It’s the 1st election yr in a decade I’m not working in Parliament but I’ve got reckons!

So, what conditions are faced by the significant parties (Labour, National, Greens, NZF) & what strategies will they employ?

(this is a monster thread, I’ll spread it over a few days) (1/N)

A lot of election coverage is about edge cases, weird situations, personality clashes. They're interesting, but they're not how elections are won & lost.

Political parties that win focus on the bottom line: getting enough voters to go their way to get the numbers they need (2/N)

A few 1st principles:

Policy nerds (like me) don't like to acknowledge it's rational that leadership matters far more to voters than policy in elections.

Voters know they don’t know all the details, and they know unexpected things will happen that a govt must react to. (3/N)

Voters want a leader who has a vision for the future they can get behind, who they can trust to do what they say they’ll do, who will do the right thing when the unexpected occurs, and who will do the job well

Voters know they're electing a decision maker, not a policy-bot (4/N)

Look at Jacinda after March 15 vs ScoMo and the bushfires. That's the difference leadership makes and voters know it.

Leadership: vision, trust, competence are the pillars policy rests on. A big part of a campaign is showing you have them, and the other side doesn't (5/N)

Policy does matter, though.

Successful policy both needs to be the right thing for a party to do according to its values, and a vote winner.

There’s no use writing screeds of great ideas noone will vote for if it just becomes a manifesto of a failed election. (6/N)

Strategy can't get hung up on the little things that past voters by because they have other things worry about.

eg we politics watchers dissect details of a speech from Bridges, but the real strategic issue for National is many voters don’t know who he is (7/N)

Micro-scandals pass most voters by but scandal can be strategy (eg Nats v NZF)

Scandals begin to matter if they build a narrative, or build on an existing one, and if they run long enough to get through to swing voters - hard to achieve in the modern news environment (8/N)

Let’s start with the Greens.

As the furthest Left party, they don’t have to worry about who they would work within government. It’s Labour, every time – all other discussions are just fantasy.

Indeed, James has already ruled out working with National while Bridges leads (9/N)

The Greens' imperative is get over 5%, with a stretch target of 10%, and remain a politically viable partner for Labour.

Polling is on target to achieve this but that doesn't mean it's in the bag.

National knows the advantage of knocking out Labour's closest ally (10/N)

National hopes Sustainability will be a spoiler party, taking enough Green votes to send them under 5%. But Green voters won't fall for a fake.

The Greens have faced real competition for their core vote – young, urban, educated – in the last 2 elections and come through. (11/N)

The main threats are:

- not offering enough points of difference and too much of their support goes to Jacinda and Labour

- being portrayed as extremist or destabilising, potentially forcing Labour to distance itself, reducing both their vote and the govt’s overall vote (12/N)

The risks pull in opposite directions.

The 1st says go more extreme, the 2nd says be a meek partner.

In 2017, both these negative scenarios played out for the Greens. Meyt’s benefit fraud made them look extreme, and Jacinda attracted swing Green/Labour voters to Labour (13/N)

Should they try to win a seat?

Marama isn't going to win Tamaki Makaurau, unless they're polling well below 5% and Labour gives TM voters the nod. Even then, it might not happen.

It's a emergency back up, not a primary strategy. Focus should be on the party vote (14/N)

The cannabis referendum will help the Greens.

They get a large portion of their vote from the young voters whose turnout is most likely to increase because they want to vote in the referendum

(the anti-legislation types are mostly older and have very high turnout anyway) (15/N)

Because Labour will seek to stay on the sidelines of the referendum, the Greens can campaign on it and get party votes from pro-legislation voters without competition from Labour.

Chloe should continue making the running on this, focusing on tertiary students (16/N)

There’s a balance to be struck though.

The Greens don’t want the referendum to be exclusively associated with them, lest the association turns rightwing voters off voting Yes, or Labour-Green voters see them as only caring about cannabis. (17/N)

So, what the Greens need to do is be attractive to their own core vote and some Labour voters.

Get that balance right between not being too meek but not being too extreme.

Use the cannabis referendum, but don't become all about it.

Easier said than done (18/N)

But it does at least boil down to a simple message: vote for us and get a more Left, more environmentalist Jacinda-led Govt

This suggests a relatively safe strategy: a few positive ideas seen as pulling Labour Left. no attempted king hits that will likely miss (cf 2017) (19/N)

Positivity will be important for the Greens.

They don’t want to be the weird, negative ones when Jacinda's starpower is on full beam.

Marama & James aren't natural headline makers, so positive, attention-grabbing ads will be vital. They’ve got a good company lined up (20/N)

The Greens have the opportunity to tell a positive story about fighting climate change – all the great benefits of going carbon zero (eg cleaner air, cheaper living costs, spending billions a year here rather than sending it to oil despots)

That's something to vote *for* (21/N)

People don’t need climate doom and gloom anymore- everyone who is going to get it gets it.

