National's first chance to pause a Labour pet project

Rail electrification in Auckland. The leftwing dominated ARC is dying for the incoming government to pay for this, with the regional petrol tax the outgoing government voted for. The NZ Herald suggests National would pay for it, I think the incoming government should get a full briefing on the economic and fiscal position before committing to it.

So whilst I'd just kill it in its tracks so to speak, here is a starting point for John Key:

1. Demand a full economic benefit/cost of the project to be independently commissioned by The Treasury, requesting data from the ARC and other Auckland councils, with support from the NZ Transport Agency and MOT. It should highlight clearly:
- Total project capital costs including optimism bias not identified by ARC, and contingency risk.
- The total operating subsidy expected after the project is completed, on a per passenger basis. Compare this to the subsidy per average bus passenger.
- What proportion of new patronage is expected to come from existing bus passengers, existing cyclists and pedestrians, existing motorists and people making new trips they otherwise wouldn't have done.
- The proportion of those costs that ARC is prepared to pay for and what it expects central government and the new petrol tax to pay for.
- The economic value of travel time and vehicle operating cost savings that motorists will gain from the project, and any reductions in public transport subsidies. This should be a range based on a host of sensitivity tests. In other words, will this reduce congestion?
- The counterfactual. What happens if this does not proceed? What more cost effective alternatives exist? This includes buses, and reforming road governance and pricing.

Auckland wont fold if this project is delayed a year, but you do need a decent view on why congestion exists in Auckland, and it isn't because there isn't an electric railway.

Meanwhile, scrap the regional fuel tax - that will help give the economy a boost, ACT should support you on this, and say that as part of the wholesale review of government spending, central government funding of railways will be put on hold beyond that contractually committed.

By the way John, send whoever your incoming Transport Minister will be, with Bill English on a fact finding tour of the USA to see how little difference urban rail projects have done there in relieving congestion, and how much money they have cost. It might give you a new insight on how to deal with Auckland local government - you might wonder why you should listen to the ARC at all given its wholesale acceptance of the Green Party dogma of railways and Smart Growth.

So while I would scrap it John, at least suspend it - let your government get officials and consultants not involved in promoting the project to review it with tight terms of reference - get the facts about how what real value this will provide.

NZ First without Winston Peters?

Like the Alliance without Jim Anderton and the New Zealand Party without Bob Jones.

The NZ Herald suggests it would seek to be a conservative economic nationalist party. Muldoon's legacy.

Of course it will be something the left will welcome, as it trims votes from National, but as long as National doesn't privatise (or does so rather prudently), then the xenophobic vote will largely be taken by the Greens - who are ardent economic nationalists.

Give up, enjoy your pensions folks - your great leader is retiring, and the 5 seats you would've got had Tauranga voters put him in have gone to National, Labour, ACT and the Greens - but don't think about the next election, life is too short at your age, enjoy it.

The (not really fat) controller going too

Farewell Dr Cullen, though it is unclear if this is your last term or you are disappearing sooner than that. If you are about to retire, Damien O'Connor could sneak in as he is next on the list - which wouldn't be a bad thing (although it means Judith is next!).

I'll write later on this man's legacy, he has cost New Zealand billions, he lent the Labour government a bizarre level of financial credibility, but was one of Parliament's great debaters. He will also be remembered for telling businesses in 2000 "we won, you lost, eat that".

Cullen was the only Cabinet Minister who could really match Clark and who Clark needed more as much as he needed her, after all he did nearly rumble her after the 1996 election defeat when Labour only got 28% of the party vote.

I for one will only miss his debating skills and sense of humour, if only he had used that to entertain us instead of taxing and wasting our money.

What happens to small parties in election cycles?

