The Progressives have released their party list. It's difficult to talk about significant changes in a party which has only two MPs, but as with United Future there has been a lot of turnover. The most striking feature is the list's diversity; the Progressives seem to be campaigning as the party which reaches out to ethnic minorities and newer New Zealanders - witness Matt Robson's advocacy on immigration issues and defence of the Iraqis defamed by Winston Peters - and so there are candidates from the Tongan, Cambodian and Bangladeshi communities in the top ten. However, there's not much in the way of Maori representation, and the natural placement of the Progressives' experienced former MPs in the top slots means the diversity doesn't kick in until further down the list, and the candidates are highly unlikely to be elected. Even if the Progressives make their target of doubling their list vote, they will still only get three or four (or maybe possibly five) MPs.
As with Labour, I've done a comparison showing candidate's relative placements with last time.
| 2005 Rank | Name | 2002 Rank | Difference |
| 1 | Jim Anderton | 1 | 0 |
| 2 | Matt Robson | 2 | 0 |
| 3 | Grant Gillon | 3 | 0 |
| 4 | Dr Megan Woods | -- | -- |
| 5 | John Wright | 4 | -1 |
| 6 | Sione Fonua | -- | -- |
| 7 | Vivienne Shepherd | 18 | +11 |
| 8 | Meng Ly | 8 | 0 |
| 9 | Dr Fatima Ashrafi | -- | -- |
| 10 | Barry Wilson | -- | -- |
| 11 | Fale Leleisiuao | -- | -- |
| 12 | Dr Russell Franklin | 20 | +8 |
| 13 | Paula Gillon | -- | -- |
| 14 | Phil Clearwater | 11 | -3 |
| 15 | Trevor Barnard | 19 | +4 |
| 16 | Raghbir Singh | -- | -- |
| 17 | Brenda Hill | -- | -- |
| 18 | Fiona Beazley | -- | -- |
| 19 | Russell Caldwell | -- | -- |
| 20 | David Reeks | -- | -- |
| 21 | John Maurice | -- | -- |
| 22 | Mohammad Kazemi-Yazdi | -- | -- |
| 23 | Heka Taefu | -- | -- |
| 24 | Veronique (Ronnie) Stewart-Ward | -- | -- |
| 25 | Zemin (Ted) Zhang | -- | -- |
Further candidate details can be found by following the links here.
5 comments:
Is Anderton even assured of winning Wigram - has there been any polling of late? My hunch is that if Labour would run a stronger candidate than Mike Mora we might see the end of the progressives.
Posted by dc_red : 8/10/2005 07:42:00 AM
Yeah, but would Labour actually want that?
In a tight election, its in their interests to keep Jim in and contributing MPs to their side of the house.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 8/10/2005 11:50:00 AM
There is talk of a three way split in Wigram. Clearly a left wing electorate, Jim's popularity is waning and the left vote will be severely split betwen him and Mora. So the electorate could go to Mike Mora, Alison Lomax or Jim Anderton. One to watch.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/10/2005 01:47:00 PM
JPA's majority was about 10,000 in 1999, down to 3000 in 2002 i think. I agree with IS though - Labour would be quite keen for a bit of overhang action to bolster their side.
Posted by Span : 8/10/2005 02:12:00 PM
For Labours sake they need Jim. He is loyal and you always know what his position is going to be. That's a sign of an excellent coalition partner. The Nats have yet to learn such skills.
Posted by Just my opinion : 8/12/2005 02:12:00 AM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).