The opportunity exists to tell a positive, attractive story of what a carbon free future looks like - a future people will want to vote for, not just things to fear if we don't act (22/N)

the Greens could pledge a billion a year to spend on electrifying and decarbonising the economy –
something exciting and visionary like free, electrified public transport
something for the mortgage belt, eg subsidies for solar/battery installation (23/N)

The Greens could also find a couple of populist issues where Labour has been too managerial – loan sharks springs to mind – and take a strong values-based stance led by Marama (eg pledge to drive loan sharks out of business with tougher rules against their usury) (24/N)

And celebrate successes – rail, Zero Carbon Act, more public transport etc - the message: we can have more, but only with a strong Green presence in Govt. It's not a knock your socks off campaign. The aim is to show progress to the base and pick up Lab voters who want more (25/N)

Like the Greens, NZF’s imperative is to get over 5% with a stretch goal of 10%.

With the polls tight, a seat would be a good backup. Peters could win Northland back (he lost by only 1300) but wld need nod from Labour & plenty of Nat voters. Tough. Can't see Jones doing it (26/N)

Even before Bridges ruled them out, there was never a serious chance of NZF working with National.

They are governing with Labour and working well. Bridges & Bennett are arrogantly still angry Peters didn't anoint them just because National got the most votes (27/N)

Like every election, National will keep trying to knock NZF below 5% by running up mini scandals and ruling out working for them

So predictable Peters could even have taken the initiative by ruling out working with National while Bridges is the Leader, like the Greens did (28/N)

Like the Greens, NZF need to stand out from Jacinda and be seen as independent without being seen as too destabilising

They’ll be willing to push the boat out with controversial statements to try to grab headlines and mark their place even if it makes Labour uncomfortable (29/N)

National hopes the New Conservatives will be a threat to NZF but they're only a minor one.

They are attempting to hunt in the same patch as NZF, but they’re crazy and they’re actually competing with ACT for the gun nut/very-online-boomer vote (30/N)

Tied to Labour but needing to find centre/centre-right votes NZF's message is: ‘vote for us and we’ll keep Jacinda on the straight and narrow’
and a sub-message for Nat voters: ‘Bridges has lost anyway, vote for us and we'll ensure the Jacinda govt won’t go too far left’ (31/N)

You see this in their climate change positioning (and Ihumatao).

In govt, they’ve helped get things done, like the Zero Carbon Act, but in the campaign they’ll market themselves as the anchor on the greenies with the headline grabbing statements Jones specialsies in (32/N)

While the Greens will be about a positive vision and the party rather than the leaders, NZF will run on the leader and reliability - Peters as the elder statesman, no nonsense, gets the right things done, feet on the ground, doesn’t tolerate bullshit, fights for you (33/N)

Delivering for the regions, esp Northland, will be a big plank for NZF. Visiting PGF projects, rail improvements, local road upgrades

If it's not decided beforehand, they'll probably make the port move a bottom line – promising of jobs & money flowing into Northland (34/N)

NZF will use examples of how they’ve moderated govt policies but still got things done will be important.

They’ll promise something new for older New Zealanders – probably in the health space.

And find a populist bad guy to bash - a corporate or speculator group (35/N)

They'll set a number of bottom lines.

Throughout the campaign, Peters will raise the possibility of sitting on the cross-benches if he doesn't get them ('we're here to get things done, not for the laurels') to keep his distance from Labour & increase his bargaining power (36/N)

After the 2017 election, I sat down and thought out National’s 2020 strategy. I came up with: tax cuts, crime, roads, and attack the govt on delivery.

They're running this strategy now - because, frankly, they don't have any better ideas to offer voters (37/N)

They don't have any ideas on health, education, housing or the environment but tax & crime are old standards for National & crime helps tell Bridges backstory without talking about failing to build bridges.

Problem is, neither of these issues are priorities for voters atm (38/N)

National was making headway with roads as a campaign issue but that's nullified now.

The curse of opposition. Any issue resonating with swing voters is inherently going to be centrist & have some justification. A smart govt can address it & take the wind out of your sails (39/N)

Without popular policy and against a very popular PM, the plan for the Nats is to find faults on the Govt's record while minimise attacking Jacinda personally

This Govt's huge agenda was always going to have bits fall behind, which they can attack and ignore the successes (40/N)

Not having a vision of their own that people would vote for, they are trying kick the away the competence pillar from under Labour.

Their core message is a negative one: ‘Labour talked big but didn’t deliver, come home to National’ (aka reverse of Goff's 2011 campaign) (41/N)

But, despite a clear strategy, Bridges & spokespeople are still barking at every passing car, dabbling in alt-right politics & reflexively attacking Jacinda, because they're angry & she's the reason they're in opposition

This just reinforces the 'negative National' image (42/N)

Yes, this lacks vision and positivity. But governing is its own end for National.

