Most people could have told the Labour Party exactly why it lost last year's election. Most people did not want a change of government. It really is that simple, but it is not an answer either of the major political parties can accept when it loses heavily or repeatedly. It prefers to blame itself in some way rather than give any credit to its rival. The result is the sort of internal review that Labour has received.
A panel led by the former British Labour MP, Bryan Gould, has concluded Labour lost because it did not raise enough money, its parliamentary caucus did not appear united, it changed its leader less than a year before the election, it had a confusing mix of policies and its candidate and list selections were determined too much by gender, ethnic and "rainbow" representation.
Most people who did not vote Labour could have cited at least four of those five reasons, too. Labour's poor fundraising was not obvious to the public but its other problems gave rise to a general view that the party was not in good condition. Voters though are inclined to overstate a party's problems because when discussing their choice they find it easier to criticise "the other lot" than praise the party they prefer.
Labour had provided plenty of grist for criticism last year. It had changed leaders twice since the previous election, the second time by a party-wide vote that chose a leader the caucus had previously rejected and still did not want. Opinion polls showed the party's only hope of leading a government would depend on the Greens, Winston Peters and quite possibly Kim Dotcom's comic disaster called Internet-Mana. The review panel suggests Labour should have been more explicit about its coalition intentions but the numbers spoke for themselves.
Elections under MMP can be hard on the party coming second, as National learned in 2002. Voters who normally support the party have many other choices when it is clearly not going to win. Some of them will vote for a minor party that might have some some influence on the government the winning party will form. Others will not bother to vote. But they will all come back as soon as the political tide turns, just as National's voters came back in 2005.
