Ross Meurant: Evolution of MMP

Evolution of MMP confirms that separate List & Constituency parties is henceforth the key to power in parliament.

General Election 2020 saw plus 400,000 Blue voters abandon the Hon Judith Collins lead National party.  This swing gave Labour, constituency seats it had never held.

My old Hobson electorate (split between among Northland & Whangarei electorates when MMP reduced the constituencies to 60) for example, never ever before having been Red, went to Labour.

General Election 2023 saw an equally massive swing, this time away from Labour to deliver many traditional “red” seats to the “blues”.

These outcomes are the manifestation of what MMP will be in the future, because it’s design, from day one, provided the paradigm to extract the most beneficial outcome i.e., number of seats in the House, via Constituency parties and List parties as separate entities.

When MMP was introduced – 1996 - few had any idea of how the new election process would impact on political parties which under First Post the Post (FFP) had delivered the winner, one party control of the levers of power in the Hallowed Halls of Parliament.

Of the few who did have an understanding of how MMP could alter the traditional pathway to political power, were serving MPs Maurice Williamson, Murry McCully and Ross Meurant and two who were outed when the pendulum which had delivered National a massive majority in 1990, swung back again in 1993 dumping former Lt Colonel Rob Munro from Invercargill and lawyer Graeme Reeves from Miramar. [(1) see lessons 4]

Conversely, Rt Hon Jim Bolger and Rt Hon Sir Bill Birch, who were at the helm of National when they introduced MMP, by their failure to embrace minor centre right parties as potential collation partners e.g., Christians, Right of Centre (RoC) aka Conservatives, United, until polling closer to election time made it clear that National would not get the Treasury benches alone and “gifted” Wellington Central to ACT, suggests to me that they did not understand what MMP was really all about.

In fact, this ignorance or perhaps arrogance on the part of National, insisting that it could win a majority alone, persisted under subsequent National Party leaders every election – even though their rhetoric did not match their deeds i.e., gift Epsom to ACT and a later Ohariu constituency to Hon Peter Dunne United/Future.

Conversely, right from the start, Hon Jim Anderton with the Alliance Party did understand.  Afterall it was he who pressed for MMP as the model Mr Bolger should select among alternative options to FPP.

At the 1994 National Party Annual Auckland Conference, the introduction of MMP was a topic.  In their own words amongst delegates with whom they mingled, Williamson, McCully and Meurant mooted that the most effective model for converting Party support into seats in the House, would be for National to form two separate parties: a Constituency only party and a List only party.

Well, I recall the how baffled were our audiences - no disrespect intended, for what we three mooted, seemed to most as, heresy.

These erudite fellows, were sufficiently perspicacious to understand that both Labour and National needed to have a “coalition partner” to garner a majority of seats under the new system because only in the most “exceptional case”, would one party alone, secure a majority in its own right.  It took 9 General Elections under MMP before the “exceptional case” of one party alone held an outright majority in the House. [(2) see lesson 5]

And on further analysis of how MMP could best deliver the numbers, separating List and Constituency parties of the same philosophy was the appropriate paradigm. It took 10 general elections but finally, by default rather than design, the 2023 election vindicated the perspicacity of Willamson, McCully & Meurant (3). The most efficacious political paradigm to translate voter support into Seats in the House, is for one political party to present separate Constituency and List parties rather than offer a combination Constituent and List party.

1996 General Election

Labour already had an existing collation partner in Jim Anderton’s Alliance/New Labour assured of his Christchurch constituency seat in the House.  National had none and at the last moment facing the reality of MMP, gifted ACT, Wellington Central as a ticket to Bellamy’s.  

NZ First gained 13%, Alliance 10% and ACT 6%.  No other minor party made the 5% threshold.

Labour has enjoyed a variety of coalition partner including the Alliance, New Labour, the Greens, NZ First and as history has demonstrated, the treacherous Maori Party. [(3) see lesson 3]

NZ First has been the standout coalition partner exception, oscillating between Labour and National.  However, NZ First has not won 5% at every election and in fact in 1999 following the big List support in 1996, NZ First came in at 4.9%. 