This is their best bet given their lack of new ideas and an inspirational leader, and it conforms w the negative mindset they have got themselves in.

Problem is it only speaks to their base (43/N)

The difficulties National faces is its leader, the lack of vision, low importance of its issues in voters' eyes, and its lack of partners. They can try to address the latter by trying to knock out Labour's partners, but the first is the biggest risk (44/N)

I’ve been through 3 campaigns where Labour had a leader whose popularity was low, but higher than Bridges

Each time, at the start of election year, the polls showed us in striking distance of a Labour-led govt

Each time, that changed as the public switched on to politics (45/N)

As voters began to assess the potential Labour PM against the incumbent National one, Labour’s polling began to drop.

This then became a self-perpetuating decline as voters decided the Government would win and looked to support parties to influence or moderate the govt (46/N)

This could happen to National

Bridges is desperately unpopular, particularly with women. He'll drag on National's vote as people assess him as a PM & compare him to Jacinda - I’ve heard polling shows less support for ‘National w Bridges as PM’ than ‘National’ alone (47/N)

In the pressure cooker of the campaign – Bridges unpopularity and tendency to kneejerk, spiteful comments will stand in stark contrast to Jacinda.

Could they ditch Bridges? Possibly. Bennett seems to be positioning herself for the Hail Mary pass but would she be better? (48/N)

National is unlikely to face the self-reinforcing vote collapse Labour did because right voters don’t have anywhere else to go.

Labour would lose votes to other opposition parties, Greens or NZF.

National is, for all intents and purposes, the whole of the centre-right (49/N)

Small numbers of hard right voters will go to ACT and New Cons, while more centrist ones could go to NZF and Sustainability. Some will just stay home.

National's vote will fall but not too far. A sustained drop into the 30s would be calamitous (50/N)

To avoid this, National need to poll 45%+ heading into the campaign. At 42%, National is 6-7% the same as Labour+Greens when Andrew resigned, w no potential partner like NZF to make the difference

If they're not 45%+, voters will start to write them off & look elsewhere (51/N)

To beat Labour+Greens+NZF, Bridges has to do something Key never could and get 48+% of the vote.

But Bridges is more likely to drag on the Nats vote than propel it to new heights. He can't attract enough voters to get a majority in his own right. So, what's the answer? (52/N)

National is seeking to lower the hurdle.

If the Greens and NZF poll 4% and win no seats, National only need outpoll Labour alone to win.

That's why they ruled out NZF.

That's why Sustainability NZ exists.

Knocking out NZF & Greens is absolutely core National strategy (53/N)

A strategy of trying to waste 200,000 voters votes leaves a bad taste in the mouth but with an unpopular leader, no voting winning vision, and no mates it's simply a vital part of National's route to victory (54/N)

My assessment is it won't work though.

NZF is in a tricky position but Winston is canny. They should be able to get 5%, and could end up getting a fair number of Nat voters seeking to moderate Jacinda.

The Greens are likely to pick up more soft Labour voters, if anything (55/N)

National will rely on negative, deceptive social media ads.

They calculate lying doesn’t matter if it helps them win and it doesn’t matter if they get called out for it.

They're also dabbling in some nasty dogwhistling to the alt-right.

But, again, it's a base strategy (56/N)

They look at Trump, Johnson, Morrison & think negative, lying social media worked for them & it’ll work for Bridges

But was it the relentless lying on social media that worked for them? Or was it they were mostly incumbents, had a clear vision & very unpopular opponents? (57/N)

When your message is 'dump popular Jacinda, get grumpy Bridges', you're in trouble.

Believing some crap ads on Facebook can make up for that is a big bet.

One achievements video from Jacinda got more hits and more coverage than all those weak memes combined (58/N)

Also, lying in Facebook ads isn’t some super-weapon – it’s just an old con artist in a new suit.

The danger for National is negative ads in a negative campaign on top of Bridges’ default negativity in tone and manner just becomes an annoying drone that voters tune out (59/N)

Bridges’ word cloud used to be dominated with ‘untrustworthy’, now ‘negative’ is the big thing people associate with National.

To win National need to turn that negativity around. Stop talking to the base and get some popular positions on issues swing voters will vote for (60/N)

Labour has a lot of balls to juggle:
they need to win the centre voters that swing elections that National want too;
not shed too much to the Greens;
articulate the next steps in their progressive vision;
and keep relations with both Greens and NZF positive and stable (61/N)

With the Greens and NZF, it’s about keeping the lines of communication open and giving each other space and respect to be different without coming into conflict.

