isn’t that how we felt after 11.5 years of Howard?
Or if they are mainly young voters, they may of never known a non-Labor government.
Pffft. I’ve heard plenty of people try and compare Obama to Rudd as well. We certainly have gone through a lot of changes recently.
-Canada 2006
-Australia 2007
-USA 2008
-NZ 2008
But of course they all have their own reasons.
[But isn’t that how we felt after 11.5 years of Howard?]
Fair enough.
Apparently at the National Party reception, they booed when Helen got on stage.
You guys one. It’s not like she’s some kind of Communist who destroyed the country and John Key is a divine saviour. The country is plodding along and it’ll keep plodding along.
Interesting to note that both NZ leaders have left their homes to travel to their respective Party celebrations, you’d think they’d spend the evening in a private room at the hall/hotel listening to the results.
[I’ve heard plenty of people try and compare Obama to Rudd as well.]
You’re joking.
Anyone who isn’t in cabinet?
[ The sun rises out of your window? ]
Ah, whoops… should be sets, of course. I’m in Perth, not New York. 😉
[Pffft. I’ve heard plenty of people try and compare Obama to Rudd as well. We certainly have gone through a lot of changes recently.]
Rudd and Obama share one thing in common, they received massive majorities (like 2:1) amongst young voters. Megalogenis wrote an interesting comparison article:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/meganomics/index.php/theaustralian/comments/a_parallel_universe/
lol@Radio NZ Timecall – “21 to Midday” someone has had a long day 🙂
I’m sure after 9 years of Rudd we’ll all be wanting a change too lol if it gets to that!
Rudd and Obama share one thing in common: a love of tedious catch phrases.
[You guys one. It’s not like she’s some kind of Communist who destroyed the country and John Key is a divine saviour. The country is plodding along and it’ll keep plodding along.]
Aren’t they close to recession?
They’re IN recession.
[I’m sure after 9 years of Rudd we’ll all be wanting a change too lol if it gets to that!]
I don’t think he will be P.M. then. I think he will have 2 more elections tops. Then it will be on to Shorten.
[Rudd and Obama share one thing in common: a love of tedious catch phrases.]
That helped them WIN ELECTIONS!
[They’re IN recession.]
Move that to the top of the list of why Labour lost.
“A few minutes ago, ABC News (Perth) said the new parliament will have 121 seats, so only one overhang seat. What does that mean? The Maori party got more % vote / less electorates than expected? Peter Dunne or Jim Anderton managed to justify their one seat? Or maybe the ABC just got it wrong…”
BoP, here are the seats:
SEATS
National 59
Labour 43
Green 8
Act 5
Maori 5
Progressive 1
United Future 1
A control freak like Rudd giving it up…hardly he’ll stay as long as he can.
[Aren’t they close to recession?]
National supporters don’t hate her because of 6 months of recession after 9 years of growth.
They hate her for a number of reasons. Mostly because she is Labour and walloped them at 2 elections and beat them at another.
[Move that to the top of the list of why Labour lost.]
The only people who think that recessions make a huge difference are the media. No one cares whether GDP growth is at 1% or -0.3%. Stupid metric anyway.
[A control freak like Rudd giving it up…hardly he’ll stay as long as he can.]
Rudd is a member of a political party that has the guts to take on its leaders for the good of the party.
[National supporters don’t hate her because of 6 months of recession after 9 years of growth.]
What is it then? She’s too boring?
Clark should’ve run on the winning slogan of Go for Growth.
What you wrote was:
[If there was a soul driving these processes there would be evidence of it in the brains of living people that isn’t in dead people. But again, there is no evidence of a SINGLE thing in there controlling the ENTIRE body.]
That is an assertion that the Christian doctrine of the soul can be scientifically disproved by physical examination of the body: “I can’t find a soul, therefore there is no soul.” That is the equivalent of saying: “There is no God because I can’t see one,” which is what I used to say when I was about ten.
I never said that McCain would win Michigan. I said Michigan was in play, which at the time it was. I’ve asked you before to produce a quote to support this allegation, which you have not done.
[No one cares whether GDP growth is at 1% or -0.3%. ]
Woah! That’s a pretty huge difference to me!
Itep i agree that would the worst political slogan i have ever seen.
Not letting nuclear-armed warships of one side in a serious potential nuclear conflict means that the other side is a lot less going to target you.
What real threat was there to New Zealand in the 1980`s (or is there now for that matter) that New Zealand would need America to defend them from? (answer none).
Therefore no nuclear-armed warships is the sense over sentiment side.
“Interest rates will always be lower under a coalition government” was probably sillier.
[What is it then? She’s too boring?]
Yeah ok, the core National membership exist because NZ went into recession earlier this year.
You need to go to sleep.
I dunno Glen… I can think of worse ones. “More to do but we’re heading in the right direction’ is one.
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO KEY ON STAGE
What a crap speech.
Worse than Rudd’s even.
He seems to be shouting alot lol i guess he’s just happy.
Omg he’s doing a Turnbull and talking about his poor childhood.
Turnbull has children? I always assumed he was like a Ken doll.
SNIP: Fantastically boring comment deleted – The Management.
K so apparently his government is going to some kind of liberal-socialist-collective.
Earlier this year my wife and I met up with a New Zealand couple, whom we first encountered while travelling in Europe three years ago. Since them we’ve maintained superficial contact.
I didn’t know what if anything was their interest in politics or their political inclination. I’d assumed from their background – reasonably affluent, small business, small town – that they would probably be conservative, and therefore National voters.
However Ms. Fuller was gobsmacked when the female of the couple initiated a discussion with words to the effect : “Thank goodness we’ll get rid of this hopeless Government later this year”. My wife’s mild demur and defence of Helen C. was met with the observation: “She’s a communist lesbian”, and “the marriage is just a front.”
So fyi Oz, although I’m not suggesting this is representative of anything other than one person’s (extreme) opinion, it’s clear that some across the ditch saw HC as a sinister/threatening figure.
[Yeah ok, the core National membership exist because NZ went into recession earlier this year.
You need to go to sleep.]
I was asking a serious question!
[So fyi Oz, although I’m not suggesting this is representative of anything other than one person’s (extreme) opinion, it’s clear that some across the ditch saw HC as a sinister/threatening figure.]
No, you’re right. They absolutely hate her. But my point is, in policy terms, they have no reason too. Especially considering that National policy is 99% the same.