John Armstrong: Official election results slay myth of a great city and country divide

A nation divided? The release of the official election results should finally slay the myth that September 17 opened up some kind of chasm between urban and rural-provincial New Zealand.

The notion gained currency as election-night maps revealed a blue tide sweeping across the country with no less than nine of Labour's provincial seats falling to National.

However, even a cursory examination of the party vote in those seats on election night made nonsense of claims that New Zealand was split - and that has been confirmed by the final tallies.

Elections have always swung on the mood of the provincial cities and their surrounds. This one was no different. The mood swung in National's favour, but not in sufficient quantity to dislodge Labour.

In some of the provincial seats which changed hands on the electorate vote, the number of party votes cast for Labour actually increased on 2002 levels.

Labour did surprisingly well in Otago. It narrowly lost the highly marginal seat, but Labour's party vote increased by more than 12 per cent on the 2002 result.

Even in next door Aoraki - which includes Timaru and which saw Cabinet minister Jim Sutton thumped by nearly 7000 electorate votes - Labour lost just 354 party votes.

It was as if voters wanted to punish Labour but remained extremely wary of National. So they found outlet by casting their electorate vote against Labour incumbents such as Sutton, Rick Barker (Tukituki) and Russell Fairbrother (Napier).

Labour would dismiss ideas of an urban-rural split by pointing to its nationwide vote. Labour secured 97,100 more votes than in 2002 - an increase of 11 per cent.

However, with nearly 250,000 more votes cast at this election, Labour's overall share of the vote was a shade under its 2002 level - 41.1 per cent as against 41.26 per cent.

When that higher turnout is taken into account, Labour's provincial vote does not look quite so flash.

Helen Clark will heed the warning signs despite those on her left urging her to be bold policy-wise over the next three years.

In Aoraki, for example, Labour's share of the party vote dropped from more than 44 per cent in 2002 to under 40 per cent. There was a similar slump in Napier.

Labour's share of the party vote also slipped by two to three percentage points in Nelson, Otaki, Tukituki, East Coast, Kaikoura, New Plymouth and Wairarapa.

The beneficiary, of course, was National. It substantially lifted its party vote in all the provincial seats, sometimes doubling its share and overtaking Labour as support for the minor parties collapsed in its favour.

In Aoraki, National captured 43 per cent of the party vote against Labour's 39.8 per cent. In 2002, National got just 24 per cent against Labour's 44 per cent-plus.

But National failed to make sufficient inroads into Labour's party vote in enough provincial seats.

Labour maintained its share in Hamilton East and Hamilton West, and even managed to increase it in Palmerston North.

Look no further than the student vote for an explanation.

Indeed, Labour's promise to axe interest on student loans may have been the thing that saved its bacon overall.

How else to explain why Labour's party vote, for example, jumped by more than 20 per cent in Dunedin North, the home of Otago University?

That is one pledge Labour simply cannot afford to break.