Three years of working together in government has laid the groundwork for that (62/N)

To combat National's systemic lying and negativity, someone like Grant or Chippie needs to be assigned to call it out and counter the lies quickly.

That allows Jacinda to get on with the positive politics she wants (63/N)

National thinks Jacinda campaigning positively is some Machiavellian attack on them but that just reflects the deeply negative mindset they're in.

Jacinda really wants positive politics, she wants a kinder politics, and doesn't do negative stories other leaders would do (64/N)

Labour’s challenge is it is being attacked on delivery when it has actually done a huge amount of things

So far it has struggled to tell a single story of those achievements

Take a look at Jacinda’s achievements video again and try to boil all that into a single sentence (65/N)

Govt announcements have crowded each other out, rather than telling one story

eg in December, they announced Govt departments will pay their bills within 10 days 95% of the time. A great announcement that barely made the news because of all the other govt announcements (66/N)

National would have dined out on that for a year

For Labour it was one more thing: announced the day after the $400m school package announcement; the same day as the big education reforms were announced and the day before the Cancer Control Agency opened

So. Many. Things (67/N)

Labour has struggled to tell the story of these achievements - partly because the key people are so busy actually doing stuff.

The challenge is to make announcements proof points of a single, memorable narrative, rather than letting them be disparate (forgettable) events (68/N)

But they know this & are going better. Jacinda’s achievements video is a great example of narrative.

Comms-wise, its not the individual achievements so much as the story they tell put together, particularly the fact that she went over time because she had so much to list (69/N)

I think that video encapsulates Labour’s message this election:

‘Jacinda and her team are doing heaps of good stuff. It won’t all get done as quickly as she wants, but she’s going to give it a damn good crack because she wants to make New Zealand better' (70/N)

[As an aside, I heard the other day the Nats OIA-ed for the outtakes and other takes of Jacinda’s achievements video.

The reply: there aren’t any

She did that video in one take between her other work.

And that highlights her greatest asset: her authenticity (71/N)]

When I left the Beehive, Phil got me a nice bourbon and a copy of 'Stardust and Substance'. Phil and Jacinda signed it. She finished w “Let’s keep doing this, JA”

I think that sums up Labour's message this election: “we’re doing lots of good things, let’s keep doing this” (72/N)

Jacinda and Labour can go to schools being done up, hospitals being refurbished, road upgrades and safety works, building sites where homes are being built. They can meet families lifted out of poverty, students getting fees free education and say 'lets keep doing this' (73/N)

Just proof point after proof point that they are delivering for NZ.

And when the attack comes that they haven’t done enough, they can own those few underperformances: ‘we’ve done heaps, but, yep, we're not done. There’s more to do and we’re going to keep doing it’ (74/N)

When Bridges attacks on housing, the answer is: ‘We’ve built X,000 homes in 3 years, X,000 more are being built as we speak, and tens of thousands coming. Do I wish more were finished already? Absolutely. We're going to keep working on that. What’s National’s plan, again?’ (75/N)

Re policy, they need something for the mortgage belt and some visionary stuff. They could look to steal National’s thunder on tax, like they did on roads, by bringing in inflation indexing (currently National’s only tax policy) and look to more assistance for homebuyers (76/N)

I’d like to see them make climate change a key election issue. Show vision. Invest in making govt carbon neutral and helping households do the same.

It's an issue whose time has come, voters want action, and Bridges' lack of vision just alienates him further from voters (77/N)

Tackling dental affordability, bringing forward fees free, or boosting school resources would keep the progressive momentum of the govt and attract votes.

Whereas National are restricted to a few policy areas and sniping, Labour can show ideas and vision on a broad front (78/N)

But Jacinda is Labour’s biggest weapon. A great leader. A coalition builder. An inspiration esp to women

She’s steered away from doing a lot of social media but come the campaign, that will change and the full force of her positivity and authenticity will shine vs Bridges (79/N)

In 2017, we were by the size of the crowds that would turn up to see Jacinda. 500 on that first announcement. We had to start allowing for huge crowds and allowing up to an hour for ‘selfie-time’ at events.

No other NZ politician can match that. (80/N)

That’s Labour’s re-election formula: positivity & progress

hospitals and schools being done up, roads being fixed, homes being built, some sweeteners for target voters that also push the progressive vision. Jacinda leading in social media and crowds. let’s keep doing this (81/N)

Labour and National's strategies are really mirror images of each other.

It's going to boil down a positive and negative frame on Labour's record -

'we've done heaps and there's heaps more to do' vs 'no they haven't, come back to us' (82/N)

In politics, you want to be the one whose vision is at the centre of the debate, the one whom the argument is about (Obama 08, Key 08, Trump 16, Jacinda 17)

That's where Jacinda is. She's talking about her vision, Bridges is attacking her. That's the place to be to win (83/83)