NZ elections without Rogernomics

Here is my speculation on how New Zealand politics goes if Roger Douglas retired in 1981 and comparatively minor reforms were implemented by Labour and national, more similar to Australia.

1984 election:
As OTL

1987 election:
Lange-Labour:59+2 48.56%
Bolger-National:38- 43.32%

Recession still strikes so National wins but it's much closer than IOTL.
1990 election:
Bolger-National: 49+11 46.53%
Lange-Labour: 48-11 45.95%

National government as IOTL but Bill Birch is Finance Minister so no Ruthanasia. Yet still, Labour is much stronger and the recession is still painful so...
1993 election:
Moore-Labour: 52+4 48.87%
Bolger-National: 47-2 45.65%

FPP wins electoral referendum 53.14% to 46.86%


With a good economy and the foundation of NZ First in 1994 after some clash Moore wins again.
1996 election:
Moore-Labour: 56+4 46.87%
Lockwood Smith-National: 42-5 40.65%
Peters-NZ First: 1+1 5.35%

That's all so far.
 
Hmm, why are you so sure Bolger becomes leader before 1987? If Labour hasn't gone full Roger, then that could butterfly Bolger's coup? I'm no expert on those events, but it looks like he probably would have stayed as leader if he hadn't had a particular reshuffle in 86. With Labour's massively different course ITTL, this likely would be different.

This is not to say that Bolger wouldn't necessarily become leader at some point, but the dynamics of the National Party will necessarily change. If Labour hasn't gone full neoliberal, then National's struggle between the old Muldoon style and the new NL style of McClay may not be so fraught. This would lead onto the later struggle with Peters. I suspect McClay wouldn't feel able to quickly rejig the party and so this could keep the other, traditional factions on board.

Then when he loses the 87 election, you would then likely see a leadership contest. Whether Bolger would still be the candidate I don't know. It is possible that the party may want someone more neo liberal than McClay, given that Labour isn't claiming that ground.
 
Another name to chuck into the equation for a senior position, maybe even leadership is Jim Anderton.

If there's no Rogernomics, he stays in the Labour caucus & by the 1990s he's an elder statesman of Labour.
 
Another name to chuck into the equation for a senior position, maybe even leadership is Jim Anderton.

If there's no Rogernomics, he stays in the Labour caucus & by the 1990s he's an elder statesman of Labour.

That is a good point.

Anderton took 94,171 votes in 1990, which whilst it seems small, is still a huge amount in NZ - 5.16% of the vote. They also stood in every electorate. Now I assume that means that most of the votes will be thinly smeared across the country, but it is possible that some electorate races were tight enough that Labour could retain a few more seats.

I also wonder if MMP reform will be delayed.

So far as I understand it, whilst the coalition was already in place pre 1984, the real public support took a while to coalesce - the gutting of the Labour and National party supporters probably helped with that. But if Labour's traditional union regional base isn't so hard hit by Rogernomics, then the following elections won't be so alienating.
 
Top