General Election in 2010?

Written By: - Date published: 11:26 am, June 4th, 2009 - 11 comments
Categories: auckland supercity - Tags:

National promised to do a lot of things in their first term such as:

  • Not selling state assets.
  • Keeping WFF and other entitlements as they were.
  • Keeping superannuation ticking along nicely
  • Giving everyone “north of $50 a week”

They have broken two of their promises. No State Asset Sales will turn into a “For Sale” sign, and the WFF Entitlement is poised to go if National get a second term in Government.

If the budget next year proves to be a real stinker, will public sentiment change rapidly? Not really as a lot of the budget spending isn’t noticeable until October of the same year, or the following April 1, when tax based incentives and thresholds generally get adjusted.

National are playing a nasty game of rushing through legislation in order to get their business interests aligned, while also making “feel good” legislation that will keep the masses happy. We’ve seen evidence of this with the Crusher bill, and now the Cellphone Drivers = Bad, proposal that is being talked up.

In 2010, we have the first local body elections occurring, assuming submissions on the bill are completed in time (although it’s possible National may try and expedite this).

As LBEs generally have an apathetic turnout, with just 31% voting in Auckland in 2007 a small bloc of voters effectively chooses Auckland Council. If a 30% turnout occurs again in 2010, it will alienate a large bloc of people against National as they start to realise they were hoodwinked. There goes a large portion of Nationals vote.

In 2011, a loss on home soil at the RWC would cause the mood of the nation to turn sour. If a general election were to be held after a RWC loss, National would surely lose.

Alternatively, an election held from May – July 2011 before the RWC starts, will mean that Budget ’10 will have taken effect. As it’s likely that Budget 2010 will be a harsher affair than Budget 09, National will lose on the back of rapid public dissent. So no go, there either.

John Key really wants a second term. The most effective way of doing this is to call a General Election for July 2010 before the LBEs are held in October, while all is still safe(ish) in Auckland. Doing this would effectively guarantee a second term to 2013 (2 years longer than 2011, and only 1 year shorter than a second term from 2011), meaning that National will be able to sell the family silver.

11 comments on “General Election in 2010? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. randal 1
    4 June 2009 at 12:29 pm

    I dont care when it is. National will lose.
    I just dont want to be subjected to the same interminable whining we had to put up with last time so natoinal could have a turn.
    radio ritalin and the viagra stations need to take some lithium too!

  2. randal 2
    4 June 2009 at 12:31 pm

    I hope it is soon.
    national and radio viagra and radio ritalin haven’t stopped moaining since they got in so maybe its time to put them out of their misery?

  3. Lanthanide 3
    4 June 2009 at 12:51 pm

    “If a general election were to be held after a RWC loss, National would surely lose.”

    Um, what?

    So the converse is that a win on home soil in the RWC will cause National to surely win?

    What the hell has rugby got to do with politics? I hardly think the thought “damn, the all blacks lost, time for Labour again” is going to pop into the heads of any significant proportion of the population.

    Furthermore, you’re ignoring the entire effect that calling an early election in 2010 would have. Labour was roundly chastised for calling an election a few months earlier than expected in 2002, and lets not forget Muldoon’s infamous snap election.

    Calling for an election in 2010, more than a year earlier, would immediately result in all political commentators wondering what was up, with the obvious 2nd-term connotations of “no public assets sales in the 1st term” being made widely clear by Labour.

    This guest post is utter rubbish.

    • trademark 3.1
      4 June 2009 at 1:02 pm

      +1 – there is a lot of speculation in this post. Give kiwis enough credit to be able to separate something like a RWC win/loss and NZ’s elections. If things keep going the way they have thus far, the left will be able to mount a strong election campaign regardless of what the date of that election might be.

    • felix 3.2
      4 June 2009 at 1:39 pm

      All black wins do tend to favour incumbent governments. Graph it.

      Apparently when our nation’s sporting heroes play well we, as a nation, feel that all is right in the world.

      captcha: champs 56/7

  4. the sprout 4
    4 June 2009 at 1:42 pm

    good post.

  5. Zaphod Beeblebrox 5
    4 June 2009 at 2:25 pm

    Given that they are 20 points ahead nationally it is extremely unlikely that they will lose enough votes in Auckland to lose. What it might do is make them dependent upon ACT to stay in power. That would make for a pretty ugly scenario in the second term.

    • Kevin Welsh 5.1
      4 June 2009 at 4:15 pm

      Well ZB, with three Auckland seats with a majority of 2,000 votes of less, it puts a completely different look on things.

      Dissatisfaction with the whole supercity debacle and a small swing back to Labour in Auckland, then the balance of power swings back to the Maori Party (all this assuming no other seat changes).

      Depending on how the Maori electorate judges their relationship with Nactional, then we have a whole new ball game.

      I do not believe the present government is in as solid position as the polls would have you think. Bearing in mind that polling is reflective nationally, it only takes a small swing in a few key electorates for the political landscape to change radically.

  6. Policy Parrot 6
    4 June 2009 at 2:50 pm

    TBPH – I don’t think the Nats would go to the polls that early. Elections early in the parliamentary cycle (i.e. within the first two years) are extremely uncommon, having happened only once (Waterfront strike in 1951) in the modern era.

    Even a slightly early poll has its risks. If we apply the logic that NZ RWC results mirror general elections, i.e. All Black win favouring the incumbent and vice-versa, an early trip to the polls might be seen by some savvy commentators as potentially unpatriotic – i.e. National doesn’t think the All Blacks can win.

    I think it is likely that this government will serve out its full-term, and run on a similar “dont-spook-the-horses” campaign. National will be caught between a rock and a hard place in 2011, on the one hand, the donors, neoliberals and ACT will be pushing for further reform, whereas National will have a significant vulnerability on its left flank as it gradually pulls away from the political centre.

    But it will still take some beating, and Labour needs to come up with some new attractive and credible alternative policies to win back the 2008 Labour “Plus” vote.

  7. mike 7
    4 June 2009 at 7:29 pm

    Sorry team, the only early election is going to be in the UK where another exposed labour party are going to the dogs at the hands of the tories