The psephologist in me (yes damnable I know at times like this) has noticed a trend in how the relatively minor parties go at election cycles. The minor parties are places to go when you the major party you are aligned with is not going to win or is overwhelmingly going to win, whereas if it looks like a tight race, the minor parties get abandoned. Take the following:

2008

Fairly strong indication that Labour would lose and National would win. The confidence in National winning (combined with certainty of Hide winning Epsom) meant that those likely to support ACT came out and ticked ACT, knowing National would comfortably surpass Labour. That was not the case in 2005, when National needed all the votes it could get to try to pass Labour (and ACT's polling was a self fulfilling prophecy). More importantly, those on the left saw Labour as losing, and its only chance being a coalition with the Greens, as a result the Greens did better than in 2005. In 2005 the Greens were almost wiped out as Labour looked neck and neck with National. The Greens will do better with specials, but they haven't done that well, as it would have been comfortable for Labour voters to turn Green given the polls - it suggests the Greens face some brand burnout, paying the price for the recession and the anti-smacking law - both of which should fade a bit in three years.

Another factor is NZ First and United Future, both burnt by being part of the government. Those wanting a change in government saw little point supporting them, those wanting to stick to Labour would vote Labour. Jim Anderton's Progressives continue to shrink, why vote for him instead of Labour?

2005

A neck and neck race decimated small parties, excluding the Maori Party which was new and was occupying a different part of the political demographic. All small parties were hurt as people rallied to the two main parties, the Greens and NZ First scraped in, ACT focused on Epsom to save itself, and United Future was decimated. Why? Because those who voted United Future in 2002 did so to give Labour a coalition partner that was centrist. With National now having a chance of winning, and United Future having propped up Labour in 2002, National was the preference for half of those voters. Notice how Jim Anderton's Progressive shrunk further as it was indistinguishable from Labour.

2002

Pretty much a forgone conclusion for Labour, as a result ACT had its best ever result at 7.14% as National voters gave up, United Future pulled off 6.69% as National voters gave Labour a coalition partner to the right (once Dunne's profile had been lifted by a single TV debate) and NZ First awakened its latent supporters getting 10.38%. The Greens also got 7%, an improvement on 1999. The flipside was the Alliance, which lost badly because it was seen as part of the government, not helped by Jim Anderton going off on his own - you either supported the government (voting Labour) or wanted it moulded in one direction or another (Greens/United Future). However, overall minor parties do well when the result of the majors looks conclusive.

1999

Very high likelihood of Labour victory, so ACT gained over 7% as National voters scrambled for a good coalition partner. By contrast, NZ First was punished by its supporters who wanted a change of government, getting 4.26% (virtually the same as 2008). The effect of being in coalition with the outgoing incumbent government. The Greens were new and novel, and grabbed just over 5%, harming the Alliance a little (7.74% rather than 10% in 1996). However again, with Labour having a fairly sure victory, enough voted Alliance because Labour was seen as comfortable. United at this point was seen as irrelevant and had no profile.

So what does this mean for the future? Well for minor parties, the best comes when the result of the major parties is fairly certain AND you are not part of an outgoing government.

However there is one other point to note - the demise of NZ First, the imminent demise of Jim Anderton's Progressives and United Future in its twilight years will all remove three parties largely based on personalities not principles - this will leave the Greens, ACT and the Maori Party as the core small parties in Parliament, all of which I would suggest are in a far better place to hold onto core supporters than the parties formed of ex. Labour and National MPs.

Dear Jim Anderton

Jim, you've seen what Helen and Michael have done. You've set up Kiwibank which now even the Nats wont touch, you set up the Ministry of Economic Development (well a conversion job) and the Nats wont touch that. The Nats have been elected, on a platform of limited change. Your side still won the policy arguments, if not the election. You are a one man party, you face at least three years in Opposition or a retirement to spend with your family. Your family life has been tough over many years, and you are highly unlikely to be back in government again.

Time to retire Jim. I've hated your politics, I've opposed them at every election, but you have had many successes from your point of view. You led the campaign to change the electoral system, which has done more to kneecap further free market liberal reforms than anything else. You turned Labour from being a free market reformist party into a centre left interventionist party, and shed the more radical Marxist elements so that what is left of the Alliance is now around the size of Libertarianz, and with even less attention. You rode on the economic growth that resulted from the reforms you passionately resisted, maybe you learnt something (which is why you ditched the Alliance), I hope so.

So it's over - hold your party's next AGM and announce a windup, because it has no future without out and no profile (look, even Winston never had to name his party Winston Peters's New Zealand First). Enjoy retirement, and let Wigram have a by-election