Can Labour win big enough to go it alone?

By JOHN ARMSTRONG

When Helen Clark put everyone else out of their misery by finally announcing the election date, it was time for the various party strategists around Parliament to start really sweating.

Not over the readiness of policy manifestos, advertising hoardings, candidate lists and the other assorted paraphernalia of electioneering. But over something far more vital - media coverage of the campaign.

National is worried that media attention will focus on little else but the odds of Labour winning an absolute majority and not needing the Greens to govern, rather than the bread-and-butter issues the Opposition wants to highlight.

Labour is nervous that the extra profile Bill English will enjoy in the weeks leading up to polling day on July 27 will see a clever foe win the media's sympathy as the underdog and give National much-needed momentum.

A pile of requests from Television New Zealand, TV3, Sky and Radio New Zealand to participate in a plethora of leaders' debates already sits on the Prime Minister's desk.

Judging from past campaigns, the frequency, format and rules of such engagements will be subject to intense negotiation. Clark is Labour's best weapon, but there is a limit to the party's willingness to help give her opponents - English in particular - more exposure and more free hits .

For the past 2 1/2years, Clark has assiduously worked the media, maintaining an extraordinary availability to reporters for a Prime Minister and front-footing issues as soon as they arise, much to the consternation of less nimble rivals.

But Labour strategists are aware that the advantage will be diluted during the campaign.

First, however good their record, governments are inevitably placed on the defensive at election time. Second, the Leader of the Opposition is suddenly on more equal terms with the Prime Minister who reverts to status of party leader.

And Clark and English have yet to go face-to-face on live television. Soon they will.

From the other wing of Parliament Buildings, National has been firing less-than-subtle pre-campaign warning shots at the media, writing letters of complaint over perceived bias, accusing interviewers of being Helen Clark's mouthpiece and haranguing editors over the phone. The message: don't you dare write us off, don't you dare ignore us in the weeks ahead.

The heavying only highlights National's big handicap. As one party insider puts it, National is struggling to overcome the "relevance hurdle".

MMP election campaigns inevitably focus on who is likely to go into coalition with whom afterwards. The opinion polls, which were deadly accurate in foreshadowing the outcome of the first two MMP elections, are steadfastly indicating the centre-right will not form the next Government.

So far, Labour has defined the campaign agenda as being about whether it should be allowed to rewrite the MMP textbook and be trusted to govern alone without minor party influence or constraint.

If voters don't like the tail wagging the dog, then why not do without the tail?

Predictably, the minor parties are responding by trying to revive ugly memories of absolutist first-past-the-post governments, especially Labour ones.

To avoid being shut out of the argument, English is insisting Labour will never get enough votes to run a stand-alone government. He is saying this to try to persuade National-leaning voters not to vote Labour simply to keep the Greens out of government.

But is he right? Or can Helen Clark get her majority?

That depends on two things: turnout and the threshold. Labour's Achilles' heel is the potential complacency of its low-income supporters who might not bother to vote if they think the party is going to win easily.

Herald political columnist Colin James says Clark's making an issue out of getting a majority may be the necessary bait to get traditional supporters to the ballot box.

"Helen Clark has got to keep hammering that she wants an untrammelled government."

At the same time, she and Labour will have to be careful not to appear arrogant and not be seen to be treating MMP with contempt.Clark also has to be careful not to "beat up" on the Greens for fear of sending votes their way

To govern alone, Colin James estimates Labour needs at least 47 per cent of the vote plus Jim Anderton's Wigram seat which, in effect, adds another 1 per cent. (Clark has said Anderton will be in her second-term cabinet.)

Why not 50 per cent? That is because some parties which win votes will fall below the 5 per cent threshold and not be entitled to seats.

Laila Harre's Alliance and Christian Heritage are likely to be the most prominent of these and account for at least around 4 per cent. If this "wasted vote" totals 5 per cent, that will leave a 95 per cent "effective vote" to be divided among parties which do win seats. To get a majority, a coalition will need to score only a bit more than half of that 95 per cent - that is, 48 per cent.

In 1999, Labour received 39 per cent of the vote. It has since hoovered up much of the 1999 Alliance vote, which reached nearly 8 per cent. What looks to be a big ask is do-able.

Of course, if the "wasted vote" is higher, as it may well be, the percentage that Labour plus Anderton will need is lower.

For example, if Winston Peters were not to win Tauranga and New Zealand First were to win 4 per cent of the vote, that would lower the "effective vote" to 91 per cent and the hurdle for the majority would be 46 per cent.

And if Act, now polling below 5 per cent, were not to clear the threshold, the hurdle would be even lower.

Labour is averaging 52 per cent in the four nationwide polls, well clear of the 48 per cent it needs for a majority with Anderton's help.

The last time a party secured more than 50 per cent of the vote was in 1951 when National won the snap election it called over the waterfront dispute on the back of a boom in wool prices.

There were few minor party candidates - and the winner-takes-all nature of first-past-the-post was a huge disincentive against voting for them.

As it was in 1990 when National secured close to 48 per cent in a landslide victory.

In that election, however, the minor parties captured 17 per cent after Labour's vote collapsed.

Three years earlier, Labour was re-elected for a second term, securing 48 per cent of the vote. A financial market boom made that election campaign a noisy irrelevance to the outcome despite David Lange having several altercations with angry farmers who had been deprived of income-sustaining subsidies under his Government's free-market policies.

Clark can expect the same treatment from disgruntled teachers, but she will take heart from other parallels with 1987.

She, too, goes into this campaign with the majority of voters comfortable with the country's direction plus huge personal popularity. And her party has cemented a poll lead over National which goes back many months - as it did in 1987.

All this adds up to a big credit at the Bank of Credibility. As the fake painting scandal showed, Clark has the leeway to make the odd mistake on the hustings. English, still on trial and slow to make an impact with voters, does not.

This is Clark's third campaign as leader; it is English's first. Experience counts.

As comfortable front-runner, Clark can afford to run a conservative campaign knowing voters are not looking for excitement or change this time.

In contrast, English has to take risks. His colleagues, however, fear his cautious thinking-man's instincts will stop him grabbing the campaign by the throat and really shaking things up.

But National's bottom line is simply to do better than it did in 1999 when it registered 30.5 per cent - the worst result in its history. If defeat is inevitable it must be respectable.

The party has been polling at slightly below that level, but claims its private surveys show it is starting to track upwards again after slipping in the wake of bad publicity surrounding the Serious Fraud Office inquiry into party donations.

"When you get into the heat of a campaign, at least some of the people who are drifting away will come back," says Colin James.

"I think there is enough substance in Bill English for people when they are focused on him and the exposure he will get for them to conclude he's a little more than just a boy from the farm ... But we have not seen a lot of 'alternative Prime Minister' from him yet."

Even if we do, will it be enough to halt what is looking to be a Clark-inspired Labour landslide of truly historic proportions?

Full coverage:
nzherald.co.nz/election

Election links