AHC WI Labour wins 1990 NZ Election
- Thread starter Pericles
- Start date
ASB. Jim Bolger could have performed a blow job on an underage sheep on nationwide television, and he'd have still won.
Labour only managed 1987 because of nuclear-free nationalism, the fact that ending farm subsidies doesn't hurt Labour's urban base, the fact that they didn't start their deeply unpopular privatisation programme until after 1987, and the fact the stockmarket collapsed several months after the election.
Labour only managed 1987 because of nuclear-free nationalism, the fact that ending farm subsidies doesn't hurt Labour's urban base, the fact that they didn't start their deeply unpopular privatisation programme until after 1987, and the fact the stockmarket collapsed several months after the election.
Maybe, just maybe if Lange (along with Jim Anderton) gets wind of Roger Douglas's true agenda early enough and purges the party of the extreme neo-liberal economic wing.
Ideally this would have to happen earlier than the 1987 election, but there's maybe a window just after.. perhaps demoting those figures in the first post-election cabinet reshuffle?
Ideally this would have to happen earlier than the 1987 election, but there's maybe a window just after.. perhaps demoting those figures in the first post-election cabinet reshuffle?
That's what happened in OTL. Lange later said that his great awakening was when Labour came within 400 votes of winning Remuera in 1987*, and he realised to his horror that Labour had betrayed the people it was supposed to represent. He followed it up by trying to appoint lefties in key positions, to protect the country from Douglas. Unfortunately, Lange's own position within caucus was so weak, he lost control of his own Government. His solution was to appeal over the heads of caucus, directly to the people - hence the cup of tea speech. And so on.
*An analogy would be British Labour coming within 400 votes of winning Kensington and Chelsea, or something. Think the poshest of the posh.
Well, if somehow you could stabilise the party's leadership and butterfly the Year(ish) of the Four Emperors (Prime Ministers) then Labour would be better placed electorally. It would still seem likely that they'd lose but perhaps not to the scale of the historic 1990 defeat
They won about half the vote and took about two thirds or more of the seats. IIRC this result was later used to justify electoral reform.
Maybe a less convincing win might weaken the neo liberals in National.
They won about half the vote and took about two thirds or more of the seats. IIRC this result was later used to justify electoral reform.
Maybe a less convincing win might weaken the neo liberals in National.
The dilemma for Labour was that they could stave off some divisions for a bit by going full-bore Rogernomics but that would be very unpopular. Labour also would have trouble disowning the reforms, and still had the recession to deal with. Maybe Palmee keeps a lead in the polls by disowning Rogernomics, or Moore takes power right after Lange.
That kind of requires an earlier POD though, in the first term.
Surely a more stable late 2nd term Labour Party would not be hammered as much - they'd still lose but may not lose as many seats. Which could knock National's confidence. The scale of their victory was immense. I still remember driving home that night from a National Party campaign party thing with my parents (I was quite young) and the regular updates about seats falling to National was rather exciting. Probably lucky my father wasn't driving as he was too excited.
I just don't think Palmer is leadership material. I know the man and whilst he is one of the smartest people I've ever met, he is also rather annoying in real life. I suspect he would have trouble to keep caucus on side.
Labour only did very badly after Lange publicly rejected the flat tax and opened up party divisions. Perhaps if Lange went along with the flat tax, Labour could have done better, but it's still hard to get them to win, given the recession and the unpopularity of Rogernomics among Labour's base. Still, it would be an interesting TL. what do you think?
Maybe there's something they could've done in the first term to make sure NZ gets through the 1987 crash in far better shape?
I'm not sure exactly what (perhaps legislating against the worst excesses of finance companies for a start?) - but in OTL coming out of the global recession in relatively good shape has helped John Key.
I'm not sure exactly what (perhaps legislating against the worst excesses of finance companies for a start?) - but in OTL coming out of the global recession in relatively good shape has helped John Key.