What if in the 1996 election the National Party and parties that it could form a government with(other than NZ First)? This is possible, as the polls in 1996 were all over the place and Helen Clark got a big boost and shrunk National's lead with her wins in the debate, while Bolger did worst in the debates. My PoD is that Clark does badly in the debates while Bolger does well. Labour and NZ First are styuck squabbling for second place while National gets just under 40% of the vote.
1996 New Zealand election
Jim Bolger-National: 51+10 39.94%
Helen Clark-Labour: 23-18 17.89%
Winston Peters-NZ First: 21+16 16.85%
Jim Anderton-Alliance: 14+12 10.70%
Richard Prebble-ACT: 9+9 7.00%
Peter Dunne-United NZ: 2-5 1.28%
120 seats
61 for majority
National can form a government without NZ First as National's 51 seats plus 9 ACT seats and 2 United NZ seats get 62 seats, a majority. Jim Bolger manages to form a government without Winston Peters. With a more stable government and without the National-NZ First coalition, would Jim Bolger still be unseated by Jenny Shipley? How would the 1999 election go-would Helen Clark still win? Would Labour still be able to retain its place among the top two parties with NZ First so close behind? If not, how long would National retain power? Who would replace Bolger if he retires after 1999? What would be the effects on New Zealand politics? What if?
 
You have an interesting POD here with about Labour doing badly. Between 1990 & 1996, Labour at times was behind the Alliance. This leads to another interesting WI, an Alliance NZ government.

As for your question, at some point there will be fatigue with National. Throw in NZ First probably still disintegrating over the course of the 1996-1999 Parliament, it is quite possible that Labour could bounce back in time for 1999.

Remember in OTL, National almost won in 2005 after falling to around 20% of the vote in 2002.

However, if National survive in office post-1999, its possible they could ride the 2000's boom all the way to 2008.
 
Maybe National wins narrowly in 1999, is boosted in 2002 by the economy but loses in 2005, especially since a National govt would probably have joined the Iraq War.
 
Now there is an interesting idea. Where would the anti-war protest vote go?

If Labour is still the main opposition to them probably since they would likely oppose the war.

However 15 years of National might be a bit much, even the Second National Government only lasted 12 years and was crushed in a landslide in 1972.
 
If Labour is still the main opposition to them probably since they would likely oppose the war.

However 15 years of National might be a bit much, even the Second National Government only lasted 12 years and was crushed in a landslide in 1972.

Yes, but remember Kirk was pretty popular when he developed the image of the 'change' candidate, very sad he died early. Also, Shipley leading the government from 1998 to 2005? or rather, English 2002 - 2005?
 
Top