PS: I was at the 1999 NZ First election night soiree in Tauranga when Winston belatedly took the stage about to concede defeat – as he was also trailing National’s Hon Kathy O’Regan for his previously safely held constituency.  Part way through his soliloquy Winston was handed a note – he read it – paused then midst his characteristic smile said: “It all a matter of timing”, as he informed the disciples that a box of ballots which had missed the count, had been found – and the result was, Winston was in front of O’Regan.  He retained constituency seat of Tauranga (which he won in1984 after having beaten me into second place for the National party nomination).

2023 General Election.

Time passes and as “we” well know, evolution occurs - invariably manifest in the delivery of greying hair – like it or not.  In politics – MMP being the focus, like it or not, the evolution of MMP 2023 election results, fairly informed National that it is now essentially – a Constituency party. 

This evolution also fairly informed those, who each time they look in the mirror shut their eyes in denial of greying streaks in their hair, that every List vote National got in 2023, delivered them far fewer seats in the House, than ACT as their collation partner could have, had the wasted National List votes gone to ACT.

National must acknowledge that their fate was destined by evolution of Bolger’s beast.

MMP was a bad idea, in my view. As damaging in my view, as the legacy of Rt Hon Sir John Key and his sidekick former, Chris Finlayson – who repealed Rt Hon Helen Clark’s 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act that deemed the title to be held by the Crown and replaced it with National’s Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011 (4) which undid that protection

Labour too, now faces this reality. 

Having had Mathew 10.36 brutally demonstrated i.e., being stabbed in the back by Maori – for whom they did so much (damage to NZ in my view), trying to elevate one culture above all others by artificial means (an insult to Maori – in my view), Labour has essentially lost a massive “List” vote it had previously enjoyed endlessly (except 1996 when the “Tight Five” went to NZ First- briefly).  

With the Greens taking another chunk of historical leftie liberals via the List vote, essentially, the Red’s future now is as a Constituency party. 

General Election 2026.

To get the best outcome from MMP, National needs to go the polls as a “constituency only party”.

National needs a “Liberal” List party as a coalition partner.  Let’s call it the “light blues”.

National needs a “Conservative” List party as a coalition partner.  Let’s call it the “dark blues”.

ACT is best positioned (in my view) to adopt the Liberal’s role.

The Conservatives - primarily the farmer’s communities vote – such as denizens of my former Hobson electorate.

NZ First is the current bolt hole for “the working man and famer” aka “left” and “right” conservatives.  But as NZ First is Winston Peters, NZ First won’t be in the race in 2026.   Sir Winston will have arisen and be either Ambassador in USA or UK.  Therefor National needs to ensure a new “dark blue” List only party is in the race.

Axiomatically the “dark blues” should embrace the Christian minnows who have performed so abysmally since Hon Graeme Lee launched his party shortly after I (and colleagues) launched the first Party, post MMP announcement i.e., RoC (5). 

However, in my view, the Christian brand is NOT a winner in its own right.  They need to accept that repeated failure to make 5% is where their vote base has been and will be. Therefore, “they” need to accept that: united is to win - divided is to fail and move their support to the “dark blues”.  [(6) see lesson 1]

PS What is a centre right “liberal” and what is a centre right “conservative”?

Your contribution is welcome but I’d say for starters:

 “Liberal”?  For abortion.  For gay rights.  Maybe smoking a bit of wacky?

“Conservative”?  Against abortion and gay rights.  Prefer a beer mate.

These issues however as with religion, are already “Conscience votes” within National.

The key for unity is: Economic philosophy: Protection of Private Property Ownership as a fundamental pillar of private sector financing small business (and big business) - which provides employment which - generates taxation - which allows government to fund essential public services.

And now more importantly than ever: Equality before the law irrespective of race, creed, colour, religion or beliefs.

Ross Meurant. BA. MPP.  Former Police Inspector. Former Member of Parliament. Former Honorary Consul.

References: 
(1) https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/10/ross-meurant-political-perspicacity.html
(2) https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/10/ross-meurant-political-perspicacity.html
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Conservative_Party
(4) https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2022/09/ross-meurant-to-hold-pen-is-to-be-at-war.html
(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Conservative_Party
(6) https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/10/ross-meurant-political-perspicacity.html