Talk:1981 New Zealand general election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

New Zealand: Politics Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Mel Courtney

I really don't think Mel belongs in the Party totals table. There is no precedent for this as far as I can see in other elections. While the result may be notable a better way to recognise it would be to note it in the article rather than adding him to the table. Independents are usually just included all together at the bottom rather than sorted by percentage achieved. Other thoughts? Hopefully we can reach a consensus here before more edits are made Mattlore (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mel Courtney could be given a sentence in the text, or a footnote to the table, since he gained more votes than all other independents put together. I would support collapsing all the one-candidate "parties" including MC into the single row at the bottom of the table. To move MC into the "independents" while leaving the others out seems unreasonable. It also seems unreasonable for most of the very small parties to be given entries, but "Independent National" and "Alternative Social Credit" to be folded into the independents.

Anon, would you be willing to accept all the one-candidate parties being put into a single row, and a footnote added about MC?-gadfium 09:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would have favoured having a seperate line for each significant Independent (or one-man "party") at the bottom, so that it was apparent that the usual run of independents like the "Blokes' Party" got (as usual) a few hundred votes between them - while Mel Courtenay got x thousand votes. PS: I recall that one reason (maybe) that John Kirk ran in the next election when he was deselected by Labour is that his salary was paid for longer than if he had not stood again, so he ended up thousands better off Hugo999 (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo999 John Kirk was not deselected by Labour. This is simply wrong. Please read the Wikipedia page on John Kirk which details the events of 1983-1984 (and starts with his decision not stand in Sydenham-i.e. retire from politics-after 10 years of service). An excellent book on the sequence of events and the New Zealand Elections of 1981 and 1984 is Alan McRobie's 'From Muldoon to Lange'. It is well worth a read-this is a fascinating period in our political history. Of course, largely over-looked by political commentators and the so-called experts because it dispels the convenient myth of Labour-National hegemony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.86.143 (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]