Election result ‘was positive message to politicians’

Press, 9 December 1981, Page 1

Election result ‘was positive message to politicians’

Voters in the General Election had given politicians a “pretty positive message to get their act together,” said Mr Alan Mcßobie. a Christchurch political scientist, yesterday. He told the Lions Club of Christchurch that if anybody had won this year’s election it was probably the electorate. The outcome could be seen as a conscious choice by voters. “But they are only going to win if the members of Parliament heed the message of the 1981 election,” he said. The turnout on election night was 81.5 per cent, and on final figures would probably be 90 or 91 per cent, which was high by recent New Zealand and world standards. The result raised the question of electoral reform, he said. Neither of the main parties gained 40 per cent of the vote, and Social Credit, which attracted more than 300,000 votes, had won only two seats. Once special votes had been counted this election could be the second in succession in which Labour won the most votes over-all but not the most seats. Special votes tended to favour Labour because of the many specials in the Maori electorates. The “first past the post system” had been favoured because it produced a. clear result. But the result this time might not be clear, Mr Mcßobie said. If only 60 voters spread through Gisborne, Helensville, Taupo, and Eden had voted Labour the party would have won 47 seats and National, 43. “The outcome may still hang on ‘Penthouse’ readers in Kings Cross rather than on people who live in New Zealand,” Mr Mcßobie said. There had been no uniform swing in the election. There were marked regional variations: Labour was strong in the South Island, and

National and Social Credit strong in the North Island. National should have been beaten, Mr Mcßobie said. Its record had included doubledigit inflation, continuing economic uncertainty, historically high levels of unemployment, political embarrassments, leadership struggles, and being caught on earlier promises such as the Gleneagles agreement. It had survived because the National Party was pragmatic in its determination to keep office. The Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) had run a successful campaign because he had kept discussion on his own terms and had directed attention away from problems such as inflation and unemployment. National’s promises had been vague, while Labour’s and Social Credit’s had been specific. This had enabled Mr Muldoon to raise the issue of their “ability to deliver.” National had fought successfully on two fronts against Labour and Social Credit. Labour had promised too much, and had suffered from lack of leadership credibility and marked divisions in the Parliamentary party. Social Credit had made gains, but had failed to push home its advantage, Mr Mcßobie said. Electors did not yet seem to be prepared to trust Social Credit with the reins of government. All the parties faced difficulties. National and Labour had leadership problems. National did not really have a mandate to govern and had to convince the electorate it should be positively supported. In Labour there was a struggle between the “old guard” and the “trendy Lefties” and academics. The name, “Labour,” with its association with the Depression, class conflict, and socialism, was a handicap. Social Credit was in a similar “bind” because its economic theory had never been understood or accepted.

The Labour Party’s leader (Mr Rowling) had been “effectively destroyed” by Mr Muldoon in the 1975 and 1978 election campaigns. If the final result of this year’s election was a “hung” Parliament, Mr Rowling’s “inevitable demise” would be stopped because Labour could not afford the threat of a new election with a new leader, Mr Mcßobie said. If National came out ahead, a new party might eventually replace Labour as the Opposition. It would be like a social democratic party and would draw its members from Labour, Social Credit, and would take some liberal National members.