Campaign promises rarely swing an election

Clive Bibby

Opinion

The history of New Zealand voting patterns suggests that, in normal circumstances, governments lose elections based on poor performances rather than winning on the rare occasions — like last time, over the Covid crisis — when the party in office was rewarded for what was perceived to be a meritorious effort during an abnormal time in our history.

Normally, the pendulum of public support swings only slightly, often not enough to remove the incumbent, and defeat at the polls usually only happens when voters just tire of those who occupy the treasury benches and vote for change.

The end result for an electorate such as New Zealand is that in most elections, the bulk of the votes are cast based on traditional ideological or social alliances of the individual.

So, in this country, it is rare to see dramatic swings of voter support within only one three-year cycle.

Traditionally, the government of the day is given the benefit of at least two concurrent three-year terms in office in order to give it time to fulfil its election promises.

We are generally a magnanimous lot when it comes to picking our leaders.

Actually, we don’t expect them to do too much when they get the chance, which in itself says quite a lot about how much notice we take of their campaign rhetoric. But we do expect them to be competent managers of the economy and make a reasonable attempt at helping those who are on the bottom rung of the social ladder.

However, this time the parameters around which campaigns are fought are dramatically different to all but a few held during the past 100 years.

And there are very good reasons why records are about to be broken, showing the change of voter preference in such a short electoral time frame.

We are about to see the mass rejection of a party that less than three years ago had enjoyed the confidence of more than 50 percent of the voting population.

That result was a reflection of the almost “Saint-like” reverence bestowed on the Prime Minister who had, more than any other, hoodwinked the electorate with deliberate deceptions about her real agenda. We were conned!

Dishonesty is something that will not be tolerated by voters of any description.

My guess is that the former Prime Minister knew her Government’s fate was sealed the day her party’s treachery was exposed with the publication of the He Puapua report.

Her voluntary exit from the political stage was in my view based not on the improbable reasons given at the time, or even the broken promises — but her realisation that the voters would be merciless when discovering they had been lied to.

She obviously didn’t have the stomach to face their wrath.