National Candidates

The NZ Herald reports on National’s search for candidates, mentioning the rumour that Michael Jones might stand. John Key talks about a more ethnically diverse Caucus and this is of course desirable. Some people see this as quotas (which it certainly is not) but a simple realisation that (for example) if National stood 67 candidates who were all European males, it would not be electable.

On current polling, National could end up with 60 or so MPs, and this would mean almost every single electorate candidate makes it into Parliament (as only five list only candidates are allowed). So even the candidates for Mangere and Mt Albert, as an example, could be MPs. What this means is that the Party needs to be very very careful with its selections. Every election there are a few candidates who wouldn’t make particularly competent MPs, but it is not an issue as they are most unlikely to make Parliament. Almost every seat should be a contested selection!

The other issue is how many MPs will retire, and will they be automatically given winnable places on the List. In 2005, due to the small size of the Caucus, and the fact the vote was going to be around double that of 2002, it was decided to exempt MPs from regional rankings and have them in the top 30 in their caucus order. This was sold as a one off decision (and in my opinion was the right decision for 2005), and not a precedent for the future. It would, in my opinion, be regrettable, if this was done again. Competition is healthy and having to compete for a list place provides useful incentives to MPs.