John Roughan: Need National be worried? No, not all that much

A great deal of nonsense has been spouted since the election, especially about the National Party. On election night we were shown vast swathes of the country turning red on television because Labour had won the greater number of their party votes.

For a night or two thereafter we were treated to our only avowed left-wing commentator, Chris Trotter, furrowing his brow in mock concern at what had happened to this "once great party that bestrode the land like a colossus".

"How could this happen?" he asked, shaking his head. "I just don't understand it."

Well I do, and so, I suspect, does he. The sun has been shining on the economy for three years, people are contented, we have a system of proportional representation now and the only worry to most people at this election was a collection of messianic wackos called the Greens.

Add those ingredients together and it is not much surprise that National's vote should collapse to a level unseen for a major party in 100 years.

In fact, with the near impossibility of National winning this election, the risk that the Government could become hostage to the Greens and the ability presented by MMP to do something about that, the surprise may be that National got any votes at all.

Bill English and his party cannot, of course, say this. They are obliged to pretend that they are the architects of their fate and can do something about it. They must indulge in ritual recriminations and find a human sacrifice.

The last time that National lost two elections on the trot, their new leader, Jim Bolger, was forgiven and his deputy, George Gair, took the fall. That opened the way for Ruth Richardson to run for deputy, lose, and be given the finance role in consolation. Even meaningless sacrifices can have fateful consequences.

National was obviously caught short by the early election and ran a low-rent campaign borrowed hurriedly from Act. But a more respectable presentation probably wouldn't have made much difference. The country simply was not in the mood for change. It happens.

Even National Party stalwarts believed Labour deserved a second term.

Many make the mistake of supposing the two major parties are mirror images of each other. They are not.

When Bill English became National's leader and began emailing a weekly newsletter to members, they replied chastising him for being too critical of the Government. Labour in opposition never had that problem.

It is hard to imagine 15 per cent of Labour voters at the previous election crossing to National. DigiPoll discovered that much of National's 1999 vote leaking to Labour in the second week of this campaign (before the voters found Peter Dunne).

It is common for National sympathisers, and even its MPs, to survey the MMP landscape and say, quite seriously, their preferred coalition partner would be Labour. You never hear the reciprocal view from Labour.

Labour people know instinctively that it would be the death of their party to associate with the class enemy. National people don't see politics that way. Labour is proudly a party of sectional interest. When Labour governments refer to "our people" they don't mean all of us. National never uses the term.

National conferences are full of people who are in the party to do their bit, as they see it, for the sensible running of the country. They join other civic organisations with a similar motive. It is not entirely philanthropic. They enjoy associating with the great and famous and relish an electoral contest as much as Labour activists do.

But they have limited patience for political argument and they are not at all interested in opposition for its own sake.

They are interested in practical government. They took a long look at their options for this election and quite a number decided to checkmate the Greens. Others no doubt stayed at home.

Look at the results in those rural and rich urban seats that were festooned with Labour pins on election night. In almost all of them, the party vote for Labour is much as it was at the last election. The difference is that United Future and New Zealand First have carved substantial slices out of National's usual tallies.

Result: 21 per cent. Labour in is darkest losses never sank so low.

Need National worry? Not much. National and Labour remain the only credible parties of government for this country and National has been preferred more often than not.

That is called complacency by those who resent it. Complacency is a close relative of confidence. It is National's confidence that gets up the nose of opponents and commentators.

Resent it they might but they would love Labour to have it. A few dare hope this Government might command the scene long enough to see Labour displace National as the default government for the next 50 years. To manage that, it will need to weather an economic downturn or two.

Competence is National's strong suit: the boring, cautious competence of business experience. Amid the recriminations for this election, National needs to keep its head, ignore those who urge it to change, become more aggressive in Opposition, apologise for the 1990s or adopt some fashionable fudge of policy.

It may not make for exciting political comment, but the task for National now is to maintain its natural confidence, quietly assert its competence - and wait.

Full election coverage

Graphic: Seats in the 47th Parliament

Full election results

Election links:
The parties, policies, electoral information, and more